From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article , Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > For the record - it's not the concept of "instant true love" I   
   > > have a problem with, it's the idea that it exists in a story   
   > > without any perceivable reason for it to exist. If true love is   
   > > included, give a convincing storyline for its existence.   
   >   
   > Well, then, I am a bit off-base here.   
      
   > I would, however, point out that she abandoned her post, refused a   
   > direct order from a superior officer (Legolas), and abandoned said   
   > officer -- all to follow and save Kili from the Morgul blade -- in   
   > the second film.   
      
   Which is a far cry from "true love", and could all be ascribed to her   
   feeling that he doesn't deserve to die coupled with the fact that Thranduil   
   doesn't seem to want her around either way. It would have been another   
   matter all together if she was already betrothed to Legolas and they in   
   turn was not in love with each other, the the events on screen would have   
   more meaning. As it is, she's an elf that fancies Legolas, but Legolas   
   father doesn't approve and she meets this nice dwarve dude that has some   
   unfortune that she wants to help him with. Bam, true love!   
      
   > I think this is supposed to suggest that she had feelings for Kili   
   > that were more than "just friends". So the filmmakers may have felt   
   > that they /were/ giving "a convincing storyline for its existence".   
      
   They weren't. It's forced and out of the blue.   
      
   > But I will have to wait until I see the film to be sure. I may well   
   > end up agreeing with you.   
      
   Well, if you think that the scenes in TH2 is enough for true love to exist,   
   then you already disagree with me, if you don't feel it's enough, then rest   
   assured that Tauriel and Kili has no more scenes together in TH3 before she   
   weeps over him due to this supposed true love. Apart from them screaming   
   each other names when they're in peril, I don't think they have a single   
   lone of dialogue together in TH3.   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > Still, in the Middle Earth of PJ & accomplices who can say what   
   > > > may be happening in Mordor while Sauron is at Dol Guldur? And,   
   > > > IIRC, he had been preparing Mordor for his return for some time   
   > > > when he was driven out of Dol Goldur by the White Council.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > But it's a fair bet he hadn't yet been breeding Olog-hai at this   
   > > point.   
   >   
   > In JRRTs story/appendices, yes. In PJ & accomplices version, who can   
   > say?   
      
   It's the same story, you know. What isn't told explicitly in the movies are   
   from the books. So some things we *know* and some things are different.   
      
   For instance, as an example. In the book, Frodo takes several months to   
   make things in order before travelling to Bree, in the movie, he does not.   
   That's something that is different.   
      
   In the books, Gandalf and Pippin travel for days to get to Minas Tirith,   
   and in the movies they cut from one scene to the other, yet that's the   
   same. Minas Tirith isn't around the corner from Edoras as the movie might   
   have you believe because we know this.   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Olog-hai. Yes, they were, in Appendix F:   
   >   
   > I stand corrected   
      
   > Just another instance of my mind insisting that I have cleverly   
   > figured something out that I, in fact, have read and so learned from   
   > the author.   
      
   You'd be surprised at how much in the movies are taken almost literally   
   from Tolkien.   
      
   > > > > Sandman:   
   > > > > I think it's just a typical case of repeating   
   > > > > something popular, or visually effective. The entrance of the   
   > > > > Mumakil was awesome in RotK, so they wanted to recreate that.   
   > > >   
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > That may well be the case. IIRC, when discussing the first film,   
   > > > I noted that several characters in that film were playing the   
   > > > parts, so to speak, played by other characters in the /LOTR/   
   > > > films. And that's not counting the characters that were in both   
   > > > series.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > What do you mean?   
   >   
   > You'd have to go back to my posts and see, I really don't recall.   
      
   Yeah, but I didn't understand what you meant, not what characters played   
   what parts. The sentence "I noted that several characters in that film were   
   playing the parts, so to speak, player by other characters" was unclear to   
   me.   
      
   > > > > Sandman:   
   > > > > There is a stone tower that topples over and is   
   > > > > wedged between two cliffside in a physic-violating manner, but   
   > > > > it's short and not at all like any of the scenes inthe earlier   
   > > > > two movies.   
   > > >   
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > Is it similar to the "collapsing stairs"/"collapsing tower"   
   > > > scenes in the /LOTR/ films, which have never looked realistic to   
   > > > me.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > It's probably worse. :)   
   >   
   > Most CGI studios /improve/ over time. Pity.   
      
   Well, Weta has some awesome talent, but unfortunately, each of the three   
   movies have had work pushed up to the very end deadline.   
      
   For instance, in TH2 the "molten gold" river that Thorin rides using a   
   wheel barrow looks like something from the Super Mario era och CGI, totally   
   amateurish. In the behind the scenes material the reason is quite obvious -   
   this scene was created late in the day when it was decided that two movies   
   should be three movies, and then the second movie didn't have a crescendo,   
   so they had to invent the entire attack in the mountain thing, and it drew   
   out so the CGi had to be rushed. It's unfortunate but such things happens   
   to many movies.   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > That the film should have ended with the Adoration of the   
   > > > Hobbits says clearly that the film and the book are telling two   
   > > > different stories.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > No.   
   >   
   > Yes.   
      
   > The book's story ends with Sam returning home.   
      
   As does the movie.   
      
   > The film's story ends with all of Gondor bending the knee to four   
   > Hobbits.   
      
   No it doesn't.   
      
   > Everything after that is, so far as the story told by the   
   > film is concerned, irrelevant fluff added for the fans of JRRT.   
      
   I.e. it's the movie makers trying to tie up the ending of the movie to   
   match the ending of the book - Sam returning home and to his life in the   
   Shire, which is the very last scene.   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > The greatest temptation with prequels, in my /very/ limited   
   > > > experience, is the tendency to link them to the next film. The   
   > > > worst example I have had to endure (only once) was at the end of   
   > > > /Red Dragon/, where Hannibal is told that some FBI agent named   
   > > > Clarice Starling is waiting to see him. When I recovered from   
   > > > that, I found myself heading for the doors, even though the end   
   > > > credits were rolling. I /never/ leave until the credits have   
   > > > ended; some films have an extra scene after them that is worth   
   > > > waiting for, so I would say that I found /Red Dragon/ an   
   > > > especially bad film   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > You're way too sensitive about minor details.   
   >   
   > IMHO, I am just exactly sensitive enough.   
      
   Unsurprisingly, it's your opinion. :)   
      
   > But then, this is a cinematic form of smart-assery, and I loath and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)