Mole 0 Report post Posted October 2, 2003 I don't know, Mole. Chicago recieved some backlash for winning, as did A Beautiful Mind the year before. Seems that whenever a movie beats out Lord of The Rings people get pissed. Here's hoping Hollywood gives PJ and Co. their due and sets things right this March. Huh? I didn't say anything... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted October 2, 2003 If ROTK doesn't win best picture this year you won't hear the end of the bitching. I can see why the first two didn't win since the story was still going (whereas in GF 1 and 2 they were self contained essentially). In fact I haven't read the books either and I can't remember ever being so stoked for a movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted October 2, 2003 Peter Jackson deserved a Best Director nod for Two Towers more than the movie deserved a Best Picture nomination. His work, and Andy Serkis as Gollum were by far the two best things about the movie (aside from the score, which won for FOTR and was basically the same thing, so I understand that). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DARRYLXWF 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2003 I'm not expert on the Book Trilogy(which is shocking since i am such a D&D nerd) but wasn't the constant bombardment of Aragorn/Arwen crap not even in the books? I hate how they keep promoting her as a main character....especially in the first one when she beat the Black Riders...it wasn't her...it was her father and Gandalf who conjured up the river....and it wasn't even her who saved Frodo. The riders should've gutted her bitch ass right there to save us all this crap. True, the Aragorn and Arwen love affair was hardly present in the books (but it WAS there). Basically, I think it was done to appeal to the feminine section of the audience, and from what I gather from various female friends, more Aragorn means more wet pussies....yeah. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2003 It was done because nobody would care about Arwen if she didn't actually do anything. Out of people I know, everyone who read the books first wanted Aragorn to end up with Eowyn, and everyone who saw the movie first wanted him to end up with Arwen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DARRYLXWF 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2003 Okay, that makes more sense. Especially seeing as how Spoiler (Highlight to Read): Aragorn marries Arwen It would be silly not to give her more screen time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2003 The other reason was that they already had to introduce Arwen, Gimli, Legolas, Boromir & Elrond within a short time of each other. Glorfindel serves no other purpose in the story, and Jackson thought it would be too many character intros for the casual audience to take in such a short time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2003 Actually after seeing the Two Towers I want Aragorn to end up with Eowyn more than Arwen. Heh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2003 Arwen's just....annoying. Eowyn is much more tolerable...not to mention better looking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kaertos 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2003 I maintain that, if you read the book and think that Aragorn should be with Eowyn over Arwen haven't read anything in the appendix. And to be honest, I still don't understand what all the Eowyn hate is about. It's like people had to find something to bitch about in these movies and she is the easiest target. Look at it this way... her role is smaller than it was going to be... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2003 There's Eowyn hate? I thought there was Arwen hate? At least Jackson didn't come up with the great idea of "Well J.R.R. Tolkien had a good idea but I have a better one! Arwen will lead the Fellowship!" *jacks off to Liv Tyler* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2003 Arwen > Eowyn (movie versions). But personally I'd take either one... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lord of The Curry 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2003 There's Eowyn hate? I thought there was Arwen hate? At least Jackson didn't come up with the great idea of "Well J.R.R. Tolkien had a good idea but I have a better one! Arwen will lead the Fellowship!" *jacks off to Liv Tyler* No, but he did the next best thing and wasted something like 15 minutes of The Two Towers w/ scenes involving Arwen WHEN SHE DOESN'T EVEN MAKE AN APPEARANCE IN THE BOOK. 15 more minutes of Gollum? Nope. 15 more minutes of Treebeard? Nope. 15 more minutes of Eomer or Faramir? Fuck nope. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) Yeah that's why I really hate this crap. If it was anyone else but Liv Tyler then I doubt she would play such a big role. God sometimes I hate it when directors decide to put "there spin" on an already written story. Just like that fucktard Sam Raimi and before anyone jumps on me....yes I hate Evil Dead and yes I think Sam Raimi is a complete idiot for the comments I read he made about Spider Man. And I've read similar comments made by Peter Jackson. The worse thing you can have from a director adapting something is "I don't think..." We don't care what you think. Did you write it? No...then what right do you have to change it? None..... It's basically as if I create a comic and copyright it and pour my heart and soul into it. I've written the whole thing and it is all mine. Then someone comes along and says "Great idea....but I'm going to make a movie adaptation of it and I'm going to change this, this, and this because well....I have better ideas than you. Oh you wrote it and don't want anything changed!? To bad....because I know what's best. Your finished." Or since everyone here are such big Evil Dead fans....what if years from now when the movies are almost forgotten I get the rights to do a remake and say "Well......I liked the idea...but I'm going to beef up Ash's girlfriends role....oh and should he really be saying all those funny cheesy lines? Nah...I think it'd be better if he carried a sword and acted like a silent badass...." What right do I have to do this!? None.... Oh and once again....there's Eowyn hate? Edited October 3, 2003 by The Mighty Damaramu Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conspiracy_Victim 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2003 I felt like smashing my TV set when Saving Private Ryan didn't win for Best Picture. Saving Private Ryan? oh please What was nominated that year, because a weak year for Oscar caliber films is the only way SPR was the best movie that year. SPR was a mediocre war movie with a great 20 minute opening sequence. I think the fact that Shakespeare in Love beat it out because Miramax rereleased it a month before votes were due in and invited a bunch of critics with votes to screenings with gift bags and such is what put it over the top for me. To me, SPR deserved it that year. Sorry Lord but I thought Thin Red Line sucked. The enlisted men were almost indistiguishable as characters and they totally marketed it as a war epic, not a film where a guy spends 7 minutes pondering the beauty and significance of a leaf. It's the only time in memory my dad was willing to walk out of a theater before the movie was over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted October 4, 2003 Sometimes the story has to be changed in some ways to make it more viable for the screen. Comics/books just don't adapt well for movie run-times and the way they're made. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kaertos 0 Report post Posted October 4, 2003 Sorry, I meant Arwen. That post was written at work and I was interrupted about 12 times. As far as adapting the works, there always have to be changes made between a written medium and a visual one. There are compromises to be made and it is the writer's and director's task to make those changes flow as if they have always been a part of the narrative. I think Peter Jackson has done a spectacular job adapting one of the most dense and detail filled novels ever written into two (hopefully three) easy to understand movies that have many if not all of the same themes and symbols. Not an easy task. I guess what I am saying is, as sacreligous as it sounds, I don't think I would have enjoyed a straight book to film adaptation of the Lord of the Rings. For goodness sake, they would barely have mde it to Rivendell in the first movie, and it would have been an hour of the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted October 4, 2003 Yes but he doesn't need to "beef up" anybody's role. Now he's giving a false representation of the work. What happens to all the kids who go to read the book and find out that Arwen is not the wonderful heroin he's made here out to be? Basically I'm saying that adaptive changes have to be made but changes just because the director feels his idea is better and would've liked to see it that way shouldn't be made. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lord of The Curry 0 Report post Posted October 4, 2003 Fuckin A, Dama. Also, some spoilers for those who've read the books....... Spoiler (Highlight to Read): Right now I'm not even sure if Merry is going to be the one to kill the Witch King, but if he does I doubt they'll explain the significance of Merry doing it and the connection it holds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Nanks Report post Posted October 5, 2003 Going on the books alone, ROTK should be by far the most intense and epic of the films. Some of the scenes with Sean Astin and Elijah Wood should be seriously good. As for the Arwen matter, I too strongly disliked how Arwen was portrayed in the first movie, but I suppose it can be somewhat excused by the fact that she does become a somewhat important character and Jackson had to introduce her to the audience as more than a minor character. It also made for good trailers... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted October 5, 2003 Here is the thing I'm wondering: How is Liv Tyler any sort of draw? I can't think of any particular starring vehicles she's ever had that made any money. So why bother to build up a nonexistant role for her? As I've said, the LOTR movies succeed almost in spite of a few things. As stated, the romance subplot is quite mediocre. And really, the whole Sauron side of the Two Towers is very vague and doesn't exactly build to ROTK. That's mostly due to Sauron not really being around, it's kinda hard to do anything with him. Let's face it, if Saruman gets his early in ROTK they will need to do something more with Sauron. Otherwise the whole movie will have basically no real main heel, just a bunch of orcs, nazguls, trolls, etc. And no, the Witch King is not a main heel. Anyone who gets killed by a chick and a hobbit is not a main heel. After all, if you're gonna build Arwen's role you might as well build up Sauron. He's only the main villain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Urine Sane Report post Posted October 5, 2003 This Whole Thread You guys are dorks. I like the movies, but you guys are freakin' dorks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted October 5, 2003 This Whole Thread You guys are dorks. I like the movies, but you guys are freakin' dorks. We apologize master cool! Please don't smite us that are unworthy to stand in your badass prescence! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dames 0 Report post Posted October 5, 2003 Hey Cabbageboy...how about hiding them spoilers eh? You know how much I abhorr them. Dames Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted October 6, 2003 I was just going by stuff I've heard in the book, I don't even know if this happens for sure in the movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dames 0 Report post Posted October 6, 2003 They're still spoilers. I haven't read the books and since the movies are trying to be faithful to the books, I'd say there is a fair chance those events will take place. Dames Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted October 6, 2003 and since the movies are trying to be faithful to the books *snort* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DARRYLXWF 0 Report post Posted October 6, 2003 and since the movies are trying to be faithful to the books *snort* What's there to snort about? It's true. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lord of The Curry 0 Report post Posted October 6, 2003 No. No it's not at all. I am now doubting as to whether or not you've read the books. They did a good job, sometimes a great job, but they were not as faithful as you say. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DARRYLXWF 0 Report post Posted October 6, 2003 No. No it's not at all. I am now doubting as to whether or not you've read the books. They did a good job, sometimes a great job, but they were not as faithful as you say. Yes. Yes it is. You sound like I've just written a tirade about how much the movies are faithful to the book. This isn't the case. I merely agreed with Dames when he said that the films are trying to be faithful to the book. You know they are. Sure, we've had the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil completely cut out, Helm's Deep's ending is different in both versions, a quarter of what happens in the two towers has been left for the third film, the scouring of the shire is now apparently not going to take place, Arwen's role in the films has been dramatically increased compared with the books...loads of stuff. My point is, the essence of what has made the novels so great, so epic, is still present in the films. We can't ask for every scene and every tree that are in the books to be placed in the film, but the themes and messages that were carried out in the books are still in the film. Christopher Tolkien has come out and stated that he doesn't believe the novels are fit for visual interpretation, and he has a lot of merit to what he says. I disagree though, and I'm glad that these films have opened up the LOTR to a wider audience, so they to, can enjoy the greatest fantasy tale every told, and may now pursue the books. So I'm sticking to what I said, I still believe that the films are trying to be faithful to the book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
