Very OT - Caught LoTR the movie

Feadan · Post by **Feadan** » Wed Dec 19, 2001 7:24 pm

Okay, guys, I sit corrected

I haven't actually read the books since my mid twenties. Lets just say it is well over a decade now

Cheers,
David

P.S. And Ron, please never "hate" to disagree with me. Feel most welcome to anytime

[ This Message was edited by: Feadan on 2001-12-19 22:53 ]

Bretton · Post by **Bretton** » Wed Dec 19, 2001 7:50 pm

Just got back from seeing it. Liked it. They did a good job. I hadn't realized Hobbits were of Irish decent.

Sara · Post by **Sara** » Wed Dec 19, 2001 7:50 pm

I have never read the LoTR books, nor have I seen the movie. What is it about? I have seen some previews for it and it sort of looks like Harry Potter. I haven't seen the Harry Potter movie yet, but am hoping to really soon. Have any of you seen the Harry Potter movie? Sorry if this is a bit off-topic.
Peace,
sara

Eldarion · Post by **Eldarion** » Wed Dec 19, 2001 8:02 pm

Okay this is why I didn't like the movie. Didn't want to do any details previously in case it became a major spoiler for someone watching it. Theres so many points of eekiness.. I almost don't know where to start.

*ADVERT YOUR EYES IF YOU'VE NEVER READ THE BOOK OR HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE YET. SPOILERS AHEAD!*

Man, I can't imagine why they would make Elrond look like a jerk! He's practically a jerk in the movie! Then since when has Galadriel turned into a pseudo-witch when she saw the ring? They are supposed to be fair and noble!

I think Gandalf looked more like a wild man, than a wizard with a long beard and hair. Sometimes I think his facial expressions seem to convey senility rather than wisdom and authority. And the fight scene between Gandalf and Saruman? Please! I've no idea whether to laugh at how stupid the two men look shoving each other around with magic, or cry at how these two characters are vilified! (not to mention the part when Gandalf is defeated and spinning around the floor as if he was doing some breakdance thingy) Don't wizards have magic blasts of energy or something else more cool looking?

Another thing I didn't like was that they actually acted out the character of Sauron. Moreover, he looks rather *stupid* and clumsy in his armour too. Plus, in the story, they did not remove his ring in the battlefield, but when he was defeated in his tower. Minor point there. But the whole idea of Sauron, I think, is a dark forboding presence. Once you put things out in the open (especially when portrayed with lesser magnificence), the effect is lessened.

They practically made Isildur a jerk too! I had always thought Isildur was a noble king, ensnared under the Ring. They way they slanted things made everyone (except Boromir, which I thought was planned well) inherit these very "false" characteristics.

And in the movie, they made Saruman a servant of Sauron! Saruman was an independent enemy and I think I would have prefered him to remain so. It made the story more complex and interesting. I don't know why they did this either.

Something I really cannot forgive is that they said Orcs originated from Elves. I can't quote you the exact line but in the Silmarilion, it says that Melkor created Orcs, in semblence and in mockery of the elves. (because Melkor could create nothing of his own, but only ruin others' creations or make copies of them). The words "orcs originated from elves" has far reaching effects. I know that elves can turn selfish or greedy as demonstrated in Silmarilion, but they can't turn into orcs! Gosh!

And the elves, I can't imagine why elves, or anyone would do anything as silly as to point a bow and arrow at someone at point blank range. Drawing a bow at close range, when you can be safely tucked away somewhere and posing the same threat, puts you in unecessary danger.

Okay these are *some* of the reasons why I didn't like to movie. There are many others. (the way the Director used dramatics indiscriminately to the point of melodrama, the way the portrayed Gimli, the way the Council of Elrond argued childishly, the way the Nazguls move sluggishly, etc)

I do wish they had kept more details in accordance to the book, like they did Harry Potter.(or so I heard, for I have never read HP) If I had some time to write a post longer than this is now, I can probably list down more than 30 details that are different off the top of my head (discounting the parts when the characters' personalities are warped). While I understand that some parts must be ommited for the length of the film, I think the distortions were done with less sensitivity than deserved. What is the point of calling it LoTR when so many things are not the same?

There are some good parts in the film though, but they don't redeem the whole thing IMO. The scenery is really beautiful and magnificent, especially the part when they were hiking across the mountains. Some details were well done too, like the way the flood came down, and the small bit of action where Gandalf and the Balrog fought (and the way Gandalf was dragged down by the whip). Otherwise, I'm not too happy with it. I have to crawl into my hole and mend the scars this movie has inflicted on my mind. Probably get therapy too.

[ This Message was edited by: Eldarion on 2001-12-19 21:15 ]

TonyHiggins · Post by **TonyHiggins** » Wed Dec 19, 2001 8:09 pm

On 2001-12-19 20:50, Sara wrote:
I have never read the LoTR books, nor have I seen the movie. What is it about?

Oh good, it's not too late for you. Do youself a favor you'll never regret (in my unwavering opinion) and read The Hobbit and the Trilogy. Then, and only then, go see the movie. I read the series in 1974 and reread it a few weeks ago so I'd have that taken care of before tainting the experience by seeing the movie (which I'm very much looking forward to). I never reread books, but that was a worthwhile exception.

You did ask a question, I almost forgot. It's about long ago when there was good and evil and not much in between. A naive, innocent person gets saddled with a dangerous burden which makes him the target of the foulest and most powerful evil sorcerer in the world. And he becomes the last desparate hope of all good people. He's accompanied on a dangerous journey by friends and heroes. It's been done a zillion times since this series, but never better. Tolkien was a scholar of ancient Northern European myth and poetry and he borrows heavily and skillfully from a great wealth of storytelling. The movie makers admit to unavoidably condensing and editing heavily from the story. You'll never know who Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are if you don't read the books! I beseech you.

To give you an idea of the dedication of Tolkien fans, a Russian woman learned to speak English for the purpose of reading the books in their original language after reading them in Russian.

Tony

Eldarion · Post by **Eldarion** » Wed Dec 19, 2001 8:21 pm

Well said Tony! Tolkien plans out everything in such great depth and detail that everything being read seems to exist.

Anyway, an interesting point to note is that many people I know who have never read the book found the movie surprisingly good. So I guess if you want to enjoy the movie, don't read the book. But IMO the movie is a poor shadow of the masterpiece.

TonyHiggins · Post by **TonyHiggins** » Wed Dec 19, 2001 8:38 pm

Back so soon? I just read Eldarion's post. I sympathize with your concerns. (I'm still hassling my 16yr old son at this 11th hour to get the Fellowship read before seeing the movie.) I was stunned when I heard that the whole Tom Bombadil sequence was left out. I made a clay sculpture of Tom years ago.

Anyway, I never had the expectation that they would hold too tightly to Tolkien's story. I've always argued that the books would not translate well to movie because there is too much in them. Books give you one thing, movies another. The movie would have to be overly condensed to make a reasonable movie. And also, maybe each of us has a personal imagination regarding the characters and situations that don't match with each others.' (I agree that they should not have personified Sauron.)

When I read a year or two ago that a movie was going to be made, I was skeptical. Also, I immediately started imagining a music score that I was sure would not be used: things like a fast reel on uilleann pipes and bodhran for fast horseback ride scenes, the elves playing slow airs on harp and wood flute. I see the hobbits as whistle players. The Dunedain are fiddle and flute players. Armies march to Highland pipes. Sometimes I'd hear a great tune on a cd and think that would work in a particular scene. If only the moviemakers realized the potential. Ahh well. At least, I hear Joanie Madden plays a whistle part in the score.

I'm going to see someone elses portrayal (as it plays as a movie) but it will never replace my own vision. It's funny how so many people feel so personal and proprietary about the story. If it's that important to you, you take a chance by watching the movie. I'm psyched about seeing it anyway.
Tony

Brian Lee · Post by **Brian Lee** » Wed Dec 19, 2001 9:24 pm

For the record, I am NOT as geeky as Ron!

But I can offer a little advice:

If you've only read The Hobbit, then read the trilogy. If you've read the trilogy, then read the Simarillion (sp?).

If you really want to grasp the scope of Tolkein's work, the Sim. is a must read. It's almost like the bible to his world. It take you from the very creation of the world, through all the old heros and races.

It'll help to give you a true perspective of just how developed Tolkein's middle earth was.

anyway, I'm gonna go put on my nred glasses, and geek hat and sit in the corner!

B~

CraigMc · Post by **CraigMc** » Wed Dec 19, 2001 10:37 pm

I had the advantage of reading the trilogy before seeing it. I felt it's the best book reproduced in movie form since Dune.

You have to take into account the magnitude of Tolkeins work and the limits of the big screen to appreciate the movie. They did a Masterful job of fitting everything together.

I too was upset when I heard that they took out Tom Bombadil but after seeing the 3 hour movie I understood why they did. The concepts and stories behind middle-earth are enormous and complex and adding the Tom would be adding too much in my opinion.

As far as "Galadriel turned into a pseudo-witch" that was taken almost word for word from the book. She was demonstrating how terrible she would be if she took the ring.
She is a ring-bearer herself and this was an opportunity to hold the one that "rules them all".

The whole movie was watched over from the High up's at the Tolkein Society and I feel they did a great Job in protecting the essence of the story.

Anyway, everyone has an opinion but I promise you every Tolkein fan will see it even if they end up going kicking and screaming.

As far as Harry Potter, I have never read the books but thought it was a very entertaining movie. I took my 7 year old to see Harry Potter, I would be crazy to bring him to Lord of the Rings. Definately for Adults.

Feadan · Post by **Feadan** » Wed Dec 19, 2001 11:16 pm

On 2001-12-19 23:37, CraigMc wrote:
I took my 7 year old to see Harry Potter, I would be crazy to bring him to Lord of the Rings. Definately for Adults.

I took my 9 year old daughter to see Harry Potter and she thorougly enjoyed it. My 13 year old son, who has read all four books numerous times liked it as well though he was quick to point out the differences between the book and the flick. 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.

Cheers,
David

Firefly · Post by **Firefly** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 1:06 am

Okay, the level of my geekhood, carefully concealed from the board up until now, is all revealed. I first read The Hobbit at the age of seven. I read the entire Trilogy three years later, the Sil two years after that and I have read the Trilogy just about every other year since. I really believe that these books are what turned me into a good reader/and writer.

Now, I'm frothing over the fact that they cut Tom Bombadil out of the movie. He was my favorite character next to Faramir (and if they cut him out...watch out!! That's all I'm going to say.) I especially had my hopes up b/c I understood that Tom was going to be in the movie (as opposed to every previous adaptation that's been presented).

As to Eldarion's post:

On 2001-12-19 21:02, Eldarion wrote:

Something I really cannot forgive is that they said Orcs originated from Elves. I can't quote you the exact line but in the Silmarilion, it says that Melkor created Orcs, in semblence and in mockery of the elves. (because Melkor could create nothing of his own, but only ruin others' creations or make copies of them). The words "orcs originated from elves" has far reaching effects. I know that elves can turn selfish or greedy as demonstrated in Silmarilion, but they can't turn into orcs! Gosh!

I was actually under the impression (and this comes from The Tolkien Bestiary which I have also read cover to cover...that's right, there is no hope for me) that elves did indeed come from orcs, in that Melkor took enslaved and/or dead elves, and tortured them to the point that they became proto-orcs, from which all other orcs are descended. Yes, yes, there is no limit to my nerddom where these books are concerned. Ya'll should have seen my during the X-Files's heyday.

Anyway, I have not seen the movie yet, but...and here it is...if anyone was still harboring any hope for my salvation...I am flying back to America tomorrow in part because I would have to wait another four-five months to see the thing in Japan.

Incidentally, having both read and seen the Harry Potter movie...HP is a cute book for middle school kids, but man, people are treating it like it's literature, and it's not!!! Too derivative of too many other, better books to be literature. And besides, Terry Pratchett has been writing a wittier, more intelligent, and funnier series about the denizens of a wizarding school for over a decade now, and Rowling can't even come close to his style.

That being said, the movie was cute, although I liked the book better. Alan Rickman (one of my favorite actors in existence) is criminally underused, and as my favorite character in the books was Snape to begin with, that soured me a little. But, overall, they did a cute job with the flick.

Now, I'm going to break off this post before the geek police, the OT police, or the elipses police hunt me down. ;^)

~Firefly

Llhorian · Post by **Llhorian** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 1:36 am

On 2001-12-19 23:37, CraigMc wrote:
I had the advantage of reading the trilogy before seeing it. I felt it's the best book reproduced in movie form since Dune.

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 agree that Dune is a magnificent book/series and a classic. The film though, was an outright rape of the book and thoroughly disappointing. An amusing film, it just didn't do justice to the book.

I still have fair hopes for the Lord of the Rings movie though, going to see it next week and I can't wait. I don't mind if it doesn't follow the book literally as long as it gets the larger story across in a good way.
That said I also read the Harry Potter books and watched the movie and have to say the film followed the book surprisingly well. I hope Lord of the Rings does the same. We'll see

Eldarion · Post by **Eldarion** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 2:56 am

Okay I admit I was wrong on the orcs and elves point. Orcs did come from elves once. Quote:

"Yet this is held true by the wise of Eressea, that all those of the Quendi (High Elves) who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utomno was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruety were corrupted and enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, for whom they were afterwards the bitterest of foes."
- The Silmarillion, JRR Tolkien

Right, Orcs came from Elves, but that happened a long time ago "ere Utomno (Melkor's old fort, eons ago) was broken" and I don't believe it continues to happen, given the way this was spoken about in The Silmarillion. Plus it is said that Orcs multiply and procreate "in the manner of the Children of Illuvatar". I think the way they mentioned this issue in the movie seem to conotate (to me at least) that they mean "every orc was once an elf" - I would hate to think that they said so (especially when my nickname is Elven). Oh well..

At any rate, I'm still not too approving of the movie. Maybe like Tony said, some scenes didn't always match with the images in my mind. But much of it was due to the "mangling" of Tolkien's work, where so many good things were so obviously changed.

There were so many things they could have been improved though, especially in the battle scenes involving the Fellowship. In books, one can only go so far in describing fight details without boring the reader to death.

In movies on the other hand, well planned fights with great detail and "magic" effects can really enhance these moments of action, and bring forth more admiration for the characters' prowess. Like in the movie "Spawn". The whole show is crap, the plot is crap, but the animations of Spawn's cape when he fought was so good it added some redeeming value.

Perhaps more thought could have gone into the fight choreography, or added special effects tactfully (instead of "Hercules - the TV series" style fighting) . Gandalf's sword "Glamdring" didn't even glow with blue flame in Moria even though its origins is the same as Bilbo's "Sting". Plus I think the glowing effect on "Sting" is lame to say the least.

The only character that was really cool in battle was Legolas. I must say the double knife action was added value (although in the book he had only one knife). Yeah Legolas was done with more charisma than I expected. That and Boromir. I think they successfully acted out the conflict in Boromir regarding the Ring.

Of romance, I am not terribly against them emphasizing the relationship between Arwen and Aaragon. However it seems to be a very half-hearted attempt. Certainly didn't make me cry. Additionally in the expense of this half-hearted attempt, more "mangling" was done, like the part about Arwen's mortality being associated with some pendant thing, and etc. Makes me cringe to think about it.

[ This Message was edited by: Eldarion on 2001-12-20 04:03 ]

Martin Milner · Post by **Martin Milner** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 3:57 am

WARNING - MOVIE MOMENTS MENTIONED

When Frodo crosses the ford it is on Glorfindel's horse, not Legolas'. Legolas does not appear until the council of Elrond.

Personally I can forgive the omission of Tom Bombadil, but why doesn't Sam get to look into the Mirror of Galadriel? The fact that he decides to continue with Frodo after this is one of the major heroic themes in the Trilogy IMO, and cutting this out detracts from all Sam does later. I was disappointed to have moments like this missed out, when they put in scenes that do not appear in the book, or even move the plot along in the film (e.g. the collapsing stairs in Moria).

Scenes that for me are omitted at cost to the quality of the plot:
Boromir blowing his horn at the setting out from Rivendell (Which is the correct spelling in my book, and wasn't that a feeble toot when he finally does get to blow it?)
The fight with Wargs after the failure to cross the Redhorn pass.
Sam looking in the Mirror (before Frodo does)
The developing friendship between Gimli & Legolas in and after Lothlorien, though this may be addressed in the next film.

It took Radio4 13 hours to do the Trilogy, so even more is going to be missed out in 9 hours of film. But overall I liked it; spreading the Tolkien word and encouraging new people to read the books can only be good. Of all the Fellowship, the portrayal of Legolas was spot on for me, perhaps because I didn't expect it to work so well. I agree that the portrayal of Elrond was a big mistake, what an ugly half-elf!

I heard whistle music too, & there's a Celtic feel to the Shire theme sure enough. Maybe a few new whistlers will come on board after the film?

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 4:30 am

I cried all the way thru the movie as it was so beautiful. I trembled when Sauron's evil approached. I caught the 'subtext' that Peter Jackson put in :
1. That if we go on digging the Earth and expoliting it, we are no more than Orcs.
2. That Saruman's breeding of the 'super-orc', the Uruk-Hai was a reflection of our meddling with the genome.

Movies are not supposed to be word for word true to books. We just have to live with the adaptation. This adaptation was better than most. In fact, it clarified certain points which non-readers of Silmarillon, The Hobbit and the 'unpublished' canon would not have gotten.

Elrond was stern and protective over Rivendell. He was not a jerk at all, just pragmatic. Elves can get worried too, especially if they've been in wars with Sauron before.

Anyway, too many points to clarify. Watch the movie, you won't waste your money. Read the books - you'll realise the movie could've mangled more (especially if it were a typical Hollywood offering) but didn't.

Saruman did become Sauron's lackey, as did Grima Wormtongue. Read the Two Towers to confirm.

Tolkien said more than what was surfacial in the text to LOTR, it was good that the moviemakers spotted these 'between-the-lines' things and brought it out.

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'.

Sauron did have a bodily form (so did Morgoth and the Balrogs) and he did appear on the field to fight, read the books slowly and carefully. He only lost his form (haha!) after he lost the Ring. The corresponding special effect is beautiful, effective and doesn't have the stink of a 'Stallone / Schwarzenegger / Willis / Spielberg etc...' effect. It looks believeable.

Isildur was a great lord of men but he is only a man, prone to human desires. In the movie, we see why Aragorn always seemed weighed down by the cares of the world; he sees it as his duty to redress the wrong done by Isildur's (his ancestor) failure to destroy the Ring.

Anyway, not true to the book (but Bombadil will be eschewed by any script anywhere in the world to enable tighter pacing and clarity) but what a beautiful, thoughtful movie.