View Full Version : Movie leaves opposing feelings.

Gimli Son Of Gloin
06-21-2002, 11:52 AM
I have two different feelings toward the movie. I was reading Tolkien before the movie, but I wasn't so much into it. At first I was "Great! Finally! A movie for LOTR!"<P>Then after I saw the movie I got the feeling "PJ left so much out! It's sacrilege(spl?)!" I still have the two feelings when I think about it.

Arwen Imladris
06-21-2002, 12:31 PM
I was always much too enthraled with the movie to notice many bad things in it. It wasn't until the third time I saw it that I really noticed anything wrong. <P>Now, I still see it as a great movie, even though there is stuff missing, it is better then nothing, and also much better then I could do!

06-21-2002, 12:42 PM
I thought it was a great movie, byt I do wish that they wouldn't leave so many things out. They had to because they didn't want to make it so long, I guess.

06-21-2002, 03:53 PM
Imagine if they hadn't left anything out. It would have been like six hours long or longer and the movie theater owners would not be pleased, and neither would most of the moviegoers. It would have probably been made into a really great miniseries, but how many people are actually going to watch that? See what I mean?<P>And I didn't have any bad thoughts about the movie. I thought that they did a fantastic job on what they DID do.

06-21-2002, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>They had to because they didn't want to make it so long, I guess.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well he could of at least left the longer Bree scene.<p>[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: shadow_knight ]

Aldagrim Proudfoot
06-21-2002, 04:04 PM
I would've liked to have seen Bill Ferny too, but the thing about movies is that when a movie is made about a book, it's very rare that everything will be in it, especially if it is a long book.

06-21-2002, 05:01 PM
I read LoTR thirty years ago. I was so thrilled that someone actually made a movie about it, (reviving interest and causing people who would have never considered reading Tolkien to pick the books up) after all this time, it kind of felt like Christmas! Then, the movie was actually wonderful! The characters like Bilbo, Gandalf, Boromir and all, almost eclisped my own visions. So, I totally forgive the leaving of some great stuff out. I always have the books and my imagination. I'm ok with it!

06-21-2002, 05:14 PM
Of course the book is better than the movie, but the movie could have turned out so horribly that I think what we got is great. There are so many things that PJ could have done wrong that I, personally, am very grateful for the way the movie turned out. After all, I may never have read <I>The Lord of the Rings</I> in the first place if the movie had not impressed me so much. It's the best job of turning a book into a film that I've ever seen.<p>[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: ElanorGamgee ]

06-21-2002, 05:20 PM
I totally agree with you! The Godfather was pretty excellent also!

Arwen Imladris
06-21-2002, 05:47 PM
I believe that in one interview, PJ said something that he was not trying to do the exact book, but his interpretation of it. The movie was ment to be based in the book, not an exact copy.<P>I think that it is rather sad, think about how long tolkien toiled over writing LOTR, and then to have someone "improve it". I sure wouldn't like someone to do that to what I wrote!<P>Oh well, as I said before, I sure couldn't do it and something is better then nothing.

06-21-2002, 06:49 PM
It has never bothered me that P.J. left things out of the movie. Name a movie based on a book that didn't have to leave some things out. It all depends on the degree of interpretation that the writer and director give to the work, and how faithful they remain to the "spirit" of the author's work.<P>Funny thing: I just sat down and watched "Harry Potter" finally. That is a movie that remained totally faithful to the book. It is almost a page-by-page copy of J.K. Rowlings text, with only a few, very minor incidences left out. <P>And yet most critics complained that it remained "too faithful" to the book! And I have to agree with them. The movie seemed rather "draggy" to me, and bogged down in details that prevented it from having a good rhythm and flow to it.<P>I think P.J. has good instincts and his interpretation left me very happy. After all, he was making a film, not a staged rendering of a book. And I salute him for his efforts. <P>I just look on it as having two gifts to enjoy: the books and the films. Different, but equally wonderful.

Mornie Alantie
06-21-2002, 09:36 PM
PJ left out stuff that was "Irrevelent" to the destruction of the ring. I am not saying that things he left out were unimportant, But he could go around them to keep the movie going. PJ also said that his goals were 1. to make a good movie 2. to make it like the books.

The Human Of Our Time
06-21-2002, 10:04 PM
We thinks overall the movie was great. Yess nice movie. Still we thinks Tom Bombadil and Goldberry should have been in it. Yesss. Tom Bombadil. Yesss Precious. Goldberry too. Yesss. And the end. Yesss. The end could be better. Yess Precious.<P><I>gollum gollum</I>

06-21-2002, 10:15 PM
Well, it's PJ's interpretation of the book as he sees it, and all of what he considers the most important points. But he does leave out all fo the feeling in it that it has in the books. For example, the great friendship between Legolas and Gimli. He totally leaves that part out, and it just seems like they're on neutral grounding. It would seem different to a person who has read LotR than opposed to a person who has never read the books.<P>The love story behind it plays a far greater role than it did in the book, and in the movie Elrond seems more opposed to Men than he did in the book. Aragorn was trusted by Elrond more in the book, and very dear to him, almost like a son, but in the movie they don't even mention anything about Aragorn's past. <P>The way the Council of Elrond worked was not very true either. PJ failed to tell the coincidence in which all of the people arrived at the same time, and PJ seemed to make it look as if they were purposely called there. Boromir's attitude was different in the movie also. In the book, Boromir is of noble heart and is forever faithful to his people, but in the movie, they make him seem selfish and greedy for power.<P>In Lorien, PJ never wholly mentioned the way the power of the Ring that Galadriel help kept Lorien in its majesty of the Eldar Days, and never fully created the picture of how important celeborn was. Celeborn's role was so small in fact, that he wasn't even in the movie for more than 3 minutes! According to the book, Celeborn helped plot a route for the Fellowship.<P>And the Fellowship itself was ill-described in the movie as well. Gimli and Legolas are just pretty-boy backgounds, Boromir is corrupted totally by desire for the Ring according the PJ, Aragorn doesn't even seem totally endeavoured to the Ring or the Quest or seem to play any part in the leadership of it, and Gandalf seems to be the complete skeleton of the Fellowship. The hobbits are even lesser than their book counterparts in that Sam, merry, and Pippin seem to be nothing at all concerned to the Fellowship. The friendship between the hobbits are ill represented.<P>In final words, the PJ may have done the best he could, but there were necessary parts that he had overlooked or failed to fully paint.

06-21-2002, 10:28 PM
I enjoyed the movie thourougly. I was enthralled by it, and because I hadn't read the books in quite a long time before I saw the movie, I hadn't much to compare it with. Once I read FOTR, however, I thought,<BR>"Yes, Mr. Jackson DID leave a lot of things out, but by the time the movie was over I was getting uncomfortable in my seat and I shudder to think of the back pain I would have had if he had left in EVERY detail! :6<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Watching LOTR<BR>The edge of my seat<BR>hands tearing up a napkin<BR>I liked that movie!<P>Copyright 2001 S. Uffelman <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

06-22-2002, 12:25 AM
Although I missed some of my favorite scenes, I'm happy with the movie dispite this. I guess I expected PJ to leave things out due to time, and was prepared for it.<P>My regret is for people who have never read the books. They aren't getting the full picture (pardon the pun). There is so much they are missing. But that is to be expected with any movie that was rendered from a book.

06-22-2002, 12:07 PM
The first time I watched the film, I was just totally stunned by the spectacle. Also, it was about 15 years since I had read the books. I am now re-reading them and it's making me like the film less! Altho I can appreciate that you tell a story one way in a book and a different way on the screen, and that it had to be severely compressed. But HOW could PJ leave out Galadriel's gift giving? How is Frodo going to defeat Shelob now? Will he just pull out a phial of starlight with no explanation, or will they miss that out too? I also think it's a great shame that they skipped the reforging of Anduril and didn't make it clear that Aragorn carries it afterwards. This made the (overly extended) battle sequence at the end look like any other cheesy action movie, with a hero who remains unscathed while mowing down baddies left, right and centre. No explanation that his sword was something special. Plus, Boromir's death was short and simple and thus more dignified in the book, he didn't take half an hour to die! I can see why the hobbits went straight from Hobbiton to Bree, but why couldn't Merry and Pippin be involved from the beginning? The fact that they bump into Frodo and Sam and just get dragged along changes the dynamic between the 4. I personally am glad that they missed out Bombadil though. Imagine the poor actor having to portray that!!!

06-22-2002, 06:39 PM
Ummm....I think you must not have been watching the movie very carefully, because they showed Galadriel giving the Phial to Frodo. That was the only gift you saw in the theatrical version. And the sword that Aragorn was using wasn't special. We won't see the reforging until TTT or RotK. That wasn't Anduril he was using. And I liked Boromir's death scene. I thought it was perfect. <P>I loved the movie. Plain and simple. It's an interpretation, not an exact replica, and I am glad that Peter Jackson took so much time and energy to do this.<p>[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: Nufaciel ]

06-23-2002, 06:09 AM
OK, I'm embarrassed! Galadriel gave Frodo the phial? I've seen the film 4 or 5 times (I've forgotten which) !! Clearly I was too busy staring at Elijah's eyes. Perhaps I should have made it clear that I love the film for what it is - only now I'm rediscovering how much was changed, and I can't see the purpose of all the changes. We'll have to agree to differ over Boromir's death scene, though.

06-23-2002, 09:13 AM
Of coure we can disagree on stuff. That's what makes it so interesting, seeing different points of view! <P>I know how it is, missing stuff in the movie. I missed some things the first few times I saw it, being too busy staring at Legolas and drooling over Boromir and Aragorn, lol! <P>The purpose for all the changes were for time consideration. All that was left out, while good in the book, would have weighed down the movie, and it probably wouldn't be very successful. Also, we have to realize we're lucky to have three movies. Most movie companies only wanted one or two movies. Think of the damage that would have been done if New Line didn't pick up the movie, and agree to three. That's why I don't like to pick apart the movie.

06-23-2002, 10:35 AM
I regard the movie and the book as two seperate entities, each one a masterpiece in it's own way.<P>I enjoy and look forward to seeing what PJ changes, leaves out or keeps in the movies. I don't mind the changes because I think the changes are pleasantly surprising and applaud the fact that PJ is making the universe his own in a way. I find any deviations from the book interesting and imaginative; rather than running for the high hills and screaming, "Sacrilege! How could he?!", I think that more people should give the guy credit for bringing a version of a complex masterpiece to life.

Saxony Tarn
06-24-2002, 05:56 PM
i guess a time lag of 25 years between reading the book and seeing the movie makes it easier for me to accept the cut-&-paste job they'd had to do, but honestly, i have to use a microscope to find something to complain about.<P>And putting Boromir's last stand on Camera One as opposed to off-stage as Tolkein did really made all the difference. Not that Bloom didn't do a good job as That Notorious Elf, but i walked out of the theater with a new favorite character. Somebody give SB a Purple Heart for that acting job. Right down to his lips turning blue -- can't get much more realistic than that and still have him get up and walk away when they're done filming.<P>s.t.<P>|_|) <-- it comes in pints, and here's a round for the board! ...Hmm, Nufaciel, it sounds like you might be a card-carrying member of the target audience for my fan-fic...

06-24-2002, 06:04 PM
Baranfuiniel - you can be forgiven for not catching the "Phial" scene. It was almost like a throw-away moment, and was shown as kind of a mini-flashback as the Nine Walkers were floating away from Lorien.<P>It was as if P.J. was half-way through editing the film, when he says: "D-Oh! The Phial! He needs that later in the third film! Now how do I work it back in...?" <P>A clumsy moment in an otherwise great film.

The Silver-shod Muse
06-29-2002, 12:09 AM
There was an awful lot of stereotyping (ex. Arwen - the lady warrior-elf/Mary Sue, Pippin and Merry - brainless comic relief).

06-29-2002, 10:07 AM
The first time I saw the movie, I was less than overwhelmed, because I sat there nitpicking at all of the inconsistencies with the book. Once I got over my indignation, I really enjoyed the movie...to the tune of like 30 additional times. The movie got me through what, for me, was a very difficult winter. I look at Jackson' interpretation as jazz improvisation: the themes are all there, but he riffed around on them. I think he did a really good job, and, apparently, so too did millions of other people.<P>As for the gift giving scenes, I noticed Galadriel giving the phial to Frodo immediately, and then, when they were in the boats, I noticed the Elven cloaks with the Mallorn-shaped clasp. The full gift giving scene will be in the extended version. <P>I have found that my knowledge of the books (I've read them over 25 times since I was 17 or so) augmented and, for the most part, did not conflict, with what I saw on screen. There are obvious exceptions, but still, they don't bother me. I think FoTR is probably one of the best movies released in the last 10 years, at least, and that the three films will be 'must-haves' in the year to come. It certainly blew Attack of the Clones out of the water, imo. And, the buzz is, that TTT will be even better than FoTR, notwithstanding no Shelob. In any case, I suggest that anyone who really didn't like FoTR to boycott the final two films. That is what I would do if my shorts were all in a knot.<BR>