So who saw LOTR?
December 20, 2001 1:26 AM Subscribe
posted by Potsy at 3:08 AM on December 20, 2001
Now, when is someone going to make Clive Barker's "Imajica" into a movie? That would be wrad!
posted by black8 at 3:09 AM on December 20, 2001
But that's only me. My gf wants to see it right away (she read the whole thing for the third time when she was 13 or something. I didn't even read it. All I know about fantsay is what lies in Terry Pratchett's books...).
So, we'll see.
But I'd agree with waxpancake, and would even go a bit further : please leave spoilers to LOTR fansites. Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease.
On a side note, isn't it weird how many many many people who didn't read any LOTR book (like me), or even hardly knew anything about it before the movie announcement (the list goes on and on), are as eager as any Tolkien-fan to see it ? Hollywood hype, shall we say ?
I just hope the hype is justified.
posted by XiBe at 3:12 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by revbrian at 3:17 AM on December 20, 2001
what was there not to like? crazy fools running like there's no tomorrow and every now and then stopping to kill a hojillion orcs, that elven archer guy being a complete bad-ass, some dude running around with three arrows in his chest and still fighting, and a host of a lot more ridiculous happenings.
it kicked willow's ass, to say the least.
posted by lotsofno at 3:58 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by darukaru at 4:04 AM on December 20, 2001
Huh? I always got more of the second part from the book, myself. Less so in the second and third books, because the hobbits grow in stature throughout. I couldn't really credit the rest of his review after reading that. I'll form my own opinion after watching it though, as I always do.
posted by walrus at 5:07 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by coudal at 5:29 AM on December 20, 2001
Incidentally, the previous winner was Harry Potter, two weeks before. There goes French cinema...
posted by XiBe at 5:29 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by NortonDC at 5:47 AM on December 20, 2001
Small country, indeed. My high school had just over 5,000 people when I graduated in '86.
posted by warhol at 5:51 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by mischief at 6:05 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by spilon at 6:08 AM on December 20, 2001
"Mr. Jackson apparently feels that the way to keep each of the fighting groups separate in the audience's minds is to provide them with hairstyles reminiscent of 1970's bands. The hobbits all have heads of tossled curls — they're like members of Peter Frampton's group. Aragorn and Boromir have the long, unwashed bushes of Aerosmith, and the flaxen-maned Legolas has the fallen-angel look of one of the Allman Brothers. (The tubby, bilious and bearded Gimli could be a roadie for any of them.) "Fellowship" plays like a sword-and-sorcery epic produced by VH-1. Together, they rock against the forces of Sauron — the evil wizard who created the Ring that Frodo holds. They have to pass through a cavernous passageway to fight through the assortment of nightmare creatures that Sauron sends to stop them."
posted by warhol at 6:08 AM on December 20, 2001
I shouldn't have worried... when it was over, I walked out speechless and teary-eyed and couldn't be more impressed. Can't wait to see it again and again.
posted by kittyb at 6:18 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by thomas j wise at 6:20 AM on December 20, 2001
I've read the books significantly in excess of 100 times, and I must confess that I was a bit apprehensive that the film would change too much. I love the books not because they are about Elves and Wizards and Hobbits, but because Tolkien's love for the English language shines from every page. His choice and arrangement of words make the book a work of art in the highest degree--rather like perfection and beauty of a Japanese garden. It's true that some of my favorite lines from the book didn't make it into the film, but enough of them did to make the film nearly as good an experience as the book. My only regret is that they cut the vast majority of the poems and songs. I would have loved to hear Legolas' voice choke with emotion as he sang of Nimrodel and Amroth when the fellowship crossed into Lorien.
posted by CalvinTheBold at 6:36 AM on December 20, 2001
Doubtless some stuffing going on, but its a 10 for me too, and the reviews across the board are incredibly positive, Eberts an exception with this lukewarm positive, he's certainly one of the only ones that thought Harry Potter was better.
That Elvis Mitchell Times review is right about the haircuts, though. :)
The only problems with the movie were problems with the books, and Jackson even fixed some of those.
posted by malphigian at 6:40 AM on December 20, 2001
I hope to get a chance to see it this weekend.
posted by Rastafari at 6:41 AM on December 20, 2001
Oh wow. You're probably a part of an EXTREME minority who miss the unending poetry and song from the book.
posted by glenwood at 6:43 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by fleener at 6:45 AM on December 20, 2001
Yes, I believe all three parts were filmed at once with the intention of releasing parts two & three around Christmas 2002 & 2003, respectively. Now that the movie's doing well it seems like a great plan, but can you imagine the flak they'd be getting if the first movie had tanked?
posted by zempf at 6:48 AM on December 20, 2001
Having read the book dozens of times, and seen the movie, I have to say I have no clue what you are talking about, the only plot change towards the end wasn't happy at all, and I think added depth to Aragorn's character.
posted by malphigian at 6:54 AM on December 20, 2001
There are a number of other plot tweaks that change character motivations or are introduced for sappy/happy reasons (the conversation between the two humans before one dies never took place, for example).
I understand and appreciate that movies must be told differently than books. But changing character motivation is unforgiveable. I'd much rather an aspect of a character's motives go unexplained, rather than fabricating a more convenient reason... as was done so much in this movie.
The film needed much more character development beyond Frodo and Gandalf. After they leave the shire the development virtually stops and is replaced by endearing fill-the-screen face shots. Too bad this Frodo only has one facial expression.
posted by fleener at 7:21 AM on December 20, 2001
Proof. (in the form of attributed critical reviews as opposed to an internet poll.)
posted by eyeballkid at 7:23 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by prodigal at 7:23 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by fleener at 7:24 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by eyeballkid at 7:25 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by fleener at 7:27 AM on December 20, 2001
We get that you didn't like the film. You don't have to remind us every third post.
posted by dogmatic at 7:32 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by fleener at 7:40 AM on December 20, 2001
What ?
One of us did not understand what the other said =)
posted by XiBe at 7:42 AM on December 20, 2001
As for me, I thought it was overall a really good film. I had a couple problems with it though. The major one being the battle scenes. Almost all of them were cut way too quickly. I found it extremely disorienting. It would've been nice to be able to tell exactly what was going on.
posted by ODiV at 7:43 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by Mick at 7:44 AM on December 20, 2001
I don't think anyone wanted as much poetry and singing as the books but it would have been nice to at least put "All that is gold does not glitter..." in there considering how important Aragorn becomes. It's short, simple and easily rhymes don't think it would have added but a minute either.
Alot of times I noticed the characters singing the songs from the book as a scene changes away from them. For example Bilbo is singing his traveling song as he leaves BagEnd.
Definitely going to see this again this weekend as I spent too much time thinking about the minor changes to really get sucked into the movie for the first hour.
Just a question though -- At what age would you think this would be an appropriate movie? My seven year old would like to go but I'm not sure the ringwraiths won't keep him up nights. Maybe I'm being overprotective?
posted by revbrian at 7:48 AM on December 20, 2001
Your thoughts could all be summarized in one long post. As far as I can tell, you're not responding to anyone else's posts or arguing against anyone (except obviously me), but yet you feel the need to be every third post with a different reason why you didn't like it.
I just don't understand why you think it's somehow more effective to separate your thoughts into non sequitors that are responding to little but thin air. If you have a beef and need to respond to other specific posters, please quote them so you know what you're responding to. But please don't use five different posts to make five different points when only one post is needed. No reason to flood the thread.
posted by dogmatic at 7:50 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by dogmatic at 7:52 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by ODiV at 7:53 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by StOne at 7:58 AM on December 20, 2001
Errr... Roger... The Book IS about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits, None of which especially wanted to go. Lay off the fatty foods, and try reading something before reffing it. ~Sheesh~
posted by Perigee at 8:04 AM on December 20, 2001
The ringwraiths, the troll, and even the Balrog weren't nearly as scary as the Eye of Sauron: definitely some terrifying moments there, made me jump in my seat. And this is the least intense volume of the trilogy!
dogmatic: . . . but yet you feel the need to be every third post with a different reason why you didn't like it.
fleener may be getting negative responses to his posting style because it might lead to the impression that more people had problems with the film, rather than just one person posting on multiple themes. Nothing inherently wrong with the posting style, just that it can rub people the wrong way, as in, you've had your say, now what?
ODiV: Can your kid stay quiet throughout? If not, you're bound to get some stares and angry comments.
I was surrounded in the (sold-out) theatre by teenagers who wouldn't STFU, and a trio of geekish (RPG, comic) people who decided to have a domestic argument as the movie was starting. Small children have no monoply there.
Mick: I would have cut the time in rivendale to about a third of what it was.
I wanted more Lothlórien, myself, but felt the time spent in Rivendell was appropriate.
I'm still trying to piece it all together in my head, so I may post later on this. All I can say for the moment that it's different from the books and in some ways improves upon them (especially in re character development: characters more emotional, motivations clearer), is visually astonishing, and just generally knocked my brain over and prevents me from being coherent about it. Loved it.
posted by mcwetboy at 8:06 AM on December 20, 2001
The timeline was a bit skewed, you get the impression that everything happens within a matter of days, even though it took, what, 9 years between the time Bilbo left and Frodo decided to leave?
I did enjoy the movie, however, it was very visually appealing.
On a side note (don't think anyone's mentioned this yet), the leader dude of Elron is played by the guy who was the leader agent in the Matrix.
"You must protect the ring, Mr. Anderson..."
posted by schlaager at 8:07 AM on December 20, 2001
No problems there. I would be the person with the least amount of patience for that anyway.
posted by revbrian at 8:17 AM on December 20, 2001
one thing that strikes me about the book, is that singing is GOOD. a person who sings to you is a good-person, a situation where you don't feel like singing is a very bad situation.
i imagine that this does not translate well into the film.
posted by asok at 8:19 AM on December 20, 2001
It wasn't superior to the book, but who expected it to be? It certainly did the book proud, and is among the best film adaptations of a novel that I've viewed.
Overall, The Fellowship of the Ring is the best adventure movie I've ever seen.
(...and it kicks Star Wars' ass!)
posted by Marquis at 8:24 AM on December 20, 2001
I saw the movie Tuesday at 12:01, and i did enjoy it :) I knew it was going to be a lot different from the books, and tried to just engage it as "some fantasy movie that was released"... and while that was hard to do once the familiarity of all the characters came on the screen, i didnt let the differences between book and movie to ruin it for me.
To be nitpicky, some scenes seemed a tad over dramatic to me, and i am not talking about the ones that needed to be, (i.e. boromir's last stand, gandalf vs balrog, etc) just some other random parts that seemed a little too drippy. The matrix guy seemed believable to me only in his flashback scenes, the other times he was just too familiar and i couldnt see Elron there... I also thought that the pace of the movie felt rushed a bit, but i really dont know how one could get around it aside from making a 12 hour show...
The actors were great i felt - that guy who played Legolas was amazing - and the sets and scenery was just jaw-dropping. was a fun show - i liked how they added the little bits of humor to the characters a lot. would definitely recommend it and definitely see it again :)
posted by skinjob at 8:30 AM on December 20, 2001
10 to 12, depending on the kid's tolerance for scary stuff. The troll is mostly jump-out-at-you scary (made me jump), but the ringwraiths and the eye are actually the stuff of nightmares.
The movie, BTW, was very, very good. I'm still not sure what I actually think about it, but the fact that my friends and I are still arguing over scenes and characterizations a day later makes me suspect that it's a keeper.
posted by feckless at 8:39 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by muckster at 8:40 AM on December 20, 2001
But to FOTR, very solid, engrossing, a couple good gotcha moments, internally consistent, mostly very good effects (with just a few that are distracting).
Now, I still want to know if my recollection that the movie takes half an hour to tell us Boromir's name after we meet him is accurate. Anybody?
(Ocean's 11 was a lot of fun, too, but with that one it's all line delivery and the subtle touches.)
posted by NortonDC at 8:44 AM on December 20, 2001
On the other hand, I have a friend who wouldn't dream of exposing her 10-year-old Tolkien-aware daughter to something rated PG-13.
So I guess it depends on the kid. I'd sure try to bring him if he's interested. It's too nifty to miss on the big screen. IMHO, of course.
posted by kittyb at 8:45 AM on December 20, 2001
The ONLY part I didn't like, that I wasn't quite forgiving about, was the CGI effects with Galadriel. They weren't necessary and made me feel like I was suddenly jerked out of being a part of the movie to just watching something on the screen.
As for a lag between Boromir showing up and them announcing his name, I didn't notice one. They said his name as soon as he had dialogue in the counsel of Elrond.
At any rate, this is easily the most beautiful movie I've ever seen.
posted by annathea at 8:46 AM on December 20, 2001
At what age would you think this would be an appropriate movie?
Depends on how much violence you've already exposed your child to. I would wait until around 12 or 13 years of age. Also, a younger child could be easily bored or scared and isn't mentally developed enough to absorb most of the subtext/meaning.
fleener may be getting negative responses to his posting style because
Sometimes when people love a film, they overreact to criticism of it.
posted by fleener at 8:49 AM on December 20, 2001
I agree that the editing in the battle scenes was too choppy (no pun intended), although there is less gore than I was led to expect from the reviews--the heads fly so fast that you almost miss them :)
posted by thomas j wise at 8:49 AM on December 20, 2001
But my favorite line from the movie was "I know it was you, Frodo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart."
posted by iracane at 8:51 AM on December 20, 2001
It more like 17 years.
posted by iceberg273 at 8:56 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by thirteen at 8:56 AM on December 20, 2001
There was a similar scene with Bilbo. I really liked both, and thought they gave the ring a greater power over those it came into contact with than the book was able to convey. I can see why you did not ike it, but I don't think it was a completely useless effect.
posted by thirteen at 9:01 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by Vacaloca at 9:09 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by muckster at 9:12 AM on December 20, 2001
I have a question about it, though: What was that super-orc thing they dug out of the ground? The one that you-knowed the guy when the you-know-what happened.
posted by kingjeff at 10:11 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by Tacodog at 10:24 AM on December 20, 2001
+ it made me want to shave. too much hair everywhere. even had a dream about shaving last night.
+ how does middle earth survive, when apparently 95% of the population is male?
+ several times i kept thinking, damn they are so lucky. they must have rolled a 1 on a 10d10 to make a saving throw like that.
posted by mosspink at 10:30 AM on December 20, 2001
really, really enjoyed it. I avoided re-reading the book beforehand so I wouldn't feel too picky, which I think helped.
didn't realize that Elron was the guy from the Matrix until the middle of the big council scene - I thought he was great, despite that weird mental echo. a friend reminded me last night that he was also the protagonist in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.
ian m. was wonderful/perfect. that's some range he's got. frodo was just adorable, which I'm sure will be heart-breaking as the series goes on.
the music, on the other hand, yipes! way, way too manipulative.
still, I'm glad I saw it (at the seattle cinerama, not the crazy midnight show, but the noon show), and I imagine I'll see it again, and I'm sort of thinking of digging out my father's copy of the series and re-reading it. (I really, really, really wish he'd been alive for this. he would have loved it.)
oh, and I'm going to be counting down to the next one. :)
posted by epersonae at 10:43 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by NortonDC at 10:51 AM on December 20, 2001
Agreed. Up to that point I thought they had done a clever job of portraying how fricking scary Galadriel is despite her being one of the Good Guys. You know who wears the pants in that royal family. But then they smashed subtlety with the hammer of CGI.
I just hope that people who haven't read the books can appreciate it as much as a Tolkien geek -- despite the fact that I'd give it a 10 out of 10, and that I didn't miss Tom Bombadil, the endless mushroom-eating, beer and hot bath scenes, or the singing and bad poetry one little bit -- I couldn't help but feel that the story was dumbed down for the cinema.
posted by Foosnark at 10:58 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by robbie01 at 11:07 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by Tacodog at 11:18 AM on December 20, 2001
The spooky bilbo, spooky galadriel, spooky gandolf moments were great. Shows the power of the ring...same with all the frodo close-ups, jackson is just trying to show that frodo feels the pull of the ring constantly, it is always on the verge of overpowering him. Frankly, for the non-LOTR readers...i think it was needed. One part -no spoilers- made my fiance jump. That was priceless.
need to go see it again.
posted by th3ph17 at 11:21 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by Mo Nickels at 11:27 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by whuppy at 11:27 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by whuppy at 11:31 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by trox at 11:36 AM on December 20, 2001
...and I think fleener is entitled to participate in this thread, dogmatic. As are we all.
posted by scarabic at 11:39 AM on December 20, 2001
Robbie01: I'm certain that Tom Bombadil was left out due to time and story reasons. You can't have the encounter with Old Man Willow or the wight on the downs very well without him, and to add all those things would add at least another hour to the film. You are also right to say that, because of his great power, it would be difficult to explain him in the film. You may already know this, but if you check the descriptions of Aule and Yavanna in the Silmarillion against Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, there are many similarities. I think that connection makes for a good explanation of the ring's inability to affect Tom.
I've made up my mind to see this movie again tonight.
posted by CalvinTheBold at 11:56 AM on December 20, 2001
And today, my team from work is taking a very long lunch to see it at The Bridge.
The people in my two previous groups who hadn't read the books liked it, though they were confused about characters and plot points (NortonDC was right about Boromir not being introduced until well after he'd shown up), but those were minor points. I had a few nitpickings, but I'm a 4th Level Tolkien Geek. I loved it.
And the DVD is gonna rock the free world. Deleted scenes ho!
posted by RakDaddy at 12:05 PM on December 20, 2001
I love computer generated worlds, but if you make me notice them, it's like sticking me in the eye. I don't want to be reminded that it's all fake because of sloppy editing or camera angles.LOADING PLEASE WAIT
posted by holloway at 12:06 PM on December 20, 2001
I too could have had a little more time in Lothlorien, mostly because I had imagined a place of mystery and wonder in the books and it seemed forced to me.
I find that, having not read the books in several years, I remember less than I should have. I'm gonna try reading it again before I go see it again. Was the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman that way?
The wearing of the ring effect was a little over the top, but maybe to clarify the power and evil of the ring to the movie-goers that haven't read the book.
The thing with Galadriel was a bit too much also, I think would have been better had it been a little more understated.
posted by mutagen at 12:07 PM on December 20, 2001
And as for the fight scenes and the horrible things that the hobbits run into... I reread the books over the summer, as many, I'm sure, did, and was absolutely struck by the almost Lovecraftian way that Tolkien describes the awful things that stalk the MiddleEarth nights. Though more noticeable in the later books, in particular in Shelob's lair or at the Road of the Dead, we can see such an idea of the horrible in the descriptions of Moria and the Balrog and the Ringwraiths.
posted by kaibutsu at 12:14 PM on December 20, 2001
Loves:
- The cast. Excellent, every last one. Even Liv Tyler, as Arwen.
- The elves' language. Soooo beautiful. Does anyone know if they engineered it specifically for the movie, or if they just had linguists develop and verbalize Tolkien's written language? The language in general was great. Even things like "Sauron" were wonderful; I always thought it would be sore-on, but sour-on sounds so much better.
One question: what is up with Peter Jackson and blue eyes? Everyone had blue eyes. The blue-eye extreme closeup was probably the most repeated shot in the film.
Add me to the list of people happy they didn't include the songs. It may read just fine, but on screen? I don't think so.
Stephanie Zacharek's review on Salon.com pretty much goes along with my feelings on the film. Go see it now, if you haven't!
posted by grrarrgh00 at 12:47 PM on December 20, 2001
The pronunciations are Tolkien's; there's an appendix in The Silmarillion that lays them all out. A few examples, by necessity off the top of my head since I don't have the book handy:
- au is always pronounced "ow", thus "Sour-on", not "Sore-on" (Sauron);
- c is always a hard c, thus "Keleborn", not "Seleborn" (Celeborn);
- dh is pronounced as a soft "th" as in "that" — they pronounced "Caradhras" correctly in the film;
- double consonants are pronounced — at the Doors of Durin, Gandalf pronounced the Elvish word for friend, mellon, as "mel-lon", which is correct.
Which is a pedantic way of saying that they really did their homework on this one!
posted by mcwetboy at 1:09 PM on December 20, 2001
posted by tranquileye at 1:55 PM on December 20, 2001
posted by NortonDC at 2:04 PM on December 20, 2001
posted by nathanstack at 3:02 PM on December 20, 2001
Two words - Different Gravy.
(that means good btw)
posted by Frasermoo at 3:06 PM on December 20, 2001
no really. I was quite confused.
posted by fishfucker at 4:16 PM on December 20, 2001
posted by owillis at 6:41 PM on December 20, 2001
posted by owillis at 6:48 PM on December 20, 2001
1) I think ANYONE is crazy who thought those Galadriel/Bilbo moments of lust for the ring were good. They were as subtle as the Large Marge scene in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure.
2) I had JUST finished reading the book, and so I was really psyched for the movie and I went into it with a huge open mind and honestly I just felt like Peter Jackson got so much more wrong than he got right. Sure, you can get all the visuals right, the casting right...but the only thing that's important, the only thing you MUST get right for it to be great is the FEEL of the book. And though I don't agree with Ebert completely, I must say that the focus in the film was on the wrong spot. It completely didn't earn everyone's feeling of loss after they lose Gandalf; I completely agree with someone above who said that they changed the character motivations at the end. They did and for no good reason!! I think the way book one ends is perfect and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
3) I'm sorry, but both trolls--the Harry Potter troll and the LOTR trolls looked ridiculous. It's funny, back before all this computer technology I think they made more convincing movie creatures---particularly the Star Wars ones; Jabba the Hut is the best example---than they do now on computers. In fact, think of the rerelease of Star Wars: how ridiculous did the walking talking Jabba look compared to the static, non-computer one from years back? What they gain in control and ease in movement they lose in realism: as my friend Lisa said, in Star wars you know Jabba's in the same realm of existence; with CGI, you don't get that feeling at all.
4) I completely agree about the score: it lacked the strength that can elevate good movies to great movies.
5) And just, I'm sorry...but some of Jackson's decisions; like actually showing Sauron in his metal garb right off the bat were ill-conceived. That's such a huge part of the dramatic tension of the book---not really knowing what the Dark Lord is---that it's pretty upsetting he got that wrong. Plus, Saruman's creation of Orcs came across as contrived, like there might have been a title card: "MEANWHILE, BACK IN THE LAIR OF SARUMAN..."
For all the beautiful images in the movie, I'm grateful...but this is clearly not a great film. Thanks everyone though for posting.
posted by adrober at 7:19 PM on December 20, 2001
At any rate, I thought the film was tremendous -- I was nodding along with the Salon rave all the way. Since I saw it yesterday I've had a hard time thinking about anything else, and that's a great accomplishment. I feel like I'm 14 again. Yay!
As for the nay sayers -- my cynical New York friends seem to have a hard time getting into a film that's so heroic and straightfaced. They can't handle the lack of irony. They also never read the books, and had I not grown up with this, I would probably be watching a different movie, too. Impossible to say.
posted by muckster at 7:46 PM on December 20, 2001
It's definitely different, but I'm not at all unhappy with it. I'm not really an Enya fan, though, so it's probably just as well that it kept rather subtle. The one place where I did really notice the score was in Lorien. the female chanting/ singing reminded me greatly of Sequentia's treatments of the music of Saint Hildegard von Bingen. (I highly recommend the Canticles of Ecstasy, but have unfortunately been unable to find any online samples from the disc.)
In any case, I felt that this shout-out to 12th century classical music was kind of interesting, as the poetry/ songs in the books are actually shout-outs to the epic poems that Tolkien loved (e.g. beowolf, sir gawain and the greene knight). I kind of regret that only one of the songs was carried over to the film ("the road goes ever on and on,/ down from the door where it began..."), and felt that some kind of great masked tribute to the oral tradition would have been nice. But who knows? Maybe I'll notice one on the second viewing.
While I'm blathering, i might as well note that I really loved the emphasis given to the adivce of Gandalf to Frodo on adventuring. It gives me hope that my favourite part of the Two Towers will be translated to film. It's where Sam and Frodo are sitting on the steps to Shelob's lair, and discussing the nature of adventure. I read it while on the Appalachian Trail over the summer, and it gave me a lot of resolve at a ratehr bleak moment.
posted by kaibutsu at 9:02 PM on December 20, 2001
Bilbo's CGI meanie-face was appropriate, since the book refers to a similar transformation. Same with Galadriel's, although her effects were a bit much. With or without CGI, Cate Blanchett was excellent as a very scary elf. In fact, the whole movie was more frightening and violent than I expected. That's a compliment.
I think Ebert has it wrong. In the "Fellowship" book, the action heroes are clearly from every race but the hobbits, who were for the most part followers. The movie gets that right (in fact, in the book's world Frodo the Inexperienced would never have been the one to choose the passage through Moria), although I hope to see Merry and Pippin's roles grow in the next two movies, as they did in the books.
Like a lot of reviewers, I thought the darker bits were the best -- the Nazgul, Orcs, Isengard and Moria were absolutely spectacular, while the Elves, Rivendell and Lorien were beautiful but not awe-inspiring. I wasn't crazy about some of the changes they made in the story (Merry and Pippin just let Frodo go off on his own? I don't think so. And Aragorn's relationships with Elrond and Boromir are altered for the worse), but those are niggles. I loved this movie.
The biggest problem? Waiting a year for "The Two Towers."
posted by diddlegnome at 9:30 PM on December 20, 2001
posted by diddlegnome at 9:34 PM on December 20, 2001
(not sure this posts merits a warning, but better to be safe)
When Merry and Pippin decide to let Frodo go, they are not being disloyal: they are friends who accept his decision -- even at great risk to themselves. I think this works because it makes them more endearing characters, and because it sets Sam apart. The final scene between him and Frodo gains much poignancy because of it: Sam has made a promise, and he will not be deterred.
And now I'll try to think about something else. This is growing back into an unhealthy obsession.
posted by muckster at 10:08 PM on December 20, 2001
And good luck occupying your mind with something else. I haven't had much luck today.
posted by diddlegnome at 10:24 PM on December 20, 2001
Not so much a spoiler to anyone who's read the book. But the extra scenes for anyone who's ONLY read the first is a bit of a spoiler, no?
posted by Ufez Jones at 11:23 PM on December 20, 2001
This is not the case with LOTR.
I would speculate that had Tolkien been alive, and involved in the production, that we would be seeing some very different emphasis in the film.
posted by asok at 3:21 AM on December 21, 2001
posted by epersonae at 8:51 AM on December 21, 2001
I just may be in this category, even though I'm from Kansas, and did read the book, once, many years ago.
The effusive joy the characters radiated at the beginning at their friendships with each other (Gandalf, Frodo, Bilbo, Sam, etc.) was just overbearingly sweet. In fact, I could have done without the "The Hobbit-in-five-minutes" prelude at the beginning.
Aw, heck, I could have done without the whole movie. It's hard for me to find scenery breathtaking that was so obviously created by a computer. And there were so many characters presented with such emphasis, and then not really developed. And basically, it seemed to me that it was just a movie about this group of guys that travels and gets attacked, travels and gets attacked, over and over. That's fine as the basic frame for a movie, but despite all the magic and sentimantality, I really wanted the story to get less episodic and the characters to get more interesting. When they were in (minor spoiler) the mine that used to be the dwarf city, my lack of sympathy/emotion was palpable. And that fiery thing Frodo saw whenever he put on the ring looked like a big vagina. I thought it was funny.
I will admit to being somewhat annoyed/bored with the "straightfaced" aspect of it, as mentioned above. That scene near the beginning where Frodo and Gandalf were just looking at each other, trying not to laugh, made me want to throw up with its super-earnestness. I could tell right then that I wasn't going to like the rest of the movie. An hour and a half into it, I was already very bored. Then I was looking at my watch about once every twenty minutes. If I hadn't felt that I should see the whole thing, just because it's such an automatically talked-about movie, I probably would have walked out.
posted by bingo at 10:03 AM on December 21, 2001
You do realize that the majority of the outdoor scenery was filmed in New Zealand, and does actually look that way?
posted by elfgirl at 10:47 AM on December 21, 2001 [1 favorite]
posted by bingo at 11:26 AM on December 21, 2001
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers: During press conferences and interviews yesterday, Peter Jackson revealed some great stuff about the current status of the second chapter. First off a rough cut of all three films is done (the third one is still just loosely assembled but the second one is pretty much complete). He also confirmed each film in the series includes 500-600 FX shots and will be between 2.5-3 hours long each. "The Two Towers" will definitely see the Ents and Treebeard, and increasd roles for the king's son character. The actors are scheduled to head back to NZ in May & June for any reshoots/touch ups required but as of now there's no exact words on what'll be changed/added.posted by NortonDC at 12:41 PM on December 21, 2001
The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of The Ring: Various other answers to questions emerged during the aforementioned interviews. Producer Barry Osborne indicates the final budget for the trilogy stands at $270 million. The first film's original rough cut running time stands in at a little over 3.5 hours so expect that 30-40 mins of extra footage to show up on DVD - though Jackson confirms there's no "Director's Cut" as such on the drawing boards. Amongst these deleted scenes include more characterisation in regards to how the supporting characters feel about being in the fellowship, whilst another sequence where Gimli falls for Galadriel. Meantime the film scored a $18.2 million opening day take, a record opening day for any film in December.
The Wall Streeet Journal also liked it.
posted by muckster at 2:44 PM on December 21, 2001
Emperor's got no clothes, man. :)
posted by owillis at 3:14 PM on December 21, 2001
posted by muckster at 3:29 PM on December 21, 2001
posted by NortonDC at 4:07 PM on December 21, 2001
NortonDC: Not really, but I got there late. What's your thesis?
posted by owillis at 4:24 PM on December 21, 2001
Interesting note on the scenery: Once the locations were set, Peter Jackson (or some of his minions) started planting appropriate vegetation a year before shooting began, so things would look just right in the film. Now *that's* attention to detail.
I have to admit some of the outdoor scenes look unnaturally green, but what the hell. It's a fantasy movie, after all.
posted by diddlegnome at 4:31 PM on December 21, 2001
posted by muckster at 4:34 PM on December 21, 2001
posted by owillis at 4:46 PM on December 21, 2001
Owillis - No theory, just a naked observation. Anecdotal, apparently.
posted by NortonDC at 4:54 PM on December 21, 2001
posted by muckster at 9:46 PM on December 21, 2001
posted by walrus at 2:44 AM on December 22, 2001
Of course, some of this is semantics...if you say "fantasy" is defined as what came after Tolkien, then what can I say, except that my definition is different. And he did have a huge influence. But if we're going to call it a genre, then to say that he "spawned" that genre, but that he merely "synthesized" works like Morte D'Artur is playing a bit of a word game, isn't it?
And a lot has changed in fantasy fiction since Tolkien. There is a big difference between Stephen Donaldson writing the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, and some music journalist writing "what a long strange trip it's been" in an article.
posted by bingo at 9:54 AM on December 22, 2001
The point I was trying to make, though, was another attempt at defending against the way LOTR is being conflated with the whole fanboy/comic book store/D&D/geek thing. I think it stands apart from everything else in that category. One of my friends called the movie "Xena with really good production values," and I found that awfully unfair. Tolkien's world is incomparably dense, rich in detail and history, and it is Peter Jackson's accomplishment to have successfully translated this density into film. The texture of the movie is what kills me. Xena, by comparison, is as flimsy as cardboard. I found this article an interesting source for some of things I missed.
still trying to figure out how come this movie is holding such fierce sway over my imagination...
posted by muckster at 7:15 PM on December 22, 2001
posted by jyoung at 8:54 AM on December 24, 2001
I think for the non-Tolkien/fantasy fan he failed miserably at this. For me, the movie worked out to this (spoilers)
1. There's an evil ring
2. The old guy has it
3. He gives it to the young guy
4. Wizard says its evil, get party together to destroy it
5. Many people walking, several hundred things happen
6. Numerous shots of Big Evil Guy
7. Wizard dies (never saw much wizardry from him)
8. Little guy splits from group for some reason
9. Two little guys off to destroy ring, basically the same task they went off to 2 hours ago
I got no complex relationships or other Large Myths out of this.
"Xena with a big budget and no huge breasts" kind of sums it up for me as well.
posted by owillis at 9:31 AM on December 24, 2001
posted by NortonDC at 10:03 AM on December 24, 2001
posted by owillis at 10:32 AM on December 24, 2001
The Lord of the Rings
is one of those things
If you like it you do
if you don't then you boo.
On the other hand, I saw said friend at a party last night, and all he could talk about was LOTR, and for all his snide comments, he sounded like he's going back to see it again....
posted by muckster at 12:56 PM on December 24, 2001
1. little guy gets evil ring
2. little guy goes on quest to destroy ring
3. he meets a bunch of good guys who tell him how important his quest is
4. he meets a bunch of bad guys who try to kill him
5. the movie ends
I think the density of the novel was implied in the film. I didn't feel like I got to know any of the characters very well, or the locations, or the nature of the whole universe the story takes place in.
Anyway, while Tolkien is a sacred cow in the D&D world (if that world still exists), I'm sure there were kids running around pretending to slay dragons for hundreds of years before Gygax.
If you got no pleasure from the means of telling the story, that's fine, but it doesn't invalidate the pleasure that so many others did get.
I'm powerless to invalidate the pleasure that anybody gets from anything, but some pieces of art are still better than others.
posted by bingo at 2:26 PM on December 24, 2001
No, some pieces of art are more appreciated by you than other pieces of art.
posted by NortonDC at 2:57 PM on December 24, 2001
Reminds me of what happened with Episode 1. The Star Wars fanatics were upset because it wasn't about this Big Giant Tapestry that they saw in the first films, never mind that most of that tapestry existed in the books and comics and not the movies. It's like "Yes, Star Wars fans I'm sure you'd love three hours on the history of the Jedi but we need to sell tickets. Here are wicked cool light sabers."
posted by owillis at 6:51 PM on December 24, 2001
posted by bingo at 7:53 PM on December 24, 2001
I think I may be a little late to the party here, but just some comments to add.
Vocaloca: Tom Bombadil was Tolkien's mary-sue. The fact that he was snipped right out of the film was a godsend.
CalvinTheBold: The movie mentions orcs and goblins being crossed, not orcs and humans. It escapes me completely which the book actually stated.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie despite my nitpicks, because what I saw as wrong with the movie seemed trivial enough to fade into the background. What annoyed me were things that broke me out of the mood of the story, like: The Hobbits are small, but not round. Their bodies seemed a bit thin. Yet in scenes where you see the fellowship walking in the distance, they use 'small people' stand-ins, and the body types did not match up. Then in the one scene in the dwarf mine kingdom, as the fellowship runs across the open space of the cavern, it looks like the entire scene [including all the actors] are done in enough cgi to make me think of Toy Story. But really, those are things that did not detract from my overall enjoyment.
One last thing, because it just struck me. There was a lot of Hobbit molesting -- hugging hobbits, ruffling hair, carrying, touching, etc. I do not remember thinking that as I read the book. *shrugs*
posted by FunkyHelix at 11:09 AM on December 25, 2001
"Orc" is just another word for goblin. And I remember the orc/human cross too--as in the books.
posted by rodii at 1:58 PM on December 28, 2001
"Bilbo put out his hand. But Frodo quickly drew back the Ring. To his distress and amazement he found that he was no longer looking at Bilbo; a shadow seemed to have fallen between them, and through it he found himself eyeing a little wrinkled creature with a hungry face and boy groping hands. He felt a desire to strike him."
(p280 in the Del Rey FOTR paperback).
posted by muckster at 7:53 AM on December 29, 2001
hobbiton - very good
characterisation - comparable with book, i.e. a bit 2d
cgi - get's more obvious on repeat viewings, but still very convincing.
music - fine, as any attempt to have a 'theme song' or melody would difficult to appease tolkein society unless melody originated from tolkein.
changes to story/characters - annoying, but bareable.
female roles - let down by actresses possessed of little presence. it occurs to me that in trying to promote the female roles, in order to balance the contemporary approach of tolkein with a 'modern' approach to the roles of the sexes jackson has agreed to fall into the trap of using established names. this leaves the director and sfx departments to cope with presenting the beautiful, but vapid, actresses as great warrior princesses.
in tolkein's day, had his book included strong female characters, it would have been somewhat revolutionary, today jackson's use of established 'beauties' to portray (elf) women of great power is far from revolutionary.
all in all, a fine action adventure.
i wonder if jackson will be able to leave in sam's strength and frodo's weakness in the final jouney to mount doom, without upsetting frodo's hero status. after all, the book is about finding strength in friendship and good-husbandry of the environment. more about internal strengths than external shows of power.
posted by asok at 6:41 AM on January 2, 2002
posted by jpoulos at 3:06 PM on January 4, 2002
« Older Argentina Declares State of Siege. | Israel proposes gradual withdrawal from Area A. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by waxpancake at 1:39 AM on December 20, 2001