Torn over I, Robot by Arawaen

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Torn over I, Robot

POSTED BY: ARAWAEN
UPDATED: Sunday, March 21, 2004 19:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5545
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, March 19, 2004 7:16 PM

My first reaction to the I, Robot trailer was utter revulsion. As a purist it sickens me when studios stand on the achievements of others to pass their schlock off (shudders at the memory of Starship Troopers). I am such a purist that I boycotted Return of the King.

But now I find that Alex Proyas directed and Alan Tudyk is the robot. I love the previous work of both men. Why did they have to pretend to be Asimov?

Aarrrghhh!!

Somehow I am going to have to separate them in my mind, like I have done with Bladerunner and "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2004 8:09 PM

TMURRIE

It just seems to me that the storyline just sounds a LITTLE bit like the Matrix. I'm just sayin. But it does seem like they just made a matrix prequel right there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2004 10:00 PM

NOOCYTE

Yah, I'm of two minds on the "I, Robot" film for exactly the same reasons. "Dark City" (another Proyas) is one of my favorite films...We shall see.

Quick note on "Troopers." At first, I loathed it as well. Then it dawned on me that the whole film is basically another level of those propaganda clips ("I'm doing my part!") interspersed though it. The real tip-off is a brief exchange between the reporter and the troops, a bit about the war actually having been started by humanity, which is brushed off with Remember Buenos Aeres and such.

In short, it dawned on me that the very things which I found annoying (the squeaky-clean, Hitler Youth hoorah-ness of it), were the things which created the tension of the film, which tempts you to share that world-view, while, tongue in cheek, challenging you to see how eerily seductive and scary (and unnervingly familiar!) it is.

Hoping Proyas, et al do the same with "Robot" and its apparent action-flick sensibilities...

But no, it does NOT look like Asimov.

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 20, 2004 7:53 AM

DORAN

You boycotted "Return of the King"?!

I challenge you or anyone to make that movie exactly the way it is in the book and not lose all the audience except the die hards and purists.

I like the books very well when I read them but I have to admit they don't lend themselves well to a stand alone trilolgy of movies. I think the screen writers did their best and I enjoyed the "Retun of the King".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 20, 2004 8:32 AM

SHEPHERDSCOTT

I have yet to see the trailer, but I can just imagine it: Asimov meets "Wild Wild West".

"Starship Troopers" was a terrible, terrible movie...specifically because the propaganda clips were so spot-on, the rest of the movie was unbearable (like watching a TV show just so you can wait for the commercials). My favorite comment about this film is the tag-line, "Based on the cover of a book by Robert Heinlein." I have since learned that the film was originally conceived as a parody of the book, but that only points to how flat it is. The only thing that film accomplished was to make me root for the Bugs.

About "Return of the King", I do think there is middle ground between the two extremes presented here. The film *is* very good and worth seeing, filled with lots of little nods that will warm the hearts of true fans of the book. It is a fair, good-faith adaptation to the screen, because it just isn't possible to present a literal translation. On the other hand, I think ROTK is the weakest of the three films...its changes are the most problematic for Tolkien's storyline and themes, weakening the plot. To wit, in the movie what is the point of Rohan's sacrifice at Pelennor Fields? The army of the dead shows up and instantly destroys the entire enemy force, so Theoden and every rider who perished died simply for bad luck and bad timing.

Jackson and his two co-writers, in my opinion, are real fans of the books who wanted to capture as much of Tolkien as possible in their screenplays, but they only slightly thought through the implications of some of their changes. Sometimes the choices are merely silly (like when they cut out Gildor Inglorion in FOTR and so had the hobbits escape Khamul the Nazgul by distracting him with a thrown stick), other times they simply weaken a theme (like having Faramir take the hobbits to Osgiliath, spoiling his contrast with Boromir), but some choices really were broadsides into the hull of the plot (the army of the dead).

* * *

Do the job. Get paid. Keep flying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 20, 2004 11:36 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by ShepherdScott:
"Starship Troopers" was a terrible, terrible movie...specifically because the propaganda clips were so spot-on, the rest of the movie was unbearable (like watching a TV show just so you can wait for the commercials).

Have to say I enjoyed the film on both levels - its a great special effects spectacle, and a very subversive film. I really can't comment on it compared to the book, as for my sins, Heinlein leaves me cold. As terrified as I am for "I, Robot", I don't much care for that aspect of Asimov's writing - the good doctor himself sold out in his career by shoehorning his three series together.

My worry is Foundation - its unfilmable if the books are done justice, and any film based on it might as well not be called Foundation.

[editted due to excessive commas)

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 20, 2004 1:46 PM

DORAN

"...other times they simply weaken a theme (like having Faramir take the hobbits to Osgiliath, spoiling his contrast with Boromir)..."

This is one of the changes that I appreciated the most.

It just never rang true to me that here is this horribly evil ring that has corrupted the most heroic of people during its weak phase, now continuing to grow in evil influence, and yet Faramir just shrugs it off as if it was nothing.

Having Faramir stuggle with alure of the ring builds conflict at a point where there needed to be a break between films. Also having the Faramir involvement with Frodo last longer allowed the Jackson team to bring the other independant plot lines up to speed without having a long Frodo absence from the screen. I think it was a good compromising choice.

I also don't believe that the contrast between Boromir and Faramir was spoiled.. after all Boromir lost the internal struggle against the ring and Faramir won his.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 20, 2004 5:09 PM

SHEPHERDSCOTT

"It just never rang true to me that here is this horribly evil ring that has corrupted the most heroic of people during its weak phase, now continuing to grow in evil influence, and yet Faramir just shrugs it off as if it was nothing."

Well, I'll give the purist defense to this valid concern. Tolkien was making a very subtle point about the nature of honor, nobility, and the legacy of civilization. Boromir was a warrior--as Faramir admits, he was an example of how the southern Dunedain were becoming more like the Middle-earth Men whom they led. Faramir was a scholar--he represented loyalty to the lost civilization of the Dunedain, to the ideals of Numenor the Downfallen. He had not forgotten the gifts, as well as the burdens, that distinguished the Dunedain from the Middle-earth Men. When Faramir refused the ring, it was not that doing so was easy for him. If Jackson's script did nothing else right in this scene, it kept Faramir's essential dialogue about the lure of the ring. Rather, Faramir relies upon the lore Gandalf has taught him to do what is right: he made an oath upon first meeting Frodo, and the code of honor carefully refined in him would not let him break it.

Faramir did not merely "shrug off" the ring because the ring was suddenly weak or he was suddenly strong--but because the Honor of the Numenoreans burned stronger in him than the corruption of power. Boromir, by contrast, had shunned the old ways and the burden of history, and when the ultimate challenge came his lack of wisdom left him vulnerable. Faramir in the book let's Frodo go because he possesses the wisdom to perceive the truth of what is right. In Tolkien's Catholic theology, Faramir's heart is closer to God. The movie, while perhaps drumming up a little extra visual excitement, sacrifices this theme when Faramir takes the hobbits to Osgiliath. In the movie Faramir is not fundamentally different than Boromir, just a little better.

(Though I will also add that the Osgiliath detour adds a serious plot problem to the film trilogy: if the Nazgul see Frodo and the One Ring in Osgiliath and nearly take it, why don't they tell Sauron so the Dark Lord isn't afraid that it is with Pippin and the Men of the West? This doesn't seem like something that would slip the Nazgul's mind. And Sauron's fear of the Ring being in the hands of Aragorn is his whole reason for accelerating his attack on Gondor.)

* * *

Do the job. Get paid. Keep flying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2004 1:09 AM

ANKHAGOGO

Quote:
Originally posted by ShepherdScott:
"It just never rang true to me that here is this horribly evil ring that has corrupted the most heroic of people during its weak phase, now continuing to grow in evil influence, and yet Faramir just shrugs it off as if it was nothing."

I'm one of those "that's not how it was in the book" people, and Faramir's change really hacked me off, until I heard the screenwriting reason for it, and it's partially what you just said. The Ring is supposed to be all-but-irresistable, and, while you can spend time explaining the reasons why in written form, you just can't do it in strictly visual form without changing the entire feel of the movie. Frodo and Sam had to be in some sort of peril at that point in the movie - they were just walking, and the point has been made that, in the book, Faramir was just kind of a friendly little reststop. I do understand that, in adapting a book to the screen, there are some things that are going to have to be changed. And actually, the added Faramir/Boromir/Denethor scenes in the extended edition showed that Faramir's interest in the Ring wasn't really in having the power for himself,his interest was in trying to win approval from Denethor. That I liked alot, because it showed the family dynamic going on there, and it showed the motivational difference between Boromir and Faramir, and it did both those things effectively, in a very short amount of screen time.

Quote:
Faramir did not merely "shrug off" the ring because the ring was suddenly weak or he was suddenly strong--but because the Honor of the Numenoreans burned stronger in him than the corruption of power. Boromir, by contrast, had shunned the old ways and the burden of history, and when the ultimate challenge came his lack of wisdom left him vulnerable.

I'm going to disagree with this, sorta. It says in Return of the King that" by some chance, the blood of Westernesse runs nearly true in him (Denethor), as it does in his other son, Faramir, yet did not in Boromir..."
Now that's all kinda genetically wonkily mystical and all that, but it wasn't that Faramir's honour was stronger, it was that he was closer to being a true Numenorean in blood than Boromir, and that gave him an extra resistance, if you will, to the evil. Saying Boromir "shunned" the old ways makes it sound as if he tried them, and discarded them as worthless when it's more as if he didn't have the aptitude (due to the whole dilution of Numenorean blood) for them and therefore wasn't interested. Like me and math -- sure,higher maths are useful, but I'm truly crap at it,so I'm just not interested.
I think Faramir and Boromir were equally honourable, but again, their motivations, in general,were completely different. Boromir was only interested in helping Gondor -- he couldn't see the bigger picture, and Faramir could.

Quote:
(Though I will also add that the Osgiliath detour adds a serious plot problem to the film trilogy: if the Nazgul see Frodo and the One Ring in Osgiliath and nearly take it, why don't they tell Sauron so the Dark Lord isn't afraid that it is with Pippin and the Men of the West?

My guess would be that perhaps the Nazgul are too much in the shadows to be able to differentiate one Hobbit from another. Sure, they can tell by height that this guy's a hobbit, and that one's a Man, but they may not be able to tell the difference in features.

You guys are always keeping me up waaaay too late.......

"Jayne is a girl's name."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2004 1:22 AM

ANKHAGOGO

Quote:
Originally posted by ShepherdScott:
About "Return of the King", I do think there is middle ground between the two extremes presented here. The film *is* very good and worth seeing, filled with lots of little nods that will warm the hearts of true fans of the book. It is a fair, good-faith adaptation to the screen, because it just isn't possible to present a literal translation. On the other hand, I think ROTK is the weakest of the three films...its changes are the most problematic for Tolkien's storyline and themes, weakening the plot. To wit, in the movie what is the point of Rohan's sacrifice at Pelennor Fields? The army of the dead shows up and instantly destroys the entire enemy force, so Theoden and every rider who perished died simply for bad luck and bad timing.

Oh, I have some serious Return of the King issues, but I think a large number of them will be solved, or at least smoothed, by the extended edition, because some of them are just, "Uh -- you left out some rather large plot points."
My second-biggest gripe is the shocking lack of Eomer, who is the second-highest ranking person in Rohan, and heir to the freakin' throne, and yet he's just background. He has like 6 lines in the whole movie, for heaven's sake. Don't get me wrong, I love Eowyn, always have -- but there are lines of hers that could have been left out to let her brother say more than, "Hey, let's go!"
My very biggest gripe is Denethor. They did spectacularly well up til they brought Faramir back, then Denethor just disinegrated into some sort of crazy baglady when in fact he was more Hannibal Lecter crazy. And it really irritates me because I hate Denethor with a passion -- I don't wanna hafta defend him in any way!
I sincerely doubt they're going to be able to fix that to my satisfaction. I'm sure they're staying up nights, wondering how to make me happy. Heh.

Seriously.......I'm going to bed now.

"Jayne is a girl's name."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2004 3:23 AM

KALIMEERI

I, too, am hoping (pleading) that the extended version repairs some very major problems I have with the movie. Peter Jackson was noted as saying "If you think the battle of Helm's Deep was good, you haven't seen anything yet." Well, what I saw was ... uh ... less than impressive. I'll take Two Towers over ROTK every time, even though it was a "middle" segment which had problems of its own that arose out of its nature.

I am a Tolkien purist ... yet not. To me it has always seemed that Tolkien had spent so much time in his world, he had trouble letting go, and the ending just ... dribbled off. Have some experience with that myself. From a purely story-driven viewpoint (IMHO--don't kill me) the ending was unsatisfactory. Peter Jackson was in a tough spot here. He knows what makes a good, dramatic movie but Tolkien is Tolkien. He was going to get flamed either way.

So in a way, I'd have liked to see him deviate from the book, to give the ending a little more satisfactory feel. And on some level, I'd have been outraged, too. Can't win.

I'll reserve judgment until I see the extended version, but...

Jen dao mei.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2004 4:20 AM

ECMORGAN69

You know, as much as I'd love to comment on the whole "LOTR Book vs. Movies" debate, I'm way too ignorant. Why? Well, while I did spend days out of my life watching the three films, and they were good films, there was no way I could slog through the slow-moving, overly-descriptive and convoluted LOTR books. It almost pains me to admit that Tolkien won. I couldn't finish the trilogy. I, who have read Tom Clancy books in one sitting, couldn't fight my way through LOTR. I still have my copies, but they look brand new from lack of use. For the record, I completely read "The Hobbit" and "Fellowship of the Ring". I read half of "The Two Towers" and "Return of the King" before becoming bored with the books and giving up.

Now, getting back on the Asimov track, I've read all his classic "Robot", "Empire", and "Foundation" novels many times. After having read several copies of "I, Robot" so many times that the books came apart, you can see that I loved the stories. After seeing that trailer, even with Alan in it, it brings cold chills up and down my spine. I shudder to think what Hollywood does with "Foundation". Asimov will spin in his grave...

BTW, I didn't thik "Starship Troopers" was all that bad. After having read the book, I just figured that as long as you took the movie as being unrelated to the book, you were fine. Oh, and I rooted for the bugs, too

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah,

you, FOX TV!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2004 9:25 AM

WILDHEAVENFARM

I did my senior english thesis on Isaac Asimov and, Alan Tudyk notwithstand, I doubt I'll watch it. The only good thing I remember about his writings was scientists on a lunar colony, arguing with a robot, using slide rulers.

Mary
Always a beast, never a burden.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2004 9:59 AM

SHEPHERDSCOTT

"And actually, the added Faramir/Boromir/Denethor scenes in the extended edition showed that Faramir's interest in the Ring wasn't really in having the power for himself,his interest was in trying to win approval from Denethor"

I agree, this was a useful and moving addition. And while the scene muddles Tolkien's plot in a small way (having Gondor score a victory recapturing Osgiliath, rather than merely escaping and destroying the bridge), it does do a nice job of dramatizing the family tension that Tolkien only refers to. However, I think I preferred Tolkien's emphasis--that the tension emerges from Faramir's closeness to Gandalf, whom Denethor fears may seek to surplant him--rather than Jackson's--that Denethor thinks Faramir is useless compared to his older brother.

"Saying Boromir "shunned" the old ways makes it sound as if he tried them, and discarded them as worthless when it's more as if he didn't have the aptitude"

Fair enough. I think we're quibbling more over semantics than meaning. The "blood of Numenor" in Faramir was only a source of strength because he had the knowledge and wisdom to recognize its virtues and accept its burdens. Denethor possessed the "blood of Numenor" and only knowledge without true wisdom, which made him dangerous. The "blood of Numenor" in Boromir gave him strength and courage but he lacked both the knowledge and wisdom that warded his younger brother against corruption of power. Remember, Boromir nearly succumbed to the Ring not because he was weak or evil or greedy, but because he was strong and believed the lie that he could somehow use the Ring for good.

RE: Eomer and Denethor...

I, too, was surprised by Eomer's relative absence in the film. (For that matter, I was dumbfounded by how poorly the film used Eowyn, not evening giving the illusion of Dernhelm for a moment). And I also thought Denethor's death was mishandled. However, I think the expanded DVD will address both of these matters. Surely they will include Eomer mourning Theoden (a clip shown in the trailer but not in the theatrical cut). I'm also willing to bet they will include a scene about Denethor's palantir, which will make his fall seem more reasonable and ominous.

RE: Tolkien's writing...

Well, there's not much to be said here. If you don't like his writing, you don't like his writing. But he wrote the books they way he did for every specific reasons--and given how long they have been loved and by so many people, he clearly did something right. Tolkien's written ending is intentionally a denoument: he wanted to show the hobbits returning to their homes greater for the experience than when they left, like Odysseus and the suitors at the end of THE ODYSSEY. He also wanted to show the pitiful end of Saruman, who lost everything due to his spite. These are subtle themes that I understand why a filmmaker would not even want to try to depict on screen. Though I do make the case that they are not a "waste" on the printed page.

* * *

Do the job. Get paid. Keep flying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2004 10:09 AM

MAUGWAI

About TLOTR ROTK:

Something had to be taken out. The movies were so long as it was, and there's no way Jackson could include absolutely every story arc. So he picked and chose, just like all adaptations do. Nobody noticed Tom Bombadil missing, did they? And I think his decision to leave that out was correct because his absence had little impact on the film.

All those -Er and -Or people (and I'm amazed you guys can keep track without a character diagram in front of you) had neat individual story lines. But in the scheme of things, there just isn't room for them all.

If anything, I think the movie ran too long. They could have swept up all the epilogue stuff with a voice over and a couple of meaningful facial expressions on the boat. I thought all that drawn out ending was a little too true to the book. Movies cannot be like the books.

I thought all in all, Jackson did a fantastic job with what was a huge challenge.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2004 10:27 AM

ARAWAEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:
You boycotted "Return of the King"?!

I challenge you or anyone to make that movie exactly the way it is in the book and not lose all the audience except the die hards and purists.

I like the books very well when I read them but I have to admit they don't lend themselves well to a stand alone trilolgy of movies. I think the screen writers did their best and I enjoyed the "Retun of the King".

I thought Peter Jackson did a good job in Fellowship of the Ring in walking the fine line between being true to the books and changing what needed to be to make it work on film. With the expception of the Arwen story, the first movie couldn't have been made better in my mind. However, I think that Two Towers deviated too much into the writers doing their own thing. The character assassinations especially struck me as wrong; poor Gimli, Elrond, Theoden and Faramir. For this reason I chose to skip the last one.

I think the screenwriters were the weakest part of the whole trilogy. Everything else was pretty amazing. It is not the script either that bothers me, but the attitude of the screenwriters in not limiting their task to translating someone's vision to a new medium (something that does require changes and cuts as somethings work in print and not on screen, not to mention the limits of time.) Instead they felt the need to 'contribute' creatively to the the story.

I have admitted that I am a purist, I say that to make it clear that while I am critical of what they did, I recognize that I am biased and don't expect my opinion to taken as purely objective.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2004 11:20 AM

ANKHAGOGO

Quote:
Originally posted by ShepherdScott:
However, I think I preferred Tolkien's emphasis--that the tension emerges from Faramir's closeness to Gandalf, whom Denethor fears may seek to surplant him--rather than Jackson's--that Denethor thinks Faramir is useless compared to his older brother.

I don't know that I preferred it,but I know what you're saying. The complexity of Denethor's insanity is something I knew they weren't going to be able to do properly, just because of time restraints. Just from reading the books, I personally always did have the impression that Denethor did think of Faramir as more or less useless. But you're right in that there was no movie explaination as to why Denethor disliked Gandalf so, and just a line or two would've taken care of that.

Quote:
Fair enough. I think we're quibbling more over semantics than meaning. The "blood of Numenor" in Faramir was only a source of strength because he had the knowledge and wisdom to recognize its virtues and accept its burdens. Denethor possessed the "blood of Numenor" and only knowledge without true wisdom, which made him dangerous. The "blood of Numenor" in Boromir gave him strength and courage but he lacked both the knowledge and wisdom that warded his younger brother against corruption of power. Remember, Boromir nearly succumbed to the Ring not because he was weak or evil or greedy, but because he was strong and believed the lie that he could somehow use the Ring for good.

Oh, believe me, I've often been accused of arguing over semantics

. I tend to get a little more picky when discussion LOTR movie vs. book, simply because I know that alot of the time, many of the people reading a forum like this aren't the big LOTR dorks like I am, and may have different impressions because of that. Ok, who am I kidding -- I argue semantics with people just as LOTR geeky as me.
And see? Now at least I won't argue with you any more about Boromir/Faramir, cause I agree with everything you just said. Heh.

Quote:
RE: Eomer and Denethor...
I, too, was surprised by Eomer's relative absence in the film. (For that matter, I was dumbfounded by how poorly the film used Eowyn, not evening giving the illusion of Dernhelm for a moment). And I also thought Denethor's death was mishandled. However, I think the expanded DVD will address both of these matters. Surely they will include Eomer mourning Theoden (a clip shown in the trailer but not in the theatrical cut). I'm also willing to bet they will include a scene about Denethor's palantir, which will make his fall seem more reasonable and ominous.

Yeah, I was just irritated beyond belief that every media source on the planet made it clear who Dernhelm was months before the movie came out. That was one of my favourite parts as a kid when I first read the books. I was also irritated that Merry's relationship with Theoden got played down in favour of Eowyn.
You're right, I do think we'll get a bit more Eomer in the extended edition, and probably something about Denethor and the palantir as well. I think the latest rumour I read had the EE clocked at like 4 1/2 hours. But who knows how true that is.
I wish they'd kept that trailer clip in the theater version, though. I just hate when they do that.

Quote:
RE: Tolkien's writing...
Well, there's not much to be said here. If you don't like his writing, you don't like his writing.

I don't know how many people I've had that discussion with. Reading for fun is supposed to be just that -- fun--- and if you feel like you're doing it because you're "supposed to have read it", then what's the point? I can read Tolkien, but there are numberless writers whose styles just don't strike me the right way, and I can't read them, no matter how good the story may be. Good example: I can't stand Hemingway. His style bores me. He may write the best stories in history, but his style doesn't keep my attention.

"Jayne is a girl's name."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2004 11:29 AM

ANKHAGOGO

Quote:
Originally posted by kalimeeri:
am a Tolkien purist ... yet not. To me it has always seemed that Tolkien had spent so much time in his world, he had trouble letting go, and the ending just ... dribbled off. Have some experience with that myself. From a purely story-driven viewpoint (IMHO--don't kill me) the ending was unsatisfactory.

Do you know,it was only right before Fellowship came out that I consciously realized how unrealistic it was to have so few "characters we know" die? I first read the books when I was 12 or so, and of course at that age, you don't want anyone you know by name to die, so it's ok when only a handful of them do.
My theory is this: It's been said that Tolkien based the War for the Ring on his WWI experiences. I would imagine that seeing so many of his friends die in a war, he was (consciously or not) reluctant to kill characters of his own creation. He'd seen enough people he knew die, and you do get attached to your characters when you write, especially when you spend 17 years or whatever writing them. He just didn't want to see any more friends die.

"Jayne is a girl's name."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2004 11:46 AM

DORAN

"Faramir did not merely "shrug off" the ring because the ring was suddenly weak or he was suddenly strong--but because the Honor of the Numenoreans burned stronger in him than the corruption of power."

But relistically how could a movie have shown this difference without going for another hour.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2004 7:24 PM

SHEPHERDSCOTT

We're kindred dork spirits, Ankhagogo. :) If you need proof of how seriously I take my literary analysis of the books and films, I offer the following:

http://www.geocities.com/scott_metz/lotrmain.html

I share exactly your same emotional reactions about the characters. Eowyn/Dernhelm was my favorite scene when I read the books in the 7th grade. I also agree that Tolkien eschewed unnecessary violence--arguably the biggest aesthetic difference between his vision and the films (though I certainly understand why the films needed to expand the action). Another possible explanation is that Tolkien was writing a pseudo "historical epic" like The Iliad or Beowulf, and in those traditions you can kill off minor characters in droves but the major ones are only supposed to perish at dramatically appropriate moments.

* * *

Do the job. Get paid. Keep flying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE