People who thought the movie stunk!

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

[GollumsPrecious]

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

[Tirinor]

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

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

[GollumsPrecious]

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

[Lush]

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

[Lush]

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

[Tirinor]

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

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

[Eol]

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

[Tirinor]

well said Eol.

[zifnab]

Cheers to GollumsPrecious!

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

[Tirinor]

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

[Lush]

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

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

[Lush]

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

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

[Lush]

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

[Lush]

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

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

[Lush]

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

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

[Eol]

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

[Lush]

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

[Lush]

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

[red]

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

[Lush]

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

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

Maedhros:<P>Well stated!

[Tirinor]

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

[Lush]

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

[Tirinor]

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

[Lush]

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

[peregrine]

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

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

[Sindalómiel]

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

[Maeglin]

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

[Mister Underhill]

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

[Lush]

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