|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 15, 2003 18:21:42 GMT -5
Sounds like you want a documentary mini-series instead of a movie. Although I agree with the disrespect shown to Gimli's character. And I loathe all of the added elf ESP conversations that bring the films to a screeching halt. When I see the trilogy tomorrow, I know when I'll be heading to the bathroom.
However, I've seen a movie that was ripped straight from the pages of a book, free from any problematic dramatic license. It was called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. And it was lifeless on film.
|
|
donmac
Moderator Emeritus
Beedee Beedee Beedee This Sucks!
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by donmac on Dec 15, 2003 19:05:26 GMT -5
sampo wrote:Tranq- I'm curious what it is about Jackson's version you deplore so deeply. Well, there are more than just Faramir that was wrong. Starting with the introduction of the shire and Bilbo's party. He never mentioned that it was also Frodo's birthday. Merry and Pippen didn't light a huge firework, The way Frodo obtained the ring, What's with Gandalf freaking like he's on Crystal Meth screaming "Is it secret? Is it safe?". Why is Anduril lying on display in Rivendale? Why was Arwen the one to save Frodo from the Wraiths and NOT GLorfindle. Why did Peter make Gimli a "cutsie wootsie" comedy relief? Why does Gollum sound way too much like Jar Jar Binks? Why was Sam not at the Pool of Galadriel with Frodo. Sam never let Frodo out of his sight. Where was Tom Bombadil? ?? and how did Aragorn "find" the swords on top of Weathertop? ? sheeeeeesh!! now I'm getting pissed again and I haven't even hit on what he screwed up in Two Towers. Anyhooooo, Peter Jackson isn't that talented of a director. He just had the right ammount of money to make a good "gimmick" flick. Well, although I have problems with Peter Jackson bringing too much of his "Horror Movie" background into the story, I think a lot of the changes in adapting the novel into the movies are acceptable from the need to compress the story a bit as well as a dramatic perspective. For instance, dropping Tom Bombadil was obviously due to the need to compress the story (he really isn't important to the major story), but I'm glad Peter Jackson & Co. gave some of his lines from the book to Treebeard, which keeps his spirit in the movies in a sense. Also, the unusual structure of Tolkien's TTT (the first half dealing with Rohan, Isengard and the battle of Helm's Deep; the second half with Frodo and the ring) wouldn't have worked on the screen, but simply intercutting the stories would've had too much happening at the end (Helm's Deep, the Ent battle, AND Shelob), so moving Shelob to the third movie makes sense. However, then there would be no dramatic tension in the Frodo storyline, so the changes to Faramir were made to create some tension. (Which is better played out in the Extended Edition DVD in which it's clear he has no real desire for the ring, but is only trying to please and win the respect of his father, Denethor.) As for Arwen, she is barely mentioned in Tolkien's book and then shows up out of nowhere at the end, so the filmmakers' changes to make her more a part of the whole story makes sense yet again. And like these changes, most other changes were to make the story more cinematic and increase the drama in sections of the story in which few major events happen. Although I don't like some changes myself, I do understand why they were made. (BTW, I think Gollum's voice is great, while Jar Jar's is one of the most irritating sounds I've ever heard! No, Gollum does not sound like Jar Jar!!!)
|
|