LOTR

[pigmode]

I saw it a week ago. Anyone else? Comments?

 

[dhwilkin]

All in all, I thought it was quite good. The graphics and environments were, pardon the expression, out of this world! The actors did a good job, no major plot deviations, good musical score, did I mention the environments, and Legolas is the baddest elf I have ever seen! Not to say everything was perfect. First, even though it was three hours long, it still felt rushed. Of course, I'm quite familiar w/ the book, so this was more apparent to me than maybe to first-time viewers. Mainly, it felt rushed during the journey parts, where they'd be on a grassy hill leaving Rivendell, then the next scene is them struggling in the snow among the Misty Mountains, leaving a seven-day gap (or however long it was). I also thought Lothlorien got shortchanged in the visuals department. Not enough effort showing or emphasizing the intended beauty of the place. I also did not care for how Gimli's character was portrayed. But my main annoyance was a slight plot deviation at the end, w/ regard to how Frodo departs. Still, I thought it was easily the best book-to-movie conversion I've ever seen, and an excellent movie in general.

 

[chych]

It was a cool movie. A little long I guess for one theater run, though it was annoying how it stopped in the middle of everything (yeah I know it is a trilogy).

That Elrond guy, same person from the Matrix, an agent. With that annoying voice... eek...

 

[jlo mein]

i wonder how that agent guy managed to wiggle himself contracts on both lord of the rings AND the matrix....two high profile trilogies....ya cuz he's supposed to be in the other matrix movies too even though he was destroyed....

 

[gloco]

I thought it was a great movie, one of the best i've seen this year right behind Vanilla Sky. I haven't read the books, but now i'll have to wait until the second and third installment to arrive! I thought the length was fine, the movie basically grabs your attention from the get go (maybe it has something to do with the beautiful landscape of New Zealand?).

George

 

[Neruda]

I thought this movie was quite good. if the next two are at all similar, this will become a VERY popular trilogy, comparable to the original Star Wars trilogy perhaps.

I'm reading the two towers right now. I can't wait a year to find out what happens next!

 

[pigmode]

Okay, I agree with all that's been said, but I'll also be the voice of desent. I'll qualify my statements by saying I realize the complexities of the telling of this epic tale in the less than 3 hours allotted.

--Did no one notice the fundamental and completely unneccesary way that the character of Aragorn was changed? In the book it was slowly revealed that he was a man of great breeding and character. Extremely knowledgable in ancient lore, he knew of his foretold destiny and first as a Ranger, then as a member of the fellowship, he always worked towards that end. In the movie he is, in the words of Elrond, in "self-exile" and we see him filled with self-doubt as he visualizes his ancestor's failure to destroy the Ring.

--Elrond: he is one of the most lordly and omniscient of characters in the book. His story goes back for eons and he had been witness to all the great battles of Middle Earth. As such, and as a member of the elvish race, it was wierd that he was portrayed as the excitable type. We see it when trying to convince Isildur to destroy the ring, and also when Gandalf tells him that the race of Men would eventually rein in Middle Earth.

--I just can't see Gandalf hugging Hobbits.

 

[dhwilkin]

Yeah, Aragorn and Elrond's treatment was less than ideal. At least they made Aragorn look alot better at the end of the movie. Actually, the entire meeting of the wise leaders from different places and races in Rivendell strayed a little too far, IMHO. It's supposed to be a civil discussion among some of the wisest folk in the land, not a big squabble. I guess the directors felt they really needed to emphasize how influential and corruptive the Ring really was. Honestly though, Gimli's treatment still bugs me. He's not supposed to be the blustery comic relief, for crying out loud! A joke here and there is fine, but don't stereotype him. Also thought his screams upon finding Balin's tomb were less than convincing. Legolas, however, more than made up for him... makes me want to take up archery.

Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, it is an awesome movie. I'm just nitpicking the heck out of the movie, since I love the books. Same goes for pigmode (I think).

 

[huy_ha]

pigmode,

I noticed those changes too, but I do chalk them up to the time limit needed to tell the story. The movie chooses to concentrate on the power of the ring to test those around it, thus Aragorn's fixation with whether or not he can resist what Isildur could not (a theme that is played up with all the talk of dwindling blood line). The compare and contrast between Aragorn and Boromir is played up to much higher dramatic effect that way. What was more perplexing to me is Galadriel's gratuitous transformation into some photo-negative demon when contemplating what would happen if she took the ring. As for Elrond, the haughtiness of the elves was played down in both of the big elvish scenes (Rivendell and Galadriel's crew), as was their eternal nature, probably so the whole team theme could get played up (it is an action movie). Given the attention to other small details that don't get explained, like the splitting of the horn of Gondor, I'm hoping that these things will get woven into the next two movies, especially as the martial conflict grows.

Some other impressions: Hey, Liv Tyler didn't ruin the movie, and she spoke Elvish! Then again, anything she does to draw attention to her mouth is good. Also, someone obviously consulted the D & D folks on melee combat rules. Oh lord, I am a dork.

 

[pigmode]

dhwilkin, Huy_Ha

True, true. The movie did give great visualization. By this I mean that when next you read the book, various random scenes from the movie might form in your mind's eye from time to time. That's a good thing.

Yeah the time limit thing, and the story has to stand alone for the majority of whom had not read the book. In that sense Jackson did a pretty good job I think. Still, some of these changes did not forward his cause any, imo. He should have skipped any references to the Uruk Kai, just as he flew by Tom Bombadil.

Galadriel: that temptation scene was wierd. From some angles, I thought she was really cute with her Minnie Mouse ears.

Gandalf: the part was fairly well played. I had always visualized him as one who spoke in a normal voice as opposed to a boomy, reverberant, godlike wizards voice.

Meriadoc: misinterpreted. He wasn't a stoogelike Hobbit. He hailed from the wilder outer regions of the Shire, and after Frodo (and later, Sam), was the most serious and capable of the bunch.

Parts 2 &3: It'll be interesting since the story opens up tenfold as it sprawls south and east.

 

[CaptBubba]

Galadriel's treatment was IMO quite good, espcially if you have read the book. The reason it seemed strage in the movie is they didn't explain what the ring does to any bearer that has it, basicly turning their good intentions into evil ones. The meeting w/ Aragorn dissapionted me, as did the meeting w/ Pippen and Merry. In the book they figure out the entire thing about the ring on their own, in the movie they are portrayed as fools. I'll hold my judgement on Glimli until the next movie, I want to see how they develop him.

But hell, it was an amazing movie. I certanly pays to be able to nearly recite the book (I read the trilogy rather often), and there were some great touches. Sam fighting with his cookware, the stone trolls from The Hobbit (who else noticed these?) and the brooches they got from Galadriel. Hell of a good job, nothing really comes close to it in my book. Quickest three hours I've ever been through.

But dammit, Gandalf's sword should have been blue too!

 

[pigmode]

The Stone Trolls were cool, as was the Balrog. I agree with dhwilkin concerning Gimli. I didn't see him as the blustery loud overly simplistic type at all, but if he should get provoked...

In the book when he discovered Balin's tomb, he did not wail out loud, instead he had simply pulled his hood over his face. It was a most subtle and powerful scene.

Thoughts on Sauron in full battle gear?

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by pigmode Thoughts on Sauron in full battle gear?

you should've seen the kids in the theater sqirming in their chairs during the battle, pretty amusing..god, i cant wait to read the books now

George

 

[shivohum]

The movie was enjoyable in its own right, but as a representation of the book it was poor. Fundamentally, the characters and the dialog were just too cheesy...I did not take them seriously as real people. They felt more like walking stereotypes. See Gimli for a good example. Another case: Legolas was too young and brash to be an experienced elf. The characters in general suffered from a lack of dignity and three-dimensionality.

The dialog was quite choppy too; it was just one action scene after the next. Where's the subtlety? Where are the hidden motives? Everything is so hamfistedly out in the open. Due to this problem, I had to stifle laughter during some "serious" parts like the mourning scene after Moria. In such places, I feel the movie practically satirizes the novel.

Another problem I have with the movie is that I think there is a strong spiritual component to Tolkien's work. The whole portrayal of good and evil was too "out there" for this to be seen. Note the scene between Gandalf and Saruman--Saruman just instantly turns into this Sauron-zombie-thing. The Black Riders, I think, lose a lot of their charm because they are so much sound and fury, but of course real terror is delivered by silence.

LoTR the movie seems to me to fit in the action movie genre; it
doesn't have the mystique that would enable it to properly represent a legend or a myth such as LoTR the book is.

 

[stuartr]

All right, I only read up to Huy Ha, as I am in a hurry, but I just wanted to voice my opinion. I thought the movie did just about as well as it could have done. All in all, a very good movie. I too am an avid fan of the books, and I was expecting to be seriously disappointed, all my complaints are minor. I was particularly impressed with the visual effects -- they were wonderful, but not overwhelming. Much better than Star Wars in my opinion, they were more "rounded" I guess. The cgi in Star Wars is almost hyper real, lending a sort of oddity to it, LOTR came out very natural....the cave troll in particular was extremely well done. Nice and asymmetrical. I agree with Huy that Galadriel looked a little strange when she turned into her little "negative" monster. Personally, other than that, I really liked the way Lothlorien was shot -- very silvery and surreal. When I read it, the image that I always associated it with was the underside of an aspen leaf -- that sort of silvery green -- I think the shooting sort of captured that color. What else, I liked the location. I was born in New Zealand, and when they were in the river boats, I said to my friend in the theater, "Holy ****, I have been there." I went jet boating on that river, and have been through the area. It really does look that beautiful (well, except there are not any enormous statues). All in all, an excellent film that I would recommend to anyone.
Stu