What I didn't like about TTT, and a couple of things I did

[abigailnus <abigailnus@yahoo.com>]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Amy Z <lupinesque at y...> wrote:
> Warning: contains spoilers for all of LoTR
> 
> I'll decline to declare which is better, LoTR or HP:
> the Respective Movie, even if I thought any of you
> cared.  It's apples and oranges, 

I completely agree.  The only things LoTR and HP have in 
common are they that they both feature wizards and can 
be categorized as fantasy.  The latter is the main reason 
for all the (occasionally quite snarky) comparisons.  Hollywood, 
while it frequently produces science fiction (or at least a 
certain variety of sci-fi) hardly ever makes fantasy films 
- not live action one geared to a large adult audience anyway.  
To have two fantasy movie series come out at the same time 
simply begs comparisons where none belongs.  Add to that the 
perceived underdog status of LoTR, and you get a recipe for 
endless "my movie is better than your movie" flame wars.  

Having said that, and in the interest of full disclosure, I fully 
admit to being a lover of both book series.  I liked the FoTR 
movie very much, hated both HP films, and since seeing TTT on 
Thursday, my feet have yet to touch the ground.  It was, 
without a doubt, the best film I've seen all year, and possibly 
for much longer than that.  Oddly, or maybe not, a lot of the 
things that bothered Amy also bothered me, but they simply 
didn't get in the way of my enjoyment.
 
> (1) Aragorn's near-death experience.  It was
> unnecessary and anti-climactic, and most of all, it
> undermined the impact of Gandalf's "death," 

I'm with you all the way on this one, Amy.  I saw a copy of the 
visual companion or whatever they call it in the bookstore the 
other day, and it seems that Aragorn's tumble off the cliff was 
supposed to be part of a longer arc.  Something to do with 
Theodred's horse, who is driven mad with grief and is released 
by Aragorn.  It is this horse who rescues Aragorn and carries 
him to Helm's Deep.  My mother made a comment after seeing 
the movie that might explain why this arc was added.  She said 
that the feeling of deep kinship the Rohirrim feel with their 
horses is absent from the film.  You don't really get the feeling 
that these are horse-lords.  Maybe the Aragorn-Theodred's 
horse bit was supposed to expand on that.  It also allowed a bit 
more exposition of Eowyn's growing feelings towards Aragorn, 
which I hardly think was necessary.  Either way, as the movie 
stands I don't think this really works.

> (2) In the book, Arwen has already pledged to give up
> her immortality and marry Aragorn (if he survives and
> becomes King of Gondor, which are the conditions
> Elrond has set).  In the movie he thinks she's going
> off to the Undying Lands instead.  This might give
> Eowyn hope, but to me it was just an irritant.  Why
> change this?  Isn't it enough that the chances of his
> ever seeing his fiancée again are infinistesmal—do we
> have to call into doubt whether she'll marry him as
> well?

Well, yes.  The Arwen scenes exist here for the same reason 
that she's the one who rescues Frodo and brings him to 
Rivendell instead of that other elf whose name I've forgotten 
in FoTR.  Because you simply cannot have your romantic hero 
marrying a girl who is completely absent between her 
introduction in the first book and her wedding in the third book 
and has no lines in either one.  Forget Feminism and strong 
female characters, it simply isn't good storytelling (and yes, 
when I finished reading TTT, I wanted Aragorn to marry Eowyn).  
Don't forget, the movie viewers don't have the appendixes 
(appendices?) in which the story of Arwen and Aragorn's 
meeting and courtship is fully explained. 

The same reasoning holds for Arwen's decision to stay in 
Middle Earth and reject immortality being made on 
screen (or not having been made yet, actually.  
Unfortunately, I forsee an emotional scene with Arwen 
standing on the boat at the Grey Havens looking wistfully 
into the East before deciding to Follow Her Heart, but I guess 
it can't be helped).  This decision is a big deal.  She's 
giving up immortal life - a woman who has been timeless for 
millenia.  She's choosing to be parted from everyone she 
knows and loves.  This is not a decision that you make 
off-screen, not if you follow the cardinal rule of film-making 
- show, don't tell.  It can't be an easy choice, it can't be a done 
deal - it would be meaningless if it were.  And frankly, I think 
the fact that Aragorn tries to talk her out of staying with him 
needs to be there too - what sort of man would prefer to 
see the woman he loves wither and die just so that 
he won't be parted with her?

So yes, it's sappy.  There is romance that isn't sappy, but I don't 
think we should be looking for it in fantasy films.  Certainly 
we shouldn't expect that romance be taken for granted, which 
is what Tolkein did.  And anyway, if the Arwen scenes didn't exist, 
we wouldn't have the gorgeous tableau of a still-young Arwen 
grieving for Aragorn.  Wasn't it beautiful?  It looked as if it had 
been plucked out of a medeival tapestry.  (It also serves to 
highlight that, at that point, no one, Arwen included, has even 
considered that Arwen might give up immortality to be with 
Aragorn, which I suspect will make her choice to do so all the 
more important in RoTK.)

> (3) Speaking of elves, that whole thing with the Elves
> showing up to help at Helm's Deep?  And the rivalry
> between Rohan and Rivendell that it resolves?  They're
> completely made up.  Nothing whatsoever along those
> lines in the book.  Rohan isn't ticked at Gondor,
> either.  Apparently the moviemakers didn't think there
> was enough conflict in the book and decided to
> introduce a bit more.

I wouldn't say that.  I'd say that Jackson is trying to make 
the theme of TTT one of hope against impossible odds - a 
theme that exists in the book, certainly, but perhaps not to 
the extent that it is the focal point of the entire movie.  In 
RoTK, we'll get to see what happens when one gives in to 
despair (already salivating at the thought of Denethor, 
especially if he's played by someone as fine as the actor 
who played Theoden).  I don't mind that the elves as a group, 
as well as Arwen as an individual, get their own arc.  
Certainly it seems a waste to have people like Hugo Weaving 
and Cate Blanchete in your cast and yet only have them show 
up for the celebrations at the end of RoTK (although, in my case, 
I admit I just can't accept Weaving as Elrond.  I keep expecting 
him to don an earpiece, dodge bullets, and start looking for 
Morpheus, but that's just my disfunction).   

> (4) All that stuff with Frodo and Sam almost getting
> caught at the gate of Mordor.  Huh?  Again, the movie
> wasn't exciting enough without that? 

Can't say as that scene did anything to me one way or 
another.  I was much more upset at the fact that the 
elf-cloaks' chameleon properties hadn't been properly 
introduced in either movie before that point.  

> (5) Theoden's release.  In the book, Theoden is NOT
> under a spell in any magical sense.  Thank heaven.  He
> is under the sway of evil advice from Grima (and
> therefore Saruman), and when he stands up and is a man
> and a leader, the tide turns (which is a bit
> irritatingly macho and far from my favorite scene, but
> at least it's about character).  The movie turned it
> into just a magic trick.  Saruman has him under a
> spell, Gandalf comes in waving his wand, he *drives
> out Saruman* as if Theoden has been possessed by a
> devil (yeesh!), and lo, Theoden is young and bold
> again.

Yes and no.  I wasn't too crazy about Exorcist!Saruman 
either, but my displeasure was mollified but the truly glorious 
cut between Theoden's hall in Edoras and Saruman's chamber 
as Gandalf casts him out.  That was stunning, and certainly a 
step up after the surprisingly poor editing that FoTR suffered 
from.  However, I think it's unfair to say that Gandalf taps 
Theoden with his staff and then he's fine.  In fact, I was 
expecting you to offer the opposite complaint - that rather 
than regaining his (emotional) strengh and riding off to Helm's 
Deep with no doubts, Theoden spends the entire film on the 
brink of despair - a despair brought on in no small part by the 
death of his son (am I the only person who was praying, right 
after Theoden was revived, that he would somehow *know*?  
That no one was going to have to tell him that his son had 
died and he had all but slept through it?  His scene at 
Theodred's grave was heart-breaking).  Gandalf may have 
removed Saruman's direct influence, but Theoden isn't fully 
healed until the end of the movie.  

There are problems with this approach, of course.  It comes at 
the expense of Eomer, who is one of my favorite characters in 
TTT.  Almost all of Theoden's lines in the movie belong originally to 
Eomer.  However, Pip is right when she points out that, unless 
Eomer is put in Erkenbrand's place, the battle in Helm's Deep is 
won by a character who is not seen before it or after it and has 
no lines.  Hopefully the relationship between Eomer and Aragorn 
can be more fully fleshed out in RoTK - I'm anticipating a 
man-to-man talk about Eowyn. 

> (6) Faramir's temptation.  Pip noted that in the book
> he's tempted for about ten seconds, the implication
> being that the movie's way has more dramatic tension. 
> The thing is, you know, you have to trust your actors.
>  A good actor can let us see that he's tempted and
> resisting temptation, with nothing more than a few
> words and a few seconds.  We don't see a heck of a lot
> of Faramir in the book, but we see enough to realize
> that he doesn't make this painful choice with ease. 

I wasn't thrilled with the Faramir-Osgiliath bit either, although, 
once again, I was appeased by the stunning shot of the Nazgul 
(I picked up my copy of TTT after coming home from the movie 
to read the battle of Helm's Deep scene, and was tickled to 
discover that the Nazgul-steed in the movie looks exactly like 
the one of the cover.  I suppose it makes sense, as the artists 
who have been associated with LoTR over the past decade(s) 
had a lot of input into the look of the movies) facing off with Frodo, 
in a blatant yet still ever-so-cool rip-off of every action movie I
 can think of (the one that comes most readily to mind is True 
Lies, but I'm sure there have been others).  Also, the 'don't you 
know your Sam?' exchange and Frodo's Bilbo-like moment of 
madness were neat.

As for whether having Faramir decide to take the ring to 
Gondor cheapens his character.  I'm not certain.  I was 
underwhelmed by the movie Faramir before he did this - 
probably because I remember Sean Bean's wonderful turn 
as Boromir in FoTR.  This guy, whatever his name is, is leaving 
me cold by comparison.  

> But this is an Action Movie and Action
> Movies don't have too much dialogue—the audience might
> get bored.

Sorry, I just don't think it's fair to make this claim about a movie in 
which, halfway through, the action is suspended so that an elf 
chick who actually has nothing to do with the plot can recite in 
Elvish.  Or one in which the general gets a ponderous, deeply 
sad monologue as he prepares for battle.  TTT has a great deal 
of action movie in it, and frankly that's almost entirely in keeping 
with the book (the True Lies Nazgul rip-off notwithstanding), but 
it ultimately a movie about hope and perseverence even when 
there is seemingly no reason for it.  Jackson may have chosen 
to spell out some of his character arcs rather then allow the 
viewer to guess them, but sometimes that's just a valid 
scriptwriting decision, not pandering to the lowest common 
denominator.

> (7)  One change didn't make sense even within the
> movie.  The way the scene at Helm's Deep and the
> Entmoot are intercut, the clear cinematic message is
> that the Ents are going to save Rohan's bacon.  

I didn't get that feeling at all, but maybe I was just so thrilled 
by the fact that at least one of the Hobbits who isn't Frodo or 
Sam had been rescued from Comic Relief hell that I wasn't 
paying very close attention.  Frankly, I don't see the climax 
working if the two scenes had been seperated - the attack on 
Isengard before Helm's Deep or the other way around.  There 
comes a point where you're simply banged out.  Plus, as far as 
screen time is concerned, the attack on Isengard is quite short 
- two, maybe three scenes - it wouldn't have worked on its own.  

> I do have good things to say about the movie.  The
> sets, costumes, etc. were fabulous, just as in the
> first one.  The Dead Marshes were amazing, for
> example.  Just so damn scary and right in every way.

Oh yes.  I was a bit disappointed, though, to see that the dead 
in the marshes didn't really have candles.

> Likewise, Gollum is great and really made into what he
> is, a very complex character rather than a cartoon.  I
> love the way they show him talking to himself, with
> the great cuts to make it look like two people 

Yes, yes, yes.  Someone needs to take the HP movie people 
and tape them to some chairs and force them to watch those 
scenes over and over until they understand what a CGI 
character should be.  Gollum is the Yoda to Dobby's Jar-Jar.  

Someone should also tape shut the mouths of all the people 
in the audience when I saw the film who were laughing during 
that scene just because it's an animated character ('look, it's 
a cartoon!  That means it must be funny even if it's about a 
person struggling with his own inner monster!').

> it will be interesting to see whether,
> as in the book, it will be Sam's refusal to see Gollum
> as redeemable that causes him to send them to Shelob.

Hmm, I always felt that, while Sam certainly wasn't helping Gollum 
along on his road to recovery, it was Frodo's perceived betrayal of
 Gollum that truly drove him over the edge - which is pretty much 
what happened in the film.

> I was really, really looking forward to seeing the
> Ents and was both pleased and disappointed.  

Considering that I was half-convinced there would be no 
Ents at all, I was rather pleased by what we got.  I thought 
their legs didn't look right, though.  In my imagination, Ents 
are walking trees, and Jackson's Ents looked like that from 
the 'waist' up, but the illusion was broken by the legs.  I 
guess I should have expected that , though.

All in all, I'm a bit tickled by the people who are only now 
remembering to be concerned about the liberties Jackson 
has taken with his source material.  Did you not notice 
that most of the first quarter of FoTR was just cut out of 
the movie?  The Crickhollow scenes, which include Merry 
and Pippin actually *choosing* to come with Frodo, the 
Barrow Wights, Tom Bombadil (OK, that one's a good thing), 
almost all of Bree.  By comparison, the changes made to 
TTT are practically cosmetic.  The difference is that when 
it came to TTT, Jackson mustered up the courage to try 
to offer his own spin on the material (remember, most of 
the editing of TTT was done after the stunning reaction to 
FoTR).  He tried to streamline the story in order to 
highlight what he obviously felt was the most important 
message in the book.  There are no doubt differing 
opinions on whether he should have done this and whether 
he succeeded, and we all have things that we would have 
done differently had we been in charge (this message is 
being written by someone who has not yet recovered from 
the fact that, in the first movie, Moria was supposed to be 
a living dwarf colony)  but it's important to give him props 
for courage, as well as to acknowledge that, even if the 
letter of the book wasn't all that strictly adhered to, its 
spirit was deeply honored.  Anyway, we all know what can 
happen when a filmmaker sublimates himself to his source 
material, don't we?

Abigail,
Who, like John, is really looking forward to Cuaron's version 
of PoA, and hopes that he is given the same liberties with it 
that he was given with A Little Princess.