Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Lord_of_Me on August 24, 2002, 06:29:34 AM
-
http://www.games-workshop.com/lotr/ttt/teaser1.htm
yay!!
-
also on the two towers i have decided that peter jackson is dead, i'm going to kill him
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
if half of these rumours are true... ...well...
http://www.tolkienonline.com/movies/changes_ttt.cfm
-
Hey, cool link.
I'm not very concerned by most of these rumors. Aside from the addition of extra Arwen material, it all seems like a pretty good adaptation to me. And Arwen? Well, I've learned to accept her as a necessary evil.
-
Ok, I admit, the possibility of cutting the scouring of the Shire is pretty maddening. I think this is a little early to speculate too much, though. It would make kind of a weird end to the movie, though. I don't know.
-
I agree. It'll be a good movie.
-
Okay, I read through most of the list, and you know what? I agree with Peter Jackson on his changes. Most of the changes found by the people on this website are rediculously inconsequential. As for Arwen and Eowyn, those are more major, but I like the new roles they've been given. They both had enormous effects on the events in the story but had very little parts. Why? Because Tolkien couldn't write women. It's a simple fact that he realized and intelligently compensated for. If you have to re-interpret a story to create a screenplay anyway, why not give important characters more screentime?
Don't get me wrong, though. I still hate having Liv Tyler in the role.
-
That's an excellent summation of my feelings. Thanks.
-
I agree: anyone expecting a scene-for-scene translation of the novels has already been disappointed by the first film. They'd be boring, anyway.
-
hmmm. i agree with tage here.
thoughts :
1) "use of non tolkien weaponary" - this is common sense. if you are fighting cavalry, crossbows work better due to how they fly. arrows go up, so miss. crossbow bolts go along, so the cavalry ride into them. makes sense to me.
2) "elves at helms deep" - good change. it fits in with the theme, despite what the author guy says - it shows the elves, small in number though they are, using their supperior skills and abilities to affect the outcome of the battle, and therefore the war. the idea of the elves sitting in rivendell and twiddling their thumbs has always annoyed me. besides, it says it in a way that makes it seem like only 20 elves are going. 20 elves, against 10,000 orks, are not going to make a overwhelming difference.
3) "legolas using two knives". pfffff. get real.
4) "legolas using a shield as a surfing board" - please no. this violates the air of the books.
5) "no ent draught" - pffff. ill live.
6) "sauruman and death spikky thing" - this i dislike. hopefully that pic is a fake. or a cutting room reject.
7) "This line is an invention of the filmmakers and does not represent Tolkien’s work." - this person really needs to look at other film/book conversions. it is expected. LoTR is not some holy book, whose writ is unchangeable. watching a 7 hour perfect copy of fellowship is not my idea of a good time. as jackson has said : "this is my take on the books. that is what i am filming. i can only hope that others agree with me and like my film."
8)"The filmmakers may portray Gandalf’s resurrection in a way different from how Tolkien would have visualized it." - huh? this seems to be a far far better method - and to be honest, who cares what tolkien envisaged? as long as they stick reasonably close to the description in the books, it should be pretty much the same anyway.
9)"Éowyn and Aragorn Cross Swords" - dont like this. seems unneeded.
wowsa. sorry about the long post guys. just my multiple pennies.
-
i'm really really really annoyed about the scouring of the shire possibly being left out and i was looking forward to and hoping for some more GW hobbit models
-
well they showed a new gimli model in one of those pics so...
do you really think that GW can resist the tempation to make another 4 models showing them as they appear in TTT?
BTW, shouldnt this thread be moved to the movies section, seeing as how it is almost totally taken up with movie stuff.
-
no, i mean normal hobbits like fatty bolger no Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin
-
oh good its been moved - i started it to talk about the models but it's definetly a movie thread now
-
has anyone else seen the trailer on aol, it looks really good. What do you all think(sorry if you don't have aol... ...wait a minute, i don't mean that i hate aol)
-
It goes up on the offical website tomorrow.
-
You can wait till tomorrow if you want to go one more day without seeing ONE OF THE GREATEST TRAILERS EVER CREATED:
http://progressive.stream.aol.com/aol/us/aolentertainment/movies/2002/lotr/132757_638498_dl.mov
My recommendation, however, is to follow this link and watch the trailer ASAP. And then watch it again. And then watch it a third time to make sure you caught everything - like the briefs shots of the wargs and oliphaunts and Gandalf fighting the Balrog in the underworld and Treebeard's legs as he runs through the forest. It is brilliantly constructed and sequenced, it has a coherent theme and develops nicely to the final shot. I would have made the music a little more organic-sounding, but that's the only thing that keeps this trailer from being the best one ever made. HOLY COW - I am SO psyched for this movie now.
I'm going to go take my Ritalin - you should click on that there link!
-
Holy cow, that's awesome. I wouldn't recommend this trailer to anyone who doesn't know the story, because it gives a lot of stuff away, but for everyone else I say go watch it now!
-
I've been having an email debate with my brother over the merits of this trailer (he's not a huge fan, preferring the first one). He says that ending with Aragorn stumbling into Theoden's hall is a terrible way to end the trailer, it has way too much Liv Tyler, and it's clumsily structured to fit the framing sequence revolving around "hope."
After thinking about it, here's my thoughts on this subject.
SPOILERS AHEAD FOR ANYONE WHO HASN'T READ THE BOOKS ALTHOUGH IF THAT'S YOU THEN YOU PROBABLY DON'T READ THESE FORUMS.
The whole trailer hinges on Aragorn - it starts with Aragorn trying to bring the Fellowship back together and Aragorn finding out that Gandalf is back. Then it details the insurmountable odds he faces by showing what he is up against. Then it turns to Aragorn's tragic romance and a second, more realistic love interest for him to pursue, ending by highlighting the immensity of the conflict in a series of short clips and then a closing shot of Aragorn, obviously weary, making his dramatic entrance into the court of Theoden. The trailer highlights the importance of hope against difficult odds, and Aragorn IS hope - Gandalf tells him that the defenses must hold and he says, "They WILL hold." It's all about Aragorn stopping the forces of Saruman and Sauron from wiping men from the face of the earth. Those that believe in him (Arwen) believe that good will win, but those who have no faith in him (Elrond) believe that all is lost. I like that they play up the role of Aragorn as being the pivot point around which everything moves.
When Aragorn stumbles into the hall of Theoden, and you ask, "Is this man going to be able to stop two huge evil armies?" That's the question the trailer prompts, and with the movie's climax at Helm's Deep, it is the only large-scale question that this part of the trilogy will be able to solve. After Helm's Deep, Aragorn's ability to kick a** on a very large scale is no longer questioned. The trailer is designed to get you ready to see that.
My brother, however, doesn't buy this argument. He thinks that placing weight on the question of Aragorn fulfilling his heroic and royal potential is a mistake because it isn't in keeping with the themes of the book and doesn't bear itself out well in the first installment of the movies either. He pointed out the admittedly lame and forced exchange between Boromir and Aragorn at the Shards of Narsil in the first movie. However, I think that it makes sense to put Aragorn in the middle of things to make it personal and focused. If you widen the lens to emphasize the meeting of armies, it becomes too impersonal. If you shift emphasis to Frodo (where it really ought to be), the narrative drags because Frodo does very little in the second and third book. Is this a good enough excuse for placing the weight of the narrative on a fairly simple and undynamic character like Aragorn, trying to force him to be more than Tolkein intended for him to be?
-
One of the liberties taken with Aragorn (including the aforementioned exchange between he and Boromir) is the emphasis on his not acting like a king. He is, technically speaking, supposed to be down in Minas Tirith being king, and yet he's off doing other things while generations of Regents do his job for him. In the books there's a fairly good (though overly Tolkienesque) explanation for this, but in the movies they're kind of implying that Aragorn is just unsure of himself and not ready to be king. It's a big change, but one that helps the movies a lot (in my opinion). In Fellowship he passed the first test by turning down the ring, and in Two Towers he proves himself by rallying Rohan and winning at Helm's Deep. This prepares him for the third movie (aptly titled Return of the King) in which he goes to Minas Tirith to claim his throne and destroy the Enemy.
It may be out of flavor to center the movie around Aragorn, but that's what the story calls for. It could be argued that Tolkien was out of flavor by focusing so heavly on Frodo in what was essentially a small (though important) role in a larger story.
-
the book was supposed to centre around frodo, but the bits about sam and frodo were the bits i least wanted to read. I think that the focus on the events away from their little quest will make the movie a lot better
but there is too much liv tyler
-
I like that Tolkien focused the LotR around individuals and smaller roles in the war, rather than telling the larger story. The larger story is just too large to really grasp. Focusing on a small part gives it a human face.
What I'm worried about in the next movies, is that PJ has focused so much on the large battle scenes and the larger story, that the humanistic and emotional side will be smothered. The focus on Aragorn might cause this.
Also, Liv Tyler does not count as an emotional element unless it's nasua your want.
-
Let's just let the dude make the movie his own way and not pass any judgements until we see it. It doesn't have to be a word-for-word, scene-for-scene translation of the books in order to be an awesome movie. I loved the first film, and I know I will love the second. I don't care if liberties are taken. I don't care if Gollum is wearing a Hawaiian shirt and sporting a cell phone, I LIKE Jackson's movies and I thought the first LotR film was very much in the tradition of the books. To be honest (and feel free too roast me for saying this) JRR Tolkein was a poor writer. A GREAT storyteller, mind you, but a poor writer. He worshipped language and it was evident in his writings. He would never use one word when he could get away with thirty. He interspersed his stories with mounds of back history and racial information that, while incredible, were speedbumps when it came to narrative flow. Well, that's just my two copper pennies.
-
I wouldn't say he's a *bad* writer, he just had some shortcomings. And Jackson is trying to make up for some of those shortcomings in the movie translation. Tolkein couldn't write women, for example. Women play some very important roles in the books, but always sort of behind-the-scenes. Tolkein also couldn't write battles very well, and that's something Jackson is definitely making up for.
Anyway, I agree. Jackson is doing a great job.
-
Battles are very hard for ANY writer. Some things just come across visually and don't have the same effect with words. try reading the novelization of Saving Private Ryan. The big battle scene that takes up 1/5th of the film only gets ten pages or so. Reading about the horrors of war: terrified soldiers, dying men, blood and guts literally soaking the ground, the lost sense of time. Reading about it seperates us from the impact. Watching it forces us to see what can't be placed into words.
-
regarding the tabletop game, GW now have the rights to produce minitures and rules for the book LOTR, and teh hobbit, as opposed to the films. this means they can bring in stuff like tom bombadil, even tho he wasnt in the film. Apparently they have a supplement in production : "Shadow and flames". its all about the doomed attempt by balin and co to reclaim moria.
which is cool.
-
Coolness. A wider range means more crunchy Hobbits to devour. We loves it, my Preciousss.
-
Wow, that is cool. Did they get the rights to Silmarillion? The possibilities are endless, and their system for LotR is really good.
-
that's good, it means that even if the return of the king doesn't have the scouring of the shire i'll be able to fight the battle of bywater