Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] On "LOTR: The Two Towers"; "improvement"?

Expand Messages
  • Carl F. Hostetter
    ... Exactly. Jackson has no trust in the audience s intelligence, patience, and love of wonder. As Tolkien himself foresaw (in commenting on the Zimmerman
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 1, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wednesday, January 1, 2003, at 03:00 PM, Ernest S. Tomlinson wrote:

      > I disliked Jackson's decision to retell (and not very well) the story
      > of
      > the Rings of Power, the Last Alliance, and the loss of the Ring at the
      > beginning of his movie for a different reason. Tolkien's genius in
      > _The
      > Lord of the Rings_ was to tell the story from the hobbits' perspective.
      > When the story begins, we know as much about the Ring, and about the
      > wider political situation of Middle-Earth, as Frodo does.

      Exactly. Jackson has no trust in the audience's intelligence, patience,
      and love of wonder. As Tolkien himself foresaw (in commenting on the
      Zimmerman treatment), Jackson telegraphs everything: the Ring, the
      Palantir, Aragorn's Kingship, etc., etc.
    • JP Massar
      ... Fascinating. I thought the prologue to FoTR was an amazing achievement, one of the really brilliant parts of the movie.
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 1, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > > That's very well put; I had a hard time explaining clearly what bothered
        > > me
        > > about that, but you've done so. Bringing Sauron onstage in the prologue,
        > > however massive and powerful, also limits him.
        >
        >I disliked Jackson's decision to retell (and not very well) the story of
        >the Rings of Power, the Last Alliance, and the loss of the Ring at the
        >beginning of his movie for a different reason.


        Fascinating.

        I thought the prologue to FoTR was an amazing achievement, one of the
        really brilliant parts of the movie.
      • disneylogic <disneylogic@yahoo.com>
        On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 23:50:42 -0800 David S Bratman wrote in part: [snip] ... go ... purposes ... may ... [snip] Well, the balrogs have
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 2, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 23:50:42 -0800 David S Bratman
          <dbratman@...> wrote in part:

          [snip]

          >Shelob is an obvious example. Aragorn mentions this
          >principle in the discussion of Caradhras: "There are many evil and
          >unfriendly things in the world that have little love for those that
          go
          >on two legs, and yet are not in league with Sauron, but have
          purposes
          >of their own. Some have been in this world longer than he." They
          may
          >be roused by Sauron or his activities, though: apparently the Balrog
          >was, for instance.

          [snip]

          Well, the balrogs have a history with Sauron, or at least his
          spiritual predecessors. Gandalf among others took on a large group
          of them dispatched from Angband during a major battle in the Second
          Age (*). And Ungoliant, the spider Maiar, helped destroy the Two
          Trees.

          Frankly, I'm not sure I agree with Aragorn that they are properly
          judged as evil. They could simply be independent actors whose
          interests may conflict with "those that go on two legs". There are
          many powers in Middle-earth, in fact the place seems to be teeming
          with them. I doubt they can be classified so simply as evil or good.

          On (*), I thought this was odd. I mean, the balrogs don't exactly
          impress me as team players. In that respect, in Jackson's
          "Fellowship", I think he drew them better than Tolkien did. If I
          recall (don't have the text handy), the Moria balrog first appears
          with orcs nearby, if not actually at his side. Jackson's painting of
          them as running in fear of the balrog seems to me more like their
          nature.

          Indeed, if anything distinguishes "good folk" from "bad folk" in LORD
          OF THE RINGS (the book, not the movie, necessarily) apart from
          expression of compassion, it is the practical feature that "good
          folk" seem to be able to work together whereas "bad folk" seek their
          personal self-interest first. The latter induces chaos and leads to
          their disruption. Of course, "good folk" have faults, too. I think
          Il├║vatar is a tad intolerant of disharmony, at least as related in
          Ainulindale, and that intolerance encourages it.

          --jtg
        • disneylogic <disneylogic@yahoo.com>
          On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 23:50:42 -0800 David S Bratman wrote in part: [snip] ... Oh, I m not trying to be consistent. I am, like I think
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 2, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 23:50:42 -0800 David S Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote in part:

            [snip]


            >True, but that was what I was saying, so I can't square this with
            >your earlier statement that you thought the LOTR text did not support
            >some of my points.

            >- DB

            Oh, I'm not trying to be consistent. I am, like I think many here, just exploring the possibilities. LOTR is just _so_ evocative.

            --jtg

            [snip]
          • David J Finnamore
            ... [snip] ... Thank you for putting your finger right on something that had been bothering me just beyond the reach of my tongue for months. ... It makes me
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 4, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Ernest S. Tomlinson wrote:

              > Tolkien's genius in _The
              > Lord of the Rings_ was to tell the story from the hobbits' perspective.

              [snip]

              > Jackson's method is to attempt to give us that broad picture right from
              > the start. Because of time constraints, he doesn't do too good a job,
              > but more importantly, he straightaway reduces the hobbits to secondary
              > players in their own story, and dissipates much of the suspense--we know
              > exactly why Gandalf is missing, for example, and we know exactly who the
              > Black Riders are.

              Thank you for putting your finger right on something that had been bothering me just
              beyond the reach of my tongue for months.


              > I watched the
              > first half of the extended cut of _The Fellowship of the Ring_ last
              > night, and I giggled (silently, for I had company) when Sauron appears on
              > Battle Plain and sends his obviously computer-generated foes flying with
              > every swing of his weapon.

              It makes me want to cry out, "It's the finger! Go for the finger!" Yeah,
              trivialized. That's the word. Thank you Earnest and David B.

              --
              David J. Finnamore
              Nashville, TN, USA
              http://www.elvenminstrel.com
              --
              "A story must be told or there'll be no story, yet it is the untold stories that are
              most moving: mountains seen far away, never to be climbed, distant trees (like
              Niggle's) never to be approached." - J.R.R. Tolkien, letters
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.