The thread about the pope
- Thread starter db03
- Start date
carolinacurious:
The 'Mouth of Sauron' is human. One of the more dissappointing scenes in translation from book to movie BTW.
The 'Mouth of Sauron' is human. One of the more dissappointing scenes in translation from book to movie BTW.
steve319
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Posts
- 1,170
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2
- Points
- 183
- Location
- North Carolina
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Male
madame_zora
Sexy Member
AH! Sorry 'bout that. Still learning the ropes.
(Man, there are a LOT of rules to keep track of...)
[post=303987]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]*spanks Steve, but gently* There there, dear. We'll teach you as we go along!
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Actually I didn't think he did a half bad job at translating the books into film. Sure some license was taken, like in expanding Liv Tyler's role (worst part of movie, IMHO), but overall did a surprisingly good job of staying on track.
carolinacurious:
I've pretty much written myself out on variants of this topic around the web but I'll just say that I loved the movies and thought that Peter Jackson did a great job but that he let me down in places.
Three scenes that I really wanted to see (among with many others, of course) when I first heard about the movie were: 1. The Balrog (near perfect) 2. Gandalf and the Lord of the Nazgul at the Gate (nicely done but fairly upsetting to the purist in me) and
3. The Mouth of Sauron, My problems actually aren't with the appearance of the character but with the total rewrite of the scene on the "good guys" side. I just really liked Gandalf's speech in the book and it always struck me as a central scene.
In addition I can't imagine anything in the movies that would have been more upsetting to Tolkien than Aragorn killing a messenger (except possibly Frodo deserting Sam.)
I've pretty much written myself out on variants of this topic around the web but I'll just say that I loved the movies and thought that Peter Jackson did a great job but that he let me down in places.
Three scenes that I really wanted to see (among with many others, of course) when I first heard about the movie were: 1. The Balrog (near perfect) 2. Gandalf and the Lord of the Nazgul at the Gate (nicely done but fairly upsetting to the purist in me) and
3. The Mouth of Sauron, My problems actually aren't with the appearance of the character but with the total rewrite of the scene on the "good guys" side. I just really liked Gandalf's speech in the book and it always struck me as a central scene.
In addition I can't imagine anything in the movies that would have been more upsetting to Tolkien than Aragorn killing a messenger (except possibly Frodo deserting Sam.)
I agree regarding the black gate rewrite; it was silly to have aragorn kill the mouth of sauron - not only did it detract from the character himself and the purpose of his part in the book - which is probably excusable because it's not such an important scene in the film - it was also a major continuity break in terms of the translation of aragorn's characterization from the book to the radically different film medium, which is a shame because he was otherwise their best-presented character after gandalf. it seems to me that they went to all the effort of casting bruce spence, doing all the makeup and background for his character, and then basically wasting it by rushing through a poor and badly thought-out screenplay for his scene.
oh well. I guess we knew beforehand that the movies would never be PERFECT, and overall they were far better than I was expecting, so it's a relatively minor disappointment.
oh well. I guess we knew beforehand that the movies would never be PERFECT, and overall they were far better than I was expecting, so it's a relatively minor disappointment.
steve319
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Posts
- 1,170
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2
- Points
- 183
- Location
- North Carolina
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Male
The mouth was a pleasant surprise for me, really. No, it's not faithful to the text, but I enjoyed the presentation mostly. The way the black speech had so corrupted and mutilated the mouth was a nice idea.
Of course, by the point that I saw that scene (after a weekend-devouring marathon viewing of all three extended editions), I was pretty delirious and demented, so my judgement might have been a bit off. :wacko:
Of course, by the point that I saw that scene (after a weekend-devouring marathon viewing of all three extended editions), I was pretty delirious and demented, so my judgement might have been a bit off. :wacko:
One of my biggest disappointments was the death of Saruman. It should have taken place in the Shire, but the Scouring of the Shire was completely lacking in the movie version.
One change from the book to the movie that I really appreciate is the absence of Tom Bombadil. I'm sorry if I'm offending any Tom Bombadil fans, but he bugs the shit out of me! His appearance in The Fellowship of the Ring seems out of place, and it slows down the action. I think that leaving him out of the movie was a wise move.
One change from the book to the movie that I really appreciate is the absence of Tom Bombadil. I'm sorry if I'm offending any Tom Bombadil fans, but he bugs the shit out of me! His appearance in The Fellowship of the Ring seems out of place, and it slows down the action. I think that leaving him out of the movie was a wise move.
steve319
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Posts
- 1,170
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2
- Points
- 183
- Location
- North Carolina
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Male
It might be pure heresy, and it's been a long time ago since I read them, but I clearly remember thinking that the whole scouring of the shire thing felt...tacked on.
*ducks* :unsure:
I mean, thematically it's a great direction to go and doesn't back down from the whole corruption-comes-home-to-roost thing, but it seemed sort of weak to me.
*hides behind chair* :unsure:
It might be pure heresy, and it's been a long time ago since I read them, but I clearly remember thinking that the whole scouring of the shire thing felt...tacked on.
*ducks* :unsure:
I mean, thematically it's a great direction to go and doesn't back down from the whole corruption-comes-home-to-roost thing, but it seemed sort of weak to me.
*hides behind chair* :unsure:
[post=304321]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Steve,
Now having an idea of how tall you are I would love to see you hide all of that behind a chair! LOL! I love the icons though...
Naughty
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Wow, I agree completely! I always thought Tom Bombadil belonged more in the Hobbit than LOTR. I can almost see why he left out the Scouring of the Shire, people's asses just couldn't take much more and there really wasn't anything else (except Liv Tyler's stupid extended role) that was expendable.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Oh, I don't know. I'd be willing to extend a roll with Liv Tyler.
[post=304363]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Are you trying to make me jealous?
No seriously, she's a beautiful girl and may not turn out to be a half bad actress. My complaint was only with the rewriting of a great story just so she could have her mug in the camera more. I felt it detracted from the authenticity of the stories.
It might be pure heresy, and it's been a long time ago since I read them, but I clearly remember thinking that the whole scouring of the shire thing felt...tacked on.
[post=304321]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]it makes more sense if you've read the mythology (Silmarillion etc.) as an interesting insight into the fundamental views Tolkien formulated about his own fantasy world, and its similarities to our own - he was a devout catholic and it's interesting to see how he did (and didn't) apply that influence to his work. I mean I concede that a lot of people would just find it boring, but whatever.
also, I guess I'm the only person here who thinks liv tyler has a face like a manatee's backside and about half as much acting talent.
carolinacurious: It's frustrating, while I agree that Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire would have definitely hurt the pace of the movie, particularly the scouring, I think they were both very important to what Tolkien was trying to say. Tom is the ONLY thing in all of Middle Earth not affected by the ring, interesting, no?
It seems to me that many of the later problems for the "purists" can be traced back to Tom and the missing scene at the barrow wights'.
The death of Saruman was horrible, leaving it out of the theatrical release altogether near unconscionable . I think a good compromise (that would have been closer to the book and not have required the scouring scene) would have been for Saruman to have been killed on the road back to the shire. They encounter him there in the book, they could have just had that scene and then had Grima stab him.
I wanted to see his ghostly apparition look to the west and then be dispersed by a sudden eastern breeze, I wanted to see Sauron's form rise up in the smoke of the destruction of Barad Dur with the crown of lightning and the defiant fist to the west even at the end. I was quite surprised that they didn't go for that one.
Always wanted to see Sarumans cloak that appeared white but was actually all colors combined.
Oh well, there's always the re-make.
Actually, Arwen's part at the end is pretty accurate from the appendix to "The Return of the King", it's everything ELSE that was added on.
It seems to me that many of the later problems for the "purists" can be traced back to Tom and the missing scene at the barrow wights'.
The death of Saruman was horrible, leaving it out of the theatrical release altogether near unconscionable . I think a good compromise (that would have been closer to the book and not have required the scouring scene) would have been for Saruman to have been killed on the road back to the shire. They encounter him there in the book, they could have just had that scene and then had Grima stab him.
I wanted to see his ghostly apparition look to the west and then be dispersed by a sudden eastern breeze, I wanted to see Sauron's form rise up in the smoke of the destruction of Barad Dur with the crown of lightning and the defiant fist to the west even at the end. I was quite surprised that they didn't go for that one.
Always wanted to see Sarumans cloak that appeared white but was actually all colors combined.
Oh well, there's always the re-make.
Actually, Arwen's part at the end is pretty accurate from the appendix to "The Return of the King", it's everything ELSE that was added on.
yeah, my main problem with the movies in general (apart from the dumb representation of sauron as a giant flaming disco ball) was the way they clichéd all the other bad guys, particularly saruman and the witch king. the timelessness of tolkien's work largely stems from the fact that it's all his own - there's not a cliche, archetype or shred of dated material in sight. I think that was the single big pitfall in translation that the movies failed to overcome.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2004
- Posts
- 6,161
- Media
- 15
- Likes
- 14,481
- Points
- 643
- Location
- Massachusetts (United States)
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Are there female orcs? Thanks for the info. I was intrigued by it totally.
Naughty
[post=303957]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Naughty,
If there are female orcs, they look just like the male ones! YUCK!
uke: Or maybe there are no females, the males are all hetero, and that is why they're
so nasty all the time! :lol:
LapDog :9
:9 It has been years since I read the books, but I thought Jackson did a great job in putting the story to 9 hours of film; it would have been 90 if he filmed everything!
I too, think the scouring would have been anti-climatic after the whole descruction of The Ring.
You HAVE to watch this Lord of the Rings, Really Short Edition
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
