pygmypiranha
Vice Admiral
The first movie in the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy I feel was very outstanding in so many different ways. What is your feeling on the movie? Are you looking forward to the next installment of the LORD OF THE RINGS?
Lord Of The Rings
- Thread starter pygmypiranha
- Start date
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
I felt that the LoTR movie was seriously flawed. In many ways, it is indeed rather impressive. However, there are also some major problems with it.
Firstly, New Zealand. That's a major problem. It's a beautiful place, and very appropriate for parts of the movie, but... well, am I the only one who laughs when Gandalf says "We're going to reach the mountains in a few days", even as he walks down a steep slope? Some parts of the movie should have clearly been filmed elsewhere.
Second, the Orcs. This is mostly a matter of personal opinion, but I think going with sludgy, slippery orcs was a major mistake. We can ignore the fact that the orcs are described very well in the book and certainly do not look like that - it's a movie maker's priviledge to change such aspects. But I think it's going to make parts of the second and third movie look bad (assuming, of course, that those parts are still there in the first place). For example, I can't see how Frodo and Sam could be mistaken for Orcs in Mordor, no matter how dark it is.
Third, the structure of the film/trilogy. They screwed up by making three films instead of six (notice that the 'trilogy' does in fact consist of six books). This would have cost a lot more, of course, but when you make a film that's guaranteed to bring in money no matter how awful it gets, you can afford certain risks. And, dividing the film into six parts instead of three would have resulted in much more freedom when it comes to deciding what goes in and what doesn't. I mean, it's one thing to cut out the Old Forest & Bombadil, but to cut straight from the Brandywine to the gates of Bree was too big a jump - they should have at least done a sort of interlude showing that something did happen between those two points. And such problems continue to plague the movie. It's just paced wrong. Things keep happening when the viewer should be getting a break from the action, and the viewer gets a break from the action when things should be happening. I've read the books too many times anyway, but I wonder how someone who never read them would react. I suspect that such a viewer would be mildly confused - at the least.
Fourth, Saruman. WTF? There's a damned good reason why the book made no mention of Gandalf from the moment he left Shire until they arrived in Rivendell. Tolkien was introducing the reader to a whole new world, and he did so carefully, trying not to introduce too many places and characters at once. That's why Gandalf's trip to the south is kept as nebulous as possible in the book. But the film wastes precious minutes showing what happened (not to mention needlessly embellishing it with a rather unimpressive action scene at Orthanc). Why?
So yeah, it's a nice movie, and it could have been done worse, certainly, but it could have also been done better. A lot better. The unfortunate thing is that because it's based on such a well-known and well-liked book, it's almost immune to criticism.
Firstly, New Zealand. That's a major problem. It's a beautiful place, and very appropriate for parts of the movie, but... well, am I the only one who laughs when Gandalf says "We're going to reach the mountains in a few days", even as he walks down a steep slope? Some parts of the movie should have clearly been filmed elsewhere.
Second, the Orcs. This is mostly a matter of personal opinion, but I think going with sludgy, slippery orcs was a major mistake. We can ignore the fact that the orcs are described very well in the book and certainly do not look like that - it's a movie maker's priviledge to change such aspects. But I think it's going to make parts of the second and third movie look bad (assuming, of course, that those parts are still there in the first place). For example, I can't see how Frodo and Sam could be mistaken for Orcs in Mordor, no matter how dark it is.
Third, the structure of the film/trilogy. They screwed up by making three films instead of six (notice that the 'trilogy' does in fact consist of six books). This would have cost a lot more, of course, but when you make a film that's guaranteed to bring in money no matter how awful it gets, you can afford certain risks. And, dividing the film into six parts instead of three would have resulted in much more freedom when it comes to deciding what goes in and what doesn't. I mean, it's one thing to cut out the Old Forest & Bombadil, but to cut straight from the Brandywine to the gates of Bree was too big a jump - they should have at least done a sort of interlude showing that something did happen between those two points. And such problems continue to plague the movie. It's just paced wrong. Things keep happening when the viewer should be getting a break from the action, and the viewer gets a break from the action when things should be happening. I've read the books too many times anyway, but I wonder how someone who never read them would react. I suspect that such a viewer would be mildly confused - at the least.
Fourth, Saruman. WTF? There's a damned good reason why the book made no mention of Gandalf from the moment he left Shire until they arrived in Rivendell. Tolkien was introducing the reader to a whole new world, and he did so carefully, trying not to introduce too many places and characters at once. That's why Gandalf's trip to the south is kept as nebulous as possible in the book. But the film wastes precious minutes showing what happened (not to mention needlessly embellishing it with a rather unimpressive action scene at Orthanc). Why?
So yeah, it's a nice movie, and it could have been done worse, certainly, but it could have also been done better. A lot better. The unfortunate thing is that because it's based on such a well-known and well-liked book, it's almost immune to criticism.
Mystery muppet
Spaceman
I agree that it was sort of flawed, but some parts (mostly something with camera-movement, hehe!) were awesome. And, though it was quite a while since I read the books, I'm VERY sure Arwen didn't run off with Frodo after the stabbing (and don't get me started on the torch-fighting). [I talked to a friend about it, and he claimed it was Legolas.] That's one of the things you Just Don't Change. As well as that Aragorn + Arwen-thing. I could swear by Glottis that it was Aragorn + Eowyn (which doesn't take place in the first book all the same) instead.
It's an ambitious project... Sort of failed its purpose, sort of rocked otherwise... I give it a 7 for Orthanc/Isengard.
It's an ambitious project... Sort of failed its purpose, sort of rocked otherwise... I give it a 7 for Orthanc/Isengard.
KrisV
Administrator
It was Glorfindel, as Ghost said.
Is it? I dunno. I don't feel it changed anything major. Glorfindel was by no means a major character (the next time he shows up is halfway Return of the King) and neither was Arwen. Everything that mattered about the flight to Rivendell was there. Who cares who took him there?
Eh? It's "Aragorn + Arwen"...
You complain about things that were changed, yet you alone made more changes to the story.
And you complain about the lack of camera movement... Are you sure you've read the books? Because most of it is about hobbits crawling from place to place. So far nothing's been truly changed. Certain events have been moved around a bit, probably to make the movie more interesting.
pygmypiranha
Vice Admiral
I finally showed my parents LOTR and they simply loved it. Already they are looking forward to the next installment, the Two Towers... as am I. Anyone else going to go see it?
pygmypiranha
Vice Admiral
My sister thought that the movie sucked because of the ending...Too bad more people didn't know about how the books ended.
Wedge009
Rogue Leader
Having not read the books, I thought it was okay.
Again, not having read the books, I also felt it was a three-hour long, dragged out cat-and-mouse chase. The big battle scenes at the start was good, but the ending... well, I know you can't wrap everything up, but I think the ending was a little disappointing. Nothing was really resolved. The way Tim Zahn managed to satisfactorily finish each book of his original Star Wars trilogy, yet keep the reader wanting to read the next one - this, IMHO, is a good balance to have when ending multi-part stories/movies/whatever.
Again, not having read the books, I also felt it was a three-hour long, dragged out cat-and-mouse chase. The big battle scenes at the start was good, but the ending... well, I know you can't wrap everything up, but I think the ending was a little disappointing. Nothing was really resolved. The way Tim Zahn managed to satisfactorily finish each book of his original Star Wars trilogy, yet keep the reader wanting to read the next one - this, IMHO, is a good balance to have when ending multi-part stories/movies/whatever.
Unlike all the other trilogies out there, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is pretty much just one long book that happens to be split into three parts. Other trilogies are written with the view that they can be read as independent books. LotR was written long before the current "sequel of a sequel of a sequel" craze that seems to grip the fantasy/sci-fi genre, and it doesn't follow that pattern. Yes, Fellowship ends in an odd spot, but all things considered, its as good a spot as any. The breaking of the Fellowship is probably about as good a break as you can come up with.
So don't think of it as a bad ending. Think of it as an intermission.
You just have to wait a year to see the next part (and a year after that for the conclusion).
It is indeed Arwen and Aragorn. Eowyn makes a play, but ends up with someone else.
There are a number of different varieties of orcs. So far, we've only seen the stronger varieties. If the "tracker" orc in Mordor is as different as I expect it to be, then the hobbits won't have any trouble passing themselves off as orcs.
As far as I'm concerned, even if the rest of the movie had been absolutely horrible (and I think the rest of the movie was excellent), the opportunity to see something like the Balrog actually done RIGHT for a change made the whole thing worth it.
So don't think of it as a bad ending. Think of it as an intermission.
You just have to wait a year to see the next part (and a year after that for the conclusion).
It is indeed Arwen and Aragorn. Eowyn makes a play, but ends up with someone else.
There are a number of different varieties of orcs. So far, we've only seen the stronger varieties. If the "tracker" orc in Mordor is as different as I expect it to be, then the hobbits won't have any trouble passing themselves off as orcs.
As far as I'm concerned, even if the rest of the movie had been absolutely horrible (and I think the rest of the movie was excellent), the opportunity to see something like the Balrog actually done RIGHT for a change made the whole thing worth it.
Fellowship was easily the best movie I saw last year, although Jurassic Park 3 and Planet of the Apes came very close ( 
). Can't wait for the Two Towers.
Quarto: I can see where you're coming from, but, really, isn't that just nitpicking?
By the way, has anyone seen that animated LOTR from the late 70s? The animation is pretty good, but the live action spliced in was just creepy. Also the fact that it stopped in the middle of The Two Towers sucked big time.
). Can't wait for the Two Towers.Quarto: I can see where you're coming from, but, really, isn't that just nitpicking?
By the way, has anyone seen that animated LOTR from the late 70s? The animation is pretty good, but the live action spliced in was just creepy. Also the fact that it stopped in the middle of The Two Towers sucked big time.
pygmypiranha
Vice Admiral
JP3 and the new Planet of the Apes both sucked royally. They certainly would make it to my "top ten horrible movies" list.