Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: House of Mustard on December 19, 2002, 01:02:14 PM
-
So... Elves at Helm's Deep? It didn't really alter the story in any way, so why did they do it?
Also, why did they have that whole Aragon dying thing? Just so we could see how upset Eowyn got?
Also, Eowyn is way better looking than pouty old Arwen. Aragorn is a dork.
Also, Gollum should be up for an Oscar.
Awesome show, by the way.
-
Elves at Helm's Deep: I think that Peter Jackson and the other writers were trying to eliminate some of the clutter and numerous factions from the trilogy that would confuse a lot of viewers who hadn't read the books. The rangers coming to Helm's Deep to save Rohan's bacon would be out of the blue and anything in the books that pointed to Aragorn being the leader of the rangers had no room in the movie script. The elves make an adequate substitute - they've already been introduced, and including them is a sideways reference to the Arwen/romance subplot that needs any bolstering it can get. This will be further reinforced, I believe, when Arwen brings Narsil (and possibly more elves) in the next movie to ride the Paths of the Dead with Aragorn. It also links well to the Galadriel-Elrond discussion in the middle where they review the playing field and discuss intervention. I think that it was an adequate substitute, like putting Arwen where Glorfindel was in the first book. The books simply have too many characters and too many factions for them all to be represented adequately. Jackson has tried to pay homage to things that have to be cut by making token gestures or sensible substitutions, and I think that the elves at Helm's Deep count in the latter category. Having said that, though, I'm glad that we get a peek at the Southrons and Easterlings, who each have their own bad-@$$ look!
Aragorn "Dying": When I read about this in early reviews, I thought it was a terrible idea and totally unnecessary. However, after seeing the movie, I've done an about-turn of sorts. I think that Peter Jackson (and Fran and the other writers) added this for two reasons. The first is that the middle would drag and lack in any sort of action or suspense without a fight scene, and the warg attack served this purpose well. But this alone isn't enough reason. The second purpose this surprise event serves is to do exactly that - surprise the viewers. Tolkien fans get complacent when watching these movies - they know exactly what's going to happen, so they sit back and fold their arms and say, "Just do what I know you're going to do and do it right." This kind of viewer needs to get shaken up once in a while. Aragorn dying unexpectedly does this, and it happens so suddenly that it'll wake most everyone up. The same goes for the other added bit with Frodo right at the end - it adds an element of surprise, forcing the Tolkien-nerd audience to realize that they can't ALWAYS know what happens next.
I couldn't have been happier with this movie.
ps: There's a spoilers warning in the subject line, so don't read this unless you've seen the movie!
-
I also could not have been happier with this movie, but the Aragorn thing did seem uneccesary. It may have surprised Tolkien fans, but it probably just made most of them groan.
-
I can see Kilowatt's point with Aragorn dying, but I don't know if I agree completely. It didn't really bother me when it happened, though, so I guess I'm too complacent to discuss it.
Mentioning Narsil brings up an interesting point: in the books, they reforge Narsil in Rivendell before the fellowship ever leaves, and Aragorn has it with him the whole time; when Elladan and Elrohir show up at Helm's Deep they bring a banner, not a sword. But in the movie we never saw them reforge the sword, though the sword Aragorn uses looks remarkably like Narsil. So does he have it, or will there be a more official (more dramatic) reforging in the third movie?
Also, I must agree that Gollum deserves an Oscar. His performance was a surprisingly deep highlight in what was allegedly just an action movie.
As for Eowyn, I she's gorgeous and makes Arwen look bland and dumpy in comparison. My wife, on the other hand, thinks that Eowyn is plain and ugly while Arwen has perfect skin (which I say is cheating, because she's an elf and thus gets better lighting). So I guess the question is, which of Aragorn's honeys do you prefer?
-
Woo hoo! Just got back and I've got to say I absolutely loved this movie. A little more deviation from the books than I expected, but all fine in the name of good cinema.
Before I point out just what I loved, let me answer the Narsil question. As an avid LOTR CCG player, the sword Aragorn carries is not Narsil. It's just a normal sword and you can see he carries it from Bree onward...or at least one remarkably similar. I doubt Jackson would just leave out something as important as reforging Narsil, especially given the screen time it got in the first film.
Now, here's what I'm still hyped up about even after the movie:
Gimli --- he's always been one of my favorite characters and I thought he didn't get a lot of great screen time in the first film. They more than made up for it in this one. While one person I saw it with thought that some of his comments were badly timed, I found myself enjoying the vast majority of his lines and his amazing butt-kicking ability. His speech on dwarven women was awesome.
The Ents looked outstanding.
Gimli and Aragorn holding the causeway --- probably my favorite action scene in the entire movie. This was like something from a dream. Just pure, unadulterated fantasy fun.
Wormtongue and Theoden --- The "bad" Theoden looked great...err... appropriately worn down. I really didn't imagine him like this, but he looked good....guess Jackson didn't think he could communicate the corruption without something visual. Grima was impressive....can't wait to see him get his due.
The Dead Marshes were frickin' creepy.
Gollum was fantastic. The absolute best CGI character ever done in a live action film. They nailed his inner conflict. Wow. That's all I have to say about that.
They made Faramir out to be a much bigger jerk than he was in the books, but I guess they needed to show the weakness of men. I was wondering where the flying Nazgul would come in...especially since Legolas didn't snipe one like he was supposed to. Faramir got that done, though.
Anyone else think "Let them come" will be in each movie much like SW's "I've got a bad feeling about this"
Overall, outstanding job. I am surprised at how much of Frodo's journey they left for RotK. "The Choices of Master Samwise" was always one of my favorite chapters in TT. Still, if they're leaving off the Scouring of the Shire, they'll have room for it. Also, I felt like Merry and Pip's storyline could have been given more time, but they did well with the time they had.
I just can't wait for the scene in RotK when Aragorn bends the Palantir of Orthanc away from Sauron. It's like giving the bird to the dark lord himself.
Well, enough gushing. I'm still on my post movie high so forgive me :)
-
I agree with everybody concerning Gollum. Smeagol is the best CGI character EVER! Hands down. Better than Dobby and waaay more palatable than Jar Jar Dink. I hope Andy Serkis gets a lot of job offers following the trilogy.
Gimli is one of my favorite characters as well, and I think they overdid it with the humor. A good line now and then would have been fine, but EVERY scene with him had some sort of joke. The Gimli from the books was a real badar$e, not comedy relief. I also wasn't too crazy over the orcs who sounded like they were in a Monty Python skit.
As for the Arwen/Eowyn debate: I gotta go with Arwen. Elf ears just kinda do it for me. And those lips! Liv Tyler is just hella-cute
::)
I too thought the Dead Marshes were a highlight. The Ents just looked like giant muppets, though.
It's been many years since I read LotR, so maybe somebody can fill me in on the bit about Saruman inventing gunpowder. Did that actually happen in the book as well?
The Aragorn Lost scene was pretty much just a way to give Arwen some more screen time, so I have no problem with it.
Okay, let me know if any of you have ever thought about this while watching the film: Saruman is the most powerful wizard in the world, yet when the ents attack Isengard, he is at a loss. HELLO!!!! The ents move very s l o w l y and are made of WOOD!!! Any fire-based spells would send them up in flames in seconds. Plus he has EXPLOSIVE POWDER!! Surely Saruman couldn't consider a couple dozen walking trees throwing rocks to be THAT much of a threat....
Unlike all of the pervious animated versions, Sam is depicted here as he should have always been. He is neither ugly, dim, nor cowardly as he is often portrayed. Instead he is portrayed as brave and selfless, with a strong survival instinct and good common sense.
Overall, this is one of my favorite films ever. I eagerly await the extended version DVD.
okay, quick question: what extra scenes would you all like to see in the extended version??
-
A quick thought about Saruman and the Ents...magic in Middle Earth tends not to be the flashy kind we associate with wizards in general (since the wizards of ME aren't human anyway). Sure, Gandalf lets loose some spectacular effects now and again in the Hobbit and the book version of the Fellowship, but they are few and far between and tend to put a huge drain on him. Consequently, Saruman *might* have been able to fry and Ent or two with magic, but not all of them by any means.
-
That and a solid tree takes a lot longer to burn than most people think. It's not like the Ents were made out of kindling. Unless the fireball was way more powerful than any sort of magic attack spell Tolkein included in his novels, the ent would survive long enough to put out the fire in the flood that followed.
I actually think I do remember something in the novels about fireballs coming out to hit ents while they were assaulting the black tower, but it didn't seem to be very threatening to them. A big annoyance mostly.
I agree with Slant on the Aragorn lost scene, too. It had nothing to do with surprising Tolkien fans. It was there so we could get a bit of love scene stuff in Two Towers.
-
I must admit that having seen the 12:01 AM showing on the 18th certainly altered my perceptions of the movie. Everyone in the theatre was stoked and that offered an atmosphere from the audience that heightened the experience.
As far as the movie goes, it was a great Hollywood-ized version of the books. To all the loyalists there are plenty of inaccuracies. To all those who never read the books it was a great movie. In my opinion it should be taken for what it is, a particular group of writers' cinematic interpretation of a literary masterpiece. Of course they have taken A LOT of license, but I feel that they have produced a high-quality movie.
The one aspect that truly stood out in my mind was the character of Gollem. I would simply reiterate the praise offered in previous posts. Why repeat what has already been said?
All in all I would definitely recommend the movie.
-
So here's something that keep bothering me about the movie: the final charge (well, two final charges) at Helm's Deep were truncated. We never really saw the battle end, we just saw them ride into the fray and then the scene cut to Isengard. By the time it cut back to Helm's Deep the battle was apparently over and everybody was celebrating, and I felt kind of left out. This has been gnawing at me ever since yesterday, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it until now. Did anybody else get this, or am I up in the night? (I suppose both could be true, actually, but either way I'm interested to hear what you have to say).
-
I don't think it bothered me much. It probably would have been nice to see some scenes of Uruk-hai being run down, but the movie was really long already, and after playing the Total War computer game series, it was easy to see how that one was going to end.
-
I just saw it again, and I liked it even more the second time. It seems like the biggest departure from the book, however, is one we haven't mentioned yet (except for Kilowatt's ominous foreshadowing from a week or two ago): Frodo presents himself and the Ring to the Nazgul. The whole point of sending a small group of hobbits is that Sauron wouldn't expect it--they could sneak in under his radar and he would never know. Sure, he knew the ring was in the Shire at one point, and he knew that hobbits took it to Rivendell, but after that he lost track of it and had no idea where it was until it was destroyed. In the movie, however, Frodo gives himself away and tells Sauron exactly who has it and where it is. How dumb is that?
-
The One Ring is trying to get back to its master. When it sensed the close proximity of the Nazgul, it took possession of Frodo for the few moments that it could and made him walk to the Nazgul to give it the ring. Remember how he seemed to be in a trance when he did it? Luckily Sam was able to pull him away before the Nazgul got the ring.
-
I got the impression that the Nazgul wasn't entirely sure that it was Frodo with the ring. If it was sure that it had finally found it's long sought after prize, I don't think one arrow in the neck would have stopped him.
-
To Slant: I know why it Frodo did it, I just don't know why Peter Jackson did it.
To Mustard: I can't imagine that a Ring-wraith could stand there while Frodo holds the ring up to him and not know that it was the ring. If you can do that and somehow still remain secret, why not waltz on in to Mordor, tell everyone you're the pool guy, and then ask a wraith to toss the ring in for you?
-
This scene is the biggest departure from the book. I have to agree that it never should have been included in its current form. Secrecy is paramount from the beginning of the first movie when Gandalf tells Frodo on several occasions to "Keep it Secret. Keep it Safe." Yes, I will grant that the ring could have taken possession of Frodo, but I don't recall this sort of confrontation (ie a direct stand off between the Ring-wraith and Frodo) in the books. What added to the suspense in the book was all of the close calls.
-
regarding aragons sword, i took this from a FAQ attached to one of the three reviews someone mentioned in the other thread.
Is there any mention of the sword Anduril (which should have been re-forged in the first movie) does it finally make an appearance in the Two Towers? Is there any indication that Arwen is rebelling against Elrond to go find Aragorn and bring him the sword?
No reforging takes place in The Two Towers. The sword is not even mentioned in the movie. Arwen DOES NOT bring the sword to him.
Update: This occurs in the extended DVD of "Fellowship". In one of the opening sequences, Aragorn is shown looking on his mother's grave in Rivendell. Elrond approaches him, and they have a conversation in Elvish. Part of that conversation is Elrond talking about the sword Anduril, and how it can be reforged. Later in the film when Aragorn has need of his sword, you will see that it is indeed Anduril. I have yet to see "The Two Towers", as I am going to see it today, but I have no doubt that Aragorn is still using Anduril in this film.
Thanks to 'Pywhacket'
Incredible film BTW. loved the scene where aragon and gimli hold the ramp.
-
"toss me!"
"excuse me?"
"just don't tell the elf"
the best three lines in the movie! Second place goes to the dwarf women joke
-
I don't remember Anduril, just Narsil. When does Narsil get reforged?
-
When Narsil is reforged it becomes Anduril...I think.
-
Oh. I'm sad they didn't make a bigger deal of the reforging, then.
-
I have NEVER read the LOTR books... I'm not the fantasy type really...but I saw the movie last night, and I thought it was really good!!
I think Legolas is the cutest elf... ;D but that's just MY opinion lol
Gollum was so awesome!! I agree, he needs an Oscar :D
I think Aragorn needs a haircut... :-/ I don't see what Arwen or Eowyn see in him. jK
My favorite part of the movie:
Gimli: Why'd you have to choose this place? I can't see what's going on at all! What's going on??
Legolas: Would you like me to describe it to you...or shall I find a box? ;)
-
Not to question your wisdom Entropy, but I am not following the reforging of the sword thing. As near as I can tell Narsil isn't reforged yet, but I have only seen TTT once, and I might have missed it. In the special edition, Aragorn appears to only use the same blade he had at the beginning of the movie. In the discussion regarding the reforging of the sword of kings, the only outcome I really got was that Aragorn didn't want to carry and use the sword. Can you please offer some more clarification.
-
I have to agree with Nicadymus here. Upon rewatch, the sword is the same throughout the movie. I'm still on the boat of it being reforged in RotK and Arwen bringing it down.
-
dude, dont ask *me*. i just pulled that from a FAQ. i havnt watched the special version (my mom bought it, on VHS for some obscure luddite reason, but i cant be bothered yet. vhs sucks). ill admit that aragons sword looks distinctly workmanlike - its not fancy, its not pretty, but it gets the job done.
on the subject of which aragon chick is hotter, arwen gets the vote. ewoyn is a plump milkmaid. plus, those lips have more colour in them than every man, elf and dwarf in helms deep combined (not the orks tho... they cheat by painting themselves red.)
-
i saw it and liked it, but it was in no way better then the first movie. which dissapoints me because everyone was saying it was better then the first. the third will probaly be the best i thinkm just because of the conclusion. Also i haven't read all the posts here so forgive me if this was allready discussed. but Golum was not that "amazing" to paraphrase 42. The animation was good, but i've seen better in movies. The only thing that sets him apart is his dialouge/role. I don't beleve there's ever been that complex/serious GCI character in a movie before. I realy don't think he deserves an oscer nod. Manly because there are so many more talented actors out there, not because he was bad in the movie.
-
I will agree with you, Spriggan, on the grounds that it is the most "complex/serious GCI" in I have seen. But I have to hold my ground when I say that I truly enjoyed the performance and see it as exceptionally noteworthy.
-
I defy Spriggan or anybody else to name a CG character who was more believable than Gollum. I think you're just saying that because you yearn to disagree with popular opinion, but I'd love you to prove me wrong.
As for Eowyn being a plump milkmaid, that hardly seems like a bad thing compared to Arwen--she's the chunkiest elf in the series, and far plumper than Eowyn. But, as was said when the subject was brought up, to each his own.
-
I don't think that there is another "more believable" than Gollum. The think that makes Gollum so relasitic is the dialouge, not the animation. I know you people are going to scorn me for saying this, and i'm not trolling here. But Several of the Starwars episode 1 and 2 characters were more complex on the animation front. And so were the characters from the Final Fantasy movie. The detail was much higher. I like Golum more then those and think he is a better more rounded character. I also don't think he'll ever get an Emmy nod. The obvious reason is because he is a CGI creature so that huts him. If a CGI character ever got a emmy nod real actors would have a fit. They're all still nervious about computers replacing them. Second, i think golum will be seen as more as a comic character. true his role is important and serious most of the time but he's too comic in how he acts most of the time. And that will hurt him as well.
-
andy serkis, the guy who did the movements and voice for gollum deserves a emmy or award or whatever.
-
desrsevers, maybe. But if you give him a nodd then you'll have to start giveing people nomanations for being in disney cartoons. It's just wont happen.
-
I have to agree that Serkis won't get an Emmy or even a nomination for Gollum, mainly because Emmies are for TV. I'm fairly hopeful about an Oscar nomination, though--I don't think it's as far-fetched as Spriggan says (I admit it's a long shot, just not that long of a long shot).
I haven't seen the FF movie, so I can't discuss it, but I have seen the Star Wars movies and for the life of me I can't remember a CG character in either that looked as good as Gollum. He's more detailed, interacts better with his environment, and occupies space as well as any human actor. There were several times I actually forgot he was CG, and nothing in Star Wars was that good. The acting was definitely the best part, but the animation is pretty amazing as well.
(As far as straight looks, I think Treebeard looks even more real. They used a model for a lot of that, though, so I guess that's cheating.)
-
I suppose I can see where Spriggan is coming from. If Serkis does get the nod it would open the door to actors playing the voices in animated movies. The one thing that may counteract Spriggan's point is that Serkis also modeled all of the movements upon which the CG character was generated. Is that enough to seperate the animated voice-overs from his performance? I don't know. :-/
-
That's a good point. I don't know either.
-
I think Gollum will win an oscar. Maybe not for actor Andy Serkis, but certainly for special effects and cinematography. Andy Serkis MIGHT even get a nod for best supporting actor, since the role WAS based on his movements and facial features being recorded and tthen later replaced with CGI. Plus, Gollum has a powerful union. I'm sure that between Yoda and Dobby they could "arrange" for Gollum to win.
-
but so is alot of disney stuff (they film the actors moving and talking) and all GCI stuff is motion captured. So everyone in shreck, Starwars Final Fantasy, monsters Inc was motion captured. It's so much cheeper and quicker to do that then straight animation in the program. And I know all you fan boys would love to see him nominated but it will never happen. Gollum is nothing special when it comes to CGI characters. Let's put it this way if Jar-Jar had the same quality of dialoug (thus not being annoying) Gollum would be second rate. Jar-Jar is a much higher quality of CGI. More minute detail, way better done. He's just fricking annoying. Gollum is well done nothing new CGI wise. Just ask your self this "if Gollum wasn't cgi and just a live actor do you think he would get nominated?" I just think no. He's good but nothing outstanding. There are better actors in the series (well most of the actors in the movie are realy good). like Aragorn, i think he deserves an nomination before gollum. .i've listed my reasons and you all know I'm right the academy will never nominate a motion capture actor (which isn't considered real acting sence they don't caputure facial expressions at the time they do the motion). I think people are just looking at a good actor as CGI and say "wow" but if you take away the CGI people would say, "ya he was good" but never mention a oscar nod. Yes Two towers will win Best special effects but not for Gollum. They'll win for the CGI battle scenes at helms deap (which all most all of those orc,goblis and uru-kai are GCI, and that's never been done in a movie before) and the ents battle. Those were amazing. their only compition is Episode 2 which was well done (the speeder chase in the city, that was cool and all CGI no models) but i think Two Towers will win for the CGI battle simulaor the used.
-
Spriggan does offer several good points in this on going debate about the qualifications of Gollum as an Oscar nominee. I now, having considered the requirements for being nominated for an Oscar, let alone winning won, have extreme doubts about Serkis/Gollum being nominated for an acting Oscar. But I feel that Gollum's character will be a factor in whether or not TTT gets the Oscar nod for special effects. Yes, the battle scenes are also a huge portion of the reason I feel that TTT will be nominated for that award, but I just can't see them ignoring Gollum in thier considerations due to the amount of time his character was on screen.
-
I understand where you're coming from Sprig, but I just don't agree with most of your points. I think the CG used for Gollum was miles ahead of Jar-Jar (and Watto, who was even better) in quality, believability, and realism. He interacts better with the environment and the other characters. I hold no hope that he will win an Oscar, and since he was passed over for the Golden Globes (historically more accepting of new ideas), he probably won't be nominated either. If he is, though, I won't be surprised--it's not a very strong possibility, but I think it could happen.
This argument has grown tiresome. Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance!
-
Hey Spriggan, what are your thoughts on why the stopped the Battle at Helms Deep when they did? Money, timing, what? I am not as knowledgable about CGI battle simulators, so I don't know how difficult it would be to add to what they had already constructed. What are your thoughts?
-
probaly because of time restraints. Not because of costs. I haven't read the books so i don't know how much longer it goes. On the expanded edition of the dvd it will be longer. But one last think on the Jar-jar gollum thing. Your right that Gollum fits in better with the people. But i think the reason why is he was the only gci character. I think that in the new starwars the humans stand out more because there's more gci characters and scenery, so it looks a little like they don't fit. There's not that problem in LOTR.
Now touch my monkey! Touch him, love him!
-
I'm more than a little baffled by the "Jar Jar was better" argument. Jar Jar was not just crippled by bad dialogue - he looked and acted like he was made out of rubber, the character design was overly simplistic (vest and bell-bottoms?), and he never interacted with other characters realistically. What was most damaging in Jar Jar's case, and this is true of most CGI characters, was that the light and shadow did not fit him in the scene with the other characters. This is the hardest part of putting CGI characters in live-action scenes, and it's often responsible for people saying that it just doesn't look right without knowing why. Getting the ambient and multiple-source lighting in the right places and at the right levels so that it hits the CGI characters the same way as the others just hasn't been perfected yet. And in Jar Jar's case, it looked like they didn't even try too hard (a la Roger Rabbit).
The contrasts between Jar Jar and Gollum are just too glaring. Jar Jar has a rubbery physiology with a poorly defined musculature and a uniform-color, shiny skin. Gollum has a papery skin with mottled shades, tufts of hair, scars, and birthmarks - he has a well-defined musculature that flexes realistically with movements. No contest.
Jar Jar has a mostly static face that is capable of exaggerated, cartoony expressions but not subtle changes. Gollum, on the other hand, has an almost-human face that is capable of subtle changes in human expressions (better than the cross-eyed and stroke-victim-like faces in Final Fantasy: The Spirit Without) AND exaggerated emoting. In addition, he has pupils that dilate and contract and he is capable of displaying changes in dominant personality simply by changes in facial features. No contest.
In Phantom Menace, both Obiwan and Quiggon have difficulty addressing Jar Jar directly - when they do, it often looks like they are looking at a point a foot in front of or behind his face. They are obviously trying to focus on a tennis ball where his head should be, but it doesn't work well. Jar Jar's physical interactions with live-action characters are very limited, and they look pretty bad when they happen, so he sticks with interacting with inanimate objects (the pod racer) and other CGI characters (battle droids). Gollum's interactions with other characters are not flawless, but they are much better (a level above what we saw with Dobby earlier this year). Take, for example, Gollum's first scene, where Sam and Frodo wrestle Gollum to the ground and Gollum fights back viciously. The interaction in this scene is quite impressive, as Gollum seems to have real weight and pushes against the other characters, kicking Sam off him at one point. Grappling requires full-body contact on a level that has never even been tried with CGI characters, and Gollum pulls it off with surprising realism. No contest.
Jar Jar never quite fits in with the lighting in SW:PM, and it largely has to do with his very shiny rubber skin that reflects a lot of light. ILM just didn't put a lot of work into the lighting on Jar Jar, though, and he looks like he's standing in consistent ambient light in a lot of scenes. At least WETA made a good effort with Gollum, particularly in his first scene, as he climbs down the cliff in the moonlight. The blue undertones and shadows are just right for the scene. The work is not as good in other scenes (as in Osgiliath) where he seems to be standing in brighter light than the other characters, but it's still light-years ahead of the work on Jar Jar. Again, no contest.
As for supporting noms for Andy Serkis, I don't think that the Globe nominations mean much because New Line's PR campaign for Serkis is just ramping up and focuses particularly on the Oscar noms. I think that it is largely a stunt, serving to make the point that Serkis' work on Gollum is so far ahead of past CGI work that it can be considered realistically for a nomination. I don't think he'll get it (and I don't think he particularly deserves it based on the great supporting roles of this year), but the campaign makes its point well and shows that WETA's work on Gollum is impressive. Even if Dobby or Jar Jar were given better scripts and larger parts, they would be laughed out of the room in any Oscar talk because they just aren't "real" enough for serious consideration of any kind.
-
Well, I'd kind of hoped to end the discussion, but thank you to Kilowatt for a detailed and articulate version of what I was trying to explain.
However, I've been on this forum long enough to know that this discussion is on the verge of name-calling--I can feel the rants tingling in the air. So please, let's leave it amicable (and please, nobody touch Spriggan's monkey).
-
Don't worry Fell. Nobody was going to touch Spriggan's Monkey. ;D
-
Sigh...I was...
-
I didn't really knowing I was reopening an unpleasant can of worms with my comments in CGI (the Sprockets reference didn't seem THAT definitive) - I just felt that it was something that had to be said. I can't abide anyone anywhere ever saying anything good about Jar Jar Binks - so sue me.
Well, I'm going to open another unpleasant can of worms - by defending Peter Jackson's most grievous heresies in Two Towers, namely the changes in Faramir's character and Frodo's attempted surrender at Osgiliath. I've read some of Jackson's defenses of the changes, and I think that they make sense. It basically boils down to this - nothing much happens to Frodo and Sam during Two Towers. There are three major events in that storyline during the second book: meeting Gollum, the abduction by Faramir, and the confrontation with Shelob. First, Jackson did the right thing by moving Shelob back to the third movie, in my opinion. There is not enough other stuff going on in the Frodo thread for it to be the central part of the second movie, so it makes sense to put Aragorn in the foreground instead. As a result, the climax has to lie with the Aragorn thread - it would be weird to suddenly cut to Frodo and Shelob or, worse, intersperse the Shelob sequence bit by bit into Helm's Deep. By pushing Shelob back, it helps put the spotlight back on Frodo for the third book, where Aragorn doesn't do as much, disappearing to the south for a while and then reappearing for the battle at the end.
That leaves you with two events in the Frodo storyline, both of which are kind of slight. The taming of Gollum is largely character development, lacking any significant tension beyond the first confrontation. And the meeting with Faramir is pretty weak too - it sets Faramir up as an unrealistic paragon of a character who disappears for the rest of the story (waking up at the end to marry Eowyn). He "kidnaps" Frodo and Sam but realizes right away that he was wrong and becomes their new best friend. He is also not tempted by the Ring at all, which is at odds with Tolkien's premise that it tempts everyone. Galadriel is a centuries-old Ringbearer sorceress, and she is tempted all to heck, but Faramir just shrugs and says, "I wouldn't pick it up if I saw it by the side of the road." Huh? [Cont'd]
-
[From Cont'd] By changing Faramir's character slightly, making him more suspicious and power-hungry, Jackson has emphasized Faramir's troubled relationship with his brother and father as the black sheep of the Steward's family. He is anxious to do what is right for Gondor to the exclusion of all else because he wants to prove himself - he is only convinced otherwise when Sam compares him to Boromir. Naturally, his resentment for his favored brother comes to the surface at this point and he goes out of his way to prove that he is different. It makes sense, and it adds real tension in the Frodo storyline that is conspicuously absent in the encounter in the book. It's like Frodo's really been kidnapped. It reinforces the power of the Ring as a theme, and it introduces Faramir as an interesting and realistic character.
The second change is a little harder to justify because Frodo showing the Ring to a Nazgul is a dramatic departure from the book and seems to wreck havoc with the premise that Sauron doesn't know where the Ring is or who has it. Jackson added this sequence, though, because something needed to be added where Shelob would have gone at the end of Two Towers. The Frodo thread needed to be included in the climax somehow, but it had to be something smaller than Shelob to prevent Helm's Deep from being overshadowed. By inserting the confrontation with the Nazgul, Jackson makes a great impact with a brief sequence. The fell beasts are among the most striking visual images in the trilogy, and Jackson can bring one in to create an immediate impression in a brief scene. What should happen with the flying Nazgul, though? It should be obvious to everyone by now that Jackson places the "power of the Ring" theme at the forefront of the Frodo storyline, and this is another opportunity to show the Ring's effect on Frodo.
It's easy to trash this sequence just because it's cut from whole cloth, saying stuff like "an arrow wouldn't stop a fell beast" or "now Sauron knows that Frodo has the Ring and is taking it to Mt. Doom." It's just as easy to justify its plausability, though. What does Sauron now know? It's hard to say because of the Nazgul's altered perceptions, but it's safe to say he knew someone was standing there with the Ring. So Sauron knows that the Ring is at Osgiliath - this does NOT mean that he knows it's being taken to Mt. Doom. It is actually more likely that Sauron would assume the Ring is being wielded by the head of Osgiliath's Gondorian defenses, attempting to prevent the orcs from taking the city. This means that Gondor has the Ring and reinforces Sauron's motives for sending his amassed armies to Gondor.
Again, it's not a perfect fit, but Jackson was in a situation of having to serve the flow of the story by adding new material, and he did okay in my opinion. If anyone can think of a better brief mini-climax that could have been added to cap the Frodo thread in Two Towers with as great an impact as the confrontation with the fell beast, I'd love to hear it. Armchair Tolkien fans (arguably the only kind of Tolkien fan) seem to think they know more about script-writing than the three pros who wrote for the movie, but I don't think there's a fanboy in Christendom who would have written as watchable a script as the one we got from Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens.
-
That's an interesting take on Faramir, and meshes really well with the explanation my Dad and I came up with. We decided that Jackson is trying to emphasize the instability of men and using Gondor as a wide-angle representative. Boromir and Denethor already show a lot of weakness, and the whole story of Isildur establishes the premise right off the bat. So Jackson had Elrond give a speech about how men are too wishy-washy to be trusted and how he's afraid that they're going to ruin Middle Earth once the elves leave and men are in charge of it, and he has Faramir look like he's just as bad as the rest. This way, when Denethor does his thing in the third movie and it looks like men are screwed, Faramir's goodness will seem more like a redemption than a character trait, and the species as a whole will be stronger and more capable of running Middle Earth properly (led, of course, by Aragorn).
I like your explanation of the Frodo surrender scene as well. It's the first I've heard that not only makes sense but helps support some of the actions of the third book.