Kevin's Watch

Cail wrote:Carpenter's The Thing is a tremendously good adaptation of the book.

Absolutely agreed. Far superior to the original adaptation.

As much as I love the title Who Goes There? . . .

Interesting, because I thought the film version of The Shining simply threw away the whole heart of the novel. Jack wasn't supposed to be an evil man who found his home, but rather a good but flawed man un-equal to an evil place.

You really prefer Bakshi's LOTR????? Really??????? Wow. Even Sam-the-neanderthal? And the rolly-polly troll?

Just to make the comparison, I would note the 1950s version of Moby Dick, the remake of The Maltese Falcon with Humphry Bogart, The Hunt for Red October (actually many times superior to the novel--but then, it'd have to be, wouldn't it?), the original film version of The Haunting and Interview with the Vampire as well as the miniseries of The Stand as truly excellent adaptations.

Good adaptations would include Shogun and The Winds of War as well as Bram Stoker's Dracula, and honestly LOTR.

Zahir wrote: Interesting, because I thought the film version of The Shining simply threw away the whole heart of the novel. Jack wasn't supposed to be an evil man who found his home, but rather a good but flawed man un-equal to an evil place.

As is Rashomon not just a simple retelling of the stories by Akutagawa. That's part of the reason I mentioned those two, and I'm glad you picked up on that. The Shining is a great example of reworking a book into a superior version, in my view.

Zahir wrote: You really prefer Bakshi's LOTR????? Really??????? Wow. Even Sam-the-neanderthal? And the rolly-polly troll?

Yes, I do. Flawed as it is. The first time I saw this film (when I was quite young), I was simply blown away by the animation techniques used for the Orcs and the Ring Wraiths - both conceptions of which are both a lot closer to the books, and a lot better than Jackson's Warhammer inspired "Oi Gov'" orcs. There was nothing in the new trilogy that came close to making me think "gee, that looks cool", in the same way the hordes of Saruman did in Bakshi's.

I don't know guys.
It's going to be awesome to be able to say to people, "Did you see The Hobbit? That's where my folks got my name from."

Sadly, most of my classmates still have never read the book.

You see, there's the difference. I didn't like what Kubrick did to King's novel. The novel's themes and story resonated far far more than those of the movie. Ultimately, I simply did not care about anyone in Kubrick's version. Why should I? The novel had a sense of personal tragedy.

Interesting that you mention the one thing I did in fact think really excellent in the Bakshi movie--the Ringwraiths. I honestly found them weird and terrifying. On the other hand, I also thought they worked quite well in the Jackson films. But I cannot say how disappointed overall I was with the animated LOTR. The scale, the grandeur, the vividness of characters who touched my heart--none of that was there.

And again--Sam the neanderthal. I've never forgiven him for that one.

Montressor wrote:There was nothing in the new trilogy that came close to making me think "gee, that looks cool", in the same way the hordes of Saruman did in Bakshi's.

This scene made me think, "gee, that looks cool." So much so, that I painted it.

Nice work!!

That's fantastic!

And again...
the multi-talents of those on the Watch simply astounds me.

Supreme debater.
Painter.
Beer brewer extraodinaire.

Beautiful, Malik.

Menolly wrote:And again...
the multi-talents of those on the Watch simply astounds me.

Supreme debater.
Painter.
Beer brewer extraodinaire.

Beautiful, Malik.

yea, he can do just about anything. he also plays guitar, the bass, is a writer. right now he is painting a picture with me in it.

*soft smile*

It's good to see appreciation for each other expressed, Ki.

Y'know, I think Bakshi did a great job at remaining true to the book, certainly truer than Jackson did. But Jackson got the visuals better. But I do agree about the Ringwraiths and the orcs. I didn't really like the orcs much in Jackson's version, and especially the Uruk Hai. I mainly found their Marine-like voices annoying. "Kill the halflings" bugs me every time. And strangely enough, I think I prefer Rankin Bass orcs to any of the others, at least vocally.

Bakshi's version was ok. It was a neat combination of animation on top of live action. The Ringwraith scene right before the fords was nice, depicting how Frodo was entering their world.

However, there are so many scenes that were infinitely better in Jackson's trilogy--some scenes even surpassed the book and my own imagination. Gandalf's fall with the Balrog, Gollum's dual-personality soliloquy, the first time we see Sauron stride into battle, knocking soldiers out of the way like toys, cutting the ring from his finger and his "explosion," the cave troll fight in the Mines, the progressive reveal of Minas Tirith as Gandalf makes his way to the top (with some of the best music of the series), the lighting of the beacons, the look of the ents, the council of Elrond, Frodo's ring visions, the "invisible" technique of forced perspective to make Hobbits look smaller in the same scene . . . man, I could go on and on. He really performed the best visuals I've ever seen in any movie, period.

Agreed, Malik. But there are certain scenes that make me wince as well, such as around Mount Doom, Sam's ear makeup is just bad. Takes me out of it each time. And in Fellowship when Arwen is riding with Frodo from the Ringwraiths. Couldn't they have done something to make it look less like a dummy? Little nitpicks in an otherwise especially fantastic adaptation. And I agree about the imagination in there, but I also think they illuminated a lot of the stuff from the book that I never quite got as well, such as illustrating just how important it was to win Helm's Deep and shut down Saruman, as they were being pressed from both sides. Never quite got that before it was illustrated in that map scene with Faramir, strangely enough.

I think complaints about those kinds of details are inherent in film. Getting every single detail and continuity right simply is not in the cards. Ever.

Mind you, I also think there's a lot of nitpicking in the aftermath of disagreeing with filmmakers' basic choices. Example--those who hate Arwen rescuing Frodo will go on and on about how impossible it would be for her to outrun nine other riders on a flat plain for several days. Which of course is misleading at best. She only crosses a flat plain for a short time. Mostly she's weaving in and around a varied landscape, one she must know intimately.

I have my own disagreements with the film--mostly a few anachronisms and a lack of focus in the second (and especially third) films. But the good far, far, far outweighs the bad. The casting was excellent, the design splendid, the special effects superb, the script inventive and at its best captured the heart of Tolkien's story while illuminating new bits for a different medium.

The most obvious to me was the characterizations of Saruman and Grima, whose inner lives and motivations are barely touched upon by Tolkien (no complaint there--the book is Hobbit-centric so how would they know?). Yet those two characters became living, breathing, multi-faceted beings on the screen in a way they could not be in the book. Bravo!

Likewise I was amazed at how good the Ents looked. Think about it--how do you make a walking, talking tree look like anything other than an extra on H.R.Puff-N-Stuff?

You have a great talent, Malik! And dang, you look familiar; are you in the DC area (or would that blow your cover?)

I loved Bakshi's version, but not having seen it in 20+ years, I bet it aged for me; the animation, I mean. I'd be interested in viewing it again now. I think Jackson's LOTR will be considered timeless for the next 50 years.

I also think that whoever ends up doing "The Hobbit" knows they have a huge level of perfection to attain in order to reach JRR's ability to so beautifully tell a story. I like "The Hobbit" better than LOTR, myself. Even though Jackson came close to the atmosphere of LOTR and what I also saw in my minds eye when reading the novels, he didn't quite get it close enough for me; ie, SamWise, my fav fiction character of any book I've ever read, was poorly crafted in the film.

Oh, and Carpenters "The Thing": In my top 5 movies of all time.

KT, thanks for the compliments. I wish I were cool enough to need a "cover." But no, I've only been to DC twice. Once for a Grateful Dead show in the early 90s, and two years ago on vacation with my family. I'm in Lexington, KY.

I've never heard anyone say they liked the Hobbit more than LOTR. What's your opinion of the Silmarillion (my fav)? I'd love to see a series of movies based on that--or even a 2nd age Numenor movie (check out my thread in the Tolkien forum for a cool proposal I found for such a movie).

Personally, I was disappointed with TTT movie. I remember being blown away by that part in the books, how the Fellowship fractured and how much larger the story became. In the movie, it just seemed longer, not larger. Helm's Deep was a valiant stand in the books, rather than running away and hiding. And Theoden didn't need to have two character turns; his "awakening" was enough. From then on out, he should have been the noble Theoden of the books. It seemed petty to the extreme for him to say, "Where was Gondor when we needed help?" And then change his mind on a dime after the beacons were lit. And his "theatrical" mode of speaking was distracting. Come to think of it, Theoden and Denethor were perhaps the two most disappointing characters in the movies. These guys were kings. They should have been treated better by the writers. How can the same writers make Boromir much better than the book version, but then reduce Theoden and Denethor to confused, pale shadows of their written characters? Oh well, at least Theoden had a nice speech before the charge.

I didn't like how much TTT diverged from the books--and not necessarily out of any "purist" sense of loyalty, but because those parts were simply bad choices. How many freakin' characters have to fall off a cliff or crevice, only to reappear later? Gandalf was enough. We didn't need Aragorn, Frodo, and Gollum repeating that stunt.

Grima and Saruman were indeed nicely expanded, though I wish Lee had portrayed Saruman with a bit more subtlety. I never imagined him saying, "Burn it," with such evil glee. We're talking about an angelic being, here. I know he "went to the dark side," but Lee didn't portray any inner depth I would have expected.

See? I told you guys I've got a long list of disappointments (those just scratch the surface). Still, these movies fill me with a sense of wonder and awe unlike any other movies I've seen. I've watched them so many times that I've vowed never to watch them again . . . not until the hi-res versions come out.

Back to the Hobbit . . . I'm really excited to see the second movie. It's supposed to bridge the gap between the Hobbit and LOTR by showing the "off-screen" stuff Gandalf was doing. The Necromancer. The White Council. Gandalf sneaking into Dul Guldur. Finding out that Sauron is back. This has the chance to be really great stuff, and since there are no written versions, we won't have the problem of divergence from the book.

Malik23 wrote:I didn't like how much TTT diverged from the books--and not necessarily out of any "purist" sense of loyalty, but because those parts were simply bad choices. How many freakin' characters have to fall off a cliff or crevice, only to reappear later? Gandalf was enough. We didn't need Aragorn, Frodo, and Gollum repeating that stunt.

Agreed. I thought TTT was the most action-y and carried the least Tolkien-esque. It exposed Jackson's sword-and-sorcery framework, mainly because: A), the first movie already introduced us to the characters and built them up, and B) the third movie got to have the emotional payoff.

Malik23 wrote:Grima and Saruman were indeed nicely expanded, though I wish Lee had portrayed Saruman with a bit more subtlety. I never imagined him saying, "Burn it," with such evil glee. We're talking about an angelic being, here. I know he "went to the dark side," but Lee didn't portray any inner depth I would have expected.

Yep. He had the voice, the looks, the menace, but it didn't seem very deep. When I read "The Voice of Saruman", I felt mesmerized; I was ready to join Saruman, but Lee's speech didn't persuade me.

I saw enormous depth in Lee's Saruman--the moment when he first appears and says "My old friend," and for a split second you see the noble being he once was. The haunted moments in the first film ("There are none who can" and "You have chosen death" as well as the way he reacted after having spoken to Sauron) were very effective indeed.

But the overall effectiveness of almost everything declined in each film, mostly in favor of more and still more spectacular special effects. Still very good films, but each a little less good than its predecessor.

I thought Denethor was handled awkwardly, although the actor himself (John Noble) did a fantastic job. But by that time the writers had written themselves into a corner with him, without enough time or (equally important) opportunity to explore him much further. Still, loved the moment when Pippin was swearing the oath, and again for a moment or two you see the positive side of the man--the way he is touched by Pippin's gesture.

Cannot agree about Theoden. Even more fundamentally, I cannot in any way agree with this...

And Theoden didn't need to have two character turns; his "awakening" was enough. From then on out, he should have been the noble Theoden of the books.

First of all, anyone who's read the book carefully should realize Theoden has more than one character "turn" in them. Also, the above seems to me a call for something that is dramatic death--a static character. That is the stuff of tertiary characters, not leads or even good supporting characters. Theoden feels many times more human to me, having doubts and fears and a temper, and frankly far more heroic in overcoming them. Theoden in the films is to me an extremely noble man, in some ways more noble, not least because we see him genuinely care for Eowyn, as well as inspiring the Rohirrim in many more ways than on the written page.

Yeah, though, Jackson and company do tend to re-use certain motifs too much and someone falling from a rocky height but surviving is one of 'em.

I'm in the camp that recognizes that divergences from the book are necessary. Because they make a movie more palatable for the un-read movie goer.

I'm in love with the idea of The Hobbit. Even though I was sure it wouldn't happen so soon!

I'm not in love with The Hobbit 2: Milking Middle Earth. Theatre doesn't have a happy history when it comes to squeezing one more installment out of a franchise. They just don't need to care if they ruin it.

Maybe Peter and Fran and Phillippa have some ideas that I don't see.

And it can't detract from The Hobbit 1, unless they add too many hooks to it.

The good news is, they'll be motivated to do The Hobbit 1 well, right?