RLGaming.com

I'm not usually a big fan of movie remakes but there are a couple of science fiction films which have good stories and characters but now feel very outdated due to the limitations of special effects and fashion sense of the time. Here are a couple I've been thinking of:


1. Logan's Run (1976) This one starred Michael York and Jennie Agutter (schwing!) and had a very interesting premise. You gotta love the women in those ABBA-style dresses! lol.

2. Battle Beyond the Stars (1980) Cheesy beyond belief but the story and characters were very promising. It also feels very dated due to the crude special effects and odd costume design.

The Black Hole.

This is not the best movie ever, but a classic,and I can see it becoming a great movie with some good actors. and worst cae, they screw it up, O well not the best movie out there aneway

The Lord of the Rings. Perhaps now, even now, someone with, I dunno, actual writing skills, possesses the wherewithal to draft a screenplay that remains true to the author's original work (that is to say, fine, leave stuff out [Tom/Sharky], we understand the limits of the silver screen and we can deal, but BY ALL THE GAWDS *DO NOT* STICK YER -OWN- CRAP IN THERE).

I'm tempted to suggest The Valley of Gwangi but why mess with a true classic.

TD

It's been a while since I've read the original Tolkein novels, but I don't recall anything being written into it? What was added?

Tach Deneva wrote:but BY ALL THE GAWDS *DO NOT* STICK YER -OWN- CRAP IN THERE).


TD

What exactly are you referring to? Anyway, I think the LOTR movies by Pete Jackson are probably the best cinematic interpretations you can get from the book.

yeah, exactl Panz...that's why I'm asking. He must've seen something I didn't

I felt LoTR was a overall good adaptation, however, I do know Arwen didn't have anywhere near as much in the books. She didn't rescue Frodo at the river and there was never the ordeal about her marring Aragorn. They also made Elrond almost spiteful it seamed to me. The how they had Gimli as comic relief. It's been quite awhile since I've read the books so I know there is more I've forgotten.

It's been too long since I've watched it, so I don't remember all the various and sundry extra bits. The whole fight with the cave troll (in response to some kinda CGI troll in a Harry Potter movie), Aragorn falling off that cliff and being saved by his horse, pretty much everything with Arwen (poor old Glorfindel got the shaft in *both* movie versions of Fellowship), and thank goodness they retreated from the whole 'Arwen, Warrior Princess' thing they were considering. If you listen to the commentary (I forget which disc) Peter Jackson is chatting away and mentions some scene as being straight from the book and one of the other writers corrects him and tells him "No, we made that up." A very telling moment. Saruman's pre-mature death. The wall-crawling orcs in Mordor. Aragorn not carrying the shards of Narsil with him. Elves at Helm's Deep.

See http://jackflannel.org/lotr/ for a nitpicker's guide.

TD

Well, I guess the fundamental issue is the difference between great film making and having a strict interpretation of a novel. It's possible to make a poor movie which is exactly identical to the novel and its also possible to make a great film which is based on a novel but doesn't necessarily follow it word for word.

I know there where dfferences but I think it was a exceptionally good movie BASED on but not exact to the books. You could even complain that the queen spider thing was, If I remember correctly at the end of book 2, not in book 3 like the movie shows. So even the time line is a little off But in the end, it was a good watch, and I have the extended set. One day I have to do q sit down on all 3 straight.

There are multiple changed details but they do not fundamentally detract from the story.
Saruman died where he died because the Scouring of the Shire had to be dropped for time reasons. People were literally standing up to leave when I saw the film once the ring was destroyed. People weren't going to sit around for another 30 min sequence in the Shire.
Arwen was a big deal in the Appendices but left out of the story itself for some reason JRR never really indicated that I know of. Jackson knew the film would have a broader appeal if that love story was actually in it. He didn't make it up, he took what was there, expanded on it, and placed it into the story proper.
Elves at Helm's Deep...doesn't change the story at all, but as the Elves DID fight other battles as noted in the appendices but left out of the actual story, they stuck that in there so people saw the Elves actually DOING something. Otherwise, every battle in LOTR other than the prologue in Fellowship would've been humans vs orcs/Uruk-hai with one Elf and one Dwarf assisting.
Arwen warrior princess was a stupid idea, and they fortunately realized it and changed it well before they finished principal photography.

Quite simply if LOTR is ever done "faithfully" it will be a Masterpiece Theatre serialized version done over like 100 30 min episodes at a drastically reduced budget that will make no money and be enjoyed only by purists. No movie studio would finance that.

Originally, LOTR was going to be a simple pair of movies when Miramax was behind it. Just think how butchered THAT would've been.

I didn't expect it to be identical. I did expect it to be *correct*, particularly in terms of character, as well as the basic plot structure.

Examples:

1. In the book, the Fellowship wants to leave Rivendell quietly, but Boromir, the by gosh son of the Steward of Gondor, won't hear of it. He's not sneaking off in the night like some cowardly cur. He whips out his horn and lets one rip. Big character moment. Pride before a fall, and all that.

In the movie, they just leave.

2. In the book, a wounded Frodo races toward the Ford of Bruinen, pursued by the Ringwraiths. When he reaches the river, he draws his sword and says, essentially, "Hell no, I won't go!" which gives the reader an idea that, hey, that boy's got spunk. Maybe he *can* pull this off. Big character moment.

In the movie, Frodo is a sack of potatoes on Arwen's horse.

3. In the book, Strider carries the broken sword wherever he goes. At Bree, he draws it and shows it to Frodo. "If by life, or death, I can save you, I will." It is his birthright - and a big clue as to his true identity ('Seek for the sword that was broken'.)

In the movie, the broken sword is on display at Rivendell. Aragorn isn't considered worthy of it.

4. In the book, Legolas is the son of Thranduil, the King of the wood-elves who gave Bilbo a hard time in The Hobbit. He's a good shot with a bow (shoots down a flying 'fell beast' with one shot) and never sleeps; he and Gimli the dwarf gradually overcome their racial enmity and become dear friends - perhaps even a more difficult feat than shield-boarding down a flight of steps while strafing the enemy with a longbow.

In the movie, he's Superelf, Indiana Elf, Wolverelf, and James Elf all rolled up in one.

Maybe the stuff with Legolas was entertaining to the kids in the audience (more thoughtful viewers must surely wonder, however, are the other Sindar the equal of Legolas? If so, why the heck do we need anybody else?) but the rest was just unnecessary tweakage that added nothing; on the contrary, the characters actually suffered for the changes.

Movie Faramir vs Book Faramir?

It's always been my opinion that if one is going to translate someone else's work into another medium, and sell it based on the name of the original creator, one should be as *faithful* as possible to the original work. Otherwise, just make up your own dang story.

I should add that for all its flaws I don't *dislike* the movie. I have the extended versions of all three films (they are much better than the theatrical releases). I maintain, however, that the movie could have been immensely *better* had Peter Jackson not given in to the temptation to second guess Tolkien.

And don't get me started on all the <Bleep> pastiches of Robert E. Howard's Conan!

TD

nice list tach - i thought there were some changes made that were for the better and some that were for the worse. In the end, I can enjoy them as separate works. However, I thought the dwarves were all a little comical (even in the Hobbit, I felt that way), so I didn't see an issue with Gimli as comic-relief.

I thought the Strider/sword thing was an odd thing to change.

I think though, that what we see is how everyone reads a book and gets a slightly different story - the movie is what Jackson saw and wanted to show us.

Arise, o dead thread, arise!

I've been reading Lord of the Rings again, just started on 'Return of the King' a couple of nights ago, and today I happened to notice that TNT was airing the Peter Jackson LoTR movies. So, with those particular portions of the tale fresh in my mind, I watched the last half of the second movie and most of the third...

And you know what?

These movies are even WORSE than I originally thought! There is virtually NOTHING on the screen that is true to the book. NOTHING. The vast BULK of the movie (all three taken as a whole) is STUFF MADE UP by the screenwriters. And what isn't made up out of whole cloth is so bizarrely altered I was left wondering if Jackson based his script on an English version of the novel rendered into French in the Google translator and then re-rendered back into English. That might explain it.

For example:

* Theoden chases Grima Wormtongue out onto the steps and intends to kill him. Aragorn stops him.

No such scene in the book.

* Theoden is possessed by Saruman. Gandalf exorcises Saruman, and back in Isengard, Saruman is knocked down.

No such scene in the book.

* Aragorn falls off a cliff. Oh, noes! What happened to Aragorn? His horse finds him, he comes back, all is well. Whew!

No such scene in the book.

* Elves arrive to assist in the battle at Helm's Deep. Haldir takes one for the team.

No such scene in the book. Although I suppose we should be thankful they AT THE VERY LEAST spared us the travesty that would have been Arwen Warrior Princess at Helm's Deep (however, it has been said that if one watches closely, one can perhaps catch a brief glimpse of... well... damn).

* Frodo and Sam have a little tiff and Frodo presses the point of Sting against Sam's throat.

No such scene in the book.

* Gollum tricks Frodo into sending Sam away.

No such scene in the book.

* Sam falls down a hill right in front of the Black Gate, and Frodo slides down after him; they hide under Frodo's elven cloak as a couple of Haradrim (presumably) investigate.

No such scene in the book.

* Frodo, Sam, and Faramir (ye gods, poor Faramir, butchered beyond all recognition) YELL about the Ring IN PUBLIC and Sam goes off on Faramir about how and why his brother Boromir died. Then the Ringwraiths attack and Frodo almost puts on the ring but Sam stops him.

No such scene in the book.

* Merry goads Treebeard into rousing the Ents against Isengard. The Ents flood Isengard by breaking a dam.

No such scene in the book. Funny (that is to say, convenient) place for a dam. Funny place for Isengard, right under that (conveniently located) dam.

* Legolas. Period.

All this extra, non-book stuff added - and yet, didn't they say they had to leave portions of the actual story out of the movies to keep them from being TOO LONG? Hmm...

Yes, dead horse, thread necromancy, and all that, but by golly I say if Peter Jackson wanted to make a Lord of the Rings movie he should have made a Lord of the Rings movie. If, on the other hand, he wanted to make a big, lush, expensive, epic CGI adventure he should have made up his own story, called it "We Have a Cave Troll and We Ain't Afraid to Use It!" and left Lord of the Rings alone.

Rant over! Carry on.

TD

1) John Carpenter's "The Thing"
2) Tron
3) Outland

Lord of the Rings isn't "Sci-Fi" IMO. I loved everything about the movie, and it's my favorite movie of all time.

Softball wrote:1) John Carpenter's "The Thing"

I like the 50s version, too, even if James Arness is a walking vampiric carrot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Goes_There

Lord of the Rings isn't "Sci-Fi" IMO. I loved everything about the movie, and it's my favorite movie of all time.

If Peter Jackson ever makes a film version of the nursery rhyme 'Jack and Jill' he will have a scene with them running between the legs of gigantic quadrupedal creatures just because it looks so cool. And somewhere along the way there will be an opportunity for Jill to roll down a hill in an empty rain barrel while simultaneously hurling uncannily accurate sling stones at the bad guys. And we'll find out that Jack didn't really want to fetch a pail of water anyway; he just wanted to hang out and not worry about bathing or any of that bothersome nonsense. Jill threatened to break his crown (high school disco dance king) if he didn't go with her - oh, irony of ironies that he fell down and broke the thing anyway. He really should have left it at home and worn his fedora instead.



TD

What can I say other than I disagree with your interpretation. Just because you found more deviations from the original text does not imply the the piece isn't faithful to the novels. I've read the novels dozens times, and I don't consider the differences you raise in this thread as genuinely significant. Books are often changed when adapted to film for a ton of reasons. I think the films are enjoyable pieces of fiction in their own right that convey the essential tone and themes developed in Tolkien's original works. Ah well.

Grifter wrote:Just because you found more deviations from the original text does not imply the the piece isn't faithful to the novels.

Uh... yes, actually, more deviations do = not faithful.



TD

LOTR the book would make a sucky movie unaltered. Book purists are upset by that, but it's the truth. Tolkien wrote a good myth, but he wasn't writing for the screen.