People who thought the movie stunk!

I just want to know if anyone out there thinks it stinks as bad as I do. If so, voice it here!

[Eol]

I am looking for productive opinions about this movie- did the hobbits turn out as well as they seemed in the trailor? Did Agent Anderson seem weird for the part of Elrond? I know you hated the movie...I would like to hear the specifics beyond the book. What was the think that made you the most peeved? If you had one thing that was cool in the movie what would it be? I want to get as much info to determine whether I REALLY want to see this movie.

Here is my take on the movie that I have already posted on another forum:<BR> keep hearing people say something like,"Well, you can't compare the movie to the books because,<BR> etc., etc., etc." So fine, let's just talk about the movie.<BR> I would rate it about a 1.5 out of 10! I thought the acting was sub-par, their was no character<BR> development, the Elves were basically a group of mean-spirited jerks (Legolas was alright), Frodo was<BR> weak, and Aragorn was an unconvincing gimp. Frankly, I wonder what many of you consider to be a<BR> good movie??? Remember, we're just talking movie; I haven't even begun to rip it to shreds in respect<BR> to the gross inadequacies, embellishments, and false depictions it suffered in relation to the REAL story.<BR> Of course I cannot think it possible to critique the movie in an unbias form. However, I tried hard, and I<BR> believe that if I had not read the book I would not rate it well (though I may have enjoyed it more). It<BR> lacked in full the element of great story that any great movie has. I walked out of the theater feeling<BR> like I could really care less about any of the characters, save Boromir (who I thought did the best<BR> acting job of the nine).<P> So, no folks, it can't be like the book; but for goodness sake, it could have been something interesting!

Hmmm....I'm just wondering what you think a good movie is exactly?!?:/ I thought the movie was very good. I have read The Hobbit, Fellowship of the Ring, and I'm almost through with The Two Towers. I felt that the actors played their roles quite nicely. I wish the movie could have been longer in fact! If I made some changes though I would definitely put in Tom Bombadil and have Glorfindel instead of Arwen. I know at the theaters I was in if something bad happened everyone would gasp....or if something funny happened everyone would laugh. And there looked to be some die-hard LOTR fans there. This is only my opinion though so I suggest you see it for yourself and decide what you think of it after. The group I was with loved and kept most of everyone on the edge of their seats.

[Elrian]

That was Agent Smith not Anderson and he was terrific in the part.

[Lostgaeriel]

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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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?<P>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.<P>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.)<P>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?<P>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 <I>"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!" </I> 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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<p>[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Lostgaeriel ]

[red]

<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.<P>...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.<BR> <BR>-Lostgaeriel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>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?<P> <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)<P>-<I>The Hobbit</I><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><B>That</B> 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. <B>It doesn't exist!!</B> It is a figment of your imagination! Elrond did nothing but love Aragorn. <P>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! <P>-red (Founder of the Elrond Fan Club)<p>[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: red ]

[Dáin Ironfoot]

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

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.

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. <P>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.<P>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. <P>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]

I know that <I>I</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! <BR>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.<BR>Love,<BR>Lush

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

[Tirinor]

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. <BR>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.<BR>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.

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:<BR>1. The film needed to be true to the book, a classic - I think it was pretty close<BR>2. The film needed a huge budget for the scenery and effects - I think most agree the scenes were pretty true to the book<BR>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. <P>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.<P>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]

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.<P>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. <P>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.<P>I have no leniency for such ignorance and therefore will not waste anymore of my time addressing such a preposterous position.

Thanks for all the comments about my review!<P>However, I have found that most of them miss the point or do not interpret me correctly.<P>Lostgaeriel:<BR> 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.<P>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?<BR> 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.<BR> I think you might need to read the books a 21st time.<P>Aftiel of the Twilight:<BR> You wrote this: <BR> I am shocked that you bare this film so much contempt, yet can still audaciously count yourself among<BR> the ranks of fantasy proliferators around the world. It seems to me, you betray your kindred by<BR> spurning this triumph; the first truely awe inspiring fantasy movie ever to be released. I am shocked it<BR> was as good as it was. <P> It retained the majority of content plausible, any ommisions were logical, and it was entertaining from<BR> beginning to end. I am afraid you are in the minority on this one. Hundreds of thousands of movie going<BR> consumers, LOTR fan's and not, as well as critics around the nation, all think it is a fine film. Several<BR> hundred jaded malcontents like you are the only ones who spurn it so, and for little reason other than<BR> the fact they cannot concieve of any other rendition of something that is subject to the biases and<BR> unique interpretations of all. LOTR is not the bible. It's a story, and I think their are better ones out<BR> their, and it actually makes for a better film than a book.<P> 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. <P> 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. <P> Well, here is what I am shocked about:<BR> 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.<BR> 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.<BR> 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.<BR> ..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>P.S. I don't trust your sister.<BR>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]

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. <BR>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. <P>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.

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. <BR> 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.<BR> 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.<BR> 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.<BR> 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.<BR> 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.<BR> Arwen.....hmmm cant say anything but"brave and knowledgable for a girl who grew up in a sheltered home"<BR> 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.<BR> 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?<BR> 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.<BR> 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.<BR>Goldenwood<BR>ps.Is it ok if we get a Pessimistic Forum going?JAJ(Just A Joke)

Goldenwood:<BR> I don't think you understand what character development is if you call that character development.<P>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.<P>Please don't confuse Pessimism with Criticism. Is it pessimistic to call a bad movie bad?<P>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]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rhudladion:<BR><STRONG><P>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>P.S. I don't trust your sister.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Kids, play nice!<BR>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!<BR>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 <I>Literature</I>, 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).<BR>As for Tolkien, I went to buy my own set of LotR books last night, and was pleased to discover that he had his <I>own</I> 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?

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".<P>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!<P>[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]<p>[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

[Lush]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rhudladion:<BR><STRONG>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".<P>[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]<P>[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>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.<BR>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]

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. <P>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. <P>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.<P>Time will tell. Someday the LOTR will be put in its proper place.

[Tirinor]

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.<P>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. <P>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.<P>Likewise:<P>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. <P>So when I attack fantasy, I attack what it has become, not what it may have inherently been.

[Lush]

Yes...Like I said...No, I won't repeat myself, my fingers are quite tired again!<BR>As for Tolkien's newfound popularity undercutting the process of his acceptance-I think you're overreacting. <BR>If you read and love a book, wouldn't you want others to read and love it too?<BR>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?

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.<P>I do not consider myself a Purist by any means but by any standards, this was a HORRIBLE movie.<P>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 <I>thieves</I>that Frodo and his <I>brother</I>Sam took up with!<P>The Moria scene was a <B>travesty</B>,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?!?!<P>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.<P>Even ignoring my disappointment with the deviations, which I expected, and taken strictly for itself, it was a bad bad film.<P>The SFX which I thought were awesome (Barad Dur, Orthanc, Opening battle)and <B>could</B> have been used in combination with fine acting to create a really wonderful film, instead we got:<P>No acting, no terror, no time for <B>any</B>character development. And the <B>GOD AWFUL MUSIC</B>! 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.<P>Whew, anyway my disappointment is as vast as the Mines of Moria should have been.<P>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.<P>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]

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. <P>I guess I would just like to see LOTR grouped with works worthy to be called equals.<P>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.<P>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. <P>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]

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. <P>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. <P>Sam, who in the book feels a stirring duty to see the quest through, whines here to go home. <P>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!). <P>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. <P>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. <P>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. <P>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! <P>I wish they would have shown Gollum following the fellowship on the Anduin River <P>.....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]

ulmo, i agree with most of your points. <P>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.<P>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.<P>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]

<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><P>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]

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

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]

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]

Parts of this thread beggars belief..were some of u taking notes in the cinema :-)<P>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.<P>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.<P>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. <P>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.<P>In a nutshell I think people should chill...crack out the popcorn and just enjoy the film. <P>Paul.<p>[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: GollumsPrecious ]

[Elrian]

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

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

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<BR>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<BR>I've already voiced the rest of my opinion on this movie under one of the other topic headings

To GollumsPrecious:<BR> 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. <BR> 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>P.S. Eowyn, no one has insulted anyone's intelligence for at least a week or so.<p>[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

[Tirinor]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Elrian:<BR> 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><P>I could have.

[Eol]

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. <BR>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]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tirinor:<BR><STRONG><P>I could have.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>...now we're just being stooopid.<P>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.<P>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.<P>Pass the popcorn....<P>Paul.