(no subject)
Dec. 19th, 2002 09:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
learnedaxI saw the new film last night, and have had some initial thoughts...
I have to note that, although my comments are mostly negative, I actually did enjoy this movie. I thought quite a bit of the drama was well done, the overall atmosphere was good and very different from most other movies, and the detail was as fabulous as expected. Also, I was pretty disappointed with Fellowship when I first saw it, but it grew on me over time, so I will have to reserve final judgment (wouldn't want to be HASTY!).
Adaptations are a tricky thing, and my feeling is that if you're going to do one, especially from one medium into a wholly different one, you ought to know why. Telling the same story in a different way is a fine reason (e.g. Ran or Fistful of Dollars), as is capturing a different view on the original work by virtue of the new medium. What is absolutely NOT a good reason is because the prior work is very popular, and nobody else has done it.
I truly appreciate the exacting research and meticulous detail that Peter & co. put in. I just wish that they'd had half as much care for the characters as for the inscriptions on various swords. Nearly every character in this film is perverted into a form significantly less noble, unique, and consistent.
Instead of being an old king lead astray in his later years by bad advice, Theoden becomes a young king made old and useless by being possessed, which Gandalf fixes with a handy exorcism. Worse, once he is restored to health and vigor, he still can't recognize good advice, and instead of leading his people to battle, runs away.
Gimli becomes essentially a dead weight, and also mysteriously Scottish, because he's really only there for comic relief. Legolas is a good fighter, but despite his age acts like a child all the time. Aragorn... where to begin. He's basically just a thug now. Gandalf is more or less intact, having shaken off his bumbling manner from the first film.
Meanwhile, Merry and Pippin, the last film's comic relief, who had been portrayed as irrecoverably stupid, suddenly spout visionary political arguments that sway the Ents, who are themselves far too hasty and all-around foolish.
For the most part the dynamic between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum comes across fairly well. I would say this plotline is almost unspoiled, the only problem being Faramir's new-to-the-movie covetousness of the ring, which drags them what should be about a week off course.
But these things are all, from the Director's point of view, secondary. What really counts is how good the battles look. In fact, Helm's Deep was so important to him that he cut off the beginning and end of what was already the shortest book, and made it the same length as the first film by stuffing in as much fighting as possible. We even get a random encounter with Warg Riders on the way to Helm's Deep, just for the hell of it. Too bad, then, that his battle scenes are so bad. They're beautiful, to be sure, but lack realism, coherency (what did I just see chopped off of whom?), good strategic planning, or even good pacing. When Aragorn and Gimli sneak out a side door and have a protracted discussion before taking on a horde of Orcs alone, it fails in every important way, and is not half as funny as Fran Walsh thought it would be.
That does all seem very harsh, doesn't it? I guess it's because I've always enjoyed the book as literature, full of depth of meaning. Although I enjoy the films from an action-movie standpoint, they really miss the spirit of the original.
I have to note that, although my comments are mostly negative, I actually did enjoy this movie. I thought quite a bit of the drama was well done, the overall atmosphere was good and very different from most other movies, and the detail was as fabulous as expected. Also, I was pretty disappointed with Fellowship when I first saw it, but it grew on me over time, so I will have to reserve final judgment (wouldn't want to be HASTY!).
Adaptations are a tricky thing, and my feeling is that if you're going to do one, especially from one medium into a wholly different one, you ought to know why. Telling the same story in a different way is a fine reason (e.g. Ran or Fistful of Dollars), as is capturing a different view on the original work by virtue of the new medium. What is absolutely NOT a good reason is because the prior work is very popular, and nobody else has done it.
I truly appreciate the exacting research and meticulous detail that Peter & co. put in. I just wish that they'd had half as much care for the characters as for the inscriptions on various swords. Nearly every character in this film is perverted into a form significantly less noble, unique, and consistent.
Instead of being an old king lead astray in his later years by bad advice, Theoden becomes a young king made old and useless by being possessed, which Gandalf fixes with a handy exorcism. Worse, once he is restored to health and vigor, he still can't recognize good advice, and instead of leading his people to battle, runs away.
Gimli becomes essentially a dead weight, and also mysteriously Scottish, because he's really only there for comic relief. Legolas is a good fighter, but despite his age acts like a child all the time. Aragorn... where to begin. He's basically just a thug now. Gandalf is more or less intact, having shaken off his bumbling manner from the first film.
Meanwhile, Merry and Pippin, the last film's comic relief, who had been portrayed as irrecoverably stupid, suddenly spout visionary political arguments that sway the Ents, who are themselves far too hasty and all-around foolish.
For the most part the dynamic between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum comes across fairly well. I would say this plotline is almost unspoiled, the only problem being Faramir's new-to-the-movie covetousness of the ring, which drags them what should be about a week off course.
But these things are all, from the Director's point of view, secondary. What really counts is how good the battles look. In fact, Helm's Deep was so important to him that he cut off the beginning and end of what was already the shortest book, and made it the same length as the first film by stuffing in as much fighting as possible. We even get a random encounter with Warg Riders on the way to Helm's Deep, just for the hell of it. Too bad, then, that his battle scenes are so bad. They're beautiful, to be sure, but lack realism, coherency (what did I just see chopped off of whom?), good strategic planning, or even good pacing. When Aragorn and Gimli sneak out a side door and have a protracted discussion before taking on a horde of Orcs alone, it fails in every important way, and is not half as funny as Fran Walsh thought it would be.
That does all seem very harsh, doesn't it? I guess it's because I've always enjoyed the book as literature, full of depth of meaning. Although I enjoy the films from an action-movie standpoint, they really miss the spirit of the original.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-12-19 08:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-19 02:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-19 03:14 pm (UTC)(In case I didn't make it clear, I don't object to changes per se, just what I view as thoughtless changes.)
Re:
Date: 2002-12-19 03:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-17 12:54 pm (UTC)of Gimli. And yes, hasty, hasty Ents "That doesn't make any sense to me,
but I'll do it anyway." What??
The point at which my stomach really turned, though, was the gratuitous
skateboard scene. I can't even begin to fathom what they were thinking.
--Sylvie of Felding
no subject
Date: 2003-01-25 07:33 am (UTC)By the way, if you need a code (make a journal, already) I can give you one.