 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Extended version of "The Fellowship of the Ring" posted by darkstar on November 24, 2002 at 17:05:38:
I guess no Dunedain, Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, or Barrow Wights? They all stick out in my mind from the book, and they're all significant.It's unfortunate that many aspects of the book were changed for seemingly no reason. Don't get me wrong though, I loved the film, and will probably love the next two as well.
If you enjoy the films, READ THE BOOKS, you will be completely absorbed for a few weeks!
-Frank
Follow Ups:
I really thought the movie stunk. But then I realized it was the title that was bothering me.I realized I was objecting to the heavy handed, if not butcher like methods in which Jackson f'd up the story. However, once I recognized that the film did not have a lot to do with JRT's books, I found them more palatable.
I stopped counting how many times I had read the books when I hit 27.Not 27 years old, 27 times read.
My brother used to amuse his dates by having me recite for them the first paragraph from any chapter, like some weird trained seal, but without the cuteness.
Randy
The problem with communication is the fallacy that it has been achieved
- Lewis Carrol
I've been reading them for over thirty years.In all fairness to PJ, I don't feel there's any way you can include Tom B. episode without derailing the narrative thrust and stopping the movie dead in its tracks. Interesting to note that the 20+ episode BBC version of LOTR excised him as well. Scriptwriting 101.
With SO MUCH text, even with 3 1/2 hours in which to tell the story, *something* had to go - namely, any element that didn't move the plot forward or develop a character directly. I think the choices the scriptwriters made proved judicious and the excisions/alterations don't really trouble me. Sorry, I don't miss Bombadil in the film.
I'm satisfied the filmmakers remained true to the spirit and main themes of the book, and that they were able to infuse every frame with layer after layer of minute detail from the book - props, costumes, locations and sets, including buildings, furniture, weapons, armour, jewelry, pottery, tools, maps, bookd, goblets - you name it. FOTR really did feel like the sight and texture of Middle Earth to me.
There have beem some excellent articles in Script magazine, American screenwriter and other periodicals where PJ, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens discuss the difficulties in adapting such a huge book for the screen. I realize that not every Tolkien fan on the planet is pleased, Bu I for one, am content.
Better brace yourself - TTT has the most changes from the book of any of the three films.
I've read the books at least 15 times I think - once every two years or so in average since the first time. I saw the movie in the cinema 25+ times & is the happy owner of both the theatrical & extended version DVD - I prefer the latter but (as can be seen :) ) I loved the other one too.What many of the 'complainers' of the movie adaption seem to be unable to comprehend is that books (novels) & movies 'works' in very different ways; narratively & in other manners - if one try to simply transform the novel to a movie without considering this fact you'll end up with one strange film! One of the problems is mentioned by Harmonia - that if you do 'as in the books' the movie will grind to a halt in some places.
Btw., as far as I know Tolkien didn't actually originally PLAN to have Tom Bombadil in the books - he mainly put him there per request from his children, who already knew the character from other stories by him.
I guess I don't have to tell you that I'm a big fan of both the books & the movie(s)...
It *was* visually stunning, and I agree, the spirit was right-on. Seems that a lot of people say the same thing, "It's exactly what I imagined!"By skipping some of the early chapters, the film didn't show just how awful their luck turned immediately after leaving Hobbiton. But yeah, it's a film... and there's only *so* much time to tell the story.
The thing with Bombadil is that he was the most supernatural character in the book. The fact that the ring had absolutely no power over him was something to ponder.
-Frank
This film brings out the book's themes in such a visually complete way, that I for one was astounded.Not to gush or go overbaord with the superaltives, but this is one helluva an adaptation. And of a book that I had always thought simply could not be translated to the siver screen.
I felt like I was transported to ME. Even with the deleted segments and obvious differences between my imagination's perspective and the director's vison (he made the Orcs much more menacing then I ever pictured them), I still was as completely lost in Tolkien's majesty as I had ever been reading the books. And that is what makes this one of the best screen adaptations I have yet seen.
Thanks,
Rob
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
