Telescope in Lord Of The Rings: ROTK!

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:18:59 GMT, "Enyo" wrote:

If you read the books you know the movie has little relationship to them,
other than some of the names are the same. The first 30 minutes of the
first movie was good. It then became apparent artistic license took over.
I would have walked out then except I was the driver with
my kids and some of their friends. They truly combined and perverted the
characters, plot and emphasis for the sake of their vision of what makes a
popular movie. I have not an will not see the second and third.

An interesting observation, which truly shows the different ways people can
perceive the same thing. I've read LOTR many times; in my view no better book
has ever been written. Yet I have found the movies to be as utterly true to
story and character as I think it is possible for any movies to be, particularly
given the epic nature of the book. The limitations that are there (and I think
they are minor) are simply the result of the fact that there is far more
material and depth than can be fit into nine or ten hours of movie. This may
finally be the thing that motivates me to buy a DVD player- until now I have
felt no need (no movies I really wanted to own, no rental stores within 70
miles).

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Enyo" wrote in message


If you read the books you know the movie has little relationship to them,
other than some of the names are the same. The first 30 minutes of the
first movie was good. It then became apparent artistic license took over.
I would have walked out then except I was the driver with
my kids and some of their friends. They truly combined and perverted the
characters, plot and emphasis for the sake of their vision of what makes a
popular movie. I have not an will not see the second and third.


You should really take movies at face value. They aren't intended to
be mirror images of a book. Wouldn't a movie that replicated a book
be more than a little redundant? Could a movie that attempted that
ever really live up to what you have constructed in your imagination?
It's a sure-fire recipe for disaster.

They took the proper route with this trilogy. New Line Cinema had to
bet their entire company on the production of these three movies. The
type of epic you want could never exist because the production budget
would have still been over a quarter of a billion dollars, only nobody
would go see it and the production company would take a collosal bath.

I'm not knocking you being a purist, just trying to put it in a
perspective that you may not have thought of yet. You sound pretty
angry about the whole makeup of the trilogy. Maybe if you saw
these last two movies without any expectation of literal translation,
you would enjoy them on a whole different level - the level that
millions of LOTR fans are currently enjoying the trilogy on!


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Enyo" wrote in message


If you read the books you know the movie has little relationship to them,
other than some of the names are the same. The first 30 minutes of the
first movie was good. It then became apparent artistic license took over.
I would have walked out then except I was the driver with
my kids and some of their friends. They truly combined and perverted the
characters, plot and emphasis for the sake of their vision of what makes a
popular movie. I have not an will not see the second and third.


You should really take movies at face value. They aren't intended to
be mirror images of a book. Wouldn't a movie that replicated a book
be more than a little redundant? Could a movie that attempted that
ever really live up to what you have constructed in your imagination?
It's a sure-fire recipe for disaster.

They took the proper route with this trilogy. New Line Cinema had to
bet their entire company on the production of these three movies. The
type of epic you want could never exist because the production budget
would have still been over a quarter of a billion dollars, only nobody
would go see it and the production company would take a collosal bath.

I'm not knocking you being a purist, just trying to put it in a
perspective that you may not have thought of yet. You sound pretty
angry about the whole makeup of the trilogy. Maybe if you saw
these last two movies without any expectation of literal translation,
you would enjoy them on a whole different level - the level that
millions of LOTR fans are currently enjoying the trilogy on!


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:18:59 GMT, "Enyo" wrote:

If you read the books you know the movie has little relationship to them,
other than some of the names are the same. The first 30 minutes of the
first movie was good. It then became apparent artistic license took
over.
I would have walked out then except I was the driver with
my kids and some of their friends. They truly combined and perverted the
characters, plot and emphasis for the sake of their vision of what makes
a
popular movie. I have not an will not see the second and third.

An interesting observation, which truly shows the different ways people
can
perceive the same thing. I've read LOTR many times; in my view no better
book
has ever been written. Yet I have found the movies to be as utterly true
to
story and character as I think it is possible for any movies to be,
particularly
given the epic nature of the book.

Surely you don't think the characterization of Faramir in TT as little more
than a thug is anything even remotely resembling the nobility and
sensitivity of his character in the novel? Not to mention the asinine idea
that a hobbit persuaded the reluctant Ents to battle Saruman. I have to
wholeheartedly agree with Enyo that the plotline now bears little
resemblance to the books other than the names of the characters. I think you
need to read the books again, Chris.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:18:59 GMT, "Enyo" wrote:

If you read the books you know the movie has little relationship to them,
other than some of the names are the same. The first 30 minutes of the
first movie was good. It then became apparent artistic license took
over.
I would have walked out then except I was the driver with
my kids and some of their friends. They truly combined and perverted the
characters, plot and emphasis for the sake of their vision of what makes
a
popular movie. I have not an will not see the second and third.

An interesting observation, which truly shows the different ways people
can
perceive the same thing. I've read LOTR many times; in my view no better
book
has ever been written. Yet I have found the movies to be as utterly true
to
story and character as I think it is possible for any movies to be,
particularly
given the epic nature of the book.

Surely you don't think the characterization of Faramir in TT as little more
than a thug is anything even remotely resembling the nobility and
sensitivity of his character in the novel? Not to mention the asinine idea
that a hobbit persuaded the reluctant Ents to battle Saruman. I have to
wholeheartedly agree with Enyo that the plotline now bears little
resemblance to the books other than the names of the characters. I think you
need to read the books again, Chris.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:00:54 GMT, "Kilolani"
wrote:

Surely you don't think the characterization of Faramir in TT as little more
than a thug is anything even remotely resembling the nobility and
sensitivity of his character in the novel?

Well, here's the problem: I think this movie needs to be seen by people who
already know the story. Certainly, someone seeing it fresh is likely to see
Faramir that way- indeed, the character of Faramir is not well developed in the
movie. But I think if you know the story well, that colors how you see the film.
In the same way that long running, good ensemble cast television works (West
Wing, Friends, NYPD Blue) the movie depends on the audience already knowing the
characters, because there simply isn't enough time to provide in-depth
introductions.


Not to mention the asinine idea
that a hobbit persuaded the reluctant Ents to battle Saruman.

The movie had to make a few shortcuts to avoid being entirely unintelligible to
those who haven't read the book. My point was only that, in my view, it would be
difficult to make a movie much truer to a book of such length and depth. To
expect perfect fidelity to every point is pretty unreasonable. I found the first
movie nearly perfect and the second weaker but still very good. I won't see the
last for a couple of weeks, but I expect I will be pleased.


I think you
need to read the books again, Chris.

I'm reading ROTK now. I read each of the other volumes before seeing the
previous films.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:00:54 GMT, "Kilolani"
wrote:

Surely you don't think the characterization of Faramir in TT as little more
than a thug is anything even remotely resembling the nobility and
sensitivity of his character in the novel?

Well, here's the problem: I think this movie needs to be seen by people who
already know the story. Certainly, someone seeing it fresh is likely to see
Faramir that way- indeed, the character of Faramir is not well developed in the
movie. But I think if you know the story well, that colors how you see the film.
In the same way that long running, good ensemble cast television works (West
Wing, Friends, NYPD Blue) the movie depends on the audience already knowing the
characters, because there simply isn't enough time to provide in-depth
introductions.


Not to mention the asinine idea
that a hobbit persuaded the reluctant Ents to battle Saruman.

The movie had to make a few shortcuts to avoid being entirely unintelligible to
those who haven't read the book. My point was only that, in my view, it would be
difficult to make a movie much truer to a book of such length and depth. To
expect perfect fidelity to every point is pretty unreasonable. I found the first
movie nearly perfect and the second weaker but still very good. I won't see the
last for a couple of weeks, but I expect I will be pleased.


I think you
need to read the books again, Chris.

I'm reading ROTK now. I read each of the other volumes before seeing the
previous films.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...

The movie had to make a few shortcuts to avoid being entirely
unintelligible to
those who haven't read the book. My point was only that, in my view, it
would be
difficult to make a movie much truer to a book of such length and depth.
To
expect perfect fidelity to every point is pretty unreasonable. I found the
first
movie nearly perfect and the second weaker but still very good. I won't
see the
last for a couple of weeks, but I expect I will be pleased.

Sorry... I'm not quite as antagonistic as I sounded in my post. I do agree
that the first movie was much closer than I expected, and I was actually
very pleased. The second movie, however, reaffirmed my faith in Hollywood's
(even Hollywood in NewZealand) prevailing view that there's no point in
remaining faithful to a beloved story when you can throw in a totally
fabricated love triangle and a really BIG battle and render all your
characters flat and two dimensional. I will undoubtedly see the third movie,
but my wife will probably be constantly poking me for saying, "wrong, wrong,
all wrong" in the theatre.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...

The movie had to make a few shortcuts to avoid being entirely
unintelligible to
those who haven't read the book. My point was only that, in my view, it
would be
difficult to make a movie much truer to a book of such length and depth.
To
expect perfect fidelity to every point is pretty unreasonable. I found the
first
movie nearly perfect and the second weaker but still very good. I won't
see the
last for a couple of weeks, but I expect I will be pleased.

Sorry... I'm not quite as antagonistic as I sounded in my post. I do agree
that the first movie was much closer than I expected, and I was actually
very pleased. The second movie, however, reaffirmed my faith in Hollywood's
(even Hollywood in NewZealand) prevailing view that there's no point in
remaining faithful to a beloved story when you can throw in a totally
fabricated love triangle and a really BIG battle and render all your
characters flat and two dimensional. I will undoubtedly see the third movie,
but my wife will probably be constantly poking me for saying, "wrong, wrong,
all wrong" in the theatre.

Peter Jackson rendered Faramir as little more than a
bumbling bully. I'm almost reticent to see the third movie, but if it has a
telescope, I suppose I should.

Yes, you should. The third movie had one big change in the story, but nothing
earth shaking, and he stayed fairly true to the books. I was enthralled.


Richard Navarrete

Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22