Author: Albert Silver
Date: 05:39:26 12/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2002 at 02:35:29, Matt Taylor wrote:
>On December 21, 2002 at 02:22:22, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>
>>On December 21, 2002 at 01:30:33, Matt Taylor wrote:
>>
>>>On December 20, 2002 at 14:44:55, Mogens Larsen wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 20, 2002 at 11:21:51, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>And people who have not seen it should also read the negative opinions about it.
>>>>
>>>>I couldn't agree more. The problem is that you haven't actually seen "The Two
>>>>Towers" or so I gather.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>Mogens
>>>
>>>You mean that you haven't read the books.
>>>
>>>I had to agree with my friends after we walked out of the movie at 7 PM on the
>>>release day. Even if you hadn't read the books, there were inconsistencies, but
>>>it was a good story, and the CGI is beyond reproach. If you have read the books,
>>>you're in for a sore disappointment. The characters you -thought- you knew have
>>>been butchered. I remember Faramir as a very respectable guy. The Faramir I saw
>>>on screen was just as short-sighted and arrogant as Boromir.
>>
>>I wouldn't go so far as to use the words 'sore disappointment'. You have to
>>think of this in terms of a film, which is necessarily much abridged in content
>>from the book. Every single other human that knows about the ring is tempted by
>>it at one point or another. If Faramir, knowing his situation, didn't exhibit
>>this in the film, it would probably seem highly strange to many viewers. It
>>could also be very boring, for the hobbits to just meet Faramir, who finds out
>>about the ring, and then merrily lets them go along their way.
>>What works wonderfully in writing doesn't necessarily translate well directly to
>>film. While I think they could have done better with Faramir, I'm not going to
>>decry the changes they made in that regard. I think they were somewhat
>>necessary in the context of film.
>
>In other words, Faramir wasn't dramatic enough in the book, so they had to make
>him more so in the movie.
>
>The argument that they have to clip things to shorten the movie is crap when you
>consider how much fluff they add.
Not really. Did you see 'The Name of the Rose' with Sean Connery? A great film
IMHO. Do you think that is how Umberto Eco's book was? Umberto Eco goes on for
some 70-80 pages on the conflicts between Catholic sects which is strongly
understated in the film. It is shown, but not much more than 2-3 minute at most.
Had the book been rigorously respected, the audiences would have left or slept,
instead the drama was emphasized.
Albert
>Aragorn falling off the cliff was downright
>cheesy. Upplaying the scenes between Aragorn and Arwen was also silly. They're
>just setting up to make the ending ultradramatic. They may as well have just
>clipped it.
>
>When I look back at all the changes, they really point me to one conclusion: the
>book was too boring, so the movie was made more exciting by changing things.
>They didn't spend much time thinking about what they were doing or they might
>have realized that they already told the audience that Ents don't make up their
>minds in a few seconds. Having Treebeard decide to call all the Ents on a whim
>was pretty silly, but it was dramatic, just like all the other changes.
>
>-Matt
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.