Hippy Alert

[OldBloke]

I think all comparisons with the book are dangerous as books work on different levels with the imagination of the reader playing such a major role.

So ...

I've been thinking about the film I've just watched and something that struck me was that I found more things in this second film to pick holes in then I did with the first???

The film itself is superb. Go see it.

My niggles ...

The major problem I had was one of scale. I imagined the strongholds of the goodies to be much more impressive. The Isengard army was top notch and realisticly massive whereas the defenders at Helms Deep were too few (at one point in the film the last door separating good from evil is being defended by half a dozen blokes). The Riders of Rohan were underwhelming.

The Ents were too skinny and too 'Disney'.

The Battle at Helms Deep has been said to be the best battle sequence since the D-Day landings in Saving Private Ryan. Not in my eyes it aint.

Gollum was a credit to CGI. He and Aragorn are the real stars of this film.

[CiM]

The major problem I had was one of scale. I imagined the strongholds of the goodies to be much more impressive.

I thought that the Helm's Deep set suffered from being tucked away in a deep, gloomy hole somewhere, because the majestic scenery which added a lot of "impressiveness" to the other sets wasn't there.

The Battle at Helms Deep has been said to be the best battle sequence since the D-Day landings in Saving Private Ryan. Not in my eyes it aint.

It went on for such a long time that I found it hard to take in.  Also, I'm going to re-state my point about Helm's Deep being a little too claustrophobic for the film's own good - it harmed the battle sequence a fair bit.

Helm's Deep gave me horrible moments when my memory was shoved back to Attack of the Clones (*shudder*) - Gimli was almost Yoda at one point, and the Helm's Deep colour scheme sometimes reminded me of that gloomy planet that they fought on in the AOTC finale.  But LOTR was so far above AOTC that they aren't really comparable, thankfully.

Gollum was a credit to CGI. He and Aragorn are the real stars of this film.

Legolas got an awful lot of Dramatic Pose shots this time 'round

As OB said, great film, go see it.  I suspect the Extended DVD will be worth waiting for.

- CiM

[CiM]

If I sound scathing of the film, it's because in a move as good as TTT it's easier to pick out the fewer less-good bits than all the really good bits - and the less-good bits stand out more because of the general high standard.

When I came out of the cinema yesterday my friend accused me of spoiling his enjoyment of the film because I was ranting on about the bits I didn't like  

- CiM

[FrEnZy]

I personaly Really enjoyed the film, a few niggles, but nothing that cant be forgiven!

Tho the films ents spoiled my mental image. I always thought of them to be much larger and broader.

[smilodon]

Funny cause I visualised them as being more human and smaller, but there you go.

Having had 24 hrs to mull it over, Helms deep was indeed underwhelming. I had visions f it being this utterly impenetrable fortress backed against the mountains that was only vunerable due to the Orc army being so huge.

While it's arguably a feature of the novel I'm also getting a little tired of the 'everyone is honourable and noble' or else 'evil and dark'. The only characters who appear to have any duality of character are the two ring bearers Bilbo and Frodo, and obviously scitzo Gollum. Everyone else is either utterly good and decent or wicked and corrupt. This may have worked 50 odd years ago in the book but I'd argue that modern audiences look for a bit more depth and complexity to the characters.

[TeaLeaf]

Neutron"]This may have worked 50 odd years ago in the book but I'd argue that modern audiences look for a bit more depth and complexity to the characters.

This explains the modern-day popularity of the Teletubbies, Simpsons, Tweenies and a number of other television shows  :lol:

TL.  

[CiM]

Neutron"]Funny cause I visualised them as being more human and smaller, but there you go.

I can't imagine many people disagreeing over the inappropriateness of the "skinny" Ents, whether they think Ents should be large or small

Neutron"]Having had 24 hrs to mull it over, Helms deep was indeed underwhelming. I had visions f it being this utterly impenetrable fortress backed against the mountains that was only vunerable due to the Orc army being so huge.

The book always gave me the impression that Helm's Deep was fairly basic - just a wall, a coomb, and a tower, taking advantage of natural features to make it a very difficult fortress to capture.  There was never any suggestion of impressiveness in architecture, either.  Helm's Deep fit very much with the cultural identity and ancestral heritage of the people of Rohan, especially when compared to the men of Gondor.  It's one of those things Tolkien was very in to.

Neutron"]While it's arguably a feature of the novel I'm also getting a little tired of the 'everyone is honourable and noble' or else 'evil and dark'.

It wasn't really a feature of the novel.  None of the characters in the novel were that simple.  It's simply a function of the general condensing and (not in a bad way) dumbing-down of the film that the characters are as they are.

Also, in the book, the only characters we really got to see or hear much about were (with a couple of notable exceptions) people of royalty or high nobility, or at the very least military hero types.  But they were all portrayed in very human ways, despite the high language and epic deeds.  The film doesn't have the leisure to do that - it's all noble poses and dramatic speeches, with most of the subtleties of plot and character lying on the cutting room floor along with all the other cool things they didn't have the time, budget or permission to put in.

The film does annoy me by showing pictures of weeping and terrified peasant women and children, etc etc etc.  It doesn't, and never has in any film that I've watched, add anything to the film and was never in the book in the first place.

Although the putting of helmets on young boys and stuff was rather effective.

Neutron"]The only characters who appear to have any duality of character are the two ring bearers Bilbo and Frodo, and obviously scitzo Gollum. Everyone else is either utterly good and decent or wicked and corrupt.

What about Boromir, or (to a lesser extent) the New And Not Really Improved Faramir?  Sam can't escape, either - it's his hostility towards Gollum/Sméagol that arguably tips that character over the wrong edge.  Théoden never really changed his mind or opinion about the whole "run away" plan - battle was forced upon him, and we've yet to see how he handles it (although presumably it'll be the same or similar to the final outcome of the book).  Eowyn (sp?) has got obvious issues and even Elrond is portrayed as having to be won over rather than simply in mindless Good Guy wisdom.

Neutron"]This may have worked 50 odd years ago in the book but I'd argue that modern audiences look for a bit more depth and complexity to the characters.

It didn't work in the book because it wasn't there, unless you zoom out enough to obscure all of the little things which are so important - which, after all, is what the film has had to struggle with.

But as for modern audiences... well, most of the Hollywood higher-ups seem to think we want simpler characters, or, on the other extreme, very pointlessly complicated characters who are dreadfully over-wrought.  Add to that the fact that the popular images of Good Guys and Bad Guys have changed a lot even in fifty years and... well.  It has a very noticable detrimental effect on the film, and it's remarkable that it manages to be an excellent movie despite that.

A bit more than two cents this time 'round.  I think this is maybe worthy of a whole nickel.

- Schim

[smite]

Erm mister Jonafon Wosss have you finished yet .....oh my god i am really wishing i didnt ask.  
I get the picture, you were not impressed by it got it.....i think thats what your saying isnt it  :wink:

[CiM]

I get the picture, you were not impressed by it got it.....i think thats what your saying isnt it :wink:

You really haven't been paying attention, have you Mister Smite?

They're great movies.  IMHO.

- CiM

[Dingo]

TL wrote
This explains the modern-day popularity of the Teletubbies, Simpsons, Tweenies and a number of other television shows  



...........well it's good to know that we have highbrow here even if the film hasn't got it!!   :lol:  :lol:



ps Noticed none of you mentioned the opening sequence of a car chase followed by a dozen murders......will I be disappointed then??  8O  8O

[smite]

I get the picture, you were not impressed by it got it.....i think thats what your saying isnt it :wink:

You really haven't been paying attention, have you Mister Smite?

They're great movies.  IMHO.

- CiM[/b]

Bloody hell didnt take you long to reply ..... well that was what i was trying for :lol:

[CiM]

I was hovering nearby, watching for forum-browsers to will onto the server where I was idling

- CiM

[smilodon]

The book always gave me the impression that Helm's Deep was fairly basic -

I'll concur with that as to be honest I haven't read that far into the book yet. It was more my perception of what helms deep would be like from comments about the film.

It wasn't really a feature of the novel. None of the characters in the novel were that simple. It's simply a function of the general condensing and (not in a bad way) dumbing-down of the film that the characters are as they are.

For me the book (so far) does polarise characters into basically good and bad. You either fought for the free world or you fought for Sauron. Characters display a degree of duality when dealing with the ring I'll agree, but that's a major featire of the ring and it's hold over people. For example Boromir, who I consider to be basically a good character, only showed a bad side when he became sedeuced by the ring, which was kind of the reason why Frodo went it alone. Until then, while a bit proud and arrogant, he was prepared to fight for and protect Frodo and a member of the fellowship. In the book his repeated comments about leaving the gorup were only so he could return home to protect his lands, which he saw as the greater threat. Elrond may be unwilling to commit huge elven armies to the battle (I'm not sure he even has any army) but was still willing to help form the Fellowship and set it on it's course. I thought Tom Bomadil was included in the book as a sole example of a character that did not fall easily into either camp, being detached from the conflict and unwilling to become involved.  

Although the putting of helmets on young boys and stuff was rather effective.

Agreed

It didn't work in the book because it wasn't there, unless you zoom out enough to obscure all of the little things which are so important - which, after all, is what the film has had to struggle with.

I'm reading James Ellory while I read Tolkein and maybe that's effecting my judgement. But I still hold that Tolkein was telling a good versus evil tale and all characters ultimatley end up in one camp or the other. I can't think of a single one who so far (as far as I have read/watched) either sits on the fence or has moved from one camp to the other. Saroman and Wormtongue obvioulsy did change sides, so to speak, but not during the period covered by the books.  Both were on Saurons side, even if the reader/viewer wasn't made aware of that straight away.

Everyone else morally moves any distance, only when affected by the ring. I agree they are still complex and facinating characters, with doubts, fears and desires all their own. And many of them disagree on how to act and how to deal with the ring.

Add to that the fact that the popular images of Good Guys and Bad Guys have changed a lot even in fifty years and... well. It has a very noticable detrimental effect on the film, and it's remarkable that it manages to be an excellent movie despite that.

Agreed, if there are any complexities to the characters in the book, they were lost in the move to film. Much of the intimacy of the first film seems gone and characters are there to do things rather than feel things. Frodo and Sam's story still held something of the earlier films closeness and Gollum is astonishing to watch. Lucas must be cringing every time he sees an image of his Jar Jar Bloody Binks

[CiM]

Gargantuan post alert.  Most of this isn't worth reading, so you might as well go back to whatever it was you were doing before you started reading it...  

The book always gave me the impression that Helm's Deep was fairly basic -

I came across the introduction to Helm's Deep in the book last night.  It turns out it was built by those Numenorean guys (they seem to build everything that's any good, don't they?) long before Rohan was Rohan.  But the Rohirrim themselves probably kept the walls in repair and built the deeping dike.

(I don't recall seeing the Deeping Dike in the film.  I don't think they had space for it.)

Neutron"]For me the book (so far) does polarise characters into basically good and bad. You either fought for the free world or you fought for Sauron. Characters display a degree of duality when dealing with the ring I'll agree, but that's a major featire of the ring and it's hold over people.

Yes, here I think I misunderstood you.  I thought you were saying that the characters were one-dimensional or shallow, which is certainly not the case.  OTOH each character in the story does, sooner or later, make a choice to actively fight for the good side or to actively fight for the bad side.  There are characters who start off on the fence - Théoden, for example (although less so in the book), and Treebeard - and move off it^[1].  There are also characters who start off on one side and move to the other, Gollum/Sméagol being the only example that comes readily to mind, and he went back to bad.  And, not wanting to spoil The Return of the King for you, in case you haven't read it, but there are characters in that book who are for all intents and purposes Good Guys, but their actions and choices are either no help at all, actively hinder the other Good Guys, or actively aid the Bad Guys.

(I deleted the paragraph I just wrote about Boromir, because I couldn't see what on earth my point was meant to be.)

Neutron"]I thought Tom Bomadil was included in the book as a sole example of a character that did not fall easily into either camp, being detached from the conflict and unwilling to become involved.

There were plenty others who didn't want to become involved.  Some did in the end, some didn't, and some just thought they didn't.  Tolkien seemed to rather enjoy figuring out who the characters in his book actually were and what they were like, rather than trying to make them fit a mold.

That is, instead of saying "Aragorn will be this kind of guy," he said "Who on earth is this dark, hooded stranger that I just put in the Prancing Pony with Frodo?"  That's one of the reasons I think LOTR is so enjoyable to read - Tolkien must have really enjoyed writing it.

Neutron"]I'm reading James Ellory while I read Tolkein and maybe that's effecting my judgement. But I still hold that Tolkein was telling a good versus evil tale and all characters ultimatley end up in one camp or the other.

I don't know of James Ellory so I can't comment on that.  But I'd agree that Tolkien was telling a good versus evil tale, although to what extent various characters end up in the two camps can get rather pedantic and complicated to discuss.  Tolkien was writing firmly in a world of absolutes - even if those absolutes were sometimes blurry and uncertain to the people in it - whereas most modern writers write in worlds of relativity and vague subjectivism.

Neutron"]I can't think of a single one who so far (as far as I have read/watched) either sits on the fence or has moved from one camp to the other. Saroman and Wormtongue obvioulsy did change sides, so to speak, but not during the period covered by the books. Both were on Saurons side, even if the reader/viewer wasn't made aware of that straight away.

Return of the King does feature some of this kind of ambiguity and I seem to remember TFOTR and TTT having small scale bits too.  It's difficult and pointless to try talking about it in abstract though - you really need specific examples.  And even then it's not simple.  And of course it's widely open to intrepretation

(I was going to say that I agreed with you other than that, but thinking about it I'm not sure that I do.  One of the interesting things about LOTR is that it's debatable how "evil" the evil guys actually are.  Arguably they all started out okay and have been perverted or manipulated.  Sauron is the only really, really evil character, and even he was almost good in the past.  Even Orcs were elves that Morgoth perverted, until they became mindless, fickle, animal-like drones.)

(In fact, the whole question of good and evil, and how and why certain characters are good or evil, is probably one of the things LOTR explores, whether intentionally or unintentionally.  That said it's probably a bit silly to sit here trying to sum it up into a neat paragraph or two.  Especially as I seem to have drifted into abstract again.)

Neutron"]Everyone else morally moves any distance, only when affected by the ring.

I'm getting very confused trying to write a coherent reply here because I think we probably basically agree  I'm sort of trying to say, "Yes, everyone is in the good camp or the bad camp, but many of them go through struggles to stay in their camp."  And you'd maybe say, "Yes, they struggle to stay in the camp sometimes but they're still basically in the good camp or the bad camp, and that's where they stay."  To which I'd reply, "Yes, but it's never easy to stay there.  That's one of the things the book explores."  To which you might say, "Yes, but they're still basically polarised into good or bad."  And I'd reply, "I know, but that's an end result of all their choices."  And so you might tell me, "Yes, exactly, but their choices are all defined by the fact that the characters are either good or bad."

See what I mean?

I remember now why I hated Critical Evaluations in English class so much.  *shudders*

- CiM

[1] You might say that TB and Theoden end up making good choices because they're good characters, but you could also argue that they're good characters because they made good choices.  I think it's a bit of both.

[Anonymous]

Smeagol was good tho