People who thought the movie stunk! [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lostgaeriel

12-22-2001, 06:15 AM

Hi Rhudladion! I am sorry that you did not like the film. What are your favourite movies? What are the requirements of a good movie? What do you consider to be fine acting? Perhaps the answers to these questions will illuminate why you did not like this one.I've read LOTR some 20 times over the past 28 years. And during that time, I thought it would make a great but impossible-to-make movie. Peter Jackson, the cast and crew have made a wonderful motion picture that stands on its own apart from the books. And they did the impossible; they crystallized the story and its major themes of love and friendship, loyalty and courage, the battle of hope and goodness versus despair and the corrupting power of evil.This is the only movie where I have sat FORWARD in my seat because it gripped me so hard - it was so real. I was afraid to blink because I might miss something. Three hours was far too short, but it left me wanting more - always better than making it too long.I find it helpful to consider WHY each change or discrepancy appeared in the film. Consider the most important aspects of the plot, characters and their relationships. Consider both the limitations and advantages of the film medium. Time is at a premium; visual information is its strength. What is the best way to tell the story in pictures?The Elves at the Council of Elrond were not a bunch of mean-spirited jerks. As Elrond pointed out in the movie: Rivendell could not stop Sauron from recapturing the Ring; the Ring 's presence endangered Rivendell as it would any place the Ring was "hidden"; the Elves were dwindling and leaving Middle Earth, so it was up to all the peoples of ME - to find the way to destroy the Ring. You may have noticed that the heated arguments among the Elves, Dwarves and Men were the result of the corrupting power of the Ring – thus the special effects at that moment. The Ring binds Sauron’s enemies by causing discord and division among them.Yes, there were discrepancies. Thank goodness. It would have been extremely boring to watch the story unfold exactly the same as the book. How could the movie hold any suspense for those of us who have read the books? The plotline was maintained. Key characters were kept – minor characters (to the main plot, not necessarily minor in Middle Earth) were eliminated. Just as they should be in order to keep the story moving. (I was surprised that Celeborn was kept in the film unless it was to establish that Galadriel was indeed very powerful – she was a ruling Queen and Celeborn was only her consort. Haldir was kept to show that Aragorn had been to Lóthlorien before - important in establishing his life-experience and the length of his exile.)Frodo was perhaps a bit weak physically or awkward or accident-prone compared to how he is portrayed in the books, but his strength of character was revealed in his taking of the burden and his selfless decision to leave the fellowship as in the books. This was not due to bad acting, but because the script was written to increase the audience’s sympathy and concern for Frodo. In film the best way to do this is to show him physically struggling or in danger. And the scene at the Fords of Bruinen did take his speech of defiance to the Ringwraiths and give it to Arwen. But to convince us on screen how gravely wounded Frodo was, he almost had to be shown as incapacitated. It would be hard to believe he was close to death or fading and yet able to ride. How do you show that an Elf-horse has the power to keep its rider seated?Arwen’s character was enhanced, but this was required to show that she and Aragorn are well matched. She is his helpmate and equal. Their relationship had to be shown and grounded in a reality that we can understand. Arwen is Aragorn’s support when he is doubtful of his own strength of character and worthiness to be King. He is afraid that he will fail the test, as did Isildur. (The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in Appendix A never satisfied me as to why these two people were together.) Instead of Aragorn trying to hide his insecurities by saying things like "Elendil! I am Aragorn, son of Arathorn and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil's son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again!" as he does in the books (and may sound a bit stiff, over the top and obnoxious on the screen,) Arwen can reveal these insecurities to us. It is far more subtle and realistic – he will appear most regal when he is silent. The character of Arwen illuminates the character of Aragorn.In the film, Boromir reveals that Aragorn is a natural leader and not just the heir in name only. Before he dies, he regains hope and pledges his loyalty to Aragorn, his captain and King. The character of Aragorn is VERY important in the trilogy – we need to know all his dimensions – warrior, captain, protector, tracker, wizard’s friend, healer, loremaster, judge, songwriter, lover, etc. Because he is all of these things, in addition to his lineage, he is destined to be King.The acting was incredible. (No wonder - the roles were choice - some of the best ever written.) The actors had so thoroughly internalized their characters that they were no longer acting - they just were. Viggo Mortensen was amazing at this. You could read layers of meaning in his eyes; his silences said as much or more than his speaking. The way he carried himself was elegant. He wasn't playing Aragorn; he WAS Aragorn. In film acting, subtlety is key. It is all in the eyes and small movements of the face and body - that's how film reveals what stage acting cannot.Sean Bean as Boromir was also excellent! Again, it was the quiet moments after each arrow pierced him that showed the great acting – you could see and feel the internal struggle to find the strength and courage to continue fighting with the Uruk-hai. He was on the knife-edge of despair, but his promise to protect Merry and Pippin gave him the will to continue and thus restore his honour. Bean was handed one of the greatest death scenes in motion picture history and his portrayal is going to get him an Academy Award nomination and make him highly sought after. I felt greater sympathy for Boromir in this movie than in the book. I had never before considered how Denethor’s despair had poisoned his eldest son and that it was this hopelessness and not only desire to be great in battle and gain his father’s favour, that sparked Boromir’s desire to use the Ring against Sauron.Hugo Weaving as Elrond was wonderful. He portrayed Elrond as aloof and as contemptuous of “men” as an Elf-Lord should be. After all, Isildur didn’t take his very excellent advice about destroying the Ring, to the detriment of the Elves. And some young man – in fact the heir of that accursed Isildur - has stolen his daughter’s heart and will separate them forever. Again, the movie made crystal clear to me Elrond’s almost love/hate relationship with Aragorn, while the book did not. I don’t mean that it’s not there in Appendix A – it was just not obvious to me before.As you can see, I could go on for a long time, extolling the virtues of the film. My ONLY criticism was the "dwarf-tossing" line spoken by Gimli. That will not stand the test of time. Fifty years from now, no one will understand the reference. It made me cringe.[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Lostgaeriel ]

red

12-22-2001, 04:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Hugo Weaving as Elrond was wonderful. He portrayed Elrond as aloof and as contemptuous of “men” as an Elf-Lord should be....in fact the heir of that accursed Isildur - has stolen his daughter’s heart and will separate them forever. Again, the movie made crystal clear to me Elrond’s almost love/hate relationship with Aragorn, while the book did not. -Lostgaeriel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I cannot let this go. You say you have read the books some 20 times over the years, yet how could you have read them so many times and still failed to understand the heart of Elrond? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wize as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves and as kind as summer. (from memory, forgive me if it is not exact)-The Hobbit<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is the heart of Elrond. I wish I had the appendix of LotR with me to quote some more passages that show Elrond's fondness and deep love for Aragorn. You said the books do not show Elrond's love/hate relationship with Aragorn. There is a simple explanation for that. It doesn't exist!! It is a figment of your imagination! Elrond did nothing but love Aragorn. Since Elrond has long been my favorite Tolkien character, I have studied him much. (Shameless self-promotion: I even wrote the Encyclopedia entry for him on the website. ) Elrond never showed anything but kindess, wisdom and generosity to all living things except those spawned of evil. That is why I disagreed with Elrond's portrayal in the movie. It did not fit with Tolkien's Elrond at all. Sure, PJ has the right to portray Elrond any way he likes. I also have the right to disagree and point out supporting evidence from the texts. I don't think there exists any evidence from the texts that show Elrond being as negative, bitter and gruff as he was portrayed in the movie. Nor did Elrond ever so much as show a hint of contempt for Men. So there! -red (Founder of the Elrond Fan Club)[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: red ]

Dáin Ironfoot

12-22-2001, 07:24 PM

Well i liked the movie i guess, i can understand the major omissions (you know how long the movie would have been!), but some really should have been there (i cant say ive read the book 20 times, but can say 6)I really would have liked to see narsil reforged! Its part of the rhyme "all that is gold does not glitter............The sword that was broken shall be reforged......Thier will be a king on the throne agian" There were others too, but the battles were good and it was a good picture of middle earth

Bers

12-23-2001, 09:45 AM

I was very dissappointed with the movie. I didn't mind the ommissions, but the things that were added really made me cringe. The part with Arwen I found particularly unpleasant, also the fight between the two wizards was just stupid. I always thought that Gandalf and Saruman would struggle in other ways, like with the powers of their mind, and by adding that part in the movie, it seems to be saying that veiwers cannot understand any struggle that isn't physical. Some depictions of places and characters were also very false in my opinion. The scene at Bree for instance. In the movie, Bree looked scary and disgusting. There was nothing of the warm and inviting Prancing Pony, where the hobbits felt so comfortable that they endangered themselves through carelessness. Also, Elrond was not the kind and all-knowing being that he should have been. He was cold and contemptuous (not to mention ugly). In fact, all the elves seemed to get too much enjoyment from scaring people. Elves were mischievous in Tolkein's books, but they weren't cruel. They were perilous only because of their power. The only elf that I really liked and enjoyed was Legolas. I liked all the members of the company of the ring, with the exception of the two younger hobbits. They were made to seem totally ignorant of anything going on around them. They were idiots, although I got a laugh or two from them. As for all the people saying "you can't compare it to the books", I say why not? It is a work based on the books, and anyone who would undertake the making of a movie based on books that are so well read and well loved should be more conscious of making a movie that would be true to the books.

Metyl_Gunnm

12-25-2001, 07:01 PM

I am shocked that you bare this film so much contempt, yet can still audaciously count yourself among the ranks of fantasy proliferators around the world. It seems to me, you betray your kindred by spurning this triumph; the first truely awe inspiring fantasy movie ever to be released. I am shocked it was as good as it was. It retained the majority of content plausible, any ommisions were logical, and it was entertaining from beginning to end. I am afraid you are in the minority on this one. Hundreds of thousands of movie going consumers, LOTR fan's and not, as well as critics around the nation, all think it is a fine film. Several hundred jaded malcontents like you are the only ones who spurn it so, and for little reason other than the fact they cannot concieve of any other rendition of something that is subject to the biases and unique interpretations of all. LOTR is not the bible. It's a story, and I think their are better ones out their, and it actually makes for a better film than a book.My sister, a great fanatic of the books since she was nine (she is now Forty!) was the biggest skeptic, and even she came around and loved every moment of it. Take it as it is, and if you don't like it, don't see it, or the next two. There are plenty of other people who have and will indulge themselves to this rare treat, and hopefully will come out better people for their journey into Middle Earth.

Lush

12-25-2001, 08:55 PM

I know that I was definitely touched by the movie. Took me back to my early childhood. I think the fantasy genre has been greatly aided by Peter Jackson's amazing contribution, and I can't wait 'till next Christmas! To those that did not like it for one reason or the other: bah humbug! Although I do respect your opinion, and offer my sincere sympathy, because I know how painful it may be to be left unsatisfied with a cinematic version of a book dear to one's heart. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. Love, Lush

robertkillen

12-26-2001, 10:18 PM

If I made some changes though I would definitely put in Tom Bombadil and have Glorfindel instead of Arwen.Hear, Hear!!

Tirinor

12-27-2001, 11:25 AM

I agree with Rhudladion about Peter Jackson's portrayal of the elves in the movie. They seemed cold and distant, and Loth Lorien looked like a ghost world, not the golden paradise the book describes. I thought character development was sarcrificed to move the plot along, but I can see why, and that may be remedied in the later movies. I thought Frodo was pretty weak in this movie, and am looking forward to an improvement in his character in movies two and three. Aragorn was good, although he bombed on a couple of lines. I thought the rest of the fellowship was well cast and delightful, especially Boromir. Elrond was, by far, the worst character in the movie, Agent Smith looked the part, but he sounded terrible and the character itself couldn't have been any farther from who Elrond is. I think the poor treatment of the Elves in this movie does a great dis-service to Tolkien it being the case that the Elves and their history and language are of the greatest of his creations. On the whole I hold a very forgiving and lenient stance toward the first movie. It is a very difficult story to translate to the screen. I am hoping that the next two movies will repair some of the short-comings of the first movie and I will reserve my final judgment until all movies are released.

sbierig

12-27-2001, 12:44 PM

I saw the movie on Opening Night. I'd say 80% of the packed theater were Tolkien fans. When the movie ended, the crowd emptied in a hush. Almost everybody was saying positive things about the movie. This was the first time I EVER saw a film on opening night. I loved the film and I have been reading and re-reading Tolkien for over 20 years now. I was a little disappointed about a number of issues (listed in another post) but when you take film-making issues into perspective you appreciate it more: 1. The film needed to be true to the book, a classic - I think it was pretty close 2. The film needed a huge budget for the scenery and effects - I think most agree the scenes were pretty true to the book 3. The film needed to make money - I think it will. Each day a 3 hour movie makes only 1/2 the $$ day than a 1.5 hour movie makes. The film could never have gone beyond 3 hours and anything less would have been horrible. As for character development, there really is not much in FOTR other than Frodo's changes and that of Gimli regarding the Elves. I thought Frodo changed remarkably over the course of the film. He transformed from a happy-go-lucky, child-like innocent into a solemn, depressed adult - just like in the book. Character development really takes off in The Two Towers so hopefully we will see it there.Finally, with a fanatic following such as this, there will always be critics. The movie was never really made before as producers thought it was an impossible task. PJ and his crew made LOTR come to life. He deserves credit for meeting us much more than halfway.

Tirinor

12-27-2001, 01:06 PM

This is in response to Aftiel of the Twilight's post saying that the story of the Lord of the Rings is better in movie form than in book form.Nonsense and blasphemy! A story so richly detailed, so consistent and well founded, and so full of wonderful and intricate characters and dialogue, is impossible to convey in movie form. Anyone who thinks LOTR in movie form is better than LOTR books is seriously misguided and completely lacking in imagination. Only bad books, plays, and dialogue heavy books can entertain the hope of becoming greater when done in movie form, and the Lord of the Rings isn't any of those.I have no leniency for such ignorance and therefore will not waste anymore of my time addressing such a preposterous position.

rhudladion

12-27-2001, 01:40 PM

Thanks for all the comments about my review!However, I have found that most of them miss the point or do not interpret me correctly.Lostgaeriel: You must truly be passionate about the LOTR as your lengthy entry implies. However, I found most of your reply to be more of a synopsis of the story (not even the movie in some places) rather than a response to my review. But before we get into that, I'd like to address your comments about theme. Yes, the movie certainly had themes such as love, friendship, courage, loyalty, good vs. evil, etc. But what film doesn't? You described 90% of all films made in the last 25 years.First of all, there is a difference between presenting a theme and presenting a theme well. Secondly, there is a difference between presenting a theme and telling a story. Certainly, you are not suggesting that as long as a movie presents the themes of the book it is about then it is a good movie?! What about the story? You respond to my claim that the Elves are "mean-spirited jerks" by saying this: "The Elves at the Council of Elrond were not a bunch of mean-spirited jerks." The rest of your paragraph is simply a re-cap of the happenings at the council of Elrond. Thanks, but I am familiar with what goes on there. Furthermore, I did not limit my claim to the Elves at the council of Elrond; although Elrond in the movie certainly personifies my claim. I think you might need to read the books a 21st time.Aftiel of the Twilight: You wrote this: I am shocked that you bare this film so much contempt, yet can still audaciously count yourself among the ranks of fantasy proliferators around the world. It seems to me, you betray your kindred by spurning this triumph; the first truely awe inspiring fantasy movie ever to be released. I am shocked it was as good as it was. It retained the majority of content plausible, any ommisions were logical, and it was entertaining from beginning to end. I am afraid you are in the minority on this one. Hundreds of thousands of movie going consumers, LOTR fan's and not, as well as critics around the nation, all think it is a fine film. Several hundred jaded malcontents like you are the only ones who spurn it so, and for little reason other than the fact they cannot concieve of any other rendition of something that is subject to the biases and unique interpretations of all. LOTR is not the bible. It's a story, and I think their are better ones out their, and it actually makes for a better film than a book. My sister, a great fanatic of the books since she was nine (she is now Forty!) was the biggest skeptic, and even she came around and loved every moment of it. Take it as it is, and if you don't like it, don't see it, or the next two. There are plenty of other people who have and will indulge themselves to this rare treat, and hopefully will come out better people for their journey into Middle Earth. Well, here is what I am shocked about: First of all, I am wary to take heed the words of one who so willingly casts the LOTR in the category of "fantasy". This is usually done by those who have never read the LOTR or are not able to understand its magnitude. Secondly, if I rallied my movie reviews around the populous, I'd have to give A+'s to a lot of crappy movies...say, Batteries Not Included for example. Thirdly, most of your comments seem to be aimed at my character and not my opinion. You should get to know me before you attempt impeachment; but for now just stick to my review. ..and Finally, I don't know why I am wasting my time on someone who thinks "It's a story, and I think their are better ones out their, and it actually makes for a better film than a book." How in the Hell did you get a membership on this site? I think this is grounds for a filtering process! Have you ever read the LOTR?P.S. I don't trust your sister. P.P.S. what does the relationship of the Bible and the LOTR have to do with my movie review? I never made a claim about the LOTR's greatness, I simply claimed that the MOVIE was not good.

Tirinor

12-27-2001, 01:42 PM

I too hope that the popularity of the movies helps to promote more movies of a fantastical nature, but I cringe at the thought of LOTR being mentioned as fantasy and as a flag bearer, of sorts, for the fantasy genre. Tolkien's work transcends fantasy, It's origins grew from the classics, mythology, and fairy tales. The term fantasy, as used today, is very "popular." by including Tolkien in fantasy you equate other works of that genre with the Lord of the Rings. It is the same mistake as saying neil young and n'sync are rock stars. neil young is a rock star, nsync are pop stars. fantasy is like pop stars, Tolkien is greater than that. Don't cheapen LOTR by considering it in the fantasy genre. Fantasy exists because of creators like Tolkien, but Tolkien's work is not itself Fantasy. It is Literature.

Goldenwood

12-27-2001, 01:57 PM

I did'nt like Lothlorien. It was too eery and Galadriel made ME cringe. It was the only part in the movie I hated and abhored, but as for the rest of the movie I loved it. You say there is'nt any character develpoment?Are you NUTS ?! I thought Boromir was very well done. In the book he's a tragic and forlorn character and he could NEVER be a favorite character, but in the Movie his bond with Merry and Pippin is amazing,and that gives him a reason to protect them is not only because they are part of the Fellowship and it is his obligation but because he is bonded to them. It also gives Pippin a cause to become the squire to Denethor, not just because of his debt but because he was attached to Boromir and friends with him. And that brings up the Hobbits. The movie Frodo loves his life in the Shire just as much as Merry and Pippin, but because of the danger he would bring apon the Shire if he went back or stayed he decides to go on with the quest and become the permament Ringbearer. The fact that he loves the Shire is inhanced in the Movie very much so. Merry and Pippin are changed ALOT in the Movie. They are'nt exactly weak, but they are foolish. They're young hobbits and they have no experince with the outside world so they want to discover everything at the same time and it gets them in trouble. Teens are naturally into things and independent wanting to find things out on thier own and it gets them into trouble. It's just the way they are and I think it was brought out in the movie. Sam is as loyal as he is in the book. If you dont call running out into a river and forgetting you cant swim because of a persn you love not good showing of characteristic then you're a goose. Aragorn does'nt want to bother with the throne he's happy as a ranger of the north,but because it is his fate to claim the throne he faces it bravely and squarly in the face. I also think that his love of Arwen made him take that step foward. He cannot marry her until he claims the throne. So the love that is between them is prounouced and so is his knowledge of the outside world. Arwen.....hmmm cant say anything but"brave and knowledgable for a girl who grew up in a sheltered home" Gandalf is shown as a human, not as someone who cannot make a mistake ever, from going back to Saruman to bumping his head on the overhang in Bag End. I think that if Saruman is the"councilor"(I say councilor for lack of a better word)to Theoden in the movie then I think that the Depression of Theoden(remeber he thought all was dark in the outside world. That's why he was locked up)will be really brought forth in the second movie.And remeber that Denehtor used the Orthanc stone and saw that "all" was "lost". Why could'nt Saruman do the same? All I have to say about Legolas and Gimli are"Great axe and bow work you guys keep it up". Their colors should show along with Sams and Merry and Pippin in the second movie. The only problem I had with the movie was Lothlorien and the Watcher in the Water. Lothlorien was to dim and FREAKY and as for the Watcher in the water all I can say is"Frodo is NOT a salt shker so stop treating him like he is ok?" Other than those prblems I am going to see it again and again and then finally get the movie when it comes out. Goldenwood ps.Is it ok if we get a Pessimistic Forum going?JAJ(Just A Joke)

rhudladion

12-27-2001, 02:24 PM

Goldenwood: I don't think you understand what character development is if you call that character development.and again, why do people keep explaining simple things to me such as Frodo's love for the Shire? And to call Boromir's bond with Merry and Pippin amazing is to call Number Five's relationship with Stephanie phenomenal.Please don't confuse Pessimism with Criticism. Is it pessimistic to call a bad movie bad?One other comment: The scene with Frodo and Sam in the river...it was my favorite. so we actually agree on something there. However, disappointingly, it was character development that took place 2.9 hours too late!

Lush

12-27-2001, 02:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rhudladion: I don't know why I am wasting my time on someone who thinks "It's a story, and I think their are better ones out their, and it actually makes for a better film than a book." How in the Hell did you get a membership on this site? I think this is grounds for a filtering process! Have you ever read the LOTR?P.S. I don't trust your sister.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Kids, play nice! We all seem to be pretty passionate about what we're talking about here, but let's not go for each other's throats just yet! As for calling Tolkien's work "fantasy", I personally agree with that title, and see nothing negative in it. I guess it's another "f" word like "feminist"-when people hear it, they cringe. But the title "fantasy" in its purest sense does not demote a book to some lower level of significance or quality. Yes, Tolkien's works ARE Literature, but the word itself is used to describe a large body of diverse books, such as plain fiction, science fiction, Native American studies, women's studies, horror and all that other good stuff (imagine how hard it would be to organize a Barnes & Noble store without these classifications). As for Tolkien, I went to buy my own set of LotR books last night, and was pleased to discover that he had his own separate section in the general vicinity of the generic "fantasy" shelves. Now, for those that thought the movie sucked...At least it has brought more attention to our good J.R. now, and new converts shall arrive! (I'm one of them) And what's so bad about that?

rhudladion

12-27-2001, 03:43 PM

Lush, the category "fantasy" is certainly necessary in order to organize books. However, the first mention of the "fantasy" category placed the LOTR in a genre that as a whole can't touch the LOTR. Furthermore, J.R.R.T.'s view of "myth" and "fantasy" was much different than what is typically meant when a B & N rep. points to the "fantasy" section. I think Tirinor would agree that we were simply trying to make a necessary distinction between regular ole fantasy works and the LOTR. This distinction was necessary given the context. Furthermore, including a book or any work of art in a genre that is known for uncreativity, cliche, and folly CERTAINLY DOES "demote a book to some lower level of significance or quality".Sorry, if I've been too mean. I just get a little fired up when someone says they think the LOTR is a better movie than a book. That comes pretty close to blasphemy for me![ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Rhudladion ][ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

Lush

12-27-2001, 04:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rhudladion: Furthermore, including a book or any work of art in a genre that is known for uncreativity, cliche, and folly CERTAINLY DOES "demote a book to some lower level of significance or quality".[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Rhudladion ][ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You know what? The above adjectives pretty much apply to most of the genres today! If we don't watch out, the word "literature" itself will become demeaning. As for Tolkien, maybe after the passing of a few centuries (when none of us, save for the elves among us will still be breathing) he will be reassigned to the "Myth" section.

Tirinor

12-27-2001, 04:29 PM

Literature in the broad sense includes a vast variety of genres, but Literature as a classification is much more refined and exclusive. Any trip to the bookstore can prove that to you. For many years LOTR has been swallowed up into the fantasy genre, but recently it seemed to be gaining its rightful respect in literary circles. I fear that the "new popularity" of Tolkien due to the movies will undercut the progress the books have made in becoming recognized as canonical. Just as the "fantasy" movement that was spawned by the books did to undercut it's potential originally. The Odyssey, the Iliad, the Aneid, the Inferno, and Paradise Lost, all contain fantastical elements but are not considered fantasy. LOTR belongs in their company, and if they are to be called fantasy books, then all the rest should be called something else.Time will tell. Someday the LOTR will be put in its proper place.

Tirinor

12-27-2001, 04:46 PM

By the way, LOTR is not alone among books that should be rescued from a diminished genre classification. There are others lost there that should be added to the Literature ranks.To continue my music analogy from earlier: when I hear a pearl jam song between a britney spears song and a backstreet boys song on the rock station, it creates a attitude of equality that ultimately detracts from the respect of the greater artist. But Pearl Jam is not the only one that deserves a better setting; Counting Crows suffer the same situation. It's not the fault of "rock" as a classification that it's respect has diminished, it is the fault of all the stupid popular songs that the masses eat up for five months then discard for the new flavor.Likewise:It's not the fault of "Fantasy" itself that its reputation is sullied; it is the fault of the majority of the books that fall under that category due to the poor discernment of the masses that make it popular. So when I attack fantasy, I attack what it has become, not what it may have inherently been.

Lush

12-27-2001, 04:57 PM

Yes...Like I said...No, I won't repeat myself, my fingers are quite tired again! As for Tolkien's newfound popularity undercutting the process of his acceptance-I think you're overreacting. If you read and love a book, wouldn't you want others to read and love it too? Or maybe you just don't want the result of this popularity being irksome little people such as myself suddenly popping up out of nowhere, copy of LotR in arms, wondering aloud about the eternal question of who is more attractive, Legolas or Aragorn (???), and generally trying to sound like she knows what she's talking about. Times they are a' changin' indeed! Right?

Beryl

12-28-2001, 08:07 AM

Rhudladion, I love you! I am a refugee from Imladris, one of only two there who despised the movie. Yes, I'm a Tolkien fanatic, its an annual tradition for me to read the books, 25 years and counting.I do not consider myself a Purist by any means but by any standards, this was a HORRIBLE movie.There was NO acting because the actors were given no time to do so. The whole movie was way too rushed. For all my daughter(who hasn't read the books) knew, Merry and Pippin were a couple of thievesthat Frodo and his brotherSam took up with!The Moria scene was a travesty,it should have been silent and eerie, perhaps a whistle of wind thru the vast halls and an echoing drip of water. Where were the shivers when we heard slimy footsteps dogging the company?!?!Instead we got Gandalf (the inept Ian McKellen)"oh that? yeah, Gollums been following us, ho hum." And that ridiculously long drawn out battle with the cave troll, who at first looked fine, but too much camera time made me all too aware it was CGI.Even ignoring my disappointment with the deviations, which I expected, and taken strictly for itself, it was a bad bad film.The SFX which I thought were awesome (Barad Dur, Orthanc, Opening battle)and could have been used in combination with fine acting to create a really wonderful film, instead we got:No acting, no terror, no time for anycharacter development. And the GOD AWFUL MUSIC! Was there one single scene that didn't have that music playing? Were they trying to evoke some emotion in us that the actors couldn't possibly? It was SO intrusive at at times it was all I could focus on.Whew, anyway my disappointment is as vast as the Mines of Moria should have been.The only thing more irritating than the movie are the people who are unwilling to admit how flawed it was, not only that but insist that I should go see it again, that it will be so much better the second time.Thanks but no thanks, I know a bad movie when I see it and I don't think I'll be tricked into contributing any more cash to the reciepts by the false hope that it will be better the second time. Puleeze!

Tirinor

12-28-2001, 08:53 AM

hey Lush, you are right. I do love the books, and i do want others to read it. but I want people to read it and enjoy it because of the great work of art it is and not because it is popular. I guess I would just like to see LOTR grouped with works worthy to be called equals.I'm not sure if it was you who made the comment about how Literature is being diminshed too, but I must admit that is only to true. when you see John Grisham books grouped with the likes of Steinbeck and Hugo, it is a sad day.My hope is that readers exhibit proper discernment when approaching a book. It is fine to enjoy popular books, I do so myself occasionally, but just because they are enjoyable does not mean they are good. We could get into a huge discussion about aesthetics, and what "good" is, but I would rather not right now. but there is a canon of books that have withstood the test of time and are considered "good." and I believe that LOTR should be a part of that group. when LOTR is grouped in a "popular" genre like fantasy, I get irked. Poe and O'connor stand among the greats, they are not relegated to the ranks of horror, macabre or mystery. perhaps it is because they are older. maybe Tolkien has to put in his time before he gets promoted. but I think his time will be extended because of the movies.

Ulmo

12-28-2001, 10:20 AM

Well I certainly did NOT think that the movie stunk, but it could have been better. Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie, but a few things in the movie are starting to bug me; gnawing at me really. These are things that the average viewer, the ones who have not read the books, would not know or care about, but to us they do. In the book, fellow Hobbits Pippin and Merry are fun-loving but deeply committed friends of Frodo’s, who secretly plan to join his flight into danger, while in the film they’re just dim-witted, pranksters, who fall in by mistake. Sam, who in the book feels a stirring duty to see the quest through, whines here to go home. Elrond the half-elf is depicted as a mortal-disdaining snob, concerned for his own hide, instead of the good of all, that the ring depart his land. Not to mention the fact that Elrond is one of the greatest Elves in the history of Middle-earth. An elf who was born in the First Age, keeper of the Great Ring, Vilya, leading member of the White Council, and at the time of The Council of Elrond, he was over 6,500 years old! A character of this renown needs to be treated with more respect (and more screen time!). The elf queen Galadriel becomes a witchy cartoon. And we never get to see the gifts she gives every member of the Fellowship, only Frodo's was shown. And I wish they hadn't changed the Mirror of Galadriel sceen. Gandalf shies from journeying into the dwarf mines of Moria, while in the book he’s the one who advances that idea, despite the peril it presents to him. The onscreen Aragorn is badly in need of a couch on which to pour out his phobia about claiming his kingship because his ancient forebear had proved unworthy. In the book, rather, he is anxious to claim his kingship, and is torn between his desire to lead his land and his loyalty to Frodo and his quest. I like the expanded role of Arwen, but dammit, why did you have to get rid of Glorfindel! He fought in the Battle of Fornost! I wish they would have shown Gollum following the fellowship on the Anduin River .....But I digress, the movie is still one of the best movie of all time (IMHO), but o man, with a few minor, ahem, improvements, this movie could have been....................

Tirinor

12-28-2001, 11:20 AM

ulmo, i agree with most of your points. I definately do not agree that it is one of the best movies of all time. It is hard to believe that people even advance that claim. Even if i didn't have problems with the plot decisions, and even if i thought every action sequence was the best it could be, I still would not consider it among the best movies. It simply does not succeed at presenting quality movie character elements. This is the case partly because of the design of the story not being movie friendly and I can be lenient towards it, but leniency does not justify the movie into the ranks of greatness.i don't mind pippin and merry in the movie, it would be nice to see them closer to who they were in the books, but it would have been hard to do.another thing, at first i too was annoyed at Sam's wanting to go home in the movie, but while re-reading the book, it does make mention of Sam being at his lowest ebb upon the departure from rivendell, and he wished greatly to be back in the Shire. so I can see why that part was in the movie.

Eol

12-28-2001, 01:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The elf queen Galadriel becomes a witchy cartoon. And we never get to see the gifts she gives every member of the Fellowship, only Frodo's was shown. And I wish they hadn't changed the Mirror of Galadriel sceen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>how is the mirror scene different? I am kinda concerned in that they are going to explain how sam has the rope that they use to save their lives, when it states in the FOTR that Sam forgot to pack a rope when he left the shire.

Serevian The Ranger

12-31-2001, 02:10 PM

i thought it was good except they cut out pretty important stuff

FilmHobbit

12-31-2001, 02:27 PM

The movie is great, best film of the year. And the REASON it is great is that it doesn't stick slavishly to the books. I say that because Harry Potter DID stick slavishly to the books and it sucks. Clearly Jacksons way is the better way to make a film. You have to translate the material to a different medium rather than make a carbon copy of it.

Elrian

12-31-2001, 11:09 PM

Also with the Potter movie the author insisted being there all the time. They didn't have a choice really. I don't think anyone could have done a better job with the Lord of the Rings movie than Peter Jackson did.

GollumsPrecious

01-01-2002, 06:11 AM

Parts of this thread beggars belief..were some of u taking notes in the cinema :-)For me films like people have their faults. Nobody or nothing is perfect. FotR was a good film, well acted with superb effects, stunning scenery and great fight scenes.Yeh, I'm sure there were bits which some of the "I've read LOTR 50 times...first when I was 3 years old" brigade will pick faults with but c'mon...geez a break.As others have commented LotR is a massive, complicated tale and if everything was left in as in the book the 3 films would last a week and would gross about 10 quid. PJ has done his best to make a film which will appeal to everybody..not just Tolkien nuts. Why the hell should he make a film to satisy those who think they have more right to JR's work then the rest of Arda.In a nutshell I think people should chill...crack out the popcorn and just enjoy the film. Paul.[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: GollumsPrecious ]

Elrian

01-02-2002, 06:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>crack out the popcorn and just enjoy the film. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>At the cost of popcorn these days, that's not always possible

Eowyn of Ithilien

01-02-2002, 06:56 AM

woahhhhh can we all stop insulting each other's intelligence please! everyone has the right to an opinion and if you feel threatened because someone disagrees with you...well that's your own insecurities talking just a few points...harry potter isn't even worth a comparison, and pointing out that the author was involved-that's an isolated case and proves nothing at all I've already voiced the rest of my opinion on this movie under one of the other topic headings

rhudladion

01-02-2002, 08:28 AM

To GollumsPrecious: Most of the comments you presented are true statements that, I think, no one in this thread would disagree with. I believe that this forum was begun with the idea that we could critique the movie without comparing the movie to the book; at least it was my intention that we take a look at the movie's intrinsic qualities. Indeed, if we began a forum to complain about how the movie was different from the book, we would never finish the task and it would be quite uninteresting. I too at times succumb to the desire to draw attention to the discrepancies, but my intention in starting this thread was not so.P.S. Eowyn, no one has insulted anyone's intelligence for at least a week or so.[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

Tirinor

01-02-2002, 11:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Elrian: I don't think anyone could have done a better job with the Lord of the Rings movie than Peter Jackson did.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I could have.

Eol

01-02-2002, 12:13 PM

I saw the movie last weekend and I was VERY disapointed. I will not write a long shpel because it has already been stated in this thread and others. The only saving grace of the movie was the beginning with the hobbits in general. I am posting a page on my webpage that specifically deals with my critics of this movie without the comparison to the book. LOTR books were better off left alone and not turned into a cinema , commerical draw. Tolkien's stuff is way too detailed to make a goood movie.

GollumsPrecious

01-02-2002, 12:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tirinor: I could have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>...now we're just being stooopid.What we would get though if some people had their way is a pretentious art-house movie that would no doubt become a cult classic..ie a film which nobody watches.If PJ's film brings millions of NEW fans to the works of Tolkien then surely we should ALL be happy....if in the process he puts a few noses out of joint then thats ok by me.Pass the popcorn....Paul.

rhudladion

01-02-2002, 12:50 PM

This thread is not about whether or not others will be brought to the LOTR, although that MAY be a good side effect. It is about whether or not the movie is good.

GollumsPrecious

01-02-2002, 02:05 PM

Rhudladion said:"This thread is not about whether or not others will be brought to the LOTR"..ok"although that MAY be a good side effect"..why only May ?..it sounds as if some people wanna keep Tolkien to themselves ala Feanors kids and the Silimarils...and we know what happened to them.Paul.

Tirinor

01-02-2002, 03:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by GollumsPrecious: Rhudladion said:"This thread is not about whether or not others will be brought to the LOTR"..ok"although that MAY be a good side effect"..why only May ?..it sounds as if some people wanna keep Tolkien to themselves ala Feanors kids and the Silimarils...and we know what happened to them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who is to say whether it is good or bad to bring people to LOTR? It may depend on how they are brought. The word "may" should not be assaulted so hastily, since it may be used wisely as a qualifier to avoid foolish over generalizations.And, why am I being "stooopid" if I claim to be able to do a better job than Peter Jackson? For all you know I MAY be Steven Speilberg. But that is beside the point. My ability to do a better job, or not do a better job is as unknown to you as my place of birth, therefore, you have no grounds to denounce my claim as being stooopid.

rhudladion

01-02-2002, 03:38 PM

Well said Tirinor! I also used the word "may" because I am afraid of the uneducated bandwagon effect. **Take for instance the Atlanta Braves: they stunk for years and years. Then they bought some good players, developed a good team, and millions of fans followed that have absolutely no knowledge of Atlanta, the Braves, or their history. The result: we call them "America's Team".**I would like nothing better than to be able to talk to any ole joe on the street about the LOTR. But what I would like is irrelevant---IF this movie causes unread viewers to tear into the REAL story with zeal, then that would more than likely be great. But sometimes a massive flooding of the waters can stimulate a cheapening effect. Furthermore, and a little off the subject, what if 80% of all the unread viewers don't read the book? Would they be fans? True fans? How many movies have you seen that have inspired you to read the book? These are my concerns. It is not that I want to keep Tolkien to myself (goodness knows, an attempt at that effort was hopelessly thwarted long ago). I just Don't want the LOTR to become "America's Team". I would hate to think that when people hear "the LOTR" they think only of the movie, the same way people say, "oh, that's the guy who wrote "Brown Eyed Girl"", when Van Morrison is mentioned. NO DEPTH!

GollumsPrecious

01-02-2002, 04:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tirinor: And, why am I being "stooopid" if I claim to be able to do a better job than Peter Jackson? For all you know I MAY be Steven Speilberg. But that is beside the point. My ability to do a better job, or not do a better job is as unknown to you as my place of birth, therefore, you have no grounds to denounce my claim as being stooopid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>...whatever u say.goodbye.

Lush

01-02-2002, 04:47 PM

You know, I once had a part-time job at a movie theater, and swore I would never buy popcorn again after finding a nest of mice in the popping machine! Tirinor-sweetie, don't let anyone crush your movie-making aspirations. However, I am curious, what is your definition of a good movie or a good director (besides yourself, of course)? Any examples you wish to provide? Rhudladion-Although I understand that you do not wish to compare the movie with the books, your dislike of the film certainly apppears to stem from the fact that you love the books dearly, and did not agree with the interpretation you saw. I suppose people like myself had it easier in that sense. Paul-I agree that even those long-time Tolkien fans (such as you, Rhudladion) should be happy that at least, more people will be interested in the books. Tirinor and I had a little debate about that on this thread; he is of the opinion that the movies will delay the acceptance of Tolkien by the literary snobs, but as a burdgeoning literary snob myself, I say that the books have long been accepted, and we should not be too sensitive to the occasional critic (although I haven't heard of a single one) who may regard them as frivolous fairy-tales.

Lush

01-03-2002, 12:13 AM

Buuut...Why should we be musing on deep subjects, or even, ha ha, keeping our sense of humor, when we can all just punch each other in the nose? Yrch, and we wonder why the Istari didn't just bulldoze over Sauron. Well, as for me, I am running out of witty things to say yet again so... Hey Tirinor, listen, if you are Steven Spielberg, will you get me Matt Damon's phone number?

Tirinor

01-03-2002, 11:07 AM

Dearest LushI'm all for pleasant conversation, just today I visited another thread and it was such a happy place, I didn't wantto leave. but when people jump to conclusions, make irresponsible generalizations and unsubstantially imply things about others, it makes me defensive.I'm a lenient fellow and I make my share of mistakes too, but when people don't make an effort to be sensible, I'll say something. reason must be defended, or chaos and idiocy will reign. Not to say that you do any of those things per se, but some have on this thread, and, like I said before, I don't consider myself invinsible to illogicallity and may have transgressed myself. but I make an effort to be careful what I say and how I say it, and other clearly do not.On the subject of what a good movie is, I am working on that and hope to post it this afternoon.I am not Steven Spielberg, nor do have Matt Damon's phone number.

Maedhros

01-03-2002, 12:01 PM

My dear Rhud,Your general ferocity towards the movie is unbecoming. You have lambasted those who have attempted to show some general sense of character development, foreshadowing, and other items, yet have failed to bring forth your own examples of Mr. Jackson's failure at these attempts. I agree that the movie is not perfect, however, for those of us who have read the books, I also believe that it is nigh impossible to appropriately judge the movie at first glance. The reason for this is quite simple - no movie will ever live up to the images and sensations created by our own imaginations. I also think that you are perhaps being a bit harsh, considering that most movies attempt to develop one or two persons in a two hour time span, while Jackson was put in the somewhat undesirable task of developing a multitude of personalities (at least nine - all of the Fellowship) in approximately the same time frame. Some were developed well, Boromir, for example, while others were not - say, Gimli. Nonetheless, Jackson's goal of creating a film from the books, one that was attainable by both Tolkien enthusiasts and the general public, should be considered.I also believe that this film should be considered for what it is, even in the books...mainly laying the ground for the personalities that later present themselves. I don't think that one can adequately judge the quality of this film until the others have been seen, just as we would not dare to judge Tolkien by only reading FOTR.For what it's worth...

Eol

01-03-2002, 03:24 PM

Dude, he is not lambasting anyone. He has considered the movie as a movie. This is trite to see everyone dogpile those who show any dislike for the movie, treating it as a hold relic rather than a movie. I have suffered a fraction of what Rhud has.Let us play nice and accept the fact there will be people who hate it because of its a movie and perfer the book. There will be people thought PJ did not do as good as he could have. Finally there will be people who love it because everyone else does.I wonder sometimes if people liked the movie just because it was tolkien.

Tirinor

01-03-2002, 03:37 PM

well said Eol.

zifnab

01-03-2002, 04:17 PM

Cheers to GollumsPrecious!

rhudladion

01-03-2002, 04:27 PM

Thanks Eol, although I don't think Maedhros meant to speak offensively.Maedhros: Well written! I welcome a good challenge. You are correct-I have been ferocious. But, if passion and ferocity about a subject cause me to be unbecoming, then so be it. I will get to the examples, although this task will be tedious; but first let me agree with you on a few matters: 1) "no movie will ever live up to the images and sensations created by our own imaginations." This is all too true, and I agree! 2) "I don't think that one can adequately judge the quality of this film until the others have been seen…" I agree with you in part. 3) "Jackson was put in the somewhat undesirable task of developing a multitude of personalities…" I agree that this is a difficult task, but I think it has been done before and better.I'll just start writing and see if some examples pop out of my head. Nazgul - I'll refer you to my post in "The Nazgul: Do you think they were weak?" thread. Arwen - No huge beef here; but why, in the name of thickening Arwen's role so she won't be so random later, does PJ need to have her face The Nine? Why not have her talk with Aragorn later in Rivendell to explain how important she is, or have Aragorn and the Hobbits (or anyone) have a short conversation explaining her importance and her role? Arwen, facing the Nine?!?!? You mean to tell me that all of the unread viewers out there thought this was realistic? Again, it was ok, but could have been done better. Including Glorfindel, Elrond, and Gandalf here would not only have been more believable (especially after you find out who Elrond is later), but it would not have been any more random (Glorfindel) than the role played by Galadriel IN THE MOVIE. Aragorn - Half his lines were unconvincing. They gave not nearly enough time at Bree to develop his relationship with the Hobbits. If I had not read the books, I believe it would have seemed like the Hobbits were stupid Heroes who got lucky on Aragorn. Again, not something that needs comparison to the book for correction. Boromir - Best acting of the whole cast! Not much to say here. Gandalf - He was decent. But man was he portrayed as an idiot in some spots. The bumping of the head thing…I've heard some justify this as a way to show Gandalf's non-invincibility or humanity. But it was unnecessary! Tolkien showed Gandalf's humanity by having him tell the Hobbits he could not make fire out of nothing, or saying his strength would wane against the balrog's, or expressing his uncertainties about the journey ahead. All of these could have been done in movie form very easily, but we get a Gandalf, the unread public gets a Gandalf, who bumps his head on the beam of a room that the THE MOVIE has already implied gandalf has been in several several times. STUPID. Frodo - Weak but sufferable. Acting was pretty good. But would it have hurt to have him show a little more courage? Would it have taken away from the implication that the ring was wearing him down? Sam - Good job, just not given enough time to act! Scene at the end teared me up (that's what I was waiting for for 2.9 hours). * Merry and Pippin - nuf said about them on other threads. But in short: made to look stupid (only Pippin was stupid, & could it not have been that way in the movie?); not given enough time to develop the whole friendship thing with Frodo. * Legolas - Pretty cool. Didn't say much, and should not have. PJ got this right. Gimli - He was alright too; although his reaction to Galadriel as a catalyst for the friendship of he and Legolas could easily have been done. * Elrond - Where do I begin?! Who would like that guy? Contrary to popular belief, he WAS mean-spirited, and acted like he wanted to force Frodo to take the ring. This attitude was prevalent among all the elves of ME in the movie, and that's plain backwards! My opinion is shared by others on this site; and while that may not make my claim factual, at least I'm not alone. Galadriel - Who would like her?! She, along with Lothlorien, came across as a dark, angry, witch. And while many in ME may have described her in that way, she was certainly DID NOT appear that way to the council. But, as I'm sure you've noted, this is more of a complaint about not sticking to the story. As for critiquing the movie itself with respect to Galadriel, what was the point of going there? We saw more bad Elves, and a mean witch who's only purpose for inclusion seemed to be to give Frodo his gift. How about a re-write here?….Throw out Lothlorien (since the latter is all the unread viewer seemed to gain from it). Have Elrond give Frodo his gift in Rivendell, and use the extra time on the Council (which, for the sake of the movie's plot and continuity, is far more important).* The mirror…who needs it (in the movie)? Gollum - Excellently done so far! Great image. Out of the picture. Good voice. Great sense of what the ring has done to him. Sauron - why did we need to see him? Anybody knows that the villain most feared is the one not seen! How's this?…they keep the beginning battle seen; we judge from the fear on the faces of those near him how terrible he is, but we do not see him (this is done in hundreds of other scary movies); we are made to think that Isildur is fighting with him (also easily accomplished by any good actor/director); Isildur swings his broken sword and a giant finger falls to the ground as it did in the movie, giving us the impression of how GREAT Sauron is. We never see THE enemy, which makes it all the more suspenseful as we near Mordor (movies 2 & 3), but we still have a sense of the might and terror of THE enemy. What do we have as it stands??? A large transformer! Orcs (Uruk-hai & Northerners) - No major problems here. A little WWF-ish though (personal complaint). Other comments: Places that you see a "*" denote scenes, characters, relationships, or plot that could have been developed further, adding to the story and the richness of the movie, had PJ cut some time from ridiculously long battle scenes: The battle in the Tomb in Moria could have been shorter; the silly crumbling staircase thing was a waste of precious time; Lothlorien as they did it was a waste of time (as I have said).Small, personal complaints: 1) Could Gandalf have said, "Oh, that's just Gollum." In Moria any more matter-of-factly? Don't you think the unread audience was thinking, "why isn't he more concerned? Why aren't any of them more concerned? Isn't that a big deal?" 2) "Demon-Bilbo"…not sure what to say about that?!? 3) The stairwell in Moria that Gandalf chose…contrary to the book, he went down instead of up. Why was this changed? No, it doesn't really matter, but why change something so trivial that could have been easily kept true to the story by a prop!?!So anyway, I've written enough, and I'm sure many will disagree with me. But hey, I love talking to you people about it![ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ][ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

Tirinor

01-03-2002, 04:45 PM

MaedhrosYour perspective of the film is admirable. I agree with much of what you have said. The books do not survive independently from one another, so why should we expect the movies to. We should exhibit a degree of patience when critiquing things such as character development and plot choices, withholding judgment until we see the whole picture. But that doesn't change the fact that some of those things are indeed weak in the first movie. I can't speak for Rhud, but much of my arguments are against people saying those elements are good as they stand. They may end up working well with the remaining movies, but right now we can't say either way. Just as we must wait to judge them as bad, there is not enough evidence to judge them for good.Being that as it may, some cannot be rescued by the remaining movies. My biggest problem with the movie stems from missed opportunities. I believe Jackson missed the opportunity to connect with the audience on a human level by not letting the actors playing Bilbo and Galadriel act out their temptation scenes, and instead resorting to the scare'em with computer graphics method. I don't mind computer graphics aiding in scenes, but when the computer graphics carry the scene when the scene is much more human than that is a tragedy.He missed opportunities to solidify characterization by neglecting scenes that would have strengthened the bonds between characters such as Legalas-Gimli, Aragorn-Frodo, Frodo-Sam, etc. Some have argued that this has been shown effectively because of a smattering of scenes that they use as examples. But just because it was shown, does not mean that it was shown effectively. This phenomenon stems from an interesting hypocrisy. Those that defend the movie by claiming that detractors cling to the book to tightly and fail to understand the strains of media transfer, commit the same error when they take characterization that they already have in their minds from the books and then claim that one line, or one scene does the same characterization in the movie. I would challenge those who think the characterization was satisfactory to look at it from a new comers view. Then they would see that the scenes where Aragorn and Frodo share a moment at Rauros has not been properly set up, and the same with Frodo and Sam, a great scene, but one that could have been even more powerful. And the Elves might have well been edited out of the first movie completely for all the substance they were imparted with. Many characterization scenes in the movie were in need of "builder" scenes before them, so the viewer knows why, or suspects what the character is going to decide. Characterization is about character movement, and rarely can one scene convey character movement properly. There needs to be a beginning to move from, not just the movement itself. I believe Jackson missed opportunities to accomplish those "builder" moments, and therefore his characterization suffered. Back to what I first said, some characterization builder scenes were included and haven't been moved upon yet, I can understand and am happy about these because I trust they will come into play later and build character the way it should be done. But, scenes that have movement or decisions/choices but haven't been properly built up to, it is to late for them. They missed it. Those scenes do not carry the weight that they could have, and should have, and Jackson cannot go back in time with movies 2 and 3 to do that for the audience. The elves, especially Elrond, were just plain misrepresented.I think three hours is about max for length of a movie, and most of my gripes could only be remedied with more scenes, but I honestly believe that those missed opportunities could have been un-missed, in the same amount of time. An example that was in the movie was the conversation between Gandalf and Frodo in Moria about Gollum. Well done. An example of what could have been, is to forget about sending Bill off at the gates of Moria and instead have Aragorn say something to Frodo, or have Frodo and Sam talk, or Legolas and Gimli argue. Any number of things would have been better than a pointless scene involving a donkey that, as far as new comers are concerned and as far as the movie is concerned, has nothing to do with anything.But, again, I am forgiving for now. The first movie, due to the amount of information, and the story having a one front focus (two with Saruman), makes for some very difficult movie making. The 2nd and 3rd movies should be easier, and I will wait until then to give my final verdict. Other than that this one could have been better. Regarding Rhudladion's postGood points. I disagree about the staircase scene in Moria, but agree that Cave Troll brawl should have been shorter. Interesting idea about the Sauron battle and cutting Lothlorien. I liked Gandalf just the way he is, but agree with much of what you wrote. LushYou will have to wait until tomorrow for the "good movie" essay. Sorry.

Lush

01-03-2002, 04:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tirinor: I am not Steven Spielberg, nor do have Matt Damon's phone number.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh damn. How did it come to be that you men have grown so skilled in raising a girl's hopes just to crush them with such overwhelming swiftness?...

Maedhros

01-03-2002, 05:04 PM

Excellent post, Rhudladion. This was along the lines of what I was wanting. While I can't take the time to posit on every one of your points (at work, you know) I'll try and tackle a couple.Galadriel - agreed. Not much to say there. I felt the mirror scene may have very well been the worst in the entire film. However, it is a short sequence in the entirety of the movie, so I was willing to forgive PJ for this one.Legolas - agreed. Excellent job.Boromir - agreed. Good job here as well.Gandalf - well, yes, and no. He does seem somewhat of a doofus at times, and I wasn't particularly fond of his grand entree either, however, in general I felt that the Gandalf on screen was very similar to the Gandalf that I have known for quite some time. He is amiable with the hobbits without being just a pal, and yet he is quite obviously someone to be revered for his knowledge and power. Cut a couple of lines (and head knockings, of course) here and there, and he's just about perfect.Aragorn - here, I'll agree with your assessment that the Bree scene is cut short, however, his subsequent actions (saving them from the Ringwraiths attacking them in their beds) prove his intent. Additionally, he shows his "goodness" by not killing the hobbits from the get-go, i.e. when they first come burgeoning into the room armed with common household objects. I seem to recall that Sam questions why they are following him when they enter the wilderness, although I could be wrong. All in all, I thought he was done quite well, especially towards the end in the scenes with Frodo and Boromir.Merry & Pippin - underdeveloped, generally, however, they were probably the most "hobbit-like" IMHO. But then again, Merry & Pippin are generally undeveloped in the book until Two Towers. Therefore, I deemed this to be acceptable.Gimli - probably the most problematic character of all. I thought that if there was one huge flaw in the film, Gimli was it. He was probably the most undeveloped character of all, and played the part of the big idiot strongman. Examples: attacking the ring, the gung-ho desire to go to Moria, the warning speech as they enter the realm of Lothlorien.Other general notes: I am certainly not claiming that the film is a masterpiece of genius. I do think that given the constraints of time and mass audience appeal that Jackson has done a good job. I was entertained. I've seen the film twice now, and I enjoyed it much more the second time around simply because I was able to take the film in without constant mental comparisons to what the book was. I also would have made some changes: no Saruman vs. Gandalf in the high flying Swing-A-Staff game; more shots of Gollum surreptitiously following the crew; no Saruman display of power on Mt. Caradhras, etc. Be that as it may, there were also several things that were just simply magical to see portrayed: Rivendell, Khazad-dum, the balrog.Enjoy!P.S. Tirinor, just saw your post. Give me some time to read it.

Lush

01-03-2002, 05:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Eol: There will be people thought PJ did not do as good as he could have. Finally there will be people who love it because everyone else does.I wonder sometimes if people liked the movie just because it was tolkien.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sorry, I don't think you're being very fair. Please don't think that all people such as myself loved the movie because we wanted to fit in with the opinion of the general crowd, or because it was based on the writings of Tolkien. Humph. I have now been very insulted, and will go sit in that corned over there, and sulk, and whispers curses under my breath.

rhudladion

01-03-2002, 05:24 PM

Lush, Don't worry...I am Steven Spielberg. His number is 1-900-MATT-DMON.RhudP.S. Don't be insulted. You shouldn't take generalizations like that personally. Plus, there is some merit to what he was saying.

Lush

01-03-2002, 05:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rhudladion: why, in the name of thickening Arwen's role so she won't be so random later, does PJ need to have her face The Nine? Why not have her talk with Aragorn later in Rivendell to explain how important she is, or have Aragorn and the Hobbits (or anyone) have a short conversation explaining her importance and her role? Arwen, facing the Nine?!?!? You mean to tell me that all of the unread viewers out there thought this was realistic? Again, it was ok, but could have been done better. Including Glorfindel, Elrond, and Gandalf here would not only have been more believable (especially after you find out who Elrond is later), but it would not have been any more random (Glorfindel) than the role played by Galadriel IN THE MOVIE. !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hello. I don't believe that the fact that Arwen's presence at the Ford, and her actions, were excessive. In the book, she is an elf-princess of great presence, and she affects Frodo in a very strong way, so the strength of her character in the movie is well-justified, I think. Also, does not Arwen tell Aragorn that "If I can get across the river, the power of my people will protect us?" It can thus be inferred that she does not cause the flood alone, and that Elrond (or even Gandalf) is involved in it as much or as little as one would like to believe. PJ didn't spell it out for the viewers, and I like that. Sure, I would have loved to see Glorfindel, but there were enough handsome men and elves to keep a smile on my face.

Lush

01-03-2002, 05:42 PM

Hello again. Here's something that I almost forgot: I thought that the chase sequence when Arwen and Frodo are hunted by the Nine was made a little more powerful by the fact that Arwen is a "she-elf" (as she is so unceremoniously referred to by the Nazgul leader), and if caught, will fight a losing battle. It caused a little more adrenaline to flow. Can't see the harm in that.

rhudladion

01-03-2002, 06:08 PM

Yeah Lush, I hear what you're saying, but consider this: The fact that Arwen was indeed an elf-princess with great presence and heritage made her a jewel of the Elves. I find it hard to believe that Elrond, and the rest of the warrior Elves that for some reason weren't in Rivendell the Ghost-town, would allow/let Arwen go running around with the ring-bearer while the Nine are at large. I am just saying that if they/PJ build Arwen's character properly and true to the book, the Ford seen will seem unlikely while looking back. Notice that IF this is true, it is true for both unread and read viewers. Interesting point in your last entry. hmmmm....(thinking she's probably right)Did you call Matt?[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

Lush

01-03-2002, 08:04 PM

I agree with what you say about Arwen, Rhud-sweetie, but I also think that if one is to be the "jewel" of Rivendell, one needs some life experience. How does anyone build strong character by sitting inside the house dressed in pretty clothes all day long? I'm sure that Elrond would give his daughter the maximum amount of protection, but he seems far too wise to allow her only activity to be being beautiful. She's obviously more than that in the book (although that's up for interpretation, but I certainly didn't feel that she was just a pretty face, and her choosing Aragorn speaks volumes about her as well). How does she come by that? Good genes? I'm sure that's at least half of it, but that's not enough. We are told that Arwen has traveled; what did she experience on her journey back to Rivendell? We don't know. PJ used the incredible presence that Arwen has in the book in fleshing out her character, and while the end result was very different, there is some logic behind it. I did call Matt, but his voice was suspiciously high; he called me "sexy" and asked if I had a major credit card handy. What's up with that? If I am truly not making any sense I'm sorry, the cocktails are to blame!

rhudladion

01-03-2002, 08:07 PM

Well said! Good points. I think you know more about Arwen's background than I do.Cocktails, eh?...I'm still at work.

Eol

01-03-2002, 09:00 PM

Lush, I apologies for my comment, I do not take it back. I am jsut fustrated with what I have seen on some threads and the attitudes.[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Eol ]

Lush

01-03-2002, 10:19 PM

Oh, I was not really offended. If I was, I wouldn't be in the corner, sucking on my thumb. I'd be drawing blood by now. I understand your frustration, we all can get a little snippy at times. That's why I have cocktails at dinner...

Lush

01-03-2002, 10:30 PM

Oh and Rhud, if I reveal my educational background, I will reveal my age, and trust me-you don't want to know. Sorry guys, this is off topic, but since Rhud is not accepting private messages, this is my only way of answering his question. Well, I didn't answer the question now, did I? All righty then, I'll bite the bullet: If my financial aid comes through, I will be a freshman at Duke University next fall. I have one English AP course behind me, and am in the middle of another one. Also, Modern European History AP, editorial editor of the school newspaper, prose editor of the school literary magazine, and doing an independent study of Russian Literature. The rest is not worth mentioning.

red

01-03-2002, 10:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Finally there will be people who love it because everyone else does. I wonder sometimes if people liked the movie just because it was tolkien.-Eol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am sure of this, Eol. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The fact that Arwen was indeed an elf-princess...-Rhudladion <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, she was not a princess. Neither Elrond nor Celebrian had royal titles. I suppose you could hearken back to Galadriel's (Grandma Galadriel's) princess days, but that would be a stretch. Galadriel never became a queen. (Take note, movie-fans who have not yet read the books.)-réd[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: red ]

Lush

01-03-2002, 11:09 PM

Well, I am in the process of reading the book, so of course, I don't know half the stuff I talk about, but unless I am mistaken, I did read somewhere that Aragorn could not marry Arwen until he held the title of the king. Logically, I concluded that she must therefore be of royal blood herself. Oops. Plus, there was the fact that Gladriel was her relative. Oops again. Silly me, should read more and chatter less, I suppose. Not that the question of whether or not Arwen's blood is royal is of any real importance to the portrayal of her character....But these things are good to know.

Maedhros

01-04-2002, 08:13 AM

Tirinor,Good thoughts. I hope that if I am ever caught in the paradox which you describe you will point it out. The lack of scenes to build relationships may merely point us in the direction that PJ is taking the next two films. My expectation is that the Legolas & Gimli relationship will not be fully formed.My fear regarding book comparison is that we would be slavishly comparing the books to the film and never look up to see what has occurred on screen. Some comparison between the books and the film is not only necessary, but good. My point was simply that the comparison should not override all other considerations of the movie. For example, plot development. If I were to watch the film without comparison to the book, I might think the plot is moving awfully slow. I know that Frodo has a BAD ring, and it must be destroyed, and he's been traveling around to get to where he has to destroy it. He's still traveling. Along the way we've picked up some threads here and there, but nothing truly substantial so far. Not much plot there. But here comparison reveals that we are in fact, right on schedule.My secondary point was (or if it wasn't, it should have been) that comparison between the books and the film should be made in consideration of the time and financial constraints that PJ was working under. PJ had to make a short film that would appeal to mass audiences as well as the Tolkien reader in order to foot this enterprise. I believe that once that is taken into consideration, we find that the film mirrors the books quite well.Finally, I have tried very hard to examine the film in the same manner that I would view any other movie, however, as stated before, this is in all likelihood impossible. I thought the cinematography was excellent, and the soundtrack was enjoyable. There were bits that I would have changed, but only because I've read the books (I think). Characters critical in the first tome were reasonably well developed, albeit with some flaws. Besides, audiences seem to love it. As Rhud points out, this is certainly not an indicator of a "good film", but it does indicate that, if nothing else, the film is entertaining.For what it's worth...

rhudladion

01-04-2002, 08:22 AM

Maedhros:Well stated!

Tirinor

01-04-2002, 09:11 AM

MaedhrosI agree with what you say. I liked the movie believe it or not, I was just suprised that it wasn't better. I was trying to make the point that there were some missed opportunities to accomplish some quality characterization. Missed opportunities that I am suprised that a big time movie director would miss. If I could think of things off of the top of my head to make the STORY better, you'd think that a team of producers. directors, and editors, could have done the same. I agree that some charaterization is being saved for later, and that should be done for the movie. But like I said earlier, it is too late for some things, he missed the boat. The story could have benn GOOD instead of just "good considering..." and I am dissappointed. Not to mention that he screwed over the elves. LushYou aren't old enough for cocktails. Although I dare say you are ambitious enough. Good luck getting that financial aid.

Lush

01-04-2002, 02:22 PM

Tirinor-Thanks. Since I am Russian, American drinking laws make no sense to me. I personally don't understand why in America, at eighteen years of age, people are considered responsible enough to fight and die for their country, yet not responsible enough to have a beer. As for the elves, aside from Elrond (who, by the way, wasn't all that bad), I thought PJ did a fantastic job. Just watching Legolas move was entertaining in itself.

Tirinor

01-04-2002, 02:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lush: T As for the elves, aside from Elrond (who, by the way, wasn't all that bad), I thought PJ did a fantastic job. Just watching Legolas move was entertaining in itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Legolas was great, I agree.You have said in other posts that you are relatively new to Tolkien, would you mind stating if and how far you have read? I mean no offense, I am just curious about how much contact with the Elves you have had.Also, I think your assessment of american drinking laws is excellent. and maybe if people were allowed to drink earlier, they would get less cavities from soft drinks.

Lush

01-04-2002, 11:11 PM

Tirinor-no offense taken! I have used four sources on Tolkien-the Internet (of course), my neighbor's Tolkien encyclopedia (poor chap probably thinks that I come by for his company only!), a few of my friends who have been hardcore Tolkien fans for years, and the Lord of the Rings itself, of which I am on page 356 (Frodo has just looked into Galadriel's Mirror). As for soft drinks, I think they are a greater evil that alcohol, because practically no one pays attention to the health dangers that they pose. At least not officially. Not yet. Someone should change that (if there are any Coca Cola executives at this forum, please don't sue me! You won't get much-a used Chevy and a pair of leather boots.).

peregrine

01-08-2002, 11:42 PM

well well. what a hornet's nest! no doubt this debate will rage until more fuel is poured on it this time next year. Did anyone else suspect that Lostgaeriel had something to do with the production of the movie? The opinions expressed in that long post seemed to be those of someone taking a defensive position on something they created, loved, thought was good and was told otherwise. Fortunately, these posts are all opinion, and as much as I love the books, warts and all, and felt disappointed by the movie, we should all remember we are entitled to our opinion. This is a forum after all. Right Lush?I'm in the minority I guess in that I didn't like the movie, but it would take me longer than I care to sit here and type to go through the reasons why. If someone wants to ask me what they are, please feel free to contact me. We may find common ground. I was very impressed by the way in which the movie was made - the effects, the scenery - the cinematics of it. Groundbreaking stuff, no doubt. However, I wish it had stayed closer to the books. I can understand a few of the ommissions (eg. the Old Forest, Tom, Glorfindel), but I thought most if not all the embellishments were unncessary and a serious mistake. Call me a purist, call me a whinger. What worries me is that I think it's only going to get worse in the next two films. My wife (who isn't a fan of Tolkien) warned me not to go and see it. "It'll ruin your mental image" she said - (she's a victim of many botched Stephen King book-to-film efforts). I said "It couldn't possibly". Now I think she was right, and I find myself wondering if I should sit the next two out, and read the books again instead.

rhudladion

01-08-2002, 11:56 PM

Peregrine,Well, it's been four days since anyone has written anything on this thread, and frankly, I thought it was down for the count. It really should be-enough has been said (until next Christmas).I was actually going to post all the things I liked about the movie before this thread was forgotten, in an effort to redeem my reputation for "negativism". This is the first thread I have ever started: I began it in anger over the film, and I ended up finding a few friends (and hopefully not making any enemies).I'll try to post my "likes" tomorrow (or later today), but Peregrine, I'd still like to know if you see things the way I do??? Speak your mind!

Sindalómiel

01-09-2002, 05:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Would they be fans? True fans? How many movies have you seen that have inspired you to read the book? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>None, other than FOTR. Before seeing the movie I'd read the book twice, and didn't like it either time, but saw the movie and decided that anything that has been made into such a brilliant movie has got be worth trying to read again. So, I read it again (am currently on TTT) and I loved it.

Maeglin

01-09-2002, 02:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Elrian: That was Agent Smith not Anderson and he was terrific in the part.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah Elrian, he was. Definently. And stop complaining about this movie! It's the best of a 1000 years!

Mister Underhill

01-09-2002, 04:18 PM

You’re right, Rhud, that both the pro and con views of the movie have been covered quite exhaustively. I’ll try (try, mind you!) not to belabor points that have been made (and remade), but will endeavor instead to add some fresh grist for the mill. For the record, I thought the movie was an excellent adaptation of a challenging book, one whose virtues far outweighed its flaws. The main point I want to explore has to do with the relationship between the books and the movies. Movie optimists have been saying for years now that the movie shouldn’t be compared directly to the books. We all know the salient points of that argument, which I will not repeat here. Rhud and other movie detractors have counter-proposed that the movie, then, should stand on its own, without reference to the books. I admit that this argument has some merit, and indeed when I saw the movie for the first time, I tried to detach myself from my knowledge of the books and experience the movie on its own terms. I’ve tried to analyze how I would view the movie if I hadn’t read the books. Now I ask myself, why should this be so? The relationship between the books and the films is one that is unique in film history. In the case of a movie set in an obscure historical period, moviegoers usually have at least some dim understanding of the period. And original movies that present an elaborate imagined world (I can think of very few -- Star Wars, perhaps, which isn’t nearly as elaborate as Middle-earth) are a case where the audience experiences the new world all at the same time and level of understanding. The only case that I can think of that even comes close is Dune, from which only horrendous movie/TV adaptations have been made, and whose imagined world in any case isn’t nearly as compelling or as broad in scope and ambition as JRRT’s creation is. Only in the case of an LotR movie are you likely to have an audience composed of people who, on the one hand, are intimately familiar with the particulars of the imagined world, and on the other, have no knowledge of it whatsoever. The filmmakers had a mandate to satisfy (as far as possible) both. It seems to me that PJ’s movies can be experienced in three different ways: <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>as one who is completely uninitiated<LI>as one who is somewhat familiar with the conventions of the genre but not specifically with LotR<LI>as a bona fide fan</UL>The last category is the one that I fall into, and really the only one that I can address. There are the obvious downsides to the last experience – deviations from the story, things they “didn’t get right”, etc. On the upside, though, we get added shadings to characterizations, settings, and scenes, and special moments that non-fans don’t get – the Stone Trolls from The Hobbit in the background of one scene for instance, or the most delightful feeling one gets of anticipated payback when the Orcs deforest Isengard (Kate: “Ooh… I can’t wait until Treebeard hears about this!”). Just for fun: my biggest quibbles with the movie revolved around Rivendell. Exteriors – great. Inside – I always picture Rivendell with less marble and more wood; Rivendell as the ultimate summer camp. And I don’t know about all the statuary. It doesn’t seem to fit. Sculpture is a way of immortalizing the subject – something the Elves don’t really need to do. Unlike some of our recent posters, I felt that Hugo Weaving is the least successful casting in the picture. Who knew? I was sure I’d have the biggest problem with Liv. Not that Weaving isn’t a talented actor, but he doesn’t fit the essence of Elrond to my mind. On the other hand, I’ve been having trouble coming up with a suitable replacement. Perhaps Kenneth Branaugh, with the right hair and makeup?

Lush

01-09-2002, 04:21 PM

Oh, you have to love those threads that keep comn' back at you! Once you open the floodgate, there's no knowing how long the water will run, right Rhud? Peregrine, I think that we have pretty much settled down for a while and kept our stingers to ourselves. I hope it stays that way!

peregrine

01-09-2002, 07:32 PM

Rhudladion - people with a greater knowledge of film and the books than me have had plenty to say already, as you noted. My gripes are all to do with the way in which, I think, they have felt the need to jazz it up, or make it more melodramatic. Is that for modern audiences with supposedly shallow sensory perceptions and a short concentration span? Is not the action, suspense and majestic sweep of epic grandeur already found in the books not enough? Who are they to try and enhance it?Lush - it's good to see an open and frank exchange of views (that's what we're here for) but people should play nice, I agree. It is often hard to get your point across in this medium, and get the right tone so as not to appear blunt or rude.

Lush

01-09-2002, 08:14 PM

Got'cha! Oh wait...Did I appear blunt and rude? I think I'm only that way when telemarketers call too early in the morning! As for the movie...Well, we all know that I liked it a lot. Makes me wonder why I became so vocal on this thread in the first place-perhaps it has something to do with Rhud's magnetism!

Eowyn of Ithilien

01-10-2002, 02:28 AM

sorry I didn't get to post this earlier but it's about Arwen...she's a descendent of Melian (Maiar) Thingol (Elf) and Beren (Man) if I remember correctly...and at one point in the Appendices to LOTR Elrond states that her blood is higher than Aragorn's...so she's not a Princess as such but she's verrrry highly born...n Lush I like your posts even if I don't agree with all of them...lol

Elrian

01-10-2002, 02:45 AM

Arwen is from Royal blood on both sides, King Thingol= her Great,Great,Great Grandfather, King Turgon= Great,Great Grandfather, High King Olwe= her Great,Great Grandfather, and High King Finarfin= her Great Grandfather, as well as Melian the Maia. Aragorn is too far descended down that line, and much of it has been bred out.

HerenIstarion

01-10-2002, 04:59 AM

who thought the movie stunk? I did

Tirinor

01-10-2002, 12:07 PM

here is an interesting article that relates to an argument from page one of this thread. thought y'all might be interested. <A HREF="http://www.marquette.edu/library/information/news/ShippeyQ&A.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.marquette.edu/library/information/news/ShippeyQ&A.html</A>

Starsong

01-10-2002, 11:48 PM

I think the movie did a fairly decent job, although it didn't AND couldn't be as complex as the book.I read Tolkien a long time ago when I was still a kid, and I really hated it because it was too slow, (Hey! I was a kid....twelve or thirteen, so being shallow was part of my prerogative! It's a different story now.)After watching the movie, my interest "rekindled". I think that's good enough for the movie - to bring to the attention of the uneducated public of the wonderful world which Tolkien had created.Lush, I had the impression that you were pretty old. Don't worry, you're not. I'm sure there are some of you out there who would like to join my Old Geezers Club.Just my twp cent's worth.

Telgaladiel

01-11-2002, 12:34 AM

hoo boy... All right, after reading every entry made, I would like to make one teeny observation as the "somewhat initiated prior to her movie experience and is currently reading the books and loving them all while loving the movie, too."It seems to me that those who have read the books by Tolkien for as many years as you all have said you have will have problems nomatterwhat discerning their interpertation from PJ's and his actors. What you may think is a debate about the movie itself can come across as book to movie. And I really don't appreciate worries like "uneducated bandwagon" being aired publically. It could be a real turnoff to someone just out looking for info and discussion while they are introducing themselves to what is obviously well loved and read.There was a bit in the movie that irked me, the biggest being in Rivendell when Frodo took up the burden of the Ring. Gandalf is standing there, shouting his hat off to Boromir in the scene shot where Frodo says for the second time he will take it up. A split second later we are cut to a close up of Gandalf's face all solemn and forlorn. I cannot cannot believe that he could recover so quickly and the shot completely ruined that section for me. It was too jumpy, too cut. In film acting, subtlety is key. It is all in the eyes and small movements of the face and body - that's how film reveals what stage acting cannot.All right, touchy subject for me. But I'm good for a debate, if I can find the quoter again. I'm training for stage acting right now, and if subtlety isn't a key there, I don't know what is. Comparing the impact of stage acting to film acting is like comparing Feist to Eddings, apples to oranges. The setting is entirely different, the staging, the entire style. Anyways, I don't want to rant too much off topic here, but if the person can remember their quote, I'll talk with you, definitely.*goes off to find quoter*

rhudladion

01-11-2002, 11:01 AM

I know everyone is sick of seeing this thread pop up at the top the list, but I thought I'd list a few things I actually liked about the movie, if for no other reason than to improve my seemingly "negativist" status among some of you.So here they are: Rhudladion's Positive Comments1) Like everyone else, but of course not jumping on the bandwagon (just kidding, Telgaladiel), I loved the scenery! Middle Earth sure is a beautiful place-I'm thinking about a second honeymoon there.2) I thought Boromir did a geat job acting. I thought PJ did a great job forming his part(of course he had some help from JRRT).3) A small thing, but I loved the way the trees were swaying and moaning in that arial shot of Orthanc when Saruman was beginning his dirty work. Great attention to detail here, and a pleaser for the read viewer.4) Bilbo was great! He was the best hobbit in my opinion. I got some of the same melancholy feelings during his scenes in the movie that I get while reading the Hobbit and the LOTR. What a great little guy!5) Sam was pretty cool; and he and Frodo's last scene in the movie = the best scene in the movie.6) Balrog was pretty dang awesome!7) Gollum was cool! Well, it's not much, but it's a list.Rhud

Telgaladiel

01-11-2002, 12:25 PM

heehee... S'okay, Rhu. It was a bit late when I wrote that... it _is_ nice to know you liked it though. I have issues with some of the way the screen shots went together, but other than that... Yes, Bilbo was great. Did you see Ian Holm in the Fifth Element? In case you wanted to see him in some other roles..

Lush

01-11-2002, 11:25 PM

Telagaladiel-Hmm hmm. We have another actor here. Are you more partial to the stage? I, for one, wish that I could do more work in front of the camera; while on the stage, I just get exhausted trying to set the right pace. FYI, I actually enjoyed the look on Gandalf's face (good job Ian McKellen!). Elrond's over-the-top delivery at the end of that scene is what irked me. Or maybe it was the music. Ah, what am I doing? It's too late to be going over little details. Starsong- I am so young that I can barely take myself seriously, much less ask anyone to do the same.

Baillie From Bree

01-12-2002, 12:06 AM

Rhudladion, try watching it again in about 15 or 20 years. You might be surprised how much the acting improves.

Eowyn of Ithilien

01-12-2002, 03:50 PM

*this is a genuine query* is that coz standards deteriorate???

Telgaladiel

01-12-2002, 04:18 PM

Lush- Yep yep.. definitely partial to stage, Shakespeare even if I could get it. Will do commercial work (if allowed by my profs and the theatre department) for money (tuition!) and if a career presents itself, I'll do film, but theatre is just...more intimate than film, far more intimate to me. I loved the look on Gandalf's face, but its the technical way the shots were put together that irritated me. I think they cut a shot and that made it seem so jumpy.

lomion

01-18-2002, 11:49 AM

Hey mom!! Look, I'm a jaded malcontent!!! What's the problem? We all know that everything made into a film must be "dummied down" to appeal to the mass-markets!! I jest. I left the theater stunned. Aside from having my eardrums broken, I thought I may have wandered into the wrong movie. I must admit it had amazing visuals (mainly landscapes) But still the film was a mere shadow of the actual tale. I was very dissapointed to say the least. Action/adventure. I think Peter Jackson cut the soul out of it. Knife in the Dark was very good in the book!! The key word being "dark". It happend at night. The black riders coming out of the darkness...very dramatic. He puts on the ring...the riders are seen as great kings, in armour, full of malice! The hatred in their eyes as this person dares to possess their masters ring!!! Come on!! It was bright daylight in the movie!! Did Jackson have to change things like that? No. He disregarded it. It would'nt have taken any longer, would'nt have been logistically inconvenent. Maybe they did'nt want to run the horses at night. Arwen was bad. The wizards battle scene was cheezy. Jaded? I had'nt thought so. Malcontent? hmmmm....

rhudladion

01-18-2002, 01:26 PM

Well, I thought this forum was dead. I'm glad you were kidding...I thought I was going to have to defend myself all over again.I'm glad to see someone else out there thought it could have been better, although I am softening my view a little. I don't know whether it is because of all the comments in this thread or because it's been a month since I saw it and I have forgotten how bad it really was.

Mister Underhill

01-18-2002, 01:29 PM

Just to set the record straight: the Nazgûl do attack at night on Weathertop (drawn, in the movie, by the Hobbits' ill-conceived cooking fire). If it seems a bit bright, there is justification in the book -- the battle takes place under a "waxing moon" that casts a "pale light" and reveals the Wraiths' approach. In the book, the race to the ford takes place "in the late afternoon", not at night. On the other hand, I would have preferred Nazgûl that "sprang forward and bore down on Frodo" rather than ones that moved with the alarming torpidity they displayed at Weathertop in the movie, but that's just a quibble.

rhudladion

01-18-2002, 01:37 PM

I agree with Mr. Underhill in full.

Fenrir

01-18-2002, 01:48 PM

I agree with Mister Underhill and Lomion. It says that the Nazgul became suddenly clear and ommited to mention that they looked as if they had been busy decomposing for the past few months. In other words I've always thought of them as being more human-like.

Lush

01-19-2002, 12:38 AM

*raises her eyebrows at everyone* Joy, my favorite thread has been revived! If only I was willful, or stupid enough to go off on another rant here...

MenRWeak

01-20-2002, 02:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Eol: LOTR books were better off left alone and not turned into a cinema , commerical draw. Tolkien's stuff is way too detailed to make a goood movie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank God your opinion means jack. Go back to your hole with your books, little purist. The rest of us will enjoy the current film and the other two on the way.

MenRWeak

01-20-2002, 02:16 AM

MenRWeak

01-20-2002, 02:48 AM

Rhudladion, Beryl, Eol, et al...At what point did you folks run out of your pipeweed and begin your withdrawals? Right before the movie came out, I guess...You should probably sit out the next two "bad movies" and sulk at home clutching your books. I'll come up with a list of all the story deviations, producer self-gratification bits, inane character potrayals, etc...etc...and post them under a thread entitled, "We didn't like it yawners." Then you all can bellyache and moan about another atrocity without actually having to suffer through another PJ blunder.As for me, 11 months and counting until the next masterpiece conquers the big screen.[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: MenRWeak ][ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: MenRWeak ]

Fenrir

01-20-2002, 03:47 AM

Please try and be a bit more polite, MenRWeak, remember everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Style

01-20-2002, 07:16 AM

bloody ell i just wanted to see tom bombadil, is that too much to ask?and those wargs

Sharkû

01-20-2002, 11:17 AM

Fenrir is right. There is no need for this to get out of hand, be it because of movie fights, or language (Style).

MenRWeak

01-20-2002, 12:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Fenrir: Please try and be a bit more polite, MenRWeak, remember everyone is entitled to their own opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course that entitlement is universal. My opinion is blatant and wide open. Always will be. No doubt this deviation from the "let's not ruffle feathers" routine will earn me some detractors. Good. Typically I find their responses to be of some interest.This thread was started by the statement, "I just want to know if anyone out there thinks it stinks as bad as I do. If so, voice it here!"Polite was thrown out of the picture at this thread's inception.

rhudladion

01-21-2002, 09:34 AM

MenRWeak:You seem upset. You know, the sentiment that you operate with as well as your "anti-purist" remarks have already been aired.Have you read the entire forum? My remarks as well as other's that you would call "purist" have never implied that a "word-for -word" replica of the LOTR should have been made. In fact, many of our comments were directed at actor's abilities, and improper characterizations in the film itself, not discrepancies with the book. It is the mark of an unwise person who takes many statements from many people and attributes every statment to each individual.If this has not been as forthcoming as I had hoped, here is what I mean to say:I am not a purist, and I live in an apartment, not a hole.

Tirinor

01-21-2002, 09:45 AM

MenRWeak, your comments about posts that make you yawn, make me yawn.

Eol

01-21-2002, 11:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Thank God your opinion means jack. Go back to your hole with your books, little purist. The rest of us will enjoy the current film and the other two on the way.-MenRweak<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have no problem if you like the movie...I give you a hand that you liked it! I have stated in other threads that there were designated for the cool things about the movie, but I would not place them under the thread " who all thought the movie stunk". The praising would be placed in a more *appropriate*thread. I find it in poor taste when someone takes a generalized statement and pins it on everyone, especially a statement that is not even true.Yes you have a right to your own opinion, true that this thread does have statements that *could* be contray to your own, but that is was a discussion forum is all about.It would be more respected if you kept your snide comments of other people and their comments *out* of the forum and leave in the comments of what the forum asks of here.You would be more respected in return, and you would get more out of the discussion.I respect someone who is willing to state what is on their mind in a blant manner. You can prove your point without being immature and a snit.ps: I do not live in a hole, I reside in a civilized place with a view of a beautiful tree.[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Eol ]

Enkanowen

01-21-2002, 12:29 PM

if someone didn't like the movie, get over it and do it better is what i say. Find the actors and resources and crew to do it better. I DARE YOU! i mean seriously, as much as everyone is entitled to their own opinion... fact of the matter is, they could not be able to do it any better. Peter Jackson's dreamcut is just under 5 hours long. 99.9% of the time, movies over 3 hours long aren't even let into the theatres. So, really you should understand that principle, that some things are impossible to do, and get over with it. This discussion isn't worth discussing because no one can make it better. Sure we can all argue, whine and what not but it is NOT going to change anything.So get over with it and be done!

rhudladion

01-21-2002, 01:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Enkanowen: if someone didn't like the movie, get over it and do it better is what i say. i mean seriously, as much as everyone is entitled to their own opinion... fact of the matter is, they could not be able to do it any better. This discussion isn't worth discussing because no one can make it better. Sure we can all argue, whine and what not but it is NOT going to change anything. So get over with it and be done! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So what you're saying is that because events in the past are unchangeable, there is no since in discussing them.hmmmmm... so I guess we shouldn't praise the movie either, because that certainly would not change anyting. I guess I also should not complain about the September 11th bombing because that is in the past also, and all of my wishing that it had never happened is in vain. Should I ever engage in a discussion about what would have made our economy better in 2000? I guess not.The fact is, it is doesn't only make sense for us to talk about things we can't change, but we should talk about things we can't change, espescially if it is in the context of art, music, movies, policies, principle, etc. This is the only way we could ever do things better the next time. It also forces us to think, and not be complacent.

Tirinor

01-21-2002, 01:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Enkanowen: if someone didn't like the movie, get over it and do it better is what i say. Find the actors and resources and crew to do it better. I DARE YOU! i mean seriously, as much as everyone is entitled to their own opinion... fact of the matter is, they could not be able to do it any better. Peter Jackson's dreamcut is just under 5 hours long. 99.9% of the time, movies over 3 hours long aren't even let into the theatres. So, really you should understand that principle, that some things are impossible to do, and get over with it. This discussion isn't worth discussing because no one can make it better. Sure we can all argue, whine and what not but it is NOT going to change anything.So get over with it and be done! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting theory. Thanks for visiting "people who thought the movie stunk" and contributing.

bryniana

01-21-2002, 01:53 PM

wow, i've really enjoyed reading all the comments from so many people who are so passionate and learned in the tolkien world. here-here.I have to admit, I loved the film. I had never read any of tolkien's work previously (i had tried, i have just always had a difficult time reading fantasy-literature, i just can't picture it). After reading the trilogy since watching FOTR I still love it. Granted it does have it's problems, but this is a only one-third of a finished product.As someone who had not read the books before seeing the film, I thought it was seamless. There was nothing I would have changed (except Gimli--Peter Jackson's answear to Jar Jar Binks--bad lines, no depth, all the acting at one level the entire time). I was completely immersed the whole time. I experienced terror, joy, grief, and love. I was never left questioning why something happened in the film. After seeing it I immediently started reading the LOTR the next day (so in a month i have read those, plus being half-way through book of lost tales). It inspired me to read somehting that i had never read before. After reading FOTR I went back to see it again. I was amazed at just how much more I got out of the film from having read the novels. I understood why Gandalf hit his head on the chandelier (besides the fact that he was tall). At one point in LOTR (novel, not movie) Aaragorn talks to the hobbits about the fact that Gandalf is a great and powerful and fearful man, not just a magacian who makes fireworks. Showing this side of Gandalf puts the viewer in the hobbits shoes. We don't see him as this great and powerful man, we see him as a kind man to be loved...only later is the awesome scope of his power revealled. This is one tiny, tiny example of the depth that Peter Jackson and the writers went into in creating this film. No, it does not go verbratum with the novel...but my god does it have depth.What would have change now that I have read the novels and seen the movie multiple times? Well, Gimli's characterization for one. Yeah, that's the main thing. Ilsidur's sword is the second. The gifts that Galadriel gives the fellowship (i'm simply thinking about the importance of all the gifts later on). And i would not have sent the Horn of Gondor over the falls with Boromir. It plays too large of a role later on to do that--but then again in the movies it might not, we will have to see.Again, thank you all for providing such wonderful conversation on this board. Much more intersing that "wasn't Stryder hot".

Lush

01-21-2002, 03:51 PM

Well, he was quite hot, actually. As for the everything else that's been posted on this thread: Blimey! And I thought my defense of the movie was passionate! I've been thoroughly outdone.

Enkanowen

01-21-2002, 07:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rhudladion: So what you're saying is that because events in the past are unchangeable, there is no since in discussing them.hmmmmm... so I guess we shouldn't praise the movie either, because that certainly would not change anyting. I guess I also should not complain about the September 11th bombing because that is in the past also, and all of my wishing that it had never happened is in vain. Should I ever engage in a discussion about what would have made our economy better in 2000? I guess not.The fact is, it is doesn't only make sense for us to talk about things we can't change, but we should talk about things we can't change, espescially if it is in the context of art, music, movies, policies, principle, etc. This is the only way we could ever do things better the next time. It also forces us to think, and not be complacent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suppose you could do a better job with the movie then. There is discussing things and then there is beating the dead horse. This discussion is beating the dead horse. If you don't like it, fine, get on with it, don't watch the movies. If you like it just as fine. It doesn't matter because it is a waste of everyone's energy to have a tug-o-war over something that is opinion based. And I am not even going to comment on american political issues that really have nothing to do with the Lord of the Rings movie. Like I said get over it. Leave the dead horse be, its soul has gone to a better place.

MenRWeak

01-21-2002, 08:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Eol: You can prove your point without being immature and a snit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My favorite line. I've never been called a snit before.As none of the FOTR detractors responded to my statement regarding the opportunity to boycott the two follow on movies, I assume you'll all be in the seats just like everyone else. So after all the countless points made regarding the failures of the first installment, you will still stand in line and shell out your money for rounds two and three, and come up with a whole new series of complaints. Think of the possibilites: Treebeard, Gollum, Eomer(especially with his reported expanded role), Theoden...I can hear PJ and associates laughing all the way to the bank![ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: MenRWeak ]

Starsong

01-21-2002, 10:52 PM

Wow! So we've stooped to name-calling eh? This should get interesting.I for one, back MenRWeak. After reading 3 pages of opinions, I got the impression that most of the anti-movie people are purists who have no respect for the "uneducated" and "shallow" majority. Rhud, don't compare the movie with the Sep 11th attack. Two different issues. One is a work of literature, no one DIES unnecessarily because of it. Sep 11th is a work of terror. It should be treated with more sensitivity.Just my two cent's worth.

Rhudladion

01-22-2002, 08:36 AM

You guys are hilarious!Listen, this thread (in fact, this entire forum) exists that we might have discussions based on the movie. Enkanowen, the only reason this forum is "beating a dead horse" is because people that can't stand the fact that myself and others here didn't care for it keep posting comments about how we are "silly purists". I mean I'm not bringing the forum back to life-it'd be fine with me if it went away forever. But as long as people keep suggesting that I am a whining purist, or telling me that I am an idiot for thinking this wasn't the best movie of all time, I am going to defend my critique. Is this ok with you? Starsong, my intention was not disrespect. It was an example that was perfectly legitimate, given the reason that Enkanowen gave for stopping the discussion.MenRWeak, you are the funniest of all! I love how you paint a false picture of every detractor's intent and then try to tear down the intent you created as if you are accomplishing something. HeHe...the more you write the more I laugh!Now folks...if you would like to discuss the movie further, meaning to talk about what was good and bad and why, let's do. But as I have said before, I am not a purist/mean person/cranky fan. I have given reasons to support my theories and complaints. This forum is ending the way I thought it would begin: we're digressing not progressing.[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

MenRWeak

01-22-2002, 10:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rhudladion: You guys are hilarious! MenRWeak, you are the funniest of all! I love how you paint a false picture of every detractor's intent and then try to tear down the intent you created as if you are accomplishing something. HeHe...the more you write the more I laugh! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent! My jokes never evoke that kind of response.Right...so in the spirit of not generalizing all the FOTR detractors, I'll put my attention on your argument. Here is an example:"In fact, many of our comments were directed at actor's abilities, and improper characterizations in the film itself, not discrepancies with the book."Sounds reasonable, fair, objective and completely in keeping with defending ones' position.And then there is this beauty: "People who thought the movie stunk!"Nice thread opener. Doesn't even sound like the same person wrote them, but alas, same author. Now you take the morale high ground when your words have drawn a response reflective in tone to the thread title. Always nice to have that option. You're not such a bad painter yourself, Rhudladion. Here's to a good chuckle.

Eol

01-22-2002, 10:11 PM

If you have something worth while to say, then state your business, MenRweak. If not, go to the "newcomers" forum and harass people there. This thread is not meant for assaults.

Starsong

01-22-2002, 10:55 PM

Rhud, sorry, didn't mean to get you so worked up over my comment. Don't take it personally, sweetie. I have friends who have been scathed by the Sep 11th attacks, so I am being biased about it.Thing is, I see both sides of all the arguments. Some moments in the movie really made me cringe, but others were great. You can't have a perfect package. It'd be really boring, and the project would never get completed till maybe the next millenia. And if it were perfect, like the book - some may claim, there'd be no point to this discussion, would it.

MenRWeak

01-23-2002, 12:13 AM

Online Forums are perfect places for debate. I am debating your opinion in the way I see fit. This is my business. What is yours?By the way, newcomers would most benefit from your sage observations far more than mine. I have not the wisdom yet to make this revelation: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Eol: LOTR books were better off left alone and not turned into a cinema , commerical draw. Tolkien's stuff is way too detailed to make a goood movie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Someone in the newcomers forum may ask you an uninformed question like...why? For myself, I have yet to see any supporting argument. Maybe on your web site...[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: MenRWeak ]

Rhudladion

01-23-2002, 09:33 AM

MenRWeak, Have you met our friend Eve? You would be perfect together!Your second to last statement made me laugh the hardest! It's funny to think that you believe thinking the movie stunk is actually incompatible, logically or in demeanor, with "comments directed at actor's abilities and improper charaterizations". I was addressing your all-to-familiar illogical attempt to diffuse my and other's opinions. ...what was your point...I didn't get it? Furthermore, I will openly admit that some of the comments I made at the beginning of this thread were harsh. For that I apologize (not to you, to those whom I was speaking). But saying that the movie stunk is hardly harsh or rude. What should my title have been so that you would be less aroused? Perhaps: "People who are not purists but believe that the film was less than perfect...". Look, it is obvious to the readers of this forum and others that you are predisposed to argumentation rather than discussing JRRT (movie or no). I'd love to discuss something Tolkien-esque with you. Upholding this sarcastic tone while trying to learn you some edicate is boring. So if you would be so kind as to express your opinion about the movie, please do so. Otherwise, follow Eol's advice.By the way...Have you expressed your opinion about anything beside how you feel about some of us?

Sharkû

01-23-2002, 09:43 PM

This topic is getting more and more out of the normal scheme serious and friendly Barrow-Downs discussions. If your only goal lies in the satirical intent of yours, you should think twice about posting that in first place.Apart from that, one thing that has become apparent (and was hardly surprising anyway), is that the movie is debated heatedly because opinions diverge greatly. However, good discussions should not become a fight of words by people stubbornly clinging to an opinion without even checking it for polemic content, and even less for polemic presentation. These two latter things we want to avoid nevertheless.I wonder what some people get out of a discussion where they would go as far as sarcasm or personal attacks only to perpetrate their personal opinion, hypothetically speaking.

Lush

01-24-2002, 09:33 PM

And the wonderful thread spills over onto the fourth page...I love simply being the commentator sometimes, it seems much safer, but alas, I have an opinion to share! MenRWeak-Y'know, I agree with you, but not with your approach. I LOVED the movie. I wish that everyone could have loved it as much as I did. I could argue about this 'till I foam at the mouth. Yet I attempt to disagree with Rhud & Co. (Hi Rhud!) in a mostly civil manner. Civility, I believe, is one of the defining characteristics of this forum. Perhaps it is not so on other forums, but here people generally (*ahem*) try to be as polite to each other as possible (with the exception of the dreadful Gay Subtext thread that had everyone's panties in a twist, ...But let us leave dark history behind) Stirring up controversy is exciting, but let's not do it so much that we turn from insightful discussion to something akin to cyberspace trench warfare.

Marileangorifurnimaluim

01-24-2002, 09:53 PM

Well, one look at the title of the thread told me it was going to be a cat-fight, but I finally couldn't resist a peek. Four pages of this, eh?

lomion

01-25-2002, 08:11 AM

This discussion has heated up since I last posted. I had never been one to join discussions on the net, but I must support my fellow Tolkien fans who were disapointed by the film. This is one of the only mess. boards I've seen where people attempt to be courteous and respectful. THANK YOU!!!! Even though I did'nt like the movie overall, I must give credit where due. The panoramic landscapes were great!!! From what I understand, Mr. Jackson used the artwork from many of the past calendars as guides. I'm not sure what Minis Tirith will look like, but if it's half as good as the Pillars of the kings then it will be great. Scenery-great. Plot additions-lower than that dark hole the balrog came from.

rhudladion

01-25-2002, 08:25 AM

Lush speaks wisely.

The Mirrorball Man

01-25-2002, 09:12 AM

I was delighted to read the opinion of J. Michael Straczinski about the movie (in rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated), and I thought I would share it with you: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"Saw it yesterday afternoon (with Harlan, who was there to review it for F&SF) at a theater in Sherman Oaks, and it's about as perfect a movie as I've ever seen. It was everything I hoped it would be, and just what I always saw in my mind's eye as I read the books.I will almost certainly go back to see it again, especially once they begin running the trailer for The Two Towers sometime later in the run."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: The Mirrorball Man ]

rhudladion

01-25-2002, 10:26 AM

Who in the world is J. Michael Straczinski?

Mister Underhill

01-25-2002, 01:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Lush speaks wisely.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As does Sharku. J. Michael Straczinski is the creator of the sci-fi series Babylon 5, which, I'm told, owes a debt of inspiration to the prof and his works. If by "Harlan" he refers to Harlan Ellison, I shudder to think what his review was like. He's sort of a professional flame-artist.

rhudladion

01-25-2002, 01:55 PM

Well, If the guy knows Tolkien's stuff then I guess he's credible. But I personally think Babylon 5 stinks too.Thanks for educating me though.

knightwolf

01-26-2002, 04:34 AM

ok I just have to stick my opion in here about the movie. I have read a lot of books in my time that have been turned in to movies. Yet out of all those books not one has ever really followed the book. They change so much of the scenes that the plot is the same but the way the story is told is different then the books. Fellowship of the rings is the first movie that has ever come out that was taken from the book and followed the book almost to the teeth. Granted they did make some altrations in certain areas but thats understand able. They have two hours to tell a story and as any one knows the book is very long. There was one scene that I felt they should have put in the movie but I understand why they didnt. Its the one were gimile gets the locket of hair. I though that part of the book was very powerful. It showed these two races and how they viewed each other then they realized that they werent so different after all. It was one of my favorit moments in the book. Now as for the actors. I think they did a wonderful job of playing there characters. Not once have I sat back and though who could have played that role better. Now the only some what let down was some of the special effects in the movie. Some of it was pretty chessy but for the most part they did a great job. To sum it all up in my opion this was a great movie. If they can do what they did in this one in the next two then Star Wars will be my second favorit movie of all times. This is just my opion how ever.

lomion

01-26-2002, 10:33 AM

I really like J. Michael Strazinski. Very good writer. I have to disagree with him on this one though. One thing the film has done is make me re-read all of my Tolkien books. And it made me look for Tolkien message boards. I'm an artist and I've done many illustrations from LOTR so I pay particular attention to detail. Maybe thats my problem. Try the BBC radio play. My library had them. They cut some out too, but I enjoyed it. 13 CD's. Not bad.

Elvenglass

01-26-2002, 11:18 AM

So much contraversy! I will now have to stick my opinion in here as well! I thought the movie was done very well, there were some things that I thought should have been in the movie, and I didn't really like the expansions of Arwen's character, but overall the movie was wonderful! Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if you think the movie stinks, good for you! That is your opinion, and I have enjoyed expressing mine. I will soon hopefully be going to see the movie for the third time and as soon as the DVD comes out I will be buying it.

lomion

01-26-2002, 12:16 PM

Elvenstar, your star shines clear and bright.

lomion

01-26-2002, 12:17 PM

Whhops, I meant Elvenglass.

Elvenglass

01-26-2002, 05:42 PM

Thanks and don`t worry about it!

lomion

02-01-2002, 11:31 PM

"Follows the book to the teeth"? Did we see the same movie? There were changes galore! Not just condensation of the book, whole scenes and characters were changed. I hate the "creative license" given out to directors. Sure it's his project, but writing in whatever you want in the name of "political correctness", "movie flow" or some other lame excuse stinks. As for the scenery, excellent!!!

littlemanpoet

02-05-2002, 04:00 PM

Late again, but better late than never. I had to read this thread in two installments a week apart.I had great hopes (more fool me). I enjoyed the movie AND was disappointed.Enjoyments: 1) "please don't turn me into somethin' unnatural" 2) the balrog 3) the ancestral statues 4) Gandalf 5) Sean Bean as Boromir and his outstanding death sceneCan live with: Liv Tyler as Arwen was anathema to me before I saw it, but given the creative license I knew they would be taking, that part didn't bug me.Disappointments:1)The spinning wizards was ridiculous 2)I was disappointed with the Renaissance style magic used in the film (especially Saruman controlling Caradhras) which made it frankly (sorry for bringing it up Potteresque, when it COULD HAVE BEEN elven magic which is ART instead of SCIENTIFIC mumbo jumbo. But we westerns all too easily slip into the former without noticing it. What bugged me most were: 1) Frodo portrayed as a callow youth, all wide-eyed innocence 2) Frodo as elf-friend totally absent 3) Frodo does NOT perceive Galadriel's ring and ought to 4) no Gimli/Galadriel friendly exchange

Lush

02-05-2002, 08:48 PM

I have high hopes that the director's cut DVD will make the movie a bit meatier.

rhudladion

02-06-2002, 08:27 AM

Me too! Any idea when that will be out and how much it might cost?

Frahhamn

02-06-2002, 10:13 AM

it's going to be a juicy bit longer... but heck, i want it... man do i. i don't CARE how much it costs!

Jjudvven

02-06-2002, 10:37 AM

hehe. Me too.

goldwine

02-08-2002, 10:47 PM

Do ya know how much trouble you can get into posting on other boards that you didn't like the movie!!!!!! I didn't like it. Not because of the omissions, not for changing Arwen's part, but because of the character assassination that went on! Elrond (Agent Smith) was mean. Galadriel was freaky. Aragorn came across as a defeated man rather than the heir to the throne of Gondor who is already fulfilling his purpose in defeating the enemy. Bilbo had dementia. I did like Frodo and the other hobbits and felt that they retained some character integrity. I liked Gandalf, too. I thought Saruman and that weird incident in Orthanc to be overacted and a little sad. I liked Boromir's interpretation, but come on, die already!! I loved Legolas, liked Gimli!

Glenethor

02-09-2002, 05:12 AM

Greetings,This is only my 2nd post here, so I thought I'd jump right into fires of Orodruin with this topic! I have read the books 25+ times in my life, like many here, once a year. It is something of a ritual now, although I read them twice in the last year in anticipation of the film. Also read 'The Hobbit' and 'The Silmarillion.'I thought the movie was terrible. I thought that the first time I saw it, and I thought that the 20th time I saw it, last Tuesday. Seriously: I've now seen the movie 20 times since Dec 18th. I think that the criticisms that many put forward here are valid to a certain degree, although I disagree with the conclusions drawn from them. For example, I think McKellan was perfect as Gandalf. The scene in Bag-End where he bangs his head? I think that scene was put in for a bit of comedy, but mainly to strongly contrast the physical size of the hobbits and Gandalf. People who haven't read the book don't know that hobbits' avg. height is around 3'6". The scene of Gandalf and Frodo going through Hobbiton, with the little kids running up behind asking for some fireworks was beautiful. The Shire was perfect. Now, the first time I saw the movie, I came out of it overwhelmed, and trying to digest all that I had seen. I was kinda luke warm to it, and figured I should see it again. So, I went back a couple of days later, knowing what to expect, I just settled in (after a little 'Old Toby') and accepted the movie for what it was: A group of people's interpretation of a book. I love that book. It is my favourite, and I have been a voracious reader since I was 6. I am also a sound engineer and musician, and have been paying attention to how films are scored. So, I've gone back again and again, for many reasons, the least not being to study what Shore did with the music against the imagery. That is what I tell people who ask me how many times have I seen the film. 20 times seems a bit obsessive. 21 will be tomorrow. There is something different that moves me everytime I've seen it: The Shire; The Last Alliance; Rivendell; Moria; I always get the feeling, and this is after 20 viewings, that I have been transported to ME. Yes Bree is a bit dark; Yes, Aragorn doesn't seem at first to be the one to reclaim the throne; Yes, I was kind of annoyed at Frodo backing away in terror at the Witch King; Yes, I was annoyed at all the time spent in Isengard; Yes I was annoyed at the slight obfuscations of plot and thematic development. These were all paltry annoyances, IMO. The characterizations have 2 more films to develop, and I am sure they will. Frodo is more resolute at the end of FOTR; Aragorn has proved himself to be a mighty warrior; Boromir, what to say about Sean Bean's characterization? Boromir is the one membership of the Fellowship who I always had trouble warming up to. He was haughty, and always thinking of how best to please Denethor. PJ made his humanity manifest, and his death scene made me cry (more than once). That was a deviation from the text that actually enhanced the book, IMO. It is the only one I really accept as being 'necessary.' I also have trouble with the pacing and with the editing of the film. It ain't 'The Godfather,' in that regard. Pippin and Merry are going to grow up in the next two films. You have to remember that they are 'barely out of their irresponsible tweens' and they show it, especially Pip. I thought the scene in Moria where Pip twists the arrow and the whole corpse and chest go clanging through the depths of the mine to be hilarious. Yes, it was overkill, but it was funny. I also think Gimli got some character development happening in Moria. I think Rhys-Davies is perfect for the role. Galadriel...well, I liked that shot too. I think too many people have this image of the Elves as a race who like to sit around singing songs and baking waybread. They are powerful beings, only partially in the world of ME, and partially in the Blessed Realm. To watch Galadriel go postal like that, well, let's just say that I know lots of women who fit the description that Galadriel gives herself if she were to take the Ring: She knows full well the power of the Feminine to bind men to its will, and, as I've said, I've known a few women who were 'more treacherous than the sea!Stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love me and despair!' I even told an ex-girlfriend that she should've tried out for the role of Galadriel. Yes, Lothlorien was spooky, unearthly. The track from the soundtrack, 'Lothlorien' is spooky, and it is probably my favourite song from the movie.So, to sum up a barely coherent post (it is 6 AM), I have a number of problems with the adaptation, but I love the movie. I really feel sad for people who want to retch when they think about it. I really do, because I doubt this will be done again in our lifetimes.============================ "I know less than half of you as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you as well as you deserve."[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Glenethor ]