LotR Films in Retrospect and Changed Opinions - Page 2

inked · 02-10-2006, 11:00 AM

Here's a review totally germane and too long to reprint here. Check it out.

http://www.exile.ru/2004-April-22/kino_korner.html

I think the reviewer catches up the majority opinion posted so far. Some of it is hilariously accurate to ya'll's complaints.

Let me know your opinions!

Stephen · 04-10-2006, 01:00 AM

"Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse, or does it come naturally?"

Possibly, ...a little of both. Anyway, It's not the scenery alone(ie birds and trees and hills) but the way he incorporated the visionary work of some very respected artists into it. Lets consider Minis Tirith. Shining white but visibly fading, i could see the erosion of the race of men right in the erosion of the walls. Maybe you couldn't, i don't know. I was amazed the first time i saw Minis Tirith and then PJ proceeded to sweep me around the city for some great scenes, including but not limited to battles. And the lighting of the beacons, WOW to me. I've heard some say the scene is too drawn out. Hello, you just bought the extended version of a movie thats already over 3. Of course thats not at you Wayf, just typing thoughts.
Then i consider the history i felt when Gandalf and the Took hail Denethor. Yes, some of the casting is poor. But to me Denethor, Gandalf, & the Took are pretty good. And that scene made me think about the history Tolkien created. I thought Ar-Gimilzor may have been acting a bit like Denethor back in the day. And how Minis Tirith has sunk very low indeed. So the movie actually made me think new thoughts. I consider that a plus since according to you i may need them

. I just wanted to point out a couple parts i liked and why. I could list off a bunch but i guess that would just bore you all by the general tone of the responses.

In that "review" linked above he goes on about how PJ completely shafted the elves in his depiction of them. He thought the elves should be more grand maybe? "Reviewer" does not really come out and say exactly how he would have done it(which is usually the case). But i think the elves are depicted fairly... they do become less divine(for lack of a better word) the longer they are apart from Valinor right? Legolas was shown to be very skilled, though in sometimes corney ways. The sliding down the steps on a shield while killing 4 orcs with his bow was a tad much. Galadriel, though some despise PJ's choice of actress, is shown to be fairly powerful and wise. Also very cold... which she should have been.

The reviewer would have done better to highlight logical inconsistancies in the script like... The scene where Aragorn, Gimli, & Legolas meet Gandalf The White. Now if Merry and Pip had met Gandalf "the day before yesterday" why did he not know his name when the 3 called him by it at first? Merry and Pip would have alrealy called him by it...
Now if "reviewer" came up with something that made PJ look the idiot like that does... instead of spouting off jibberish, i might be impressed.

Lizra · 04-10-2006, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

It's hard to compare the books to the movies. If judged by themselves as works of art the movies are incredible... right down to the last fake rock. I doubt i could have organized that whole shebang. Some things bothered me a little at first, frodo seemed a little young... etc... but then again, who wants to watch a bunch of old hobbits running around. I think Jackson definitely kept to the spirit of the work and made some necessary and some silly, but interesting changes. The straying from the books was good hearted at worst.

This sums it up perfectly for me. I never expected the movies to be more than just movies. I was/am very pleased with them, of course they're not perfect...they are little movies!

I also believe the movies stirred up a ton of interest in Tolkien, and caused many to pick the books that would have never done so.

Gwaimir Windgem · 04-10-2006, 12:06 PM

But most of those tons will see Viggo Mortensen whenever they think of Aragorn, and Sean Astin whenever they think of Samwise, etc. They'll read it as a novelization of the movie. That's why I'm against watching the movie before reading the book (refering to a general principle here, not LotR specifically); you will be influenced and to a degree even formed by the adaptation, instead of the original.

Arien the Maia · 04-10-2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But most of those tons will see Viggo Mortensen whenever they think of Aragorn, and Sean Astin whenever they think of Samwise, etc. They'll read it as a novelization of the movie. That's why I'm against watching the movie before reading the book (refering to a general principle here, not LotR specifically); you will be influenced and to a degree even formed by the adaptation, instead of the original.

I couldn't agree more with you! this happened to me with Harry Potter....I watched the 1st movie then I read the books (I've sinced seen all the movies) but to me Snape and Harry and Ron will forever be portrayed in my mind as the actors who play them. it's sort of sad really...now with LotR...I read it before the movies came out but I think that for me, PJs versions of how he envisioned Middle EArth only enhanced what I had already envisioned I suppose...I never imagined that Elves could have long hair...and the more I though about it the more I like the fact that Elves had long hair! now, whenever I read the Sil or LotR...my Elves always have long hair!

Lizra · 04-10-2006, 03:53 PM

Gee guys....all I can say to that is "so what"

..... life is full of influences, I think most people will be able to deal with books and movies, I mean, not everyone is going to have a major religious experience over LoTR anyway. I'm sure some people that read the books because of interest stirred by the movies will be deeply moved nonetheless.

littleadanel · 04-11-2006, 06:13 AM

*raises hand* Y-yes, I am one of those. I read it before the movies, but scarcely before... I read the books in December 2001, the first movie was here in January 2002. But, I believe, without the movies no flood of cheap-edition LOTR & Hobbit in the bookstores, no Tolkien Christmas pressie for the family, and no reading in secret ang getting hooked.

And - I haven't seen any of the HP movies, and I don't intend to. It might be a good adaptation, but even the appearance of the actors clashes so violently with the images in my head, I don't want to risk them getting stuck and driving my own ideas away, thankyouverymuch.

Lizra · 04-11-2006, 07:00 AM

Why did you read "secretly"?

I haven't bothered keeping up with the Harry Potter movies...the books are just (currently) coming out and they are plenty good enough for me

....who needs a movie?

I have a very difficult time being "trapped" in a chair for 2 or 3 hours to watch one anyway.
The Tolkien situation was different (for me) After intially reading the books in 1970/71....there wasn't much cultural/media fuss. You read the books, most likely (if you finished them) deeply loved them, and unless you had a real life friend or snail mail penpal that had the same Tolkien experience as you, that was it. No internet forums for unlimited global discussion

no cool stuff, no fantastical displays at your state museum....zip. (ok...they did make some calendars....

)
When I read that someone was going to do movies of LoTRs (practically 30 years after discovering Midle Earth), I was thrilled!

Also...as an artist, I was keenly interested in seeing someone else's interpertation of the lushly described visuals. Middle Earth is a beautiful place, with literary celebration of already deeply moving real life natural beauty. The Potter series, (while a great read!) doesn't tease my visual imagination the same way as the Hobbit or LoTRs.
Once again...the LoTRs movies weren't as great as my imagination, but I never expected them to be. Actually, they exceeded my expectations in many ways.

littleadanel · 04-11-2006, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lizra

Why did you read "secretly"?

Because LOTR was a Christmas present, firstly for my mum from dad, but actually for the whole family - and we bought it toghether, and it was hidden in my room. Big mistake.

"Okay, I'll just read what's on the cover..." "Okay, just the introduction..." "Just the first chapter -- oh never mind." And I read and read and read, to finish it before Christmas Eve when it's given to my mum to read. Finished it in 2,5 days.

But I'm afraid I was terribly off topic.

So, the movies: I must second everything you said, Lizra. I never expected them to be perfect - nothing can be perfect for everybody. But I was curious, and watched all 3 as they came - I might have been disappointed or even angry at times, but on the other hand there were overwhelmingly good moments too. We like 'em movies, yes we do.

Lizra · 04-11-2006, 07:35 AM

Oh that's funny!

You poor, tortured, (fast reading) soul!

Such sublime pleasure so rushed.....

littleadanel · 04-11-2006, 07:40 AM

Oh, I took my time later on. I snatched it back after mum & granny read it. And now I have my own, English copy of LOTR - all for myself.

(I'm still not quite finished with it...

)

Snowdog · 04-11-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bropous

I was originally head-over-heels for the first film, but my opinion soured over time as reflection overcame novelty.

Even the extended editions, which came a step or two closer to the original story, failed miserably in truly capturing the essence of Middle-Earth.

I was initially fascinated with the scene when Fellowship came out, I was less so with two towers, and less so with return. I got the EE DVDs, and I have watched Fellowship a few times TT a few times, and Return exactly twice, once I fell asleep in the middle somewhere.

Initially I though tthey got alot of stuff fairly right in my opinion, like the Shire, the countryside that Frodo and Sam set out in, Bree, Helms Deep, Amon Sul, Medesuld, Minas Tirith. I think they missed it with Lorien, the terrain of Rohan, Mordor, the distance aspect ratio, and I'm neutral with Rivendell, Helms Deep, Isengard, and the Ents.

The story started ok, but it went south with Farmer Maggot, and worse yet with the Arwen catching a Ranger in the wild, etc. Now, as time goes on, the movies become evermore irrelevent to me in light of the true story presented in the books.

Meriadoc Brandybuck · 04-12-2006, 05:23 PM

Although I saw the movies before reading the books, I had read The Hobbit before watching the movies. As far as appearances go, Gandalf looked exactly as I imagined him, Bilbo was fairly close, and the dwarves and even the Shire looked similar to what I thought they would.
When I first saw the movies, I was completely obsessed with them. Then, for some reason, when I joined Entmoot a few weeks after reading the books (which I read in 15 days), this obsession waned. I still love the movies, though, despite the fact that they are not entirely like the books.

The Fellowship of the Ring: I absolutely love the introduction and Frodo before he inherits the Ring. After he gets the Ring, a worried look is forever plastered on his face. Merry and Pippin are slightly too comical. Arwen is... ugh. Gandalf, Strider/Aragorn, Sam, Boromir, Gimli, Galadrial, and Bill (the pony) were great, in my opinion. Rivendell and Lothlorien were picturesque. My second favorite of the trilogy.

The Two Towers: Merry and Pippin finally grew a little more mature in The Two Towers, although they are still not my favorite. Treebeard was very Entish, but maybe a little too bendy during the destruction of Isengard. Arwen was... bleh. She's not even supposed to be there! The only thing that bugs me about Theoden is that he suddenly gets a haircut when Gandalf cures him. Eowyn. Now, that was one character that Jackson did well. Smeagol/Gulom was excellent. Helm's Deep was overly long, in my opinion. My least favorite movie.

The Return of the King: What an amazing movie! It added Pippin looking into the Palantir, thankfully. Merry and Pippin are even better. The Nazgul were... I don't even know how the describe them! They were so good, especially the Witch King. Sam, as always, played his part well. Five scenes that should have never been there: The Drinking Game (E/E), Frodo telling Sam to "go home", Sam and Frodo being picked up by the Orcs in Mordor (which, by the way, I thought looked fine) (E/E), Aragorn freaking out when he sees Arwen in the Palantir (E/E), and Denethor's leap of doom.

I know, it's not a great review, but at least I did it.

hectorberlioz · 04-20-2006, 02:16 PM

FotR EE: by far the best of PJ's efforts (...JD*stern look*), it might have changed some things yes, especially the over amped Arwen, but the "cuts" it made at least made sense (i.e. Tom Bombadil). It also has a decent sense of pace, and this is the only one of the films where I am completely satisfied with all of the actors (as much as I can be).

TT EE: Still good, but nothing has changed my opinion of the rotten Theoden and Faramir (and that whole fictional segment), not to say Suaron The Literal Flashlight.

RotK EE: the Extended scenes did as much good for the film as Hitler did to improve the reputation of egotistical maniacal fanatacism.
The famous Saruman on the spiked wheel ended up being true. That whole "voice of saruman" scene was rotten and fake. Especially Gandalf.

brownjenkins · 04-20-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Theoden and Faramir (and that whole fictional segment)

I liked Theoden and Faramir. Theoden wasn't perfectly "to the book" and Faramir was pretty far off, but they were both likeable characters with a certain charm. Particularly Theo's scene at his son's grave.

Lizra · 04-20-2006, 02:47 PM

Theoden was my favorite movie character. Of course I had the hots for Boromir and Aragorn,

but King Theoden in RoTK melts me. Ahhh!

hectorberlioz · 04-20-2006, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I liked Theoden and Faramir. Theoden wasn't perfectly "to the book" and Faramir was pretty far off, but they were both likeable characters with a certain charm. Particularly Theo's scene at his son's grave.

You sentimentalist

It's the reality you have to strive for

Telcontar_Dunedain · 04-20-2006, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The famous Saruman on the spiked wheel ended up being true. That whole "voice of saruman" scene was rotten and fake. Especially Gandalf.

I quite enjoyed the 'Voice of Saruman' scene except of course the Saruman on a spike part at the end. It was one of my favourite RotK scenes.

Jon S. · 04-22-2006, 08:14 AM

With the passage of time, the plot changes and especially the "who spoke which line in the book versus the movies" shifting has come to bother me more. However, in terms of capturing the overall feel of Middle Earth, with the passage of time, I have come to appreciate the cinematography more.

We always end up in the same place on this discussion: the books are what they are and the movies are what they are. The sure way to be disappointed with either is to expect it to be the other.

Jon S. · 04-22-2006, 08:24 AM

OK, just read John Dolan's review. All I can say is, I'm not sure if that man's paranoid, seething, megalomaniacal, or all 3 but that is the stupidest, most worthless review of the LOTR movies I've seen to date. 99% of the views and opinions you all write right here in this forum surpass Dolan's nonsense (and I say this noting that I often disagree with the views expressed here).

02-10-2006, 11:00 AM	#21
inked Elf Lord Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol Posts: 3,114	Here's a review totally germane and too long to reprint here. Check it out. http://www.exile.ru/2004-April-22/kino_korner.html I think the reviewer catches up the majority opinion posted so far. Some of it is hilariously accurate to ya'll's complaints. Let me know your opinions! __________________ Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941

04-10-2006, 01:00 AM	#22
Stephen Hobbit Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Green Bay Posts: 19	"Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse, or does it come naturally?" Possibly, ...a little of both. Anyway, It's not the scenery alone(ie birds and trees and hills) but the way he incorporated the visionary work of some very respected artists into it. Lets consider Minis Tirith. Shining white but visibly fading, i could see the erosion of the race of men right in the erosion of the walls. Maybe you couldn't, i don't know. I was amazed the first time i saw Minis Tirith and then PJ proceeded to sweep me around the city for some great scenes, including but not limited to battles. And the lighting of the beacons, WOW to me. I've heard some say the scene is too drawn out. Hello, you just bought the extended version of a movie thats already over 3. Of course thats not at you Wayf, just typing thoughts. Then i consider the history i felt when Gandalf and the Took hail Denethor. Yes, some of the casting is poor. But to me Denethor, Gandalf, & the Took are pretty good. And that scene made me think about the history Tolkien created. I thought Ar-Gimilzor may have been acting a bit like Denethor back in the day. And how Minis Tirith has sunk very low indeed. So the movie actually made me think new thoughts. I consider that a plus since according to you i may need them . I just wanted to point out a couple parts i liked and why. I could list off a bunch but i guess that would just bore you all by the general tone of the responses. In that "review" linked above he goes on about how PJ completely shafted the elves in his depiction of them. He thought the elves should be more grand maybe? "Reviewer" does not really come out and say exactly how he would have done it(which is usually the case). But i think the elves are depicted fairly... they do become less divine(for lack of a better word) the longer they are apart from Valinor right? Legolas was shown to be very skilled, though in sometimes corney ways. The sliding down the steps on a shield while killing 4 orcs with his bow was a tad much. Galadriel, though some despise PJ's choice of actress, is shown to be fairly powerful and wise. Also very cold... which she should have been. The reviewer would have done better to highlight logical inconsistancies in the script like... The scene where Aragorn, Gimli, & Legolas meet Gandalf The White. Now if Merry and Pip had met Gandalf "the day before yesterday" why did he not know his name when the 3 called him by it at first? Merry and Pip would have alrealy called him by it... Now if "reviewer" came up with something that made PJ look the idiot like that does... instead of spouting off jibberish, i might be impressed. __________________ this ground is not the rock i thought it to be~mjk

04-10-2006, 12:06 PM	#24
Gwaimir Windgem Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA Posts: 10,820	But most of those tons will see Viggo Mortensen whenever they think of Aragorn, and Sean Astin whenever they think of Samwise, etc. They'll read it as a novelization of the movie. That's why I'm against watching the movie before reading the book (refering to a general principle here, not LotR specifically); you will be influenced and to a degree even formed by the adaptation, instead of the original. __________________ Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle

04-10-2006, 03:53 PM	#26
Lizra Domesticated Swing Babe Join Date: May 2002 Location: Reality Posts: 5,340	Gee guys....all I can say to that is "so what" ..... life is full of influences, I think most people will be able to deal with books and movies, I mean, not everyone is going to have a major religious experience over LoTR anyway. I'm sure some people that read the books because of interest stirred by the movies will be deeply moved nonetheless. __________________ Happy Atheist Go Democrats! Last edited by Lizra : 04-10-2006 at 03:55 PM.

04-11-2006, 06:13 AM	#27
littleadanel of the House of Bëor Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Eastwards. Posts: 979	raises hand Y-yes, I am one of those. I read it before the movies, but scarcely before... I read the books in December 2001, the first movie was here in January 2002. But, I believe, without the movies no flood of cheap-edition LOTR & Hobbit in the bookstores, no Tolkien Christmas pressie for the family, and no reading in secret ang getting hooked. And - I haven't seen any of the HP movies, and I don't intend to. It might be a good adaptation, but even the appearance of the actors clashes so violently with the images in my head, I don't want to risk them getting stuck and driving my own ideas away, thankyouverymuch. __________________ I'm good in bed - I can sleep for days Last edited by littleadanel : 04-11-2006 at 06:28 AM.

04-11-2006, 07:00 AM	#28
Lizra Domesticated Swing Babe Join Date: May 2002 Location: Reality Posts: 5,340	Why did you read "secretly"? I haven't bothered keeping up with the Harry Potter movies...the books are just (currently) coming out and they are plenty good enough for me ....who needs a movie? I have a very difficult time being "trapped" in a chair for 2 or 3 hours to watch one anyway. The Tolkien situation was different (for me) After intially reading the books in 1970/71....there wasn't much cultural/media fuss. You read the books, most likely (if you finished them) deeply loved them, and unless you had a real life friend or snail mail penpal that had the same Tolkien experience as you, that was it. No internet forums for unlimited global discussion no cool stuff, no fantastical displays at your state museum....zip. (ok...they did make some calendars.... ) When I read that someone was going to do movies of LoTRs (practically 30 years after discovering Midle Earth), I was thrilled! Also...as an artist, I was keenly interested in seeing someone else's interpertation of the lushly described visuals. Middle Earth is a beautiful place, with literary celebration of already deeply moving real life natural beauty. The Potter series, (while a great read!) doesn't tease my visual imagination the same way as the Hobbit or LoTRs. Once again...the LoTRs movies weren't as great as my imagination, but I never expected them to be. Actually, they exceeded my expectations in many ways. __________________ Happy Atheist Go Democrats! Last edited by Lizra : 04-11-2006 at 07:05 AM.

04-11-2006, 07:35 AM	#30
Lizra Domesticated Swing Babe Join Date: May 2002 Location: Reality Posts: 5,340	Oh that's funny! You poor, tortured, (fast reading) soul! Such sublime pleasure so rushed..... __________________ Happy Atheist Go Democrats!

04-11-2006, 07:40 AM	#31
littleadanel of the House of Bëor Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Eastwards. Posts: 979	Oh, I took my time later on. I snatched it back after mum & granny read it. And now I have my own, English copy of LOTR - all for myself. (I'm still not quite finished with it... ) __________________ I'm good in bed - I can sleep for days

04-12-2006, 05:23 PM	#33
Meriadoc Brandybuck Magnificent Master of Buckland Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Buckland, U.S.A. Posts: 1,138	Although I saw the movies before reading the books, I had read The Hobbit before watching the movies. As far as appearances go, Gandalf looked exactly as I imagined him, Bilbo was fairly close, and the dwarves and even the Shire looked similar to what I thought they would. When I first saw the movies, I was completely obsessed with them. Then, for some reason, when I joined Entmoot a few weeks after reading the books (which I read in 15 days), this obsession waned. I still love the movies, though, despite the fact that they are not entirely like the books. The Fellowship of the Ring: I absolutely love the introduction and Frodo before he inherits the Ring. After he gets the Ring, a worried look is forever plastered on his face. Merry and Pippin are slightly too comical. Arwen is... ugh. Gandalf, Strider/Aragorn, Sam, Boromir, Gimli, Galadrial, and Bill (the pony) were great, in my opinion. Rivendell and Lothlorien were picturesque. My second favorite of the trilogy. The Two Towers: Merry and Pippin finally grew a little more mature in The Two Towers, although they are still not my favorite. Treebeard was very Entish, but maybe a little too bendy during the destruction of Isengard. Arwen was... bleh. She's not even supposed to be there! The only thing that bugs me about Theoden is that he suddenly gets a haircut when Gandalf cures him. Eowyn. Now, that was one character that Jackson did well. Smeagol/Gulom was excellent. Helm's Deep was overly long, in my opinion. My least favorite movie. The Return of the King: What an amazing movie! It added Pippin looking into the Palantir, thankfully. Merry and Pippin are even better. The Nazgul were... I don't even know how the describe them! They were so good, especially the Witch King. Sam, as always, played his part well. Five scenes that should have never been there: The Drinking Game (E/E), Frodo telling Sam to "go home", Sam and Frodo being picked up by the Orcs in Mordor (which, by the way, I thought looked fine) (E/E), Aragorn freaking out when he sees Arwen in the Palantir (E/E), and Denethor's leap of doom. I know, it's not a great review, but at least I did it. __________________ But it is the way of my people to use light words at such times and say less than they mean. We fear to say to much. It robs us of the right words when a jest is out of place. -Meriadoc Brandybuck Is there anything I can do that wouldn't inconvenience me?.-Adrian Monk Hogan: What's a definate factor that we can count on? Newkirk: We don't know what we're doing. Do you wanna split a pineapple? -Shawn Spencer

04-20-2006, 02:16 PM	#34
hectorberlioz Master of Orchestration President Emeritus of Entmoot 2004-2008 Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Lost in the Opera House Posts: 9,328	FotR EE: by far the best of PJ's efforts (...JDstern look), it might have changed some things yes, especially the over amped Arwen, but the "cuts" it made at least made sense (i.e. Tom Bombadil). It also has a decent sense of pace, and this is the only one of the films where I am completely satisfied with all of the actors (as much as I can be). TT EE: Still good, but nothing has changed my opinion of the rotten Theoden and Faramir (and that whole fictional segment), not to say Suaron The Literal Flashlight. RotK EE: the Extended scenes did as much good for the film as Hitler did to improve the reputation of egotistical maniacal fanatacism. The famous Saruman on the spiked wheel ended up being true. That whole "voice of saruman" scene was rotten and fake. Especially Gandalf. __________________ ACALEWIA- President of Entmoot hectorberlioz- Vice President of Entmoot Acaly und Hektor fur Presidants fur EntMut fur life! Join the discussion at Entmoot Election 2010. "Stupidissimo!"~Toscanini The Da CINDY Code The Epic Poem Of The Balrog of Entmoot: Here ~NEW! ~ Thinking of summer vacation? AboutNewJersey.com - NJ Travel & Tourism Guide

04-20-2006, 02:47 PM	#36
Lizra Domesticated Swing Babe Join Date: May 2002 Location: Reality Posts: 5,340	Theoden was my favorite movie character. Of course I had the hots for Boromir and Aragorn, but King Theoden in RoTK melts me. Ahhh! __________________ Happy Atheist Go Democrats!

04-22-2006, 08:14 AM	#39
Jon S. Elven Warrior Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 455	With the passage of time, the plot changes and especially the "who spoke which line in the book versus the movies" shifting has come to bother me more. However, in terms of capturing the overall feel of Middle Earth, with the passage of time, I have come to appreciate the cinematography more. We always end up in the same place on this discussion: the books are what they are and the movies are what they are. The sure way to be disappointed with either is to expect it to be the other.

04-22-2006, 08:24 AM	#40
Jon S. Elven Warrior Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 455	OK, just read John Dolan's review. All I can say is, I'm not sure if that man's paranoid, seething, megalomaniacal, or all 3 but that is the stupidest, most worthless review of the LOTR movies I've seen to date. 99% of the views and opinions you all write right here in this forum surpass Dolan's nonsense (and I say this noting that I often disagree with the views expressed here).