tolkien

[azmuse]

did anyone else find it SORROWFUL that Tom Bombadil was omitted from The Fellowship movie, And, that we won't see the lush, verdant Greeeeening of the Shire in Return of the King?

[IWilKikU]

I was always dissapointed with the lack of Tom. But you dont really see the lush verdant Greeeeeening of the Shire in the book either. Do you? The way I remember it was...

SPOILER AHEAD!!!











When Frodo returns to the Shire, the big folk have come and enslaved the hobbits, like in the vision of Galadriel. Upon Frodo's arival, the hobbits are heartened and revolt, chasing the big folk out of the Shire.

[azmuse]

well, true...but i fantasize the greeeeen. (kinda like the scouring was a rototiller.)
and i did want to see the big folk chased out, and the naughty bad hobbits to get their comeupance - the miller i think - have loaned out my copy, him wasn't it?
have you ever found a copy of the tom bombadil book-length poem?

[lazy cat]

The Lord Of the Rings films (I have only seen the two,and I will see the third one this Friday :D )are some of the few films that I didn't find dissapointing compairing to the books!
I love them...:)

[IWilKikU]

The Adventures of Tom Bombadil really isn't "book length", at least for Tolkien. Its like a thirty page poem with like 12 lines on each page and lots of illustration. It's alot of the same of Tom's poetry lines in the book. Your not missing much. It's more of a novelty than anything else. And yes, it was Ted Sandyman, the miller. The same one that sold them Bill the Pony (almost left out of the movie completely. Wait, maybe he was. I can't remember if Sam says "poor ol' Bill" in the theatrical or extended version).

[subterranean]

Originally posted by lazy cat
The Lord Of the Rings films (I have only seen the two,and I will see the third one this Friday :D )are some of the few films that I didn't find dissapointing compairing to the books!
I love them...:)

If only the movie could covers all things...Not much poems there

[azmuse]

i for one like the movies, and of course lusted over viggo mortensen...but tolkien's music a.k.a. prose & poetry enraptures. & i just think jackson should have captured the full symphonic experience of his literature.

[IWilKikU]

I just saw Return of the King last night! It was great!

FILM SPOILER AHEAD!!!!!!













I was dissapointed that they left out the scouring of the Shire, but if you think about it's placement in the film, it would have seemed incredibly anti-climactic. In the book, the ring is destroyed in the third chapter of the Frodo/Sam half. There's still alot of book to go. That way the destruction of the ring is the climax of the war, but not of the novel. With the destruction of the ring coming so close to the end of the film, and with the intensity of the assault on the black gate, going back to the Shire and showing a tiny battle between a bunch of hobbits with pitchforks and 300 big folk would have been trivial. I think it was a wise directorial decision to ommit the Shire battle. But what happens to Souruman? Is he just stuck up in Isengaurd forever and ever? hmmm...

[DumbLikeAPoet]

I'm reading the LotR books right now, about 1/2 way thru the first, and I read your spoilers... I couldn't help it...... :)

Jonus

[Basil]

Hi guys,
Just joined, but have been reading for a while now. . .I agree with IWilKikU in that the Scouring of the Shire--while one of my favorite parts of the trilogy--is not really cinematic in nature. However, wouldn't have the decline in the fortunes of Saruman, if included in the movie, had an interesting parallel with a real life recently deposed dictator--with a long grey beard-- found in rather humble environs? No political message here, but I think it's a comparison that would have occurred to some folks had Saruman's fate had been divulged on the big screen.

[azmuse]

am reading the Silmarillion (finally, after at least 5 tries) - now That!!! Peter Jackson should've tried to bring that to the screen!...talk about cinema...also, sin politics, (i'm trying, Admin) Saruman rather reminded me of my president...

[Azoic]

I've always liked LotR because Tolkien stated that in none of his works are there devices like symbolism, allegory, etc. Like literature for people who don't like literature (I'm gonna get hurt for that). Of course it's for people who do like literature, too. I'm reminded, however that my high school lit. teachers really made me hate the subject, but they could never take away my LotR!

[piquant]

I just saw the movie last night, and there are always things I'm sad got left out, but I was pretty impressed. For this last movie, I was sad that there was no scouring, but I understand that decision on the director's part. Although it frustrated me that the characters of Saruman and Wormtongue never got closed off. Also Faramir and Eowyn are kind of left hanging, Faramir is suddenly healed with no explanation, and Eowyn never finds her love. (I pray this will be on the extended DVD). I also hate that in the second movie Faramir drags the hobits to the city he's supposed to defend and means to take the ring. The real imaginary Faramir was tempted, but made the right decision sooner.

I too missed Tom Bombadill. Do any of Tolkein's other books say what happened to the Entwives?

[IWilKikU]

hmm... I actually havn't read ROTK in a loooong time, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) I seem to remember that the entwives were around the Shire/Bree/Old Forest/Buckland or somthing and after Aragorn was crowned, they returned to Fangorn. Maybe I'm remembering it way wrong, but thats what I thought happened.

[crisaor]

To those who have seen it, is it true that Jackson cutted all of Saruman's scenes from the movie?

[IWilKikU]

Saruman and Wormtounge do not appear in the theatrical version. We'll see if they make a few cameos in the extended version.

[azmuse]

Where are you in the books, poet?

[azmuse]

Am missing something here.

[IWilKikU]

we were talking about things from the book that didn't get into the films.

[Zooey]

Peter Jackson in the commentary for the Fellowship of the Rings Extended Edition cites two reasons that Tom didn't make it in:

- Too complex
- But mostly the reason was because as wonderful as that section of the book is, it really doesn't advance the plot in any way.

So yes, it's sad that it didn't make it, but I respect Jackson's reasons for not doing so.

Personally, I was more dissapointed that Frodo and Sam's first run-in with the Gildor and the High Elves in forest. There's always been something magical, exhilerating and heartbreaking about that sequence that has stuck with me, and it's actually one of my favorite scenes from the entire trilogy. In the the Extended Edition of the movie the elves are glimpsed, but nothing of this beautiful scene made it to film. :(

But overall I think Peter Jackson pulled off the impossible, and made three amazing films out of three even more amazing books. I couldn't be more happy with his trilogy.

[Zooey]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
Saruman and Wormtounge do not appear in the theatrical version. We'll see if they make a few cameos in the extended version. The death of Saruman is indeed going to make it into the Extended Edition. There were rumors swirling a few months ago that Christopher Lee was livid that his scenes were cut, but apparently he had always known that this was most likely going to be the case, and that the story had been purely internet rumors.

I'm just hoping they don't make us wait so long for the Extended Edition of Return of the King as they did for the last two!

[Lily Vandersteen]

Hello!

No, I wasn't so very sorry about Tom Bombadil but I was shattered that there weren't any Houses of Healing scenes in the Return of the King. I also missed the scouring of the Shire, and the greening of it afterwards by Sam.

Lily

[crisaor]

Originally posted by Zooey
But overall I think Peter Jackson pulled off the impossible, and made three amazing films out of three even more amazing books. I couldn't be more happy with his trilogy.
I couldn't disagree more with this, Zooey. The first two movies kinda sucked in my opinion. The fellowship of the rings was a complete disaster, both of edition and dialogue. Luckily, the extended version mended a few of its errors and it wasn't so bad in the end. The two towers is ridiculous. I mean, do you know how much does the main battle in the movie last in the book? One fu**ing chapter! Maybe the extended version will make this one better too (I really hope it does :)). I haven't seen it yet.

[IWilKikU]

Yes the battle of Helm's Deep was only one chapter, but the entire first half of the Two Towers is setting the scene for Helm's Deep. It is THE event in the Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli half of the book. The length is different, but the significance of the battle is the same. With film addaptaitions, good film making does NOT mean making everything the same length as it was in the book. More significant events get more film coverage, while less significant events that seem to on FOREVER, eg the whole Gan-Buri-Gan subplot, get shortened or cut. There was a lot that I didn't like about 2Towers, but the Hlem's Deep battle was AWSOME. And as far as the first film, what was so terrible about it? I don't get where your coming from.

[crisaor]

Your point is good, but nevertheless I feel that the battle was way large. I'm not criticising it from the "acting" or the choreography or anything like that. It was awesome to look at, I just think that they gave it too much importance. I disagree with you on that battle being the main event of the book.
What was wrong with the first film in my opinion? A lot of things actually. The cast, the editing, some really horrible dialogues, the portraits of certain characters, the omision of key scenes, and stuff like that.
Check this (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=504) out for more details.

[IWilKikU]

what was the main event, in your opinion, in book 4 of LotR, or the first half of 2Towers?

[IWilKikU]

Ok Crisaor, I just read that whole thread and it was hardly critical at all. Mostly it was all about "Wahhhhh, I don't like Liv Tyler!!! BooHoo!" And personally I thought that she did fine! And the character expansion of Arwyn was completely necassary. Yes, the film deviated from the books (especially TTT), but come on, is it even possible to make good films that don't? LotR are great books, but done verbatim they would NOT be good movies. Peter Jackson told the stories well enough, AND managed to make some damn good movies. I try to be critical of them too because I'm a diehard book fan and don't think that ANYONE is capable of making films that are supperior to the books, but whenever I'm watching one of them, I'm captivated. End of Discussion!

[crisaor]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
Ok Crisaor, I just read that whole thread and it was hardly critical at all. Mostly it was all about "Wahhhhh, I don't like Liv Tyler!!! BooHoo!"
Well, thank you kik. You've reduced 22 honestly thought posts to one lame sentence.:mad:

Originally posted by IWilKikU
Yes, the film deviated from the books (especially TTT), but come on, is it even possible to make good films that don't? LotR are great books, but done verbatim they would NOT be good movies. Peter Jackson told the stories well enough, AND managed to make some damn good movies. I try to be critical of them too because I'm a diehard book fan and don't think that ANYONE is capable of making films that are supperior to the books, but whenever I'm watching one of them, I'm captivated. End of Discussion!
I agree that a movie adaptation could never surpass the books. What I'm saying is that I believe that with all the things involved, a better trilogy could've been made. That's all. It may not sound like that, but I enjoyed the movies, specially the last one. It's easy to be captivated merely by watching the scenery and the characters brought to life, specially if you're into fantasy stuff, like I am. :)

[IWilKikU]

On this thread it just sounded like you were coming out swinging. I guess we both kind of think the same thing: They could have been better, but damn, their fun to watch.

[crisaor]

Yep, that's it. :)