Lord of the Rings

by think41self 50 Replies latest jw friends

joelbear

Well, I am going to come down on the side of the purist critics. I've read the books about 4 times and I loved them every time, all 4 of them. I love the theme, I love the story, I love the characters. All 3 are important to me.
The story was great and didn't need to be fiddled with as much as Mr. Jackson fiddled with it. I, like slip, plan to see it again before I make my final judgement, but I found the movie to be pretty boring.
I did love the sets. I loved Hobbiton, Rivendell, Moria and the Wood Elves dwellings. And I am a big fan of Sean Astin and I thought he did a great job with Samwise. Frodo was a much nobler character than Elijah Wood played him. I thought Bilbo was pretty close.
The jokes fell flat with me because the book is a very serious story.
I always have thought I would love to see this story as a movie and also my other most beloved story, Asimov's Foundation series. Now, I think I would rather Foundation stay where it is, in my head and in my imagination.
Of course, I also think they ruined Dune with the movie too. And I am a picky moviegoer. I like them done right. I did really enjoy Harry Potter and it made me want to read the books which I have not read yet.
take care
JOel
Seeker

OK, finally saw it and here's my view:
I see the purist point-of-view. I knew going in that some was changed from the book, and I understood why they did it, and supported their right to do it. A movie is not a book, and shouldn't try to be one, for they are entirely different forms of communication. No Tom Bombadil? No problem. I understand they have to keep the story flowing, and even Tolkien wasn't sure what to make of ol' Tom.
Yet for the first half-hour or so, I was jarred by just how many things were chopped off. I was beginning to be a bit resentful of all that I was missing when a wonderful thought came to me: the fact that much was missing only means they are still in the book and thus still in my heart and imagination whenever I want to revisit them. This movie is Peter Jackson's vision of Middle Earth, not mine, and more power to him. If I made my vision come to life, he'd have problems with it too. That's the nature of storytelling. We all want to tell a story our way, but Jackson is the one who got the money to do it, and I think he did it right.
What? Wasn't I complaining just a moment ago? Yes, but in a nitpicking way. On the whole, Jackson got it right! Mostly serious? Check. Hobbits always joking? Check. Gandalf the Grey as an old man? Check. The elves being remote? Check. The romance of Aragon and Arwen? Check. The beauty of the Shire? Check. Moria? Perfect.
In short, it's a true triumph in the best sense. Jackson got to make his version of Middle Earth and, though it isn't my vision exactly, I got the idea that Jackson "gets" Tolkien the same way I do. It's a wonderful movie. And the best thing of all? "My" Middle Earth is still where I left it: in the books and in my imagination, and Peter Jackson cannot touch it.
Seeker

More random thoughts:
Love seeing the characters brought to life just as I imagined them. Exactly right!
What a warm Gandalf McKellen made!
What a noble Legolas.
What a lovably gruff Gimli.
What very warm and rounded the hobbits were.
Loved Galadriel, just as I pictured the beautiful and fearful lady of the wood.
In short, the characters drew me in, and made me want to be among them. Middle Earth has always seemed to be a beautiful place to live, and this movie made that beauty come alive.
ashitaka

Yes, but Peter Jackson's Direction was horrible. He is a hack. I know each actor's nostrils intimatly, now. Horrible blaring music sounded everywhere, and he seemed obsessed about showing helicopter shots circling around Frodo.
I did like McKellen...very good choice. I would have like Galadriel more if it wasn't so badly directed. What the hell was with the Galdriel boogie-woman transformation? In the book, it just says she "seemed" to grow taller(when Frodo tempts her with the ring), not change into a she-devil.
Also, notice the awful Bilbo Rivendell "Large Marge" effect from Pee Wee's Big Adventure? Horrible.
How silly was incorporating the chapter titles in as dialouge? Gandalf says in the beginning, "An unexpected party". WHOA- WhOA!!! How CLEVER!!!!!! No wait, that isn't clever.
Arwen is in the Fellowship(the book), but only briefly, and her Enya-esque speech at the river is just stupid. Viggo is an idiot, just as bad as he was in Portrait of a Lady.
Unfortunatly, both Sam and Aragorn were non-characters. Gandalf was the best rendered; my only annoyance was the slight camp in some scenes with him.
Wood? Well, he's ok. No real complaints, but I'm not impressed here.
What the hell were the orcs doing crawling up walls?
What was Shrek doing fighting alongside them?
My favorite set was Rivendell. That I liked alot. Hugo Weaving as Elrond wasn't so bad either. Too bad Jackson couldn't write a digestable screenplay. It would have made all the difference.
ashi
Seeker

Yes, but Peter Jackson's Direction was horrible. He is a hack.
Interesting viewpoint, one that seems universally disagreed with.
I know each actor's nostrils intimatly, now. Horrible blaring music sounded everywhere, and he seemed obsessed about showing helicopter shots circling around Frodo.
I know what you mean, but it was hardly all through the movie. I didn't get that sense at all.
I did like McKellen...very good choice. I would have like Galadriel more if it wasn't so badly directed. What the hell was with the Galdriel boogie-woman transformation? In the book, it just says she "seemed" to grow taller(when Frodo tempts her with the ring), not change into a she-devil.
Oh yes she does. She is terrible and fearful in the book, as well as beautiful and wonderful. Remember, elves live in both worlds simultaneously, and their true nature as described by Tolkien is quite fear-inspiring.
Also, notice the awful Bilbo Rivendell "Large Marge" effect from Pee Wee's Big Adventure? Horrible.
Didn't care for that either. He does transform in the book but through emotion, not physical appearance. I think Jackson was showing Bilbo becoming Gollum-like for an instance, in physical appearance. After all Gollum did look like Bilbo at one time, so it's clear that over time the physical appearance of a ring-bearer changes. Jackson chose to illustrate that for an instance, and it fits the books intent if not the letter.
How silly was incorporating the chapter titles in as dialouge? Gandalf says in the beginning, "An unexpected party". WHOA- WhOA!!! How CLEVER!!!!!! No wait, that isn't clever.
I loved that dialogue! Very fun to hear, and a gesture to the fans.
Arwen is in the Fellowship(the book), but only briefly, and her Enya-esque speech at the river is just stupid.
That was very true to the books. It's true, we only get the details about her in the appendix, but the book of Fellowship does tell us they spent time together in Rivendell, though we don't get to hear what they say. But what they had her say is basically what's in the appendix, put in dialogue form. Blame Tolkien.
Viggo is an idiot, just as bad as he was in Portrait of a Lady.
Loved his world-weariness, yet bold man of action, and true leader while remaining humbly behind the scenes.
Unfortunatly, both Sam and Aragorn were non-characters. Gandalf was the best rendered; my only annoyance was the slight camp in some scenes with him.
No need to show Gandalf bumping his head, yes. But Sam was realized beautifully, I thought.
What the hell were the orcs doing crawling up walls?
They swarm, like in the book.
What was Shrek doing fighting alongside them?
Because Tolkien wrote him in.
waiting

wow....not to change the subject......but I am.
I usually don't have more than 3 beers any given time. That's my limit, and I know it.
I had 4 tonight and watched "A Knight's Tale." Even after going over my limit, I still had a time throwing out all credibility to enjoy the movie. If a person can do that......the music's good (Queen, etc.)
A purist would hate it, LOL. Kinda like a Monty Python movie seriously done. The beer helped.
My daughter read all the books for Lord of the Rings. She loved them - I mean *really* loved them. I'll give 'em a try.
waiting
ashitaka

Seeker, I was commenting on the bad CG, not on the fact that "Shrek" wasn't in the book. Another certain creature was, though, not "Shrek."
Also, re-read Lothlorien, in Fellowship. You'll see that there was just a moment where she seemed dangerous, not some goofy transformation. I read it five times, and I couldn't understand why Jackson would ruin that part by doing that. "Beautiful and Terrible", just doesn't meld with the silly effect Jackson chose. It ruined it for me.
Bilbo's character was OK, and I did understand what Jackson was getting at with the "large-marge" eyes, but it was just excess....that's the whole film's problem.
As for Arwen, it was the lines at the river where I was irritated.
I DID think that the Rignwraiths were fairly cool, and the "ghosts of the kings" at Weathertop was interesting. I did like that a lot. I never thought of it that way....brought a lot to the scene at Weathertop.
I just HATE Peter Jackson's direction, though. The screenplay could have been better.
I understand what you're saying about the chapter titles being a tribute to the fans, but did it HAVE to be in there? Not really. It broke up the flow for me. Just seeing his eyes look bemused as he drove by would have been subtle and sufficient.
i still contend that Sam was wasted. I LIKE the actor who played him. I enjoyed a couple of the scenes with him and Sam, but there just wasn't enough of him.
Really, though, the actors I can take. Even some of the shoddy direction. But they really could have tightened up the script, took out the "dwarf-tossing" joke, and left out farmer Maggot, and just had the four leave the shire the way the book spoke of.
I know that having Tom Bombadil is too much to ask, but at 3 hr 15, they could have fit him in, as well as read the Lower Bronx phone book, A-Z.
As for Viggo, it's not his look, but his awful dialouge delivery that was irritating.
I thought I was going to hate the scenery, but I didn't. Thought I was going to hate Gandalf's rendering, but I didn't. Just a lot that I don't agree with.
Peter Jackson said, I'm not making Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, I'm making Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Well, shouldn't he be faithful to the book in mood as well as script?
ashi
Seeker

I dunno, I see the movie as being faithful to the mood very well, dwarf-tossing joke aside, though in spirit even that is the sort of thing a dwarf would think!
I do know that I really miss much of the depth and texture of the book. I look forward to seeing the DVD when it comes out, as I hear rumors that there is another hour of material that was cut. If that hour is put back in for the fans on the DVD "director's cut," I'll bet much of what I missed will be there.
I know that if I made the movie, you would like it more than Jackson's version, for much of what you complained about would not be there. My version would be very, very close to the book, would have the Old Forest, and Tom, and Bill Ferny, and the Cow Jumped Over the Moon, and the Midgewater Marshes, and seeing lightning on Weathertop from a distance, and wargs, and gifts from Galadriel....and the movie would be 5 1/2 hours long, loved by true believers, and ignored by everyone else, taking the movie studio into financial ruin in the process.
That's why I don't make movies.
ashitaka

Seeker,
I'm right with you. Let's make one ourselves. I could cut it down to three hours, and still be wonderful.
As for missing the "depth and texture", that's the feeling I got too. Glad I'm not alone.
ashi
p.s.-have you read lost tales, Silmaril..., Tolkien Reader, etc.? Wogdog? Also, what do you think of CS Lewis?
sleepy

I was left a little disappointed but that's because like many others I've read the books.
Without going into detail I didn't like the fact that the journey the fellowship undertakes didn't have a feeling of distance or adventure to it.
You could have made a three hour film with just the journey from the shire to Rivendell.
I wish the film was less Hollywood and more substance.
Even though not a Hollywood film it was still influenced by what cinema goers expect to see. Why can't someone have the guts to be different.
I just recently saw a film called Amilee (or something like that )a French film defiantly the best I'd seen in ages.
Nothing like crappywood.
Couldn't believe how bad the star wars trailer looked as well.
Sorry but I hate Hollywood ,please will all film directors forget pandering to the masses and start inspiring them.

Lord of the Rings

Share this