User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 77

  1. #41
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    Yeah, the advice given to writers when they edit their own stories is to "kill your darlings".

    He certainly couldn't kill this one, probably for sentimental reasons as you said.

    Then again, think what Stephen King would've done. Oh wait! We don't have to imagine, we have the Dark Tower series.
    Yeah. Sigh.

    I can rant about that one for awhile (my opinion is that the story basically just kept getting better and better from Book #1 through Book #4, which is likely to be one of my favorite books ever.... Book #5 is one of the worst books I've ever trudged through in my life and it took me months to do it, Book #6 is a bit better but the whole egomanic author inclusion should have been curtailed/killed, and Book #7 was workable except for the wind-down ending, even if I agree with his epiloque).

    But that is another whole thread.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #42
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Hell, I haven't even read Harry Potter yet...

  3. #43
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    Hell, I haven't even read Harry Potter yet...
    Shame.

    Actually, I've only read Books #1-2, and I blitzed through the rest of the movies just so I could see Book #7 in the theater. They're the most well-written, quirky, cute books that I just can't bring myself to plow through, I lose momentum.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #44
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Shame.

    Actually, I've only read Books #1-2, and I blitzed through the rest of the movies just so I could see Book #7 in the theater. They're the most well-written, quirky, cute books that I just can't bring myself to plow through, I lose momentum.
    I'm saving them to read to/with Kicky when she gets old enough.

  5. #45
    Member kissmyasthma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    I???
    Enneagram
    huh sp/so
    Posts
    98

    Default

    I remember being very attached to the idea of Tom when I first read the books. He's like a breath of fresh air. The whole sequence in FotR with Tom and the hobbits, leading into the terrifying Barrow Wight scene is very vivid in my mind, and while it doesn't really contribute directly to the plot and would been strange and out of place in the film, I couldn't help missing something about it. Looking at The Lord of the Rings as a fairy-tale of sorts, I think Tom's chapters add a lot to the story in terms of establishing the strangeness of Middle Earth itself, and developing Frodo's character in particular. I see Frodo's moment in the barrow, when he sees the wight's hand and defends his friends, as a key moment for his character in the way that first entering Smaug's lair was for Bilbo.

    For me, Tom's absence isn't disappointing because I miss Tom himself (I agree that the tone of his character would be altogether wrong for the films); it's more about the parallels with other scenes (calling for Tom's help in the barrow, remembering Tom in Shelob's lair and then using Galadriel's phial and invoking Eärendil...) The help from a strange, mysteriously powerful source was an important precedent to establish (or at least, Tolkien may have thought it was). And I think there's an interesting point thematically that Tom, one of the oldest, most powerful beings in Middle Earth, is able to completely resist the corruption of the Ring because he himself does not wish to wield power over others.

  6. #46
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kissmyasthma View Post
    I remember being very attached to the idea of Tom when I first read the books. He's like a breath of fresh air. The whole sequence in FotR with Tom and the hobbits, leading into the terrifying Barrow Wight scene is very vivid in my mind, and while it doesn't really contribute directly to the plot and would been strange and out of place in the film, I couldn't help missing something about it. Looking at The Lord of the Rings as a fairy-tale of sorts, I think Tom's chapters add a lot to the story in terms of establishing the strangeness of Middle Earth itself, and developing Frodo's character in particular. I see Frodo's moment in the barrow, when he sees the wight's hand and defends his friends, as a key moment for his character in the way that first entering Smaug's lair was for Bilbo.

    For me, Tom's absence isn't disappointing because I miss Tom himself (I agree that the tone of his character would be altogether wrong for the films); it's more about the parallels with other scenes (calling for Tom's help in the barrow, remembering Tom in Shelob's lair and then using Galadriel's phial and invoking Eärendil...) The help from a strange, mysteriously powerful source was an important precedent to establish (or at least, Tolkien may have thought it was). And I think there's an interesting point thematically that Tom, one of the oldest, most powerful beings in Middle Earth, is able to completely resist the corruption of the Ring because he himself does not wish to wield power over others.
    He does add to the novel (as well as being an anti-industrialization figure, as someone else reminded me), but I don't know how to accurately portray much of that on film.

  7. #47
    Member kissmyasthma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    I???
    Enneagram
    huh sp/so
    Posts
    98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    He does add to the novel (as well as being an anti-industrialization figure, as someone else reminded me), but I don't know how to accurately portray much of that on film.
    Yeah, there are obviously a lot of difficulties when you adapt any book to film, but I think it's especially true of LotR. I love the movies as a way to enjoy the story with other people, and as great works in and of themselves, but so much of what Tolkien did is just untranslatable. As far as changes go, I think Tom's omission was a minor one (bless him).

  8. #48
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

    I meant to do this last weekend, but a weekend-long power outage plus the holiday screwed that up.

    Talking about this book/film becomes more difficult now, because this movie contains the greatest differences: already the opening (the death of Boromir) was moved to be the climax of the first film, Shelob is moved to the third film, and Frodo and Sam’s encounter with Faramir is far different.

    In the novel, the story is split into two volumes: Frodo and Sam, and everyone else. The movie wisely flips back and forth between the two stories, having one half of a film completely separate from the other half just doesn’t flow, despite how well it can work on the page.

    Starting with Sam and Frodo, the one thing I think the film excelled at was the portrayal of Gollum/Smeagol. I’ve heard from others that the “good” side (Smeagol) was a bit too simple, but I think it worked on-screen. This film was the first time I thought a CGI character looked fully realized, unlike say, Jar-Jar Binks. Watching the film now, I can see the age in the CGI, the effect isn’t as fully immersive compared to CGI characters today, but the pathos (thanks to Andy Serkis) is still great. I had never felt sadness towards a “fake” character to this degree since E.T. In the hands of someone that knows restraint, CGI can be a tremendous tool for a filmmaker.

    A major deviation from the book is the character of Faramir. In the novel, Faramir is a noble and wise warrior that pledged to never strive for the One Ring. In the movie, he’s not so interested in the ring for himself, but for Gondor and for proving his worth to his father. He takes the two hobbits (and Gollum) hostage and attempts to deliver them to the white city, until he realizes how dangerous and foolish that idea is. In regards to the characterization... I prefer it.

    Many changes in the movies are meant to increase dramatic tension, especially changes to characters. Look at Gandalf’s reaction to the ring, or Aragorn’s acceptance of his birthright. In the novels, every one is a bit too sure of themselves, not much growth or development. I’m more accepting of someone who has doubts and overcomes those doubts as opposed to someone sure of themselves from the start. Perhaps this is the difference between being a Brit and an American. The American myth is creating yourself from humble beginnings, whereas Brit myths tie more into class distinctions - you are who you are born to be. I suppose this is why Aragorn’s ascension to king means little to me.

    In that light, I don’t mind the wholesale change to Faramir. I know others are disturbed by this, but the movie Faramir is far more interesting and relatable, and in the end more noble because he is able to turn back from the path his brother chose.

    Saurman is also different. He is ortrayed as a direct ally of Sauron, rather than one who hopes to use Sauron to his own ends (not realizing he is instead another piece of Sauron’s plan). In this instance I prefer the novel, as the movie makes Saurman too simplistic, just another evil dude that has to be defeated.

    How he is defeated is also different. Treebeard and the other Ents decide to go to war directly after the Entmoot in the novel. In the movie, they decide not to attack Saurman until tricked by Pippin into seeing the destruction Saurman has wrought on the forest. While this gives Pip a bit more to do, I find this change kind of stupid. What kind of tree shepherds don’t know their own forest is being cut down? I’ll write more about the novel version of the Ents in another post.

    Despite this middle section is my least favorite of the story (exactly the opposite of the original Star Wars trilogy), we do get the best battle - Helm’s Deep. The movie excels at this, as it is a visual medium, and we get actual Elves fighting alongside men. I know in the novel they are off doing blah, blah, blah, but I don’t give a fuck, fuck, fuck. Stopping Saurman is quite important, as it closes off one front and just leaves Sauron to the west. Nice to see some elves put themselves on the line for other people besides themselves. The whole battle is just outstanding.

    Giant spiders, coming soon...

  9. #49
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    In the novel, the story is split into two volumes: Frodo and Sam, and everyone else. The movie wisely flips back and forth between the two stories, having one half of a film completely separate from the other half just doesn’t flow, despite how well it can work on the page.
    Agreed. The narrative structure of the book just wouldn't work that well in the film, and perhaps vice versa.

    Starting with Sam and Frodo, the one thing I think the film excelled at was the portrayal of Gollum/Smeagol.
    Agreed. I felt it was the best performance in the movie, and it actually worked. I really can't look at that character and see what could have been done better. Even the split-scenes (as if the two sides of Gollum were actual different physical entities) was inspired.

    A major deviation from the book is the character of Faramir. In the novel, Faramir is a noble and wise warrior that pledged to never strive for the One Ring. In the movie, he’s not so interested in the ring for himself, but for Gondor and for proving his worth to his father. He takes the two hobbits (and Gollum) hostage and attempts to deliver them to the white city, until he realizes how dangerous and foolish that idea is. In regards to the characterization... I prefer it.

    Many changes in the movies are meant to increase dramatic tension, especially changes to characters. Look at Gandalf’s reaction to the ring, or Aragorn’s acceptance of his birthright. In the novels, every one is a bit too sure of themselves, not much growth or development. I’m more accepting of someone who has doubts and overcomes those doubts as opposed to someone sure of themselves from the start. Perhaps this is the difference between being a Brit and an American. The American myth is creating yourself from humble beginnings, whereas Brit myths tie more into class distinctions - you are who you are born to be. I suppose this is why Aragorn’s ascension to king means little to me.

    In that light, I don’t mind the wholesale change to Faramir. I know others are disturbed by this, but the movie Faramir is far more interesting and relatable, and in the end more noble because he is able to turn back from the path his brother chose.
    You've already heard my initial feelings on it. However, time does salve some wounds. I can see why you appreciate it more than the book version, and why others might as well. And yes, maybe it does give him a bit more flavor.

    I think a few things made the Faramir change difficult for me to swallow initially (and even now to some degree).

    1. in the book, Along with Tom, Faramir was the only other person who had a chance to take the Ring and didn't really have a problem rejecting it. (Galadriel and others did refuse the ring, but it was a hard choice for them.) Tom's refusal seems within Tom's power to make; I understand why some had difficulty in believing any man could resist the Ring's wiles.

    I think the thing simply was that, aside from Aragorn, Faramir was actually the one prominent bit of royalty in the story that really harkened back to the Men of Old, and the Westernesse... Faramir had a selfless nobility about him, and a grace that wasn't seen elsewhere. He really did not want or need power, he had already rejected it long ago. Boromir and he were even more different in the book (the movie brought them together a bit, made them more alike); Faramir really was happy to not be in power, and not have the Ring, and live in sync with the land (he is the eponymous ranger which the AD&D ranger class is based on, or at least he predated the game by 20-30 years and I'm sure influenced the class). When Eowyn lies forgotten, it's Faramir who takes care of her, and they both fall in love -- both of them unique among their peoples and not really fitting in anywhere, both royalty with no chance or desire to hold the throne. In any case, Fararmir was created as a counterpoint to his brother; the movie made him cast in similar mold to his brother.

    [I do note, though, that it allowed us to see what an asshole Denethor was; it was a dreadful level of abuse, where he openly scorned one son and favored another to the point of sending his surviving son to his death almost with satisfaction of sorts, and the son so desperate to earn his father's love. Heartbreaking.]

    2. Aragorn's character was changed for the movie too and made more human and accessible, but his goodness was never really tarnished in that humanization like Faramir's was (Aragorn had opportunity to take the Ring at the end of the first movie, and instead closed Frodo's hand and said, "I would have gone with you to the end... to the gates of Mordor."

    3. I think people look for characters in the books they read that they can identify with and who resemble themselves in some way. Faramir was the character I felt most akin to in The Lord of the Rings (and after that, to some degree, Galadriel...) Not that it was the closest of matches, but in terms of personality and thinking style and coolness of approach and whatever else... I very much connected with him. The movie sundered that connection; I no longer recognized any of myself in Faramir or vice versa, he was just some guy. That actually hurt, as if you met someone online and shared your soul with each other, then meet in person... and the person you meet face to face ends up being unrecognizable.

    4. I was blindsided by it, I just wasn't expecting it. So it was like a gut-punch when it happened. I needed some time to catch my breath again.

    Anyway, I think the character "works" for the movie as they did him, and for those new to the story, it was likely just fine -- but it's not the story that personally resonated with me.

    Saurman is also different. He is ortrayed as a direct ally of Sauron, rather than one who hopes to use Sauron to his own ends (not realizing he is instead another piece of Sauron’s plan). In this instance I prefer the novel, as the movie makes Saurman too simplistic, just another evil dude that has to be defeated.
    I agree. I think it diminished him as an Istari and made him just another facet of Sauron rather than giving him a story line of his own. It's a great tragedy to see him in LOTR move from the head of the White Council to, at the end of his rope, having his throat cut by Wormtongue in the dirt of the Shire... especially the scene after, where his shadow comes from his body, looks toward the west, then is scattered on the wind. More tragic than Gollum, even, because Saruman had far more than poor Smeagol, and ended up with even less (as at least Gollum achieved something positive with his end, while Saruman's ending was a complete waste). Even more tragic than the Western concept of Lucifer; Saruman is essentially a fallen angel, a lesser image of Sauron himself, who is a smaller mirror of Melkor. Oh, what he could have been! And look at what he became, after his petty delusions of grandeur... nothing but dust in the wind.

    How he is defeated is also different. Treebeard and the other Ents decide to go to war directly after the Entmoot in the novel. In the movie, they decide not to attack Saurman until tricked by Pippin into seeing the destruction Saurman has wrought on the forest. While this gives Pip a bit more to do, I find this change kind of stupid. What kind of tree shepherds don’t know their own forest is being cut down? I’ll write more about the novel version of the Ents in another post.
    Despite this middle section is my least favorite of the story (exactly the opposite of the original Star Wars trilogy), we do get the best battle - Helm’s Deep. The movie excels at this, as it is a visual medium, and we get actual Elves fighting alongside men. I know in the novel they are off doing blah, blah, blah, but I don’t give a fuck, fuck, fuck. Stopping Saurman is quite important, as it closes off one front and just leaves Sauron to the west. Nice to see some elves put themselves on the line for other people besides themselves. The whole battle is just outstanding.
    Agreed. Often movies focus on battles that are superfluous, but the battle in this movie I think was necessary in order to give part 2 some impetus forward. It made sense. And it was well done. AND they did the "killing game" between Legolas and Gimli. Classic.

    Giant spiders, coming soon...
    Please. Don't make me cry. That part disappointed me even worse than the rape of Faramir.

    I can't watch the scene in the movie, it just is so empty. But I still reread that passage in the book a few times a year. If it had been done with a less literal director, it could have been utterly terrifying; suggest more, show less, would have been much more effective. Honestly, done right, it could make people crap their pants. Instead we just got a... giant unintelligent spider.

    Then again... the same thing happened with the balrog. *sigh*

    he did, for the most part, pull off the Nazgul, however (at least in the first movie).
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #50
    likes this gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,651

    Default

    Interesting thoughts both @MacGuffin and @Jennifer. I read the books after having seen the movies.

    I know this is from the first book/movie, but I was surprised and a little disappointed from a feminist perspective reading that the horse bearing the mortally wounded Frodo to Rivendell did not have a rider (Arwen was given the role in the movie). Actually, I remember finding the words Tolkein chose to describe both of the main women (Eiowen and Arwen) were curious, definitely seemed "dated" in some ways. I can't remember it all unfortunately.

    Hm. Maybe I want to re-read the books now.
    Your kisses, sweeter than honey. But guess what, so is my money.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 11-05-2016, 01:45 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-05-2016, 10:55 AM
  3. Psychosis and... Me? One year later
    By Oeufa in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-02-2012, 11:03 PM
  4. [INTP] INTP's and childhood/adolescne - "best years of your life", or a grey blur?
    By tcda in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-07-2010, 04:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO