GameBanshee Forums

Somewhat late, but I just saw the movie today. Overall, I thought it was awesome....it would have been worth seeing just for the cinematography alone.

In general, I felt the acting very good, the only real weak spot IMHO was the portrayal of Galadriel,Kate Blanchett seemed a bit wooden.

Perhaps my favourite parts were the interactions between Frodo and Gandalf....they embodied so much that is human.

watched it yesterday, the movie is awesome.

the part when the dwarf says "nobody throws this dwarf" made me remember the dwarven thrower thread

ill probably watch it again tomorow

"Nobody tosses this dwarf"

Boromir's death was magnificent, just as I pictured it.

The Uruk Hai were sufficiently dark and cruel.

The 3 hours just flew by.

MAY BE SPELLING MISTAKES - I DON'T HAVE THE BOOK WITH ME NOW.

Well,the main thing I didn't like about the movie was The TERRIBLE and AWFUL acting of Elijah Wood as Frodo...(Add your embelishment here)

I did like "The Nine"- which were well done.I couldn't get the four hoursemen of the apocalipse out of my mind.
I liked Legolas - although, in "Fellowship" you don't realy feel his presence,I always liked ranged weapons more then melee.
I loved the way they killed Borimeer(SP)
well done with the arrows.
I always notice this - the score was O.K. nothing fantastic, except for "Adiemus" (I doubt you know it by name) sung by Enya, and at the start, when Gandalf enters the Shire, after meeting Frodo a tune "Concerning hobbits" it's just great the way you get this carefree feeling.
I also liked the way they talk about the hobbit(the book)like "Well the thing with the dragon..." or "then the three trolls..."
and on the subject - CUTE EASTER EGG: did anyone notice the three troll pillars in the place where they rested at night and where Frodo was stabbed?LMAO

Just to make it clear- I did not have the time to read the rest of the thread- so this may seem very repetitive to you.

Originally posted by Morlock:
<STRONG>Just to make it clear- I did not have the time to read the rest of the thread- so this may seem very repetitive to you. </STRONG>

I understand exactly what you mean....kinda hard to keep up in this forum.

Originally posted by Morlock:
<STRONG>Just to make it clear- I did not have the time to read the rest of the thread- so this may seem very repetitive to you. </STRONG>

'tis good to get some repeats. Same thing said many ways provides more understanding or more confusion, both of which are good things.

As I said a few days ago, I've started reading LotR. I don't know if it's of any interest to you, but I'm beginning to understand some of the earlier posts in this thread of people who have already read the book and why are so fond of it.

I started my reading from the second book, The Two Towers (well,blame my curiosity )
I already feel addicted to it, and of course I'll go back and read the Fellowship of the Ring as well. I can't wait finishing the whole trilogy!

Just the rambling of an excited reader...

I wish you all a happier (and better) New Year.

Cheers

I'm glad to see the movie is guiding people back to where it all started...cheers

**(contains a lot of spoilers!!)**


I saw the Movie yesterday and we went with 6 (me,my mom, my dad, my brother, neighbour and girlfriend)
3 had read the book Me my Mom and my Neighbour. the others didn't.
we talked about the movie afterwards because expecially my Neighbour, who read the book a dozen times and read all the books about the book and all the books about the books about the book , knows a lot about it and we all wanted to see what we tought about the movie:
here goes:

well all 6 we agreed the movie was beautifull, great decors, great clothing, great special effects and a really big eye for detail. Those details btw were only noticed by the people who knew something about the book, for those who didn't they didn't had to necceserly be there.
And exactly that was the weakestpoint of the movie.
People who don't know the book miss alot, for instance: the 3 pertified throlls, I immidaitly knew those were the throlls from The Hobbit and i liked it very much to see them, but my Dad and Brother didn't even noticed them.
another strange point was, when Gandalfs was sitting on the Tower of Suramon and talkes to a butterflie and later gets picked up by a giant eagle.
People who read the book knew it was the high lord of the Eagles who are very important who saved Gandalf before and also saved Bilbo in The Hobbit. But again my Dad and Brother thought it was strange i hadn't the slightest idea what that eagle was doing there.
The stroie line itself was also only followble for people who knew something about the book and even them (i myself too) thought the story went to fast from one scene to another.
Some part just followed each other up to fast, the journey from Baggins End to Breeg was far to short. And (according to my Neighbour, and we agreed) the Breeg part was by far the most lamest point of the movie (ok Rivendel wasn't that great either).
but in the movie they show Breeg as a dark city full of humans but in the book it is a warm city inhabited by a lot of hobbits with only 1 bad person, the citygard and he gets run over by the ringwraiths in the movie.

i know that it is almost imposseble to make from such a great book a really good movie.
And they did a great job (don't get my from i loved the movie), but they good have taken some parts out because they hadn't had any meaning (for the non readers) and tossed in some parts to make it understandeble for the non readers.

my neighbour ans i tought about some sort of Narrator or map who shows about the distancens they had to walk.
In the movie it looks like u only have to cross a river after u escapes Moria to get to Lothlorien. Instead of walking for hunderds of miles in fear followed by orks and other evil (like in the book).

But it was a good movie great effects, the part in Rivendel were the Ringwraiths get flooded by the river in the form of 9 white Horses just took my breath away.
And there were some parts that surpriced my: The evil of Bilbo (when he tries to get the ring again from Frodo), the evil of Galdariel (when she gets the ring) ad those parts they really shocked the heck of my

But anyway the movie was good, the cast also and i can't wait to see the 2nd movie.
Helms Deep and Shelob are the thing i'm aeger to see.

I wonder why this book,movie hits a nerve in people.

Why did tolkein do something like this?

@at99:

Tolkien loved inventing his own languages. He was heavily influenced by Finnish, Welsh, Gothic, and Old Anglo-Saxon English. In his letters, he says that as his makeup language progressed, he realized that he need someone to speak that language, so he invented Elves, and from the elves comes the backstory of that the language. So the story is really an explanation of the history of the language he invented.

Originally posted by humanflyz:
<STRONG>@Sailor Saturn:

I've read that one too. It was very interesting. Although Tolkien denied absolutely that LOTR is not an allegorical piece of writing, I can't seem to help to notice that there's a lot of allegories.</STRONG>

I agree that there are some allegorical aspects in the stories, but I would assume these are coincidental. You can look at virtually any story and see allegories and similarities.

For example, the "'weak' not-so-heroic hero" finding the strength within to fight the "big bad villian" is not at all uncommon.

I have seen the movie twice now, and will see it once again this afternoon - but I am still not certain that it was as good as most people have rated it.

Let me start by saying that I have read the series every autumn for the last seventeen years or so, so I have a pretty particular view of the way the books are - you know, like most people I had a picture in my mind of each scene and character. Nevertheless, I am open to new visions, and was hoping to find at least a few in the movie which would replace my own with something even more beautiful or meaningful.

Anyway, so here are a few of my opinions:

1) The whole beefing up of the Arwen role was pointless; a cheap Hollywood ploy which fell very flat (IMHO).

2) I liked the actors for the most part, though I am still not certain about Ian McKellan as Gandalf. I can't quite put my finger on what bothered me about him ... maybe his nose (too flat), or his voice (also too flat). But Frodo was perfect, and Legolas was great, and Saruman was quite impressive. (Sorry can't remember the actor names.)

3) I found the expanded time given to Saruman a waste, too. They threw in that "wizard battle" for no reason at all, except to show off special effects. I have always felt that these books could have been made with very few special effects ... almost like a Shakespearean play: the deptth comes from the words and the character interaction - not from glammed-on FX.

4) Speaking of FX: that bit where Galadriel does her bit after being tempted by the ring: ugh! That was terrible! Here they have this actress who is PERFECT for the part, and has great talent, and could have pulled off doing that scene without the wierdness of the FX, but they just trash that entire scene with these crazy effects. And she doesn't laugh! I swear (though I don't have the books handy) that at the end of her "trial," she LAUGHS - but in the movie she is all panting and shaky, which just gives an entirely different feel to her character.

5) Boromir's treason, redemption, and death were VERY well done, EXCEPT for the fact that if you had not read all the books, you really wouldn't understand his connection with Aragorn (since the movie does not explain it well). And this would make his last scene with Aragorn much less potent.

6) I thought the Balrog was very well done (it is one of the few images in the movie which will replace my own from now on when I read the books).

7) I did NOT like Elrond's talk with Gandalf: it made Elrond seem bitter, angry, and even petty - a feeling I never got from his character in the book.

8) I did not mind the length of the film at all. Personally, they could have made it four hours, thrown in a ten minute intermission, and I would have been all the happier. Then we may have seen a bit more of Bree or the journey to Rivendell, or Tom Bombadil, or the rivalry/friendship of Gimli and Legolas, or ...

Anyhoo! To the shock and dismay of my friends, I rated this film about a eight out of ten. (They all thought it a ten.) I AM glad that they made this film, and I will buy it on DVD when they release it, but I hope that other film-makers in the future try the story again - a vain hope, I know since it seems doubtful that anyone will put forth another, what, like $200 million to do the "same" story again. Ah, well!

Peace.

EDITED 'cos I decided I had more to say!

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: der Moench ]

Originally posted by der Moench:
<STRONG>1) The whole beefing up of the Arwen role was pointless; a cheap Hollywood ploy which fell very flat (IMHO).</STRONG>

I agree, completely. I still can't figure out why they did that.

<STRONG>2) I liked the actors for the most part, though I am still not certain about Ian McKellan as Gandalf. I can't quite put my finger on what bothered me about him ... maybe his nose (too flat), or his voice (also too flat). But Frodo was perfect, and Legolas was great, and Saruman was quite impressive. (Sorry can't remember the actor names.)</STRONG>

I thought Ian McKellan as Gandalf was great. Frodo didn't seem quite right. I think I've already made clear my opinion of Legolas. Saruman was good, but he didn't have as manipulative a voice as I imagined he would have.

<STRONG>3) I found the expanded time given to Saruman a waste, too. They threw in that "wizard battle" for no reason at all, except to show off special effects. I have always felt that these books could have been made with very few special effects ... almost like a Shakespearean play: the deptth comes from the words and the character interaction - not from glammed-on FX.</STRONG>

There are some instances where special effects are necessary, and the type needed couldn't have been done a decade or two ago, at least, not as well. But they did overdo the effects sometimes. They would've done better to not have the duel(though it was fun to see) and used that time to more accurately portray the trip from the Shire to Bree, imo.

<STRONG>4) Speaking of FX: that bit where Galadriel does her bit after being tempted by the ring: ugh! That was terrible! Here they have this actress who is PERFECT for the part, and has great talent, and could have pulled off doing that scene without the wierdness of the FX, but they just trash that entire scene with these crazy effects. And she doesn't laugh! I swear (though I don't have the books handy) that at the end of her "trial," she LAUGHS - but in the movie she is all panting and shaky, which just gives an entirely different feel to her character.</STRONG>

That scene took me by surprise because I was expecting something with more...white and such, and not so...negative in appearance.

<STRONG>5) Boromir's treason, redemption, and death were VERY well done, EXCEPT for the fact that if you had not read all the books, you really wouldn't understand his connection with Aragorn (since the movie does not explain it well). And this would make his last scene with Aragorn much less potent.</STRONG>

My biggest problem with Boromir is that they made it obvious from the beginning that Boromir would betray Frodo and try to take the ring. In the book, there are one or two instances when Boromir suggests taking the ring back to Gondor and using it against Sauron; but his overall demeanor during the trip was not one who seemed likely to betray them. In fact, he seemed to be one of the least likely to betray them. When me and my parents went to see the movie, while they were walking through the snow and Frodo tripped, my dad said, "I don't trust him," referring to Boromir. That just didn't seem like the way it should've been.

<STRONG>7) I did NOT like Elrond's talk with Gandalf: it made Elrond seem bitter, angry, and even petty - a feeling I never got from his character in the book.</STRONG>

I think the biggest problem here was who they got to play Elrond. How do they expect a guy who's face looks like it is about to break when he smiles to play an elf correctly?

<STRONG>8) I did not mind the length of the film at all. Personally, they could have made it four hours, thrown in a ten minute intermission, and I would have been all the happier. Then we may have seen a bit more of Bree or the journey to Rivendell, or Tom Bombadil, or the rivalry/friendship of Gimli and Legolas, or ...</STRONG>

I'd have been happier with it being longer, too; but my dad would disagree. At the end, he said, "If that movie were a half hour longer, I'd have got up and left."

The movie has to work in a commerical point of view. Let's be truthful here, when's the last time a Shakespeare play adapted to movie made like over 100mil? To people who read the books, the FX and some other stuff may not be necessary for those people to enjoy the movie. If the movie was made for people who read the book, then I'm sure Peter Jackson would have done it totally different. However, the movie company behind LORT doesn't want a 200 million dollar project to sink, so the movie has to also appeal to people who haven't read the books. What other things can appeal to your normal adolescent teenager better than FX and a lot of fighting?

For indie movies with small budgets, but got critical acclaim, that would be a different story. But for a super hyped, super marketed movie, the movie company has to make sure that they are not losing money. My friends who never read the book thought the movie was "the bomb". I asked them why they liked it, and most of them said it was the cool FX and the fighting. Can I blame them? I can't because that's just the way they are. And some of them liked the movie so much that they'll try to read the book. I applaud the movie for bringing people back to the books, and hopefully they'll appreciate it even more. I agree with Tolkien's son, that the movie medium is not a fit medium to adapt LOTR.

Originally posted by humanflyz:
<STRONG>@at99:

Tolkien loved inventing his own languages. He was heavily influenced by Finnish, Welsh, Gothic, and Old Anglo-Saxon English. In his letters, he says that as his makeup language progressed, he realized that he need someone to speak that language, so he invented Elves, and from the elves comes the backstory of that the language. So the story is really an explanation of the history of the language he invented.</STRONG>

Elves were not a Tolkein invention.

I did not really understand your post, especially the anglo-saxon part. I dont think he invented the mythology either.

I just wanted to know reasons behind what he did!

Could you please explain again.

Regarding Arwen, clearly there was a need for hollywood/marketing types to create a female interest (both heroic and love).

Now when Aragorn gets married to her in the 3rd installment, people will know who she is. She will stand as an equal in feats of strength and not just some bint of a lass.

Call me cynical.

I have to rate this movie a 10/10. Sure, its not as good as the book but then the book doesn't come in DTS or 5.1 surround sound (not sure my immagination does either...). Look at the practicalities. Most movie scripts are 150 odd pages, how do you turn 1000 pages of pure dynamite into even 9 hours of film (assuming the next two movies are the same length, though likely to be shorter as with the books)?

Make it into a 20 part epic series and only die hards will watch it - no one would fund it. I think the compromises were worthwhile.

Originally posted by at99:
<STRONG>Elves were not a Tolkein invention.

I did not really understand your post, especially the anglo-saxon part. I dont think he invented the mythology either.

I just wanted to know reasons behind what he did!

Could you please explain again.</STRONG>

He never said that Tolkien invited the mythology.

His point (if I may sum up Humanflyz?)

1) Tolkien loved languages, which could explain why he was a prof

2) He loved old languages. (Humanflyz has listed these).

3) He loved working with these old languages so much that he created his own language, which he attributed to the elves.

This may have started his delving into mythology, the first step being creating a 'mythical' language. You can argue that the elves were not his creation, as there is connection between the Celtic mythology of the people of the 'Sidhe' etc...as being elves. But, it can be said that he created unique characters with his vision of HIS elves.

Thank you Vivien.

@at99:

I am sorry if I made it sound like that Tolkien invented Elves in fantasy books. What I meant to say is that Tolkien made up his own language, and then created someone to speak it.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: humanflyz ]

Originally posted by humanflyz:
<STRONG>Thank you Vivien.

@at99:

I am sorry if I made it sound like that Tolkien invented Elves in fantasy books. What I meant to say is that Tolkien made up his own language, and then created someone to speak it.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: humanflyz ]</STRONG>

Sorry for jumping in
I thought 'but that's not what he meant at all!' and couldn't stop myself