FOTR - sh*te

I am rather bemused at reading this forum. Shocked actually that so many people think it's so good. Why? Critical analysis time:<P>1. Visualisation.<P>The one place that the film hits spot on. Perhaps this is why so many people are confused; the eye candy's nice. The Balrog and the Ringwraiths I will single out for special praise.<P>2. Does the film address the key themes of the book?<P>Largely, no.<BR>*It entirely misses the point of the Ring. It gets across that it is powerful, but it does not get across the /desire/ the ring induces at all well. We do not hear Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond say that they will not take the ring, it's corrupting power is not stressed as it was in the book.<BR>Saruman is played as the servant of Sauron, but it was the desire of the ring that led him to darkness too. [before anyone starts ranting at me about plantIr go read his speech to Gandalf, and then have some extended reading. There is no doubt where his intention lay]<P>*Boromir I hear you cry! Well, no. Boromir was signposted from the start as being a bad guy. It was over-laboured, in that clumsy Hollywood way. Reread the book. Boromir is a noble man, and the Tradegy of the Fellowship of the Ring is in his corruption, the power the ring exerts over even the strongest of men. In the film his eventual redemption makes no sense, because of the skewed nature of his interpretation.<P>*Bravery even in the smallest. Nope. Beyond the basics the heart of Frodo's character was ripped out. Where was Frodo facing the Ringwraiths all alone: 'You shall have neither the ring nor me'?<P>*Sense of scope? Entirely lost. We flick from Cadhras to Moria to Lorien so quickly you might think it happened in hours. Cineam is wonderful at compressing things but there are still ways of getting across the passing of time.<P>*Visulaising Sauron was a mistake. In the LoTR (nb this is NOT the Silmarrillion), Sauron is not visualised: we here of him only by report or by the terror he induces in others. He is a dark menace across the pages of the book, not some silly X-men esque baddie. <P>3. Where the chracters authentic?<P>Mixed bag<P>*Aragorn. Denying his line? Yes, quite. Not all who wandera re lost, people.<P>*Boromir, see above.<P>*Elrond. In the all the books (+the Hobbit)Elrond represents lore and wisdom. Of Islidurs taking of the ring, he seem like a Father watching a foolish son: sad because he can see further. Not, like the film, as an angst ridden teenager. <P>*Gandalf. Is not Obi Wan Kenobi, though this seemed lost on Jackson and co. The bit with the Balrog made me want to scream so loudly. Gandalf did not go down that pit intentionally. Plus he came across as quite clueless when in reality he's the one pulling all the strings.<P>*Frodo. See above. <BR>Also didn't get across his age in comparsion to Sam. <P>*Merry and Pippin. The less said the better.<P>*Arwen. Let away with because it's Liv Tyler .<P>*Saruman. Not a Hollywood baddie.<P>Most of the others were laright. Wait - have I covered all the major parts. Oh man!<P>4. Misc<P>Stupid mage fight, stupid little things like the Ringwraiths during the day, the incredible tweeness, Aragorn would NEVER have let Frodo go alone, the bit at the end with Aragorn's pep talk nearly made me retch. Unnecessary changes. Silly little things just made the film almost unwatchable.<P>There has been much talk of the fact that this is a film and that changes were necessary tec tec. I fully agree. There was a lot in the film I was prepared to accept. No Tom Bombadil, okay, a little compression here and there, fine. But this does not excuse the film being sh*te, or the often total missing of the point of things.<P>Sadly this is now two book-to-film adaptations recently I have been diappointed with (the other being Hannibal -- now if you want a rant...). And the trailer was so good too. It's like Episode 1 all over again.

Hmm,<P>1. Agree<P>2. No disrespect but did we see the same film? Frodo offers the Ring to Gandalf, Galadriel and Aragorn who all refuse with a struggle. Include in this the performance of Bean and I think it highlighted the danger of the Ring very well.<P>* Do you remember the scene where Boromir is playing with Merry and Pippin? Where he comforts Gimli at Balins tomb? His conversation with Aragorn in Lorien? His fight to save the hobbits at the end? Again, have to disagree although of course it could have been done better.<P>* Through the film it was clear to see Frodo the innocent change to Frodo in despair. I thought this was one of the best done parts.<P>* Agree that some things did fly past to fast but not Moria, that was a great part of the film.<P>3. <P>Aragorn - The problem here was that the character was just not given the time to build. More time with the hobbits was needed between Bree and Rivendell to show how the love between them grows. I thought Vigo did a good job from a representational aspect but wasn't given enough time to develop.<P>Boromir - I loved Beans Boromir. Out of all of the fellowship I thought his was the character that developed the most through the film. His lust for the Ring was obvious and there were also some nice scenes of him being a good guy.<BR> <BR>Elrond - PJ got this completely wrong. Elrond came across to me as a bitter, twisted bigot who pretty much hated all of the other races.<P>Gandalf - Apart from the times you mention where he seems unsure of himself, I thought Gandalf was great. His swift mood swings were in there, his love for the hobbits, his wise words, his anger, his strength was all there for me. The only thing I can think of is that PJ tried to portray Gandalf as under Saruman but to such an extent that sometimes he verged on the bumbling fool. Also this may have been done so that those who haven't read the book will see the drastic change in Gandalf when he returns.<P>Sauron - This scene was a flashback to an earlier age and so not from the LOTR book specifically. While I didn't like it, again, it was visually stunning.<P>4. Can't say much on your points here as thaey have been beaten with a stick too many times before. One thing though that you said about the Ringwraiths during the day. What did you mean by this? They certainly travelled during the day, they weren't vampires.<P>There were some dire moments in the film agreed but there was also a lot of good. <P>To see the Shire and Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo play out a tremendous first part was enchanting. The acting was top notch, Sir Ian McKellan especially. Moria was pure cinematic genius and will be talked about for years to come. The visualisation of Middle Earth was breathtaking as was the costumes and soundtrack. The wizard duel and the breaking were nothing like they were in the book but still breath-taking. <P>Its not perfect but its a fair crack and I'm glad I went to see it. There's no point in biting off your nose to spite your face as they say down Hobbiton way. <P>It dosen't make it a bad film because its not how you wanted it to be, it does make it a bad representation of the book however, there is a difference. <P>Go see it as a film on its own merits and try not to compare everything to the book, I'm sure a lot will get enjoyment from it at some point.<P>[ December 25, 2001: Message edited by: Quellesir ]<p>[ December 25, 2001: Message edited by: Quellesir ]

[Lush]

Hmm...Neither of you said anything about Legolas. Maybe because he was pretty much IDEAL!!! (Poor Orlando Bloom will never escape his elven past, he's probably sick of it already, but I would have loved to don those ears).<BR>The truth of the matter is, no movie is ever perfect. No book is ever perfect. (OK, am I about to be hissed at for this one?)<BR>Because, dear boys, life is never perfect. Trace it back to Adam and Eve, trace it to the Big Bang. What can you do?<BR> We should all learn to live with that, and enjoy the imperfect moments, 'cause that's all we have. <BR>Love,<BR>Lush

Funny you should say that Lush as Legolas has become a bit of a favourite with the people I know who have seen the film, Orlando was v. great.

[Lush]

Legolas was graceful and elegant, but not without the qualities of a true warrior. Aragorn and Boromir were equally amazing (yes, as a girl, I am a bit biased in that regard, right? ) but they just didn't have that light-footed walk that made Legolas so appealing. I was a bit surprised at all the attention he got at first; Viggo Mortensen and Sean Bean are very handsome and talented, and kept our attention throughout the long film, but to a lot of people, especially those new to Tolkien (like myself), Legolas was very original, very eye-catching. Kudos to Orlando for pulling it off.<BR>Love,<BR>Lush

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>2. No disrespect but did we see the same film? Frodo offers the Ring to Gandalf, Galadriel and Aragorn who all refuse with a struggle. Include in this the performance of Bean and I think it highlighted the danger of the Ring very well.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But it's almost an aside. Compared to the book this aspect is muted. In the book it is almost over-stressed, there must be at least 10 occassions where one of the above refuse the ring. There are, to my mind 3 key scenes about the desire the ring induces:<P>1. Saruman's rant at Gandalf. The point where he goes 'Why not? The Ruling ring' and his true intentions are unmasked. Removed.<P>2. The scene with Galadriel's mirror. Done okayish but she did not mention that she had long thought about getting the ruling ring.<P>3. Boromir's scene at the end, where he starts talkinng and you can almost see the starshells of madness in his eyes. The point is he starts calm and works him self up, bent on ther desire if the ring.<BR>This was messed up. The problem with Boromir was that he had all the subtly of a sharp axe. This isn't the Boromir of the books, it's one drawn in a big black marker so the US audience can see that he is a Bad Guy. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>* Do you remember the scene where Boromir is playing with Merry and Pippin? Where he comforts Gimli at Balins tomb? <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Not enough to alter the perception of him. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>His conversation with Aragorn in Lorien?<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Over laboured. Still painting him as so obviously going to take the ring. Subtly is needed - to represent the creeping doubts and desires in Boromirs heart. Not hit over the head with a sledge hammer!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>His fight to save the hobbits at the end? <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Makes no sense. He was obviously the bad guy from the start, so why the sudden redemption?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>* Through the film it was clear to see Frodo the innocent change to Frodo in despair. I thought this was one of the best done parts.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>My question is still this: where was Frodo the Brave?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>3. <P>Aragorn - The problem here was that the character was just not given the time to build. More time with the hobbits was needed between Bree and Rivendell to show how the love between them grows. I thought Vigo did a good job from a representational aspect but wasn't given enough time to develop.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Didn't find Aragorn too bad per se, it was the whole denying his line that really ****ed me off. It was such an unneccesary change and so at odds with the Aragorn of the book.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>Boromir - I loved Beans Boromir. <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>My issue wasn't with Bean, but with the script and direction.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>His lust for the Ring was obvious <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>My point.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>Gandalf - Apart from the times you mention where he seems unsure of himself, I thought Gandalf was great. His swift mood swings were in there, his love for the hobbits, his wise words, his anger, his strength was all there for me. The only thing I can think of is that PJ tried to portray Gandalf as under Saruman but to such an extent that sometimes he verged on the bumbling fool. Also this may have been done so that those who haven't read the book will see the drastic change in Gandalf when he returns.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But he's still not Obi Wan Kenobi. Watch it again. Watch him hang on, look at Frodo and then /throw/ himself offa that Bridge. At this point I hit catatonia.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>Sauron - This scene was a flashback to an earlier age and so not from the LOTR book specifically. While I didn't like it, again, it was visually stunning.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But once you have made that image, you are stuck with it. People see it the rest of the film. Pluas what was all that blaoney about Sauron not having corporal form? He must have Gollum says something along the lines of 'Yes, he only has 4 fingers on one hand. But that is all he needs'. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>4. Can't say much on your points here as they have been beaten with a stick too many times before. One thing though that you said about the Ringwraiths during the day. What did you mean by this? They certainly travelled during the day, they weren't vampires.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>At the flight to the Ford. Yes they could travel during the day, but all save their leader were greatly affected by the sun. The book states late afternoon, I always had in mind a red sky. But the film semed to be at the middle of the day. I admit I could be wrong over this.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>Its not perfect but its a fair crack and I'm glad I went to see it. There's no point in biting off your nose to spite your face as they say down Hobbiton way. <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I desparately wanted to like this film. You've no idea how much I tried. I'm even going to give it a second crack. But no, I just couldn't<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>It dosen't make it a bad film because its not how you wanted it to be, it does make it a bad representation of the book however, there is a difference. <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It was to slow paced as an action flick. I don't think I'd have liked it even if I hadn't read the book. <BR>Plus what is all this 'It's a film..' blarney. It's meant to be Lord of The Rings. I think it's ok I should test it against this expectation.

[Lush]

Boromir as a BAD GUY? I didn't think so! I just thought he was bedraggled, and desperate, and feeling like he had no way out. <BR>He was <I>real</I>. He was making the mistakes almost anyone would have made in his situation, while still keeping the audience's sympathy. <BR>I don't understand, you say that Boromir's BAD qualities were outlined in black marker, but as for all the times he showed himself to be kind-you say that's not enough! I think if the movie had more scenes with him comforting hobbits and dwarves his characterization would have come off as heavy-handed. But instead, he was portrayed as a mix of conflicted emotions. <BR>This is what made the character work, and made his death all the more tragic in the end. <BR>I'm sorry, I guess you could call me a stupid American movie-goer (although I am technically Russian), but I didn't think Boromir was a bad guy at all. Sauron, now there's true evil, couldn't get more obvious than that! (Which is a good thing of course, because any attempts to make Sauron seem "complex" in the movie would have made everyone gag). <BR>The characterization of Boromir was a rare triumph for the fantasy genre (and for movies in general these days)-he came off as a real human being.<BR>Just my 2 cents worth, of course.<BR>Love,<BR>Lush

Disagree with most of it(especially that cra*about the Hobbits) and here's why: The control of the Ring wont come until later in the Second and Third movies. It's power did'nt show up so much in the first book and that's what happened in the Movie. There were three or four major themes YOU left out of your WONDERFUL list SIR. <BR> Loyalty,Bravery,Steadfastness and Love. Sams loyalty is shown ALL through out the movie. In the cornpatch with I thought I had lost you and Dont you leave him Samwise Gamgee. <BR> On Weathertop where HE is the FIRST by Frodos side,in Rivendell where he rushes into the council,outside of Moria he was the first to thwack the tentcales that grabbed Frodo,IN Moria where he starts whirling away with his pots and pans to get to Frodo,On Amon Muil where he runs into the River (and forgets he cant swim( to catch Frodo. <BR> Merry and Pippin are the same way. When they jump on the Trolls back in Moria, when they call the orcs attention to themselves. Actually all of the above were done out of the pronounced love,courage,faithfulness and steadfastness of the characters. It was the same way with Aragorn and Boromir(Who I find to be one of the coolest characters in the movie becaus he seems to form an attachment with Merry and Pippin)I'm sure that Legolas and Gimli will stand out in the next movies.<BR> What in the heck is wrong with Merry and Pippin? Pippin is an IRRESPONSIBLE TWEEN meaning he is supposed to get into trouble and be immature, most teen guys are anyway.And if you mean the firecracker and Vegetables and second breafast scenes. Here we go:The book does'nt say EXACTLY what went on at the party BUT I am positivley sure someone or other decided Gandalf needed help with the firecrackers. The veggies:Is Frodo the ONLY one who is privieleged enough to steal vegetables from Farmer Maggot?and the breakfast scene. Hav eyou known ANY teen boy to NOT be hungry ALL the time and not to be witty and humourous?And I think that the movie NEEDED the comical relief.<BR> I fyou want to continue this I'm open for arguments.<BR> Goldenwood

[silme-ranaa]

Boromir was no bad guy.He is good at heart but his conceptions of the ring is different.He believes he can use it against the Dark forces and thinks that destroying the ring was a bad idea.<BR>As for his fight for the hobbits,it was in the book.And it make sense bcoz he,i stress once again is NOT a BAD GUY.He also regrets trying to take the ring from Frodo.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>The control of the Ring wont come until later in the Second and Third movies. <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>?????????<BR>I mentioned the DESIRE of the ring, not its control.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR>There were three or four major themes YOU left out of your WONDERFUL list SIR. <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It would be difficult for one person to get them all, and people have different perceptions and so forth. Does their omission make my list wrong? Loyalty is one I criminally overlooked, I agree. But it's not just Sam's, and it was also handled badly. Aragorn would not have just let Frodo walk off like that. Because of all the things you mention.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>He also regrets trying to take the ring from Frodo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But it MAKES NO SENSE WHY. <BR>He is obviously going to take the ring from the start. Beyond obvious. In the book it is more subtle. Those that say Boromir was a conflict is supplementing the film with their knowledge from the books. He had a few token shows of kindness. This does not a conflicted chracter make.<P>And Merry and Pippin often performed a quasi-comic role in the books, but never quite as cringe worthy as in the film. <P>HOW TO MAKE A BY NUMBERS HOLLYWOOD FILM.<P>GOOD GUYS<BR>BAD GUYS <BR>LOVE INTEREST<BR>HUMOUROUS ASIDE CHARCATERS<BR>COPIOUS SPECIAL EFFECTS<P><BR>They've just shoved Lord of The Rings in to this box (please feel free to add to that list, it's by no means definitive), made any changes necessary to do so and it doesn't belong there, nosiree.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kensei:<BR>[QB]I am rather bemused at reading this forum. Shocked actually that so many people think it's so good. Why? [QUOTE]<P><B>AMEN AMEN AMEN WELL SAID PLEASE SEE ORIGINAL POST!! HORRID ADAPTATION!!!!!</B>

[Elendur]

I thought the movie was excellent. I saw it 3 times. The book and the movie = 2 different things. As a movie just being a movie, this is one of the best that I have ever seen. Tolkiens books are the best I have ever read. Keep it at that. No more bickering. :P<P>I think at the end of the day we can all agree on this simple point... Sean Bean was excellent! Legolas was cool. Sauron beating the elves with his mace was awesome. Overall the movie ROCKED. <P>Only thing I dont like is Liv Tyler as Arwen, how Arwen and Galadriel were so angelic and shiny that I had to wear sunglasses in the theater so I wasnt blinded when they appeared, and how the elvish speech was always spoken so softly like it wasnt really a language so much as a secret speech.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Elendur:<BR>[QB]<BR>I think at the end of the day we can all agree on this simple point... Sean Bean was excellent! Legolas was cool. Sauron beating the elves with his mace was awesome. Overall the movie ROCKED. <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No...at the end of the day I don't think we agree on much about the movie. The movie was a disgrace. Its entirely a matter of opinion but ours greatly differ.<P>The movie is called "The Lord of The Rings. The fellowship of The Ring." Since its not, really, PJ should have simply made his own awful "fantasy movie". (that no one would have seen)Instead he very loosely and with great license, interpreted Tolkien's books to capitalized on the name and fame.<P>He really is shameless.

[Lush]

Give the man some credit, will you? He appears to be a humble man, with true respect for Tolkien, and he worked hard on these films. If he was only after the money he'd be doing movies with Jerry Bruckheimer and Ben Affleck!

Well Lush, we're each entitled to think what we like about PJ motives aren't we, without sneering at one another.<P>Since I don't know the man personally, and I'm assuming you don't either, I guess we'll never know who's "right". Will we?<P>And if we did know him, we probably still wouldn't agree. Which is perfectly fine.<P>Wouldn't it be a boring old world if we all thought the same?

[Legolas]

Yes, let's not snarl at one another! This is all in my humble opinion, as always.<P>I think Elendur was more spot-on than anyone else. The movie includes what the director/scriptors/whatever felt was needed. They've undoubtedly read the book(s) and have their opinions just like everyone else. Some of your complaints make good points, but some are just pure opinion. Nonetheless, it was just a movie...the film crew's interpretation of what happened, condensed into 3 hours of video tape. I didn't understand why they changed certain things which is the subjective side of things, but with the objective side of this argument (indepdent thought - what is and isn't important), I don't think anyone could ever make a movie from a book such as this one without thousands of fans saying "I think you should of done it this way," "This wasn't emphasized enough," etc., etc. There are going to be those who feel the bad far outweighs the good, and vice versa. Personally, I thought the movie was a pretty good effort.<P>The three times I've seen the movie so far, I've seen it with people who are only familiar with the Hobbit or totally unexposed to Tolkien and his world. When talking to them, it was pretty clear that the film did show them the ring's ability to draw people into a strong desire of it. Galadriel, Boromir, Bilbo, and Saruman's reactions to the ring's presence got that point across well [as well as Saruman (due to his desire for it) being more of a servant to the ring, though I could see where someone could easily suspect otherwise]. Also, we did see Gandalf refuse to take the ring - Frodo offered it to him after learning of the evil that chases after it.<P>"Good heavens! Don't pretend that goblins can't count. They can. Twelve isn't fifteen and they know it."

[Lush]

Forgive me if I was overreacting, but if its not OK for us to sneer at each other, why should it be OK to sneer at Peter Jackson? I doubt he needs my defense, whether he wanted the money or not, he's still sitting around somewhere, counting it ; that being said, I think it's only fair to stick up for someone who isn't there to defend himself. True, I don't know him, don't know if I'd like him in person, but I did appreciate his hard work. I am sorry that you didn't, but there is no film out there that can please everybody. I know it must be aggravating to be completely dissatisfied with a film adaptation of a beloved book (I know the feeling).

[Elrian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lush:<BR><STRONG>Give the man some credit, will you? He appears to be a humble man, with true respect for Tolkien, and he worked hard on these films. If he was only after the money he'd be doing movies with Jerry Bruckheimer and Ben Affleck!</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Armageddon was an excellent movie, what is the purpose of kicking Bruckheimer because someone voice an opinion on PJ? Do as I say, not as I do?<P>

[Lush]

Hmm, I just saw the words "Armageddon" and "excellent" in the same sentence. Riiight, I am going to have to think long and hard in trying to make sense of that! See you guys in about five years...<BR>Seriously though, Jerry Bruckheimer, like his movies or not (and I will admit that Armageddon is a guilty pleasure), is after the money, and he makes no attempts to hide that. Does that make him a bad individual? No. Does it make me want to rush out and see his movies? No. (Of course, since I live in an incredibly boring city, encounters with Jerry's masterpieces are inevitable).<BR>PJ, although clearly working within the rules of the business, seems to be more concerned with his artistic vision. Rent "Heavenly Creatures", you'll know what I'm talking about. <BR>On second thought, maybe not. There are no cool explosions in it....<BR>But alas, I am <I>kidding</I>, not sneering.

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

woahhhhh ok now for my two bits worth *shrug*<BR>as a movie it's good<BR>as LOTR-I think what I most objected to is probably Gimli. He looks like a blundering dwarf with few reedeeming points-where's his reverence of Galadriel??? and his true bravery, not just looking silly standing on Balin's tomb swinging an axe!<BR>the scenery and special effects were excellent<BR>loved legolas hated the way that Aragorn was just ughhhh they gave half of what is wonderful about him to Arwen (her little speech about they can't hurt us blah) as for Arwen herself-and the hobbits look kinda ridiculous altho I think that Frodo is good<BR>Boromir...alright overall I'm just going to say that oversimplification (which they were guilty of) is an incredibly bad idea-he's shown as the stereotypical baddie as the start, and as for Elrond...!

[Lush]

I agree wholeheartedly that Gimli could have used more screen time, and some decent lines! He also had too little interaction with Legolas. Does anyone remember him telling Legolas of the dwarves' hospitality upon their entrance into Moria? This was one of the few moments that audience members were given a hint that these two have a hard time understanding each other. It seems to me that they had more exchanges, but they probably ended up on the cutting room floor. Maybe the next two movies will allow their relationship more room to develop.<BR>As for Boromir (I've said this before, forgive me for repeating myself), let me tell you, when I first saw the movie I had, at that point, never touched a single Tolkien book. I was one of the ignorant and unconverted, but I did not get an impression of him as the token bad guy. I thought he was the character with the most depth, and both pitied and admired him. Maybe there are unconverted people out there telling each other, "Dude! What was up with that evil idiot Boromir?" But as for me, I kind of got the fact that he wasn't just some power-hungry menace, and I didn't know Tolkien, or any of you fine people at that time.

[Gilthalion]

I've pretty much stated this in other threads, but I made a conscious determination NOT to rigorously compare the movie to the text.<P>If we were led to believe that Jackson's adaptation (and it is an adaptation, after all) was to closely follow the text, then there would be issues to be upset about.<P>As it is, I found the movie a delight. I am sure that my own interpretation would have met with the disapproval of purists.<P>How much would any of our interpretations have suffered if restricted by the necessities of commercial cinema. It is a record breaking achievement to be done at all. The purist's version will never, can never, be filmed.<P>I am hopeful that "director's cuts DVDs" will provide us with a richer movie.<P>But it is a fine cinematic adaptation. There is much in it that could not have been done better with unlimited budgets and teeming millions of purists flocking to the theatres for six hour movies...<P>As a rule, I am not impressed with efforts to critique the movie because it was not completely "by the book." Such critiques themselves fall far short, because there are, and will be, many divergences between (approximately) 9 hours of film and (I count) 46 hours of text.<P>"It's not just like the book, so I hate it and belittle all who like it" is a pretty poor critique.<P>All of that having been said, I did find somethings in the movie that I personally thought might have been handled better, but all of these are based upon my understanding of the books.<P>What a delight it will be for people who love the movies to read the books and discover an even greater depth and breadth of experience in Middle-earth!<P>(For what it's worth, I wanted more singing.)

[Ulmo]

I enjoyed the movie a lot. Great sets/costumes, great casting, super special effects, wonderful soundtrack, great action scenes, so-so script. Merry and Pippin needed to be developed more, and their conspiracy to join Frodo and Sam should have been in the movie. Legolas and Gimli need to be developed more. The Council of Elrond scene needs to be longer........I give the movie an 8 out 10 rating, but when the Directors Cut DVD is released, I am sure it will be higher.

Who cares! If a person cant see past the changes, I feel sorry for them. Only person who could bring this thing to the movies the right way was tolkien himself. So I dont look for someone to do it tolkiens way. They stayed as close as possible and I give PJ kudos for doing that. But the funny thing is, if the man himself came to life and did the movies, would the same people like it or not?Some people just complain cause it is all they know hopw to do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Isildur's Bane:<BR><STRONG>Some people just complain cause it is all they know hopw to do.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That settles it. The movie is great! Everyone who says otherwise is simply a compulsive complainer!

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

lol thankyou Rhud...I guess I just felt kinda let down by it :/ and I have given the special effects due credit, but what I can't seem to get past is the changes to Gimli and what I (briefly ) outlined above

[Halbarad]

If I may point out that PJ is getting a 5% share of profits (roughly 100 million if the other two do as well). On the other hand, with regards to the movie and comparison with the book, they cannot be directly compared, due to the differences in medium. The main problem kensei has, I think, is that the medium of film has great shortcomings with regards to visualisation, i.e, that we are watching one person's interpretation of the book. Also, I'm sure that PJ would have done the whole thing if it had been possible. However, the movie would have been about seven hours long if they had put in sufficient material to develop characters etc. That means that the audience would have had to watch a seven hour film (because it would be very difficult to break up and still make it interesting enough to persevere watching). <BR>With respect to Arwen/ Aragorn, this is a great love story, but is not included in the main storyline (see appendix A). In order to make the love story (crucial to a story with few heroines) relevant, the film would have had to explain things in flashback or something.<BR>What I am trying to say is, films are never better that the book if the book came first (e.g. Jurrasic park, Pride and Prejudice) and that is a truth that is set in stone (for me). It is something that we just have to deal with. The film was great, but the book will always be better for me (14 times and counting), and the film has to cater for a market that has a short attention span.<P>P.S. I liked the interpretation of the awesome power of the ring at the start, well done. A good way of showing how Sauron, in full power, was overcome, but I would have liked to have seen Elendil and Gil Galad fighting Sauron rather than them just getting blown away.

[MenRWeak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by kensei:<BR><STRONG><P>It was to slow paced as an action flick. I don't think I'd have liked it even if I hadn't read the book. <BR></STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Your opinion here echoes that of a friend of mine. Another friend stated that there was too much action. He was wishing for some more camp fire scenes to slow down the action.<P>By the way, LOTR is not an 'action flic.'<p>[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: MenRWeak ]

[lomion]

Am I crazy, or did I hear the dwarves in Rivendell say they'd rather see all elves dead before they'd let them have the ring?<BR>A knock-down dragout fight at the council of Elrond? Then Gimli tries to chop the ring to destroy it. Hmmm....<I>null</I>

[lomion]

I liked the look of Saruman. Orthanc was pretty cool too. Great imagery. Saruman is kind of one-dimensional though. I think he wanted to replace Sauron. He's been ensnared by the Eye already, but I think if he had the opportunity, he'd back-stab Sauron and take over. In the film he is pretty much Sauron's servant.

[lomion]

I have to disagree with Isidur's bane. I don't think Tolkien could have brought it to the screen. I think writing screenplays and directing are talents, skills on thier own. I can only speak for myself, but I think it could have been better done. Anyone can nick-pick a movie to death. Of course it will differ from the book. Omissions are one thing, I just did'nt expect major plot changes. "In the secret compartment in my ring I conceal, my Arwen super-energy pill!!" hahahaha

[Telgaladiel]

In the beginning of Saruman's betrayal, I thought that he too was more of Sauron's servant, but as his sub-plot/side scenes began to wind down, I started to get the distinct feeling that while he seemed to be doing Sauron's bidding, he had his own agenda the entire time. Loong sentence.<P>In TTT we'll see more of Saruman's wants and desires. Still, after my first viewing of FotR, I came away with the distinct impression that Saruman had a hidden agenda outside of Sauron's wishes. I keep forgetting that this is just three hours of a trilogy, and that it is no where near finished, so there is still much to be seen.<P>There is nothing wrong with discussing why, but alot of the "discussions" here as to why has come across as condescending and rude (on both sides). I also don't see any call for naming people that haven't made a spectacle of themselves in a thread and speaking of them in a derogatory manner. At any other forum, that would be considered flaming, which is needless and leads to that name calling.<P>I still think Saruman has his private agenda in the movie and we'll really see it in TTT. PJ likes to show his movie more than club the viewer over the head with the facts. I like that.