Page 12 of 13
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 4:28 pm
by Mr Sleep
Originally posted by fable
I was beginning to waver on my idea of avoiding this film, but these comments have firmed that opinion up. One of the few less than moralistically polarized things in Tolkien was the way he showed (or implied) various people wrestling with their own personal darkness, and either subcumbing or winning out: Frodo (of course), Denethor, Saruman, Wormtongue, Boromir. If this is removed, I have one less reason to consider the film.
Why do you fee like that fable. Is it because you don't want the movie to disrupt your feelings about the book?
Personally i have not been placed in many situation where i have read the book before i have seen the film, LotR is the same. So i speak from a film goers point of view
I think that movies distort the original method of literature since they are one persons visualisation of a body of work. Literature quite often leaves a lot to the imagination (unlike film when poorly handled *cough Gandalf's death *cough* *ahem* ) so is this possibly what gets effected when one converts a book to film and is this what you are avoiding @fable?
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 4:48 pm
by fable
Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Why do you fee like that fable. Is it because you don't want the movie to disrupt your feelings about the book?
Personally i have not been placed in many situation where i have read the book before i have seen the film, LotR is the same. So i speak from a film goers point of view
I think that movies distort the original method of literature since they are one persons visualisation of a body of work. Literature quite often leaves a lot to the imagination (unlike film when poorly handled *cough Gandalf's death *cough* *ahem* ) so is this possibly what gets effected when one converts a book to film and is this what you are avoiding @fable?
@Sleep, that pretty much sums it up.
There are authors whose work is very cinematic, like Graham Greene. Others, with a more pronounced style and/or personal viewpoint, lose that in the translation to film, no matter how true to the original the PR states the latter is. I have several major reservations about LOTR, but also several things I like in it a lot; and I've read it through three times. What's best, for me, is Tolkien's adoption of Dunsany's fantasy language: a kind of "high epic" sounding thing, full of archaic structure, seriousness, intensely sensuous (in the original Miltonian sense of the word) metaphors, and ringing with vast overtones. It is this first person narrative which is bound to be lost in the movie.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 4:53 pm
by Silur
Originally posted by fable
I was beginning to waver on my idea of avoiding this film, but these comments have firmed that opinion up. One of the few less than moralistically polarized things in Tolkien was the way he showed (or implied) various people wrestling with their own personal darkness, and either subcumbing or winning out: Frodo (of course), Denethor, Saruman, Wormtongue, Boromir. If this is removed, I have one less reason to consider the film. [/b]
To be frank, they didn't do as much with Boromirs struggle as one could have hoped. He pretty much got pinned from the start, and if that wasn't obvious enough, other members of the fellowship start singling him out. No subtlety here...
The film also spends (too) much time with Saruman tearing down Fangorn and cloning Uruks. He very quickly turns into your typical gloating, selfassured, megalomaniac villain.
IMO the film is _more_ polarized than the books when it comes to good and evil, which really does escalate it to epic proportions... Except in regard to racism, where the elves in the film aren't so disgustingly good and glorious (wow, I said something nice about it
).
There are reasons to see it though. The landscape is strikingly beautiful, and unless you're planning a vacation in New Zealand, it's worth seeing. The Shire is beautifully done. Moria is also very good. Ian McKellan does a very good interpretation of Gandalf. Frodo and Aragorn aren't bad either. Isengard, if you can dissociate it from Saruman, is also very nicely done. I don't regret seeing it, but it's a slim margin.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 5:07 pm
by Mr Sleep
Originally posted by fable
@Sleep, that pretty much sums it up. There are authors whose work is very cinematic, like Graham Greene. Others, with a more pronounced style and/or personal viewpoint, lose that in the translation to film, no matter how true to the original the PR states the latter is. I have several major reservations about LOTR, but also several things I like in it a lot; and I've read it through three times. What's best, for me, is Tolkien's adoption of Dunsany's fantasy language: a kind of "high epic" sounding thing, full of archaic structure, seriousness, intensely sensuous (in the original Miltonian sense of the word) metaphors, and ringing with vast overtones. It is this first person narrative which is bound to be lost in the movie.
In that case you wont like LotR they made it very much a buddy movie (hunt some orc anyone?
) with the appaling moments of supposed comic relief. My memory dims a little, so i can not give a great description of why, but rest assured there is no individuality IMO.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 5:20 pm
by C Elegans
Originally posted by Mr Sleep
hunt some orc anyone?
Gaaah!
runs away looking for a cudgel to hit the person who wrote than line in the head - or rather, on the hands
Seriously, than particular line had a very bad effect on my "film experience". I thought Viggo Mortensen did the part of Aragon beautifully, he was so apt for the role. Then this line just
ruins it, to me, it was like revealing all the cameras or removing the CGI and show the bluegreen background.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 5:44 pm
by Mr Sleep
Originally posted by C Elegans
Gaaah!
runs away looking for a cudgel to hit the person who wrote than line in the head - or rather, on the hands
Seriously, than particular line had a very bad effect on my "film experience". I thought Viggo Mortensen did the part of Aragon beautifully, he was so apt for the role. Then this line just ruins it, to me, it was like revealing all the cameras or removing the CGI and show the bluegreen background.
I would have to agree, it took all of the seriousness of the situation out of that scene, it created this vapid and horrible atmosphere of disgust
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 6:04 pm
by fable
Hunt some orc, anyone?
I'm surprised the Tolkien estate approved this ending--it's the kind of mindless thing that would have sent Tolkien into his usual melancholy fit over the horrors of big business, the USA, and modern entertainment.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 6:05 pm
by Silur
Originally posted by Mr Sleep
I would have to agree, it took all of the seriousness of the situation out of that scene, it created this vapid and horrible atmosphere of disgust
Well put. Are you perchance trying to surpass me in negative criticism?
................ like I said, well put. Nothing further can be added.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 6:17 pm
by C Elegans
Originally posted by Mr Sleep
I would have to agree, it took all of the seriousness of the situation out of that scene, it created this vapid and horrible atmosphere of disgust
Beautifully spoken, Sleep, almost poetic
posted by Fable
I'm surprised the Tolkien estate approved this ending--it's the kind of mindless thing that would have sent Tolkien into his usual melancholy fit over the horrors of big business, the USA, and modern entertainment.[/b]
The "let's hunt some orc" must have set Tolkien off in 4000 rpm
What a strange way to create a neutron star
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 7:11 pm
by Kayless
Wow, there are people who didn’t like LotR? You must have serious brain tumors. You’d better see a doctor fast. No, don’t wait. Trust me, you all have a large brain tumors. J/K. 
I loved LotR, but then again, I also love Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and James Bond movies (and you don’t get any hokier than these 
). Yeah the 'orc hunting' line was bad, but that hardly ruined the film for me. And I felt Sean Bean did a great job as Boromir. Yes it was clear he was faltering from the start, but Bean’s performance showed Boromir as a fundamentally good person, albeit tragically flawed. I liked the contrast between the scenes where he is training/playing with Merry and Pippin to later in the movie when he’s defending them with his last breath. Not to mention how infuriatingly helpless he must have felt after he’s been shot, as the Uruk-hai walk past him not even deigning to kill him as he’s no longer a threat 
(that is until their leader calmly gets ready for the final shot and Aragorn intervenes). It's not the same LotR that Tolkien wrote, but to be perfectly honest, I would be bored to tears by a 100% accurate movie. The original book just isn't suited for the cinematic platform. I loved the LotR movie for what is was: A highly entertaining film I enjoyed with my friends and family. Your mileage may vary. 
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 7:43 pm
by Georgi
Originally posted by Kayless
(that is until their leader calmly gets ready for the final shot and Aragorn intervenes).
Maybe it's just me, but I always think that uruk hai looks particularly camp in that shot...
It's not the same LotR that Tolkien wrote, but to be perfectly honest, I would be bored to tears by a 100% accurate movie. The original book just isn't suited for the cinematic platform. I loved the LotR movie for what is was: A highly entertaining film I enjoyed with my friends and family. Your mileage may vary.
Well, you know how I feel about the orc-hunting line (
), but I agree here... Film is a very different medium to books, and there had to be changes made in order to make LotR into a film, and I think overall they did a great job with it, and kept the spirit of the books.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 7:55 pm
by C Elegans
Originally posted by Kayless
It's not the same LotR that Tolkien wrote, but to be perfectly honest, I would be bored to tears by a 100% accurate movie.
I also agree with this, even if I thought the orc-hunt line was horrible. In all, I liked the movie (albeit in a highly unserious way), which is a lot more than I can say about the books.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 11:41 pm
by Tamerlane
Originally posted by fable
Hunt some orc, anyone?
I'm surprised the Tolkien estate approved this ending--it's the kind of mindless thing that would have sent Tolkien into his usual melancholy fit over the horrors of big business, the USA, and modern entertainment.
Did they not disapprove of this movie from its beginning? I thought J.R.R Tolkien sold the rights a long time before his death. In fact Christopher Tolkien refused to talk to his nephew after he publicly revealed his excitement about the trilogy being made in New Zealand.
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:50 am
by fable
Originally posted by Tamerlane
Did they not disapprove of this movie from its beginning? I thought J.R.R Tolkien sold the rights a long time before his death. In fact Christopher Tolkien refused to talk to his nephew after he publicly revealed his excitement about the trilogy being made in New Zealand.
I don't recall reading anywhere that the old man himself had ever approved of a film adaptation of his works: he hated films, or so I heard. And I know the Christopher Tolkien was involved in clinching the deal that ended up with the horrible animated Hobbit, a number of years ago.
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 5:50 am
by Silur
Originally posted by fable
I don't recall reading anywhere that the old man himself had ever approved of a film adaptation of his works: he hated films, or so I heard. And I know the Christopher Tolkien was involved in clinching the deal that ended up with the horrible animated Hobbit, a number of years ago.
Then there´s that equally horrible animated LoTR, where the money ran out halfway through so the animation style changed abruptly.
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 10:08 am
by VoodooDali
Overall, I enjoyed the film. I think that filming LoTR is almost a mission impossible, given the length of the books. The fact is that audiences have repeatly refused to sit through movies longer than 3 hours (at best). I heard that this is not the case in India, where they have 8 hour movies--anyone know if that's true? I recall feeling a lot more mystery in the book surrounding Strider and who he really was. It was a much bigger shock to find out his true identity in the book. In the movie, it was sort of ho hum. I felt that they spent way to much time on the beginning section of the book in the Shire, and not enough time on the later sections. I think the director was concerned that the audience who had not read LoTR would not understand what the quest was all about. That's probably the reasoning behind the "buddy" flick set up. I'm tired of movies pandering to the lowest common denominator, but it seems like it's hard to get a big budget movie made these days unless you can bring in millions in the box office. Given that, I'm amazed that the film of LoTR was as true to the book as it was....
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:19 pm
by Der-draigen
Re "Let's hunt some orc": I didn't mind that as much as I minded "Nobody tosses a dwarf." *shudder*
Now
that was bad. A first-class howler. I was afraid the movie might disintegrate into a Hercules/Xena episode after that point.
Aside from that though, I really loved the script. I thought that for the most part the writers really tried to be true to Tolkien's language and tone, even during the parts when the dialogue wasn't lifted right from the book.
by Kayless: The original book just isn't suited for the cinematic platform.
But I think the fact that it was adapted for film shows that it is beautifully suited for such. There are simply things that have to be tweaked/left out/changed in the novel-to-film translation. Film is a different medium; some things work on paper that don't work on screen...
I thought the film was an amazing adaptation, especially considering the vast canvas that had to be worked with. I'm a major fan of the books but I went in knowing that the movie would be different in many respects.
IMO the worst thing about the film is that I have to wait a year for the next one
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2002 3:21 am
by Silur
Originally posted by Der-draigen
Re "Let's hunt some orc": I didn't mind that as much as I minded "Nobody tosses a dwarf." *shudder* Now that was bad. A first-class howler. I was afraid the movie might disintegrate into a Hercules/Xena episode after that point.
B]
Aaaargh. I had completely forgotten that one. But then, the entire balancing act was completely ridiculous...
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2002 3:42 am
by Silur
Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Apologise to her from me, i didn't mean to cause her any torment They put this bit in that film with a superfast motorbike, i swear i just LMAO in the Cinema, it was so crap
She survived. She also thought that the film was complete crap
I kind of liked it, not having that high expectations. But then, I read Marvel comic books when I was a kid, she didn't. The motorbike, however, was ridiculous (although I wouldn't mind taking a ride on one that fast
). Given this new perspective, I must say LoTR isn't that bad
@Georgi: Moulin Rouge? Thanks for the tip. I'll see it. My guess it's on the theme "boy doesn't get girl". Have any tips on the "darth vader wins" genre?
@Fable & others: Amelie? I'll make a note of that one too.
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2002 5:38 am
by Maharlika
Looking through the eyes of a Tolkien purist...
...I'd definitely be disappointed with the movie. One of them the lack of characterization and development between the uncommon friendship between Legolas and Gimli. (I just loved that contest they had during the siege at Helm's Deep. )
I just had to enjoy the movie in another way. Boy did I love the cinematography. Suddenly I hear from my friends that the backpackers in Thailand are setting their eyes on New Zealand.
Let's toss some orcs and hunt some dwarves...*sigh!* that's Hollywood for you.