View Full Version : Two Films in One: a Theory
"Tolkien versus PJ"
Well, there certainly are differences, if not outright antagonism.
All agree on that; the difficulty is in finding an explanation.
A suggestion, a theory:
PJ's FOTR is actually a combination of two films,
first, an excellent, visually magnificent, deeply moving, well acted, reasonably well scripted, full feature film, "inspired by" The Lord of the Rings,
second, a short featurette, a knockabout comedy, very amusing and entertaining, using locations and characters (the hobbits, Gimli, and a brief guest appearance by Aragorn) which also appear in the first, and "inspired" by a less well-known master-work called Bored of the Rings.
The two are sewn together, but at regular intervals the seams come apart.
Because the second is the shorter, it is given the prominence of taking first and last place in the combination, F jumping out on G, and A going a-hunting.
Maybe I'm wrong of course; it is only a theory.
Talimon
11-03-2002, 05:28 AM
Well, to me it's just a matter of how you look at things. If you are indeed looking for a movie that is percisely Tolkien, then indeed you could see the movie as being devided into different sections. If you approach the movie as being one coherent film, then that is exactly what it is. I view the film on it's own terms. If the hobbits are silly, then the the hobbits are meant to be silly. Obviously PJ wants us to think this, and being the artist I go along with his vision. If Aragorn has doubts about his past, then he does. I don't let the movie contradict with anything while I'm watching it. Ultimately, the best way for me to judge how true it is, is to think back on what were the main themes of the movie. And, after finishing FotR, what I remember most vividly is percisely what I remember as being important in Tolkiens book. To me this just ties into the idea of this being myth, and this being a retelling of that myth. It's there to enhance the tale, and the telling of the tale. I can't help but feel that it is a true tribute to Tolkien.
lilhobo
11-05-2002, 11:19 PM
now now HARRRTalimon, you are running around chasing ya tail now.....IF the hobbits are meant to be silly then the movie is a real silly movie. Even Mel Brookes will do a better silly movie then PJ
the movie is is so chopped up it aint funny......just look at the lighting! Tell me the Glaring Orange of the CoE is a good idea, or that the ending is in bright daylight.
Originally posted by lilhobo
Even Mel Brookes will do a better silly movie then PJ....
the movie is so chopped up it aint funny....
Yes, the short feature is a BAD silly movie!
And that's the point again, the combined film doesn't hold together ENOUGH.
Talimon
11-06-2002, 12:16 AM
just look at the lighting! Tell me the Glaring Orange of the CoE is a good idea, or that the ending is in bright daylight.
The lighting on this film is mind-boggingly good... I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Andrew Lenslie did some phenomenal work, and deserved every award he recieved. What do you mean by ending in bright daylight? The CoE? What's wrong with that?
Originally posted by Talimon
The lighting on this film is mid-boggingly good.
Andrew Lenslie did some phenomenal work, and deserved every award he recieved.
What do you mean by ending in bright daylight? The CoE? What's wrong with that?
Like the other aspects of the film, and like the curate's egg, I'd only award it a "good in parts", those parts being in a substantial majority though. Awards are notoriously bad criteria for criticism, of course, Oscars and mine alike..
The "orange" aspect of CoE is glaringly (!) obvious, isn't it? So we get to see the gold ring, when we shouldn't, but does everything have to be suffused in gold light?
Not sure what the "daylight" reference is- the end of the FILM, perhaps?
The orc-hunt starts at dusk in the book, but the film doesn't have to keep to that.
Some scenes really ARE well-lit, if not quite m-b'ingly so: Bree, Moria, Lorien, all look magnificent, though I have to say that the natural light of New Zealand (at carefully chosen times, of course!) wins the top award for sheer beauty.
Arvedui
11-06-2002, 10:57 PM
I believe the explanation to the orange-glow light in the CoE is because they wanted to show that it is "autumn" (that's "fall" for any americans:D ) as far as the presence of elves in ME is concerned. It is getting near the time of departure of all elves to the west, and they wanted to make some sort of symbolism when they filmed the scenes in Rivendell.
I actually can't see any reason why people keep bickering about small things in the movie that they didn't like. Why, of course most of us would like to see a movie that stayed 100% true too the book, but I believe the number of people coming to the theaters would be very low. Or perhaps we would have to wait until 2007 to see the last chapter?
Yes, there are quite a few alterations from the book, but I honestly think Mr. Jackson managed to make a very good movie, which also drew more people to read the book. At least you can give him some credit for that.
Talimon
11-07-2002, 12:21 AM
Joxy, I can see that it's orange, but it's obvious that it's meant to be that way. They altered many scenes color scheme, I believe, to give them an "other-worldly" appearance.
Originally posted by Arvedui
I believe the explanation to the orange-glow light in the CoE is because they wanted to show that it is "autumn"....
....of course most of us would like to see a movie that stayed 100% true too the book, but I believe the number of people coming to the theaters would be very low.
Yes, there are quite a few alterations from the book, but I honestly think Mr. Jackson managed to make a very good movie, which also drew more people to read the book.
At least you can give him some credit for that.
Just a bit over-done though, that orange? Not quite the perfection that had been suggested for all the lighting..
The film is already close to the book; I've guessed 95%. Why would 99% or 100% cause such a startling plummet in attendances?
It IS a good film, and obviously, like any film-of-a-book it will draw people to the books. But when they get there and see the differences, what will they think? That PJ knows a lot better than T how to write a story, or that PJ has let them down and confused them by sending them to read something different?
We give him a lot of credit; but not 99% or 100%, which some people seem to think he deserves. If he did deserve it he would be almost unique.
Originally posted by Talimon
Joxy, I can see that it's orange, but it's obvious that it's meant to be that way.
You said you had "absolutely no clue" what lilhobo was talking about, with the orange; so I replied that it is obvious, which you now agree with.
Of course it's meant to be that way; PJ and his award-winning lighting guy wouldn't do it without meaning it.
We just claim it's a little bit too orange to be quite that award-winning quality.
Talimon
11-07-2002, 06:07 AM
I said I had no idea what he was talking about by saying the lighting was wrong.
Arvedui
11-07-2002, 07:19 AM
From Joxy:
The film is already close to the book; I've guessed 95%. Why would 99% or 100% cause such a startling plummet in attendances?
Because the book is a long travel, and I guess that the audience would after a while get bored with watching some people travelling across the silver screen, most of the time. Just imagine how it would turn out if we were to follow Sam and Frodo 99% during TTT and ROTK. Of course it would be possible to make the film true to the book, but I honestly believe you would have a problem finding a company that would be interested in taking a chance at loosing a lot of money. The movie would have to be longer, which would be the same as an increase in costs.
Do not misunderstand me: There are a few things I didn't like about the movie when I compare it to the book, like not seeing TB or Gildor, and mostly what PJ did with Arwen. But it is a film, and IMO it captures the tension from the book very well.
BTW, I just wanted you to give PJ some credit for making more people read The Lord of the Rings. I suppose quite a few of those will read his other works as well
Originally posted by Arvedui
Because the book is a long travel, and I guess that the audience would after a while get bored with watching some people travelling across the silver screen, most of the time....
I just wanted you to give PJ some credit for making more people read The Lord of the Rings. I suppose quite a few of those will read his other works as well
You misunderstood me: I wasn't talking about the possibility of the film being 99-100% of the books! I was talking about those parts of the book that ARE in the film being that much true to their equivalent in the books. The film is already so VERY close to the books; I am asking what possible justification anyone can have for saying that if it was just a little bit closer that would send the attendances plummeting through the floor. That argument doesn't make any sense, yet it has often been presented here.
My other (rhetorical) question is: when the film sends people to the books, which it certainly will do, how will they feel when they find that what they are reading is sometimes different from what they saw? No-one can answer that but the possibilities are obvious: many will feel the film fooled them to that extent; how many will still prefer what they saw, and how many will be as baffled as some of us are at why the changes were there in the first place?
Talimon
11-07-2002, 10:46 PM
I don't think, joxy, that anyone will prefer the movie to the book who has seen/read both. I know I don't. But I think, assuming that the movie inspired them to pick up the book in the first place, they won't question it as much as you assume. If the movie inspired them to read a 500 page book they must have liked it quite a bit, I'm thinking. Unlike most of us who read the books first, and went to see the movie because we loved the book, for them it is the exact opposite. They are reading the book because they liked the movie.
I do see your point regarding people reading the book and not enjoying it, hard as it is for me to imagine anyone not enjoying Tolkiens saga ;). But I think they won't pick up the book for the "wrong" reasons, as you might call them: the action, a couple cheesy lines, etc. If, as you state, 95% of the movie stuck to the book, I assume that what they enjoyed from the movie was not that 5%. Having seen and enjoyed the movie without any previous knowledge of what was Tolkien and what wasn't, I don't think that will be an issue.
Someone with way too much time on thier hands needs to make a survey and hand it out to everyone that goes to see TTT :).
Originally posted by Talimon
....movie inspired them to pick up the book in the first place, they won't question it as much as you assume....
Having seen and enjoyed the movie without any previous knowledge of what was Tolkien and what wasn't, I don't think that will be an issue.
Someone with way too much time on their hands needs to make a survey and hand it out to everyone that goes to see TTT.
I don't assume anything; I simply ask the (rhetorical) question.
They're going to find that some of what they saw was not Tolkien. Will none of them find that is an issue? My (rhetorical!) question is: what will be their reaction, satisfaction with the film; a feeling of having been misled, or short-changed, or deceived; or indifference- just a few alternative possibilities, none of them applicable to me because I'm not one of those people.
Or goes to see FOTR: when that survey has covered 10 million people we might start to KNOW what audiences think, rather than guessing it (and in some cases claiming to KNOW!)....
Arvedui
11-08-2002, 12:46 PM
Joxy, you seem to be convinced that I hold knowledge of similarity to Eru concerning what a the number of audience would be if the film was even closer to the book.
I don't.
I only tried to express what a movie director must keep in mind: Income.
Remember that FotR is already twice as long as normal films. I believe that the length of any particular movie will be concidered among those who plan on seeing it, unless you are already a Tolkien fan. Personally, I know I would have seen it even if it was 6 hrs long, but I know some who were in very much doubt whether they would see the film or not, and they used the length of the film as an argument against.
I don't agree with you that the combination of the two films is no good, but that is my opinion. I just exercise my right to disagree.
If you really want to be angry at a director for not staying true to the book, I suggest any filmed version of Tom Clancy's books. Now, those are far and away. And I really think they are ample evidence of what could happen if the director is really bent on keeping the length down.
Originally posted by Arvedui
Joxy, you seem to be convinced that I hold knowledge of similarity to Eru concerning what the number of audience would be if the film was even closer to the book. I don't.
Where did you get the idea I thought that?
OTHERS have claimed that making it closer would make the audience figures plummet. I've simply said that no-one could KNOW that, and that no-one KNOWS what a large number of viewers think about the film as it is- as again OTHERS have claimed to know.
Arvedui
11-09-2002, 12:54 PM
Joxy:
Where did you get the idea I thought that?
In the post where you quoted me, and asked why I thought that would happen.;)
Of course noone can know what will happen if....
Originally posted by Arvedui
Of course no-one can know what will happen if....
I was referring back to when you said
"of course most of us would like to see a movie that stayed 100% true too the book, but I believe the number of people coming to the theaters would be very low"
and I was asking for what reason you believed that.
If most of us would like to see it why would attendances be low?
But later I realised you meant a film that actually included 100% of the books, which would take many hours, and obviously WOULD put people off!
I had meant a film that had content which came from the books to a greater extent than PJ's already does, not one that included everything!
Arvedui
11-11-2002, 07:15 AM
I agree with you to a certain extent. There are some scenes in the film that could have been deleted in favour of something that is closer to the book. I had to see the film again this weekend just to make sure, but the scene on the first bridge in Moria, where 'nobody tosses a dwarf' springs to mind. Why? It has no relevance to the film as a whole, and could be replaced with something else. Meeting Gildor, perhaps? I also see no reason why Glorfindel is left out to be replaced with Arwen (that is my foremost reason not to like the film). I do not think the movie needs such a love story as PJ seems to think.
Old Man Willow and Tom Bombadil doesn't have to be there. It is not a vital part of the story, although the weapons the hobbits find in the Barrow-downs have a major part later in the history in the death of the Witch-king.
And I did mean a film that stayed 100% true to the book.;)
Coirbinúr
11-11-2002, 06:14 PM
Yeah it'll be interesting to see how PJ deals with the death of the witch king without the aid of the barrow down swords. I also HATED the role of Arwen,it ruined the film. I'd have much ratherb seen Glorfindel especially at the ford in "his wrath". also i think that PJ should somehow have let the viewers know that the wraiths fear water. its fine for those that have read all of JRR's books but for those poor beggers who couldn't understand why the wraiths just didn't race across the ford, i pity them. REALLY!!! ;)
Originally posted by Arvedui
There are some scenes in the film that could have been deleted in favour of something that is closer to the book. I had to see the film again this weekend just to make sure, but the scene on the first bridge in Moria, where 'nobody tosses a dwarf' springs to mind. Why? It has no relevance to the film as a whole, and could be replaced with something else....
I also see no reason why Glorfindel is left out to be replaced with Arwen (that is my foremost reason not to like the film). I do not think the movie needs such a love story as PJ seems to think.
....the weapons the hobbits find in the Barrow-downs have a major part later in the history....
That scene is done very well, except for the horrible dwarf-tossing lines, but I have asked before, why is it there? No-one has answered yet! It is all the more peculiar as G has just said they're not far from the bridge, but then we're given TWO bridges! I like most of the scene, but like several others I like, I'd have gladly given it up in favour of something relevant!
The Arwen thing has been enough to put many people off the film; it certainly doesn't attract me to it!
The point about the weapons shows up the dangers of omissions and alterations; they lead later to inconsistencies and difficulties.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.