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?"
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.
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.
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.
That is just the end of the first book. That was a crappy ending, I know that is how the first book ends but it really makes me want to see the next 2 movies.
Read the Books!!!
Andy
andyscomputer.homelinux.org
-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.
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?
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!
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
...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.
Alice In Wonderland?
The Phantom Tollbooth?
This
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.
Good god! I never thought of it before, but you have just described the vast majority of the IT department where I work. No wonder geeks love Tolkien so much.
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
- 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!Nothing personal, but you would think after the first time that you would have just brought your friend who owned the credit card along with the card.
I don't believe that ticket sellers have a very high paid/and or rewarding career and therefor probably don't care about your situation very much(how ever frustrating it might be!) You had the right idea by making a stink about it and at least got something for your time.
I would have made them call the manager then and there for clarification.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Here's some alternative choices for Best Sci-Fi book ever written; add your vote!
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.
I guess the trolls aren't only in the movie.
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.
Try the Odyssey, Dante's Commedia, or maybe The Faerie Queene. And Tolkien would agree . . .
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!
This is a pretty spineless reply to CmdrTaco. Sure attack him for picking Lord of the Rings as the best book (or books, depending on who you ask) ever written, but you don't offer an alternative "best book". You just talk about a literature class and attack him for interest in computers. How is an attempt to look superior without risking anything an insightful comment? (moderators? hello?!?)
It's been a very long time since I read the books, but wasn't it later on that Gollum's ancestry was revealed? ISTR that we find that out in The Two Towers.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
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.
No offense, but I have yet to see a box office (movie, theater, opera, sporting event, etc) that will let you pick up tickets you bought online (or on the phone) without showing the credit card used to make the purchase. It's just common sense, as a customer I would not have it any other way, otherwise anybody could just walk up and claim my tickets!
But of all these times that I was asked to show the credit card, not once did I have to show another form of ID (including many many times at UA theaters). I have the sneaking suspicion that if you had just showed up with your friends' credit card in your hand, they would have given you the tickets - no questions asked. But since you advertised that this is not your card, you kind of shot yourself in the foot.
So, I feel bad for the fact that you were misinformed about the availability of advance ticket from the box office, and the "wait for the manager" crap (although I am not suprised, it's all 14 year old that work at the UA near me) but for the rest... Well... Sorry to say, but their policies are good.
Some people just don't understand there's a reason why they require (or should require) the cardholder to be present. Matt could very easily call his credit card company and say, "No, I did not authorize this transaction. Somebody must have used my card without my permission, take it off my bill." Did the theater have any proof that the card owner authorized this purchase? No! They just spoke over the phone to someone merely claiming to be the card holder.
Geez, everyone gets their shorts in a knot when a web site has the slightest security problem, but then they expected to be able to borrow each other's credit cards willy-nilly without the slightest thought of the consequences.
You are correct. This is Ebert's review pretty much word for word. I just read it this morning.
Your review? Insightful? Hahaha
That's Roger Ebert's review from today's Chicago Sun Times.
hahaha
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm not sick of it, but I'm beginning to wonder about his job. Does he work anymore? He has enough time to play FF, watch anime like a fiend, and go see every slightly nerdy movie as it comes out.
I'm no workaholic, but I barely have time to play a quick game on the occasional Saturday morning between writing code, fixing websites, making clients happy, keeping the house in shape and spending time with my wife.
Does Malda even write code anymore?
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
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?
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'm looking forward to seeing these movies, but I'm dreading all the geekish fanboy raving, overstating the magnitude of Tolkein's work. It was good, but lets not get carried away here...
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
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!
Look everyone, Roger Ebert is an anonymous coward posting on slashdot... oh wait.. just some plaigarist i bet. Here is the link this poster should have cited: Ebert's review of LOTR.
porp
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...
Is there an O'Reilly book on LotR? What's the cover organism -- Gollum???
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."
Here's my question: If this mysterious ring is so powerful, why don't the bad guys just make another? Or, why don't they make one that's more powerful than that one? Or, why don't they make a ring that makes hobbits dumb, then go steal it from them?
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
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!
Oh now there's a reason to see the movie... The best part of LoTR was the "one hot piece of ass." Someone needs to get their hormones under control.
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!
Then again, if you consider LOTR sci-fi, perhaps no literature critic can save you.
"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."
Thats actually my whole take on the book itself. The hobbits are along for the ride mostly. If anything they are there because supposedly(as others have brought up), more resistant to the rings powers. The hobbits can't take care of themseleves physically in a fight due to their size (with the exeception of Sam fighting the big spider who underestamates him) and lack of fighting skills. The rest of the fellowship is made up of warriors and a sorcerer. The 4 hobbits are more or less farmers, it is only in the Scouring of the Shire that they put the soldiering skills they learn to use.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Thoughtful and intelligent review. How very strange.
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?"
This was taken directly from a newspaper.
Complete with lisping spelling mistake. I don't see how Mr. Ebert could visualize hobbits living in either twee houses or tree houses.
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
I read that review, too, and was about to bitch, but to the AC's credit, he did sign the review "RE".
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.
Hence why I said the author should have brought his friend along who had brought the card.
Or you can find a theater that allows you to preorder and pick up your tickets at a machine in which you stick your credit card in to verify the purchase before the tickets are printed. As a result you bypass any ticket sales people or any assoicated problems.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
No, no, no. You need to reread the books. The first two books (the first volume, i.e. -- The Fellowship of the Ring) *IS* largely captured by the "bigger people". It's not until the 3rd-6th books that we see the valiance, stamina and strenghts of Hobbits in full-force. You're right in saying that Hobbits are center-stage. You're just wrong about FOTR.
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.
I'd have to say Ebert got it wrong. The first book is NOT about a band of hobbits and their companions. It IS about a helpless group of hobbits who get to Rivendell almost IN SPITE of themselves, who need every bit of leadership that the others give them, who do not assert themselves until the second book. Bemoaning the differences between the two stories is unfair to the movie. As Harry Potter proved, following a book too closely leads to trouble every time. Then again, I think you actually gave Potter 4 stars and LOTR 3 stars, Roger. I must have watched the wrong film this afternoon.
I know it sounds weird, but the addition of the Ewoks really made sense.
That's the beauty of Slashdot. The sites already finished, he doesn't need to code on a daily basis (although he could fix some of the bugs).
Personally I hope there's not too many young geeks treating these guys as gods. It's not like they are gurus of any kind. They don't appear to actively learn anything new on their own (remember the Cisco router fiasco). It's not like they're creating anything new either. I think playing video games has pretty much become their full time job aside from occasionally picking a random story to post.
I'd be real interested to know what Taco's annual salary is though.
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!
[Gandalf, Strider & Co]... are so well-seen and acted, so fearsome in battle, that we can't imagine the Hobbits getting anywhere without them.
Having re-read FOTR this fall in preparation, I'd have to say... yeah. That's pretty much the way it is. The hobbits get saved repeatedly - by elves in the shire, by Strider the night they meet him, again by Strider on the hilltop, by the actions of the elves at the ford,... It isn't until "The Two Towers" that the hobbits start taking care of themselves, once the fellowship breaks. And in "Return of the King" they finally start giving the enemy nasty suprises.
So, yes, LOTR is about the bravery of the hobbits... but not from day one. They grow into their bravery - the Sam that left the shire never would have acted as the Sam who returned to it.
So, let's see what happens in 2002 and 2003 before we start accusing the movies of removing the lesson of the bravery of little people.
Personally I think that the first book IS about a couple of Hobbits being dragged along like so much baggage. Remember they don't really do much until later on in the series. Once Frodo splits off and starts to undertake his own part of the story does the focus really come to the Hobbits. They aren't a powerful race and aren't that good at fighting. If you want a book about a Hobbit that get's into the action you should read The Hobbit.
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
>
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.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
fwiw I heard via one of the entertainment"news" outlets that she (liv tyler) put on like 23 pounds and is looking alot less elvish lately...
E.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
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.
Agreed! LOTR is at its worst boring. At its best, it is overwrought. I can think of better Fantasy/SciFi stuff than this (Stephen R. Donaldson comes to mind) and most of that genre is full of bad writers, megalomaniacs and blowhards (Robert Jordan comes to mind). If you want a challenging, multibook read try Mishima's 4-book series that includes Runaway Horses. I know too many geeks I work with who are obsessed with Tolkien, Star Wars, etc., but turn their collective noses up at The Ramayana or the Epic of Gilgamesh. I find the whole geek culture of fantasy very shallow.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
I haven't seen it, but if this IS the case, I look forward to a time when we can have an open source project dedicated to recreating the book with CG characters.
Couldn't we do that now? What could be done with some fancy artwork, some scripting, and the quake III engine?
Sure it would take a while, but it seems like most Tolkien fans have no shortage of spare time. And then there wouldn't be any issues with "making it appealing to the general public" by shifting the focus to violence and sex.
Just my 2 cents.
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
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.
I might see your point with some of the authors you mentioned, but Hemmingway and Fitzgerald!? I guess it is your opinion.
LOTR is great literature, IMO.
Other authors are probably more popular in academia, but I think Tolkien is deserving of
some respect as an author and a linguist.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Man, what?
Carpe Deez
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
It's been said you plagarized the review. Doesn't matter - whoever wrote this also said he didn't read the books for the past few years, and it shows. I just reread the series, finished two nights ago, and I have a very different opinion.
The Fellowship of the Ring, the book, is *not* as focused on hobbits as much as you seem to believe. The latter two books, when the journey is reduced to Frodo and Samwise, is much more hobbitcentric. The first half of Book I of Fellowship is *entirely* about hobbits and their history and place in the greater world. But right after that, they (Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin) become observers of a greater world, and the focus is on the new places and old horrors they trip across. Bombadil takes a good chunk of Book I, and I have no problem with him being excised - it doesn't much add to the story being told (although it's a fantastic story by itself). After that, much of the story is Gandalf relating his wanderings across Middle Earth, and debate in which the Hobbits only say one thing (and that is a very defining thing, but is still very quiet). In Moria, Frodo is literally picked up and carried through tunnels. When they are in the hall of memories (what was it called?), and realize the Orcs are on their way, the entire discussion is among the battle veterans, not the hobbits. The story in Lorien revolves around Legolas and Gimli.
I wanted to add more, but I have to run... I have a half hour to get to the theater and grab a good seat. I'll reply back to this post later to see if I still feel the same way. Suffice to say, my point is - the books, *especially* Fellowship of the Rings, follow the ring, but most of the action, dialogue and such are *not* about hobbits (this changes when it's just Frodo and Sam picking towards Mordor).
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
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!
LotR contains a great many dull fragments, even in the first (and best) volume (book one and two). Book three and five (the non-frodo books)are the worst of the bunch in this respect - they should have been cut down to 2/3 of their size. And I have not even mentioned all the awful songs in the book.
Also, LotT has deservedly been criticized for being very conservative. Tolkien's admiration for fixed social hierachies is obvious from LotR, and the subservient attitude of Sam for instance is more than I can stomach at times. (Yes I know it's supposed to be an old-fashioned epic, but I find it hard to admire a book that propagates values that I cannot respect.)
For your reading pleasure, the worst fragment of the worst chapter (The Houses of Healing) of the worst book (Book 5, first book of The Return of the King).
I love LotR, but not for the kind of prose as the above. And when people start calling this the best book ever written, I must correct them. It might be the best book you've ever read, but it is not by any stretch of the imagination the best book ever written.
Better books, in order of decreasing accessibility:
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Mark Twain - The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
J.D. Salinger - The Catcher in the Rye
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Vladimir Nabokov - Pale Fire
There are hundreds more, and you can find lists of great novels everywhere, but since somebody here wanted some titles, I provided a couple.
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. - ast
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
You are joking, right? Milton's ideas were in the same league but the execution is dire; I love Azimov but LotR is far beyond his best single work.
I would never claim JRRT is the best writer in the world but the Lord of the Rings is a terrific work.
If LOTR is your idea of great literature, go take a comp lit class or something,
The funny thing is, it's always people that had to go to univeristy to be told what to like in Eng Lit that come out with this "LotR is crap" stuff.
The rest of the book-reading world, however, continues to like and know good work when it sees it.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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"
I'd have to agree that the first two books do make the hobbits seem insignificant, as they begin to feel after a time. That's why it's so remarkable when, in the Return of the King, all four become heroes of the War of the Ring. When they are finally alone, put to the test, they rise to the occasion, though not necessarily in the way that we would have foreseen had they had a more dominant role early on.
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
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...
it is written by Bill Gates but it is a fairly decent book but at the moment it is in my room sitting under my Linux basic command sheet.
Visit BobtheKing.com it's perhaps the best thing I've ever made to waste your time with.
Uh... who do you think you are, Roger Ebert?
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.
Nope, it was during the council of Elrond.
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. - ast
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?
PLEASE someone with moderator privileges mod this down! As has been said, this is a review by Ebert.
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Tolkein was no Shakespeare, no Chaucer, no Hemingway, no Faulkner, etc.
... mishmash, baldly told, with little style. Moving on to Spenser, there's no doubt that Spenser's poetic and descriptive gifts are far above Tolkien's - when he's on. A good part of the Fairie Queen, however, is dull and lifeless, and if there's an overall plot to it, it got lost somewhere.
No, he wasn't, but then, few authors are. Tolkien's major relative failings are his prose style, which is servicible and clear, but rarely memorable, and his characterization, which is somewhat flat, without being too cliche'd. His strengths, however, put him among the greats of our century. If anyone has managed to create a complex world with a multi layered, epic mythology and married it seemlessly to a moving and relevant plot, it's escaped my attention. You've compared him to Malory, which is a good start - Malory takes the mishmash of Arturian myth and turns it into a
Moving on to Chretien DeTroyes, again, as far as I can tell in translation, he's a much better stylist, but his organizational skills were lacking. The Eddas and Sagas have a baldness of style that can be appealing but again, don't quite make a coherent whole. I could go on and on, hop, skipping and jumping in and out of the fantasy genre, but I'll save us some trouble by saying that I don't know of anyone in the field who's come up with a world of this kind of depth and integrated it so well into a meaningful story.
As far as the rest of modern literature is concerned, what are we comparing him to? SF novels? - not many can come close to him in that field, either. Mainstream literature? I don't suppose Tolkien had much to say about middle class angst in America or the joys of growing up in the ethnic subculture of the week, which seems to be what the modern novel has devolved into. There are a lot of good novelists around these days, but they have little to say that a lot of other good novelists aren't saying either. There were a lot of good novelists of the last century who aren't being read anymore. I can be fairly certain in 500 years that people will be reading Kafka, Joyce, and Faulkner, and to a lesser extent Hemingway. And yes, they'll be reading Tolkien. He's already had an enormous influence on culture - not just in the fantasy genre, but in the concept of creating a fictional world so thoroughly that the reader/viewer has no choice but to be caught up in it totally. He was the one who showed the creators of Star Wars, Star Trek and Dune how it had to be done. Anyone who wants to create a unique place for his characters to interact with depth HAS to study Tolkien and how he did it. He had his weaknesses as a writer, none of them fatal, but in the matter of world-making, he was the master.
> 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
Funny thing since this review is actually from Roger Ebert: I didn't imagine hobbits at all like he imagined them. In fact I pretty much imagined hobbits as him!
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."
twee, adj.: overly precious or nice.
Chiefly British. Etymology-wise, a shortening of "tweet", itself a baby-talk pronunciation of "sweet."
So, originating in lisping, but nothing really to do with trees, which would, as you say, make no sense.
Meghan
Ask me about LOOM(TM).
naw - let's do it in ASCII-art!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
And let's not forget the furry feet... What? What do you mean I'm the only one?! ;)
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
All of you complaining about the stolen review need to take a look at the last line of the post:
"-RE"
That should tell you enough.
robi
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.
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
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".
But of course, Dune is not the greatest book ever.
Quite the opposite in fact.
I'm not saying LOTR or Tolkein are bad, because they clearly aren't. As you note, there were certain things that he did very well. My problem is that it feels to me like a lot of other aspects of his work suffered because of the focus on the setting, and for me that makes it impossible to consider anything he wrote as being among history's best ever.
Moreover, time hasn't yet had a chance to cull out the best stuff. Shakespeare, as I understand it, was much less appreciated in his day than Christopher Mallory (thus all the Mallory jokes in "Shakespeare in Love"), but came to be admired later. I think it's too soon to judge whether *any* 20th century work qualifies as "best ever" yet -- even James Joyce's _Ulyssess_, which I'm kicking myself for not mentioning in the original post. At the end of my life, hopefully 50 years or more from now, I might revisit that view, but for now, all this talk about best ever just feels short sighted & naive to me.
But then hey, this is Slashdot, after all... :)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
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 wanna hear more about Denise.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Yes. His review also says the the film makes it seem like the hobbits wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the other heroes. This is completely true though. If it had been up to the hobbits alone, they probably would not have left the shire, and if they did, they surely would have been overtaken soon afterwards without some help looking after them
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
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
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.
You mean a Tom Clancy novel doesn't make your list?
I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
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).
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.
Who are you to choose the best book ever written? Who am I to choose that either?
Sorry you are correct, and you are so very wrong.
The best book ever written only exists in your heat and mind, no amount of "its poor literature" will suffice. I've read countless books, yet always return to Lord of the Rings. To me it is indeed the best book ever written.
Yes I know that you're trying to distinguish between the written word and how it reads to literature, but in the real world it does not matter. To individuals it does not matter, in fact it all comes down to opinion.
Shakespeare quite frankly, sucks. Why? It out of date, the prose is old and not used anymore, but why should that diminish its worth?
Matt
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.
Bombadil, as wonderful a character as he is, did not contribute anything to the story. The Old Forest and Bombadil were mere side excursions in the book. I would have loved seeing them in the movie, but I can certainly live without them.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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.
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.
>>>William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Never read it, but some people I know who have tell me it's crap.
>>>Mark Twain - The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Good stuff...
>>>J.D. Salinger - The Catcher in the Rye
This one is very nice, although I had an English teacher ruin it for me by trying to find symbolism and metaphors and all that bullcrap everywhere.
>>>Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Absolute garbage. They tool around in Africa being racist and killing black people and such, and oh look theres some guy whos lording it over the natives and getting it on with the native women till he gets sick and dies, and thats such an interesting look into the human psyche... BS.
>>>Vladimir Nabokov - Pale Fire
Never read, don't know anyone who has, no comment....
By any chance are you an English teacher? 2 of those books I had to read for English classes in the past few years, and people in non-Honors classes had to read 2 of the others....
English teachers have the disturbing habit of ruining otherwise good books by making you fool around trying to overanalyze them and tear apart all the symbolism, and if there isn't any symbolism to be found you have to make it up. Then write a paper full of whatever BS explanations you can find to connect the book with a theme or a quote or a thesis or some such like that...
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
"Shakespeare quite frankly, sucks. Why? It out of date, the prose is old and not used anymore, but why should that diminish its worth?" WHAAT?? How can prose be old? There has been nothing like Shakespeare, before or since. Just read ONE play, The Merchant of Venice maybe. Just ONE, and think again.
That was classic intercourse!
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
Read more than one. Of course you are right, but each play, each sonnet represents humanity of course, but also his/her time in which it is written.
I knew digging at Shakespeare would solicit a response, but do think of the points I am trying so horribly to convey.
Matt
Sauron, the badguy, invested the majority of his power into making the One Ring. Thus, he cannot make it again because, he needs it back so he can get his full power back and conquer Middle Earth, and when the Ring is destroyed Sauron also dies.
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
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.
Hey, where can I get fireworks like those? Nothin' even close can be turned up north of the border. :-)
How about "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" by Leonard Nimoy? Track #2 on a compilation I made called "Please God, make it stop."
#1 is Nancy Sinatra's cover of "Light My Fire."
Can't wait to see "Frodo Lives" spray-painted in the NYC subway system again :)
THE FELLOWSHIP BREAKS??? I thought there weren't going to be any spoilers! All that procrastination for nothing...
First winter rain-
even the monkey
seems to want a raincoat.
-Basho
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
While I could agree with your assessment of Tolken , there is a comparison. Tolken in his day would be compared to Shaherizad , Homer , or Shakespear. All of these people did not "write" the works atributed to them , but shaped the works in a way meningfull to the audiance , and eventualy to the world in general. The homeric Epic explains what it means to be greek using metaphor of the travel from troy to home. the 1001 nights does it in refrence to domestic life, Shakespear could do it on the stage. G. Lucas did it for the movies. The essential need for that type of telling neer changes , it evelves wit the Genra of story tellign at the time. I would recomend you take a good hard look at the work of Joseph Cambell. By using the metaphor of middle earth instead of the distruction caused by industrialisation in brittan, He gives a timeless element to his work.
I know nothing...It is Ok because I am from Barcelona!
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.
Heh, yes, that's me.
Ignore the man behind the curtain!
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.
Actually, the real people stealing my money are the bastard ushers working for Hoyts Cinema that wouldn't let me bring my own mall-bought soda in :P
:)
At any rate, as a friend of mine has jokingly suggested lately, i'm already going to Hell for mass MP3 downloading...So what's one more transgression, eh?
Seriously, though...If it bothers you that much, just lock yourself in your house, and let the rest of us enjoy what turned out to be a pretty darn good movie. Not everything has to be a political statement, you know....
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?
If you're looking for a comparable sci-fi series, check out Peter F. Hamilton's trilogy (The Reality Dysfunction | The Neutronium Alchemist | The Naked God). It's the only science fiction I've read that I could really comfortably classify as being that Quality.
Be careful, though, I haven't been able to read sci-fi (or fantasy, really) since I finished his stuff.
++
I'm not an English teacher, though I did study English Literature (I'm a Java developer, it's more fun!).
There are some really good English professors that can make you see novels in completely new ways, and really make you think about them. But then those students grow up to be English teachers, and they try to do the same thing with their students, and usually, they suck at it. Lack of talent.
Have you seen Apocalypse Now? It's a movie adaptation of Heart of Darkness. The making-of movie is even called Hearts of Darkness. Some people think it's the Best Movie Ever (that was before having seen LotR), I don't, but anyway, it will give you a better idea of what Conrad was trying to accomplish. Something about how power corrupts, perhaps, but there's no substitution for reading it. Doing some background reading on 19th century Congo really helps.
Frankly, I like reading LotR better, but LotR is not even in the same league as Heart of Darkness.
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. - ast
They left out ALL THAT??? and still everyone is raving? Hmm, I must see it tonight, but frankly I'm getting worried...
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. - ast
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.
The elven princess wasn't a new character. That was Arwen. Granted, it was Glorfindel who brought Frodo across the River, but Arwen is hardly a new character.
Dude, you need to pop a pill and mellow the hell out.
Pooty tweet
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.
and what would you have taken out to add those things?
this is the problem with adaptations. people can't watch the movie as a movie. of course it isn't going to be exactly like the book because film isn't exactly like a novel... it's closer in form to a short story, which means great movies either focus mainly on plot and have a lot of action, or focus mainly on character and have much more subdued action. novells have the ability to do both. it was a damn good movie, and part of the reason is they decided to take something out. really, if the whole book had been there, it would either have been 5 hours long, or just felt like a ridiculously paced plot-summary.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
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
That's actually in the books, you know. It just wasn't played out in an action scene - merely alluded to.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
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"
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...)
:))
Well, I must admit, I voted for LotR as best book in more than a couple of polls over the years, but usually because the rest of the choices were utter nonsense. And it certainly ranks very close to the top in terms of books I've read (actually, I like Silmarillion more).
I must staunchly disagree with you concerning the most enjoyable parts of LotR, though. The second volume is by far my favorite, followed by the third volume. I enjoyed the first volume the least. Also, the "non-Frodo books" are the more enjoyable parts, IMO. Tolkien himself noted that it seemed that everyone had a different favorite and least favorite portion of the book... and that no two people could agree on which is which.
Finally, I note one of your points:
"I find it hard to admire a book that propagates values that I cannot respect."
Hello, what??!! So, just because you disagree with an author's values, you cannot respect the literary value of the work? What kind of crack have you been smoking?
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
And the 3 hour long Redux makes it even better. If it is really the BEST film ever is debatable, (It comes down to personal preference) but it left me amazed and stunned and conveyed the cruelty of war better than any other movie I have ever seen .
Compared to "Apoicalypse now" even Saving private ryan seems like the work of an amateur. (It is still better than the thin red line which just plain sucks).
To get back OT, I made the mistake of never reading the LotR until about half a year ago. I have read fantasy and science fiction literature since I was eight years old (I am now 25) and have read many of those works now considered as classics in the genre so naturally I didn't like LotR much. Nearly everything he writes in his books I have read in countless others, some were nearly ripoffs (like "Memory sorrow and thorn") and others merely took elements of tolkiens fiction to use in their own works. It is still a good read but I would not list it as my favourite book.
The movie is great though. But I could also image the hoard of die-hard Tolkien Fans flame the movie because it is not true to the letter(and some even thought Tom Bombadil had to be in threre) not taking into consideration that a movie is not and cannot be like the book because it is limited in its ability to tell stories in certain ways but can on the other hand do things which no book can ever do. In this respect I have not seen a better book adaptation and it is a must for every movie enthusiast. (but maybe not for every Tolkien fan)
Jeff
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'
In my version of the set, the books are numbered:
T
O
L
K
I
E
and the Appendices are in book 'N'
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
Better check your fortune program again:
fortune -m ketchup
That being said... *CHOMP* Mmmmm, tasty!
--T"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup." --/usr/games/fortune
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.
no, but it helps. the movie skims over a few things that are described in more detail in the books, and certain events make more sense in the movie if you've read the book first.
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
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!
And that is why this movie should never been made. I was enthusiastic at first, but five minutes into the movie, I felt like a lump in my stomach. LOTR was not meant for the silver screen. End of discussion. Consider this flamebait.
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!
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!
Sorry, fell asleep at line 3.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
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.
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
He's upset at hobbits being pushed off center stage because, well, he is a hobbit... -f
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...
'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.
lol
if only
_b
What would Brian Boitano do?
...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.
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
I reread the trilogy in preparing myself to watch it - I told people - half jokingly - that I was "looking forward to being dissapointed" by it. The books being fresh in my mind I also winced at some of the dialog changes - I'd guess mostly made because the dialog in the books does seem overly formal, courtly and anachronistic.
This being said, I think it's worth considering that Jackson's task was insurmountable. The book is not really suited to be transferred into a visual medium, and a movie, with its 3-hour length envelope already being pushed, all the less so. Remember the radio version is some 13 hours long - each movie would have to be an impossible 4+ hours to match the scope of narrative. Jackson was faced with a very hard road: make a movie that would have broad-based appeal (Tolkien-heads will not make the nut on a feature with production values so necessarily high); that would satisfy the "average" Tolkien afficianado (likewise, a LoTR movie can't make it unless the majority of Tolkien fans approve); and do it all in a time frame that would have to be a third again as long for a minimally complete retelling and twice as long to really cover the ground. He was looking at a dozen hours worth of potential scenes and had to make a ton of very hard choices; it's easy to point out the worse ones after the fact but it must have been hell to actually slog through it all.
All this said, I liked the movie. I didn't like some think it was just this superfantastic best thing ever. But I felt more of the heart and spirit of the story remained than was lost; it held me in its spell for 3+ hours (no mean feat); and it left me wanting to see the next one.
When I saw the Matrix for the first time I got so mad and dissapointed about the third in as the mind-bender introduction gave way to the much more action oriented main plot. But it stayed on my mind and I rented it, and then rented it again. And I came to see that The Matrix wasn't really the problem; no, it wasn't my dreamed of Phillip K. Dick sophisticated sci-fi intellectual powerhouse. It was what it was. And what it was was actually an entertaining and well crafted movie.
There's no accounting for tastes, and your objections are entirely valid. But I hope you'll give FoTR another chance and see if you don't find it more worthwhile just taken as it is.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries