Voronwë the Faithful wrote:
I'm curious to hear why you would do it way with the Houses of the Healing?
It's quite a nice scene on its own but it feels kinda outta the blue, like if there were some missing connective moments to really make it land. I find it awkward that he holds her hand when they're total strangers as far as the audience knows. It's not bad at all but as it is, it feels underwritten so I think the movie is better without the distraction.
There were a few others like that, that I like the scene itself well enough but didn't feel it integrated well with the rest of the movie.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
That makes sense, particularly from a cinematic point of view. For myself, as a book fan, I was happy to have even that much of a nod to Éowyn and Faramir's romance, which I always have found very moving, even if it didn't strictly make much sense in the context of the films only.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
The Houses of Healing sequence is pretty dreamlike over a non-specific period of time and ends with Faramir in the room while Éowyn is on the mend, so I get the feeling their later scene before the Black Gate isn't the first time they've ever spoken.
I could just be reading it through my book knowledge though. But it all happens pretty fast in the book too!
And EE scenes are generally designed to be for people with pre-existing knowledge from the books.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I just watched Fellowship extended in the cinema for the first time in years (or possibly ever?). I absolutely adored it all over again. The practical effects look just as good as they always did and the CG actually holds up pretty well for a 20 year old movie.
Its hard to believe that after all these years and multiple viewings, but I saw something I never noticed before. When Boromir is shot by Lurtz, his horn is hanging at his waist, and is already split in two. I can't believe I never saw that before. I remember seeing it in the boat, but not during the fight. I feel like I should probably go back and check if you can see the moment it splits.
I don't think the horn breaking is ever actually shown.
On that note, I've been re-watching the EEs myself, for the first time (IIRC) since I visited NZ in 2017.
I’m also impressed by how well FotR still holds up. It’s really a great example of adaptation, particularly given the complexity of the source material. Funnily enough, my criticisms of it now tend more to be criticisms of it purely as a film than as an adaptation – it starts to show hints of the tensionless and poorly-choreographed action that undermines the later Middle Earth films, but thankfully doesn’t do it anywhere nearly as badly. PJ hadn’t yet got carried away. And the sound and visuals, from the landscapes and special effects down to the details in Bag End, all still look fantastic.
While I don’t like all the changes, I can’t think of one that doesn’t make sense from a film perspective. E.g. Arwen at the Ford was always the change I found most jarring, but it also makes perfect sense from a writing perspective – Glorfindel is a superfluous character that would need to be introduced to the audience then quickly dispensed with, and Arwen does need more screen time given her importance. My only real issue with the scene now is that Frodo doesn’t get the moment of confronting the Black Riders himself, after having also having the moment taken away at Weathertop. And while it’s always been a controversial opinion, I think it’s the one film where PJ does some significant things better than Tolkien – the consistent sense of urgency at the start, and the “show, don’t tell” characterisation of Boromir, which was a combined triumph of writing, directing and acting.
I agree that Fellowship holds up very well, but yes, it still irritates me how much they took away from Frodo right from the very beginning.
I vaguely recall the horn breaking being discussed at the time, that either it was an oops that it was missed or the scene was just cut or something...
The dumbest thing I've ever bought
was a 2020 planner.
"Does anyone ever think about Denethor, the guy driven to madness by staying up late into the night alone in the dark staring at a flickering device he believed revealed unvarnished truth about the outside word, but which in fact showed mostly manipulated media created by a hostile power committed to portraying nothing but bad news framed in the worst possible way in order to sap hope, courage, and the will to go on? Seems like he's someone we should think about." - Dave_LF
I watched TTT EE a couple of nights ago. I still remember just how impressive the opening sequence was on the big screen – it’d almost be worth seeing it in a theatre again just for that. It was a brilliant adaptational choice, both because of the visual spectacle and because it brings Gandalf back to the audience’s mind and makes his re-appearance less jarring. When you’re compressing a huge book into a series of films, scenes that serve multiple purposes are always good value.
I don’t really have a substantive criticism of TTT until the scene right after Gandalf heals Théoden, when I think the film goes off the rails plot-wise and doesn’t quite recover until towards the end. Having Théoden try to kill Wormtongue until Aragorn restrains him diminishes his character – the first of a series of moments like these. And while they don’t really harm the film as a film, I obviously don’t like these choices an adaptation. But the scene that comes next makes little sense even in the film itself:
Gandalf: This is but a taste of the terror that Saruman will unleash. All the more potent for he is driven mad by the fear of Sauron. Ride out and meet him head on. Draw him away from your women and children. You must fight.
Fight with what? Based on the warg attack scene later, Théoden seems to have about two dozen men at hand.
Aragorn: You have two thousand good men riding north as we speak. Èomer is loyal to you. His men will return and fight for their king.
Two thousand? There were about a hundred when we actually saw Éomer.
Théoden: They will be three hundred leagues from here by now!
How fast are these horses exactly? And how does Gandalf catch them and bring them back in five days?
Théoden: Èomer cannot help us. I know what is that you want of me. But I would not bring further death to my people. I will not risk open war.
What? Of course, going to Helm’s Deep is perfectly sensible in the circumstances, which makes Aragorn and Gandalf’s calls for Théoden to ride out and fight look completely mad, but he’s pretty obviously already at war with Isengard.
And so on.
TTT probably doesn’t change any more of the book than FotR, but I think the irritation I (and many fans) feel about the film is that the changes often seem unnecessary or don’t make sense within the film itself.
I find that casual viewers who aren’t fans of the books often like TTT over FotR because it has more character moments and bigger action scenes, both of which are fair enough observations. But I also felt it was the book which least-needed a heavy-handed adaptation.
I would agree with all of those points Túrin. They make Théoden out to be misguided at best, stupid at worst, for using the resources at his disposal to gain a tactical advantage against a superior force.
There are rumors/expectations that the LOTR films will get a fancy 4K home release next year, and I'm hoping to have a fancy new 4K TV by next year as well. So I'm kinda holding out for that before rewatching it again.
(And y'all have probably heard me say it many times but - TTT was the best one. )
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
A few more thoughts on TTT, coming from having learned more about writing over the years since I last posted about it –
Book III has a tight plot that should have translated to film more easily than the other five books, particularly as the first and last few chapters were moved to its prequel and sequel. The basic thread of three hunters find Gandalf, Gandalf heals Théoden, they go out to fight Isengard, they are pushed back into Helm’s Deep and the battle takes place is a straightforward storyline. Why did PJ & Co vary it? There was a good reason that I can see now – the film version involves Éowyn in more of the action and so builds up her sub-plot, which they (rightly) judged would be a favourite with casual viewers. This is why the women and children need to go to Helm’s Deep. In the book, they go to Dunharrow. Interestingly, Dunharrow also appears in the films, in RotK. I would have been inclined to get rid of it altogether as being superfluous (there are a few things in RotK which I think could have been cut, shortened or changed).
It’s a basic principle of narrative fiction that the choices of the main characters should drive the plot. Tolkien does this neatly with the healing of Théoden. But re-reading the book again, I was stuck that the decision by the Ents to attack Isengard seemed to come out of nowhere. The film-makers clearly wanted to give Merry and Pippin a larger role, which makes sense from a narrative perspective (and a thematic one – the basic theme of LotR, as stated by Galadriel, is “even the smallest person can change the course of history”). The problem is that the film sub-plot makes the Ents look like morons. So in the end, I think there’s problems with how both Tolkien and PJ write Treebeard’s sub-plot. I’m not sure exactly how I would have done it. As a side note, the one real purpose the Old Forest chapter in the book serves is as a set-up for the Ents, but I don’t think the film misses the set-up.
The much-derided Osgilliath sub-plot was probably put in to make sure that the Frodo/Sam side of the story reaches a point of high tension at the same time as the climax at Helm’s Deep, which was reasonable in and of itself. Splicing Books III and IV together was always going to be a huge challenge. It wasn’t really possible to use the Shelob sequence, as it happens after the invasion of Gondor begins, and the timelines don’t match. Plus the Osgilliath sequence introduces Gondor. PJ’s justification for having Faramir claim the Ring was that it was inconsistent to have him reject it. The problem is that the effect of the One Ring isn’t uniform in both book and film! It tempts Galadriel, for example, but not Elrond and Legolas. Faramir and the Gondorians come off badly, not least for beating up Gollum, which is OK from a film perspective but a problem from an adaptation. The TTT EE gives us the flashback with Boromir and Denethor, which should have been excellent but gives us the first view of one-dimensional Denethor, possibly the biggest failing of the entire adaptation in my view. The other problem with Osgilliath is that it requires the sewers of plot convenience (why build a sewer under a river?) to get Frodo, Sam and Gollum back on track. But it’s a puzzle. How to end the eastern subplot in TTT?
I personally think Osgilliath is an excellent change, even though I have quibbles with some parts. But I think the idea that Faramir would initially not trust the hobbits and want to take the ring to his father makes perfect sense and makes Faramir as a character much more interesting. Of course it would take some time for him, a man in the middle of a war against a terrifying enemy, come to understand and trust the hobbits, and of course he wouldn't yet understand why Gondor shouldn't take the ring. The main problem I have with it though is that Faramir's change is far too sudden, coming rather awkwardly right after he saw Frodo almost lose the ring to a ringwraith, something which should not have inspired his confidence in them keeping the ring! But at least it gave him the opportunity to see first hand why taking the ring to Gondor would be a dangerous idea.
And plus Sam gets to have his big speech which I know some people don't like but I don't care cuz I love it and I love him and it's just perfect.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
As I said, it’s a puzzle. Part of it is a spillover from the much more unreasonable Denethor of the film universe – Faramir’s actions in TTT make more sense once you see RotK. Aside from that, there’s the need for some sort of high point and resolution with the Frodo and Sam subplot. The problem, as you say, is that Faramir’s change is sudden, and extricating Frodo and Sam from the situation is really difficult. But it’s one of those changes I don’t mind so much now, because I can see the rationale behind it and it’s a neat sequence which ties into the whole plot.
Having gone through the films, I can now put my dislikes and criticisms into three buckets – firstly, things which are purely aesthetic. I find the Balrog too bestial and many dark scenes over-lit. Others don’t like PJ’s nuclear interpretation of Galadriel’s temptation speech (but I actually like it). These are a matter of preference and the films wouldn’t be improved if it was closer to how I would have done them. Second are what I’d call failures of adaptation, things where the film worked fine as a film but gave us an inferior version of what Tolkien gave us (like Denethor). The final are criticisms of the film as a film (like physics-defying action), and some of these are actually from the books.
To finish talking about TTT while we wait for Al’s comments, Helm’s Deep is a great sequence, but I find it a little bit of a missed opportunity. Even judging the film as a film I don’t think the Elves work, given in the film as well as in the book it’s been established they’re leaving Middle Earth and playing a limited role in its affairs (and how small is PJ’s Middle Earth exactly? Not only do the Elves get there in about a day, but Aragorn seems to think Gondor can send help in hours – the 101st Airborne Ithillien Rangers?) and they hardly seem in any way necessary. The Rohirrim spend quite a bit of TTT getting bailed out by others. And it’s also where PJ starts to indulge in tensionless action scenes. For example, the Uruk-hai can shoot Elves off the wall from behind battlements with crossbows while they’re running, yet they can’t hit Aragorn and Gimli when out in the open. No Elves and some better choreography, and it’d be perfect.
I will say that I love the whole Rohan aesthetic and design, and the storming of Isengard is pretty much flawless. TTT has a strong finish as a film, and the three sub-plots come together really well. The EE’s contributions to the TE are mixed.
Túrin Turambar wrote:
Part of it is a spillover from the much more unreasonable Denethor of the film universe – Faramir’s actions in TTT make more sense once you see RotK.
I don't really understand this sentiment. Asides from the weirdly sudden change of heart I mentioned, in what way do Faramir's actions in TTT not make sense?
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Túrin Turambar wrote:
Part of it is a spillover from the much more unreasonable Denethor of the film universe – Faramir’s actions in TTT make more sense once you see RotK.
I don't really understand this sentiment. Asides from the weirdly sudden change of heart I mentioned, in what way do Faramir's actions in TTT not make sense?
Moreso the difference between the book and film character's decisions, although I think the swings in Faramir's character in the film make more sense to me in light of film Denethor as well.
So. completed the trilogy yesterday. 10.5hrs over a weekend is a lot of time to spend in a cinema, but I really enjoyed it. I know all of the changes and choices have been discussed to death, but overall, they're still stone cold classics. 20 years on, they hold up really really well. Funnily enough, the CG even where its dodgy still looks far better than The Hobbit made 10 years later (Smaug aside).
Ironically, I think the greater limitations of c. 2000 CGI probably contributed to the high quality of the visual effects work – they were forced to come up with practical effects as workarounds and integrate them. Watching RotK in particular, I’m still amazed at how well the models are blended with the CGI people. The CGI figures and the sound effects trick the mind into not realising that Minas Tirith is a model.
That said, RotK does have what I think of as the one really poor VFX shot – Déagol being pulled along by the fish. But it’s one blemish in a visually outstanding film.
I’ve probably already said everything I wanted to say about RotK. It’s uneven, but it is an adaptation of an uneven book. I was blown away when I saw it in theatres, as despite its low points I thought it rose above the problems with TTT and packed a real punch. It’s the only film I ever saw in the cinema three times.
All in all, and for the limitations of the films, it was a great time to be a Tolkien fan. Our obscure interest was suddenly widely-admired. We could have had it a lot worse. See Dune fans in 1984. Or Artemis Fowl fans now. Or what we would have got had the Boorman script been filmed.
“Ah yes, Lord of the Rings, that’s the drug-trip midget sex film, isn’t it?”
)