The Last Homely House
Middle-Earth => Bag End => Topic started by: Hobbit_Pizza on May 15, 2008, 02:24:15 PM
-
Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro are hosting a live internet chat about The Hobbit.
See Here (http://www.wetanz.com/holics/)
-
Thanks! That was interesting.
-
What was your question?
I want to know how true they will stick to the story. Like LoTR and the whole elves at helms deep fiasco!
-
Or how the blew up the wall....
-
I thought that that was roughly how they did it in the book...
-
They indeed blew up the wall like that, but there were no other elves in Helms Deep...Lothlorien had some business of their own....
-
I always pictured the wall blowing up a little less.... dramatic
-
oh, so it was how you pictured, but other people might have pictured it definitly...as for the elves...well just be glad arwen didn't show up with anduril like they had planned...though it would be cool to see liv tyler pwn some uruks ;)
-
I asked:
Which roles will not be reprised by their original actors?
Will there be any disguised cameos of either Peter or Guillermo in either film?
Is it true that Guillermo hates Hobbits, Dragons, and Wizards?
-
The lack of Glorfindel was... shocking. The COMPLETE lack of Dwarves made me feel like Gimli is the only one in Middle Earth!
-
I wasn't too fond of the Host of the Dead showing up at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. It sort of cheapened the sacrifices made by everybody else, and I'm sure some moviegoers who didn't read the book were wondering why Rohan even needed to show up.
Another change that made me wince was Theoden's initial refusal to help Gondor. The strong friendship between Rohan and Gondor always gave me a warm fuzzy feeling, especially when we hear about so many other alliances and kindreds that have become estranged. Plus it made one of my favorite characters seem kind of petty. :(
I think some purists were really worked up though by the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-king at the Gate. Whereas in the movie the Witch-king seems to have the easy upper hand (both practical and symbolic from the breaking of the staff), I think in the books they were either about equal, or Gandalf (the White) was the stronger.
All told though, I found the movies to be enjoyable, and I can understand some of the changes Jackson made when bringing the books to the big screen. Especially when compared to some of the other fare (*LOL* at SoP's link on the other thread!).
As for The Hobbit... bring it on! Smaug on the big screen. Heckyeah!
-
Yeah the Host of the Dead at the Pelennor Fields was what bothered me the most about the trilogy. Definitely cheapened everyone's sacrifice. You have this horrible battle all day, night & day again, practically everyone dying, then these ghosts show up and finish the battle in 0.2 seconds. Geez Aragorn why release them from their service then? Why not send them into Mordor? They're obviously the ultimate power in Middle Earth so use them some more!
While that definitely bugs me, it is still something I can overlook since it barely takes up any time. Same thing with the elves at Helms Deep. Granted its a bit annoying, but it doesn't break the back of the story.
I like'd the WK/Gandy Confrontation! Actually gave a little more of a feel of desperation. twas bada**.
I just hope Guillermo can do as good of a job with the Hobbit. I have some reservations about him. All his movies seem to be critically acclaimed, but I find them to be just ok. But I'm sure looking forward to seeing how TH turns out!
-
Thank GOD someone else has said what ive always felt. Why the #$&*@! didnt aragorn just send word to minas tirith along these lines "barracade minas tirith with everything you got as long as the 7th wall still stands and everyone is alive it should give me enough time to bring a swarm of undead invincible ghosts to the fight to pwn all and rohan neednt bother losing their king and 3/4 of their frickin army." " P.s. Keep my seat warm denethor."
Sheesh. :roll:
-
I posted something here with my feelings but seem to have deleted it...yes the dead man of dunharrow kinda did lesson the sacrifice, but even they couldn't have killed the witch king...maybe...not...IDK thats an interesting discussion there, but anyway yeah it would've been cooler if we had gotten to see elrohir and elladan pwn, and eomer, imrahil, and aragorn meet on the field of battle!
-
I was bothered by Aragorn who was attacked by Wargs. I was bothered by Faramir, by the Host of the Death....The fellowship was by far the best movie bookwise. The colors, the phrases, everything seemed right. Glorfindel was a shame, but other than that, I liked it best. Oh and Frodo offering the Ring more or less to the Nazgul in Osgiliath was weird, the audiocomment made by pippin and merry was awesome!!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen:. Frodo and Sam were full of bull**** about the weight of the scene, and they just fooled around...love it a lot!
-
I hated that in TT they showed the Easterlings marching and shouting, making you eager to see them kick #$&*@! at some point in RotK (especially wearing their Full Clad - Like Shredder from TMNT lol) but then they barely used them at all in the later film, with hardly enough screen attention to aknowledge their presence.
-
Changes in the movies that I actually liked:
- Elves at Helm's Deep. I know it seems a bit hokey, but the Elves NEEDED something like that in the films. The willingness to not leave Men to "stand alone" and fulfill their ancient alliance, even if Men hadn't held up their end of the bargain over the years, was a poignant moment and one I think Tolkien himself would have approved of.
- Theoden. I, for one, liked how they made him "petty" for most of The Two Towers. Yes, it made his character less palpable until Return of the King, but I think it was a wonderful look into how we Men actually work, and it made his eventual heroic ride to Gondor all the more fulfilling to me.
- Faramir. Here, too, I know many people were up in arms over the change in character. But I think most of the changes made him a more INTERESTING character. As much as I love Tolkien, he wrote Faramir pretty blandly after his initial few chapters. The Faramir of the films is much more complex and I had a much easier time being sympathetic to him than I ever was to the novel version of him. I'm not ashamed to admit that his suicidal charge into the hundreds of Orkish archers in Osgiliath was one of two moments that made me cry on first viewing...and that was even knowing that he'd (probably) survive.
Changes I DIDN'T like:
- Denethor. Granted, his film character was still fascinating, but it made it difficult to believe that Gondor would ever have put up with him for so long. He was SO over the top it was almost painful to watch. The truly distressed Denethor of the novels that more gradually spirals downwards was much more interesting.
- Arwen. Jeez...how many scenes can so small a character be shoved into?! Did you know they originally planned to have her at Helm's Deep before the actress (not the director or producers or any other staff, mind you) said "this might not be such a good idea"!?! Oy. I can understand why they expanded her character so much, and I begrudgingly admit it adds some interesting layers to the storyline, but it was WAY excessive.
- Host of the Dead. I agree with others that the way they were handled, while more "dramatic" for a movie, made the ride of the Rohirrim (and the sacrifice of many Gondorians) seem moot. Could have been handled differently while still accomplishing the "drama" they were shooting for.
Those are just my initial thoughts. I may think of more later....
-
I'd agree with everything 'cept denethor. He only went mad after Boromir died. He was a pretty good ruler before that.
-
I think some purists were really worked up though by the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-king at the Gate. Whereas in the movie the Witch-king seems to have the easy upper hand (both practical and symbolic from the breaking of the staff), I think in the books they were either about equal, or Gandalf (the White) was the stronger.
Quite right, except I feel that I must emphasize that Gandalf was infinitely stronger than the Witch-king. Gandalf, a reborn Maiar sent back to Middle-earth - unveiled in all his power - and set opposite of Sauron himself. At the time of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, Gandalf was second in power only to the Dark Lord. The Witch-king was a withered ghost of a man from years and years ago. Hence Gandalf's utter annoyance at the Witch-king's silly assault upon him at the White Gate in the book. The only reason Gandalf didn't tear him up right then and there was the pressing situation with Faramir.
Seeing Elves at Helm's Deep irked me, and watching the Grey Host sweep across the Pelennor made my stomach turn over. But the movies aren't the books in three-dimensional form; they are the books according to Peter Jackson, just as the thousands of paintings of famous Lord of the Rings scenes are interpretations of their respective artists. Peter Jackson decided (rather intelligently) to put all the emphasis of the movies onto the Ring, with as few deviations inserted where needed to tell as much story as possible. Under that umbrella, the Dead can suddenly be at Minas Tirith (because you, average movie-goer, don't know about their original mission to stop the Corsairs from stealing all hope away from the battle). The Elves can show up at Helm's Deep (because you, the average movie-goer, don't know that Lothlorien is under attack as well). Saruman can die atop Orthanc... all is still well in the Shire (because Frodo decided to set out to destroy the Ring, not save the Shire).
See what I'm rambling about? The only parts of the movies that I don't care for are when the core story arcs surrounding the Ring deviate from the book. Take, for instance, the character of Faramir. Now, I completely understand why the writers gave Faramir the qualities he starts with, only disregarding the Ring after growing in strength, but it still bothers me. Faramir, to me, was always that calm sea in the torrential ocean. He was the opposite to Boromir, and it was refreshing to see someone so spiritually strong. And I didn't like Frodo going over the edge within Mount Doom. Sure, it brought a tension to the scene that wouldn't have existed otherwise, but still... It's way too cliche for my tastes.
And, for the record, if the Nazgul had spotted the Ring in Osgiliath in the hands of a Hobbit at the end of The Two Towers, then Sauron would not have attacked Minas Tirith at all. He would not have assumed Pippin had the Ring when he caught him gazing into the Palantir. Sauron would have said, "No, you can't have it, because I saw a Hobbit with the Ring in Osgiliath like... two days ago." Sauron would have sent all 9 Nazgul to Osgiliath, followed soon after by every army and scout force he had on-hand. The proximity of Osgiliath to Mordor would have told Sauron that the Free Peoples were attempting the unthinkable - that they would seek to destroy the greatest power available to them (after all, if they had the Ring and wanted to keep it, they would have not brought it so perilously close to him). Frodo would have been caught in Ithilien and killed. Story end.
-
LOL never thought about that osgiliath thing, but actually, he would've thought that faramir was taking him to minas tirith probably, so still would've attacked.
-
More likely than not, Sauron had no knowledge or interest in Faramir and the rangers in Ithilien. If Sauron cared or knew about them, they would have been killed. All Sauron knew up until Frodo's emergence at Osgiliath was that, A) the Ring had been found, and, B) a Hobbit was carrying it South.
That's why Pippin looking into the Palantir (in the book) made Sauron attack Minas Tirith prematurely. Sauron saw a Hobbit *much* further South than he'd previously been aware of and jumped the gun. Had Pippin not looked into the Palantir, there wouldn't have been the resulting siege and Frodo would have found himself surrounded by Sauron's entire army.
-
but he still would've seen a hobbit near to minas tirith, so he still would've wanted to strike, and he might've see that he was a captive, and deduced that they were going to minas tirith.
-
Timing is an aggravating thing in the films, which I can understand. It seems like it took a few hours to march to the Black Gate from Minas Tirith.
-
yeah...but they can't spend 2 hours showing frodo and sam walking, and then the soldiers marching...they could say 3 hours later but that is cheesy.
-
Exactly, a 13 week film just to show the true length of the plains of Gorgoth would have been excessive
-
Timing is an aggravating thing in the films, which I can understand. It seems like it took a few hours to march to the Black Gate from Minas Tirith.
It took a few days! Yeah, that would not have been fun for the moviegoers.
As for opportunities to take the Ring... The Witch-king really should've snatched it from Frodo on Weathertop instead of trying to pull off something cute. Or even sweep the entire inn that night at Bree. They were too relaxed.
-
The book explains that the Nine are weak away from Mordor, unless they are together. At Weathertop only 5 of them (I believe) were present. They felt that Frodo would become a Wraith for sure when Wikkie stabbed him.
-
Hence, trying to pull something cute. ;) Or if the Witch-king really wanted to get his jollies by stabbing Frodo... stab him and then cut off his hand.
-
And aragorn intervened before anything could really happen...he barely even had time to stab the hobbit, plus didn't yelling out some old names have some weird effect?
Mr lurtzy: cause they are blatant spam. at least post more than a sentence.
-
And aragorn intervened before anything could really happen...he barely even had time to stab the hobbit, plus didn't yelling out some old names have some weird effect?
Mr lurtzy: cause they are blatant spam. at least post more than a sentence.
Just because I posted one sentence doesn't mean it's spam, in fact if you had read it, you would of clearly seen it wasn't. Stop harassing me now.
-
I think the Witch-king thought it'd be easier to wait, but if he commanded the Nazgul to seize the Ring at all costs, and endure some discomfort from the flames--they're immortal, after all--the Ring would've been theirs. It's not even necessary to defeat Aragorn; just keep him distracted long enough for one of them to do the dirty work (are jump-tackles too undignified for Nazgul?).
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that Tolkien should've written things differently. Characters make mistakes (and I got a kick out of Sauron's especially). It's just that... well, I this was more of a miscalculation on the Witch-king's part, rather than a case of the Nazgul being forcefully driven off.
Final point: Even if they took the Ring, keeping it might've been harder than they thought. ;)
-
The fire may have made them too weak to attack at that time. I think the WK thought that the hobbits were disorganized and he would easily be able to regroup with the other nazgul and then grab the ring. He prolly didn't think that frodo would be taken to rivendell where he couldn't enter.
-
The fire may have made them too weak to attack at that time. I think the WK thought that the hobbits were disorganized and he would easily be able to regroup with the other nazgul and then grab the ring. He prolly didn't think that frodo would be taken to rivendell where he couldn't enter.
The Witch-king could have entered Rivendell at any time, but chose not to. What all of you are missing is the character of the Witch-king. He is (or was) a man, a coward of a man seeking glory and power through unearthly means (the rings). That kind of character carries over into the ragged form seen in Lord of the Rings. The Witch-king is not "Sauron, but weaker." He is not without fear. All the Nazgul fear many things, such as fire and being seen by many eyes. Hence, they avoid fire and dare not enter cities except at the greatest of need.
TheJord is right. The Shire is a long ways away from Mordor and the Nazgul's overprotective mother. They have no allies, no sanctuary, and no way of calling for help if help is needed. The Nazgul had to be extra-cautious, using all the time they had available to them in order to get the job done. Plus, they had no idea that Hobbits were resistant to both the Ring's corruptive power and the evil instilled into their blades. As far as they knew, Hobbits were as susceptible to their power as any other being (if not more susceptible).
SoP brought up another good point. Tolkien made language a tangible object in Lord of the Rings. Words are weapons and defense. Frodo screaming 'O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!' in the Witch-king's face hurt all the Nazgul pretty bad. And then being confronted by the descendant of Elendil forced them off.
-
In that case, the Hobbits would only need to march to Rivendell with heroic chants of "O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!" to remain untouched. They were able to do battle with Gandalf on Weathertop where there was plenty of light and flame, so I think the Nazgul could withstand a bit of fire long enough to take the Ring. The Witch-king isn't "Sauron, but weaker"--but neither does he and the rest of the Nine count among the weakest of Sauron's forces.
Whether they underestimated the Hobbits--that I'm not debating, because I think that's plain to see.
-
maybe words only work once...But wouldn't you be a little frightened if a hobbit had resisted the most evil thing, and could still shout O elbereth gilthoniel at you...and then you have a bunch of madmen/hobbits wielding torches in your face ;)
there should be a book called: how sauron could've won the war of the ring ;)
-
Yeah, lots of my friends who haven't read the books wondered how in the movies Sauron could LOSE the battles, despite having so many. I agree that the Host of the Dead at Pelennor cheapened things, though I guess for the movie's time it was an explainable decision. I wanted to see the scariness of the black orb where they got summoned though. Anyone know what I'm talking about? :(
-
kinda...but I don't remember it being really scary....the stone of erech right?
-
it wasn't scary indeed. And it is hard to visualize the terror of the army riding behind Aragorn. Hitchcock would have given Jackson some good advise about how to do it.
-
I would have suggested less green and more 'realistic'-looking corpses. No phasing from skin-to-bone effects. Just skeletons.
-
Did the Dead even speak in the books? I think it would've left a better impression on me if the most was unintelligible whispers. Oh, and maybe the luxury of that swirly-leaves effect preceding them like on the East Road.
-
I dunno--while in the books it wasn't *scary* per se, it was at least gloomy and serious, which is more than I can say for the Dead of the movies, who remind me more of Pirates of the Caribbean's skellies. :)