The silly LOTR movie

Remove all ads!

Hey, Headbanger. Just thought I'd point out that Boromir does have a shield in the book. It is listed in his description during the "Ring goes south" chapter, when the Fellowship leaves Rivendell. Since Tolkein says little other than "uh, they fought" in any action scene, it doesn't come up again that I recall.

I still don't think Boromir is done poorly or portrayed as weak. He doesn't believe, as Gandalf and Elrond do, that wielding the Ring would inevitably corrupt him. He just sees it as a weapon.

Saruman's relationship with Sauron is less clear in the book. He obviously was a vassal of Sauron, based on what Sauron says to Pippin in the Palantir ("Why haven't you reported!...This is not for you!"). The force that captures Pippin and Merry has both Isengardian and Mordor Orcs in it. Saruman always intended to claim the Ring if he found it first, but was working for Sauron in case Sauron found it. It wasn't until the Two Towers that he was forced to openly declare his independence in an attempt to get the Ring.

I think Arwen taking Frodo's scene at the Fords was a bad decision, but introducing her and having the scene with Aragorn was a good one. The scene is certainly thematically related to the ones depicted in the appendix of LotR and is necessary for the development of the later story. Now, if she rides to the War with Elladan and Elrohir or something like that, it would become a major problem, mainly with regards to the Eowyn story. I'm hoping your comment was just speculation, not something that you read in movie news?

Aloha
Vormaerin

 

Eowyn has more parts then Arwen the books and that better be seen in the two up comming movies.

 

Critics... Sheesh... is that what you came to see the movie for?! To compare it to the book?! But look... Tolkein might've been descriptive, but when it totals up, it was *you* that had to put the pictures together.

Frodo is a wussie. Only in the end does he get brave enough to go without everybody. And it was MERRY who said, "What does it mean speak friend and enter?" And why the hell are you so pissy about how elves look?! They aren't what *you* imagined it, it was what the *director* who imagined it that way. And yes Saruman was with Sauron the whole time. Besides, didn't you see the way they tried to make Legolas? In the mountains everyone was treading heavily in the snow while Legolas was on top of it? Oh sure he's not bare-foot but you can't do that while you are on snow... The orcs were ugly and big and stupid enough. Boromir... yes he had a shield. Says in Chapter 1 of Two Towers. But no they didn't need to make the ending look so stupid and dramatic.

Don't compare the movie, enjoy it! That's why they *make* movies, no?

 

Well, it might be saying more about myself than the movie or the book, but I actually preferred the film. Some of the scenes, with the cinematography and the music and so forth, had a lot more impact on me than the descriptive passages which, to be honest, I found a bit tedious in places. Also my interpretation of a lot of things was very bland. The last thing is that the first time I read the book it took me a month - so about a week for Fellowship of the Ring - and forgetting all the details halfway through didn't help.

 

It would take far too long to write a full reply to everything that's been said in this thread, so I'll just say that I disagree on most points. I found almost everything good, especially the way Boromir was portrayed, and Merry and Pippin too (well, except the scene in Farmer Maggot's fields, which contradicted the book quite badly).

The only things I didn't particularly like the second time I saw it was Arwen's sword (the fact that she had one, that is ) and the omission of several Lothlorien scenes.

Then I think that it was quite clear that Saruman (in the later stages of the film) served none other than himself. At least his lines to the Uruk Hai (and their responses) seemed to suggest this.

Yes, many things in the film were different from the book, but does it really matter that much?

 

Vormaerin:
Actually, you might have noticed that there is quite a debate on the 'net about whether the Balrog has wings or not. So before you label me as wrong, look at this:

From reading this description, my conclusion was that the Balrog did not have wings. The wings mentioned later on is just a word meant to refer to the shadows he is described to cast around him. Now, I won't claim that I know a lot about Tolkien (I don't), but I don't thing a learned man such as him would have used the word 'like' if it didn't mean anything. (Well, I certainly wouldn't say that shadows press the buttons on my keyboard, like two hands, if you catch my drift.)

And why would the Balrogs need wings if they didn't use them, anyway?

 

Ragusa, I have seen the movie, read this thread and isn't dissapointed. Why? Because I accept what it is. It is fiction. It is fantasy. The movies brings life to its own tale of Tolkiens saga, not the books nore yours.

Headline; "The silly LOTR movie". The movie isn't silly. Only your expectations to it were.

 

Ok Ragusa I'm backing you up on this, they screwed it all up.

I for one would like to say that prior to this movie Peter Jackson was one of my favorite directors, and unlike everyone else, I wasn't so much dissapointed with how it differed from the book (but I'll get to that), but dissapointed at how little risk the director of "Dead Alive" and "Meet the Feebles" took <---- the most F#$%ed up move ever made...

Ok there were positives, the movie looked great, no complaints about Elves, or Hobbit feet, or Balrog wings that should or shouldn't have been there, I thought it just looked incredible.

I think all of the acting was quite good too, I wasn't even annoyed by Merry and Pippin, and they could have been really annoying.

It was the pacing that killed it for me. They spend in my opinion too long in the shire, way too long. I believe they spend nearly an hour there (Tom Bombadil, I could take or leave him...), and they really focus on the "oohs and ahhs" of a fireworks show for a good portion of that. Lame. So in doing so, they basically skirt right over some more important plot oriented scenes, like Rivendale, the council meeting, the temptation of Galadriel scene (which correct me if I'm wrong... if you didn't read the book you must not have known what the heck was going on there....)

Further more they added scenes in that weren't in the book, that really REALLY don't help the movie out at all.

For example, you learn how wizards fight with each other... evidently they have a boxing match with 18 foot long invisible arms, who knew? It definately didn't help move the movie along, nor did the Gandalf "reasearch scene" nor any of the other dumbed down expository "this is for you stupid viewers" scenes (Boromir drooling over the ring after Frodo takes a dive down the mountain, Sam drowns for about 10 minutes, etc.). They were a big waste of time when they could have made a more complete scene somewhere else (Rivendale got me the worst, but the Galadriel scene too... awful).

Personally I thought the music was awful too, but that's entirely my opinion, I just thought it was way too hammy.

Just one Tolkein detail to add to the discussion above (and I admit I could be completely wrong on this). Headbanger, Saruman is not a Maiar, he and Gandalf, and Radagast the Brown, are all Istari (I think, unless Istari and Maiar are the same thing...)

 

Hehe, ArtEChoke. You are not completely wrong. You are half-right. Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast and the Blue Wizards are Maiar sent to Middle-Earth in the form of old men and they called themselves the Istari.

 

Don't agree on anything you've said, Ragusa. This movie is awesome.

 

All right, maybe it's time to finally sum up my main points of critic on the LOTR movie:

As I've said before I found the visual effects splendid and I think that the movie is a nice fantasy movie - when you haven't read the book. Have you read the book you will notice plenty of minor and some major changes.
Call me a purist when I point out these two major points:

Mich-characterization:

I think ArtE found a nice term for it. The dumbig up is one of the worst things in the movie: It includes the "drooling" of Boromir over the ring in the (besides: freely inveted) scene when Frode looses the ring in the snow. This is indeed meant to explain to even the dumbest viewer: "Hey folks, he want's the ring!". And this is a clear mischaracterisation, Boromir's motives are much more subtle.
And when talking about subtle I cannot skip Saruman: To ease understanding of this way too complex character they made him a direct subordinate of Sauron - in fact he's indeed running his own thing. And the cruel mountain Charadras is too complicated for the ignorat viewer in the cinema as well: For him it is way easier to understand an allmighty Saruman seeing the party hundreds of kilometers away, summoning lightning and avalanches.
And Glorfindels weird fusion with beautiful Arwen is good for nothing but inventing a romance between her and Aragorn: Remember that in the book her only significant contribution is to embroider a flag for Aragorn and the Dunadain Well, she's an allmighty swordbabe in the movie, this is both mis-characterization *and* major story change.


Major story changes:
Leaving out the old forrest, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs IMO was a pity, however, it doesn't mutilate the film. I, however, don't see a clear need to change some other arts of the book:
Especially The breaking of the party: Why on earth did they make Aragorn "let Frodo go" and his fellow hobbits "sacrifice for him", when he and Sam in fact sneak away at night in the book ?
Some more freestyle scenes like the gross fight with the cave troll and others were consuming time that had better been spent somewhere else.
I'm actually open to functional changes that serve the function to cut the epic story to movie format.
IMO these cruel and injust changes mutilated the characters - and more: I don't think that staying to the original story would have added length to the movie, nor that the non-readers would have had much problems to understand the characters that way. So my view is: They underestimated the intelligence of the audience.


PS ArtEChoke:
The studying scene of Gandalf isn't that bad, it is mentioned, iirc in Gandalf's report to Elrond's council, they just put it in where they liked it, just like Frodo's rant on gollum in the mines of moria, that in fact happend in the shire. They did that many times: Remember the crows that fly over the party "before" they enter the mines of Moria. These changes are strange, but IMO acceptable.

 

Ragusa

okay, i agree that you are completely annoyed by the changes that they made to LotR, but all the same, i think that they did they marvellously well for the type of audience.

Okay, they changed a lot of it (as i am finding out as i am reading the book over *again*).

but all the same, in my mind the book and the film are completely different. I see the film as a film, and the book as my fave book of all time.

i don't think you *should* compare the 2, but just take the film as it is. I thought the film was absolutely amazing in it's own right, and i give total credit to Pete Jackson for an absolutely breathtaking film.

you don't agree?

well that's fine by me... i think think you are being overly nitpicky.

 

Deano is right. They couldn't invest too much money in a movie only for those who like the book. Therefor they had to remove/change stuff which we love, but which may not be understood by anyone who hasn't read the book. Features had to be added to prevent it becoming boring (as if that is a problem). I've actually heard someone say it was boring and not easy to understand, but the movie is great.

If you only like the book, go on reading the book. We others like the movie very much, and we understand that they can't make it exactly like the book.

 

About Boromir's Shield: Boromir wanted to help the hobbits. He had to move quick and didn't take his shield with him (he didn't expect an Orc attack), the movie clearly shows that he leaves his shield behind.

About Hobbits: The hobbits never adventured (except for Frodo), they never saw and orc or troll in their live, they never left the Shire... so they where no heroes with great courage. Courage was only awaken by some things, for example, Frodo's courage was in his love for the Shire, Sam's courage by the love of his master.

About Saruman: In the movie, he wasn't totally a servant of Sauron. Later, you see him again, asking the Orcs he created: Who is your Master? Answer: SARUMAN!


And Finally, to learn ArtEChoke something:

The Istari are Maiar. In the beginning, before the creation of Arda, Illuvatar the One created the Ainur, and the Maiar (who where less then the Ainur). After the creation of Arda, Most of the Ainur and Maiar moved to Valinor in the west. Later, in the first part of the Third Era, the Istari came from Valinor to Middle Earth. They where send by the Wizards, an order of Valinor, with aknowledgement of Manwe, high King of Valinor.

There came five Istari to Middle Earth: Saruman (White), Gandalf (Grey), Radagast (Brown), Alatar and Pallando (the blue wizards). They where all Maiar.... just like Sauron.

About the movie: My greatest fear (I already knew the stroy wouldn't be exactly the same) was that it wouldn't all look very like a fantasy world for it was made just in this world But it looked all FANTAstic.. Hobitton, Rivendell, Moria, Argonath, Barad-Dur, Gondor, Orthanc.... and the characters where also great... That's the most important in this movie... for I already know the true story and in that, the movie can never be as great as the book.

 

A minor correction to Headbanger's post:

Maiar and Valar are both Ainur, I'm pretty sure of that. The difference is that Valar are more powerful.

And I don't think that a Maia could control the One Ring, for it contained much of Sauron's former power, and would wield its bearer rather than the other way around. Only Sauron, or (speculation) a power far greater than him could control the Ring.

 

Maiar and Valar are both Ainur

You are right.. The Valar are the Powers of Arda, the most powerful... Maiar are lesser Ainur. Later the Valar became just the name for the people of Valinor.

Sauron was a Maiar and could control the ring. Geladriel learned us that she could also control the ring, however she is no Maiar or Valar, but just a high elve, so you are not right about this. Gandalf would also be able to control the ring like all Maiar, so at this point you are wrong.

 

But wasn't Saurons soul forged into the ring along with his evil and malice(the bad stuff), making him the only one to wield it. Neither Galadriel or Gandalf wants the ring because they know it will possess them in the end. Or am I on the wrong track here?

 

I saw the movie, never read the book. My thoughts? It STINKED! Big. The plot was going three ways at once for me. I tried to pay as close attention to the movie as I could. The graphic's were the wrost in the whole bit, EX: when that wizard was riding on his horse(Gandof I think his name is)and they zoom out and above him. It's to easy to tell that it's just a dot going through trees. But I do admit that some of the movie was good, though spending three hours telling how they just got to that firey place then end the movie I think is a waste of time. One question, does any one know way they just dont put all three movies out insted of 2 years apart each?

 

Ok, I gotta put my bit in. I liked the movie, but since I've been an avid Tolkien fan for 25 years, I had to compare it to the book(s).

Problems --
- I wished they had Bombadil, the Old Forest, Gildor, the Barrow Downs, and Goldberry in the movie
- Glorifindel shoulda been in the movie, he should have been revealed as the burning white light that Elf Lords look like to the dark ones
- the elves and dwarves had a good thing going, the dwarves were too greedy and dug too deep. They awoke the Balrog. After that, Moria was shut and the elves and dwarves were enemies. Why was this left out?
- Galadriel was really a criminal in exile. They left that out. She was redeemed in the movie, but from what?
- Radagast? He had just enough wit to save Gandalf (sending creatures with messages to Orthanc). Left out.
- Saruman, the White Council, Dol Goldur, the dwarven rings, all left out. Saruman is pretty shallow in the movie.
- Lothlorien? Not done very well. What happened to the blindfolds?
- they stayed for months in Rivendell, remember?


All in all, though, I was impressed with how much they managed to get in. I would recommend it to anyone!