tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post8112229412755833729..comments2024-03-22T18:43:00.710-04:00Comments on Unam Sanctam Catholicam: LOTR RevisitedBonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-77738666275402389072013-01-14T22:16:08.882-05:002013-01-14T22:16:08.882-05:00There's a very well-done fanedit of Jackson...There's a very well-done fanedit of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, called "Sharkey's Purist Edition", which you can find here:<br /><br />http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/5779688/Sharkey_s_Purist_Edition_v.2.1_The_Lord_of_the_Rings_Trilogy_MP<br /><br />Here's just the Fellowship of the Ring, at much lower quality (I recommend checking it out first):<br /><br />http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/5779661/Sharkey_s_Purist_Edition_v.2.1_Lord_of_the_Rings__FOTR<br /><br />Unfortunately, these two only have one seeder, and while The Two Towers standalone torrent also has one seeder, I'm afraid the Return of the King has died. So it's a slow download.<br /><br />But the main torrent is of very good quality and I enjoyed watching it a lot. There's only a few places where the edit seems funny, and I believe that is mostly because you've seen the films so you react a little.Karlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-12880197939653598922008-07-30T09:27:00.000-04:002008-07-30T09:27:00.000-04:00Another case (in my opinion) where the book was cr...Another case (in my opinion) where the book was crappier than the movie -- JAWS by Peter Benchley.<BR/><BR/>The movie is great. The book was not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-73513706618715178322008-07-23T12:28:00.000-04:002008-07-23T12:28:00.000-04:00Andreas-First, it ought to be noted that even when...Andreas-<BR/><BR/>First, it ought to be noted that even when the books first came out, many objected to the character of Tom Bombadil and said that he added nothing to the story and was more of a diversion than anything else.<BR/><BR/>However, Tolkien out him in there for a reason, as he said that every word of the book was scrutinized to make sure it was helping the story...<BR/><BR/>It could be argued that including Bombadil could have brought the movies closer to the books simply by being included: he is in the book, and ought to be in the movie.<BR/><BR/>But, I would argue as Tolkien did, LOTR was not the main story of Middle-earth. LOTR represented a certain story that was meant to go against the backdrop of a larger drama: the <I>Silmarillion</I>, the exile and return of the elves, and the fall of Numenor. In a certain sense, LOTR provides Tolkien with an occasion of working in the elvish lore of the Silmarillion. Remember, the Silmarillion was worked on from 1914 until Tolkien's death, but LOTR was (much of it) made up as he went along. Tolkien wants us to get into all of the seemingly backgroundish type stuff when we read LOTR. He wants us to be enthralled with the poetry and songs, to wonder about the Ent-wives, to feel the sadness of the elves and to marvel at the fallen glory of Numenor. In addition, he wants to introduce us to Bombadil for a very specific reason: to show us that there are some creatures in Middle-earth who are not part of the game at all. Even Gandalf and Sauron, though powerful, are still bound by the "rules" of Middle-earth and the power of the Ring, by Bombadil is beyond all of these and shows himself, though part of the world, not bounded by it. It reminds the hobbits (and us) that there are greaters powers at work in things beyond Sauron and Mordor.<BR/><BR/>But the movie does not care about getting too much into the background or mythology behind the stories, and so from the cinematic view, Bombadil may not help the movie. I can't say that the movie would necessarily be better with him in it, but I can say that we lose a little bit by his deletion. Is this a contradiction? Perhaps, but the character of Bombadil himself is a contradiction as well.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-23980987541091462532008-07-23T11:12:00.000-04:002008-07-23T11:12:00.000-04:00Re: Tom Bombadil - I don't see how this character ...Re: Tom Bombadil - I don't see how this character would have been important to the movie. I read the books about 6 years ago, so all I remember about him was that he was in the woods with the hobbits. Maybe you could explain how he would have made the books tie in closer to the movies? Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-42181844847493525752008-07-22T09:57:00.000-04:002008-07-22T09:57:00.000-04:00Frodo sent Sam home in the movie because Gollum tr...Frodo sent Sam home in the movie because Gollum tricked him into thinking that Sam was stealing food and that he was secretly coveting the ring. I did not say he hated Sam, but he clearly (in the film) thought Sam was after the ring, suspected him, and sympathized more with Gollum. While he did pity Gollum in the book, he never pitied him so greatly that he broke faith with Samwise.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-54285600753378021662008-07-22T09:22:00.000-04:002008-07-22T09:22:00.000-04:00I read the books a long long time ago (maybe 10 ye...I read the books a long long time ago (maybe 10 years now?) and saw the movies on DVD (and not in the theatres). So my recollection of the events may not be the best. <BR/><BR/>But I was very moved when Frodo asked Sam to go home. I always felt that Frodo asked him to go home not because he hated him, but because he didn't want Same to face the peril with him. He loved Sam so much that he didn't want to see anything happen to him, and so, told him to go home. (I was happy to see Sam come back after, of course, since it was inevitable, but also slightly annoyed.) :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com