GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG> He must not like Arwen's relationship with that "human" Aragorn.</STRONG>

I felt more (when I read the books) that Elrond was reluctant to give away Arwen to Aragorn.

Not because Aragorn is not worthy. Rather, it would mean Arwen embracing mortality thereby separating herself permanently from her father.

@ Marharlika - I agree completely! But based on his little speech to Gandalf (in the film) of how humans are weak, and we are in this mess because of their weakness..blah.blah.blah... Elrond is not coming across as the kind wise elf-lord that the book portrays.

I wonder why Jackson put this in the film?

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG>@ Marharlika - I agree completely! But based on his little speech to Gandalf (in the film) of how humans are weak, and we are in this mess because of their weakness..blah.blah.blah... Elrond is not coming across as the kind wise elf-lord that the book portrays.

I wonder why Jackson put this in the film?</STRONG>

Your guess is as good as mine, mate.

Then again, he was probably also weak for not preventing (in the film) Isildur from keeping the ring.

Or was it perhaps him being wise enough not to even think about it?

*confused*

His facial expression doesn't strike me as one who is supposed to be cool under pressure. More like stressed out to me. And he was supposed to be one of the top advisors when it comes to delicate matters such as The Ring.

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG>He must not like Arwen's relationship with that "human" Aragorn.</STRONG>

Aragorn isn't quite as "human" as he appears. In fact, Elrond (and his daughter Arwen) are actually distantly related to Aragorn. Elrond is Half-Elven, (but not literally) his Great-Grandfather was human, and all the descendants of that line must choose whether or not to follow their Elven or Human sides. Elrond chose to be elvish, but his brother Elros chose mankind. Aragorn is in fact descended from Elros, which explains why he lives to be 190 (he's actually 87 at the time of the Fellowship ) Furthermore, Elrond was the one who raised Aragorn when his parents died, so there wouldn't be much reason for him to disapprove of Aragorn marrying Arwen (aside from not wanting his daughter to become mortal).

I've now watched it for the sixth time, and I still love it. But they changed too much. Tolkien would have hated it. I can't really explain without writing a 20 page essay about the differences between the movie and the book. But this will have to do, I consider the movie to be losely based on the books, nothing more.

Very late, I know...

So, 2 months after everybody else I finally got an evening to spend at the movie's last weekend. At first I had almost decided not to see the movie since I actually dislike the books, but after reading what Kayless, MM and others have written here about the outdoor scenes, I decided to see it and I don't regret it - on the contrary I liked it much more than the book.

The straighter story line and higher tempo worked very well for me who thought the books were far too wordy and the details too lengthy. Also, some of my "hate parts" were removed from the movie.

The acting was very good, I especially liked McKellan, Woods and Mortensen. McKellan looked so natural in that stupid pointy hat, like he was born with it In all, the cast was very good, the actors looked tailormade for their roles.

The outdoor scenes were absolutely great, I very much feel I need another vacation to NZ! It's such a beautiful place, and very apt for this movie too. The hobbit village looked great, as did Saruman's castle.

The mix of FX, computer graphics and "real" film was well integrated and looked better than I had expected.

Some complaints:

- Too much focus on the hobbits as "comic relieves", I would have preferred more dialogue between the other's in the fellowship - Legolas and the dwarf were quite flat characters.
- The Galadriel part wasn't very well done, first there was a build up around her, then there was this short, anti-climactic scene where she passes her test. Very strange, sort of cut off.
- The battle scences were nice, but again, I would have preferred shorter battle scenes and more dialouge.

Re: Very late, I know...

Originally posted by C Elegans
Some complaints:

- Too much focus on the hobbits as "comic relieves", I would have preferred more dialogue between the other's in the fellowship - Legolas and the dwarf were quite flat characters.
- The Galadriel part wasn't very well done, first there was a build up around her, then there was this short, anti-climactic scene where she passes her test. Very strange, sort of cut off.
- The battle scences were nice, but again, I would have preferred shorter battle scenes and more dialouge.

The DVD should satisfy you then, as it contains a lot of dialogue which was cut out, especially those involving the dwarf. I agree about the test bit, . Man that was a downer.

Re: Very late, I know...

Originally posted by C Elegans
- The battle scences were nice, but again, I would have preferred shorter battle scenes and more dialouge.

Personally i was not that impressed with the battle scenes, the battle scene at the start was very good, but some of the later battles seemed to be restrained and cut away from any realistic portrayal of actual fighting.

Is there anyone out there who doesn't like this movie?!?

Re: Re: Very late, I know...

originally posted by Tamerlane
The DVD should satisfy you then, as it contains a lot of dialogue which was cut out, especially those involving the dwarf. I agree about the test bit, . Man that was a downer.

I might try that later on. As it was now, the dwarf came out as rather charaterless and with only a few typical "dwarf comments".

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

Personally i was not that impressed with the battle scenes, the battle scene at the start was very good, but some of the later battles seemed to be restrained and cut away from any realistic portrayal of actual fighting.

Is there anyone out there who doesn't like this movie?!?

I agree, the opening scence was good, the other battle scence were not that impressive, mostly a lot of sound effects. I however liked that they were not "gory".

I know several people who didn't like the movie. My brother in law has some co-workers who are die hard Tolkien fans, and at least one of them really disliked the movie. Also, I have some friends who thought it was just uninteresting, not exactly a bad movie, but completely uninteresting like "well, a nice fairly tale - yawn".

Re: Re: Re: Very late, I know...

Originally posted by C Elegans


I agree, the opening scence was good, the other battle scence were not that impressive, mostly a lot of sound effects. I however liked that they were not "gory".

I know several people who didn't like the movie. My brother in law has some co-workers who are die hard Tolkien fans, and at least one of them really disliked the movie. Also, I have some friends who thought it was just uninteresting, not exactly a bad movie, but completely uninteresting like "well, a nice fairly tale - yawn".

I have seen all manner of gory films and also ones like LotR which avoid showing the gore element, the best film at depicting a fighting situation is "The 13th warrior" (with Antonio Banderas) the Directing of that film is absolutely brilliant, the battle scenes are truly effective, there are degrees of gore, but it is not completely ridiculous. I would have preffered more gore and a higher certificate, rather than the wishy washy fighting they had in the movie. It is not that i need the gore, it just makes the scenes more realistic.

That is very much how i felt, i wasn't very impressed, i got bored quickly and i felt the directing lacked depth and was extrememly rushed. I also thought that the CG was usless. I wasn't really all that dissapointed though, purely because i didn't really expect it to do anything other than it did.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Very late, I know...

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

I have seen all manner of gory films and also ones like LotR which avoid showing the gore element, the best film at depicting a fighting situation is "The 13th warrior" (with Antonio Banderas) the Directing of that film is absolutely brilliant, the battle scenes are truly effective, there are degrees of gore, but it is not completely ridiculous. I would have preffered more gore and a higher certificate, rather than the wishy washy fighting they had in the movie. It is not that i need the gore, it just makes the scenes more realistic.

I haven't seen the 13th warrior. In general, I like strong battle scenes with some gore for realism if the movie/scene is aiming to depict the horrors of war. If the battle scenes are more aimed to be exciting, I prefer them non-gory.

That is very much how i felt, i wasn't very impressed, i got bored quickly and i felt the directing lacked depth and was extrememly rushed. I also thought that the CG was usless. I wasn't really all that dissapointed though, purely because i didn't really expect it to do anything other than it did.

What do you think was wrong with the CG? Just curious to hear your opinion.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Very late, I know...

Originally posted by C Elegans


What do you think was wrong with the CG? Just curious to hear your opinion.

Watch 13th warrior it has the most atmospheric battle scenes, it is very good

They made the mistake of trying to integrate people and CG. There were the scenes in the elvin city that looked appalling, why they couldn't just have mocked it up in NZ somewhere i don't know.

Since this thread had been brought up again, i'd like to add some remarks, i have red the book and i found out that Gandalf can cast some serious and devastating magic but the movie lacks from magic, the only time that Gandalf casts something expect the tylepathetic fight with Saramon is when they are at Moria's Mines.

Ok the movie does not follow the book to much, mosty because this is impossible to do it all by the book but i liked the movie very much and i'm waiting to see the RPG versions of this.

I think that directors must use "realistic" fight scenes judiciously; if overly-used, it takes away from the rest of the movie. There are some very good movies in which the fighting in central to the story (ie-Braveheart, Black Hawk Down, and Saving Private Ryan) and the battle scenes are realistic and bloody. You'll also notice that they all carry an R rating from the MPAA and were movies aimed at adults.

Would such fight scenes have added or detracted from Fellowship of the Ring? In my opinion, the fighting in FotR was secondary to the story and it was not necessary to show gratuitious dismemberments and eviscerations. Plus by getting a PG-13 rating from the MPAA, FotR was able to reach the younger audience both the book and movie were aimed at.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Very late, I know...

Originally posted by C Elegans
What do you think was wrong with the CG? Just curious to hear your opinion.

The technology hasn't been properly developed yet. Just watch the first battle very closely when they try to simulate the large war. A lot of the alliance warriors go down like a rag doll, found that to be very amusing. Give me the old fashioned battles pioneered by the likes of Braveheart.

Originally posted by Demis
Since this thread had been brought up again, i'd like to add some remarks, i have red the book and i found out that Gandalf can cast some serious and devastating magic but the movie lacks from magic, the only time that Gandalf casts something expect the tylepathetic fight with Saramon is when they are at Moria's Mines.

Ok the movie does not follow the book to much, mosty because this is impossible to do it all by the book but i liked the movie very much and i'm waiting to see the RPG versions of this.

There is a discussion of this lost amongst the pages of this thread. Generally people assume a wizard to be like the BG wizard with magic missles etc, flying everywhere. However, in the book, Gandalf loathes to use his powers for fear of revealing himself to Sauron.

The one thing that really irritated me was that in order to heighten the pace of the movie, they altered the motivators of the characters. Sam, for instance, is compelled to stay with Frodo regardless of Gandalfs orders. Merry and Pippin don't end up going along by chance, they've been spying (through Sam) on Frodo for years expecting him to leave. Pippin btw comes through as a complete moron, which misses its aim as comic relief as well as disrupting the picture of hobbits as "unwilling but courageous heroes". Frodo seems to have gone through a personality change as well, since he's running away from everything. Aragorn seems to be unwilling to shoulder his heritage, something very different from his original character who is waiting for some prophesy to be fulfilled.

I also agree with a previous poster that the hobbits seem less than bright by following Strider without further motivation. In general, the hobbits are portrayed as a bit daft. Except Frodo, who's chicken...

The Shire is excellent. I doubt however that Gandalf, being a researcher of hobbits, would have so much trouble in a burrow. Banging his head once is overdoing it, twice is pathetic...

Intro is good, although the flashback with Elrond and Isildur at mount doom gets much too melodramatic. Besides, if any of my friends were holding, for example, an atomic bomb and refuses to destroy it when given the chance, I wouldn't think twice of wrestling it from him by force - killing him if I have to. Elrond is just justifying his own ineptitude in his monologue on the evils of man

I would have prefered if the "wizard brawl" had been more a battle of the minds, no flying about and no lightning bolts. Something in subjective camera, perhaps, or just them standing there having a strained discussion while the air fizzles. Showing the palantir at this point in the movie will obviously change some aspects of the plot in later films. Having Saruman doing incantations in the carhadras scene gives me the feeling that the film is intended for an audience with limited intelligence... you don't need to write everything in 60 pt writing on peoples noses. On the other hand, there is plenty of information that isn't presented in the film, so someone that hasn't read the books can have a difficult time following parts of the plot.

The balancing act in Moria is pointless and they shouldn't even have wasted film on it. Otherwise Moria is nicely done. They could have given Gimli a little more space though, after all, it's his habitat.

I liked the Balrog, even though they most likely will have to pay royalties to Blizzard

Galadriel? I agree with many of you, it's a nice buildup of tension. I like the surprise on Gimli. The episode with G's mirror reeks. Since it didn't lead the story forward in any way (as it does in the book), they could just as well have skipped it.

I am VERY happy they skipped Tom Bombadillo.

They really didn't have to put such an enormous "black hat" on Saruman. It's obvious he's a traitor, but we don't need a sign the size of a small continent to say so. Besides, they dropped a good oportunity to explore this wrestling with evil and finally giving in to it. Just because Tolkien polarised good and evil "quite a bit" doesnt mean you have to surpass him. Considering the amount of time they spent on showing Galadriels struggle, it would only have been fair.

Ring wraiths were well done. Bilbo's transformation, both with Gandalf and with Frodo were good.

Battle scenes - too long! Dialogue - too short and uninformative.

I have no objections to Gandalf's limited use of magic. In the book, as some have said, he doesn't wish to risk being seen by Sauron. Also, IMO the forces of good in Tolkiens works all seem to fight at their own level, ie orcs and such is warrior stuff, balrogs however is Gandalf work. Would be demeaning for everyone else otherwise

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Very late, I know...

Originally posted by Tamerlane


The technology hasn't been properly developed yet. Just watch the first battle very closely when they try to simulate the large war. A lot of the alliance warriors go down like a rag doll, found that to be very amusing. Give me the old fashioned battles pioneered by the likes of Braveheart.

That is exactly what i mean

Also, give me the old fashioned painted scenery a la Hitch, much more impressive IMHO

@HLD, i realise that it is just what i would prefer to see, not what i expect to see

Since we are on the subject of LotR

Did anyone see the car driving in the background during the movie?

Oh, and I forgot *rant, rant*

I didn't at all like the rewrite of the end. More specifically "LETS HUNT SOME ORC" (pardon my screaming) really blew the illusion to quadrillion pieces...