PDA

View Full Version : The Lord of the Rings


Shivermetimbers
12-17-2003, 12:29 PM
SO ok its morning. I'm am very tired having gotten five while hours of sleep after going to see the Return of the King. I personally thought it was fantastic.


So what was everyone else's opinion on it?

Alien426
12-17-2003, 12:59 PM
My opinion is that it sucks that I wasn't able to watch the premiere at 0:01. I can't watch the movie before Saturday and will have to work late for the rest of the week.



Oh great, now I'm depressed. Thankyouverymuch, Shiver.

Alia
12-17-2003, 01:00 PM
My opinion is that not everybody got to see it at midnight. And may not see it for weeks. :¬:

Other than that, I think it's awesome!

Ray Jones
12-17-2003, 01:46 PM
i think i dont like it. i dont like the hole thing.

*shrugs*

but..


this says nothing about my character.. right?


:)

scabb
12-17-2003, 04:13 PM
I saw it today too, the cinema was surprisingly empty.

They're okay films, but really not as great as everyone makes out them to be. Not on the same level as the Indy, Godfather & Star Wars trilogies, because they just try too hard to be completely true to the tale. Fellowship worked, but the others were just three-hour long battles with homo-erotica intermissions.

It may deserve the "Special Effects" and "Best Director" oscars, but no "Best Film". Although "A Beautiful Mind" was infinitely worse, but I'll stop talking now.

ptdc
12-17-2003, 09:24 PM
Was it better than TTT? That was... meh.

Shivermetimbers
12-18-2003, 01:44 AM
I loved TTT. I did think this one was better though.

Skinkie
12-18-2003, 02:26 AM
Haven't seen it yet, just wanna say the other ones were way too long. The first one is like a real-time trek across New Zealand, and I don't really remember the second one, I was really tired when I went and saw it.

Ernil
12-18-2003, 03:41 AM
they just try too hard to be completely true to the tale. Fellowship worked, but the others were just three-hour long battles with homo-erotica intermissions.



terrible, TERRIBLE logic.

The first one is like a real-time trek across New Zealand, and I don't really remember the second one, I was really tired when I went and saw it.


Ridiculous compaints. Ridiculous complaints.



This movie was Awe Inspiring. Amazing. Flawless. Tremendous.



Perfect




Perfect




A true tear jerker. Successfully.

Alia
12-18-2003, 04:38 AM
Originally Posted be scabb
they just try too hard to be completely true to the tale.
Well, yeah. What do you suppose would make them Lord of the Rings movies? They're not flawless...I'm not quite as gone as Prince of the Halflings there, but I like them a lot. A whole lot. An AWFUL lot.

*clunk splat CRACK*

Did you hear that? That was the sound of me banging my head on the desk and splitting them both wide open. Miserable wench that I am. God, the sad face smiley they have looks so whiny.

scabb
12-18-2003, 02:45 PM
My point is, the tale itself isn't all that great to begin with. A film should focus more on characters interacting, and a story unravelling. This just felt like watching people spout off battle tactics and warnings of impending evil whilst waiting for Frodo to toss the ring in the mountain. Maybe this is more of a flaw with the books themselves, though, which aren't exactly easy to translate to film.

Don't get me wrong, Tolkein was great. He brought a lot of new ideas into the world, threw in some older ones and created a whole mythology of his own. His writing was incredibly descriptive, although this often made it incredibly dull as well. He didn't get everything right, though - for example, Lord of the Rings ends terribly, with everyone sailing off to the undying lands.

Jackson did an excellent job of sticking the tale on the screen, but that doesn't necessarily mean it works on the screen.

Anyway, flame away. ;-

Jedi-Monkey
12-18-2003, 04:58 PM
I saw it yesterday too. I thought it was good, but I prefered TTT. This one seemed to have things dragging on for too long.
They were either trying to create tension and emotion in parts but when it lasted to long it just became annoying and I was saying 'just die already'. Like that bit on the battlefield under the horse
(trying not to spoil the movie for people who havnt seen it yet)
and the fight with the characters on Mt Doom.

SamNMax
12-18-2003, 09:47 PM
I just watched Two Towers today. It was okay.

Shivermetimbers
12-18-2003, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by scabb
My point is, the tale itself isn't all that great to begin with..

To quote Mr. Garrison..."You go to hell! You go to hell and you die!"

I can't put it more bluntly than that.


A film should focus more on characters interacting, and a story unravelling.

Not when its based on a book thats not about that. That's called bad Hollywoodization of good books.

Alia
12-19-2003, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by scabb
Anyway, flame away. ;-
Nah, you're too sweet in general to burn you up over one little point.

Jedi-Monkey
12-19-2003, 04:03 PM
Yeah. Why make a film of a book if you change the story? I hate business people.

Ernil
12-20-2003, 04:52 AM
My point is, the tale itself isn't all that great to begin with


This just felt like watching people spout off battle tactics and warnings of impending evil whilst waiting for Frodo to toss the ring in the mountain. Maybe this is more of a flaw with the books themselves, though, which aren't exactly easy to translate to film.

His writing was incredibly descriptive, although this often made it incredibly dull as well

for example, Lord of the Rings ends terribly, with everyone sailing off to the undying lands.

I saw it yesterday too. I thought it was good, but I prefered TTT. This one seemed to have things dragging on for too long.


YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHRGH!

Skinkie
12-20-2003, 06:24 AM
Someones a bit opinionated...... Indy would so kick Fordos butt.

Joshi
12-20-2003, 04:42 PM
Who the hell is Fordo?

Anyway, just went to see it. On some level, I do agree with Scabb, the books weren't as great as everyone says they are. The reason they are so long is because he fills each page with paragraph after paragraph of description and narrative without actually getting into the actual story. There are referance books and so one created by Tolkien about Middle earth, but most of it gets covered in these six books which is really unessecary. I say, the Lord of the Rings should have been about the story of the Lord of the Rings and anyone who's really interested should basically go and buy a seperate book about middle earth and so on.

Saying that, the story was simply a lot of battles. Tolkien spent about 15 years of his life writing a book that whilst great, had no connection or hidden value to the everyday Joe like you or me. At the end of TTT, Sam says his nice speech and then sums up the entire trillogy in the words 'that there is some good in the world, and it's worth fighting for.' This is great for politicians and world leaders and so on, and may even strike a cord in the everyday person as to be a little more optomistic in life, but in the end, it doesn't quite hit home and teach us much.

Now for the praise, it was a great film as it was and it was brilliantly adapted. Pity about the lack of Sarauman (sp?) but it wasn't about him, so I think jackson has a liscense to take him out. Also, the ending was a little drawn out, but i think Jackson basically wanted to get Sams last words in in the end and that unfortunately involved about five epilogues. Even still, it was great to hear him say it. The battles were brilliant if not slightly excessive and the music (which I am listening to now) was awe inspiring.

TBC

Mr.Burger
12-21-2003, 05:39 AM
the most intelligent conversation ever. spawned by an intelligent idea. branching into intelligent provocation.

so far we've deduced:

1.
2. Good is a word.
3. Cat.
M. The Lord of the Rings books are lame.



keep it coming, folks. i promise i won't look.

Gabez
12-22-2003, 01:10 AM
FFS >:

I couldn't agree more with Ernil here - the movies were perfect.

His writing was incredibly descriptive, although this often made it incredibly dull as wellYou say that like it's "a fact" - it's not, it's just your opinion. For me the narrative style is far from boring - perhaps it's because you're from a newer generation to Tolkein and if you look at other books from that time they all share a simmilar "boring" style. I suggest you go back to Harry Potter. >:

The Lord of the Rings books are lame. Have you ever even read the books? No? Thought not. Next!

(Okay so they're not everyone's cup of tea but you can't just call them "lame")The reason they are so long is because he fills each page with paragraph after paragraph of description and narrative without actually getting into the actual storyThat's the magic of Tolkein. ; It's the realism that makes the books - and the films - so amazing.

Tolkien spent about 15 years of his life writing a book that whilst great, had no connection or hidden value to the everyday Joe like you or me. Whilst Tolkein did write the books as peices of escapism, it certainly does not mean that it has no connection "with the everyday Joe" (as opposed to what, I wonder?). Try reading the books again, but this time actually think about what you're reading. >:

for example, Lord of the Rings ends terribly, with everyone sailing off to the undying lands. I'd like to see you do better. >:

My point is, the tale itself isn't all that great to begin with.. That's not a point, it's an opinion.


I saw it yesterday too. I thought it was good, but I prefered TTT. You, sir, are an idiot. No doubt you just like the big battles, eh?

A film should focus more on characters interacting, and a story unravellingAre you blind or just stupid? How else do you describe the way the films were done?

Jackson did an excellent job of sticking the tale on the screen, but that doesn't necessarily mean it works on the screen.Have YOU read the books? How else do you justify all the cuts and changes if not because they made the film work on the screen? Wassat? Don't belive me? Read a review.

Not on the same level as the Indy, Godfather & Star Wars trilogiesGreat films, but they're just entertaining. They don't make you laugh, cry, jubilate, be horrified, or be awed as much as Lord Of The Rings. They don't make me think as much.

I say, the Lord of the Rings should have been about the story of the Lord of the Rings and anyone who's really interested should basically go and buy a seperate book about middle earth and so on. It's called the Silmarllian. If Tolkein left out all the extra details then it wouldn't have felt as "real" as it does, and cogito ergo sum it would have just been another Harry Potter or something. Entertaining, but very very flat.

The first one is like a real-time trek across New Zealand, and I don't really remember the second one, I was really tired when I went and saw it.Maybe you should actually watch the films properly before dishing out unfounded criticisms. >:

Haven't seen it yet, just wanna say the other ones were way too long.That's not a criticism, it just says that you have the patience of a five year old.

i think i dont like it. i dont like the hole thing. I'm not going to bash this comment because it's perfectly understandable. It's not for everyone. :) There's a difference between saying "I didn't like it - I just don't enjoy that sort of thing" and saying "omg books 2 long + boring = tolkein is a gay???? star wars was much better omg". >:

Why make a film of a book if you change the story?Because books are a different medium. Would you use exactly the same script for a TV series if you wanted it on the radio? No, because it wouldn't work. Ditto with LOTR.

Shivermetimbers, Ernil, Alia and anyone else who loved the films *(don't forget it's all one big film really) as much as they deserve to be loved, you rule.

On edit: "A true tear jerker." - if you don't agree with this then you have a heart of stone. ¬

MrManager
12-22-2003, 01:24 AM
I couldn't agree more with Ernil here - the movies were perfect.

No, they were actually full of errors - Newsweek had a great article about it with Peter Jackson addressing some of them. ;-*

Gabez
12-22-2003, 01:29 AM
Okay Remzo, we have to get into what the word "pefect" means now.

Since perfection is technically, universabley impossible I'm using it as "perfect for me". AKA even though the geeks at "news night" can say that there's all these mistakes, for me it don't matter diddily ****, and thus I see them as perfect. For me.

Also:

"the story was simply a lot of battles"The battles are like 5% or the actual book. Of course they're an important part of the story, but they're definitely definitely definitely not the whole thing. ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ The books downplay the battles even more than the films.


(On edit:) I pressume you mean http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540652/ - please. That's hardly going to spoil perfection.

Shivermetimbers
12-22-2003, 01:52 AM
Honestly, I'd like to see anyone else do a better job.






Yeah. Thats what I thought.

scabb
12-22-2003, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Gabez
You say that like it's "a fact" - it's not, it's just your opinion. For me the narrative style is far from boring - perhaps it's because you're from a newer generation to Tolkein and if you look at other books from that time they all share a simmilar "boring" style.
Not particularly true. There are a lot of other authors from the same era with much different styles of writing - C.S. Lewis is the obvious one, and I was a big fan of Narnia. Besides, I have read and enjoyed the books, but some chapters were a little less motivating than others.

Originally posted by Gabez
Are you blind or just stupid? How else do you describe the way the films were done?
To put it in a brief and no doubt irritating manner, Fellowship set the scene, told the story of the ring and how the fellowship was formed. Then, the mission was made - "throw ring in hole". Other two films? Mission Accomplished! (With bonus war!)

Originally posted by Gabez
Have YOU read the books? How else do you justify all the cuts and changes if not because they made the film work on the screen? Wassat? Don't belive me? Read a review.
The cuts and changes were only "huge" to the most ardous Tolkien fanboys. Of course they changed some things, but it was definitely the book on the screen.

Originally posted by Gabez
Great films, but they're just entertaining. They don't make you laugh, cry, jubilate, be horrified, or be awed as much as Lord Of The Rings. They don't make me think as much.
Now you're stating your opinion as if it's fact. Not that I would ever call you on that, that would be childish. Anyway, yes, Star Wars is just entertaining, but Lord of the Rings is too, only in a pretentious kind of way. You can derive just as much thoughtful discussion from one film as you can the other. Besides, the main reason for going to the cinema in the first place is to be entertained - particularly to see a film like Lord of the Rings.

Originally posted by Gabez
There's a difference between saying "I didn't like it - I just don't enjoy that sort of thing" and saying "omg books 2 long + boring = tolkein is a gay???? star wars was much better omg". >:
There's also a difference between liking a movie, and complete insanity. Yes, I have my criticisms, and yes, I'm glad that they annoy you, and Tolkein geeks in general >: Let's just leave it at "not my cup of tea".

Mort-Hog
12-22-2003, 02:11 AM
I'm posting on this thread. I'd better make sure I wash thoroughly afterwards.

There is a lot more to Tolkien than simply The Lord of the Rings. LOTR acts more like an introduction to an introduction to the history of Arda. With this in mind, you must understand that the LOTR is not just about Frodo and the ring, and the fellowship, but of much greater and larger things. LOTR only hints at such events, mostly through songs (such as Aragorn's song for Beren and Luthien, at Weathertop I think). So you cannot expect the book to concentrate more on the characters, because that would ignore the larger scale events. You may think that Tolkien 'drones on' about certain things (most noteably the landscape, usually) but this is because those things probably have a greater significance and a deeper importance to events outside of the story at hand. The Dead Marshes, the Barrow Downs, Lothlorien; these are all scenes that may not be particularly significant to the tale of the War of the Ring, but are all scenes of extremely important historical events. These events are not explained in LOTR and you will have to read other works of Tolkien to understand them.

What you must also understand that Tolkien was a professor of English Language. He was a linguist. Tolkien's extraordinary use of language is something that has never been equaled, and rarely attempted, by other authors. Language is the most important element of the works of Tolkien, the different linguistic styles are very important in portraying the different characters; Tolkien himself acted merely as a 'translater' of the works. LOTR was originally written by Frodo (with help from Bilbo and possibly Sam), but the hobbits would not have spoken English. Tolkien translated the language that the hobbits spoke (whatever that was) into modern day english, calling it Common Speech. Characters that speak the same Common Speech would have spoken the same language as the hobbits. However, as the hobbits travel geographically, they also travel lingustically! The language of Men is different to the language of the hobbits, often confusing, but the general meaning is understandable; and so Tolkien would translate this into the modern day linguistic equivilant, Anglo-Saxon English. The hobbits would not have known any Elvish at all so that was left untranslated. The reader travels with the hobbits on the same linguistic journey!
Of course, the use of language is significant on much smaller scales too, and you can analyse intensely all of the songs and poems throughout his works separately.


If you do start to read the works of Tolkien, you must realise that it is not like reading a story book. You do not read Tolkien. You study Tolkien. Tolkien did not write a story, he wrote a mythology, and so you must study the works as you would a history text book.
If you don't like it, go read some other book. Tolkien didn't write it for you.


As for the films...
I had various niggles with the cinematic version of The Fellowship of the Ring, but those were all cleared up with the Extended version. That version flowed much better, and generated an atmosphere more like that in the book.
The extremely liberal interpretations in The Two Towers did annoy me. Cutting events out is understandable, but adding in totally new events in messses it all up unnecessarily. I haven't seen the Extended version yet, but I look forward to it. I don't think I'll be much happier with The Two Towers though.
The Return of the King was amazing. By far the best adaptation of them all. Pretty much all of the events were there, and although a lot of them were swapped around and the timescale was altered somewhat, it worked fantastically well. The cutting of the Scouring of the Shire was a very wise decision, as that simply...wouldn't work, in the film. One thing I especially loved about ROTK was how there was continuosly mentions of things far more complicated than the storyline at hand that were never explained; this would make the viewer think 'what??' and want to read the books. Like calling Gandalf "Mithrandir" without explaining what it means or why he is called that, or Eowyn saying 'I am no man!' before slaying the Lord of the Nazgul after he said 'I can be slain by no man!'. That sort of not explaining everything fully is something I like, and usually find in Japanese films. American films usually like to explain everything and tie up all the strings.


All in all, I'd say it was a fair adaptation. Although I've only heard the first few episodes, I currently prefer the radio show but only because it has more of the songs and poems. But Tolkien only really works as a written piece.

Gabez
12-22-2003, 02:24 AM
Not particularly true. There are a lot of other authors from the same era with much different styles of writing - C.S. Lewis is the obvious one, and I was a big fan of Narnia. Besides, I have read and enjoyed the books, but some chapters were a little less motivating than others.Lewis is the perfect example. Okay, so he doesn't go into the same amount of so-called "boring" details, but the style is simmilar. It's like a favourite uncle is recalling a story or something. Since you were talking about style, I reffered to other authors. If you weren't talking about style or still think that Lewis is different enough then ditto.

To put it in a brief and no doubt irritating manner, Fellowship set the scene, told the story of the ring and how the fellowship was formed. Then, the mission was made - "throw ring in hole". Other two films? Mission Accomplished! (With bonus war!)A lot more happened in the other two films than just "missions accomplished". What's more you make no comment on how the story develops and how the characters develop - just because the "mission" doesn't change it doesn't mean the plot doesn't change.

The cuts and changes were only "huge" to the most ardous Tolkien fanboys. Of course they changed some things, but it was definitely the book on the screen. Rubbish. The changes were dramatic, although they did keep to the "spirit" of the books - otherwise why would you want to do a movie of the books, eh?

Now you're stating your opinion as if it's fact. Not that I would ever call you on that, that would be childish. Anyway, yes, Star Wars is just entertaining, but Lord of the Rings is too, only in a pretentious kind of way. You can derive just as much thoughtful discussion from one film as you can the other. Besides, the main reason for going to the cinema in the first place is to be entertained - particularly to see a film like Lord of the Rings. I was aware of my condradictioness, which is why I added in "they don't make ME think". I'm sorry for any confusion caused. But it's hard to argue that Indy saving the day again really changes the way you look at life.

The main reason for going to see a film is that there isn't one. I go to be entertained, yes, but also to be thought-provoked, and moved, and enlightened. Besides LOTR is more than just a movie - it's a whole other world. "particularly to see a film like Lord of the Rings. " - are you suggesting that it's just a brain-dead action movie? Bah.

"You can derive just as much thoughtful discussion from one film as you can the other" Perhaps, but some films give more opportunity for "thoughtful discussion" than others. Try having an intelligent discussion about Spice World or whatever it was called ¬¬

And no need to call me childish for pointing out an offensive part of your "reasoning". >:

There's also a difference between liking a movie, and complete insanity. Yes, I have my criticisms, and yes, I'm glad that they annoy you, and Tolkein geeks in general >: Let's just leave it at "not my cup of tea".If you had just left all your posts to your last sentence then I might have "just left it at that", but you didn't, so I won't.

They don't annoy me per say; this is just a discussion after all. ;

elTee
12-22-2003, 02:54 AM
I agree with pretty much everything Gabez has said. The books are the books, and no book can translate perfectly to screen. The movies, as they are, are some of my favourites - extremely well made with incredible production values. Its a summer blockbuster kinda movie, but it has characterisation, emotion and a realism to it. I just can't wait untill the Return of the King extended DVD comes out (in, like a year :() so I can watch the entire movie as one ten hour epic :D

Oh, Joshi - the Saruman scenes will be on the DVD, Christopher Lee really didn't like that he wasn't in the third movie, so Peter Jackson told him the scenes would definately appear on the DVD. It'll make the scene make more sense, as well - Empire claim its 7 minutes long, as well.

MrManager
12-22-2003, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by Gabez

(On edit:) I pressume you mean http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540652/ - please. That's hardly going to spoil perfection.

That's just a sidebar in the full article, but that's obviously enough to debunk that the little action movie series, with midgets in shorts and no shoes is perfect. ;-*

Gabez
12-22-2003, 08:07 AM
The Remzo's movie standards are much higher than the Gabzo's. :~~~~~~~

scabb
12-22-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Gabez
A lot more happened in the other two films than just "missions accomplished". What's more you make no comment on how the story develops and how the characters develop - just because the "mission" doesn't change it doesn't mean the plot doesn't change.
Character Development is an interesting point, actually - the only significant changes in character occurred in the hobbits. Frodo was consumed, Sam showed his loyalty, and Merry & Pippin grew up, I suppose. The others were all clichéd arch-types that were never fully explored. That was kind of Mort's point though, the Lord of the Rings is only one tale in an entire mythology, written to tell you exactly what happened rather than tell you a story.

Originally posted by Gabez
But it's hard to argue that Indy saving the day again really changes the way you look at life.
Indy being the exception to the other two examples I gave. :¬:

Originally posted by Gabez
Besides LOTR is more than just a movie - it's a whole other world. "particularly to see a film like Lord of the Rings. " - are you suggesting that it's just a brain-dead action movie?
I suppose that's the main reason why people go and see LotR - it is a whole other world. I'm not saying it's brain-dead, but I wouldn't call it awe inspiring or thought-provoking either. I would say that it's well-made, and definitely some sort of landmark in terms of making an entire world into a reality.

Mort-Hog
12-22-2003, 01:13 PM
Character Development is an interesting point, actually - the only significant changes in character occurred in the hobbits. Frodo was consumed, Sam showed his loyalty, and Merry & Pippin grew up, I suppose. The others were all clichéd arch-types that were never fully explored. That was kind of Mort's point though, the Lord of the Rings is only one tale in an entire mythology, written to tell you exactly what happened rather than tell you a story.

The reason that LOTR is very hobbit-centred is that it is written by hobbits. Although Frodo was certainly more knowledgeable than most hobbits, he wouldn't have a lot of experience in the ways of Men or dwarves and even less experience in the ways of elves. Plus Frodo probably cared more about the hobbits' tale, Frodo didn't have a whole lot of interaction with Legolas or Gimli. The Silmarillion, on the other hand, is written by various first-age elves, and centres muchly around the Elves' tales and events of that era. Elves tend to be quite snobbish.

Gabez
12-22-2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by scabb
Character Development is an interesting point, actually - the only significant changes in character occurred in the hobbits. Frodo was consumed, Sam showed his loyalty, and Merry & Pippin grew up, I suppose. The others were all clichéd arch-types that were never fully explored. That was kind of Mort's point though, the Lord of the Rings is only one tale in an entire mythology, written to tell you exactly what happened rather than tell you a story.The only "clichéd arch-type" is you. What about Legolas and Gimli's unlikely friendship breaking old barriers of race and historical differences? The development of the Aragon/Arwen/Eowyn love story (or whatever her name is); Smeagle turning more into Gollum throughout the films as they get nearer to Mordor; Gandalf becoming a "father figure"; I could go on... But Mort makes a good point too, it's not all about the characters. Besides you'd expect the main four characters to develop the most in any story.
Indy being the exception to the other two examples I gave.Okay, so Indy's "an exception", but Star Wars is just as bad (I've never seen the Godfather so I can't comment on it). The only real character developement seems to be Luke becoming a Jedi - not that I'm bashing it because of that, but this seems to be your criticism against LOTR and yet it's even worse in Star Wars.

To be honest, whilst Star Wars is a very watchable movie, it's just a mesh of different genres stuck together with an interesting story. It's good, but I wouldn't say that it was great.

I'm not saying it's brain-dead, but I wouldn't call it awe inspiring or thought-provoking either.Fair enough I guess, although I know I would definitely call it all those things and so much more.

Joshi
12-22-2003, 07:07 PM
Luckily for me, I wrote TBC on the end of my post - thus, my review hadn't yet ended (I had to go to a family get together with -get this- people who aren't even my family)

So I continue...

I'm not going to quote all of Gabez's post in little segments, what I have to say goes to everyone who thinks in the same way as Gabez about the film and story (not saying the way he thinks is bad or not)

First of all yes, I did say a lot of things to be fact when I shouldn't have and as most of you know, don't normally do. So now to break it down into what my opinion is and what I actually do believe to be fact.

For instance, I do believe it is fact that The Lord of the Rings book are very descriptive, probably why it lent itself so well to film as Jackson was able to capture Middle Earth so well. And I'm not saying that all of that description was bad, it is nice to know the details and history of places. I read Tolkien, and get a very clear view of what he is trying to depict, but it is also true that my generation has the attention span of a sparrow. Now we are all different, I was able to read through lord of the rings fully without having to go back and look things up and it was a great story (not as great as everyone says (in my opinion)) but I think it would have been better if the description was moulded around the story instead of having the story taken away from us for a page or two so we can read all of this description. Professor Tolkien was a master story teller and a slightly unique one at that, but some people may not like his style and some people might.

The Lord of the Rings book end perfectly, I loved it and I put down my book with a feeling of content. The film on the other hand could have ended slightly better. When reading a book, you want to make sure everything turns out all right. There’s very little chance of another author turning up and producing a couple of spin-offs or god awful sequels for books. Film on the other hand doesn’t actually have to be like that. In my opinion, the best place for it to have ended would have been when Frodo wakes up, everyone comes in to hug him, and he and Sam share a nice smile. I'm not going to go into homosexual tendencies or anything, in my opinion, Tolkien had a very clear view about what friendship should be and that the love between friends should be the same as the love between a husband and wife. This of course isn't the case, but Tolkien thought it should be which explains the relationship Sam had with Frodo.

I do agree that the films did focus more on story and character progression than it did on battles and of course the books focussed a lot less on the battles simply because the battles were a thing that happened, there generally wasn't a lot of character progression or story going on between them so Tolkien does not right "And then, Legolas shoots another orc with a bow, very dramatically", but instead, focuses more on what the characters are doing, what they are feeling, what's going on and the other important things of a story, which is why the books were so great. An epic film on the other hand has to have a balance, it has to have the battle scenes the readers as well as those who haven't yet read the books are expecting. And I think Jackson had the perfect balance (which is why they were three hours + long each, he told as much of the story as needed to be told) as we could see the progression in each character, the hobbits, Aragorn, Arwin, Eowin and so on.

I would have so say, if nothing more, they are as good as Star Wars and Indy simply because it had a sound story (it needed to be tweaked a little, but I think, even the dedicated Tolkien fans would have hated the entire book no film a lot of things, I think, were irrelevant to the story, as said before). I couldn't really say about the Godfather movies as I simply haven't seen them yet.

Now I am well aware of the Silmarllian, but have not read it. A friend of mine has though, and said it was very repetitive of Lord of the Rings. Now I'm not saying Tolkien should have take all description out of the saga as yes, it would be very flat, but a lot of it did leave Tolkien very restricted story wise. This may have made for a better story, it may have made for a worse one, I’m not sure, but I generally don't like the idea of starting out with a map and constructing the city over it. The Hobbit had the exact same depth as lord of the rings (maybe slightly less as it was only intended to be the lone book) and yet much less description and history. I simply thing Tolkien tried to hard on the Lord of the Rings. I think it is also I my nature to have my own view of what is happening and how things look. I like to read a book and have things left to my imagination as apposed to being told what these things look like. (it is true one can not read the books after watching the film and enjoy it as much if you haven't read it before hand).

Finally, I did love the film (all of them, although I think the second ones enriched the first one immensely, but that was because it was simply one big film) and it will be a hallmark for great films in the future. As any film does as well as any story, it has its flaws, and having read too many film magazines for my own good, I have developed a very critical view of things. Saying that, The Lord of the rings is the first film I’ve seen in a long time where I didn't pick out a single flaw whilst actually watching, but instead whilst thinking about it later, at which point I did still love it, if only because it was a natural tear jerker at a lot of points during the film. I welled up when Sam spoke about the promise to Gandalf at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, I had tears in my eyes with Sam's 'Good in this world' speech at the end of The Two Towers, but Return of the King had it in full flow. I didn't weep openly, but the tears were certainly running down cheeks at some points (at which point I curse myself for not listening to Wood, when on the TTT audio commentary, he tells us to take a box of tissues to the cinema to watch ROTK).

So, in conclusion (the reason I wanted to continue this was because I want to get the bad out in front, and then end on the good) it is a milestone in cinematic history - fact. If I could, I'd give it five stars.

So I do
*****
;)

scabb
12-23-2003, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Gabez
What about Legolas and Gimli's unlikely friendship breaking old barriers of race and historical differences? The development of the Aragon/Arwen/Eowyn love story (or whatever her name is); Smeagle turning more into Gollum throughout the films as they get nearer to Mordor
Smeagol, yes. The others, nah. The Elf/Dwarf relationship was pretty much sussed at the end of the first film, and the whole love-triangle was only really touched upon. But, I suppose it's not really important. As for Star Wars.. well, Luke matures, Solo learns all about empathy, and we find Vader aint all bad. Now I feel all dirty.

At the end of the day, I liked the Lord of the Rings films. I like Tolkeins middle-earth. I just don't think the films were "all that and a bag of chips" and don't agree with the people running round branding it perfect. Not really my cup of tea, maybe. Rest assured, I will never ever bring that opinion onto a forum ever again. :~

Mort-Hog
12-23-2003, 02:09 PM
Now I am well aware of the Silmarllian, but have not read it. A friend of mine has though, and said it was very repetitive of Lord of the Rings.

Go up to your friend and punch him in the face. Several times. If that is all your friend said of it, then I would strongly doubt whether he has actually read it at all. The Silmarillion doesn't ever mention The War of the Ring, it only goes up to the late Second Age, beginning of the Third Age. Most of the Silmarillion focuses on events either during or before the First Age (of the sun), and the rest is on the Second Age, and the Numenorians.

But he may have been talking about the writing style, not the actual story. If so, then punch him in the face a few times, but not as hard. The writing style in the Silmarillion is vageuly similar to that in The Lord of the Rings, but only in such a way that it uses the Anglo-Saxon English style that Tolkien studied. The Silmarillion uses much more complicated sentence formation, and far more archaic words, than to that of The Lord of the Rings.


Tolkien caters only for a niche audience, and you must appreciate and love the study of the english language in the same way that Professor Tolkien did in order to enjoy the books.

Joshi
12-23-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
Go up to your friend and punch him in the face. Several times.

Please note I have already done that repeatedly, but on different matters (he's turned into a royal prick).

But when I said that it was repetitive of Lord of the Rings, I meant in desciptions and historical referance. Most of the history of middle earth we learn about in the lord of the rings (not what actually happens in the lord of the rings) had been said in Silmarllian. Basically, what he was saying was that although LOTR was written first (wasn't it?) it seemed that Silmarllian was written as the history of Middle earth, and then LOTR simply picked out the relevent bits to be added as history notes in that story.

I know full well that it has nothing to do with the war of the ring.

Mort-Hog
12-23-2003, 05:28 PM
Some of the tales in Silmarillion date back to when Tolkien was in the first world war. Tolkien's work wasn't really organised into individual books, as Christopher Tolkien, who's done a lot of work sorting through his documents, would tell you. :-)
But anyway, the songs and poems Lord of the Rings only hint at the greater details. You are never directly told of the Valar, the Ainur, Melkor or even of Ilúvatar, but you are hinted at their existance; all of this is explained in great detail in the Silmarillion. One of the fantastic elements of the Lord of the Rings is how it hints at events much bigger and more significant than that of the storyline, but only hints at it; to know more of this you must read Silmarillion, or the Appendices. Aragorn sings of Beren and Luthien, but never goes into any detail about what that tale actually entails.

Jedi-Monkey
12-23-2003, 07:51 PM
You have to admit that the movies werent perfect adaptations of the books.
I havn't read the books myself. (I will at some point - lazy).But my friend who has told me that they left out characters and scenes, and replaced some characters with others. (That elf leader wasnt supposed to die in TTT, a human was).
The missed out what happened to Saruman.
The scene in FOTR where the cave troll attacks in Mines of Morir was about 20 mins long, it was half a page in the book.
Obviously the film makers Hollywooded it up, changing the story a bit, but thats the business side of movie making taking priority. Grr.
I hate business people.
I preferred TTT to ROTK because some scenes were too Hollywooded up. They tried to make it really tense or emotional in parts, but they didn't know when to stop and it became annoying, like the fight on Mt Doom. JUST DIE SOMEONE!
And the half hour ending. Yawn.

Joshi
12-24-2003, 04:26 PM
Actually, most of the stuff they missed out was justifyable.

The entire Tom Bombadil scene would have slowed down the pace entirely and wasn't really vital to the telling of the story.
And yes, they did miss out the final scene with Saruman, but that's because the entire story of the lord of the rings is about sauron, not sarumon, he is just saurons pawn and isn't really important in comparison to the greater danger of sauron.

A lot of things were moved around and changed for the film adaption, but most of it was for pace and story. remember, you can't put the entire book on screen how it is, the book was designed to be a book, not a film. If yuou were to see the actualy book on screen, you probably wouldn't like it as much.

And I think it's kind of hypocritical to say that the movies weren't perfect adaptions of the books when you haven't actually read the books. Not everything was the same, but the basic principle of the books was there plain and clear and it managed to deliver it's message perfectly.

Gabez
12-24-2003, 07:51 PM
FFS! I meant perfect FOR ME.

Originally posted by Joshi
the basic principle of the books was there plain and clear and it managed to deliver it's message perfectly. - Yes, that sums it up nicely.

The reason I think that Lord Of The Rings is better than Star Wars and Indy is because it's a whole lot, er, deeper. And it's better. Obviously.

Darth Groovy
12-24-2003, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Gabez
FFS! I meant perfect FOR ME.

- Yes, that sums it up nicely.

The reason I think that Lord Of The Rings is better than Star Wars and Indy is because it's a whole lot, er, deeper. And it's better. Obviously.

Hmmmphf....:(

*grabs all his collectibles, books, cds, games and movies and walks away*

Gabez
12-24-2003, 11:04 PM
Those sorts of things don't add depth to a story, it just shows a franchise selling out. :¬:

Mort-Hog
12-25-2003, 11:11 AM
I'm getting bored of people saying "The books are -opinion- although I haven't actually read them, my next door neighbour's hairdresser's uncle's second wife's third cousin twice removed has!!". Read the damn book, or shut up.

Joshi
12-25-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
Read the damn book, or shut up.

Says the guy who hasn't read the books. Ever tried taking your own advice?

MrManager
12-25-2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Joshi
Says the guy who hasn't read the books. Ever tried taking your own advice?

He has read them.

Mort-Hog
12-26-2003, 07:41 PM
Says the guy who hasn't read the books. Ever tried taking your own advice?

Wow, that's quite possibly the stupidest reply I could ever imagine. I'm impressed!

Joshi
12-26-2003, 10:11 PM
Well, I'm a bit modest, but it really does just come naturally to me.
Nah, I thought you were that other guy, the one who (obviously) hasn't read the books. Oh yeah.

Anyway... Just wondering, I want to know, does anyone know anyone out there who hasn't seen the movie or doesn't plan to ever? Only, I think the curiosity value here is huge, the trailers certainly pull people in to something like this and the rest of the publicity (not to mention great reviews and the chance of an oscar, yeah scabb, I know you personally don't think they should get one, but you're not on the commitee so it doesn't really matter what you think) has done wonders.

Of course it did the same thing for The Hulk and the Matrix movies, but LOTR was no where near as bad as them (even you scabb have to admit that), at least this gave you most of what you were expecting.

But yeah, there is my question, anyone know anyone who isn't plannig to see any of the movies. or anyone on the boards for that matter who feel this way?

MrManager
12-26-2003, 10:19 PM
I've never watched the movies, and don't really have any plans to watch them either. I never liked the books, so I really have no reason to.

Skinkie
12-27-2003, 06:00 AM
I haven't seen the newest one, not sure if/when I'm gonna either.

Joshi
12-27-2003, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by RemiO
I've never watched the movies, and don't really have any plans to watch them either. I never liked the books, so I really have no reason to.

Each to his own I suppose.

Slinkie, are you telling me that you've seen the first two, but may not see the last? I mean, even if you didn't like them, surely there's a burning desire to know how it ends? I mean, I hated the Matrix Reloaded, but I just had to know how it ended.

Oh, that reminds me of something funny I read in a magazine the other day. Some guy wrote in saying how much he hated the Matrix and loved LOTR and said that if the Wachowski Brothers had directly LOTR, Frodo would have probably gone up to mount doom, struck up a conversation with Sauron for about 20 minutes, and then agree to give Sauron the ring in exchange for stopping his armies and bringing peace, thus delivering the most powerful weapon in the world back to it's maker who might as well be the devil himself, and going back to the shire thinking he's done good.

Skinkie
12-28-2003, 05:56 AM
Actually I haven't seen either of the new Matrix movies either. But I hear if you speed up all the slow mo scenes the movies are like 45 minutes long. Probably not completely true.

Mort-Hog
12-28-2003, 03:36 PM
Tee, that sounds quite good, Joshi. I don't suppose you could find the original article for me?

Joshi
12-28-2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Skinkie
Actually I haven't seen either of the new Matrix movies either. But I hear if you speed up all the slow mo scenes the movies are like 45 minutes long. Probably not completely true.

I think I said that.

And Mort Hog, Like i said, it was in a magazine and it wasn't an article, it was simply someone writing in and that was pretty much all they said.

Emma
01-05-2004, 01:49 PM
You stink of horse.

Joshi
01-05-2004, 10:08 PM
Care to elaborate?

Gabez
01-05-2004, 10:23 PM
At first I thought that comment wasn't relevent, but then I remembered that Sauruman says that to Wormtounge when he gets back from the golden hall. ;

Jedi-Monkey
01-06-2004, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Joshi
And yes, they did miss out the final scene with Saruman, but that's because the entire story of the lord of the rings is about sauron, not sarumon, he is just saurons pawn and isn't really important in comparison to the greater danger of sauron.


Pfft. Sauron was a pussy.
He died when they cut off his finger, and turned into a big eye. Whats he gonna do? Look at them? Aah!
Saruman made the Uruk Hai and almost defeated Rohan.

Joshi
01-06-2004, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Jedi-Monkey
Pfft. Sauron was a pussy.
He died when they cut off his finger, and turned into a big eye. Whats he gonna do? Look at them? Aah!
Saruman made the Uruk Hai and almost defeated Rohan.

Note the word you used there. That one, right there, yep, that's it. Almost.

Saurons army could've flattened Rohan, and probably turned Minas Tirith into a playground if Aragorn hadn't cheated and got an army which basically couldn't die.

Plus, if Sauron could've come back, he'd have been much worse than before. Did you see the beginning of Fellowship, that was luck that had him killed, he won't make that mistake again, you'd have to be pretty stupid to do that, and fashioning 20 rings, giving them out to lords and ladies and then controlling them with another main ring isn't exactly stupid, it's genius.

Emma
01-07-2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Gabez
At first I thought that comment wasn't relevent, but then I remembered that Sauruman says that to Wormtounge when he gets back from the golden hall. ;

A gold star for you!

Possibly the most amusing line in the film.

Joshi
01-07-2004, 05:06 PM
Now that gabez says that, I can recall the line and even what sauramon looks like and everything. Well done Gabez (currently listening to the directors audio commentary on Fellowship, then when I find the first disc of TTT i'll listen to that one as well)