Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 1:57:23 GMT
Make no mistake, Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy is a lyrical triumph in filmmaking. Of course, it's not perfect as nothing is. So what would you have changed?
Most of the changes I'd make involve the divisive middle chapter, The Two Towers.
1. Faramir himself is able to resist the lure of the Ring, but who is to say that Denethur wouldn't have loyalists in his ranks and they enact a coup. Jackson still gets to increase the tension without obliterating Faramir's character. 2. Let Eomer arrive at Helm's Deep before the battle and have elves show up with Gandalf at the end. Eomer just seems so pointless being jettisoned out of most of The Two Towers. They might as well have just cut him from the story if they weren't going to give him his dues. 3. Treebeard himself wants to fight Saruman, but its the OTHER Ents who decide its not their problem. After Treebeard concocts a plan to get the other Ents involved with Merry and Pippin. There, now Treebeard isn't a total moron. 4. Captain Hama gets to keep his original, more integral role from the book and dies at Helm's Deep.
|
|
Elessar
New Member
@elessar
Posts: 24
Likes: 7
|
Post by Elessar on Feb 7, 2017 2:25:23 GMT
Nice ideas, but I still prefer what happened in the movie because there are reason for them:
1. Faramir in the movie did resist the Ring. It's just that he didn't understand its treachery, and Frodo's burden, at first. In the book he came to understand Frodo after much talking and pondering. That won't work in the movie. Having them gone to Osgiliath serves 2 things: quickening the understanding process of Faramir, and showing the audience how peril Gondor was in at that moment. I didn't say it's the best solution, still, it flows.
2. Eomer is one of my favorite character in Two Towers. I didn't feel that he was wasted in the movie. The arriving of the elves at Helm's Deep is a magical moment for me, I wouldn't trade it with anything else. PJ needs to do it, to involve the Elves more in the story. They can't just stand on the side and talking about their past, then arrive at the last moment.
3. Alright, good idea.
4. Doesn't matter much to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 2:29:41 GMT
1. I disagree. You have to remember that Faramir was taught by Gandalf, something they could have played up in the films, which would also have worked to hasten his understanding. The Denethur's loyalists could still have taken everything to Osgiliath, but then get killed, allowing Faramir to reassert command and do what he wanted from the start.
2. Eomer is the character who arrives at Helm's Deep and aids in the battle in the book. That's how it should have been in the film. It is his rightful place in the story and he was robbed of it.
3. Thanks.
4. Fair enough.
|
|
Elessar
New Member
@elessar
Posts: 24
Likes: 7
|
Post by Elessar on Feb 7, 2017 14:38:47 GMT
1. I disagree. Faramir was taught by Gandalf, but even Gandalf is rather clueless about the Ring business (before talking to Saruman and Lord Elrond), and Frodo has to do much on his own. In the book Faramir had to talk a lot to Frodo to understand. On the movie they can't just omit all those talks and having Faramir all understanding, all wise, all calm, out of nowhere. The Denethor's loyalists coup that you mention would have drifted even further from the book than what PJ did. You see, there are tons of characters in the movie and it's very hard to keep track of them, without introducing even more characters that are not in the book. And we don't care about Denethor's loyalists, do we? We care about Faramir. 2. You're right, but then the movie took creative license there and I like what it did. Both the elves arriving and Eomer arriving in the movie are splendid and very touching. "An Alliance once existed between Elves and Men. Long ago we fought and died together. We come to honor that allegiance. We are proud to fight alongside Men once more. " Brilliant I agree that Eomer is robbed of his rightful place in the battle. But what was robbed is given to the elves, and frankly it was the elves we need to know more about. The long history of the elves that shaped Middle-earth, told in The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings and other Tolkien's works, has to be shed light on by a short amount of movie time. The old alliance between elves and men, that had become obscure in the Riddermark at that time, has been revived during the battle. What is a better device to do it? Glad to be able to discuss the movie/book in details without bashing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 4:13:39 GMT
1. Yes, I want Denethur loyalists because I care about Faramir and hated seeing him come off as an easily led moron.
2. I don't like it did. And the elves showing up with Gandalf at the end would still have the elves deciding to aid humanity. It would STILL have been the elves deciding to honor the old alliances. It just would have been the grand, uplifting climax of the film, instead.
No, we needed to know Eomer more. He's actually one of the main characters. With him almost completely cut out of The Two Towers, he barely serves a purpose in the story.
|
|
|
Post by LaurenceBranagh on Feb 9, 2017 4:25:11 GMT
2. Let Eomer arrive at Helm's Deep before the battle and have elves show up with Gandalf at the end. Eomer just seems so pointless being jettisoned out of most of The Two Towers. They might as well have just cut him from the story if they weren't going to give him his dues. 4. Captain Hama gets to keep his original, more integral role from the book and dies at Helm's Deep. I especially agree with these two. I was always bothered by Eomer's lack of an arc and prominent presence in TT and ROTK, and I think that introducing Haleth, son of Hama, would have been more impactful if he had a moment with Hama (although the film does not explicitly say that Haleth's Hama is the Hama of this board's discussion), adding more meaning to the deaths of both Hama and Haleth. I also would of changed the theatrical edition by including Saruman's death from the extended edition. Gandalf's explanation never cut it for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 4:27:29 GMT
At least someone agrees with me that Jackson was capable of error during the production of LotR.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Feb 9, 2017 7:31:28 GMT
I'd change quite a bit in The Hobbit movies. But the list of changes I'd make is way too long. Not necessarily a purist edit, but I'd make the story flow better. Maybe have it make more sense. Like instead of Azog being Thorin's nemesis, Bolg would be his nemesis, and his motivation for wanting to kill Thorin would be because he wants to avenge his father, Azog's, death.
I'd make the Dol Guldur subplot be a separate movie from The Hobbit, as it interrupts the flow of the story.
Maybe make the dwarves actually look like dwarves.
And also cut the endless padding. Maybe tell the whole story in two, or even just one movie.
There are so many things I'd change.
|
|
Elessar
New Member
@elessar
Posts: 24
Likes: 7
|
Post by Elessar on Feb 9, 2017 9:45:41 GMT
At least someone agrees with me that Jackson was capable of error during the production of LotR. I never said that Jackson didn't make error in LOTR. Dumbing down Faramir was such an error. Now, how to correct this error is another matter. I simply said that your idea wouldn't work better. It'll dilute the concentration of the story. filmfan: For The Hobbit I would change 90% of the movies, but that's another topic
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 9:56:24 GMT
Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 15, 2017 2:05:46 GMT
The only thing I would have changed is how the ghost army was handled. Somehow they just came off a little too powerful perhaps and/or too convenient. IDK.
Oh, and some of the Orcs in ROTK stopped being menacing and started being inadvertently funny. Check out some of their reaction shots to being run over by horses. I wish they'd take those out.
|
|
Slam Evil
Freshman
@slamevil
Posts: 78
Likes: 22
|
Post by Slam Evil on Feb 15, 2017 2:09:50 GMT
Can somebody please tell me why Billy Connolly was riding a guinea pig?
|
|
kjnics
New Member
@kjnics
Posts: 11
Likes: 6
|
Post by kjnics on Feb 15, 2017 19:07:28 GMT
Hey, WR.
Your third point is the one I most agree with; though I wouldn't call the movie Treebeard a moron, I would say he did come across as more far-sighted and proactive in the book.
Other than that, I agree that The Two Towers seemed somewhat lacking in comparison to the other two movies (partly because Boromir's death and Shelob's Lair were jettisoned to the other two, though that seemed like a sensible choice to me). I could have done with a bit more of Frodo and Sam in Ithilien (and Faramir) and a tiny bit less of the Rohan story, to be honest. Somehow, I couldn't bring myself to care as much about the Rohan characters' story as I did about the Fellowship, hobbits, elves and Gondor characters' stories (until Return of the King brought them all together, that is). I couldn't help but think they seemed somewhat peripheral to the main mission and plot (though, again, the third one brought their different causes together).
However, I think the Extended Edition did a good job of giving us more of Faramir's back story (and I did like Eowyn's song at Theodred's burial).
|
|
bb15
Sophomore
@bb15
Posts: 220
Likes: 63
|
Post by bb15 on Feb 16, 2017 3:20:41 GMT
From the ROTK EE, make the Mouth of Sauron look more like a man and tone down his frog mouth. ROTK, don't have Gandalf tell Aragorn to not go to the Black Gate.
More later.
Nice to see the old board back. 😊
BB ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2017 21:43:36 GMT
Somehow, I couldn't bring myself to care as much about the Rohan characters' story as I did about the Fellowship, hobbits, elves and Gondor characters' stories (until Return of the King brought them all together, that is). That would be because they made Theoden into too much of a chump, made Eowyn too weepy, and basically jettisoned Eomer out of too much of the film, and neutered poor Captain Hama. Treebeard IS a moron in the films. How on earth could he not know Saruman was chopping down his forest or that darkness was going to wash over all of Middle-earth?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 14:27:33 GMT
No, but i have never read the book. So that may be the reason why i would not change anything.
|
|
|
Post by pippinmaniac on Feb 23, 2017 5:13:05 GMT
I would have kept the extended version of Fellowship like it was. I thought the theatrical version of Two Towers was great, but I would have cut the part where Faramir's men were kicking Gollum. I would also have only added Faramir's flashback into the extended version of Two Towers. The additional Treebeard scenes were unnecessary, in my opinion. In Return of the King, I would also have handled the army of the dead differently. The army of the dead would have only fought the corsairs. They could have shown Aragorn releasing any prisoners on the ships and give them the chance to fight for Gondor. When the ships arrived in Minas Tirith, real men, not ghosts, would have overcome the enemy. And yes, I would have kept the "multiple endings" intact.
|
|
Elessar
New Member
@elessar
Posts: 24
Likes: 7
|
Post by Elessar on Feb 23, 2017 14:11:54 GMT
Great, pippin, I have almost the same opinion. The extended version of Fellowship is great I'll keep it intact. It adds to the innocent of the first installment. The other two, I prefer theatrical versions, though some extended scenes are good. I would cut all of the extended sequences that concern the army of the dead, especially the one that Peter filmed AFTER the Oscar award: it's nonsense. Treebeard dragged on unnecessarily. Faramir's men kicking Gollum is too cruel to watch.
|
|
kjnics
New Member
@kjnics
Posts: 11
Likes: 6
|
Post by kjnics on Feb 23, 2017 18:02:52 GMT
That would be because they made Theoden into too much of a chump, made Eowyn too weepy, and basically jettisoned Eomer out of too much of the film, and neutered poor Captain Hama.
Hey, WR. I also think Captain Hama could have used a bit more introduction or screen time, like Haldir in the Fellowship. That way the audience could have gotten to know him better and empathized with his story a bit more. I agree that more of Éomer would have worked as well; some people I know who watched the movie just once (and never read the books) couldn't recall who he was afterward.
Another thing I've thought is that some parts of the movie - both the Theatrical Version and EE - were a bit too cartoonish or juvenile (or over-stated in a few dramatic moments). While they kept this out of the Fellowship and thus made that film more concise, elegant, intimate, reverent and "visceral", I found the inclusion of too much slapstick took away from the TT's (and parts of ROTK's) potency and sense of awed grandeur. I'm thinking of some of the comically exaggerated orcs who kidnapped Merry & Pip (unlike the more brooding menacing versions in the Fellowship), Gimli's belches (vs. the relatively more respectable Gimli in the Fellowship), etc.
Though the first movie had humor, it was never too over the top, and the drama wasn't over-stated either.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 23, 2017 18:53:20 GMT
I always thought it would've been better without the elves. The thematic concept that the fate of the world is now in the hands of men would be firmly established without the elves' arrival at Helm's Deep. Eomer gets his moment and then some, sans elves. If I were to make any other changes regarding the battle of Helm's Deep, it would revolve around Théoden. I would've preferred they kept the book version of events, where it's his idea to ride out of the keep in one final charge; instead they gave that idea to Aragorn. I get it, they want to make the future king the most worthy and honorable man in the story-- but Théoden's self doubt in that particular moment is somewhat incongruent with his character throughout the story as depicted on film.
|
|