Slashdot Mirror
Review:Fellowship of the Ring
Everyone has expectations about this movie. I imagine most of you have read the books. You all have ideas about what a Balrog looks like. What Gandalf is like. And yes, hell, even what the ring should look like. And you simply can't expect a movie to meet everyones ideas... but this thing came just as close as I could have hoped.
In short, there aren't many great movies that come out any more... but this is one of them. Everyone seems nearly perfectly cast. The special effects are nothing short of brilliant. The sets from the Shire on out look so wonderful and believable that you just wanna move in... until the Ring Wraiths show up and make everything all miserable.
Elijah Woods pulls off Frodo quite well. Yeah maybe he fell down one to many times, but the angst is believable. And Gandalf? His desire for the ring is intense and his actions are truly heroic.
I can't imagine a film adaptation of perhaps the best book ever written being done better. The first 45 minutes are a bit slow going, but once the Fellowship starts coming together I just didn't want to blink.
I could find things to nitpick about: some scenes the audio mix wasn't quite right, but that could partially have been the mediocre sound system in the theater: dialog was a bit muffled under the music. Some of the effects were noticably CG, but those were rare. Quite frankly nobody has done CG monsters as convincingly in a film to date. There was a handful of shots that looked faked, and all the rest seemed as perfect as could be.
God damn. The hype is warranted. The wait was worth it. But 12 months for the next one? At least I have my copy of FFX to keep me occupied during maybe 40 hours of the next 8,760 or so I have to wait. But who's counting?
It's based on a 50-plus-year-old book. Whoever hasn't heard of the plot by now probably has been living under a rock. Why bother keeping it spoiler-free?
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
So is that how the books end - or was the movie just the first part of the story?
LoTR is good but not great. It does a great job of bringing a mainstream story to the silver screen, but it doesn't introduce any new concepts or demonstrate any real creativity. This makes it a good film. Go ahead and flame me for this.
Social Contract? I don't remember signing any Social Contract!
This one says:
For long sections of the film, I didn't take any notes; it's hard to scribble when your jaw is on the floor.
Da Blog
The trilogy enjoyed a resurgence in th 70's and the movie will give it another boost into the limelight again. I hope that this will always be a popular novel - a gateway into reading sci-fi/fantasy for many people. I gave it to my nephew and now he can't get enough of it.
..........FULL STOP.
The movie is amazing and I'm not gonna go into it. (Just see it)
But Liv Tyler gets on my nerves. How dumb can somebody look? Her elvish was annoying and really took me outta the movie.
Best book ever written??!?!
Tolkien was a professor of english and was especially interested in old english language. LotR is as much an exercise in language and a forum for Tolkien's own "retro" poetry as an epic novel, but if you haven't ever read a better book, maybe you should put down the O'reilly and take a literature class!
C'mon Taco... high time for a LOTR/Tolkien icon on slashdot methinks...
$6.21 is the number of the beast before sales tax. Meh.
We invest Hobbits with qualities that cannot be visualized. In my mind, they are good-hearted, bustling, chatty little creatures who live in twee houses or burrows, and dress like the merry men of Robin Hood--in smaller sizes, of course. They eat seven or eight times a day, like to take naps, have never been far from home and have eyes that grow wide at the sounds of the night. They are like children grown up or grown old, and when they rise to an occasion, it takes true heroism, for they are timid by nature and would rather avoid a fight.
Such notions about Hobbits can be found in "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," but the Hobbits themselves have been pushed off center stage. If the books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits. That is not true of every scene or episode, but by the end "Fellowship" adds up to more of a sword and sorcery epic than a realization of the more naive and guileless vision of J. R. R. Tolkien.
The Ring Trilogy embodies the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler time. The Hollywood that made "The Wizard of Oz" might have been equal to it. But "Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre--that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure--is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not.
Wondering if the trilogy could possibly be as action-packed as this film, I searched my memory for sustained action scenes and finally turned to the books themselves, which I had not read since the 1970s. The chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-Dum" provides the basis for perhaps the most sensational action scene in the film, in which Gandalf the wizard stands on an unstable rock bridge over a chasm, and must engage in a deadly swordfight with the monstrous Balrog. This is an exciting scene, done with state-of-the-art special effects and sound that shakes the theater. In the book, I was not surprised to discover, the entire scene requires less than 500 words.
Settling down with my book, the one-volume, 1969 India paper edition, I read or skimmed for an hour or so. It was as I remembered it. The trilogy is mostly about leaving places, going places, being places, and going on to other places, all amid fearful portents and speculations. There are a great many mountains, valleys, streams, villages, caves, residences, grottos, bowers, fields, high roads, low roads, and along them the Hobbits and their larger companions travel while paying great attention to mealtimes. Landscapes are described with the faithful detail of a Victorian travel writer. The travelers meet strange and fascinating characters along the way, some of them friendly, some of them not, some of them of an order far above Hobbits or even men. Sometimes they must fight to defend themselves or to keep possession of the ring, but mostly the trilogy is an unfolding, a quest, a journey, told in an elevated, archaic, romantic prose style that tests our capacity for the declarative voice.
Reading it, I remembered why I liked it in the first place. It was reassuring. You could tell by holding the book in your hands that there were many pages to go, many sights to see, many adventures to share. I cherished the way it paused for songs and poems, which the movie has no time for. Like The Tale of Genji, which some say is the first novel, "The Lord of the Rings" is not about a narrative arc or the growth of the characters, but about a long series of episodes in which the essential nature of the characters is demonstrated again and again (and again). The ring, which provides the purpose for the journey, serves Tolkien as the ideal MacGuffin, motivating an epic quest while mostly staying right there on a chain around Frodo Baggins' neck.
Peter Jackson, the New Zealand director who masterminded this film (and two more to follow, in a $300 million undertaking), has made a work for, and of, our times. It will be embraced, I suspect, by many Tolkien fans and take on aspects of a cult. It is a candidate for many Oscars. It is an awesome production in its daring and breadth, and there are small touches that are just right; the Hobbits may not look like my idea of Hobbits (may, indeed, look like full-sized humans made to seem smaller through visual trickery), but they have the right combination of twinkle and pluck in their gaze--especially Elijah Wood as Frodo and Ian Holm as the worried Bilbo.
Yet the taller characters seem to stand astride the little Hobbit world and steal the story away. Gandalf the good wizard (Ian McKellen) and Saruman the treacherous wizard (Christopher Lee) and Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), who is the warrior known as Strider, are so well-seen and acted, so fearsome in battle, that we can't imagine the Hobbits getting anywhere without them. The elf Arwen (Liv Tyler), the Elf Queen Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) and Arwen's father, Elrond (Hugo Weaving), are not small like literary elves ("very tall they were," the book tells us), and here they tower like Norse gods and goddesses, accompanied by so much dramatic sound and lighting that it's a wonder they can think to speak, with all the distractions.
Jackson has used modern special effects to great purpose in several shots, especially one where a massive wall of water forms and reforms into the wraiths of charging stallions. I like the way he handles crowds of Orcs in the big battle scenes, wisely knowing that in a film of this kind, realism has to be tempered with a certain fanciful fudging. The film is remarkably well made. But it does go on, and on, and on--more vistas, more forests, more sounds in the night, more fearsome creatures, more prophecies, more visions, more dire warnings, more close calls, until we realize this sort of thing can continue indefinitely. "This tale grew in the telling," Tolkien tells us in the famous first words of his foreword; it's as if Tolkien, and now Jackson, grew so fond of the journey, they dreaded the destination.
That "Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't match my imaginary vision of Middle-earth is my problem, not yours. Perhaps it will look exactly as you think it should. But some may regret that the Hobbits have been pushed out of the foreground and reduced to supporting characters. And the movie depends on action scenes much more than Tolkien did. In a statement last week, Tolkien's son Christopher, who is the "literary protector" of his father's works, said, "My own position is that 'The Lord of the Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form." That is probably true, and Jackson, instead of transforming it, has transmuted it, into a sword-and-sorcery epic in the modern style, containing many of the same characters and incident.
-RE
at 12:01 in a theatre will some of your closest friends. The whole time we were leaning forward with our mouths slackjawed, trying not to blink too much lest we miss something.
The one thing that was disappointing was the previews. Every one of them was flipped between cuts so fast that after 5 minutes or so, you felt like you were on speed. Thankfully, the opening credits to LOTR were calm, and unoverwhelming.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
My suitemates and I went to the midnight showing of Lord of the Rings yesterday at a local theater. I was totally impressed by the movie's accuracy. The Gates of Gondor were exactly as I had imagined them when reading the book. Wow.
However, two things made my experience not the best it could have been:
1. I half expected Elrond to say "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson"
2. The audio in our showing became out of synch with the movie during the battle at the Gates of Gondor. I can't believe that I had to sit through the death of Boromir with the audio lagging by 5 seconds!
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
At first I was dissapointed at the lack of Tom Bombadil (sp), but afterwords, I realzied he didn't play that big of a part, and it was probably good to cut the movie at 3 hours, instead of dragging it out. Thanks goes to the producers and screen play writers for thinking ahead...
Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
I haven't seen it yet, but from the previews Gandalf doesn't seem how I pictured him from the books. Physically yah he's pretty close (Except the hobbit clearly states the beard goes to his toes, but I imagine that could be annoying for the actor)
Perhaps it will flesh out more when I see the movie, but the previews made him look ultra-super serious which I don't think he was all the time. He was pretty mellow except in extremely serious situation. Especially that clip of him asking "Do you have the ring", it seemed too intense on the preview.
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
I saw it this morning at 12:01am at a very nice theatre. Didn't hear any of the music problems you mentioned, but that could just be that I was totally entranced by the visuals ;) The fight scenes were well done, the battlescenes breathtaking... I only noticed one or two obvious cg scenes, but they were still fairly well-done.
:)
Out of 10 stars, I'd rate it about a 9.5
Good job Peter Jackson =]
And I've got to grudgingly agree. The thing just kicked my ass and took it home in a box. In a very good way. I mean, I went to the showing expecting to hate Elijah Woods because of what a whiny little bitch he is, but his character got right in tune with the Hobbitt idea that I had cooked up in my brain after about the tenth reading of the trilogy.
I've already got tickets to see it again tonight. woo!
Brant
Argle. Bargle.
This counts as a review?
No kidding it was spoiler-free; it was content-free as well...
There's a somewhat less mediocre review on kuro5hin. In the comments, there's also links to way more in-depth reviews.
I saw it last night, read a bunch of reviews this morning to see what everyone else was saying and the best review I read is on IMDB.
-Potential Spoiler Warning-
Is anyone else out there dissapointed to see Glorfindel's role of chasing the riders into the river being replaced by Liv Tyler? I know, I'm a bit biased myself, but it just seemed to make more sense to send Glorfindel out to meet them than Arwen.
I bought tickets online for a United Artists theatre...I will never do it again, here is why (an email I sent to a friend about the problem):
About two weeks ago I called the UA to see if they were going to be doing
any advance ticket sales for FoTR...they told me that they weren't, all
advance ticket sales would have to be done over the internet. So, I went
to a webpage, and using matt's credit card, bought 4 tickets. Then, early
last week, I went down to the mall to pick up the tickets. (trip 1) They
said that I could not have the tickets unless I had both the credit card
and the owner of the credit card present (which is ridiculous, because I
already bought the credit cards...they should require ID...but not this
other crap since they don't even mention it on the webpage). I argued
half-heartedly with them for a few minutes, because there wasn't any time
when both matt and I could be there. I finally conceded and went home.
On Sunday, Matt called the UA (he was also disgruntled at the stupid
policy) and explained the situation and asked again if it would be
possible to just let me borrow the credit card and use that to get the
tickets. The woman said that no, it wasn't a problem.
So, today, after school, I headed down to the mall and attempted to get my
tickets (trip 2). They said no...I explained that matt had called and
explained my whole situation. I argued for quite some time about it and
almost ended up shouting. I kept my cool, but I made them mad because I
held up the line and explained in detail how retarded their so-called
policies were and explained that I was going to be late for work and
whatnot. The people in line agreed with me, making them more angry to the
point where they yelled at me and took me aside (no threats for security
yet). I finally left and they told me to come back after 8 when the
manager is there. I explained the time/money problem with driving that
far, but they obviously didn't care. I left, and came to work and explained it to matt. So, we are going in AGAIN momentarily. This is a
freaking pain. I am not leaving the UA till they give me my tickets for
FREE.
Worst part about this....they DO sell advance tickets! Bill bought his by
just stopping by. I have been lied to too many times! I am pretty pissed
about the whole thing.
After all of this, I went again, and was able to get my tickets and they gave me 4 free passes for anytime this month....but, it doesn't nearly make up for the waste of time/money and gas to make all the trips to the mall. I also don't really care about movie tickets...this is the only movie I really want to see...and if I watch it again, it will be in a DIFFERENT THEATER!!!
I still can't wait till I see it tonight though.
Relevant Link: PeterSwift.org/page.cgi?page=lotr
The anti-salmon
The Hobbit is a prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but it is not necessary to understand the trilogy, as it takes place about 60 years later.
My boss is treating everyone in company (about 200 people) to a showing at 2pm. My god he even reserved the tickets. I mean my boss is a hugh LOTR fan, and to allow about 600 hours of work to be skipped and foot the bill for the ticket. I guess I'll have to give him a real christmas present this year!
"Get them before they get....
First, let me say I agree totally that this was a GREAT movie. I loved it. I was slightly disappointed though with how often Peter Jackson decided to delve into his roots as a horror movie maker and "scare" us. It just seemed that sometimes the fright and gore was put there just to be shocking and not really move the story.
The main reason I guess this bothered me is that I think some people will be turned off by the movie becuase of the gore and won't be able to see the incredible story that they brought to life (and they did an EXCELLENT job at bringing it to life). For example, I don't think my kids will be seeing this till their older and I know my wife won't get into it as much because of the gore...
I got two things out of this review:
1) CmdrTaco likes his job.
2) CmdrTaco liked the movie.
Which is great (I'm glad you liked it.) But this review doesn't tell me anything about why I would like the movie, or even the #1 reason to see this movie according to CmdrTaco. It doesn't even go into detail of why CmdrTaco liked the characters, or which one was his favorite and why.
"I liked the movie and you should see it" is certainly passable for an elementary school show-and-tell, but for a popular geek website geared toward college students and adults, this doesn't cut it. Most of us have read the books, so even a little "This scene was like the book and that rocked" teaser would be helpful. At least give us one good reason to hand $8.75/person over to the movie theater!
--
SlashChick
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Yes. Read The Hobbit, then LOTR.
Virg
Hmm....anyone seem to remember a Webring of Webrings?
"One ring to connect to then all, and in the Ethernet bind them..."
*wince* [Ducks myriad of popcorn and Glossettes from the back of the back of the theatre...
Yeesh. Sorry 'bout that...
What the hell, it's only Karma....
I saw the trailer of the fellowship of the ring, and was surprised to see Galadriel appeared in it - doesn't she appear in the second book ("the two towers", iirc) for the first time?
eh? um...
So this isn't Jon Katz?
*walking away* You mean I wasted my witty Slashdot banter for nothing?
The movie was the first book. The next two movies (due out December 2002 and 2003) cover the rest of the story.
Virg
Jackson had no option. It had to be spectacular.
I'm T-3.25 hours from taking my daughter and 9 of her closest high school friends to the opening for her birthday.
Her cake will have LOTR mini-action figures.
Her presents are all (mostly) themed to LOTR.
She's getting the BBC recordings for Christmas.
She fell in love with "There And Back Again" when she was small. She became enthralled with LOTR when in high school; and she has lived in middle earth since she read the Silmarillion.
For my daughter's sake (and for mine! *:^) I hope he really did measure up as well as our benevolent Cmdr said (I have little doubt that it trulyh will be spectacular).
Ans as for those who remark about spoilers: yes, the story is old and known, but the unknowns are what Jackson & co. modified/whacked -- no T.B., Arewen is a jock, and tons of other small things that will hopefully be overshadowed by a remarkable performance by a very decent cast. I just hope I survive the gaggle of teenagers.
"For the Shire!"
Mind the gap...
The icing on the cake? The Star Wars EPII trailer!
You must be joking. Ever heard of "War and Peace"? The Bible, the Torah, the Koran? "The Fall", by Camus? I think you need to broaden your perspective.
Final Fantasy had no plot
LOTR (the books) has quite probably one of the `deepest` plots ever in a book.
If they managed to strip all the plot from the movie, I doubt it would be getting all the rave reviews.
Nosce te Ipsum
In about an hour I'm heading to the theatre to see it. To me the most important thing is that it outdoes Harry Potter, to show all those 6 year olds that there are better books out there.
I think they could have cut out about an hour of the movie if they just didnt show so many scenes of them walking. There had to be about 50 big shots of the group walking through fields, forests, pastures, snow, mountains, rivers, and whatever else. They add up.
As I said, I think your memory's fuzzy. But then, I've never been that big a fan of fantasy. But even disregarding that, where was the fun? The whole thing was too dark, too long, and the only interesting things were the audience members who were freezing their collective asses off waiting for the doors to open because they thought dressing up as hobbits and elves would be a good idea. Harumph.
Personally, I'm waiting to see Ali.
Dancin Santa
...do we need someone Taco to mention he has Final Fantasy X?
At least I have my copy of FFX (from this article)
then play more FFX (slashdot://01/12/19/1356248)
That's two within 6 hours.
I wonder if you can still beat the game by simply repeatedly pressing the circle button. Call me jaded but the over-hyped FF7 was not that great; maybe I'm just not blinded by all the hype each time an FFn game is released.
God damn. The hype is warranted. The wait was worth it. But 12 months for the next one? At least I have my copy of FFX to keep me occupied during maybe 40 hours of the next 8,760 or so
Actually.. if you sleep 8 hours a night.. (365 * 8 = 2920) around 5,840 hours to go
But who's counting?
not me =)
arcane for life
Think about it. The main characters go
- From one place to another
- Run into all kinds of problems getting there
- Have some sort of battle
Wash, rinse, repeat.I certainly hope that Jackson was intelligent enough to add more of a plot. For instance, why not add in a few love triangles? Or, for that matter, why not get rid of the silly hobbits and focus on the exciting parts -- the wizards and the elves?
Virtually anothing would help the story anyway.
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
- I understand that a lot had to be cut for time, and to add some hollywood moments here and there, but why remove the repair of Aragorne's sword? It would seem to be critical later on.
- Jackson's take on what happens to the wearer when the ring is on is... a little out of place with what Bilbo goes through in The Hobbit
- Some of the special effects for the hobbits were inconsistant. I couldn't figure out if they were supposed to be 3 feet tall or 5 (though this faded as I got more into the movie and stopped paying attention to the details of FX)
- Gollum's part has been re-worked quite a bit. In place, we're given a visual omen of doom (the creation of the Uruk-Hai). I'm not sure I like that trade-off, though it does make for a more traditional Hollywood action feel, and bad-guy training montages never get old
;-). - Everyone does a great job, but I really felt that Elrond was a little wooden compared to the rest of the cast. In just about any other film his performance would have simply been unremarkable, but the level of acting was so damn good, here....
Now for just a few things that I think were brilliant:- The eye. 'Nuff said.
- I thought that taking Tom Bombadil out of the beginning would break the pacing. Boy was I wrong! It's important in the book because we're being taken on a slow, guided tour of Frodo's education about the world. Tom is a gentle introduction. The movie simply ups the pace, and that works fine.
- Someone give Ian McKellan more money... NOW!
- The mines were perfectly done. I think that was probably the biggest challenge, visually, in the movie, and it was brilliant.
Thanks, Peter. Oh, and about making us wait a year... YOU BASTARD!OK, I loved the movie. Very nice. They cut the right parts and I have no major bitches about the changes... save one:
Was anyone else pissed off when Gandalf was made to look like a bit of a tottering old fool? In general, for the first 20-30 minutes, but specifically hitting his head on the DOOR? I mean JINKIES! He's a bloody WIZARD, one of the most powerful beings in middle earth. I don't recall him hitting his head on a bloody DOOR in the book!
OK, end rant. Good movie. Go see it if you haven't.
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
Anybody else sick of Taco raving about how easy he has it playing video games and waiting for a movie to start playing?
Somebody lookup the link to the article on addiction and e-mail it to Taco.
I guess the trolls aren't only in the movie.
Dear Lord -- what a troll . . .
I saw "The Fellowship of the Ring" on Sunday night. (Yes, I went to the Hollyweird premier.) I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't had a headache, but were all the changes necessary? No Glorfindal, no explanation of Gollum's ancestry, Narsil on display in Rivendell instead of in a scabbard on Aragorn's hip, and the Kodak moment that was the Council of Elrond...
I guess I will have to wait about 20+ years before someone else gets a chance to bring LOTR to the big screen again. Maybe this time correctly. I hope...
Liv is one hot piece of ass, so you don't have to listen to her voice to enjoy her presence.
This is to the people who feel the need to bring their 2 year olds to midnight movie premieres. You shitheads are going to rot in your graves the next time you do that. If you're too fucking cheap and lazy to get a babysitter, then stay the hell home and don't ruin it for the rest of us. I like kids, but I do not want to hear them crying their eyes out because the movie gets loud, or when I go kick in their parents teeth for being selfish pricks.
Thank you. We now continue with the review.
Holy Fucking Shit
When I was 15 years old, I dated a girl named Denise. Denise was a tall (3 inches taller than myself) redhead, full of curves up top, a flat belly in the middle, and blood as hot as fire. When she graduated and left for MIT (she was a senior, I was a junior) it broke my heart.
I'll always remember one spring day in Washington, when she drove her car (she was 16, you realize) to the park. I won't go into detail, but the next 90 minutes in the backseat was one of the most incredible moments of my life, and the only thing that went through my head during the experience (which left windows fogged and two teenagers slick with sweat) was "Holy Fucking Shit".
13 years later I'm watching Peter Jackman's adaptation of "The Fellowship of the Ring" (FOTR). I'm not even going to pretend that it was even close to making out with Denise in the back of her car. But only one thought went through my head when the closing credits aired.
Holy.
Fucking.
Shit.
For those who have missed the last 50 years
Once upon a time, there was this bad ass named Sauron, and he made this bad ass Ring. This wasn't just any Ring. With it, he could control all of these other powerful rings and the people who used them. It also turned him into the ultimate kick ass guy. He'd sweep his sword once, and 20 men would go flying. Entire buildings were built with the force of this ring. The ultimate in evil, The Spice Girls weren't created from the Ring - but the Backstreet Boys were.
Well, one day Sauron decimating people left and right gets his fingers chopped off (not so invincible now, are ya?) and he gets destroyed. No, not really. Turns out that he put a large part of his own soul into the Ring, so as long as the ring exists, he exists. And the Ring wants to return to his master, for with it great and terrible things can be done. (Like Austin Powers 3.)
For the Ring is evil. Not as in an evil thing, but as in an intelligent thing, one that tempts and corrupts all who touch it. (Kind of like Don King. Only without the stupid ass hair.) People just looking at it lust after it (like Denise and me), they need it, and only those pure of heart can hold it for long - and even these will ultimately become corrupted by the Ring.
The ring, after betraying it's new wielder, passes from hand to hand, to Gollum who hides in the mountains, to Bilbo Baggins, who just happens to get lost in the mountains, and finally to Frodo, a young man who has no idea of the can of whoop ass he's holding in his hand.
And this is where the story begins.
Where the hell is page 53?
"The Lord of the Rings" is a very long, and in my humble opinion, rather slow series of books. Events can take months to happen, and most of the books are spent with people talking their lips off at each other. Yes, it's all cool and good and the story of nobility and betrayal is the basis for pretty much all our fantasy today. But damn, it's long in getting there.
The movie for FOTR gives the story a much needed jolt in the ass. Months are shortened to days, but they don't lose the core of the story. Just moves it along a little faster. We see Gandalf, master wizard and know-it-all at large, discovering that this magic ring his friend Bilbo has is The friggin' ring, and everything goes to hell from there. Frodo's on the run from a psychotic black-clad collection agency called the Ringwraiths - immortal bad motherhumpers who are just about unstoppable. Gandalf is being betrayed by a former friend and trying to get his old bearded ass out of the trouble he's in, and the audience isn't dragged into it, we sell our damn souls to be taken along this ride, and we love every second of it.
Yes, there are moments that are over the top. When some Elf King guys tells the 9 they are the Fellowship of the Ring and the music climaxes, it's hard not to think "All right, that was camp city". Or other moments when the dialogue is there to explain, and we have to wait through it. But the moments are few and in between. Like getting a bitter bean in your chili - it's gone before you make a bad face.
Probably the biggest problem with this is with the non-standard names that are thrown out. Just a part of the movie, but there were a few moments like this:
It's scary. People get dirty, leaves in their hair, blood in their faces, and we jump in terror when something comes around the corner and goes "Boo", because Jackman is a friggin' genius who really makes us think that the Good Guys are about to have their asses handed to them on a plate. And even when they prove what bad asses they are, we can see the odds are just so way against them, they'd better stock up on life insurance.
It's also beautiful. In the beginning we see The Shire, Bilbo's home that rolls like like the British countryside that we all dream about - full of long, green hills and farms. One of those places you want to take a vacation, then a shotgun to shoot any bastard that starts talking on their cell phone.
Then we see the rest of the world, and we're overwhelmed by its size. Inside the mines of Moria, we see miles upon miles of excavated rocks and bridges and columns, and just go "God damn, that things huge!". Or a look at the creation of a new castle crawling with tens of thousands of orcs like ticks on a dog, and it's mind boggling that anything could be so big. It's an incredible effect - and yet, we never notice it.
The Effects that weren't there
For the past 5 years, folks in Hollywood have been engaged in a circle jerk to decide who can make the best special effects. Take "The Mummy 2", a movie which had a bad plot, bad dialogue, bad action, bad concept - but the special effects were cool, so the producers figured they could feed us shit by covering it in honey. And that's just scratching the surface.
In FOTR, we never notice the special effects, because the movie isn't based on them. When we see Bilbo turn into something awful for a split second, we don't say "Wow, nice effects!" We think "Damn, what happened to that nice old guy that we've come to love?" There's none of the slow-motion, camera turning crap that doesn't do a thing for the story. But we do see a river swollen with water that turns out to be horses - but it's gone so fast and the story keeps on, we don't have a director so in love with himself that he forces us to watch computer animation for 5 minutes just to prove how cool it is. It's there, in, out, and done.
It's the subtlety that show how well the movie is made. Later in the movie a Balrog appears - a demon made of smoke and fire (kind of like the Republican party). But we don't see it for a long time - just a red glow coming towards the characters, as we watch their eyes get big, and finally Gandalf says "Let's get the fuck out of here." All right, so it's not that, but we get the idea, and without seeing this thing, we know it's bad news.
The best special effects are placed to enhance the rest of the world, and make us forget that this whole thing was made up from somebody's brain case. The hobbits aren't midgets - they look just like regular people, only shorter. I'm sure the guy who plays Frodo isn't really 4 feet high - but when he's standing next to Aragorn, he looks just 4 feet high with hair-covered feet.
Or when Galadriel, the elf queen, who is a beautiful woman (not sexy, like I want to jump her, but a noble beauty that is to be looked at, terrible in its power) turns around and reveals her own lust for the ring, her visage is still beautiful - and awful. We want to look at her and hide from her. She is the Mother God and Demon Bitch rolled into one.
It's called Acting. Look it up
So without the special effects to hinge on, that means we have to rely on the acting to carry the story. And this is where the movie is at its best.
First, Ian McKellen is Gandalf. No, he doesn't play Gandalf, he is Gandalf. Here's an old guy with a big white beard who seems just that - old, absent minded, into simple pleasures. It's a guy with crinkling blue eyes, the grandpa you want to sit in his lap while he smokes a pipe because he's a cool old guy.
He's also a bad ass motherhumper that if you cross, he will reach down your throat and pull out your spine, then feed it to you on a plate. You do not want to mess with this guy, old hair and all. There's steel in those bones, and you'll break yourself before they bend.
He's a man who suffers, who watches others and feels their pain. When he sees Frodo taking up the Ring, because Frodo is the only one who can, we can feel Gandalf's torment at the loss of innocence. When the Ring is offered to him, we know he's terrified to touch it, terrified of the temptation to use it for good, and the evil that would follow.
Elijah Wood plays an amazingly good Frodo Baggins. He's not a teenager, but an innocent young man who's thrust into this situation. We see how he suffers because of the Ring, because of how others react to the Ring, and how it preys on him and strips away that happy man we saw earlier. We suffer right with him as he moves towards Mordor and his destiny.
Each of the rest of the cast know their place is to act and entertain us, and they do that. Men cry when their companions are hurt. People actually act like they like each other, not that they met 5 minutes ago and say their lines. And I don't know what happened to Liv Tyler, who normally doens't do anything for me (something about those lips that make me think she's going to eat me - and mind out of the gutter, you), but damn, she looks lovely in here. I still don't want her naked in my bed, but I wouldn't mind snapping a picture of her on the horse and hanging it on my wall. The girl looks good
There's plenty of action to be had. Fights with orcs underground, above ground, swords flashing, arrows flying - you name it, we've got it. And there's blood, limbs and heads hacked off. Not gratuitous, a little over the top at times, but it's there for the sake of the story, and we're never quite sure if the good guys are about to punch out their tickets. Even folks like me who have read the books still get that "Dude, they are so dead" feeling, even though I know they show up later.
I'm stingy with my 10 ratings. If you want a 10 from me, you're going to friggin' earn it. Is this movie as good as sex with Denise? Nope. But it's good, it's entertaining, and it's the first 3 hour movie that 90 minutes into it I checked my watch - and was glad there were 90 minutes more to come. This only bad thing is that when you leave the theater, there's 12 months to go before the next movie.
And it's going to be a very long year.
As always, I'm John "Dark Paladin" Hummel. And that's my opinion.
PS: The Spider Man trailer kicked ass. That's all I'm going to say on that.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I found my way to a midnight+5min showing last night to see one of the first screenings I could.
;)
Wow! I have been so afraid for months (years?) now about what it was going to come out like. Ever since I heard that viewers of a pre-screening (Before Cannes last year) had to sign a Non-(negative)-Disclosure, I was doubly concerned.
Set your goals low and you can be pleasantly surprised.
I deliberately haven't read the books for a few years now, and I wanted to go into with as "fresh" of pair of eyes as I can. I avoided all the "Making of..."s. I didn't download the quicktime trailers. (well, maybe just one -- but only for a little bit.)
Sure there are places that didn't stick exactly to the book. That has to be expected.
Sure stuff got left out. (I thought they could have added 2 more hours. But then no one else would be sitting in the theater.)
But I am glad they waited this long to do the film. To do it right.
I was worried about Vigo cast as my favorite character. He did much better than I expected.
Some one complained about Liv. I'll agree, but didn't let it get in my way.
They kept the tongue of the Elves. (Subtitles for us non-speakers.) Beautiful.
The scenery is STUNNING. Allow me to repeat: STUNNING. STUNNING. STUNNING. STUNNING. STUNNING. STUNNING.
The sets are fantastic.
The visuals in a lot of respects are what were in my mind's eye.
The casting was otherwise great.
The audience (after lining up for hours -- they opened 3 screens for it as they continuted to sell out of advance tickets all day) and sitting for over an hour in the theaters, was ecstatic.
They cheered in the battles.
The crinched in horror at the Balrog.
And after over 4 and a half hours of sitting (plus the lines just waiting to get in), were visibly and audibly disappointed to see the film end.
Take everyone you can to see it this weekend. In this age of inflated box office stats, I want to make sure this film sits above the drivel that seems to otherwise draw.
______
Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.
I would swear that I just read this exact review in the newspaper this morning, but it was credited to Roger Ebert rather than "Anonymous Coward."
/. as an AC, Mods might want to take action here.
So unless Ebert is posting his reviews on
Final Fantasy had a plot, it just takes more than the cursory look that the majority of audiences are willing to give, in the US at least. I really liked the move, and would have liked it if it was live action rather than CG.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
He probably saw it at midnight then slept in. Probably hard to remember every detail.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Things I love:
Oh my god the cinematography was incredible!! Many people usually say that to mean that the landscapes were great, and it sort of implies the whole _Braveheart_ thing of the characters walking on mountain ridges while the camera pans quickly about them. LotR has those, but some of the other cinematography is just as impressive. I'm talking lighting, focusing on characters' faces on key moments, and awesome camera angles. One cool thing that I think they got from the animated movie of all things was when the Nazgul attack the Prancing Pony at Bree. You'll have to see it, but my heart was in my throat.
The acting(??)!! I couldn't believe it, but almost all the characters were well acted. I mean, REALLY well acted. I very much expected to be disappointed by the acting, because it is par for the course in any kind of sci-fi or fantasy or epic or even "big" movie. Not so here. I was blown away.
The story. It was also amazing the Jackson didn't screw it up. There were some things I wish he had kept, but brevity *is* the soul of wit, at least when 3 hour feature films are concerned. Any deviations he made seemed perfectly justified to me, and some of them were really needed to make the film flow faster. The bit with Merry and Pippin and the fireworks was hilarious, and it allowed for good quick characterization of both of them. Pippin almost seems a whipping-boy for Gandalf throughout the movie, but it's all because of his foolishness.
Stuff I didn't like as much:
Aragorn. Aragorn was probably my second favorite character in the book (next to Faramir), and I didn't like the way he was portrayed as bearing a family "weakness". He isn't really supposed to be a "weak" character that needs to prove himself. In my mind he's supposed to be a breath from the amazement of the men of Westernesse. You kind of get a glimpse of what men used to be when you see him. Not so for this Aragorn. I very much understand why he's protrayed this way; in order to be an interesting movie character he needs to grow. He needs to come out of his insecure shell and become the king he was prophesized to be. I'm hoping that once he grows he'll recapture the wonder of Numenor(sic?).
Boromir was too "evil" feeling. I never had the impression that he was more than just prideful and slightly arrogant. In the movie he feels deceitful and a little slimy. I also understand why that needed to be done, there needed to be more "undertones" within the party.
Galadriel was too mystical. She was more of a "witch woman" than one of the last of the Noldor. This is really the only one I don't think was justified, but it was very minor in my eyes. It was almost just a different way of interpreting the character, so I don't hold it against the director. The contrast between her as the "terrible queen" and the elf queen was awesome though.
OH OH OH. Gollum ROCKS!!
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
It is now 22hours since I saw it in Denmark.
Our theater had cut the show in two halfs.
Personally I fell asleep in 2nd half.
But I certainly dreamt nicely.
something about elves, dwarfes, and tall men with long white beards. did your version also contain sex?
I love this kind of 'review.' Absolutely no spoilers, just an overall reaction to the film.
Why the hell would I want to read an in-depth review of a film that I am getting ready to go see? It's almost as bad as those trailers that give you a summary of the movie instead of a teaser...
"And like that
One of the best perks about my job is the excuse to skip out and catch the first showing of Lord of the Rings at the local theater.
And that's so much better then free coffee, think about the number of times you can make use of it!
Any bets on when Episode 1 (aka The Hobbit) will come out?
Given the popularity of LotR at the moment - and over the next 2 years, all the marketing, merchandise, etc. it's bound to happen isn't it...
-- Roger Ebert
The first 45 minutes were especially compressed. No Bombadil, no Barrow Wights / Barrow Downs, c'mon!
Still as an avid Tolkien fan (I've read LOTR 18 times, The Hobbit 6 times and the Silmarillion 2 times), I was both impressed and satisfied. I'm going to see it again today, in fact. :-)
"If only the MPAA would go under." - CmdrTaco
(((But only after CmdrTaco sees this awesome movie! In a word, WOW!)))
"The only question is when will the MPAA give up? " - CmdrTaco
(((Hopefully not before CmdrTaco has a chance to see this great movie! God Damn!)))
"We should have the Stalin award for entities advancing the destruction of the first ammendment. We can nominate the evil organizations oppressing freedom of speech like the MPAA." - CmdrTaco
(((Freedom of speech? Who cares! LOTR RULES! WOW!)))
"long before CDA, RIAA, MPAA, DMCA, and the USPTO, there were other entities all too willing to block access to information." - CmdrTaco
(((As long as they don't block CmdrTaco's access to this AWESOME MOVIE! WOW!)))
I was going to moderate this comment down but decided against it. This review is Roger Eberts writing and it can be found at www.sun-times.com/ebert Whomever the AC is who posted this, you need to go watch the movie and review it on your own and not just plagarize others work. Unless Ebert is posting as an AC, whick I seriously doubt, this is obviously not your review.
What's a Sig???
One last thing; Elrond was played byt he same guy as the lead Agent on The Matrix. Every time he said anything I couldn't help but giggle because I was imagining him in the "Mr. Anderson" lines. It wasn't his fault, it was just his voice.
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
It is, anyhow, an interesting take on the film. At least AC didn't go for the karma whoring.
I have my tickets in hand and will see the film in two hours. My only fear is that the action will resemble Batman with quick close shots. I am hoping for the sweeping action of Iron Monkey.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Settling down with my book, the one-volume, 1969 India paper edition, I read or skimmed for an hour or so. It was as I remembered it. The trilogy is mostly about leaving places, going places, being places, and going on to other places, all amid fearful portents and speculations. There are a great many mountains, valleys, streams, villages, caves, residences, grottos, bowers, fields, high roads, low roads, and along them the Hobbits and their larger companions travel while paying great attention to mealtimes.
Gahh! That is exactly why I hated the book. Sure it has a few cool scenes, but you had to hear about every miserable little pebble and stick they passed by along the way. If that is what is missing from the movie, I say good riddance! Give me action and adventure any day!
Tolkien was British.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Gandalf - before the events in Moria - is not particularly powerful. He is subordinate to Saruman, in rank, wisdom, and power.
The bridge at Moria is were we first get a glimpse that Gandalf may be more than he appears to be.
After his return, the gloves are off - he becomes the new head of his order, given that Saruman has derelicted the post - and I suspect you'll see a lot more "ass kicking superbeing" and a lot less "kindly old wizard".
To be honest, I'm suprised and amazed at just how deeply Sir Ian and Jackson grokked Gandalf's character.
.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
I've been reading this since it was Fish 'n' Chips on his crappy university server (umich.edu?) and ever since people started taking interest he's always had this 'holier then thou' attitude. With every post he has to sum it up with a short little anecdote that makes it clear he's used it first, knows more about it, or whatever.
Fuck Ajit Pai
Re Boromir, thanks a lot. Might want to put spoiler warnings up next time.
Kevin Fox
...a gnat!
The great beauty of the Trilogy in book form is the attention to detail. I cannot think of a single fictional work that I have a better mental picture of precisely because Tolkein put all the little details in there.
I wish they would have followed the book more closely by using Weirding Modules.
Unless Roger Ebert has suddenly become a geek and found time to post here at /., this is a blatant rip-off. Shame on you!
Was curious, do I need to have read any of the books to 'get' the movie? I'm not a big fan of reading, but do like movies.
Come on, people. Its a MOVIE. It's not going to be EXACTLY LIKE THE BOOK. Judge it by how close it did come to the book, which was pretty damn close by Hollywood standards. And another thing, stop expecting people to spoon-feed it to you! Taco's review of the film was HIS review. If you didn't get anything from it, GO SEE THE MOVIE and for your own opinion. This is a tech page, where folks are supposed to have a brain in their head. Don't forget to turn it on. Yes, the movie kicked ass.
Right on. Great use of language and excellent descriptions (the book is about the lands and history, not about the plot)
no character development
see my other post
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Mr. Katz is in league with Dr. Kevorkian.
think about it for a minute... it's no coincidence that most people want to kill themselves after reading a Katz article.
Excuse me, I may be trolling but give me a goddamn break! Best book ever written, hmm, yeah, leave out, ohhhhhh.... Dostoyevsky, Milton, Whitman, Marquez, and a about 100 others who outshine Mr. Tolkien like diamonds against mud. Oh, so only English/American authors? Okay, I'll take Kerouac, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Whitman. What? Only fantasy/Sci-Fi with epic battles? Alright, Asimov, Herbert, and ooh ooh, I got one, Homer! Can't forget Beowulf, there's some sword-swingin' action for ya!
If LOTR is your idea of great literature, go take a comp lit class or something, please, spare us all. Oh, and Tolkien's poetry is some of the worst you'll see. Use it as a model to avoid.
"Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
I know it sounds weird, but the addition of the Ewoks really made sense.
Apparently, the film that was being fed into the projector jumped, wrapped itself around something, locking a frame in place.
I saw a frame MELT before my eyes on the silverscreen. I now have a free pass to see it again. I'm in pain. Let's hope I have better luck second time around.
Like let up on the guy... you're just jealous anyway. One geek out of the horde figures out how to enjoy life, and you're pissed at him?
My guess is that, if any one of us could lead the life we *imagine* him to be living with no strings attached or ill effects, we'd do it.
But I bet you enjoy cleaning the gutters on the house more, right? Yeah, well get back to work you gimp.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
Here's my review of LOTR - you fuckerzzz!!!!11
There are some comments I need to make regarding Lord of the rings. Let me begin by saying that Lord of the rings's ideals are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because Lord of the rings is one of those featherbrained kooks that quotes the Bible but never reads it. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that it has shown no compunction in committing character assassinations or engaging in full-scale vendettas? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that it and its chums take is that it upholds sin as sacred. With this in mind, I must weed out organizations like Lord of the rings that have deceived, betrayed, and exploited us. I am being entirely serious when I say that Lord of the rings is stepping over the line when it attempts to inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress -- way over the line. Contrast, for example, Lord of the rings's smears with those of deceitful, prolix sewer rats, and observe that there is no contrast. I, by (genuine) contrast, take the view that from secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, Lord of the rings's cohorts have always found a way to undermine serious institutional and economic analyses and replace them with a diverting soap opera of audacious conspiracies.
Lord of the rings has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that it would have us believe that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Lord of the rings is surrounded by hypocritical sociopaths who parrot the same nonsense, which is why if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then it is clearly going to be the first to go. Lord of the rings can't seriously believe that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of blathering stereotypes, can it? Well, I asked the question, so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that it likes to cite poll results that "prove" that it understands the difference between civilization and savagery. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of its pollsters? Chances are good that you have never been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that following Lord of the rings's words left to right and down a page is like following fingernails on a chalkboard. It will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if it didn't, you might come to realize that its claim that every word that leaves its mouth is teeming with useful information is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. Lord of the rings's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. Why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that the entire premise of Lord of the rings's pranks is incredibly offensive to any self-respecting person? We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer. If we do, I suspect we'll find that I need your help if I'm ever to provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from exhibitionism, antiheroism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, I believe I have finally figured out what makes organizations like Lord of the rings push our efforts two steps backward. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. It would be a crying shame to let narrow-minded, discourteous airheads distort and trivialize the debate surrounding heathenism. I've already explained why, but let me add that it's easy to tell if Lord of the rings is lying. If its lips are moving, it's lying.
Lord of the rings constantly insists that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. But it contradicts itself when it says that hanging out with untrustworthy doctrinaire-types is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. Ignorance is bliss. This may be why Lord of the rings's helots are generally all smiles.
When we direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Lord of the rings, we are not only threading our way through a maze of competing interests; we are weaving the very pattern of our social fabric. It takes more than a mass of nasty slumlords to combat the scummy ideology of teetotalism that has infected the minds of so many nugatory provocateurs. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to compare, contrast, and identify the connections among different kinds of mad absenteeism. Honor means nothing to Lord of the rings. Principles mean nothing to Lord of the rings. All it cares about is how to manipulate public understanding of cannibalism.
Considering that my message has always been that Lord of the rings simply wants to win at all costs the war against our individualism and our liberties, I find it almost laughable how it remains oblivious to the fact that I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes organizations like it want to prevent the real problems from being solved. I mean, just because Lord of the rings and its satraps don't like being labelled as "barbaric, grotesque ruffians" or "devious mountebanks" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit.
I have nothing in common with Lord of the rings. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: By allowing Lord of the rings to revive an arcadian past that never existed, we are allowing it to play puppet master. I find that some of Lord of the rings's choices of words in its quips would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "unprofessional" for "subjectivoidealistic" and "intransigent" for "unproportionableness." For its own sake, Lord of the rings should not blow the whole situation way out of proportion, and hence, by extension, its argument that courtesy and manners don't count for anything is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous.
There are no two ways about it; I like to speak of Lord of the rings as "diabolic". That's a reasonable term to use, I think, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, it's astounding that it has somehow found a way to work the words "ultracentrifugation" and "saccharomucilaginous" into its bromides. However, you may find it even more astounding that if it got its way, it'd be able to focus too much on one side of the equation and not enough on the broader perspective of things. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. Maybe Lord of the rings is being manipulated by fatuitous, incoherent braggadocios, but even so, it says that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life. If our goal is to speak out against behavior and speech that is intended to restructure the social, political, and economic relationships throughout the entire society, then we must consider various means to that end. Just because ill-bred alarmism exists and has for a long time, there is no reason for us to accept it from Lord of the rings.
I would like to comment on Lord of the rings's attempt to associate animalism with sectarianism. There is no association. Who is behind the decline of our civilization? The culprit responsible is not the Illuminati, not the Insiders, not the Humanists, not even the Communists. No, the decline of our civilization is attributable primarily to Lord of the rings.
I will not quibble with Lord of the rings as to whether or not it can't discuss anything without talking about separatism. Instead, I'll simply state that Lord of the rings has lost what little credibility it once had and leave it at that. Far be it for me to set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts. To restate the obvious: Lord of the rings has -- not once, but several times -- been able to seize control of the power structure without anyone stopping it. How long can that go on? As long as its execrable cop-outs are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and carve solutions that are neither headlong nor satanic.
Is there, or is there not, a combative plot to leave a large part of this country's workforce dislocated and disillusioned, organized through the years by pompous spoiled brats (especially the officious type)? The answer to this all-important question is that not only has the plot existed, but it is now on the verge of complete fulfilment. Lord of the rings should hide its head in shame before the judgment of future generations, whose tongue it will no longer be possible to stop and which, therefore, will say what today all of us know to be true: If we don't soon tell Lord of the rings to stop what it's doing, it will proceed with its abominable, neo-salacious inclinations, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given Lord of the rings our permission to do so. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: If Lord of the rings can one day pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a directionless coterie of commercialism, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. Lord of the rings believes that you and I are morally inferior to irritable hooligans. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. Finally, this has been a good deal of reading, and surely difficult reading at that. Still, I hope you walk away from it with the new knowledge that Lord of the rings oppresses its critics by crushing them, expelling them, pauperizing them, and cutting them off from families and friends.
Note: I don't think I have put any spoilers in, so this will be pretty bland - but if I have, please forgive my inclusion - I have not meant to give anything away...
I can honestly say I was impressed with this film. From beginning to end, I sat entranced. Oh, sure - I noticed parts left out, parts put in that were not in the original, as well as other changes made - but most were due to limitations of the cinema, and it was apparent they were not done on a whim. A lot of times, had the parts been left in, the movie would have been 5 or 6 hours long, and not the three it already was.
The movie starts out carefree - mostly with a sense of innocence. It is apparent that Gandalf is trying not to think of the real reason why he is in the Shire, and instead think about the party. However, it quickly becomes clear that things are not alright in Middle Earth, that there is evil afoot.
So, Sam and Frodo, with urging from Gandalf, begin their adventure (I should say, a little reluctantly)...
All of the characters are presented well: Gandalf is at times wise and easy going, at other times, very stern - and still others, such a force to be reckoned with it makes you move away from the screen!
Frodo is an individual forced to grow up quickly - to leave his roots in the Shire, where things were safe, and bear his burden until the end. Sam is ever there, always stalwart and ready to help regardless of the problem. Merry and Pippin are not really fleshed out well, though - they seem put in (for this movie) as "comic relief" - but when it comes, it is certainly welcome.
Bilbo is only seen for a few scenes (much like the book), but one scene showed a side of him, because of the ring's influence, that both frightened me for Frodo, and made me pity Bilbo.
I want to go on - but this thing would get ultra long - I have to say that what I think makes a good movie is how well it "moves" me, how well it causes my emotions to run. I have to say, this movie brought them all out. I felt at times joyous and peaceful, at other times fearful, and sometimes angry. There were times of mirth interspersed as well. Sadness was there, too. Excitement and danger seemed ever present.
Cinematically, the film was excellent - the Shire was the Shire. Bree, though, seemed both small and large to me, whereas it seemed much smaller to me in the book. Isengard was amazing, both before (a beautiful land), and after - sadly. The passage through Moria was a visual treat as well - much larger than what I felt the book was like, which served it well. The sweeping vistas of many of the scenes make me wish it had been playing at one of the IMAXs here locally - maybe one day they will play it on one...
Oh, and finally - the one creature you really pity is Gollum. Portrayed as one foul and odious creature, there still seems to be something about him that makes you wish you could make it all better, or something...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I've heard from friend that this movie is "the best movie he's seen to date."
so I'm quite psyched to see it myself, and after reading i think this review does justice.
NO CARRIER
--- #@$DF@#2%@^%3^&*$%FRHG%%[NO CARRIER]
Great to see one of the great geek books are being done right. First the Dune TV series, now this. Now if only soneome would do a Ringworld TV series, the big three would be done.
I am NOT sure regular folk will get into it as much. I do not see this as the next star wars. Frankly, when I saw it, some of the non-geeks were bored early and later on in the film. Not lost tho, good sign.
The thing I did like is the EVIL is very EVIL looking. Not "oh thats a cool looking badguy" looking but really UGLY EVIL. A nice touch. I could have seen them doing a Spawn type thing where the badguys are more fun to look at than the good guys. The bad guys look and act with evil. Pure and no chance of being turned. I liked that.
Sure beats the hell out of that old cartoon!! HAHA!
Jebus
>
What about a gnat?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Only DTS data is off the film. COntained on a CDROM.
SDDS is on each side of the film outside of the sprocket holes, Dolby Digital is between the sprocket holes on one or both sides, and DTS has time code between the Analog sound tracks and the sprocket, or the analog and the frame I can not remeber without looking.
Um, did you read the subject?
Rofl, this got mod'd up as "Insightful..." come on moderators.
hmmmm... can something be KIND of unique?
Reminded me of wedding where you briefly meet alot of long lost relatives who become blurred in your memory. There were the nine in the Fellowship, a couple of Elf Lords, a flaky uncle, two big bad guys, and a token love interest. Thats 16 main characters without mentioning the minor ones. Everyone gets 15 seconds of fame and recedes into the background. If I hadn't read the book six times I would have been lost. Another recent movie- Oceans 11- has about the same number of major characters, yet I felt I knew them better.
Thats what comes to mind reading such stuffs.
Look at the end of the post. It's signed RE. Whether the AC is Roger Ebert or not doesn't really matter. It was still signed with Eberts initials.
Sounds like an answer in Jepoardy.
New Zealand was beautiful, though many of the
scenes in the movie reminded of other movies.
Hmmm... well the hobbits did take a back seat to their company in the first book. They had no idea about anything of the world, they were like wide eyed children being led into a dark and scary nightmare. Its not until they have been on the road some time, seen scary things, been in battle, etc. that they started to shine as true heroes. At first they were ignorant of the world, clumsy, trusting, and naive. At the end of the story they are warriors and heroes, the stuff of legends. Thats the whole point I think. Take ordinary, minor players in world events, and show how they shape the world to come through seemingly innocuous acts of self preservation and dogged determination to do what they must.
The first book IS all about Gandalf and Aragorn. They provide the mechanisms for the hobbits to grow and become what they are at the end of the story. And eventually they depart from the company and the hobbits do just fine on their own. When they were ready.
Just my two cents...
I hate you so much. You watch movies, you play video games, you go to conventions. I hate you so much. Get a job. I hate you so much.
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Really looking forward to the show tonight at 7:30 and got free tickets to boot. WOOT!
As somemeone who never read the ook, this movie has made me want to pick up a copy of the first book now and to some comparisons. This film was so beautifully filmed. The scene with the troll and the scene with the Balron were some great effects. I would also have to say that the Orcs looked evil as shit and gave you the willies. Great film! Only issue I had was when it ended it, though I have been told that is where the book ended, it did not feel like a natural ending. In fact, I was so caught up with the movie that when it ended I was pissed :) I wanted it to keep going! In like 2004 when they will probably release a DVD box set it will be awesome to watch the whole trilogy straight through :)
--Jon
I thought the movie was awesome. The battle with the Balrog was incredible. The only thing I didn't like was the weakening, ever so slighty, of Frodo's character. At the mountain, he just lets the Ring Wraiths stab him instead of fighting back. Also Frodo does not attack the hill troll using sting like he does in the book. Other than that, I have no complaints. I will be sure to see it again just for the balrog scene.
People here are STILL willing to feed the beasts that bring you DMCA.
The only way to avoid AOHell Time wanker and the rest of the ilk from using your money to get things like the DMCA passed (and not be a pirate) is to wait for the DVD of this movie to show up in the used media store.
Yet, with money in hand, you will help feed the media beast. So much for your beliefs.
Say what you like about Roger Ebert, this is a very nice writeup: http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-lor
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I'm not entirely sure that's irreconcilable with the book, though--check out the voluminous Appendices, and you'll see that Elrond told Aragorn, basically, "You can't have Arwen because she's the daughter of an elf lord". Elrond had sent Aragorn on numerous quests, IIRC, before he finally consented to allow Aragorn to woo Arwen, and he never was too happy with Arwen's decision to forsake the Grey Havens.
Disclaimer, I haven't seen the movie yet, so I could be missing some completely obvious bit of filmmaking that just screams, "Uh oh, Aragorn's got a *bad* case of the 'Gotta live up to Daddy's expectations'". :-)
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup." --/usr/games/fortune
Tolkein was no Shakespeare, no Chaucer, no Hemingway, no Faulkner, etc. It's impact is a tiny fraction of that of a Bible, Quran, or Tao Te Ching. It's quality isn't nearly that of a Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens, or Faulkner -- just to pick a random span of good ones. I'd say that Tolkein was a great storyteller, but no good story should be that damn long ("brevity is the soul of wit" and all that), so let's just call him a good one and leave it at that.
I'd like to sound nice and intelligent and agree with you, but I just can't. Based on reading the Hobbit I might, but when you look closely into Lord of the Rings you can see how deeply Tolkien was able to complete a totally new world and make it incredibly believable and engrossing. I'm an avid reader of classic literature as well as sci-fi and fantasy and I've never been drawn into a setting so completely. And, IMNSHO, that's one of the most important things a book can do. And if the Lord of the Rings isn't enough to convince you then read some of his unfinished work, the lost tales, or the Silmarillion. Tolkien has an incredible ability to portray worlds and characters with so much depth it's mind blowing.
And as for the length I'd say it seems appropriate. I can't imagine the story being told in less words. Without the imagery and flavorful descriptions so much would be lost, although the story could still stand on its own merits. That's my largest fear with the movie - the ability to capture the Middle-earth setting itself. I have no doubt that the story will be portrayed at least accurately enough, but if the world doesn't fit in with the vision Tolkien created (in my mind, anyway) then it's just not worth it.
If you need to interpret my post, then you don't get it.
... we have another two years and two films to look forward to.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
This tells me that those who speak English passably, have some attention span, and have read the books will love it. Hooray!
Wait a minute;
Are you suggesting that nothing that is good should be mentioned here? It was great. So I suppose that from now on only negative reviews should be posted. Ok, lemme review your post.
U R DUM.
Thank you for your time.
Carpe Deez
It wasn't the fiery balrog that sucked me in, nor any of the really over the top special FX. It was the subtleties, like how the size of the characters just seemed to work. The only reason Frodo or Sam looked a little out of place sometimes is because we've all seen Elijah and Sean in other movies.
It's been 19 years since I read the books, but even I noticed changes here and there. Nothing that kills the spirit of the movie though. The characters, especially Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn are portrayed beautifully.
The ringwraiths get the CG treatment too, but rather than trying to make them in-your-face, almost everything about them seems understated... something which makes them even more menacing. They're just predatory shadows waiting to run you down.
Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett make me wish I could speak Elvish and that I had an exceptionally large tree under wish Santa would leave them.
It rocks, but it does leave you hungry for more. At first I thought the emptiness I felt was disappointment, but it was just hunger for the next two parts.
This is a definite must see movie for anyone who has ever enjoyed Tolkien or the genre of fantasy in general.
Overall, it was brilliant. The adaptation was ner-perfect. The scenery was stunning, the characters played their parts well (especially Boromir, Gandalf, Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Galadriel....heck, all of them, really)..... but Sean Bean (Boromir) gets my vote for best supporting actor. His performance was astounding.
There was no part of the movie where I thought: "No no! It shouldn't be like that...it should look totally different
Of course, no adaptation could be perfect, and here are some of the things that annoyed me:
They left out quite a bit of it, such as Tom Bombadil, the details of Bill the Pony, and they cut out entire speeches
Sheeeesh!
Overall, though, I don't think that a better adaptation could have been made... Peter Jackson is a true genius.
2DUP * ;
I have 3 kids, 6, 9 and 11. How "age appropriate" is this movie? I'm sure its ok for the oldest, questionable for the middle, and probably not for the youngest? Note, they are all well behaved and never make a peep in movies so don't worry, we won't spoil your fun :)
I don't want to give away too much, but to answer your question, Eowyn was not a love interest for Aragorn. Eowyn was interested in Aragorn, but for all the wrong reasons. The story addresses and resolves the relationship between the 2 characters.
AB
My only bitch is that I will have another bunch of dweeb kids who want to have their username/password to be:
SunOS 5.8
login: gandalf
password: 6O11uM
Please, God. Spare me.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
For a book (series, ugh) that creates an impressive world setting, I've seen no better example than _Dune_. The problem with LOTR, as compared to Dune, is it had the unfortunate diversion of actually being entertaining, whereas Hubert was much more focused on painting a picture of his world and wasn't about to get distracted by keeping the poor reader entertained.
It's all a matter of taste of course, but I can't help but find this relentless focus on world creation to be oppressively boring, mainly suitable for Dungeons & Dragons Gamemasters ...but then well there you go. Some people like all that puffery -- probably the same people that find the Bible a ripping good yarn once it gets into all those "$foo begat $bar begat $baz begat $blat" nonsense" -- but I'm much more attuned to William Golding's storytelling style that he used in the framing story for "Princess Bride": The Good Parts Version. I don't care about lineage & ancestry & history & who begat who and on what fertile earth and oh yes what crops that earth was grrowing while we're at it. *Yawn*. Skip ahead a few chapters, thank you... :)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Firstly, I did get up at 3AM in the morning to catch a place in line for the first 11AM show. There must have been a line of nearly ten people already there! Some had sleeping bags, and the person at the front of the line even brought along an ice fishing tent. So, needless to say that getting up was definitely worth it. By the time 10:30AM rolled around and they started letting people in to buy tickets, a total of TWELVE people had gotten there about ten minutes prior to the opening. Boy was I lucky that I came so early, the line was HUMONGOUS. Anyhow, I'll cut to the chase.
Elijah Wood played the role of Bilbo Baggins quite consistantly with the book The Two Towers by I.B. Token, and I must say that his battle with the evil man-witch Frodo in an effort to guard the sacred cock ring was extremely valient and breathtaking. The character called Sauron, the whimsical good wizard played by William Shatner begins to turn evil after his desire for large erections gained by wearing the magical golden cock ring. I must say that the finale; the great circle jerk that concludes with all characters in a magical "sword" fight, followed by the final struggle where the cock ring is lost forever. All in all, The Hobbit was an excellent cartoon, and I would reccomend it to anyone in the mood for a light comedy with a hint of light drama.
I've been waiting 20 years for this movie, and I'm fully satisfied.
The best part though? Cate Blanchett - she's dreamy.
Liv Tyler is cute and all but damn.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
I can't imagine LotR took just as long to be translated in to Dutch, but it might be that translation was crappy so books never caught on and be spread by word of mouth. Noone in their right minds care how many copies had been sold when ordering an unknown book (eg. dragonlance classics was #1 for a long time, if anyone did order it because of this chart topping stuff, I'm sure most have been greatly disappointed), word of mouth is required.Especially if one is talking about a book by author of Hobbit and Silmarillion (sp), I hated both yet, fell in love with LotR. And translation is very important, if I could access only translations of PKD books, I would have hated him. OTOH Kafka's books are translated so good that, I wouldn't bother reading originals even if I could. In a foreign country book itself is not the only issue, translation is almost as important. It is very rare that a book is translated by more than two or three publishers, usually the number is just one.
I had a point, but I forgot it. I guess it was something like "not whole world is speaking english" but not quite.
And yes, any adult that have never heard of LotR should be hanged in the closet. I guess that might be a very effective solution to my country's overpopulation problem, keeping all I love and then some, eliminating everyone else.
Man, that one went right over your head...
I also had that impression, as I was reading the series. I thought that the hobbits did indeed basically get pulled along because Frodo could hold out against the temptation of the ring, and in many instances the others in the Fellowship called him "Ringbearer" and underestimated his abilities. I got the feeling that the only one of the whole group that saw the Hobbits for the heroes they turned out to be (before they actually did heroic things) was Gandalf, and that's because he was Istari. I'll be disappointed if Frodo and Samwise get sideline treatment in the next two movies, but in FOTR it seems appropriate.
Virg
Hey! Who are you calling a "geekish fanboy"???
Those are fighting words!
I won't let this pass. We *WILL* settle this!
Meet me after school on the Quake3 server 192.1.....
______
Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.
First off, I thought it was really good, and the flaws were minor. That said:
The movie gives away what's going on with Gandalf before Frodo reached Rivendell. Most everyone knows anyway, but I still preferred the effect of the book where they're really hoping Gandalf will show up any minute, and it's a big mystery why this wizard, who's always on time, is late.
Frodo doesn't shout anything at the Nazgul on Weathertop. Having him shout Elbereth and saving himself long enough for Aragorn to get back helped to set up the effect where Frodo sometimes just does the right thing, without knowing that it's right, because he's fated to be doing these things.
The effect of wearing the Ring was a bit over the top. If I were Bilbo and that happened when I put on the Ring, I'd have thrown it away long before finding out that it made you invisible. And I'd have never worn it for as long as Frodo does near the end.
Some of Moria didn't make much sense. They were surrounded by a huge army with range weapons and good vantage points. Then they're saved by the balrog, which scares away the orcish horde. The orcish horde almost certainly could have done them in with a bit of persistence. Then they cross the broken stairs. If they were fleeing the balrog, it must have ended up behind that area when it crumbled. So how did it catch up with them at the Bridge? It can't fly or anything, and it didn't look like there was a way around that chasm. And if the stairs were in that bad shape, they'd probably have broken under Balin's group.
Merry and Pippin didn't intentionally join Sam and Frodo. It saved a bit of time, I guess, but it seemed odd that they'd follow him halfway across the world after running into him randomly in a field.
Things I thought they did particularly well:
Bilbo, when he sees the Ring. I thought for an instant he might actually be able to take it away. Yow. Also Galadriel, when she sees it. I noticed that, despite the transformation, she didn't actually reach towards it, and Frodo didn't draw back.
Aragorn running into Frodo near the end. I was worried that it would be bad, because it wasn't in the book at all, but it worked really well. They really got what Aragorn would have done, had he found Frodo, and having it happen helped demonstrate his character even more.
The Nazgul looked more true to the text than my imagination was. The cloak is a real cloak, the horse is a real horse, and the rest is shadows.
I wished:
They'd had the camera swoop through Middle-Earth from important event to important event. The movie didn't really give the idea of Middle-Earth being a really long walk; one thing I liked about the book was the feeling that there was a really big world that they go through.
Frodo had worn the ring when he was about to try crossing the lake. But that's just because I wanted to see the boat launch itself. Plus he could have just gone by the orcs.
It had been winter outside Lothlorien, for the contrast.
And a couple dozen tiny details they didn't bother with.
Speak for yourself. I love that guy. He rocked in Matrix and he rocked in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. If he's typecast in your mind as Agent Smith, watch Priscilla. I was watching Potter with the kids yesterday and they played the FotR trailer. It was the first time I spotted him as Elrond - one more reason to see the film.
garyr
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
How about Pixar? Monsters Inc. was pretty convincing. I even felt like I had to pee when the little girl did the potty dance.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
If you don't want to know the answer to the subject, stop reading NOW!
-
-
-
Answer:
Aragorn gives them to them. (I haven't actually seen the movie yet, going at 10:30 tonight, but I asked a friend about this very point)
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
This movie would have been a huge flop if AOL/TW hadn't put the entire might of it's marketing army behind it. The last product with this much hype was WindowsXP. Doesn't this bother you even a teeny little bit?
Can I get an oh-em-eff-gee?
BEST. MOVIE. EVER.
No, I'm serious.
Oh, and now I'm moving to New Zealand.
> Especially that clip of him asking "Do you have the ring", it seemed too intense on the preview.
You need to remember that in this scene, the Ring really, really wanted to be in Gandalf's posession, and Gandalf really, really wanted the ring, and only through supreme effort (and telling Frodo never to offer him the Ring again) was he able to resist its corrupting influence. You'll find on reading the book that the image of everyone who asks Frodo this question calls to mind a bit of wide-eyed, lip-licking overattention. Remember, the Ring corrupted everyone who touched it (and even some who didn't), with the sole exception of Tom Bombadil.
Virg
Heh. I've been waiting all day for this review to get posted. ;-) I made it to the 12:01 AM showing Tuesday night (technically Wed. Morning). It was well worth not getting to leave the theatre until after 3AM to watch the movie.
The review is right on. I had expectations as well as anyone else. I've read the book before, and I'm a few pages short of finishing the first part of the trilogy now, so everything was fresh in my mind.
Of all the changes (there were plenty; mostly omissions), they were all chosen well to fit a screen play. The beginning was slow, but it moved much faster than the book; they got rid of years of non-events that were passed off in the book as just waiting around.
Arwin being written in more to the early story was nice, and I must say I'm very pleased with her performance. There were doubts as to her ability as an actress, but I think she performed magnificently. She was the only character who was very rewritten IMHO. Gandalf was a bit kinder/gentler than the Gandalf in the books, and Elrond a bit less so.
I'm still a bit confused about Aragorn's broken sword. Did it get resmithed and I blinked during that part of the movie, or did I misread that page the other night in the book when I thought I read that it was reforged at Rivendell right then? Oh well.
In any case, before I ramble too far, as with any movie adaptation there was a great deal of nuance lost from the book, but given the exhausting detail in the book and the tight constraints on a movie (even if it IS 3 hours long) it's difficult to imagine any improvements.
Well done! Watch it over and over again.
I think he said that it's not the most influentual book. That's a point that is not so difficult to prove.
in the movie saruman is posessed by evil... he is a slave of sauron, made himself slave because of fear.
in the book saruman wasn't a slave. he was ambitious. powererhungry. the power corrupted him. he wanted to bekame the DARK LORD himself!
there we can see that even halfgods... yeah, saruman was one of the mayar, as gandalf and sauron were... we can see that even halfgods are human.
but there it goes. the visuals are stunning. the epic is stunning. but the movie goes not very deep as the books do... too bad for a missed opportunity.
p.s. ok well then, we forget about bombadil and those zombies. ok we forget about glorfindel... one of the most powerful and eldest elves at all... but damn jackson should have not forgotten about the gift scene in lothlorien... these 10 minutes would have explained damn much about the background and would help to understand why gimly and legolas became friends and gimly stopped about mistrusting elves.
p.p.s. legolas rulez both in the books and in the movie
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I don't have the attention of a - LOOK! PUPPIES!!!
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. - ast
Hey, where is Jon Katz' parallel review saying "They did not get the true flavor of the hobbits...Frodo was really more like an unloved geek and that doesn?t come through in this movie. All in all, good special effects, but really just another example of rampant globalist corporatism."
http://www.google.com/search?q=adolecents
Did you mean: adolescents
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. - ast
Well, I was thinking that if the "sacrifice story for action" motif was real, we'd see a lot of the fight in Rohan and less of the two Hobbits crossing over at Minas Morgul. It wouldn't break my heart to see more of Gimley bustin' heads, but it would take something away from the whole "Hobbits as children growing up" theme.
Virg
The books are fun but if you think these are the best books ever written, you're about as well read as Smeagol.
If you put 1/2 the effort into reading Hamlet (merely one example of a better book) as you did LotR, you'd realize that the Ring books aren't all that.
Hell, the 3rd and 4th Harry Potter books are better than LotR. Those books are page turners. In contrast, parts of LotR read like the goddam bible.
Yep. I used to be a sysop in the late 80's, and know that there is a certain groupie element that hangs out around sysops like groupies around a rock star. You want to not let them too near the console of the board, they spy around and do other things they think are all powerful.
It probably hasn't changed much, except now they hang out around 'sysadmins.'
All I can say is I have sympathy for Malda and his ilk.
My girlfriend owns a holiday cottage on the (UK's) North Yorkshire coast in a splendidly rural fishing village: http://www.freefoto.com/regional/europe/united_kin gdom/england/yorkshire/runswick_bay/index.asp
I've been up to Runswick bay with her several times now, at various times of the year (Valentines - freezing snow + wonderful log fires, Summer - inclement + pints of ale while the weather improves - you get the idea).
We've always driven there (a 5-6 hour journey by motorway) and by tradition, during the journey and return, her family have always listened to the BBC's production of the Lord of The Rings (recorded presumably during early 80s?) on 90 minute cassettes. We now have the BBC's 13CD box set, which I've encoded into MP3s so that I can play them in the car.
I haven't seem the film yet, but I know it's going to have a hard time living up to this BBC production for me, I have many pleasant memories of listening to this splendid story. The cast The cast was fantastic and the music unforgettable.
# init 5
Connection closed.
Oh...
Exactly! I agree wholeheartedly. Massive amounts of dialogue are omitted from the movie; it seems to be moving at breakneck speed the entire time.
Now, I'm not saying this to suggest that I dislike the movie, and I certainly sympathize with the problem the movie makers had: to keep all the dialogue would probably have doubled the movie's length. So I can't fault them for it, and I think that they did as fine a job as could be expected.
I loved it. It's a fabulous movie. I think I would have liked it better if I wasn't so familiar with the books, though, which I too have read at least a dozen times, simply because I would not have had expectations about all that missing dialogue.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
I can only hope that somewjere in Clifornia right now George Lucas is saying "Holy Shit! I am gonna have to do some serious re-writing on Star Wars, because this Darth Vader in love shit on that trailer ain't gonna cut it" And I don't care how damn many Boba Fetts they add.
Carpe Deez
I thought Jackson might have seen the Beren and Lutjien parallel in LOTR and Silmarillion.
In that context a "tougher" Arwen makes sense.
Luithien was the the original bridge between the elves and the humans and was also the evening starof her time.
Parrots don't eat gnats, do they?
Wouldn't you rather have a nice cracker?
Or are you pining for the fjords?
I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed this movie but... where is Tom Bombadil?
His part of the book with the forest and all was probably one of my favorites and I was really looking forward to hearing his songs in real life and seeing his wife.
oh well...
"hey man got a light?"
That way with all the scratches and splice repairs it will look like a true "historical document" from Middle Earth.
ARRR!! ARRR!!
I don't like big words..., does that make me anti-semantic?
for people who liked the book. I just got back from a showing of it and I must admit I was more confused by anything (Having never read the books).
Now put that flame thrower down fat boy, think about it. Could you show someone a star trek a movie who has never watched (let alone liked) star trek and expect them to like it the same way someone who has never missed an episode, speaks Klingon, and can recite the rules of acquisition?
Not at all, from a purely technical standpoint they would not have enough information to understand the characters.
All I have to say is if you haven't read the books don't bother with the movie. Its long, slow, pretty, but lacking direction. (The movie assumes you already know where its going.)
Jack Valenti: Gentlemen, we have a problem. I've been surfing some web discussion boards, and it seems that many idealistic Geeks and Nerds of the world are angry about the MPAA and the DMCA! They're calling for boycotts! What can we do?
Studio Exec: Don't worry, Jack. We'll just make some more flashy movies about time travel, robots, and hobbits. These so-called "idealists" will go nuts. They'll line up days in advance to purchase overpriced tickets. They'll brag to one another about how many times they've seen the movie. Then we can use the profits to give our lobbyists salary increases, and to bribe more congressmen.
Jack Valenti: Excellent
Yep - its already on IMAX in Dallas. You talk about an experience, try watching this movie on the HUGE screen.
Beautiful, cutting-edge special effects for Fellowship of the Ring.
One year old, OK special effects for The Two Towers.
Two year old, dated special effects for The Return of the King.
*sigh*
Oh, well. At least when watching the trilogy on DVD, drastic changes in visual appearance won't interfere with suspension of disbelief like watching Star Wars 1-6...
kb
just to interject a different perspective -- i went with a group of people i work with to see lotr. there were three of us who had never read the books, of which i was one...
anyhow, i found the beginning of the film slow and hard to follow. it did improve after about the first hour, but it never really caught my interest and held it.
the special effects were good, not great. my biggest gripe was that it seemed like the cameraman in the fighting scenes was drunk.
of the group who went, those who had read the books all loved it, and those of us who had not read them all were not impressed. as for the ending, one of my other coworkers who hadn't read the books summed it up quite well - "i feel like i could have left five minutes after the movie started and not missed a thing".
The first 45 minutes are a bit slow going, but once the Fellowship starts coming together I just didn't want to blink.
:).
That makes it an even better adaptation of the book - I always remember Fellowship of the Ring being very slow compared to the other two books
I know, I'll go download it and watch it here!
[3 hours later]
No one has it yet. Lazy slacker pirates....
-Legion
Doesn't Gandalf already have one of the Elven Rings of Power before he goes through Moria? I think he's subordinate to Saruman in rank only . . .
Okay i aggree with leaving out Tom Bombadil but he ties into the Ents.. are they going to leave out the Ents? granted they play a much biger part.
I really would like to see what an Ent looks like my imagination messed up on what an Ent looks like
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
I'll wait until it's out on DVD, thanks.
Seriously, all these people who make a mad dash the first hour a movie is open are morons.
I wanna hear more about Denise.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Very little of the CG for the next movies has been done. All the live-action footage is done, b ut the post-production and CG effects have not, at least as far as I understand it. They have the ability (and one would assume, the expectation) to stay current and improve their internal techniques.
The best thing Bombadil does in the books is put on the ring. Nothing happens ... He just laughs. Later, the Council discusses leaving the ring with Bombadil as opposed to destroying it. It's discussed as if it might work (!).
I think of Bombadil as a singularity, almost like the avatar of Tolkien himself in the book. Tom Bombadil's almost offhand rescues of the Hobbits are not critical to the story, but Bombadil is important to the world of Middle Earth.
Nevertheless, I can't wait to see this movie. I can't remember ever seeing reviews this good.
If I look at it like just another adventure movie it gets thumbs up.
However if I look at the book I have to say the movie doesn't convey most of what's important. The story of The Lord of the Rings it's nothing special. What makes the book special is its language and the amazing detail with all the linguistics, anthropology, mythology, poetry, genealogy, geology, etc that J.R.R. Tolkien spent many years researching. By looking at the movie I just see a not so original story with plenty of action and a neck breaking pace. I think the characterization, imagery and locations are very good but not enough to recreate the content of the book.
This movie is probably the best of all the possible renditions given the constraints but in all I think it's a poor reflection of the original work.
Flame away!
I'm sorry, but Starship Troopers had very believable monsters. Of course, exoskeletons are easier to do than skin, but that's just using the technology smartly :)
You can't take the sky from me...
To those who stayed until the end of the credits:
Right near the very end there were a couple of lines of what I presume to be elven text. Are there any elven-fluent Slashdotters who happen to know what they said?
I'm extremely curious, and haven't been find the answer anywhere...
~Matt
Approximately 24h57m ago, I went to see the movie, and as I walked out of the theater, my mind was shared equally between two destinct thoughts: "Wow", and "what happened to those 3 hours?".
:-)
I did, however, remember, that I had felt a bit uneasy a couple of times, although the general impression was so overwhelming, that I could not recall, what it was that had bothered me.
As a consequence, I went back about 10h later, and watched it again. Still, I am in awe, but with a better recollection of what I hold to be imperfections, partly because I had to explain some detials to the friend I brought the second time, who hasn't read the books (I appreciate the fact, that the more subtle issues, such as Gollum's life before The Ring found him, Samwise's affection for Bill and such, would render the movie far too prolix).
Frodos relationship with Samwise, Meriadoc and Peregrin should be elaborated upon. What makes Merry and Pippin think "hey, let's join those two guys with dark horsemen after them..."?
And why is it only Merry and Pippin, who helps?
Tom Bombadil???
Frodo is far more imprudent in Bree...
I had no idea that Arwen was Glorfindel in drag?
Though Pippin has his momonts of folly, why does it have to be him, who disturbs the water creature?
And why is it Frodo, who gets the idea to open the entrance to Moria?
Given Gimli's distaste for elves, how come they get along so great all of a sudden?
And last of all, who does Frodo consult on the matter of leaving the fellowship? And when does Sam guess?
None the less, Peter Jackson, and the entire crew, has done a truly amazing job. My most optimistic hope for the movie was, that it would be good. It really is fantastic, and though opinions may differ, they managed to match my inner pictures of the characters with almost uncanny accuracy.
I just wish I could hibernate until they open the sales for the next movie
Namarié,
Sune
"The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
If you don't already have it, the song "Nightfall" by Blind Guardian may be one of the most beautiful songs ever written, and yes, it's based on Tolkien. Enchanting music to get into the LoTR mood...
Is it just me, or has Sean Bean never been cast as anything but a traitor? Off the top of my head, the only movies I can name with him as a traitor are FOTR and Goldeneye, but I seem to recall others. Even someone who hadn't read the books probably would be able to figure out that Boromir would betray them simply by the casting of Sean Bean.
We can't stop here! This is bat country!
I'm a little confused. Why did he/his ancestors abandon the throne to become a Ranger in the novels? Not refuting your point, I just can't remember.
They didn't really abandon the throne. See Aragorn was a decendant of the royal family of the the nothern kindom on numenorians. Gondor was the Southern Kindom. The northern kindom was basically ground down to nothing through centuries of war and disease and disaster etc, until its people were very few and could not maintain a kindom any longer. However they kept the histories and lore alive even though they lived as rangers, and still struggled to keep the nothern realms safe.
In Gondor the last king was killed without an heir, and the stewards took over. The rulers of the northern realms and the southern realms were both decended from the same family, therefore Aragorn was the only remaining decendant of both the northern and southern royal families, so the throne of gondor, and of the norhtern realms was his to claim.
"Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
Technically, it's one book conveniently split into three books because they didn't print books that big back then. So technically TT and RotK don't actually "start"
:)
On Weathertop, aragorn gives each of them a sword, and frodo of course gets sting later on in Rivendell.
You'll notice on Merry's scabbard, there are elvish runes. This is the setup that it's an elvish blade and can thus be used against the witch king.
what more do I need to say ?
Probably 5th best spent film ticket ever !! (starwars trilogy comes first in their 1997 re-release, and then 2001 in its 2001 re-release)
blaah !
the movie is pretty amazing. My only knowledge of hobbits is by way of the eternal Leonard Nimoy song "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" so I could hardly be disappointed. Speaking of which, if anyone from New Line is reading this, I have a great idea for an easter egg on the DVD.
Gandalf was almost chosen as the leader of the council. I'll quote from my copy of FOTR:
Galadriel: "It was I who first summoned the White Council. And if my designs had not gone amiss, it would have been governed by Gandalf the Grey, and then mayhap things would have gone otherwise."
This was one of the things that I didn't like about the move. Saruman is depicted as being more powerful than Gandalf which I never took as the case. I took them of equal power but focused on different areas of study and philosophy.
Saruman was also openly saying "we must join with Sauron" which he never says in the book. To be fair, it's obvious that he's going to double cross Sauron in the movie. In the movie, it's side with Sauron. In the book, Gandalf sums up Saruman by saing "it's either submit to Sauron or to yourself."
But, I will say I'm _very_ impressed with the overall portrayal of Gandalf. He looks and acts like I'd imagined him. Though I would have liked to have seen more of him laughing, as that's a key difference between him and Saruman and the way they both act. But that side of Gandalf is shown, so other than the fact that he gets his ass kicked by Saruman I love Sir Ian's and Jackson's work. (in the book, they don't ever directly fight, Saurman seems to use the threat of physical force to bar Gandalf's escape).
you call running slashdot a job? Taco, Taco... oh my.
For what it's worth, I've written my own review. It's oriented toward those familiar with the book, and contains some "spoilers" (for those who, unlike me, think a film adaptation of a well-known work can contain spoilers). Enjoy!
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
You're right -- he was the fake SAS guy in Ronin with Robert DeNiro and Jean Reno. He ruled in that movie, I thought.
FWIW, I walked out of FOTR 45 minutes before it ended. I guess I'm too much of a purist...
--------------- Murphy was an otpimist.
Lets get SUPER technical and say it is one book split into three that are again each split into three.
I saw it last night at midnight (I have a friend at the theatre who provided us with a special showing). For over three hours, I literally sat at the edge of my seat! Even though I had been up since that morning, I was wide awake and excited during the entire movie. The effects are awesome. So is the sound. So is the whole grandeur of the movie. It's HUGE without being grandiose. if you see one film in 2001/2002 make it this one!
It can be used when talking about the films (like when the trailers get released).
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
[I am a viewer that has read LotR several times.]
Sure, the movie is visually breathtaking. (Although, at times, I'd wished middle earth looked more like England and less like New Zealand.)
Probably it will appeal to lovers of the action movie genre.
But I was repeatedly disappointed and disenchanted with the unnecessary, even gratuitous, changes to the story, and with the (literally) missing-in-action {gestalt, emotions, back story} of the story -- the poems, the trekking, the quiet places in the story, the sadness that the elves are diminishing and leaving, the deep friendship between Sam and Frodo.
I don't mind that they leave out whole chapters. Tom Bombadill was missing from the BBC adaptation too, but it was no worse for it.
But was it so necessary to make substantial changes to the story?
For example... Spoiler warning...
In the pivotal scene at the end of FotR, Frodo *secretly* abandons the fellowship, in a boat. Sam figures this out for himself and follows him. But in the movie, the screenplay writers change the entire dynamic by adding a big discussion with Aragorn, and amateur heroics on the part of Merry and Pippin, for Pete's sake. Damn!
I am surprised to feel, rotoscoping notwithstanding, that the Bakshi animated version, was truer to the essence of the story. (And the BBC radio version, best of all.)
And time and again I wished they'd used actual dialog from the book instead of made up dialog.
Sigh.
It was depressing to leave the theatre so disappointed when everyone around seemed so enthusiastic...
The only other thing that would have floored me was if Gimli yelled out "It is a good day to die!"
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
It's just you. He was the good guy in the Sharp's Rifles series of movies about a soldier in the Nepoleonic wars. Good too.
ratty
Is that suppose to be "affairs of dragons"? It scans better that way.
who makes these lameness filters? i can't post a rant about how franatical you tolkien fans are about. i bet this post gets fitered. if it does i have a tale about my belly button a tale of power wisdom and ultimate fungul power! my navel is infected it has funny smells, ack bad smells and feels really bad, i hope the doctor doesn't say i got a pixie in my navel.
the end
the lameness contiunes.
Me and lunchbox here are going to kick your ass.
I agree. I think the movie was tons of fun and wondefully done. But much of the subtleties were missing. I guess there is only so much you can do in three hours.
Yeah, I saw the movie on the 10. december (living :)
in iceland *does* have it's perks from time to time...
This is one of the best, if not the best, movies I
have ever seen. Yes, the hype is definately warranted.
Everyone should *definately* see this movie. It's just
so brilliant. The acting is believeable, and the actors
actually fit their roles. The special effects are par to none.
BTW, I saw the movie in a theatre with quite a good
sound system, and I didn't notice any of the audio
problems mentioned in the article.
---
andmann
andmann@_nospam_.andmann.eu.org
What? Oh... hehe...
Shire! Baggins!
Its very difficult to translate 6~9 hours of straight reading into 2 1/2 hours of motion picture, specially since the writing style of J.K. Rowling is so fast and action packed, with so many things said in very little time.
The result is a good-intentioned movie that tries very hard at packing as many scenes from the book as possible, and to be as true as possible to the book, but nontheless a slightly failed movie.
This movie adaptation of Fellowship of the Ring, on the other hand, benefits from Tolkiens much slower, detailed descriptions (which are more than adequately honored by the amazing New Zealander landscapes and the carefully designed sets and costumes) and by the extra ammount of time it enjoys.
No sig for the moment.
Well, I'm enough of a geek to see it twice today. I'm well-acquainted with the books, but not such a nut that I've read the Silmarillion. Smiley. Here are some observations, with spoilers:
Honestly, I was a little disappointed the first time. The reasons may have been personal, since I know the books pretty well, but I nevertheless had this feeling. Some nitpicks --- the direction seemed too choppy in some places, to the extent that I wasn't buying a reasonable passage of time. Gandalf leaves the Shire, and is suddenly at Gondor (which was unnamed --- probably a mystery to any newbies). He then shows up back in the Shire. In the books, this takes something like 17 years before he pieces together evidence for Bilbo's ring to be the One. It is nowhere near that long here, but how long was it? Gandalf says the march through Moria will take 4 days, but it really seems like the same day that they emerge. I know we can't tell the passage of time easily in the mines, but maybe there could have been some short shots of eating and sleeping. My wife, a LOTR newbie, thought that they were only in Lothlorien overnight, when they were supposed to have been there a couple of weeks to rest and mourn. These are nitpicky things, but they added up to a rushed feel. There was no mention made that the Sword that was Broken was reforged. Maybe this is revealed later. It would have been nice to make more obvious how the Elves fate is bound to the quest --- that much of their power is derived from the 3 rings they own, and that will end when/if the One is destroyed. At Bree, Strider never mentions that he is Gandalf's friend, so one could wonder what the heck he is doing there, and why the hobbits should follow him at all. The thing that bothered me perhaps more than the others is the allegiance between Saruman and Sauron. Saruman even uses the Palantir to "talk" to Sauron and do his bidding. Didn't Saruman want the ring for himself in the books? It is much more interesting that way, and I can't imagine why that was changed.
All those nitpicks aside, the second viewing was wonderful. I knew the discrepancies the second time, and could sit back and enjoy the scenery and the score. The books are so dear to me that it is really hard to give the movie some kind of objective rating. Other than small things like the above, the movie matched very well my imaginings. It is now one of my favorites of all time, but that hasn't as much meaning as it would normally because I would probably love a movie consisting of two guys in t-shirts reading the book to each other. I have a hunch that with the next two, the pacing will improve. There just aren't as many different scenes and landscapes to cover, as well as no need for as much introductory material. The finished trilogy should be nothing short of tremendous.
bzzt
the books are numbered
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Damn straight! It was thought-provoking science fiction, and what's more, it broke the mold of feature-animated storytelling in the US. And to be honest, I thought Shrek downright insulted my intelligence.
Hey, where can I get fireworks like those? Nothin' even close can be turned up north of the border. :-)
Wow. That's all I have to say about this movie. It stayed closer to the book's plot than I had thought, and I thought that where it did stray, it was reasonable. Peter Jackson should be knighted or something...
Is it just me, or did Gollum look like a lemur?
Oh my. Oh my. I am astounded - very nearly wordless. CmdrTaco, your review was just so amazing... amazingly thoughtless and inane. I forgive you, because I expect you were too busy giving head to the studio execs to write something intelligent. Fellowship of the Ring sucked. 3 hours of the worst bullshit ever perpetrated on the world. Not once, from the very beginning, was that tripe true to the novel. Oh, you did know there was a novel, right? I suggest you go to your local bookstore and actually read it, you dumbass. I do not recall the ringwraiths setting out for the Shire immediately after Bilbo's birthday in the novel. I do not remember there being a hair-raising, Hollywood-esque chase through the night to the ferry, with Frodo heroically leaping to across the water at the last moment, barely escaping the wraith trailing behind him (apparently Hobbits are faster that horses...). Perhaps you remember Tom Bombadil? Or the Barrow-Downs? Or a certain letter left for Frodo by Gandalf at the Prancing Pony? And what the fuck was with that battle he had with Saruman? DEAR GOD. Is the only power those two have that of telekinesis? If they fought at all, it would be a battle of wills, not some shitty nonsense with them throwing each other against walls. And the palantir! Oh, the palantir! What the hell was the director thinking? That wasn't even supposed to be known until the 2nd book! But I forgive you for not knowing that - after all, you didn't even read the first book, let alone the others. Oh, there's more, so much more to say... Strider just happening to have 4 Hobbit-sized swords to just hand out when needed (what a fucking shitty workaround for the Barrow-Downs, too), fighting off, what was it, five Nazgul on his own, with just a sword and a torch?! Some stupid Elfen princess bitch showing up out of nowhere to bring Frodo across the river?! THEY INTRODUCED A NEW CHARACTER. HOLY SHIT. I have to stop now, I'm getting too pissed. I just have one last thing to say, though: next time you decide to write a fucking review of a movie, do the world a favor and drown yourself in a toilet first, ok?
Hey anyone else catch the words that were whispered whenever someone was concentrating on the Ring?
"Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakutulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul."
("One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.")
Damn, it's the little things like this that just made that movie so good. I think I'll see it again tomorrow. (and Friday, for that matter)
Can't wait to see "Frodo Lives" spray-painted in the NYC subway system again :)
Made me feel seasick and ruined it for me. Some of the scenes were fantastic but overall it was like a camera with a smeared lens mounted on the back
of a chiuaua. By the time I got out of there,
my eyes were pointing in different directions.
I think he is subordinate to Saruman in esteem only. His position as Manwe's servant and representative probably would not have made him subordinate to any of the maia other than Sauron.
Ryan
Too many quick cuts (to hide the CG seams?), too dependent on the sound track, too frenetic, Hobits too childish (Frodo's a baby face), and my number one, all time favorite gripe: the Hobits are American instead of English. (Queue music, applause)
Consequences ensue.
I can't imagine a film adaptation of perhaps the best book ever written being done better.
Haven't you been watching your 700 Club? The best book ever written is the Wholey BYE-bul!
I'd say a prayer for you in hopes of your saving your immortal sould from damnation, but I'm late for the coven's outing to the LOTR movie...
:D
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
At the council I really REALLY wanted Elrond to say:
"Tell me, Mr. Boromir...what good is a Ring of Power...if you are unable to *wear* it?"
And then Boromir's fingers would fuse together. Rock on.
Co-founder of GerbilMechs
was it just me, or was Gandalf a pothead? also, what was up with the scene with the halfings drooling over the shrooms. no wonder these dewds eat 5 meals a day.
i am convinced that "/.ers" are homosexuals and imma make that my "sig"
Yeah, the movie was awesome. I loved it.
But...
Three hours of intense pleasure with no real climax results in the worst case of blue-balls I've had in years! I can't wait for the other two.
-- That tickles!
1) The movie didn't explicitly mention that Galadriel was wearing one of the Three Rings. That's important, as well as the fact that when the One Ring is destroyed, so will be the elven rings' powers.
2) Frodo stabbed one of the Dark Riders on the Hilltop before he was stabbed; he didn't just fall and cower from them. They didn't really need to make him look weaker in the first fight, did they?
3) It's OK they left out the long poems, but I think some of the essential Tolkien quality is missing, and I think it was some of the poetry. They snipped "All that is gold does not glitter / Not all those who wander are lost" which is my favorite Bilbo poem.
4) They didn't include Sauraman's magical cloak ("... an old man, swathed in a great cloak, the colour of which was not easy to tell, for it changed if they moved their eyes or if he stirred".) It would have been nice, cinematically, if when he was confronting Gandalf, he threw off his white cloak and had the multi-color cloak on underneith.
...Saw it at 10pm on Tuesday, since it got released earlier in Canada!
HOWTO get better dates on slashdot
...Tom Bombadil, is all I have to say.
If LOTR had any "so on begat so on" bible type bits then he was it.
"I'm Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo, something something something, now rhyme with 'Willow'"
In short GREAT CALL! He shat me.
:)
Personally, I felt it suffered from Potter's syndrome (I know the story line too well to be surprised; I would have found the scene with Galadriel really much more intense if I hadn't known the outcome, for one example), but aside from that it met my every expectation. I was really impressed with how true to the plot they were able to be within the limits of 3 hours of film.
But in the end, the movie will make it or not in the box office based more on the non-fans reactions than the fans. Here's looking forward to next Christmas.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Was anyone else as impressed by the soundtrack as I was? The music was set perfectly to the movie.
I want to go to the movie again, in part just to hear the sound.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
I was never sure this day would come. I finally get to see the LOTR as a true motion picture!! Well, I went in to the theater knowing that many things were going to be cut out. But, after watching it, I think Jackson made the most of it. Obviously he cut out many of the minor details, mostly the drudgery I suppose, and turned it into more of an action-oriented story.
One major thing I noticed was the overwhelming time spent on Saruman. I enjoyed the wizard battle but after that I was somewhat surprised at the amount of "airtime" that Saruman got. However, I think Saruman played his role convincingly and it worked well for the movie.
The one part of the movie that I enjoyed the most was the Mines of Moria. Extremely well done, especially the Balrog scene which was very true to the book. The cave troll scene was also very exciting. In fact it was so well done that I was scared out of my wits when Frodo appeared to be killed by the cave troll, but then I remembered the mithril mail.
One other thing I must comment on. I found Hugo Weaving playing the role of Elrond somewhat amusing. During the entire Rivendell scene I was seeing flashbacks from "The Matrix". I envisioned Frodo calling up Tank and asking for an exit after Elrond told him to bring the ring forward. But anyways...
Overall I think the first movie was very well done and I will definitely be making multiple trips back to the movie theater to see it this Christmas season.
The Tick : Spooooooooooooooooooooon!.
Neo : There is no spoon.
I think you are right. While this is an old book, many people have not read the book. As an example,
at the end of the movie, which ends just where the book ends, I heard lots of comments like "why did they end it there?" Which means that in the sold out crowd, at a 1:00PM showing on a workday, many people probably had not read the books.
I first read the trilogy when I was 14 in 1977, and have read it several times since then. I thought for sure the movie would be awful. It wasn't. I am still amazed that they were able to make normal sized actors look natural when they made them hobbit sized or dwarf sized in the case of John
Rhys-Davies.
In addition, I thought I would hate the Aragorn and Arwen thread inserted into the movie from the book's appendex. While it is a distraction, my wife loved this storyline. So if your girlfriend won't go tell her there is a love story in the movie...something for everyone.
NEWSFLASH :
Nerds like The Lord of the Rings movie.
Education is the silver bullet.
He was great as Gandlaf, and the whole movie was pretty darn good, though having just finished the book and working on getting through the others, I realized a lot of little details that weren't there (many of which shouldn't have been for time purposes).
But some spots, with the inflection in his voice, I just couldn't keep from thinking - When's Magneto going to come out and take the ring or just detroy it himself with his mutant powers?
Anyone know if the non-english sentences
in the credits are Maori? If so, what
does it say? I heard Maori blessings
were bestowed upon the filming.
Scenes are missing, other are incredibly shortened, others have been moved so that the progression is different from Tolkien's plot. ;-)
It seems that they wanted to focus on the action.
Actually you'd better not have read the book but I may be a little late
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Let's use the Tengwar rune that means "Gandalf".
Where did you get the idea that the Tengwar of Feanor were runes? They're just letters, and the script has more inherent structure than Latin-1 does. It's good for writing Quenya, Sindarin, English, Lojban, and Esperanto. For runes, look to Cirth or Futhark.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Isn't it Gandalf (with help of course), that overthrows Sauron in his previous guise (which takes place between the Hobbit and LOTR)?
So that's what episodes 2 and 3 are going to be about. If what happened to Star Wars is any indication, then in about 20 years, we'll see special editions of all three parts of LotR, and then The Hobbit (with annoying cartoonish CGI character Gollum), and then two more movies to tell the story between The Hobbit and LotR.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Funny, I just saw Peter Jackson's adaptation. I didn't know there was also one out by this Jackman fellow.
Cough, cough.
I really, really wanted to like it. I did, honest.
:). But they totally simplefied Saruman's treason to a huge fault.
I went in knowing it wouldn't be perfect, I figured it would be simply the LOTR story as told be a different storyteller.
But I came away somewhat saddened by it.
When it started I was hooked, I *loved* first part, with the history and the stuff with Gandalf in the Shire and the party and all... and then the Bastardization of Saruman happened.
Oh gawd, that was horrible. Anything involving Saruman sucked. Ok, not the destruction around his tower, boy the Ents are gonna be pissed about that
And the whole handling of Orcs was IMHO kinda lame. In the books Orcs actually have conversations... in the movie they can hardly grunt the word "halfling".
And I couldn't get past Agent Elrond. And the sappy love stuff. What the hell was that? And the crossing of the Ford... huh? Pretty much the whole Rivendell part was weak.
Past that, the Moria part was pretty cool, not accurate to the book at all, but very cool nonetheless (goes back to that different storyteller thing).
Boromere's death was well done... still fighting with those huge arrows sticking out of him... yikes.
So there was actually quite a bit of book mangling going on -- some that made sense (no Tom Bombadil), some that didn't (Saruman). Unfortunatly (for me) even though there were some really awesome parts, the overall story damage was a bit too much.
#1: the movie has a subtitle. it is "lotr: travel new zealand". i have never been to new zealand. i have never really cared much to go to new zealand before lotr. "xena, warrior princess" was pretty at times, but i had no idea. this movie has put more fire in my loins to visit those antipodes than ever before. god damn what a gorgeous country! the new zealand board of tourism should bend over and kiss peter jackson's ass and write him a check in the 8 figures for all the image building he has done for them.
;-)
#2: the film clocks in at 3 hours, but i didn't even notice. that is unbelievable, i am quite the time fidget. all i was thinking 2 seconds into the credits rolling was show me book 2 NOW! time definitely flies when you are having fun. i really can not wait 12 months. they should have made it 3.5 hours or 4 hours. put the barrow wights back in (i did miss them, but this is minor overall). show me the directors cut on dvd in 5 years clocking in at 5 hours. PLEASE!
#3: i haven't touched or thought much about lotr since i read it at age 9. yet it all began to come back to me about an hour in. when they are entering the mines of moria, i remembered that octopus thing in the lake outside the entrance before they revealed it on screen and i suddenly got one of those childhood flashbacks to the nightmares that damn thing gave me when i was reading the books. i can not describe the feeling of dejavu, long buried childhood nightmares, and amazingly dead-on special effects intersecting all at the same time, but i will tell you it involves hairs on my neck standing up.
#5: peter jackson and crew: well done, well done, well done. bravo! you guys had a million chances to fail miserably on this adaptation, and a very tiny window to satisfy. you did much more than that. you took my jar of jaded expectations and smacked me on the head with it.
#6: you heard it here first: this movie will be a cultural phenomenon like titanic or the matrix was. i already am planning on see it a second time. be prepared for blockbuster earnings and tales of fans seeing this thing 20 times over before the new years and chatter about it on the morning talk shows and in elevator rides.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Scene
In tense moment while the council is meeting, and the lord of the elves has given his speech...
Audience Feedback...
"The name is NEO!"
Scene
Bad ass orc just has arm knocked off...
Audience Feedback
"I'm Not dead yet!"
Scene
Bad ass orc is decapitated...
Audience Feedback
"Ok, I guess I'm dead now..."
Scene
Near end of movie when frodo has a flashback to gandalf about "how you act in your time"
Audience Feedback
"Use the force Luke"
Okay, I admit, the movie was a very good carry-over of the original work by J.R.R.Tolkein. But, consider this: Tolkein's epic story is, what, 60+ years old now? It's a great story, to be sure. Grand. But the world then is different from the world now; Juxtapose that with the market for a book is different than the market for a movie.
In Star Wars: Episode I, George Lucas was widely criticized for his Jar Jar Binks character. In point of fact, it was the best move he could possibly have made. Why have a movie that's perfect for a very small audience, but very limited to others? Instead, he marred it somewhat for geeks, but opened it up to children. Marketing it solely to us would be to market it to an audience that is on it's way out. Better to get the foot in the door to a new generation that can then become fans themselves, and enjoy the same obsession that we have for decades already.
Similarly, we should have a sort of comic-relief character in the LOTR movie series. Gollum, while he made for an excellent character already in the original, would fit this role in a most excellent fashion. Gandalf has already aluded to the fact that Gollum could play a role for either good or evil -- So why not have him play a role for good by having him gain an immunity necklace from the elves so that he may accompany Frodo to Mount Doom, and eventually face down an unrevealed enemy from the past -- perhaps a Sauron-Loyal rival who cursed him with the ring in order to harm him and further the cause of evil simultaneously.
Think of it like BeOS -- It was a great operating system, wasn't it? But they refused to market it. BeOS died. We don't want Lord of the Rings to die, do we? It needs to adapt and change to it's environment like any other entity.
It seems that everyone caught the Matrix angle, but I missed that one.
I kept envisioning Elrond, in drag, riding on top of a big bus, drapped in a silver frock, sitting in a massive silver high heel shoe, in the middle of the dessert.
Go figure! I'm in the Middle Earth and I'm still plagued by Priscilla, Queen of the Dessert.
In my opinion, perhaps in some ways, yes.
I read the book in 1984, and still remember all the names etc. (When I still forget my best friend's name from time to time...)
What they left out, one did not miss. (You know what they took out, but it was of little impact... I'll wait for the director's cut or something...)
The beauty, fear, angst, joy, excitement is much more so in the movie than in the book. The movie replaces thousands of words with one image, and thus had the time to give the book it's due credit in story.
Casting/acting was brilliant.
Only one thing grated my nerves: "Let's hunt some Orc"
One can't have everything!
PS: 3 rows in my cinema was double booked: I carried in a lounge couch from the hall outside rather than get free movie tickets for another time... (this received a cheer from the audience...)
:))
final part in lord of rings epic hits theatres. In other news Blizzard says Warcraft III is done.
-THIS SPACE FOR RENT!
Wow doesn't cover it. I got to see a midnight showing (on the 20th but, hey, it was free). And it was phenomenal. Everything was as I pictured it. The balrog was just perfect. The coolest thing was seeing Legolas quick-draw 3 or 4 arrows, and stab an orc in the eye with an error and then shooting that same arrow (didya notice that the backround wasn't moving fast meaning he really can move that fast!). And Gimli's fighting style, throwing two battle axes before drawing flourentine axes to cleave! All in all, I have only one bad thing to say about the movie and that's that I have to wait until next December to catch The Two Towers!
Can't spell slaughter without laughter!
Later I realized how appropriate it actually was, and I think Tolkein would've agreed. Arwen Undomiel is the great-great-granddaughter of the elvish princess Luthien Tinuviel who dared the gates of hell (Angband) to recover the Silmarillion and to be with her lover, the mortal man Beren. She was the great-granddaughter of the foresighted and brave elvish princess Idril Celebrindal, who led her people out of the doomed city of Gondolin during the War of the Silmarils. She was the granddaughter of Elwing, who threw herself into the sea rather than let her estranged relatives the sons of Feanor take the Silmaril by force. And last but hardly least, she was the granddaughter of Galadriel who helped lead the Noldor out of the Blessed Realm into Middle Earth to fight the War of the Silmarils.
Having her take the place of Glorfindel in fighting off the Ringwraiths is entirely in character.
"I his bow, and spun and wove, likes you." Vere de Vere out of my mould's mouth dragged me of the voluntary apes.
Just got back from the movie, it's 2:13AM and I have to work tommorow but I don't care, I think I'm going to be up until dawn reading Two Towers.
:) Confrontation between Frodo and Gandalf is BEAUTIFUL. McKellan (sp?) will almost certainly have a nomination for this movie, as should Holm for supporting. After the party is where they really start slicing and dicing. There's almost no sense of time passing between Bilbo leaving and when the shit hits the fan. After Gandalf entrusts the ring to Frodo, he leaves in a hurry, we see him surveying Mordor, and reading up on the ring inscription, then he's back in Bag End all freaked out, and convinces Frodo to leave at once, literally pick up a cloak and out the door. (The riders are already asking questions by this point) No long planning, selling Bag End, to the Sackville-Bagginses, etc.. all gone. Gandalf tells him (and Sam, with the whole window scene) to go to Bree where he will meet them at the Prancing Pony. He tells them he will consult Saruman on what to do and leaves, shortly later we see his battle and imprisonment at Isengard. Frodo and Sam just happen to run into Merry and Pippin stealing from Farmer Maggot's (whom we never meet) field. Then there are some scenes with them evading the riders (no encounter with the elven band), and then they are in Bree. No Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, Barrow Downs or Wights.
:)
:) Legolas is exactly as imagined, DAMN he's good with that bow. Bean's Boromir I thought was a trifle too evil and "spot the bad guy"-able, in the book I always got the impression he was the thoughtful, patriotic type, who only really falters briefly at the end.
:) Balrog is better :) The whole Bridge of Kazad-dum and flight from Moria is better than I could have imagined. No dwelling at Mirrormere though, and no Orc army pursuing the Fellowship and getting butchered by the Lothlorien Elves, which is a pity. No sleeping on a platform, no blindfolded walk through Lorien. The tree city is very cool though. I've read some complaints about Galadriel, but I thought she was excellent. Maybe a little bit more witchy than the book, for sure, but very effective regardless. Her speech to Gimli which has a very transforming effect in the book on his relationship with Legolas is missing. Frodo doesn't see the "figure in white" in Galadriel's mirror, which was always the one image that stuck out to me in the book. Also, Frodo doesn't discover she is a bearer of one of the Elf Rings. I bet Jackson didn't want to have to explain why the Ring-Wraiths became evil and twisted, but Galadriel is still good. I wish they had put a bit more effort into Lothlorien, I wonder if there will be a director's cut of this movie?
.... sleep.. no... must.. read.. farther.. my.. precioussss..... we cannot get out... they are coming...
This is not intended to be a review, just a random compilation of thoughts and perceptions concerning the movie in no particular order. Apologies for any spelling/grammar errors, I'm not going to take the time to proof read and correct anything after I write it. There will probably be SPOILERS, but the story's pretty widely known anyway, so what's the big deal?
I feel almost like I just woke up from the best dream I ever had, the movie has an almost dreamlike, surreal feel to it because it flows so fast, glosses over so many details, because it has to, the story and world is so vast, and they've packed so much in. I've been trying to replay the entire movie in my head ever since I walked out of the theatre, savouring every scene's memory before it fades. And I know I will get more from it another time through.
I have read the books before, a long time ago. I re-read Fellowship a few weeks before the movie, to have a fresh image for comparison. Watching the movie felt like reading the book, and that's the highest compliment I can pay it. Most of the dialog is changed, and tons is skipped, despite a blistering 3 hours where not a second is wasted.
OK I'm really going to get into some major SPOILERS now, last warning for anyone who hasn't seen the movie and wants maximum surprise.
-
-
-
Bilbo's party was excellent, very true to the book. Wish they included more of his final speech. No flash-bang either from Gandalf, but all is forgiven for his fireworks
I imagined Aragorn with a deeper voice, but other than that tiny quibble, Viggo is perfect as Strider. Weathertop is great, the battle is actually on top. Frodo/Ring-Vision is very cool, everything is ethereal and ghostily flaming. Ringwraiths are genuinely creepy. They camp in the petrified Troll glade from The Hobbit but don't discuss it at all. Arwen replaces Glorfindel's role as Frodo's rescuer, and there are a few brief romance moments between her and Aragorn in Rivendell. Liv Tyler gives a very mature and believable performance; it actually stands out. I was surprised. The Council of Elrond was reeeeeeally short. No storytelling. I agree with other posts that I still see Agent Smith when I look at Weaving. Kept expecting him to pull out a cell phone and say "They have the ring. Find them and destroy them. I hate this place; this smell. I must leave--for the West." but I digress. He still does a good Elrond, it's just that he did such a great Agent Smith
John Rhyes-Davies is absolutely unrecognizable as a loud angry Gimli, he's great
One real gripe: Gimli was expecting a warm welcome at Moria, he had no sense of foreboding or worry at all. In the book he was hoping to find something, even though messages from Balin's little decorating team had ceased decades previously. In the movie he bellows confidently about dwarven hospitality and roaring fires and such they can expect, while Gandalf and Strider exchange knowing glances about the horrors of Moria. It just doesn't make any sense for their conflicting attitudes towards Moria, with no discussion or resolution.
The battle at Balin's tomb is greatly extended, in the book they essentially just throw the Orcs back momentarily with a flurry of flighting, retreat down some stairs and Gandalf brings down the ceiling. Cave Troll is cool
No gollum/log spotting on the Anduin. The giant Gondor King statues are breathtaking. They stray a bit into Two Towers with the Orc attack, Boromir's death, which is a better place to end it, I thought. It ends with Frodo and Sam on the brink of Mordor, and Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn in pursuit of the Orcs that captured Merry and Pippin. Saruman seems way more in league with Sauron than in the book... but I think it still likely he will chase his own ambition in the next two films.
Well I guess that's a long enough comparison of the book.. What would I give this movie? 98%. This is truly a unique movie... and to think that this is only a third of it, the other films should have the same momentum and feeling throughout. I can't wait to see it again, or the next two films.
Time to
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Err sorry hit submit instead of preview when formatting the text.
I start pointing out mistakes and ommissions I would like to say that the film was brilliant and roll on The Two Towers and Return of the King.
Just to comment on some of the points of the original post
1. Aragome's sword was reforged in the Fellowship of the Ring and in the Two Towers he receives the Flag/banner of Numenor from Arwen.
3. I agree that it was confusing about what size and shape that the hobbits were meant to be. (From the books I thought that Hobbits were Fat little creatures like the dwarfs.)
4. I think that a bit more of the history of the Gollum might have been good. I also agree that he did appear more in the books - as he was nearly captured by the elves in LothLorien.
I actually disagree about leaving Tom Bombadil story/the journy to Bree out. I know this was probably done to shorten the film, but I liked Tom and he did help the story along. I also think the story of where they got the swords from is a bit lame. They did get them in the Barrow-wight but in the film Aragome just hands them out 4 swords (will they loose there magical history in Return of the King?)
Another slight problem I had was Gandalf's sword. I thought that Gandalf's sword and sting (Bilbo and then Frodo's sword) were both Elven blades. If that was the case how come that Gandalf's sword didn't glow blue when the orcs attacked in the mines and Frodo's did? Anyway good film and can't wait for the Two Towers.
I was, on the whole, disappointed. I wasn't fussed about most of the plot changes, whether major (Bombadil) or minor (Frodo opening the doors of Moria), especially where there was a sensible reason (e.g. Frodo's opening the doors showed the hobbits' love of riddles). I was fussed when the change seemed pointless (why not have the monster slam the doors shut and pile rocks and trees on it, as in the book?). And I was very fussed when the changes trivialised the book; having the council degenerate into a near fist-fight was childish, overblowing the antipathy of dwarves and elves and ensuring that no discussion took place of the three options for the ring (destroy it, use it or lose it); having Bilbo seem ferocious and vicious when asking for a final viewing of the ring was an inaccurate portrayal of its power; and having Frodo deteriorate immediately he is wounded at Weathertop actually serves to trivialise the power of the wound, by losing its insidious nature.
But my greatest beefs were with characterisation and dialogue. Both of these were, from time to time, shamefully trivialised. The hobbits appeared to be no more than children; in the book, it is clear that although merry, they are in no way child-like. Saruman was portrayed not as someone who has lost his wisdom through his own arrogance in using the Palantir, but as someone who is and always was evil, notwithstanding references by Gandalf to the contrary.
The dialogue issues were even worse. I was worried that the occassionally portentous speech of Tolkein's characters would jar when portrayed on screen. It never did. But the new dialogue frequently trivialised the characters. The most unforgivable line was Aragorn's comment about "let's hunt us some Orc" at the end. A close second were the endless comments from Frodo about how dreadful it being away from home was. It's not that he doesn't state in the books that he's unhappy to be away; he does. But he doesn't whine, and he doesn't keep restating it. He is stoic. Stoicism is at the centre of his character.
A final complaint: CGI was pretty good; many sets were really good. But I felt that Moria was nowhere near as awful (in the full sense of the word) as the book; and Lothlorien and Rivendell did not feel ethereally beautiful, they felt plasticised.
All in all, the film was not what I'd hoped for.
Harry Potter.
I went to see it the other day, and was left wondering what all the hype was about. I went with a couple of mates who where looking forward to it, as they had read the book, and thought quite highly of it. They thought the film was a poor relation to the book, however.
I think that any film with young kids as the main stars will have problems, as they dont tend to be the best of actors.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
whilst the rest of the world gets to see it now, us poor bastards in HK have to suffer to the whims of the all-powerful distributors!
we don't get a sniff of the film till feb!
you know when you could really kill someone!
My wife and I have read the books about a hundred times. We know exactly what is going to happen. We were still on the edges of our chairs. Tiel was in tears. It exceeded all our expectations.
The changes and interpretations were good ones.
I don't know how we will wait another two years to see it all come out.
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
Take everyone you can to see it this weekend.
:(
Well, this is the third movie, that is somehow delayed here in our country. It will not be in theatres before 10th January, which really suxx
BTW, those other movies were the Gladiator and, guess what... The Matrix. I have no clue why every movie I look forward to is delayd by our local distributor... Perhaps they don't like me.
can be found here.
And you're right, it's awesome.
-----
when you think that Peter Jackson is the same one who made the movie Bad Taste, it's kind of different budget :o)
I saw Bad Taste in theater in 1988 iirc and it's was very funny!!! I think because of LOTR a special edition of Bad Taste will be on DVD, so if you never saw it, go buy/rent it to have fun!!!
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
OK... this the first time I've seen it, but hopefully one of the /. coders will see this. Is it just me, or is being modded "Overrated" giving a +1 to this comment? When I saw it, it had Interesting:1, Insightful:1, Funny:6, and Overrated:5, which I would have thought would equal (1)+(1)+(6)+(-5)=+3, but it's still up there at +5. Am I misunderstanding something about the moderation system, or is this a bug? From CmdrTaco's comments about interviews being a perfect place for 'Overrated' mods to lower less interesting questions, I would infer that it carries a -1, not a +1 or 0 weight. Help??
Liberty uber alles.
I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't quote, but it's damn clear that Aragorn's got the hots for Arwen from virtually the moment we get to Rivendell, and certainly by the time we come to Lothlorien. Granted: not a whole hell of a lot *happens*, but for those familiar with the text, there's no doubt as to where Aragorn's thoughts are vis-a-vis "romantic interest." Now, I can't swear, but I'm fairly certain she's actually in Rivendell when they get there, and Aragorn hangs with her some. Does she have anything even close to the role shown in the movie? Hell, no. Is she clearly, obviously one of the primary things driving Aragorn? Absolutely: especially clear if you bother with the appendices in RotK.
Was I the only one who thought that Frodo was too passive and never given a chance to demonstrate his strenght & resolve? I don't understand why Jackson cut Frodo's defiance at Weathertop, Frodo's defiance at the Ford, Frodo's attack on the troll in the hall of records when Boromir's assult failed (wait, that one was to enable exciting computer graphics.) Frodo wasn't always effective, but at least (in the book) he was trying to direct his own fate rather than immediately falling back on others.
Maybe I'm just a shameless apologist. I thought that the "ring on" effect was one of the best parts of the movie. Also, remember that Sauron is alwys trying to get him to put it on, and keep it on, right? So I don't think there's anything to complain about there.
I haven't read the books in more than ten years, though, so I can probably be safely ignored.
Liberty uber alles.
...that Elrond is not a major character!
:)
Great, great, great movie though. Too bad we are all boycotting the MPAA, because we would really love to see this.
Liberty uber alles.
No, he gets the ring from Cirdan (of the Shipwrights) when he returns to Middle-Earth. The original Elven rings are held by Cirdan, Galadriel, and Elrond.
The OP probably started at 2 (possible to do once your karma reaches a certain score), so the mods that you saw (starts at 2, +1, +1, +6, -5) equaled 5 (not +5, just 5)
Perhaps the different effect of the ring on the wearer has to do with how powerful Sauron is at the time. During Bilbo's posession of the ring Sauron was defeated as the Necromancer, right? That's why Gandalf ran off and was absent for much of The Hobbit. Once Frodo finally puts on the ring the Eye of Sauron is searching for it. Sauron is growing in power. It seems reasonable that the effect of putting Sauron's ring on would be different.
Lasers Controlled Games!
1. Gandalf didn't add a puff of smoke when Bilbo puts on it ring that the birthday party. This would have helped to show his suspicions about the ring, though one of my favorite moments comes just after when Gandalf rises in power to tell Bilbo to give the ring to Frodo. You could see that the guise of an old man was covering a much more powerful being.
2. There wasn't a sense of time passing between the birthday party and Gandalf coming to the Shire again. In the book decades had passed. The only indication in the movie that it was more than a few months was Bilbo's age once he appears at Rivendell. My father who has never read the books thought that was just because he hadn't had the ring for a few months.
3. This is my MAJOR NITPICK: Frodo didn't offer the ring to Agent Smit... I mean Elrond. It seems to me that Frodo offering the ring to the three most incorruptible people he meets (who also happen to be Ring Bearers themselves) is an important aspect of the story. They aren't strong enough to take the One Ring and fulfill the quest to destroy it. Yet a hobbit is. I can see why many things were cut for simplicity's sake and to shorten the movie. Yet but leaving this out the movie doesn't emphasize the importance of the hobbits as much as it could. The symbolism is broken. Sure he offered it to Gandalf and Galadriel (my mom even thinks he offered it to Aragorn, while I think he was asking if Aragorn would try to take it from him as Boromir did) but these two offerings loose some of their meaning by leaving Elrond out.
4. The Council of Elrond sucked. It was the one part of the movie that struck everyone that I was with (and that had read the books) as not right.
Now I have to admit that there are a few other minor things that bothered me, but that is about it. That in itself is a major accomplishment. I thought that I was going to tear this movie apart. Instead I think it is great. I now have high hopes for the trilogy as a whole. The great thing about it is that it will have a consistent feel, having been filmed all at once. Everyone I was with would have gone right back in to the theater for another three hours if they had been showing The Two Towers. As it was, all the people that we saw dressed up like Gandalf were already seeing FotR for the second or third time that day. This was at 4pm.
In all, it was a great experience. Anybody know if the FotR DVD will come out before T2T hits theaters? My bro thinks they should re-release FotR in November 2002 so that people can see it again just before T2T.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Exactly. And then you think: HOW STUPID -- what, does Strider carry four long knives with him -- just in case he goes on a little quest with some clueless hobbits?
Or maybe it's not the screenwriters' fault -- maybe the director was forced to make a last minute edit that cut out Tolkien's famous scene where Strider sneaks out to the Weathertop 7-11 to pick up some utensils and corndogs.
Ok...overall, PJ did an awesome job. There were however, a few details that bugged me. First of all, Glamdring didn't glow! It was Gondolin-forged too, it should glow around Orcs. Another annoying thing were the elven-swords in general. They're suppoeosed to be straight, not curved! And Boromir was blond...wtk? Yes, I realize that everyone pictures him that way, but he was Gondorim,and therefore dark-haired. Ah well. Overall, Boromir and Aragorn were really cool. Another thing was the fact that they never mentioned the reforging of Narsil, or where the elven-cloaks came from. And Gimli never met Galadriel. And Galdriel was too new-agey. And FRODO KEPT DYING! And don't even get me started on that stupid Wizard Fight....:-(.
Ok...that's the bad stuff. The good stuff was really good. Legolas kicked so high! Did you see that scene where he ran up the cave troll's LEASH? He tightrope-walked up it! And he walked on snow and shot arrows so fast. I didn't even know it was possible to stab someone with an arrow and then shoot someone else with the same arrow. And I liked his relationship with Gimli: they both acted like racist bigots, which was a good way of doing it. And Pippin and Merry were cool. They acted as comic relief, but they were definitely not helpless. I loved the scene where Frodo left the Fellowship, and they lead the Orcs away. I didn't like the choice of Sean Astin as Sam: that's not at all what I pictured him looking like, but he definitly acted like Sam. And then there was all the detail. Wow. Did anyone else catch the White Tree on Boromir's cuffs? Or the Star of Feanor on the ground at the Council of Elrond? Or the map from the Hobbit in Bilbo's house? Wow again. There were also a few changes PJ made that I liked. Especially I liked the way Frodo opened the Moria-Doors, and connected it to a riddle. And although they cut Bombadill, the escape from the Shire was well-done. Although, they should have explained that Nazgul dislike crossing running water. Finally, two things I loved. I loved Agnorath (sp?), the statues of Elendil and Isildur. And the Balrog. That is SO not how I pictured the Balrog. However, it was
awesome. The horns disconcerted me, but it WAS a balrog. Tho the scene with Gandalf hanging on the ledge was odd, they should have run forwards to rescure him, the rest of that sequence was great. Overall, I give the movie a Yayfor!
The movie was terrific. I won't repeat all the glowing praise, but I will offer up my list of things that I found distracting.
Bilbo's face morphing into Gollum's when denied a last view of the ring. It may be a little over the top, but it is definitely effective.
Galadriel turning into a rotoscoped fiend of Hell while she pondered the results of taking the Ring from Frodo. Woah! Definitely over the top. I haven't decided whether my intense feeling for this scene is like or dislike. It works, but it is so out of form with the rest of the movie. (My wife refered to the end of this scene as "when Galadriel 'glowed down'"
Unsure why the director felt the need to had Saruman spin Gandalf on the floor. It reminded me of 3 Stooges Curly "woo! woo! woo!".
The Cave Troll reminded me of the Rancor beast in Star Wars.
I know they had to Hollywoodize it. But the repeated "9 against a bazillion" shots suspended my suspension of disbelief. Yes, they were outnumbered, but not impossibly so.
Another Hollywoodized item. The long camera swoops through Isengard. Everytime they did this I thought, "Woah! Blockbuster bait". (Although, "Red 5 here, I'm going into the trench" would have been equally appropriate).
Yet another Hollywoodized item: The Watcher in the Water was like "Alien in the Water". In the book it's more subtle and sinister.
Speaking of the Watcher in the Water. Why is it that the Hobbits get swung around by their heels alot (by the Cave Troll, too), but they never get their heads bashed in?
After the Bird-Spys fly by, everyone jumps out before they're even out of sight!
Damn you Harvard Lampoon! You've forever ruined the line "It was pity that stayed his hand!"
The sound mixing had enough faults that it deserves its own list
At several points. The music would swell, then someone (usually a Hobbit) would say something that couldn't be heard for the music. The next line of dialog would be missed because everyone around me was going "Huh? What'd he say?"
The Nazgul's shreiks were great -- except they were too dang loud! I thought I would bleed from my eardrums during the "Chase to the Ferry" scene.
When Gandalf is telling Frodo about one other who knows about the Ring, it cuts to Barad-Dur with lots of noise. Very slightly in the background, you can hear Gollum shrieking "SSSSShiiiiiiire! Bagginsssssssssss!". It's extremely difficult to hear (especially since the audience isn't all that familiar with Gollum's voice at this point).
I did enjoy the subtle mention that Strider and the Hobbits camped at the same place where Bilbo met the Trolls in the Hobbit. It you look in the upper left corner of the screen, you see a large stone troll seated on a log.
Reasons for Liking Tolkien
[Tolkien] declared himself a monarchist and a Catholic; and no, it wasn't Eliot. In form, in content, in everything about it, The Lord of the Rings is the most anti-Modernist of novels. It is really very funny to think about how similar it is in so many ways to the works of the great Modernists.
Unlike Joyce, Lawrence and Pound, however, Tolkien was a writer with a block. He was over 60 by the time The Lord of the Rings was published, and the work he cared about most deeply, some of which is collected in The Silmarillion, did not appear in his lifetime.
This explains why a body of writing largely published in the second half of the 20th century turns out to be so strikingly first-half in its concerns. It's all there, the usual slurry of the 1920s and 1930s: the fear of the masses, the retreat into archaism, the confusion about race and phylogenesis and so on.
Da Blog
I saw the film last night (Wednesday) and although I think it is easily the best film of the millenium, your 6 and 9 year olds would probably have nightmares. The 11 year old, maybe; I wouldn't bring my 9 or 12 year olds to see this movie. I reckon to show it to them once they've read the books -- think about it, would you really want to show your kids the battle of Helm's Deep, or the attack on Weathertop? Nazgul are scary and Sauron is Just Plain Evil.
Oh, go on, check out my job.
I have to disagree about character development, at least for the hobbits. Frodo becomes darker throughout the book; Merry and Pippen both grow up; and Sam grows the most of all. The external character (the rest of the fellowship) aren't developed; but the story is not really about them.
It wasn't what you hoped for, but that is because you didn't make it.
Do you have $300 million in spare cash to funel into a massive 8 year film project, the creative talent to visualize all of the characters, the orginizational skills necessary to oversee several filming units for 18 months across an entire country?
If not, then how about you just sit down and shut up.
robi
Agent Smith, I mean Elrond: "Well, Mr. Baggins. As you can see, we've had our eye on you for quite some time now."
"How about you take this Ring, and go deep into Mordor?"
Neo, I mean Frodo: "Wow. That sounds like a really good deal. But I've got a better idea. Why don't you take the Ring... and I'll give you the finger... and I'll go back to the Shire!"
Then just be thankful she had her part severely cut back. She was to be a bit of a warrior princess but upon discovering that she can't act (or at least she can't play anyone but Liv Tyler), was scared of horses, hard work and wouldn't wear any armour or weapons (only soft flowing dresses are good enough for our Liv) they wrote her out of most of her role.
Ratty.
DO not WATCH this MOVIE IN THEATRES!!! HALF of the movie is cut UNTIL YOU RENT the video! YOU SHOULD HAVE LEARNT THAT FROM Monsters, inc.
I don't get it...
I'm thinking way too hard and I can't figure out which character looked like an Ewok.
Did I go to the wrong movie? Or Am I in the wrong message board?
Ferna of the Fern people.
I dreamed about it after going last night. I thought about it all day. I talked about it with everyone. I want to see it again now.
Its a drug I'm addicted. I neeeeed to see it again. Give it to me! Damn you!
Ferna of the Fern people.
Of course, I've never heard of this series, so maybe he only plays villains in more mainstream movies.
We can't stop here! This is bat country!
Yes but remember, Hollywood usually only casts the English as bad guys, well guys with English accents anyway. They are well enough known outside the US, based on a pretty popular series of books.
Ratty
This movie was everything I could have hoped for and more. For a long time I have meant to read the Lord of the Rings. I recently read The Hobbit for the first time. I made a decision to see the movie before I read the first book in the series.
:)
I am happy that I made this choice. The Hobbit gave me a feel for the characters and surroundings. When I saw the movie, I was overwhelmed by the performances. Bilbo and Gandalf had jumped out of my mind into film. They were exactly the way I envisioned them to be.
The backgrounds were beauitiful. The fights were realistic and disarming, especially in the Mines of Moria. The trolls came out of the ceiling like a million cockroaches and encircled a group of 9, only then for them to scatter from the quake of a demon. Amazing!
What brought me greater joy, is this outing will remain in memory for a long time. December 19th was my birthday, but it was also my 25th birthday. I am quarter of a century old. What a terrific memory for my soul.
Long live Tolkien! *hrm* *cough* Now I will sit down and read the first installment in this lovely saga. Honestly, I have a bad case of perma-grin.
Truth like surgery, may hurt, but it cures. - Han Suyin, Chinese Physician and Writer
I don't know if this is correct or not, but me and my friends have been arguing about this one thing:
When someone [mortal] puts on the ring, don't they still cast a shadow? I remember at one point in The Hobbit when Bilbo is trying to esacpe from what I believe was a Goblin/Orc stronghold, he almost makes it out of the door, but his shadow is seen and chased after.
My friends arguments are that either this isn't a fact, or that it is, but the scenes where Frodo/Bilbo puts on the Ring are all shot at night/dark... I don't know, if there's light for scenery to be seen, there should be a shadow... It seems like an important feature of the ring, taking away everything but your shadow. I hope this thread isn't too old for anyone to see it, my friends and I need answers...
I finally saw this tonight (Thursday). I had to wait an extra day, since my wife was working. The film certainly is true to JRRT's spirit, even if it isn't accurate to the letter.
I will comment mainly on the settings, and not touch on the (many) plot deviations. Much has already been written about those. Since Middle-Earth is almost as much a character in the books as any of the, uh, characters, this is something I believe is worth commenting on.
The Shire is as close as I could hope for to how I imagined it, though it feels smaller (in the book it took the hobbits two or three days to get from Hobbiton to the Brandywine). Also, I imagined the Brandywine to be considerably broader; this was not much more than a creek.
I would like to have been treated to a little more of Bree, but what little was shown seemed true.
Weathertop was much less impressive in the movie than it is in my imagination. Tolkien described it and the surrounding land in detail. Here we just see some ruins on a low, steep-sided knoll.
The locations chosen for the Ford of Bruinen and the lands approaching it are a much better match.
Rivendell is beautiful. For me, it was a rather difficult place to picture in my mind when reading the books, but Jackson has done a wonderful job. One thing I didn't expect was that the elves would be so fond of sculpture.
Hollin, the ridge where the fellowship watched as the crows flew overhead, was not how I imagined it, but I believe I like Jackson's stony setting better than my mind's version. The pass of Caradhras was sufficiently cruel, and the Gate of Moria was perfect.
Inside Moria was a different story. Incidents that happened in two different places were combined into one. Tolkien described the route through the mines in great detail, but Jackson has altered the map of the place considerably. Jackson's Moria is just plain inaccurate. On the plus side, the Balrog was depicted perfectly, and the action scenes took my breath away.
Lothlorien was a place where the film again excels. As with the Shire, it lost some of the sense of scale that the book provides, but the beauty and strangeness of the place is captured magnificently.
We only see a small part of the trip down the Great River, with the mighty statues of the Argonath as the highlight. Notably inaccurate is Tol Brandir. In the book, Frodo and Sam cross on the south side of this island. Yet, in the movie, if they took that route, they would have ended up taking the route taken by Boromir.
The final view, which I won't describe since I think it would be too much of a spoiler, is stunning, and captures the geography very well, but I don't think that exact view (taking in that much distance) could have existed from where the characters were standing.
Finally, there are three settings which appear in the movie that Tolkien's Fellowship only indirectly describes (i.e., they are not seen from the hobbits' point of view in this volume):
Mordor, including Mt. Doom and a wicked-looking Barad-dur, is seen here in all its fiery horror. And cold, cruel Orthanc/Isengard is dead on. Both of these settings are very good reasons to look forward to the next film.
And Minas Tirith appears in a very fleeting glimpse. But we may have to wait two years to see it in more detail, unless Jackson interpolates it into the Two Towers.
'Why weren't you at the feast? The Lady Arwen was there.'
Strider looked down at Bilbo gravely. 'I know,' he said. 'But often I must put mirth aside.'
[...]
Frodo halted for a moment, looking back. Elrond was in his chair and the fire was on his face like summer-light upon the trees. Near him sat Lady Arwen. To his surprise Frodo saw that Aragorn stood beside her, and he seemed to be clad in elven-mail, and a star shone upon his breast. They spoke together, and then suddenly it seemed to Frodo that Arwen turned towards him, and the light of her eyes fell on him from afar and pierced his heart.
I read The Hobbit in 6th grade, but I didn't remember it all to well. Yestarday I went to see Lord of the Rings with my friend.
There are no words to describe this movie. It was terrific. Between the special effects, the costumes, the special effects, and the plot (which I didn't know anyway, because I never read any of the series) I was totally blown away.
I must say that this movie takes first place among my favorite movies (including Star Wars (the original trilogy), The Matrix, and The Truman Show). If you haven't seen it yet, and even if you've never read any of the books, SEE THIS MOVIE! It completely explains the basic things you need to know in the beginning, so no past knowledge is necessary.
It was amazing.
...and I'm not flaming you here, just disagreeing. LOTR is much more than some run of the mill fantasy work. If anything bad has come from LOTR, it's all the garbage fantasy that was spawned by the popularity of LOTR.
I would compare LOTR to Beowulf before any other fantasy storytelling, certainly nothing I've ever read that has been written in the last 200 years even compares to it.
Lord of the Rings is a work of literature. It's not just another fantasy novel to be picked up at leisure and enjoyed any more than Steinbeck is good bathroom reading. LOTR is an epic to be treasured and awed. It is the book that you should read five or six times before you even begin to try to discuss it.
I picked it up last spring and found many new treasures in the book, and I've stopped counting how many times I've read it...first in junior high, than an average of ever two years since...prolly six times mebbe? I don't remember.
What I do remember is that the book is fascinating and I'll never tire of reading it.
When I first stumbled out of the theatre at 3 am, chittering like a Tasmanian Devil on amphetamines... I came to Slashdot, to share my hyper-jittery ramblings with the world.
Luckily perhaps for the world, (and maybe due to my slightly 'altered state'*) I couldn't find a topic on Slashdot for FOTR.
So I spent 3 hours buzzing out by myself in my room.
(Yes.
It was a work day - not that I recall much of it.)
(*Just a lethally potent combination of V (an Energy Drink), Vodka, and Fellowship of the Rings)
How can I convey the emotions I felt?
It was Epic.
It was Legendary.
It was Big.
All other movies seem so small in comparison - plain and 2 dimensional (don't nit pick - I'm being metaphorical because I know they are all 2 dimensional).
Perhaps it was the scenery, perhaps the story line, perhaps the otherworldly setting so far removed from our everyday life...
When I reached home, I was consumed by a need to do *something*.
I wanted to see the movie again.
I wanted to see the next movie.
I wanted to run away with some Elves.
I wanted to go camping*.
I wanted to play with fire**.
(* Yes it was between 3.30 am and 6 am on a workday - but see what I wrote further down about Middle Earth. I actually feel sorry for all the people who don't live here....
** I have a fire staff. http://incendium.org/movies4.htm - but I was gonna burn if I played while in that state...)
The scenery amazed. Yes there was CGI effects, but the real landscape covered in the movie contributed to that whole 'big' feeling. The Shire, Hills, flatlands, Mountains, Snow and Forests...
You do get that feeling sometimes...
If you go to the wilderness areas of New Zealand. Like the National Parks.
Watching dawn burning away a misty/ghostly veil over tussockland at dawn, or tree-moss and ferns in the glowing in the green light of the forest.
You forget you're soaked through, have spent the night under a mere tarpaulin, are carrying a horrible heavy pack.
I've lived here my whole life and still, sometimes it's purely mystical.
I didn't know if the movie would be able to capture that, but when I was watching the movie, I was just filled with amazement because...
I live in Middle Earth.
(Yes, I live in New Zealand. The movie was entirely made here (if you were unaware...)
But I still hope that people in other countries sometimes... 'see a bit of Middle Earth' in their homelands too.)
I am not in a position to debate departures from the 'Canon' of the book - because I have not read LOTR, (long explanation, but I do read Raymond E. Feist, Guy Gavriel Kay, David Eddings, David Gemmell, Sara Douglass, etc, etc, etc...).
From what I have heard, Peter Jackson has stuck pretty close to the original story, but has adapted and moved various details in order to better keep the soul of the story intact in a very different, visual medium.
The characters - were all amazing, although Liv Tyler seemed a little too like Liv Tyler rather than Arwen (although subtle effects like the 'elf glow' when Frodo saw her first, and looking more human at other times - stuck in my head for some reason), Gimli seemed like a good character - but he didn't have much of a role in this movie, and Legolas...
Well he also didn't say very much - and yet I still came down with a rather nasty elf fetish.
<waxing lyrical about male elves>
Yes, you heard me - til now I'd resisted that particular allure (it's almost as bad/sad as the common Vampire or Dragon fetishes/obsessions) - but FOTR... got me bad.
Grace, Nobility, catlike features - I'm put in mind of mind of the animals of the wild such as Eagles, Stags, Wildcats and Panthers...
In other words,
Legolas is one fricken sexy beast.
As they say in Quenya* "Mano mardenna?" and "A helta ar caita caimanna!"
(*see further down)
<negative gossip> :P
That isn't to say I'm completely associating the actor with the character - Orlando Bloom was apparently kinda sleazy to a woman here in Nelson, New Zealand. I don't know how drunk he was, but fairly un-good behaviour...
</negative gossip>
</waxing lyrical about elves>
What is the most awful thing about the movie?
Yep, the whole year till the sequel.
So, what do you do while waiting for the sequel?
I'm gonna go watch the movie repeatedly of course...
and get the Directors Cut from somewhere...
and finally read the damn books....
Oh, and there's also Sindarin, Quenya etc.
:)
For those of you that don't know, Tolkien invented several languages for his books including Sindarin, Quenya and also written forms of both... see http://www.forodrim.org/daeron/md_parl.html for more info. The swords and other things in the movie have proper meaningful inscriptions on them. So why not go totally geek and learn a near-pointless language just because... umm, 1. you'll know something other people won't, 2. it sounds and looks beautiful, and... 3. you clocked FFX already...
And what about Archery? :)
Way kickass... I'm getting a friend of mine is going to show me how to use an (admittedly more modern-style) compound bow when he's next in town
Although, perhaps I didn't just get that from the movie:
I mentioned the archery thing to my Mother, she told me about a little flat she'd lived in....
They had no TV, no money, but they did have a very long, thin, main room - and a crossbow.
Hmmmm, and here I was thinking that was the sort of thing only my friends would do?!?
She's said if ever get rich, I have to buy her a Crossbow...
Cool.
Okay, I'm ending the incoherent ramblings now.
:)
I've got to find out when FOTR is next showing...
Namárie
---- I've fallen, and I can't get up.
From talking to a Weta workshop person (in Wellington, New Zealand) it sounds like there could be a directors cut. The movie had to be cut to 3 hours to make sure it did well at the box office (if it was longer there would be less showings in a day).
One scene that he mentioned being cut out for this reason was footage of Golum floating down the river Anduin behind the fellowship.
He mentioned this because it was a pain in the ass to film. They had a diver who had to push Golum's log up and down stream for hours on end...
Well here's hoping for a directors cut so we can see the rest!
Yes, it is amazing how fast you can shoot computer generated arrows isn't it? He only had to mime geting an arrow out and drawing the string.
ratty
Yep, that is definitely Maori, didn't catch much of a look, I was on my way out when I remembered to look and check. I'll try to get a translation next time.
ratty.
He is near the gates of Bree, the bearded man chewing on a carrot and burping at the camera.
ratty.
...bear in mind that I'm a callow, assinine high school senior, but I think the 11-year old wouldn't have a problem. There's certainly no sex to worry about (although why one would worry about sex I have no idea), and the movie isn't really gory. There's scary bits, but that's what makes a movie good - your oldest kid will be startled, but not traumatized.
/.'s parenting advice should be taken with a grain of salt.
The six year old? No. No, no, no. Loud noises, scary-looking monsters - you're just asking for an increase in late-night closet-ringwraith checks. Probably ditto for the nine year old, but maybe not.
May I offer a word of advice? Slashdotters, while great people (mostly), are often a little bit different from the mainstream. Ask your question to a spouse, girlfriend, drinking buddy - but
I'm the stranger...posting to
I thought Liv Tyler was pretty damn hot in this film - and I'm as shocked and horrified by this as any red-blooded /.er would be. That said, Blanchett was also hot - you have to appreciate the babe quotient in this film.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Not coward, just lazy.
Agree completely with your impressions, very similar to my own. I read the book ~15 times before turning 15, and found PJ's take to be an inspired transormation to the medium of film.
I liked your rebuttal of that pissant reviewer too. Shame rottentomato rankings and other such are so susceptible to these jumped up little pricks trying to get attention by swimming against the tide.