The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by radagast

Ah yes, finally. The universe is back in order. Grandbob defends the greatest literary work of the 20th Century and dmaul1114 continues to not understand why changing the characters DOES change the story. And continues to not see that keeping with the book would have not harmed the quality of the movies.

I didn't say it didn't change the story, just that I'm ok with it. I'd have been ok with that stuff being as it was in the book as well and agree that wouldn't have harmed the movie in this case as it's all minor stuff that has little impact on the main plot anyway.

I just don't obsess over it one way or the other. I love the books on their own merits, and I love the movie on it's merits. It's one of my favorite books and maybe my favorite movie series of all time.

I just view movie adaptations as largely separate entities from the source material they were adapted from and don't go in worrying about how true it is to the book. I just go in wanting to be entertained by a great film, and if I get that experience I'm happy regardless of whether it was a 100% faithful adaptation of the book or changed dramatically from the book.

A movie changing things in a book doesn't change the book. The book is still there for everyone who prefers that version of the story. So I see no reason to compare them so much vs. just enjoying each on their own merits.

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by radagast

One thing I have been noticing in the last few years is how many people are using a made up contraction: "All's" They will say "All's I wanted to do is go home after work." All's? What's that a contraction of? "All is"? "All is I wanted to do is go home after work"?

That's not even considering how many journalists use the phony word "co-conspirator". Or the phony word "dis-associate".

Now, this I completely agree with. There's no more to "All". You can't have more "All" or less "All" unless you use the word to express deficiency in something else. The same can be said for the word "None"......radagast are you a teacher or something?

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by radagast

I'm quite surprised, Grandbob, that dmaul1114 hasn't countered this post yet with the obligatory response that "it worked for the movies better" or he "liked that better than the books" or some such. It's like the universe is out of balance.

I'll never read the books in full because what I've read is poorly written and annoying, but I like the way Faramir is in the film. Elrond says that men are weak and it's pretty much a theme in the film series to see men struggle over the discovery of the ring. Faramir wanting it to show his "quality" to his father and then giving it up because it must be destroyed is excellent.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by radagast

Yes it does matter. Words mean things. And there are folks that don't have English as their main language and it can make it difficult for them to understand what we are saying. It's lazy attitudes like that make it easy for non-English speaking people to look down on us.

Well good for you. I'm not wasting my time proofreading my posts on forums. I'd think most people, of every language, posting on forums know people make typos and are not expecting perfect posts, nor using forums to learn foreign languages etc.

And I'm sure typos are just as prevalent on non-English forums. It's not like typos are exclusive to English speaking folks. So if my typos lead non-English speaking folk to look down on us, then **** them.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

I'll never read the books in full because what I've read is poorly written and annoying.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Care to post something of substance instead of spamming the thread? I grew tired of the endless terrain descriptions and poems. I stopped when I reached Rivendell and Bilbo had written a song. I don't care about that crap!

[Travis]

Originally Posted by radagast

Yes it does matter. Words mean things. And there are folks that don't have English as their main language and it can make it difficult for them to understand what we are saying. It's lazy attitudes like that make it easy for non-English speaking people to look down on us.

It do's matter too a point. Westeners are not known for having the tuffest education systems fore sure. I do make plenty of errors tyoing. Ofetn just a missed key, like in typing back their. Damn fat fingers and smalll laptop keybored. Sometime, I am to tired or have had a few to maney beers to pay atentin cerefuly. Speling is my bigest mistake. Just hit the wrong key or doublee up sometimes. I no, I am not a good speller, and I don't type well.

I agree 100 persent with some of the postes back their. If some one wantes to come across as a know-it-all, they shuld allready know how to type and spell, may not bee grammer mistakes, but it probebly is. Your not gona change anyting hear with out help. Its a good idea if we all put common english usage mistakes in our signatures, than may be some peoples will see the erors in they're weighs.

Also, Practical English Usage by Michael Swan should be taught in schools around the world! A great book! http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Engl.../dp/019431197X

[Show spoiler]Fun post and I don't even need to use spell check!

[mredman]

Originally Posted by merrick97

[/SPOILER]

I prefer the look that Peter Jackson intended. Simple as that. The current bluray looks great. Green tint and all. I don't necessarily thing looking "all natural" makes it look "all better" Rivendell looks sooo much better with the new tint.

This is my ONLY post in this thread today, I don't want to restart the whole cycle once again.

I agree with this PJ intended look for FOTR looks very good and suits the movie. I believe that is why he changed it.
Of course some will always be unhappy with a certain transfer.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Troy73

Now, this I completely agree with. There's no more to "All". You can't have more "All" or less "All" unless you use the word to express deficiency in something else. The same can be said for the word "None"......radagast are you a teacher or something?

No. A computer programmer.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by WorkShed

I don't think that Faramir even really knew the ring was in Frodo's possession. He knew his brother went to Rivendell regarding rumors that Isildur's Bane had been found. Frodo never told them that Gollum was a part of the fellowship, all he pretty much said was that anyone against the enemy would do well to not be in his way. I don't think that the men of Gondor thought very much of hobbits. I think the beating of Gollum was more as punishment for the Forbidden Pool than extracting information of the One Ring. That was just a happy side effect.

A few quotes about Faramir from The Two Towers:

Faramir: "I do not slay man or beast needlessly, and not gladly even when it is needed. Neither do I talk in vain. So be comforted."

"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all, but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory... So fear me not!"

"At last by good chance, we came at the right hour to reward you for your patience... Here is our refuge [Henneth Annun]. Not a place of great ease, but here you may pass the night in peace."

"How you have increased my sorrow, you two strange wanderers from a far country, bearing the peril of Men! But you are less judges of Men than I of Halflings. We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform or die in the attempt. Not if I found it on the highway would I take it I said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing [the Ring], and even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow, and be held by them.
'But I am not such a man. Or I am wise enough to know that there are perils from which a man must flee. Sit at peace! And be comforted... for strange as it may seem, it was safe to declare this to me. It may even help the master you love. It shall turn to his good, if it is in my power. So be comforted. But do not even name this thing again aloud."

Is that the Faramir portrayed in the movie?

This quote from Tolkien in his Letters seems to be directed at Jackson and Boyens:

"I think you misunderstand Faramir... He had been accustomed to giving way and not giving his own opinions air, while retaining a power of command among men, such as a man may obtain who is evidently personally courageous and decisive, but also modest, fair-minded and scrupulously just, and very merciful...

"Denethor was tainted with mere politics: hence his failure, and his mistrust of Faramir."

[radagast]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

Care to post something of substance instead of spamming the thread? I grew tired of the endless terrain descriptions and poems. I stopped when I reached Rivendell and Bilbo had written a song. I don't care about that crap!

Well fine. Others however, myself included, are amazed by the rich texture Tolkien created with his word paintings. It reads like history instead of fantasy. I admit I'm not a big fan of all the songs and poems, but they are part of the construction of the culture he was creating.

For example, I enjoy the book's depiction of why Merry and Pippin were on the quest, instead of the movie's depiction of them as thieves running into Sam and Frodo.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

A few quotes about Faramir from The Two Towers:

Faramir: "I do not slay man or beast needlessly, and not gladly even when it is needed. Neither do I talk in vain. So be comforted."

"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all, but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory... So fear me not!"

"At last by good chance, we came at the right hour to reward you for your patience... Here is our refuge [Henneth Annun]. Not a place of great ease, but here you may pass the night in peace."

"How you have increased my sorrow, you two strange wanderers from a far country, bearing the peril of Men! But you are less judges of Men than I of Halflings. We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform or die in the attempt. Not if I found it on the highway would I take it I said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing [the Ring], and even though I new not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow, and be held by them.
'But I am not such a man. Or I am wise enough to know that there are perils from which a man must flee. Sit at peace! And be comforted... for strange as it may seem, it was safe to declare this to me. It may even help the master you love. It shall turn to his good, if it is in my power. So be comforted. But do not even name this thing again aloud."

Is that the Faramir portrayed in the movie?

This quote from Tolkien in his Letters seems to be directed at Jackson and Boyens:

"I think you misunderstand Faramir... He had been accustomed to giving way and not giving his own opinions air, while retaining a power of command among men, such as a man may obtain who is evidently personally courageous and decisive, but also modest, fair-minded and scrupulously just, and very merciful...

"Denethor was tainted with mere politics: hence his failure, and his mistrust of Faramir."

Oh, it's 100% a change from the books.

I just don't mind it (nor do a necessarily prefer it--I just accept it).

I can see the reason behind it. As the poster above said it's another example of the fallibility of men that's a strong theme in the movie. And it builds up Aragorn's character more as the only man who came in contact with the ring who didn't try to take it.

Again, I don't think I like that portrayal better than in the books. But I don't mind it either as I do think it fits the themes of the movies.

And again I approach movies and books as separate entities and don't worry much with comparing them directly and just enjoy each on their own merits. So that's obviously a different viewpoint that people like you and radagast who are hugely obsessive fans of the books and thus do compare the book and films directly and take exception to changes that alter things you liked in the books. And that's fine.

[Witch King of Angmar]

Originally Posted by radagast

Ah yes, finally. The universe is back in order. Grandbob defends the greatest literary work of the 20th Century and dmaul1114 continues to not understand why changing the characters DOES change the story. And continues to not see that keeping with the book would have not harmed the quality of the movies.

Which movie do you like more? Two Towers(extended) or ROTK(extended)?

[DarkDune]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Oh, it's 100% a change from the books.

I just don't mind it (nor do a necessarily prefer it--I just accept it).

I can see the reason behind it. As the poster above said it's another example of the fallibility of men that's a strong theme in the movie. And it builds up Aragorn's character more as the only man who came in contact with the ring who didn't try to take it.

Again, I don't think I like that portrayal better than in the books. But I don't mind it either as I do think it fits the themes of the movies.

And again I approach movies and books as separate entities and don't worry much with comparing them directly and just enjoy each on their own merits. So that's obviously a different viewpoint that people like you and radagast who are hugely obsessive fans of the books and thus do compare the book and films directly and take exception to changes that alter things you liked in the books. And that's fine.

For anyone interested in why the writer's on The Lord of the Rings Movies made the choices that they made in re-telling J.R.R. Tolkien's stories, there is are really good "From Book to Script" documentaries on the the first Appendices disc for each of the three EE Blus!


Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
The Appendices, Part 1: From Book to Vision (on DVD)
Peter Jackson introduction
J.R.R. Tolkein: Creator of Middle Earth
From Book to Script
Visualizing the Story
Designing and Building Middle Earth
Middle Earth atlas interactive

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
The Appendices, Part 3: The Journey Continues
Peter Jackson introduction
J.R.R. Tolkein: Origin of Middle Earth
From Book to Script: Finding a Story
Designing and Building Middle-Earth
Gollum
Middle-Earth Atlas interactive
New Zealand as Middle Earth (map with video location)


Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
The Appendices, Part 5: The War of the Ring
Peter Jackson Intro
J.R.R. Tolkien: The Legacy of Middle-earth
From Book to Script
Designing and Building Middle-earth
Home of the Horse Lords
Middle-earth Atlas: Tracing the Journeys of the Fellowship: interactive map
New Zealand as Middle-earth: interactive map with on-location footage

[raygendreau]

Could anyone help me with this? The movie vs book thread is deserted.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/movies/149...ml#post4912366

[Velmeran]

Most have already watched the Appendices; and for most people who prefer the books over the movies; watching the Appendices is a painful process due to some comments from Boyens.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

Most have already watched the Appendices; and for most people who prefer the books over the movies; watching the Appendices is a painful process due to some comments from Boyens and Walsh.

Yep, I was just going to say don't get the book diehards started on those docs as Boyens and Walsh say somewhere that they felt they improved on the books in some places--and obviously any lovers of the book take exception to those comments.

I don't mind them--even though I don't think all the changes were improvements--as I don't think the books are perfect by any means and don't view them in the same esteem as some like radagast. It's a damn fine book for sure, but there's other fantasy stuff as good or better IMO like George R.R. Martin's work etc.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Oh, it's 100% a change from the books.

I just don't mind it (nor do a necessarily prefer it--I just accept it).

I can see the reason behind it. As the poster above said it's another example of the fallibility of men that's a strong theme in the movie. And it builds up Aragorn's character more as the only man who came in contact with the ring who didn't try to take it.

There are plenty of other examples of the fallibility of men - that function was covered more than sufficiently by Boromir and Denethor.

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Could anyone help me with this? The movie vs book thread is deserted.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/movies/149...ml#post4912366

We were temporarily distracted by the release of the EE's.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Yep, I was just going to say don't get the book diehards started on those docs as Boyens and Walsh say somewhere that they felt they improved on the books in some places--and obviously any lovers of the book take exception to those comments.

A true statement; Tolkien was "probably" better at describing his works and intentions than Boyens or Jackson; when their interpretation deviated considerably from his (see posting about Faramir above), the movie degenerated.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Witch King of Angmar

Which movie do you like more? Two Towers(extended) or ROTK(extended)?

The Two Towers Extended. That "one scene" in ROTK is just too appallingly bad.