# Anti-LotR



## thegreatbuddha (Nov 13, 2002)

I recent;ly saw this movie, and for numerous reasons, I thought it was horrible.

Is there anybody else who shares this opinion?  It seems I am alone right now....


----------



## Crothian (Nov 13, 2002)

I'm curious as to what your numerious reasons are?  

I enjoyed it, not as much as many of my firends, but I think it's a fine movie.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 13, 2002)

It would help if you could constructively point out what is it about the movie (I assume you're talking about _Fellowship of the Ring_) that unimpress you, *thegreatbuddha.*


----------



## Dr Midnight (Nov 13, 2002)

i agree dewd it was TOTALY suckin lol. that stryder guy shooda been called "LAMER", and frodow was like "DODO" if you ask me. 
YEAHHHH!


----------



## Chain Lightning (Nov 13, 2002)

I loved the movie. Its good. 

But in my circle of friends I have:

-One that rates it about a 5 out of 10.
-Two that rate it about a 3 out of 10.

Those that give it the harshest criticism had the following to say as to what they thought hurt the film quality.

-Sweeping shots done at the wrong times made for bad viewing.
-Story pacing was horrible.
-No interest or care for characters like Merry and Pippin.
-Orcs die too easily.
-Not enough singing.
-No Tom Bombadil.
-Took too long to get the action. Who cares about the fairy stuff.

I've found that most dislikes kind of fall into the categories of either personal tastes, bias against any unfaithfulness from the book, or a misunderstanding as to how the LOTR story is being brought to us . 

Example: its not that the writer forgot to write an ending, its the fact that a viewer may not understand that he's only watching ACT 1 of a complete story). And that the pacing  does not follow standard Hollywood templates because its only part 1 of 3 and its off a book that wasn't entended to be a film. Merry and Pippin don't have much character development because again, it's only ACT 1. In the second act, we'll see more.  Some forget that they're only watching a third of a story. They are NOT watching the first story and waiting for two sequels. They are again....watching only a third. 

But anyways, I stray from the original topic. 'thegreatbuddha' , you're not alone. Others think it sucked too. I'm not one of them. But you're not alone.


----------



## Krug (Nov 13, 2002)

Has there ever been a movie that pleased 100% of its audiences? Even Citizen Kane and The Godfather I & II have people who abhor them. 

For LotR, there were those who knew nothing about the books, but loved the movie so much they watched it twice.


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Nov 13, 2002)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> *Those that give it the harshest criticism had the following to say as to what they thought hurt the film quality.
> 
> -Sweeping shots done at the wrong times made for bad viewing.
> -Story pacing was horrible.
> ...




1.  chalk this up to personal taste.  I thought they made the film more epic in scope

2.  I admit... people with short attention spans are doomed to misery in a movie that clocks in at over 90 minutes.  For those of us who have bladders like camels... length is a good thing.  I found myself wanting more after the movie ended.

3.  I have to agree with this one.  However, given that this movie is based on a book, characterizations have to be taken in context of the original work.  After all, the movie was written for fans of the book, who already known Merry and Pippin's characters well.  For those who haven't read the book, then the marginalization of the characters shouldn't detract from their enjoyment of the movie.

4.  Too quickly for what?  They fall over left and right in the book.  A comparison to any other work simply doesn't apply, since the movie is referencing a specific work of literature.

5.  Hmm... there was a dearth of singing.  That's why we have the extended edition.

6.  *sigh*  Whatever.  In fact, let's jump right to number 7.

7.  Took too long to get to the action?  This argument is totally at odds with both arguments 5 AND 6.  Singing and/or innane silliness with Bombadil would string out the journey to Rivendell even more.  You can't have it both ways.

Just my two pence.

-F


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 13, 2002)

TheGreatBudda started this thread by stating FOTR was a horrible film.
  He or she is entitled to his or her opinion.

  Now, I would like to ask TheGreatBudda why he or she disliked FOTR.
  Not so I can tear apart his or her reasons - reasons are reasons, and people are entitled to them - but because I am simply curious as to the Why.

  Chain Lightning, thanks for the info.  Good stuff there.  
  For those of us who loved the film, we have a chance to hear from those who did not like it, and why.
  Thanks for the insights.  (thumbs up)


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Nov 13, 2002)

Although I thought the film was OK, and I liked some aspects of it quite a bit, there are things about it I disliked quite a bit.

The pacing is, indeed, one of those things I disliked. Not that it was too long - it was paced _too quickly_ in many places. It was like watching a "Cliff's Notes" version of the Lord of the Rings, or reading one of those "Illustrated Classics" comics versions. This has everything to do with my having read the books well over a dozen times since I was 10 or 11, but I'm also a filmmaker (not a big deal, of course, but it's something I was traimed for over several years) and the film seemed "off" to me. What I mean, mostly, besides the obvious stuff where they compressed time to fit the film, was in scenes like at the Bucklebury Ferry - besides the scene being a mess editing-wise, I feel Jackson didn't have to ramp up the action as he did. Instead of going for the subtle horror of a cat-and-mouse pursuit, like in the book, he went for a Three Stooges-like chase. I feel the creeping horror of unknown pursuers, like it was portrayed in the book, would have been as, if not more, effective, and has been shown to work very well throughout the history of film. But, it seemed like the whole film was like that - in every instance, the action of the book was exaggerated greatly in the film - while it makes some sense to do so in some cases, to retain the interest of the viewers, it often gave the film a jarring feel, contrasting greatly with the sweeping vistas that Jackson showed.

There was too much screaming and crying. 

Along with this is the weird feeling that we're seeing "cameos" from some of the major characters - Elrond's looming into the shot and saying "Welcome to Rivendell, Frodo" made me laugh out loud. I thought it was silly. "Let's give a big hand to Elrond, ladies and gentlemen..." 

Elrond's whole "Men are stupid" shtick seemed bizarre to me, given that his _brother_ founded the race of Numenoreans. Sure, movie viewers wouldn't be aware of this, but Jackson is, and could have found a better way to color the character - like using, say, the anger and sternness he felt towards Aragorn for courting his daughter, which is _in the book_, unlike the animosity he shows to Men. That would have played quite well in the film, and helped bolster the Aragorn/Arwen subplot.

I didn't like that Saruman was actually a servant of Sauron in the film. I guess it makes some sense from a screenwriting standpoint, though it doesn't always work, for me.

I really disagree with Jackson's choice in making Arwen the one who confronted the Black Riders at the Ford of Bruinen, rather than Frodo. This was a great place to give Frodo something to do, to show his strength, to let him, and us, finally see what he was truly up against, since, especially in the film, he had been pretty nondescript - and Jackson gives the scene to a supproting character. 

Those are a few of the problems I had. The film was beautiful to look at, and I liked quite a bit of it - McKellan's portrayal of Gandalf seemed so right to me - but there are parts of it that drove me nuts. But, then, much of it probably comes from my having read the books so many times.


----------



## Eben (Nov 13, 2002)

How can a movie have both
-"not enough singing"
-"who cares about the fairy stuff"

Is it just me?
In the books the singing is during the "fairy parts" (sic)

Also: Tom Bombadil is the closest thing to a fairy in LotR


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 13, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *I really disagree with Jackson's choice in making Arwen the one who confronted the Black Riders at the Ford of Bruinen, rather than Frodo. This was a great place to give Frodo something to do, to show his strength, to let him, and us, finally see what he was truly up against, since, especially in the film, he had been pretty nondescript - and Jackson gives the scene to a supproting character. *




Oh, c'mon, fess up: we all know you're a Glorfindel fanboy. 


Watching the extended version last night, many things came through differently.  The pacing is definitely slower, for one thing.  The scene of Elrond and Aragorn at his mother's grave were interesting, to be sure.  I was amazed how many things from the book actually were filmed, in truth, like Aragorn singing the song of the Lady of Luthien, for example.  Of course, with the new length, I'll FINISH watching it tonight.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 13, 2002)

Singing, who really wants the singing?

I smell something foul about this thread.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Nov 13, 2002)

Sure, I'm a fan of Glorfindel, but I understand why he was replaced with Arwen, from a filmmaking standpoint. Still, even if he had been in the film, I would have objected to him being the one to confront the Nazgul at the Ford of Bruinen, for the same reasons I give above.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 13, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *Sure, I'm a fan of Glorfindel, but I understand why he was replaced with Arwen, from a filmmaking standpoint. Still, even if he had been in the film, I would have objected to him being the one to confront the Nazgul at the Ford of Bruinen, for the same reasons I give above. *




I see your point.  Personally, I liked that Arwen was given something important to do early on, especially since that's really the only thing she gets to do for quite a while, if at all.  We'll be given lots and lots of chances to see Frodo fight the good fight, but not so much for Arwen.  The extended version also gives all the hobbits more to do, so Frodo is more of a character by that point, which may have contributed to the choice.

I'm a little confused by your statement about Elrond's brother.  I guess I really need to read the Silmarillion soon, so I can understand the history.  The arrival of men upon middle-earth sounds like it was more complicated than I thought.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Nov 13, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *The pacing is, indeed, one of those things I disliked. Not that it was too long - it was paced too quickly in many places.
> 
> I didn't like that Saruman was actually a servant of Sauron in the film. I guess it makes some sense from a screenwriting standpoint, though it doesn't always work, for me.
> *




You need to see the extended version, Colonel.  I had the same feeling about the pacing - it was one of my few complaints.  The Extended version adds so many little things back in that flesh the characters out just a bit more and the "rushed" feeling is gone.

As for Saruman serving Sauron, in the book he was always playing both sides, and I think that's still the case, although it is not as clearly stated.  Remember in the movie, when Saruman asks who the Uruk-hai serve, he says "Saruman" not "Sauron."


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Nov 13, 2002)

In the book, he never felt he was serving Sauron _at all._ He was working on his own, more or less (at least he thought so), but had been corrupted by Sauron. In the movie, it was baldly stated he was working for Sauron, and seemed well aware of it himself.


----------



## Lizard (Nov 13, 2002)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> *
> 
> -No Tom Bombadil.
> -Took too long to get the action. Who cares about the fairy stuff.
> *




Does anyone see a contradiction here?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 13, 2002)

Lizard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Does anyone see a contradiction here? *




Maybe he meant it has the wrong type of fairy stuff?


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 13, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *In the book, he never felt he was serving Sauron at all. He was working on his own, more or less (at least he thought so), but had been corrupted by Sauron. In the movie, it was baldly stated he was working for Sauron, and seemed well aware of it himself. *




Yes, it was stated he was working for Sauron, but remember that this is just the first installment and there is not enough time to flesh everything out.  I think they will clearly identify his selfish motivations.  It was clear that he wanted the ring from the hobbits and he never said anything about handing it over to Sauron.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 13, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *I'm a little confused by your statement about Elrond's brother.  I guess I really need to read the Silmarillion soon, so I can understand the history.  The arrival of men upon middle-earth sounds like it was more complicated than I thought. *




Elrond and Elros were half-elves, the result of a union between an elf and a human, and as such, given the choice between being elves and living forever as immortals, and being men and dying to pass on to whatever Eru (i.e. God) had planned for them in the afterlife.

Elrond chose to be an elf. Elros chose to be a man and became the first King of Numenore. Elendil, Isildur and Aragorn were all descended form Elros.

As an aside, note that by the time of LotR, Elrond is at least 4,500 years old, so all of this happened a long time ago.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Nov 13, 2002)

Yes, but it's also worthwhile to note that for the elves, memory and dream is as vivid as actual reality, as mentioned in LotR, the book.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 13, 2002)

Lots of talk here with a lot more negative reaction than I saw when the movie itself came out.

So all it takes for you guys to turn on LOTR was a lone post from a troll that came running over from the Kalamar forum?


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Nov 13, 2002)

Did you assume that everybody who never said anything loved the film? If you actually noticed, you never saw me say much of anything about the movie one way or the other. I didn't "turn on" it; I was never really completely on board.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 13, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Lots of talk here with a lot more negative reaction than I saw when the movie itself came out.
> 
> So all it takes for you guys to turn on LOTR was a lone post from a troll that came running over from the Kalamar forum? *




Then I don't think you were paying much attention last December. 

I don't see anyone 'turning on' the movie.  The Colonel made his disagreement with some of the choices known plenty of times before this.  Moreover, I don't see him claiming he didn't like the film anywhere: just that there are things he would have done differently or didn't like the way they were done.  Hardly the same thing as an angry mob with pitchforks and torches.

I particularly recall people discussing how they thought that Merry and Pippin contributed little to the story in the movie, and how some folks thought the film too fast, and others too slow.  What's wrong with that?

I also remember folks going to see it three times in one week.  

To give the original poster the benefit of the doubt, he was summarizing more than one person's review...perhaps he was mixing their reasons together.

Just because I think it's one of the greatest films ever made doesn't mean others can't think differently.  Hell, I once knew a guy who thought 'Phantom of the Paradise' was the greatest film ever.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 13, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Lots of talk here with a lot more negative reaction than I saw when the movie itself came out.
> 
> So all it takes for you guys to turn on LOTR was a lone post from a troll that came running over from the Kalamar forum? *




Who cares if it was a troll or if the person was a Kalamar fan.  Actually, that post doesn't even matter anymore.  It's a good discusion on what people thought of the movie.  It's been most enjoyible.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Nov 13, 2002)

Good points, WizarDru. I also remember seeing some negative reviews of it last year. And, you are correct; I never said I disliked the film. I've also posted a number of times over the past year about what I didn't like.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Nov 13, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Who cares if it was a troll or if the person was a Kalamar fan.  Actually, that post doesn't even matter anymore.  It's a good discusion on what people thought of the movie.  It's been most enjoyible. *




I agree. 

The original poster gave no details as to what he disliked, and was criticized; I decided to give details (and I have more that I could post) and preempt any such criticism. I also thought it would be worthwhile to discuss something that, while it was flawed, I certainly liked. I think it's a closed and rigid mind that insists that something is flawless if it is liked.

Just don't ask me to critique a film I really hate, like The Fifth Element.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 13, 2002)

First let me say I realy liked the movie, saw it only three times in the theater though.  Dispite this I will also say it wasn't perfect for me. Mostly I understand why Jackson did what he did, the few things I disagree with have partly been covered already. Several are taken care of in the SE but some can not be.

I agree with the criticism that the chase to the ford could have been less frantic. Overall minor.

Not mentioned yet is that Aragorn somehow has a bag of swords to give to the hobbits at Weathertop. Where did they come from? I know in the book they came from the barrows but this was cut altogether and I understand why. Surerly they could have given some explanation. Overall the only loose thread that disturbed me. 

Mentioned already is Arwen and the ford. My problem is not the replaceing of Gorfingel with Arwen, but rather the implication that she is somehow responsible for the flood. She is not, Frodo is not, Gorfingal is not. This was all Elrond, with Gandolf doing theatrics with the waves. That it is Elrond is important since it shows the control he has over Rivendell and why everyone is safe there. The reason he was able to do it need not be mentioned in the film (He has one of the elven rings) but the fact that he can is important. 

Lastly the thing that iritaded me was the discussion of whether to go through Moria or not. What was wrong with keeping everone arguing the points they made in the books rather than mixing everthing up. Minor but confusing to Tolkien fans.

well there is my .02 cents. Just because I find a few flaws doesn't make it a bad film. I would give it a 95%. Now if you want a bad adaptation to film watch The Scarlet Letter with Demi Moore, but I warn you that you will want those 2 hours of your life back.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 13, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Lots of talk here with a lot more negative reaction than I saw when the movie itself came out.
> 
> So all it takes for you guys to turn on LOTR was a lone post from a troll that came running over from the Kalamar forum? *




That this thread was a troll is of no doubt, I commented subtley on this earlier.  If it was not a troll, the original poster would have or should have come back to discuss the movie and reasons. The opening statement was to bait people.  

The beauty of the troll is that it did not work, instead of hurtling opinions, people posted logical statements.  It is actually one of the better current threads on the movie (which I loved).


----------



## Sulimo (Nov 13, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *Not mentioned yet is that Aragorn somehow has a bag of swords to give to the hobbits at Weathertop. Where did they come from? I know in the book they came from the barrows but this was cut altogether and I understand why. Surerly they could have given some explanation. Overall the only loose thread that disturbed me.
> 
> Mentioned already is Arwen and the ford. My problem is not the replaceing of Gorfingel with Arwen, but rather the implication that she is somehow responsible for the flood. She is not, Frodo is not, Gorfingal is not. This was all Elrond, with Gandolf doing theatrics with the waves. That it is Elrond is important since it shows the control he has over Rivendell and why everyone is safe there. The reason he was able to do it need not be mentioned in the film (He has one of the elven rings) but the fact that he can is important. *




I really didnt like the Rivendell scenes at all. Especially the council scene, which is among my alltime fave scenes in the book. Even Bakshi did that scene better imo...same with the Weathertop scene.

And the wierd changes to Aragorns motivations. Ironically, my fave Rivendell stuff was probably the Arwen/Aragorn scenes.

*



			Lastly the thing that iritaded me was the discussion of whether to go through Moria or not. What was wrong with keeping everone arguing the points they made in the books rather than mixing everthing up. Minor but confusing to Tolkien fans.
		
Click to expand...


*
And the strangeness (I felt) of Gimli expecting a thriving Dwarven community in Moria.

Actually, I generally felt the characterisation of Gimli was bad. More like the Dwarf from the D&D film than Gimli from the novel.

That said I really did like it, althoug it isnt the best adaption..the BBC radio-play easily holds that honour. I'm hoping the extended version will solve some of the issues I have with the original cut (it sounds like it solves the pacing issues at least).

Given the focus on action though, I am wondering if my fave scene from TTT, the parley with Saruman, will survive intact. Still, I'll be there on day one.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 14, 2002)

Sulimo said:
			
		

> *Actually, I generally felt the characterisation of Gimli was bad. More like the Dwarf from the D&D film than Gimli from the novel.
> *




Well, it isn't like they left much Gimli in to work with.  Has anyone actually counted how many lines he had?


----------



## Sulimo (Nov 14, 2002)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, it isn't like they left much Gimli in to work with.  Has anyone actually counted how many lines he had? *




Hehe. Yeah I guess. Most of his lines were the silly one-liners Jackson inserted, like 'nobody tosses a Dwarf' *shudder*


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 14, 2002)

Sulimo said:
			
		

> *That said I really did like it, althoug it isnt the best adaption..the BBC radio-play easily holds that honour. I'm hoping the extended version will solve some of the issues I have with the original cut (it sounds like it solves the pacing issues at least).*




I like the BBC radio-play, but there are some serious groaners in there, too.  Gollum's capture at the very beginning, for example.  It is the most faithful to the books, but the limitations of radio play were full in my mind while listening.  Moria, for example, didn't translate at all well, in my mind....while I would have paid the price of admission JUST for the Moria scene in the theatrical version.  That and the fact that, to me, half the voice actors sounded like the same guy.  I know it wasn't...but I was suprised how many actors WERE in it.  Michael Horden, though, ranks third in Gandalfs, in my mind.  First is Ian McKellen, who has become as Jeremy Brett is to Sherlock Holmes, in my mind.  Second is John Hurt.

I also tend to think many people overlook the fact that they come to LotR with certain expectations that non-fans simply won't have.  The Colonel touched on this, in that he recognizes that he is somewhat biased about certain parts of the story.  It is clearly one of his favorite works.  That doesn't make his standard unreasonable...but I found I enjoyed 'Fellowship' more the first time than the second.  This was because I wasn't running the book through my mind as I watched it: I merely enjoyed the film as a casual viewer.  I was no longer watching with baited breath, hoping against hope that it was as good as I wanted, nay dreamed it would be.  

The extended version only enhances my view of the movie.  Whether we acknowledge it or not, we are hardcore fans, and we had certain desires and expectations.  It's only natural that some should be disappointed.  This LotR was not necessarily THEIR LotR.  I could defend the movie, but it doesn't need my help.  I find it amazing the Jackson and his vast team could make such a hurdle, and get this film made at all, let alone with such quality.  Perhaps one day we'll see another interpetation...but I doubt it.  I think this version will be the quintessential one.

And for the record, the audience laughed at the dwarf-tossing line at every showing I went to.  Taste obviously varies.  [well, that, and someone always let out a 'woo-hoo' whenever Bilbo talked about Old Toby ]


----------



## Sulimo (Nov 14, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *And for the record, the audience laughed at the dwarf-tossing line at every showing I went to.  Taste obviously varies.  [well, that, and someone always let out a 'woo-hoo' whenever Bilbo talked about Old Toby ] *




True. I was also one of the few who groaned when Yoda started leaping about like an anime character in Episode II.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Nov 14, 2002)

I've fully embraced that I have decades worth of preconceptions that come from reading the books. I've tried to weed out any criticisms that stem from that, or at least acknowledge them openly, and stick with ones that deal with the film in and of itself, except where I saw no reason for the book to have been changed in its translation to the screen. 

The point made about Arwen and the flooding of the Ford of Bruinen is one I forgot to mention. On one hand, I see that Jackson was trying to make Arwen a very powerful, active character. On the other hand, there is a point where one has to decide how true to Tolkien one wishes to stay. Brown Jenkin seems to have found an interesting point to address that relates to this. Jackson is willing to alter things quite a bit, including to the point of taking away important moments from some characters to give them to others. Tolkien has been criticized, and I believe rightly, for his lack of female characters, and putting onto pedestals - and, in the case of Arwen, he does this literally - the few he does have. Modern commercial films stress the need for the love interest as well as strong female leads. So, Jackson was presented with a dilemma. He had to make some bold choices, which I admire him for making, but with which I disagree. 

So, what would I have done, if I had the ability to do a Lord of the Rings film project? Personally, I would have tried to do it like a TV show, with several one or two hour episodes, and covered the books faithfully. Realistically, a project like this would likely never get made, but it's what I would like to have done, if I had a Ring of Three Wishes.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 14, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *So, what would I have done, if I had the ability to do a Lord of the Rings film project? Personally, I would have tried to do it like a TV show, with several one or two hour episodes, and covered the books faithfully. Realistically, a project like this would likely never get made, but it's what I would like to have done, if I had a Ring of Three Wishes. *




In a perfect world, that would have been nice, I agree.  I'm curious, Colonel, how do you rate the BBC radio production?  There are some things I think it does much better, such as Gimli's song about Khazad-dum, which seemed hollow to me on the page, but haunting and introspective when sung in verse.  

I personally would be afraid of staying too faithful to the written word.  My first impression of the 1st Harry Potter movie was that it was just that...too faithful.  And yet, it didn't seem quite right.  Later watchings softenend my opinion, and I view the film in a better light than my initial screening...but I still think that Columbus should have taken more liberties to accomodate the differences between written word and visual presentation.

There are some images in the movie that convey meaning to me as well as paragraphs of text.  The visual of the ring dropping to the floor with a heavy thud and landing without a bounce (as if possessed of much greater weight) is a powerful image.  The music, sound and visual all combine to create a metaphor I liked.  This is where I think the movie excelled.  Covering much of the lore and myth was something I thought the BBC did better, as they had more time to bother explaining about Caradhras the Cruel, as Gimli calls it.   Of course, I don't always think that Tolkien's pacing was that good in the books, but that's another story.


----------



## Henry (Nov 14, 2002)

Let me state that as someone who never could finish the books at all, I loved the movie. It brought the story to life in a way the books never could for me. We are very fortunate that those same works of beautiful prose from Tolkien serve as infinite flavor for Peter Jackson's scripts, whether you liked his vision or not - you can't say he didn't have enough material to work from.

I still hold that these three will be known as the best fantasy movie of all time (for now). The RPG community was NEVER had a movie that everyone could point to and say, "this is what my D&D sessions are like for me." The kinds of emotions this movie invokes in me are the kinds of emotions invoked in a very good RPG session.

This is why I like it.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 14, 2002)

1. It was rather obvious that Strider was there waiting for them. Logic says a group of Hobbits leaving the Shire are not going to be armed so he better bring weapons for them.

2. Arwen clearly tells Aragorn that she will be safe if she can cross the river. I believe the line from the movie was "The magic of my people will protect me." So anyone who listens carefully knows it is not Arwen defeating the Nazgul but instead Arwen callign forth a power already there in the land.

3. Does it matter what the arguements are? I have read the book multiple times and even I cannot remember everyones exact arguements beyond the fact that Gandalf did not want to go but would not clearly say why.





			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> Not mentioned yet is that Aragorn somehow has a bag of swords to give to the hobbits at Weathertop. Where did they come from? I know in the book they came from the barrows but this was cut altogether and I understand why. Surerly they could have given some explanation. Overall the only loose thread that disturbed me.
> 
> Mentioned already is Arwen and the ford. My problem is not the replaceing of Gorfingel with Arwen, but rather the implication that she is somehow responsible for the flood. She is not, Frodo is not, Gorfingal is not. This was all Elrond, with Gandolf doing theatrics with the waves. That it is Elrond is important since it shows the control he has over Rivendell and why everyone is safe there. The reason he was able to do it need not be mentioned in the film (He has one of the elven rings) but the fact that he can is important.
> ...


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 14, 2002)

Someone save us from the attacks of PC on classical literature. 

I do believe Eowyn in the third book would argue with all women being on a pedestal. She didnt slaw the Lord of the Nazgul and nearly die herself whole sitting on one.




			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *Tolkien has been criticized, and I believe rightly, for his lack of female characters, and putting onto pedestals  *


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 14, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *1. It was rather obvious that Strider was there waiting for them. Logic says a group of Hobbits leaving the Shire are not going to be armed so he better bring weapons for them.*





Yes but how was he to expect _four_ hobbits. Merry and Pippen were linked up with Sam and Frodo by accident in the Shire. How did Aragorn divine that this would happen before he left for Bree and rememebr to take along four swords and not two?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 14, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *1. It was rather obvious that Strider was there waiting for them. Logic says a group of Hobbits leaving the Shire are not going to be armed so he better bring weapons for them.*




Sure, but why not arm them imediately in Bree. There was definitely enough danger in Bree. Why carry a bag of swords for so far yourself. Surely Pippen would have been courious enough to ask about them earlier. I just felt it wasn't handled that clearly. but as I said minor. 



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *2. Arwen clearly tells Aragorn that she will be safe if she can cross the river. I believe the line from the movie was "The magic of my people will protect me." So anyone who listens carefully knows it is not Arwen defeating the Nazgul but instead Arwen callign forth a power already there in the land.*




It is not the magic of her people or of the land, it is the magic of her father. I felt it was important to the story that Elrond was a badass himself and that it was HIS protection that kept them safe. Yes elves are powerfull, but there are only two who are that powerful: Elrond and Galadriel and that is because they each wear a ring of power. The power of the land of Rivendell and Lothlorien is derived from the rings, and the reason that Lothlorien will die is not because Galadriel will leave but beacuse her ring will lose its power when the one is destroyed.  Gandolf has the third but it is unclear whether his magic is because of it or his heritage. It is possible to have Arwen be a strong character without this. Would it have been so bad if she had called out "Father we need your help" or something similar. 



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *3. Does it matter what the arguements are? I have read the book multiple times and even I cannot remember everyones exact arguements beyond the fact that Gandalf did not want to go but would not clearly say why.
> *




No it does not matter, but I suspect that I was not the only Tolkien fan who was confused by this. What was Jacksons reason for mixing this all up?

Edit: Silly quote boxes not working right


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 14, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes but how was he to expect _four_ hobbits. Merry and Pippen were linked up with Sam and Frodo by accident in the Shire. How did Aragorn divine that this would happen before he left for Bree and rememebr to take along four swords and not two? [/B]




He may have had a small stash of supplies in the area.  You never know when you will need a quick meal and a few extra weapons.


----------



## Victim (Nov 14, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes but how was he to expect _four_ hobbits. Merry and Pippen were linked up with Sam and Frodo by accident in the Shire. How did Aragorn divine that this would happen before he left for Bree and rememebr to take along four swords and not two? [/B]




Maybe he had some weapons as backups for Frodo and Sam.  It's not other characters restrict themselves to only one weapon each, right.  

Or he expected Frodo and Sam to quickly catch on to the native  halfing combat style of ranger-rogue dual wielding sneak attacks of death.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 14, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Someone save us from the attacks of PC on classical literature.
> 
> I do believe Eowyn in the third book would argue with all women being on a pedestal. She didnt slaw the Lord of the Nazgul and nearly die herself whole sitting on one.
> 
> ...




I hearlily agree, but at the same time disagree. Yes Eowyn proves to be quite a kickass girl herself but this does not show until the third book. The first book is almost compleately lacking in female characters, and all are just minor love interests. The most notable one was even cut since she is with Tom Bombadill. (I miss Tom but I agree with Jackson's decision, unless you want a 5 hour movie some things need to go). Arwin doesn't even show up in the main text of the Fellowship, she is relegated to the apendix. Pulling Arwin from the apendix to the main story doesn't bother me since its not as if Jackson was just making it up, and I think it does add somewhat to the story. 

Back to Eowyn though. While she turns out to be a great fighter, even in book two she is nothing more than a female love interest. She never fights, is sent packing with the women and children durring the battle of Helms Deep,  and spends most of her time mooning over Aragorn. It will be interesting to see what Jackson does with her and with Arwin in the TT. 

I agree that we shouldn't make LotR PC but so far I think Jackson has not crossed the line. We will see if I am wrong when TT is released.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Nov 14, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Someone save us from the attacks of PC on classical literature.
> 
> I do believe Eowyn in the third book would argue with all women being on a pedestal. She didnt slaw the Lord of the Nazgul and nearly die herself whole sitting on one.
> 
> ...




First, it has nothing to do with being PC. It has everything to do with the female characters he presents being boring. Can you honestly say that any of those characters, _ as written in the narrative_, bereft of the backstory available in other sources like the appendices or the Silmarillion, are interesting? I can't. Tolkien's male characters are a lot more interesting and fleshed out.

The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt is to accuse someone of being PC. You're better than that, Doc. If you've read anything I've ever posted, you know I'm not necessarily PC. So if you really want a discussion, don't continue with the insults. I respect your opinion, having read what you've posted over the time you've posted here.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 14, 2002)

He does rule the Rangers does he not? One word off screen and the weapons could easily be supplied to him.




			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes but how was he to expect _four_ hobbits. Merry and Pippen were linked up with Sam and Frodo by accident in the Shire. How did Aragorn divine that this would happen before he left for Bree and rememebr to take along four swords and not two? [/B]


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 14, 2002)

It has everything to do with being PC. You want to rewrite the book because it doesnt jive with your idea of balanced gender roles.

I again point to Eowyn and ask how she is a mere showpiece.




			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *
> 
> First, it has nothing to do with being PC. It has everything to do with the female characters he presents being boring. Can you honestly say that any of those characters,  as written in the narrative, bereft of the backstory available in other sources like the appendices or the Silmarillion, are interesting? I can't. Tolkien's male characters are a lot more interesting and fleshed out.
> 
> The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt is to accuse someone of being PC. You're better than that, Doc. If you've read anything I've ever posted, you know I'm not necessarily PC. So if you really want a discussion, don't continue with the insults. I respect your opinion, having read what you've posted over the time you've posted here. *


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Nov 14, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Someone save us from the attacks of PC on classical literature.
> 
> I do believe Eowyn in the third book would argue with all women being on a pedestal. She didnt slaw the Lord of the Nazgul and nearly die herself whole sitting on one.
> 
> ...




Regarding Eowyn - you are taking the "pedestal" thing literally. Eowyn, like the other female characters, are cold and distant, or at least that's how Tolkien wrote them. 

By the way, Tolkien isn't an ancient Greek or Roman, so LotR isn't classical literature.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Nov 14, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *It has everything to do with being PC. You want to rewrite the book because it doesnt jive with your idea of balanced gender roles.
> 
> I again point to Eowyn and ask how she is a mere showpiece.
> 
> ...




You're putting words in my mouth. It has nothing to do with gender roles; it has to do with being interesting characters. I don't want to rewrite anything. Just because I've read the book a dozen times or more doesn't mean that I think it's flawless. 

Look, I see no point in a flame war getting started. If you want to discuss this without name-calling, cool. If not, then - you're right. You win. My opinion is wrong.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 14, 2002)

Come on now, no personal fighting. I was enjoying this thread and its discussions and would hate to see it shut down over personal bickering. I think both of you make good arguements so lets keep to the point and leave the personal stuff out.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Nov 14, 2002)

I'm more than happy to discuss the subject, which I was doing. I simply don't see the need to sit and take being insulted. I'm not doing it to anyone else, and I don't expect it to be done to me. Doc's an intelligent poster, and I enjoy reading his stuff, as I've said.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Nov 14, 2002)

Rather than have this thread turn into a flame war, I'll just bow out of it, and lurk rather than post. I apologize for the interruption; please continue as before.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 14, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *I'm more than happy to discuss the subject, . *




OK then. I know it isn't out yet, but how far do you think Jackson can go in TTT before crossing the line into rewriting. I personal will be irritaded if either Arwin or Eowyn end up fighting in the battle of Helm's deep. I know Arwin is supposed to make another aprearence with Aragorn's sword. If Jackson puts either of them in the battle though I will begin to lose some respect for him. It is one thing to beef up characters using secondary sources, and I can even forgive replacing Gorfingal to give Arwin more screen time, but rewiting to this extent would not be good.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 14, 2002)

Writing and moving making are about creating a good story. 

Having certain characters fight in a scene is not going to change the enjoyment of the story for me.  The extra screen time may allow viewers to learn more about the characters.  Information they may learn in the books but that is otherwise not translated into any other part of the movie.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 14, 2002)

But this is not who thier characters are. 

Arwin is very much the romantic, not a fighter. She is the softer side to Aragorn. In the books she does not touch the weapons but rather sews the banner that rallies the troops.  If you make her a fighter you are changing who she is. It would be like making Pippen sensitive and wise (yes he gets wiser at the end but that is character development)

Eowyn defintely has a stronger edge to her, but she is pushed there. It is only with the death of her brother that she even has a presumption that she will have any power. It was by being forced into the mountains with the women and children that she became irritated with the situation enough to think about sneaking off with the army. No in book two we have the moonstruck girl who will later grow into the strong woman she is in book III.


----------



## Storminator (Nov 14, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *It is not the magic of her people or of the land, it is the magic of her father. I felt it was important to the story that Elrond was a badass himself and that it was HIS protection that kept them safe. Yes elves are powerfull, but there are only two who are that powerful: Elrond and Galadriel and that is because they each wear a ring of power. The power of the land of Rivendell and Lothlorien is derived from the rings, and the reason that Lothlorien will die is not because Galadriel will leave but beacuse her ring will lose its power when the one is destroyed.  Gandolf has the third but it is unclear whether his magic is because of it or his heritage. It is possible to have Arwen be a strong character without this. Would it have been so bad if she had called out "Father we need your help" or something similar.
> *




This is a bit of an esoteric point, but in LotR it's quite hard to divorce the power of an individual from the power of the land he/she inhabits. The powerful remake the land in their own image. We see that clearest with Mordor, and with Rivendell and Lorien. But Saruman, Bombadil, Cirdan Shipwright, the Paths of the Dead, Shelob's Lair, Fangorn, etc, are all places were powerful individuals make powerful places.

In fact, Gandalf is the ONLY powerful wanderer in the series, and it's enough to grant him a couple of names: Grey Pilgrim and Grey Wanderer.

In light of this, calling on Elrond's magic and the magic of the land are identical.

Of course, that's the book talking, and not the film. I'm pretty sure no one gets any of that from the film.

PS


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 14, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *Eowyn defintely has a stronger edge to her, but she is pushed there. It is only with the death of her brother that she even has a presumption that she will have any power.*




Eowyn's brother does not die. Eowyn is sister to Eomer, who surivies the books and becomes King of the Riddermark.

Her cousin, Theodred dies, but that is off-stage. Her uncle, Theoden dies, but that is later in the story.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 14, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *Arwin doesn't even show up in the main text of the Fellowship, she is relegated to the apendix. Pulling Arwin from the apendix to the main story doesn't bother me since its not as if Jackson was just making it up, and I think it does add somewhat to the story.*





Umm, no, Arwen (spelled with an "e", not an "i")  shows up in Rivendell in FotR, she even has some lines where she talks to Frodo.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 14, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *He does rule the Rangers does he not? One word off screen and the weapons could easily be supplied to him.*




Maybe, but we didn't see any other rangers at all, and they aren't even implied in the book that he comes across any at any point between Bree and Rivendell. It is an unexplained plot hole that could have easily been handled better. It's not that big of a deal, but it is odd.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 14, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Maybe, but we didn't see any other rangers at all, and they aren't even implied in the book that he comes across any at any point between Bree and Rivendell. It is an unexplained plot hole that could have easily been handled better. It's not that big of a deal, but it is odd. *




It is a hole in the plot, but is not really noticable except by dopes like us who over analyze movies


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 14, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Umm, no, Arwen (spelled with an "e", not an "i")  shows up in Rivendell in FotR, she even has some lines where she talks to Frodo. [/B]




My appologies on the spelling, I am not at home and a bad speller anyway. Spellcheck is my friend. I don't remember her apearence but it has been a year since I read the book and apparently it was not very memorable (at least to me).


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 14, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Eowyn's brother does not die. Eowyn is sister to Eomer, who surivies the books and becomes King of the Riddermark.
> 
> Her cousin, Theodred dies, but that is off-stage. Her uncle, Theoden dies, but that is later in the story. *




I stand corrected. I am a little confused right now. The whole Eomer being out of favor with Theoden is unclear right now. But my main point is still stands. Book II: Eowyn is facinated with Aragorn and I still feel that it was in part her being kept from the action that gives her the motivation to sneak along to the main battle. I am less concerned with changes to her than Arwen though.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 14, 2002)

Storminator said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is a bit of an esoteric point, but in LotR it's quite hard to divorce the power of an individual from the power of the land he/she inhabits. The powerful remake the land in their own image. We see that clearest with Mordor, and with Rivendell and Lorien. But Saruman, Bombadil, Cirdan Shipwright, the Paths of the Dead, Shelob's Lair, Fangorn, etc, are all places were powerful individuals make powerful places.
> 
> ...




Yes the powerful remake the land in thier image, but mostly they do that through normal physical means. The power that is Rivendell and Lorien however is explicitly stated as being the power of the rings and those that control them. It is Elrond (or Gandolf I don't remember exactly) who states that he (Elrond) made the flood. Even more to the point of it not being the powerfull who control the land but rather the rings they weild however is Galadrial's sadness in not being able to see Lothlorien in the summer or fall again since with the passing of the ring will come the passing of the forest as she knows it. The Eternal spring (or something to that effect) that is Lothlorien is directly tied to the rings of power. 

Bombadill on the other hand does not remake the land, he is the land. Older than even the earth, Bombadill may talk and control individual creatures, but he revells in the land as it is. Otherwise the old forest would be alot nicer pace than it is.

Gandolf however is not the only powerfull wanderer. All the wizards but Sauruman are wanderers. It is Gandolf who is the only powerful wanderer who gets directly involved in the lives of the people.


----------



## Storminator (Nov 14, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I stand corrected. I am a little confused right now. The whole Eomer being out of favor with Theoden is unclear right now. But my main point is still stands. Book II: Eowyn is facinated with Aragorn and I still feel that it was in part her being kept from the action that gives her the motivation to sneak along to the main battle. I am less concerned with changes to her than Arwen though. *




Eowyn pines for Aragorn, but that's not why she stays out of the action. Maintaining the king's household while the men are in the field is her duty, and performing that duty is what keeps her out of the action. 

She sneaks along with the army because she A) doesn't want to stay back (she has a whole speech about being caged), and B) assumes Aragorn dies on the Paths of the Dead. In other words, she has nothing to live for, and doesn't want to die without valor.

Incidently, I just reread the Battle of the Pelenor Fields, and Damn! I can't wait for that scene!

PS


----------



## Storminator (Nov 14, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *Yes the powerful remake the land in thier image, but mostly they do that through normal physical means. The power that is Rivendell and Lorien however is explicitly stated as being the power of the rings and those that control them. It is Elrond (or Gandolf I don't remember exactly) who states that he (Elrond) made the flood. Even more to the point of it not being the powerfull who control the land but rather the rings they weild however is Galadrial's sadness in not being able to see Lothlorien in the summer or fall again since with the passing of the ring will come the passing of the forest as she knows it. The Eternal spring (or something to that effect) that is Lothlorien is directly tied to the rings of power. *



Not quite right. The continued precense of the powerful changes the land, and redefines it. It isn't just physical changes. It isn't just the pollution that makes Mordor a poisonous wasteland, it's that Sauron lives there.

It is true that Elrond and Galadrial have tied their lands fates to the rings, but those were both powerful places before the rings were used.

(I'm not arguing with you on Elrond creating the flood, I'm saying that calling on the magic of the land is, by extension, calling on Elrond's magic. The two are the same.)



> *
> Bombadill on the other hand does not remake the land, he is the land. Older than even the earth, Bombadill may talk and control individual creatures, but he revells in the land as it is. Otherwise the old forest would be alot nicer pace than it is.
> *



Bombadil is the master of his land. That is explicitly stated. It is certain that area around Bombadil's home has a different character than nearby land. It's not because of what he's doing, it's because he's being.



> *
> Gandolf however is not the only powerfull wanderer. All the wizards but Sauruman are wanderers. It is Gandolf who is the only powerful wanderer who gets directly involved in the lives of the people. *




Gandalf and Saruman are an order of magnitude above the other wizards. In the order of wizards there is Saruman, there is Gandalf, and there are the rest. Than means Gandalf is the only powerful wanderer. He's not the only powerful character, he's not the only wanderer, but he's the only one that's both.

PS


----------



## Black Omega (Nov 15, 2002)

Not to be disagreeable, but...

My impression from the movie wasn't that Arwen caused the flood.  she looked at the water, said some chants and the water level rose.  And then this huge violent flood comes rushing around the corner and she looks over, startled, apparently not expecting that.  For people not familiar with the book it's easy to overlook.  For people familiar with the book and expecting Eleond to cause the flood, it's not at odds with that.  It could have been made more obvious, of course.


----------



## Tharkun (Nov 15, 2002)

Was the Cave Troll actually in the book?  I don't remember but maybe it was an added bit.


----------



## Villano (Nov 15, 2002)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> *I loved the movie. Its good.
> 
> But in my circle of friends I have:
> 
> ...





When I saw the film, I thought it was just okay.  I don't regret seeing it, but I probably won't watch it again.

As a person who didn't love the movie, I have to agree with the points above.  I'd also add that I felt that the music was too intrusive.

I honestly don't think that Jackson did that great a job on the film.  The sweeping shots combined with the music made everything look ham-handed to me. 

I also have to say that I hated the actor who portrayed the elf king.  When I saw The Matrix, I wondered why he portrayed his character in such a weird way.  Now I realize that that's really him!

P.S.  Please don't flame me!   I swear that, after the movie came out, there was a discussion on another website and all I said was, "I liked the film, but I didn't love it" and the next thing I know, I'm accused of being a Steven Seagal fan, hating Citizen Kane, having a short attention span, and not wanting to watch any movie that doesn't feature explosions every 2 minutes.  Seriously.


----------



## tmaaas (Nov 15, 2002)

Tharkun said:
			
		

> *Was the Cave Troll actually in the book?  I don't remember but maybe it was an added bit. *




Yes, it was, but it didn't play quite as visible a role as in the movie.

In the book, the Fellowship was attempting to close the door to Balin's Tomb and keep out the horde of orcs. The cave troll started to force it open. During this process, Boromir took a swing at it, but instead of hurting the troll, his sword was notched (showing the troll’s invulnerability to normal weapons). Frodo then stabbed it in the foot with Sting, which easily penetrated the troll’s skin and injured it. The troll withdrew momentarily, allowing the heroes to close and barricade the door. Gandalf then put a spell on the door which would keep it closed, but then the balrog appeared and broke Gandalf’s spell and so on.

Disclaimer: this is all by memory. I may have some details wrong.


----------



## Welverin (Nov 15, 2002)

Villano said:
			
		

> *P.S.  Please don't flame me!   I swear that, after the movie came out, there was a discussion on another website and all I said was, "I liked the film, but I didn't love it" and the next thing I know, I'm accused of being a Steven Seagal fan, hating Citizen Kane, having a short attention span, and not wanting to watch any movie that doesn't feature explosions every 2 minutes.  Seriously. *




They just confused you with me.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 15, 2002)

To: Villano and Welverin:

Can't you two apreciate a good movie like this or Citizen Kane or do you only like Steven Segal movies designed for people with short attention spans that need explosions every two minutes. 

 

But really, I can understand the pacing issue, but that is the story as Tolkien wrote it. It moves slow, tking almost 3/4 of the book until Moria. This might be somewhat remidied in the special edition, but to change the pacing greatly would have ruined it for all the Tolkien fans. I nover realy noticed the music didn't at all. 

Overall I was too hung up on the book the first time I watched it, but the second and third times were much more enjoyable as I was able to allow the movie to speak for itself.

Just currious however on how someone would give it a 3/10. That would put it down there with some real stinkers. Even if you don't think its great, I am currious how it would fall into the bottom of movies released this year?


----------



## Welverin (Nov 15, 2002)

*Nothing gets between me and a bad joke!*



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *To: Villano and Welverin:
> 
> Can't you two apreciate a good movie like this or Citizen Kane or do you only like Steven Segal movies designed for people with short attention spans that need explosions every two minutes.
> 
> *




no fightin', no 'splosions, no bother.

Seriously: I like FotR, I've never seen Citizen Kane and would probably like it as long as it's not the biggest case of hype ever.

Oh and I can't think of a single part of LotR (the book) that I found boring.


----------



## Michael Tree (Nov 15, 2002)

I just watched the extended DVD, and it improved on the theatrical release in many ways, most predominantly by developing the characters and relationships much more.  In the theatre, Legolas and Gimli were somewhat cardboard, but with the addition of just a few lines here and there they become a lot more three dimensional.

Sadly, my two biggest criticisms of the film weren't fixed.  They are:
- Galadriel still turns into a cheaply rotoscoped cgi-monster who speaks incomprehensibly.  Jackson used subtle effects to tremendous effect with Gandalf and Bilbo, but went over the top here.  The effects pulled me out of the immersive experience.  I was no longer in Middle Earth, I was watching movie special effects.  Galadriel's "all shall love me and despair" speech is one of my favorites in the book, but even after reading the book I couldn't make out what she was saying in the movie. 

- The formulaic stairs action scene was completely unneccessary.  It added nothing but cheap hollywood cliche, and weakened the pacing and dramatic tension of the Balrog chase.


----------



## Replicant (Nov 16, 2002)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *I just watched the extended DVD, and it improved on the theatrical release in many ways, most predominantly by developing the characters and relationships much more.  In the theatre, Legolas and Gimli were somewhat cardboard, but with the addition of just a few lines here and there they become a lot more three dimensional.
> 
> Sadly, my two biggest criticisms of the film weren't fixed.  They are:
> - Galadriel still turns into a cheaply rotoscoped cgi-monster who speaks incomprehensibly.  Jackson used subtle effects to tremendous effect with Gandalf and Bilbo, but went over the top here.  The effects pulled me out of the immersive experience.  I was no longer in Middle Earth, I was watching movie special effects.  Galadriel's "all shall love me and despair" speech is one of my favorites in the book, but even after reading the book I couldn't make out what she was saying in the movie.
> ...




Wow, we must share the same mind, Mr. Tree.

I absolutely loved LOTR, its my favorite fantasy film of all time and its definitely in my top 5 favorite movies of all time.

That said, two jarring bits I didn't like were the exact two mentioned above.  Galadriel's transformation made me wince -- way too over the top. More subtlety (heck, ANY subtlety) would have dramatically improved this scene for me.

Two, the collapsing stairs miraculously falling into each other struck me as way too Indiana Jones-esque -- pulpy and out of place with the grim seriousness Jackson handled the rest of the combat/chase scenes.

However, the sheer brilliance of the rest of the film easily makes up for those pair of minor flaws.


----------



## Michael Tree (Nov 16, 2002)

Replicant said:
			
		

> *Wow, we must share the same mind, Mr. Tree.*



Or you're a cleverly-designed artificial copy of me. 



> *More subtlety (heck, ANY subtlety) would have dramatically improved this scene for me.*



Exactly.  Who did Peter Jackson think he was, George Lucas?  

I made the mistake of watching the Episode II DVD shortly after watching FotR.  Visually the two were a contrast between masterful subtle art and "throw some cgi at it, yeah, that'll make it good."



> *Two, the collapsing stairs miraculously falling into each other struck me as way too Indiana Jones-esque -- pulpy and out of place with the grim seriousness Jackson handled the rest of the combat/chase scenes.*



What really irritated me was that that scene was left in, but the Galadriel gift-giving scene was cut.  What were they thinking?

Now that the Galadriel scene has been put back, my biggest beef is that the bridge scene is in the middle of the DVD track, not a track of its own, so it's more difficult to skip.


----------



## Storminator (Nov 17, 2002)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *I made the mistake of watching the Episode II DVD shortly after watching FotR.  Visually the two were a contrast between masterful subtle art and "throw some cgi at it, yeah, that'll make it good."*




I'm sorry, maybe I should read this in the morning when I'm more awake. Which did you think was the good one?

PS


----------



## Michael Tree (Nov 17, 2002)

Storminator said:
			
		

> *I'm sorry, maybe I should read this in the morning when I'm more awake. Which did you think was the good one?
> *



You have to ask?  Fellowship of the Rings, of course.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 18, 2002)

I liked both versions of the movie, I'd give it 8/10, but that's probably the highest I'll ever give any movie 

I didn't like Galadriel at all, regardless of the CGI she just didn't strike me as correct.

The other thing that dragged the movie for me was the sappy music and drawn out attempt at emotion after Frodo got stabbed and Frodo got smashed and Gandalf took a flying leap. It was just too over the top for me.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 18, 2002)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> *I liked both versions of the movie, I'd give it 8/10, but that's probably the highest I'll ever give any movie
> 
> I didn't like Galadriel at all, regardless of the CGI she just didn't strike me as correct.
> 
> The other thing that dragged the movie for me was the sappy music and drawn out attempt at emotion after Frodo got stabbed and Frodo got smashed and Gandalf took a flying leap. It was just too over the top for me. *




Which show how tastes vary, as I thought exactly the opposite.  C'est la vie. 

I really like how the extended version adds so much to some characters.  I thought Boromir was well-represented in the theatrical release, but he's much better developed in the extended version.  Gimli lost a lot of ground in the theatrical release, as did Merry and Pippin, and Celeborn, for that matter.

So many good character moments.  I can't wait for 'The Two Towers' at this point.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 18, 2002)

Tharkun said:
			
		

> *Was the Cave Troll actually in the book?  I don't remember but maybe it was an added bit.*




There was a brief mention of a troll in the combat scene in Balin's Tomb, it thrusts its foot in the door and is stabbed by Frodo (with Sting).

But the "knocking Frodo out with a spear thrust" thing was done by an unusually large orc chieftain who knocked Aragorn and Boromir aside to attack Frodo.


----------



## Storminator (Nov 18, 2002)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *
> You have to ask?  Fellowship of the Rings, of course.  *




See? I should have just waited til morning. 

I was thrown by the parallelism of the paragraph: 1) good 2) bad: 1) Ep II 2) FotR

PS


----------



## Dinkeldog (Nov 18, 2002)

Let's see, a couple random thoughts...

The weapons on Weathertop:  Weathertop was a waystation for the Rangers.  Maybe they kept a few swords there as backup?

The stair scene:  I think the fundamental point there is that Gimli was not a team player and nearly doomed the Fellowship's quest.  If he'd let himself get thrown, Aragorn could have gotten Frodo and himself over, but oh, no, Mr. Stubborn-Stupid Dwarf can't do that.

Missing things: in the Extended Version, I would have rather had Celeborn start ranting at Gimli for causing Gandalf's death (or Frodo, for choosing the Moria road), and let Galadriel intercede.  That's what sets up Gimli's devotion to her--more than just a pretty face, but a beautiful, compassionate soul.

The first two times I saw Galadriel's transformation, I didn't like it so much.  Now I like it more.  Then again, as any professional musician nows, familiarity breeds acceptance.  Maybe I've just fallen to the artistic marketer's trick.


----------

