Very OT - Caught LoTR the movie

ChrisLaughlin · Post by **ChrisLaughlin** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:28 am

I can't say I disagree with anything Eldarion has to say. I still think the movie was pretty great, but there was a lot left to be desired and a lot was changed in less than satisfactory ways.
Chris

Eldarion · Post by **Eldarion** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 7:52 am

I haven't reread the book yet though I intend to so I probably won't be as accurate as I'd like to be. Here goes:

I frankly don't believe that Elrond, in the book did not want the Ring to stay in Rivendell because he was protective of Rivendell. As said in the book, it was no use for the Ring to remain in Rivendell as Sauron's power would eventually overcome it anyway, as the dark powers grew. There was not much choice but to destroy it.

I say the movie made him look like a jerk partly because he practically forced the Ring out of his place for his selfish reasons. Plus his tone, expression and words angled it to that effect. He IS supposed to be noble, and is portrayed so in the book.

I had no idea why they chose a guy with distinguishing sharp arched eyebrows to play him. I don't think that was ever one of Tolkien's descriptions of Elrond.

Yes Morgoth and Sauron did appear to fight in the First and Second Ages, but even if they wanted to portray Sauron, why did they portray him as a clumsy looking wrestler in armor? His whole set up looked so dumb, with none of the magnificence of a "Dark Lord". Everything about him in the movie just says "lame, clumsy looking wrestler in bulky armour".

Maybe its because I've come to expect more "skilled" fighting after being a fan of swords and magic and Kungfu (the last one has nothing to do with LoTR) since I was a wee kid, I still hold true to my stand that the fighting and magic in the fighting was not as good as it could be. It was basically not much above slash and bash you see in "Kull the Conqueror" or "Hercules - the TV Series" (okay you can tell I don't really like Kevin Sorbo). Its not more gore and blood I'm asking for, but more effort, and style put into fights. If theres one thing they cold have done better than the book as a movie, would be well choreograped fights because fights don't work as well in writing.

The movie somehow made many subtle things less subtle and more direct, thereby eliminating some of the beauty.

Yes, maybe a movie adaptation will never be the same as the book. But I know that they could have done better in so many places, within reason of movie production. I refuse to accept what what presented to me because despite some good parts here and there, I found much of it so "mangled" and lame, when things could be better.

Maybe I'll have to wait 50 years or so before someone has the gall to do LoTR again, or maybe I ought to join film school to see if I can ever do a better job one day. But this isn't a very satisfactory job and I'd be jolly well lying to myself if I said that this was a movie adaptation worthy of the book.

[ This Message was edited by: Eldarion on 2001-12-20 09:07 ]

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 8:20 am

Martin: You're right about Glorfindel's horse at the ford, of course.

Eldarion: I find your posts fascinating. I haven't seen the movie yet, and so can't comment on how Sauron looks or how Gandalf & Saruman fight (although I always thought that was more through willpower and thought than through magic). Your posts remind me of what the reviewer in the NY Times said: That the movie would be dreaded both by the loving adherents of Tolkien and those who avoided Tolkien all their lives. There were many years in my life when I reread the books at least once a year, every time finding a new nuance and deeper meaning. While you complain about the shape of Elrond's eyebrows, I think what bothers you goes deeper. The real problem is that something that is powerful and important and immeadiate to you is being trivialized and coarsened. I expect I will feel that way also. It shows the beauty and truth of Tolkien's work.

Contrary to what people have been saying, I don't mind that they took out Bombadil. If I had to condense the story, I would take him out (although I love him, of course). He is important to the plot only in terms of the maturing of the four hobbits, and that is something you can't show on a movie screen very well.

But I must agree with Martin that it's a crime to take out Sam's looking into the mirror. It is pivotal to Sam's character, and to my mind the sacrifice that Sam makes then and there in Lothlorien is exactly what gives him the strength to return Ilsidur's Bane after Cirith Ungol and to virtually carry Frodo across the planes and up Mount Doom ... but I don't want to spoil too much. This omission makes me wonder whether they're even going to include the Scouring of the Shire in the third movie. Did Elrond want to send Pippin and Merry back to the Shire in the movie?

[ This Message was edited by: Bloomfield on 2001-12-20 09:23 ]

Jens_Hoppe · Post by **Jens_Hoppe** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 8:36 am

As a kind of disclaimer, I believe I am about as fanatic a Tolkien afficiendo as they come, having (mis)spent most of my youth reading the books too many times to remember.

I saw the movie on the opening night, and although I was overall impressed with it and thought it a fine movie, there were of course things I didn't like.

In general I thought the movie was a fine adaptation of the first part of the book. Of course the left-out scenes detract from my enjoyment of the movie, but obviously something has to be left out in order to make it even remotely workable as a film. I would have preferred if more of the story from the first book (ie. until the arrival in Rivendell) had been included - leaving out the entire Old Forest/Barrow Downs part of the book, not to mention compressing the many years between Bilbo's party and the rest of the book, is a shame. Additionally I am puzzled about some the scenes Peter Jackson (PJ) chose to spend a lot of time on in the movie; the battle between the Last Alliance of elves and men vs. Sauron's hordes, and the whole scene showing Gandalf's visit to, and imprisonment in Orthanc. Both these scenes are merely mentioned second-hand in the book, and I see no reason why the film couldn't have taken the same approach. Showing Sauron's physical form was a bad idea - I agree with others that he looked kind of silly. Much better to keep him off-screen as the ever-present/invisible menace - after all there is no way a film maker can do his physical form justice anyway...

I liked most of the acting (Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Boromir in particular), and the special effects were generally excellent - one notable exception being a computer-generated troll in the fight in the room in Moria holding Balin's tomb, which is not very convincing.

But most special effects were great, in particular the balrog, and the scenes where Frodo puts on the ring.

I also like the fact that PJ has obviously made an effort to interpret the book faithfully: Many scenes are very, very close to the descriptions in the book, and the artwork of Tolkien himself and other artists (Isengard, and the Anduin river around Argonath/Sarn Gebir/Amon Hen/Amon Lhaw are examples).

However when PJ strays too far from the book I think the movie suffers. I am not talking so much about left-out scenes, and characters substituting for others (such as Arwen for Glorfindel), but the many times where PJ changes the motivations and personality of the main characters - Aragorn voluntarily letting Frodo leave the fellowship instead of Frodo escaping, or Saruman's new role as a servant of Sauron instead of a potential rival.

I agree with a lot of Eldarion's criticisms, but I think some of it (Elrond's eyebrows being wrong??) is plain silly. No, the movie doesn't trivialize them (whatever that means in the context of eyebrows), rather I suspect Eldarion has a very strong set of mental images on how things should look. Well, with movie adaptations, things don't always look the way one had imagined. Doesn't make it better or worse...

But I do agree that the movie puts too much emphasis on action scenes. The book has plenty of potential for action-packed scenes in the first place, but PJ turns many scenes that weren't even action-packed into action scenes, eg. the hobbits' "flight" to the Buckleberry Ferry closely pursued by a nazgul...?

On 2001-12-20 05:30, Coyote wrote:
Fight scenes beautifully choreographed and vicious / bloody / violent when necessary. There's a quick scene where Legolas is shooting away even when the Orcs are within 6 feet. When one got to arms length he simply stabs it with his arrow without missing a beat - well worthy of the choreography and realism of 'Gladiator'.

Realism of 'Gladiator'?? OK, I get the joke. No, seriously, different strokes and all that, I thought many of those action scenes were merely so-so. Legolas' antics with the bow were not very convincing IMHO.

Jens

Cees · Post by **Cees** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 8:39 am

It's been fun reading everyone's take on the book and movie...I've loved the book since I was 10 and am looking forward to the movie, as well.

Feadan, you said: "but I (obviously) don't remember the Arwen - Strider thing. For some reason I thought he had something going on with another female character in "The Return of the King."

Possibly you are referring to Lady Eowyn of Rohan in the second and third books? I haven't read them in a while, but I recall her wanting to be involved with Aragorn but him gently telling her no.

Thanks, all, for the interesting posts.

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 10:26 am

For those of you who adore Tom Bombadil, here is an article called Who is Tom Bombadil?. After noting that the original Tom Bombadil was a little ragdoll owned by Tolkien's children, the essay discusses the question whether Bombadil is an anomaly, extraneous to the narrative, and a weak point in the LoTR. That is the predominant view among critics, but the essay argues against it.

CraigMc · Post by **CraigMc** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 10:28 am

Feodon wrote:

Craig, I would appreciate your fatherly advice (off messageboard if you would prefer) on whether or not you feel this movie is appropriate for a 9 year old who has been weaned on Grimm Brothers stories etc.

Well from one Father to another, I would have loved to take my son to it but I really feel they didn't deserve the PG-13 rating. It really should have been R. The main reason is that their are several beheadings of Goblin's and Orc's that are as graphic as anything I have seen.

The movie is beutiful as someone mentioned but they didn't hold back at all on the violence. The main reason that won't let my son see it is it's fairly scary and if Oompa-Loompa's give him nightmares I can't imagine what the Nazgul will do to him.

I think if you take the above into consideration it's your call since you know your son better than anyone. I told my brother when we left that I think I might reconsider when the Return of the King comes out in two years.

I'm not surprised at all that so many whistle players are dedicated LoTR fans. I read tons of Fantasy and Classics growing up and never bothered with Lord of the Rings because I thought it was all hype but when I first read it way later in life and I was floored by how great it was. Victor Hugo is my favorite author due to his great prose but Tolkein blew me away. He is a Master of the language. I felt this movie with all the changes and imperfections was still a wonderful compliment to the Master himself.

Llhorain said:

Do you mean you really liked the Dune film even after you read the book or that you just liked the fact that they made a film of a great book?

I thought Dune(movie) was a great recreation of the book. As good as possible back then. They did a great job in that movie recreating the his visions and all his thoughts and I was not disappointed at all. If Movie makers do exact renditions from the book it ends up being either too long or too dry. They have major limitations and most the time they fail in even creating the essence of the books they are made after. I just think in the case of Dune and Lord of the Rings they stayed true to what the author was trying to convey. They are the two best ever and I haven't seen others done with such effort and reverence like these.

TelegramSam · Post by **TelegramSam** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 11:27 am

Uh, kids, it's just a movie. It's just a book. A really good book, but nonetheless a book.

Y'all act as if somebody made a movie about Jesus and gave him an afro and nike sneakers or something...

CraigMc · Post by **CraigMc** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 12:34 pm

Uh....thats been done before

I can understand it just becouse I think that the Book is so engrossing and moving that people feel a personal connection with it This book is the Holy Grail of Fantasy Literature. What do you expect with a book that's voted book of the century.

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 1:57 pm

Concerning the Jesus connection,
I'm told that Tolkien was a Christian
and that he helped C. S. Lewis
come to Christianity. I listen
to Christian radio stations sometimes
and they like Tolkien but dislike
Harry Potter books. I've read only
the Hobbit, but maybe somebody
can tell me--is there theology in
Tolkien?

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 2:13 pm

Tolkien's family converted to Catholicism, an uncomfortable and remarkable thing in England with its anti-Catholic sentiments and Guy Fawkes day. He was a devout Catholic all his life, by what accounts I've read. As a linguist he was opposed to and saddened by the introduction of the vernacular mass---mass in English rather than Latin.

In the LoTR, there is religion, but not Theology in our sense. The story, the background, the thoughts and actions of the characters are full of mythological or spiritual or religious significance. Certainly the book is about morality. But is far removed from 19th century protestant morality and American fundamentalist Christianity. The book is spiritual or religious in that ultimately good prevails over evil because of character and goodness, and not because good has the bigger stick, or because they have "God on their side." There is much more to it, but to find out you'll have to read and re-read it.

But, most importantly, there is nothing simple or sermonizing about the LoTR. Tolkien doesn't prosletyze.

In another sense, Tolkien is also religious: He believes that an author (or any artist) becomes a "sub-creator" in God's creation. Human creativity and art are an important and integral part of world and represent a partial delegation of power by God to humanity. (Tolkien explains this view in an essay called "On Fairy-Stories" available in a little book called "Tree and Leaf". (click for a review))

[ This Message was edited by: Bloomfield on 2001-12-20 16:24 ]

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 2:18 pm

*GEEK*GEEK*GEEK*GEEK*GEEK*GEEK*GEEK*GEEK*GEEK*GEEK*GEEK*

Just wanted to add that the GEEK-O-METER I have sitting on my desk just overloaded and broke. :roll:

TelegramSam · Post by **TelegramSam** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 2:44 pm

On 2001-12-20 13:34, CraigMc wrote:
Uh....thats been done before

Some people have WAY too much time on their hands....

Blarney Pilgrim · Post by **Blarney Pilgrim** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 3:10 pm

Hope you haven't bothered to fix the GEEK Meter yet. Actually as a linguist, Tolkien belived that most languages have their roots in mythology and visa versa. He created an entire mythology, explained most fully in the Silmarilion, and the Elvish language and runes to go with it. He and C.S. Lewis were friends. Funny how LoTR seems to be so near and dear to so many whistlers!? Steve

[ This Message was edited by: Blarney Pilgrim on 2001-12-20 16:10 ]

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 5:29 pm

Much appreciated. Thanks.