 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)recycle ...and 96 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2618643 Today 2 Topics 127849 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Bah,bah,bah. The scouring of the Shire will not be featured in either the theatrical version nor the extended DVD version. I'm sorry but I was totally looking forward to this grim ending and now they're gonna what? Make a happy fucking disney-ending to it? C'mon, this is bad news. On top of that, it looks like they're gonna ignore the demise of Saruman, and just let him mysteriously disappear. >:( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
SPOILERS here if you haven't read the books! yeah i agree i was sad to hear that the scouring of the shire was to be taken out but from a cinematic standpoint i think it is a good move. think about it, the climax of the entire series, what everything has been building to, will be gollum biting off frodo's ring finger and plumeting into the fires of mt. doom. no way would they follow this up with a anti-climactic journey home and shire skirmish. I agree it is a critical part of the story, but in interest of keeping the total running time of the movie under 4 hours, it is a wise cut. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Bah, I expected that. I don't care, it looks beautiful anyway. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i can see why they'd make this choice, but as a fan of the book, i am disappointed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
uh i.... *looks closely at the posts and then realizes he knows absolutely nothing of the thread then shuts his mouth* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
really, that letter in the link from P. Jackson says what i'm trying to say. it's all about pacing. something that especially the non-fans of Matrix: Reloaded can appreciate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sorry,in my excitement I totally forgot to mention the spoilers. Ok, maybe I'm more upset about Saruman just disappearing without a trace. This will make his character look rather unimportant while this character is really a pivotal point in the book and thus not to be ignored or skipped like that. They showed the demise of the Balrog in TTT as well and this creature wasn't even half as important to the story as Saruman is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think it's going to be the best one. shit that article says there is an entire hour of film where the audience has tears in their eyes... guess i better bring my hankey, i bawl each time gandalf falls in the mines of moria. even when i'm reading the books. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, but at least they say they are adding the scenes back into the DVD. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fuck it, I wanted to see Saruman get his come-uppance. and on a BIG screen too!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i know what you're saying, but don't downplay the importance of the balrog. it was gandalf's fight with him that enabled him to get 'to the next level' power wise and be able to even stand up to saruman. i definately thought the suits wouldn't go for the ending in the book, but i thought they might have one of the hobbits kill saruman instead of grima.. or something else more heroic. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I get that too. poor Gandalf. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
even in the books, the ending was kind of anticlimactic and left me unfulfilled. but i appreciate it for its 'honesty'. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in the end, these movies are based upon the novels, not direct intepretations of the novels. They have taken much greater liberties in the conversion to film elsewhere (arwen taking frodo to rivendell, Aragorn falling off the cliffs during an invented warg riders battle,elves helping out at helm's deep, etc...) but as movies, they stand on their own. I wish i could watch them without having ever read the books, but my only other alternative is to keep a very open mind while watching them. and it has worked, i love this series. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, i'm telling you the first time i saw it i was weeping like a 4 year old girl. much to the delight of the 12 year old girls in attendance at the theatre. quite embarrasing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not one easily moved by cheap sentiment, but these films do it. damn. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, yes. they've actually done a really great job with the 'translation' from page to film. the heart of the story is still there, it's really only hardcore fans who are ticked off by some of the liberties they took (like me, to some extent). the books were great and the movies were great, each on their own. it's a win win situation for everyone i think. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah the scouring of the shire is excellent because it shows how The Shire is so isolated from the rest of middle earth. the hobbits are humble folk and it is a pristine landscape. and throughout the whole series the hobbits long to go home to this place they love. but the disturbance of the shire shows that sauron's reach extended to even the lesser known parts of middle earth. so leaving it out of the film definately changes an underlying theme of the books, but again for "pacing" i think it is one of the most justified changes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, when news went out that they actually were going to do LotR as films, everybody's hearts froze. I remember when I heard Peter Jackson was going to do it, thinking to myself this could actually turn out quite good. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
true that. any movie that can make me weep about midgets and grizzly old men with nasty beards and pointy hats must be doing something right. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah me too. i was a big fan of "dead alive" and "heavenly creatures" and a couple others of his films at the time. it was quite a relief and a surprise to hear P. Jackson's name attached to the project. especially if you've seen "Meet the Feebles" that is some fucked up shit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the best translation of "page to film" I've seen so far was the first Harry Potter film :) But still, I have no doubt that even after this shocking news(to me) ROTK will still ROCK me big time,even if it means I have to watch the 7 minute bit of saruman at home on my TV :(. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, when news went out that they actually were going to do LotR as films, everybody's hearts froze. fo real! when i first heard about this, and i heard that they were doing all three at once, i was sure they were going to suck, especially when i heard jackson was directing (only thing i'd seen by him was dead alive). as it turns out, they/he really did it right, and i'm so relieved they did. imagine the travesty if they'd been done really bad... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jackson directed heavenly creatures? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Really?*insert cheesy candlelight melody here* My heart froze upon hearing that news for the first time. But after FOTR my heart melted again and I knew it was safe. Even though Dustin Hoffman never knew. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Harry Potter? that's a wonderful example of how you should NOT adapt a book to film! it follows everything precisely from the book. now, book and film are two different media, each with their own rules. to just blatantly follow the book is such a bad idea. thats why to me the film didn't flow, was kind of wooden, forced. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i didn't read the potter books, so i don't know, but i really do enjoy the movies. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
for me i'd say the best translation of page to film is "fear and loathing in las vegas" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes. artistically his best work, imo. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i didn't know that. that was a good film. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the books and the movies are enjoyable although much of it is practically stolen directly out of LOTR. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
man, so much has been stolen directly from lotr. when you stop and think about it, ti's really amazing. that guy had an extremely unique vision, and he really fleshed it all out so well... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
kate winslet's best movie by a long shot as well. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Damn, I loved what they did, to me it was kind of seeing on the big screen my imagination on what the Potter world would be like, but I understand your point, it did feel very forced at times. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, but I hate it when they compare the two as if they were alike. It's like comparing apples and oranges really. Just because there's some wizard with a long white beard in it doesn't make it the same. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And you could also say that the Lord of the Rings has stolen everything from mythology and folklore... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i agree. some of the subject matter (magic and creatures) is similar, but i think that's as far as it goes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Or even that everything from The Lord of the Rings is stolen from mythology and folklore. Agh. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
to some extent, but for example, before tolkien wrote his books i don't think anyone thought of elves the way he portrayed them and the way a lot of us has come to think of them. let's not get into the old argument about originality. we'd have to go all the way back to the very beginning to get a truly original idea, and even then maybe not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
let's just say his work has had perhaps the biggest influence on an entire genre of entertainment. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Or let's just say that he actually spawned an entirely new genre ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
