ext_7651: (Default)
ext_7651 ([identity profile] idlerat.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] sistermagpie 2004-12-19 11:39 am (UTC)

Many agreements, a few dissents.

I definitely see fictualities's point about Saruman saying something about Frodo and that destroying the whole point of the movie.

Yes, that baffled me. I see your explanation, but it's very confusing: I mean does Saruman even know that Frodo is the hobbit in question, i.e. that the Ring isn't in the hands of one of the hobbits smoking his stash?

Eomer! Yes, the grief was intense, and it was set up by earlier added Eomer--the scene with Eowyn, but also, ITA, the drinking game: for me, also, the point of that was really getting to watch Eomer's face in his natural habitat.

Loved the Mouth of Sauron; best addition. And the look between Gandalf and Pippin was so great I forgot it wasn't in the TE--it just seemed so natural and necessary and canonical. I felt it was about different things for the two characters. I loved Sir Ian on this viewing. I haven't listened to actors yet--I go first for director and writers, so they can 'splain theyselves.

I wasn't as happy with the Faramir additions as others. Yes, technically they added some of his real stuff, but in a context and a way that still felt way off to me--more than ever, in a way. For me, his most Faramir-like scenes (in the film) remain the forbidden pool and Osgiliath, both in the theatrical TT, ironically enough. He is just *so weak* in relation to Denethor in this film. And the dragonslaying seemed like this weak, wishy-washy Faramir and not the "Wizard's pupil," to me. Where is the characterization to back up that assertion of Denethor's? I am a little obsessed with the way the films have portrayed the Tolkien-Sue and his family.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting