Lord of the Rings (page 5)

Naeblis

I'm going to see it again tonight. I'll reserve final judgement until then.

Seeker

p.s.-have you read lost tales, Silmaril..., Tolkien Reader, etc.? Wogdog? Also, what do you think of CS Lewis?

Silmarillion: yes, and enjoyed it too.

Lost Tales: In the process of doing so, off and on, and not in any particular order.

Tolkien Reader: No.

Smith of Wooten Major: Yes

Leaf by Niggle: Yes

On Fairy Stories: Yes

C.S. Lewis: No

Seeker

I'll be seeing it again too, to really understand how I feel about it. Now that I know what is missing, I won't go in with expectations, but will just be able to enjoy what is there.

I will say this: I very much enjoyed this movie. Yes, it's not Tolkien exactly, but I don't think anyone can do Tolkien in film form and have it work. Books are not movies. A successful film adaptation will not resemble the book except in spirit. Well, Harry Potter copied the book very closely, and was roundly criticized for lacking the imagination to do anything else. Thus it serves as an example of how NOT to adapt a book.

For all that I missed, and for my few quibbles with the choices Jackson did make, I am profoundly grateful that it was made by a fan of the book, with minimal Hollywood influence. If they had done a 'Harry Potter' to this movie I would have despaired. Instead, it was made a fan who truly understood what Tolkien was getting at. The message of hope intermingled with despair, of victory undercut by loss, by the sadness of the elves, by the passing of ages -- it's in the movie, albeit in abbreviated form that is appreciated more by fans than by those who don't know the book. So I'm grateful it wasn't turned into yet-another-fantasy movie, but a movie informed by Tolkien's sensibility, if not his every word.

We could have had far worse, and I was thrilled to see at least some of Middle Earth come alive. And remember, all you true fans, we will always have the books...

ashitaka

Neab, what are your first observations?

Seeker, Smith of Wooten is a favorite of mine. Read the Chronicles of Narnia, always a good read. You have to be a real devotee to read his essays, but I think he was brilliant, although too judgemental as a christian.

The tolkien reader is very cool, just a few little things here and there that are endearing.

On fairy stories is awesome.

I am a voracious reader, (and was quite the nerd as a little kid), so I've read and reread all of Tolkiens books numerous times. That's why I care so much about the rendering of them.

I liked the Bacchi rendering. Was it bizzarre in some parts? Sure. But at least it had some kind of artistic edge to it. Boromir's death was incredible in it. The voice charactarizations were wonderful, especially Aragorn's. Perhaps it was just a little more of a personal piece than the new one, although it was very inaccurate. At least there was no X-men wizard fight in it.

ashi

ashitaka

Seeker,

I'm going to see it again, and try to calm myself....perhaps I'll enjoy it more the second time, now that I know what I hate. Maybe I'll find more bright spots or even (the horror!) like it...

ashi

joelbear

I agree, I was tremendously underwhelmed by the Star Wars trailer.

Ashi, We got to get together man, we think alike.

have you read Asimov's Foundation series?

take care

Joel

COMF

Joel, I have. I pictured parts of it as movies, like particularly The Mule and his team of mind-controlled helpers... except for the girl...

But what struck me as more likely movie fodder was the Caves of Steel series. Interesting that they should coincide at the end, eh?

COMF

Seeker

Found an interesting article about the movie with a viewpoint that closely matches my own. Here's an excerpt:

I'm sure I'm not the only adult in the audience who, while watching the film, flashed back to their first time seeing "Star Wars." Of course, I'm not 12 years old now, and sitting through a three-hour movie was harder, but still, I was swept away by the film and enjoyed every minute of it.
The best part is that my vision of Tolkien wasn't compromised at all. What I realized after watching the film was that my version was still safe and sound in the musty reaches of my brain. Jackson's vision didn't change or negate mine -- it wasn't necessarily better than what I'd dreamed up all those years ago, just different.
But what a difference. Up there on the screen was the passion of a man who has devoted several years of his life to telling this story. Accompanying press materials say that the director personally approved every single handmade prop that appears in the film, signed off on every single detailed sketch. And it shows. Though I have quibbles with a few elements of the film, nothing about it is by the numbers or offhand -- every frame shows a unique and personal vision, one that I respect as much as I respect the original Tolkien novels.
The key was not that Jackson was faithful to every detail of the books. True, he was as faithful as he could be, but if he'd filmed every twist of the tale, the film would have been 10 hours long. But the way he shaped and molded the books, to make the adventure flow without sacrificing small, personal moments -- that showed a sure hand and confident creativity. Jackson was faithful to the spirit of the books -- more faithful than I would have thought possible. He made "The Lord of the Rings" into a truly enjoyable movie -- his movie.
Fear-driven Hollywood
And that kind of passion and commitment is what we need more of in movies. The other big literary adaptation of the holiday season is Chris Columbus' "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," which I enjoyed and which was competent in almost every way. But it took no chances: It showed me nothing new, nothing I hadn't imagined myself. It never made me gasp with wonder or horror. I never felt the filmmaker's passion to get it right -- only his fear of getting it wrong.

Full article at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/arts/chi-0112230303dec23.story?coll=chi%2Dleisurearts%2Dhed

gambler

I saw the movie and never read the books.I would give it a B-. It is so hard for hollywood to make a good fantacy movie.It was a good cosept for a movie with good characters but I must agree with askt that with a better directer this movie could have been alot better.The flow of the movie seemed a bit choppy at times and I agree that the death of human in the end was way overblown.But I did enjoy the movie.I am glad this movie did not make the same fucked up mistake that lucas did by turning the phatom menace into a movie for kids 5 and under.

Lord of the Rings

Share this