Pluses and minuses, but the best film in history - Page 2

Hapira_Brandybuck · 12-30-2001, 06:18 PM

I will not say precisely how old I am but just the fact that I'm a teenager because people give different credibility to the thoughts of 19 year olds than fifteen year olds

with that said I would liek to say that this is probably the best movie I've ever seen

it's not that I don't see a lot of movies it's just that I haven't had the chance to see a lot of movies

it rocks, it kicks mad booty, I love it, my boyfriend loved it, my brother loved my forty-something dad in the middle of a mid-life crisis loved it

pst...... dad....... I wanna One Ring replica for my b-day

Ñólendil · 12-30-2001, 06:21 PM

Madam, most of the people running Entmoot are teenagers, myself included.

Hapira_Brandybuck · 12-30-2001, 07:09 PM

my previous post in this thread would be a fine example of me putting my foot in my mouth and biting it off in the process..... *crawls back into her hobbit-hole*

bropous · 12-31-2001, 11:23 AM

Excellent review, IronParrot. I must agree whoeheartedly with your assessment of Ian McKellum's and Sean Bean's performances, as well as Viggo Mortensen.

andustar · 01-01-2002, 07:44 AM

<claps>

Santee · 01-02-2002, 02:37 AM

I'll agree with IP on the pacing of the film. It rushed by to quickly...

Some other minor points to bring up...

Strider's introduction to the Hobbits. What made them decide to follow him out of Bree, with no notice from Gandalf, who they still had an impression was going to meet them at the Prancing Pony?

Merry and Pippins seeming idiocy and lack of maturity. Pippin admittedly wasn't the brightest of the bunch, but overall, the impression one gets from the movie is one of a coupla of buffoons...

***IronParrot*** · 01-02-2002, 02:41 AM

Concerning Merry and Pippin, I think that leaves a lot of room for them to emerge as the valiant squires they are in ROTK.

As for Bree, the problem I had with it was how they left in the morning, with the Black Riders searching the inn in the middle of the night.

Santee · 01-02-2002, 02:45 AM

I can understand them leaving that quickly, because it follows along with the books ideology. The riders knew that they had been in those rooms, but had no idea where they had gone off to. No one really knew... And at that point in time, they were not really showing themselves during hte day, as if their powers wained come sunlight...

arrogantprick · 01-02-2002, 05:55 AM

Talk about "the emperors new clothes"...the movie sucked, is anyone too afraid to say so.

Scenically it was pleasant enough, the casting was OK but all in all (with few exceptions) it was bloody awful. Enough "understanding" for poor old PJ, he could have done heaps better than he did.

It was a poor shadow of the book with little of its magic. Poor Legolas was relegated to the background, there was nothing made of the "special" characteristics of the different races, Elrond was pitiful and the line "you are the fellowship of the ring" was so trite that an apprentice screenwriter must have written it.

There were many minor and a few major changes, a lot of which were completely uneccesary.

I fail to see how anyone who loved the book could like the movie.....do you all just want to like it so much that you fear to admit that the movie crashed and burned?

Kevin McIntyre · 01-02-2002, 10:25 AM

The movie should be evaluated on its own terms. I think Tolkien fans are the wrong people to judge the movie by itself. Similar to a Shakesperean Scholar reviewing a modern version of one of the bards plays.
There are a myriad of problems when trying to visualize the FOTR as a movie - the books pacing is too slow for a movie, timelines need compression. ( i mean i would sit through a seven hour version of the FOTR, but not much money would be made, which is after all what allows us to have the other movies produced).

I can't let a couple of awkward lines of dialog affect the over all potancy of the movie. Sure I would have done things differently, we all would. But then again who would hire me to make a movie (never mind three).

Pailan · 01-02-2002, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by arrogantprick
[B
I fail to see how anyone who loved the book could like the movie.....do you all just want to like it so much that you fear to admit that the movie crashed and burned? [/B]

Well one measure of this films success is the steady and very large box office draw.

I guess your choice of a screen name says it all.

Pailan

bropous · 01-02-2002, 12:24 PM

***Quoth arrogantprick: "Talk about 'the emperors new clothes'...the movie sucked, is anyone too afraid to say so."***

Had this movie "sucked", I'd have been one of the first Tolkien fans in the front ranks of the assault on the film. It did not, and I was not.

***Quoth again: "Scenically it was pleasant enough, the casting was OK but all in all (with few exceptions) it was bloody awful. Enough "understanding" for poor old PJ, he could have done heaps better than he did."***

Well, I must respectfully disagree. This film is a masterwork of the filmmaker's art. The scenery was perfect; costuming, armoury, swordwork and bowwork, all wonderful; casting absolutely untouchably perfect; Peter Jackson's irecting and conceptualizing, incomparable. Kubrick could not have done any better. A Minor point: We are still discussing only a THIRD of the work, and the full verdict cannot be rendered until we see the full finished product.

***Additional quotation: "It was a poor shadow of the book with little of its magic. Poor Legolas was relegated to the background, there was nothing made of the "special" characteristics of the different races, Elrond was pitiful and the line "you are the fellowship of the ring" was so trite that an apprentice screenwriter must have written it."***

Again I must heartily disagree. Elrond came across as an extremely powerful and competent character, Legolas got no more attention than his character got in the book, and the aspects of the different races were absolutely touched upon, but not worked to death, to the point that a novice would have yawned and lost interest. We may all love each and every arcane aspect of Tolkien's creation, but in a three hour film it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully develop each and every aspect of the races involved, as it is impossible to include each and every scene and each and every character, no matter how minor.

As for the triteness of the line regarding the Fellowship, again we will politely disagree. Maybe you can grace us all, dear friend, with a link to YOUR screenplay for the film. I am sure it will enrich all our lives and open our eyes to that to which we are all so obviously blinded.

***Quoting: "There were many minor and a few major changes, a lot of which were completely uneccesary." Already addressed above. Changes were necessary and needed. Each of us would make different changes to the story to fit it on the screen in the amount of time available. No matter who made the film, SOMEONE would be all in a snit about this-or-that change. Artistic license permissable here.

Final quote: "I fail to see how anyone who loved the book could like the movie.....do you all just want to like it so much that you fear to admit that the movie crashed and burned?"

Oh, come now. You may not like the film, and I sense you may have gone into this, like a few other detractors, with your mind already made up, to hate it no matter what. Maybe I misjudge here. However, you must understand that each who reads ANY book takes away a different slant, a different opinion over this or that detail, a different effect in his/her heart. Don't presume to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, to paraphrase Frank Herbert, and do not deign to tell another that if they loved the film they obviously did not love the books.

I, for one, have honestly defended this film as a work of love for and respect for the works of the Master, not as a verbatim regurgitation which would have driven off audiences not familiar with Tolkien's world, but rather, as a retelling which invites millions to join us in reading of the Ringbearer's quest. Mr. Jackson, in walking a tightrope between the purist and the novice, produced a work of rare insight, deep detail and breathtaking beauty and scope. It IS a faithful retelling given the constraints of studio bosses and watchable length, and works an excellent balance between the books and audiences of lovers of the books and uninitiates alike.

All in my humble Entingish opinion...

arrogantprick · 01-03-2002, 09:29 PM

Quote Pailan : Well one measure of this films success is the steady and very large box office draw.

If you are under the misguided impression that a big box office draw makes a good movie then there is no point even arguing with you.

I enjoy the cut and thrust of a good debate and we all see differently on this subject obviously, but the fact you resort to making fun of my nick, show that you have no coherent arguement.

Bropus : Actually I went into the movie really excited. I booked my ticket weeks in advance to the first session on the first day of release. For some reason whenever I express my disappointment in a MB people automatically dismiss me by saying I had made my mind up in advance. I had not.

I honestly cannot fathom why LoTR fans like it. I dont dispute it had good parts to it and I particularly thought ian McKellen and Elijah Woods did a good job. I dont dislike Hugo Weaving, but his part was awful and his lines stank. Someone (maybe you, but I cant remember) sarcastically said something along the lines of "lets see your screenplay".....well I am a writer, but you do not need this talent to recognise a trite piece of Hollywood cliche when you hear one.

I know there was the need to compress a lot into the screenplay and I knew changes would be made, but I dont like the way PJ did it.

Lightice · 01-04-2002, 08:58 AM

Well, I'm a true Tolkien-fan that liked the film. There was some minior annoyances, but none was enough to destroy the whole movie. Elrond was most annoying, but not even he was bad altogether.
So could we drop this "Emperor's new clothes", please?

arrogantprick · 01-04-2002, 09:26 AM

Consider it dropped Lightice.

Pailan · 01-04-2002, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by arrogantprick
Quote Pailan : Well one measure of this films success is the steady and very large box office draw.

If you are under the misguided impression that a big box office draw makes a good movie then there is no point even arguing with you.

I enjoy the cut and thrust of a good debate and we all see differently on this subject obviously, but the fact you resort to making fun of my nick, show that you have no coherent arguement.

I honestly cannot fathom why LoTR fans like it. I dont dispute it had good parts to it and I particularly thought ian McKellen and Elijah Woods did a good job. I dont dislike Hugo Weaving, but his part was awful and his lines stank. Someone (maybe you, but I cant remember) sarcastically said something along the lines of "lets see your screenplay".....well I am a writer, but you do not need this talent to recognise a trite piece of Hollywood cliche when you hear one.

I know there was the need to compress a lot into the screenplay and I knew changes would be made, but I dont like the way PJ did it.

Well, let me start by saying I too, enjoy a well reasoned argument.

Yes, box office numbers are perhaps a poor indicator as to the worthieness of a movie, but it does reveal that large numbers of people felt it was worth a look, at least once. Have you seen it more than one time or was your expirence so bad that you refuse to go again? I belive the film holds up extremely well under multiple viewings.

On line I have read over 200 reviews about FotR, ranging from fans to professional reviewers, and over 90 percent of them have been glowingly positive. Less than 5 percent have been negative. Now this not to say there isn't room for improvement in the movie... we all have things we wish would be better executed, written or acted. That being said, after viewing this work of art, I was blown away by the attention to details, the high quality of the acting, the fantastic photography, and most importantly, the film stayed true to the spirit of Tolkien's work. IMO.

As for picking on your screen name, I am sorry. We all have reasons to name ourselves as we do. I shall refain from slamming something that is so personal.

bropous · 01-04-2002, 12:34 PM

"As for picking on your screen name, I am sorry. We all have reasons to name ourselves as we do. I shall refain from slamming something that is so personal."

Good on ya, Pailan.

Well, arrogantprick, I admitted that I could be wrong about you deciding you hated the movie prior to seeing it, and I see that I was. Apologies for the rash assumption.

I guess we'll just call this one a friendly disagreement. I absolutely loved the film, each and every aspect of it, and still cannot recall a better-crafted film. I'm absolutely taken with it, and unlike some folks, I think it did great justice to the books. And I do have to admit I saw the film with a bit of a cynic's spirit because I was really annoyed that Liv Tyler, whom I have never before been able to stomach, was going to be in the film, which I felt was simply the studio bosses' forcing the casting to add a bit of popular "Eye Candy". I was happily disproved in my assumptions.

I came out of the film absolutely effusive in my praise for it, and have returned to see it three more times since. I have very little criticism for it, and though I may have a niggling change I would have done here-and-there, again I fall back on the argument that Mr. Jackson, in walking the tightrope between us die-hard Tolkien fans and the rest of the world who have not read the books, did a beautiful job.

I recall his statement that he did not want people coming out of the theater saying that one needed to read the books to get the film. I think he succeeded rather wonderfully in avoiding just that.

All the best, fellow travellers!

Liviaine · 01-04-2002, 05:58 PM

This is THE best movie I have ever seen.

arrogantprick · 01-04-2002, 06:31 PM

Pailan: You are a gentleman, thank you.

I have only seen the movie once and was initially refusing to go and see it again out of disenchantment, but the general reaction to the movie has been so good (much to my surprise) that I am considering going back again. Having been divested of my original (perhaps unrealistic) expectations by my first viewing, i may be more open to the movie the second time around.

Part of my problem was that it was something I has been waiting 20 years for and my expectations were high and i had also only just finished re-reading FoTR so every little detail was fresh in my head.

Bropus: For now we shall agree to disagree. Perhaps I will be swayed by further viewing.

I never really thought it was a bad movie as such, just that it was a bad representation of the book, but I shall perhaps revisit the movie and reconsider my opinion.

Thank you both for your debate on the issue....you have been most kind.

BTW - My nick is a carry over from a different MB and perhaps its innappropriate on this one. If so I apologise.

Kevin McIntyre · 01-04-2002, 06:37 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by arrogantprick
[B][bPart of my problem was that it was something I has been waiting 20 years for and my expectations were high and i had also only just finished re-reading FoTR so every little detail was fresh in my head.

I would like to hear what you think after a second viewing - perhaps it was the freshness of the story in your mind that preconditioned you to expect too much?

12-30-2001, 06:18 PM	#21
Hapira_Brandybuck Enting Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NW IN Posts: 75	I will not say precisely how old I am but just the fact that I'm a teenager because people give different credibility to the thoughts of 19 year olds than fifteen year olds with that said I would liek to say that this is probably the best movie I've ever seen it's not that I don't see a lot of movies it's just that I haven't had the chance to see a lot of movies it rocks, it kicks mad booty, I love it, my boyfriend loved it, my brother loved my forty-something dad in the middle of a mid-life crisis loved it pst...... dad....... I wanna One Ring replica for my b-day __________________ -Hapira Brandybuck 'My dear Frodo!' exclaimed Gandalf. 'Hobbits really are amazing creatures, as I have said before. You can learn all that there is to know about their ways in a month, and yet after a hundred years they can still surprise you at a pinch.

12-30-2001, 06:21 PM	#22
Ñólendil Elf Lord Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: California Posts: 60,865	Madam, most of the people running Entmoot are teenagers, myself included. __________________ Falmon -- Dylan

12-30-2001, 07:09 PM	#23
Hapira_Brandybuck Enting Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NW IN Posts: 75	my previous post in this thread would be a fine example of me putting my foot in my mouth and biting it off in the process..... crawls back into her hobbit-hole __________________ -Hapira Brandybuck 'My dear Frodo!' exclaimed Gandalf. 'Hobbits really are amazing creatures, as I have said before. You can learn all that there is to know about their ways in a month, and yet after a hundred years they can still surprise you at a pinch.

12-31-2001, 11:23 AM	#24
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	Excellent review, IronParrot. I must agree whoeheartedly with your assessment of Ian McKellum's and Sean Bean's performances, as well as Viggo Mortensen. __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

01-02-2002, 02:41 AM	#27
*IronParrot* Fowl Administrator Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Calgary or Edmonton, Canada Posts: 53,420	Concerning Merry and Pippin, I think that leaves a lot of room for them to emerge as the valiant squires they are in ROTK. As for Bree, the problem I had with it was how they left in the morning, with the Black Riders searching the inn in the middle of the night. __________________ All of IronParrot's posts are guaranteed to be 100% intelligent and/or sarcastic, comprising no genetically modified content and tested on no cute furry little animals unless the SPCA is looking elsewhere. If you observe a failure to uphold this warranty, please contact a forum administrator immediately to receive a full refund on your Entmoot registration. Blog: Nick's Café Canadien

01-01-2002, 07:44 AM	#25
andustar Elven Warrior Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: London Posts: 217	<claps>

01-02-2002, 02:37 AM	#26
Santee Sapling Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 8	I'll agree with IP on the pacing of the film. It rushed by to quickly... Some other minor points to bring up... Strider's introduction to the Hobbits. What made them decide to follow him out of Bree, with no notice from Gandalf, who they still had an impression was going to meet them at the Prancing Pony? Merry and Pippins seeming idiocy and lack of maturity. Pippin admittedly wasn't the brightest of the bunch, but overall, the impression one gets from the movie is one of a coupla of buffoons...

01-02-2002, 02:45 AM	#28
Santee Sapling Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 8	I can understand them leaving that quickly, because it follows along with the books ideology. The riders knew that they had been in those rooms, but had no idea where they had gone off to. No one really knew... And at that point in time, they were not really showing themselves during hte day, as if their powers wained come sunlight...

01-02-2002, 05:55 AM	#29
arrogantprick Sapling Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 10	Talk about "the emperors new clothes"...the movie sucked, is anyone too afraid to say so. Scenically it was pleasant enough, the casting was OK but all in all (with few exceptions) it was bloody awful. Enough "understanding" for poor old PJ, he could have done heaps better than he did. It was a poor shadow of the book with little of its magic. Poor Legolas was relegated to the background, there was nothing made of the "special" characteristics of the different races, Elrond was pitiful and the line "you are the fellowship of the ring" was so trite that an apprentice screenwriter must have written it. There were many minor and a few major changes, a lot of which were completely uneccesary. I fail to see how anyone who loved the book could like the movie.....do you all just want to like it so much that you fear to admit that the movie crashed and burned?

01-02-2002, 10:25 AM	#30
Kevin McIntyre Elven Warrior Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Bree Posts: 148	the movie and the book The movie should be evaluated on its own terms. I think Tolkien fans are the wrong people to judge the movie by itself. Similar to a Shakesperean Scholar reviewing a modern version of one of the bards plays. There are a myriad of problems when trying to visualize the FOTR as a movie - the books pacing is too slow for a movie, timelines need compression. ( i mean i would sit through a seven hour version of the FOTR, but not much money would be made, which is after all what allows us to have the other movies produced). I can't let a couple of awkward lines of dialog affect the over all potancy of the movie. Sure I would have done things differently, we all would. But then again who would hire me to make a movie (never mind three). Last edited by Kevin McIntyre : 01-02-2002 at 10:26 AM.

01-02-2002, 12:24 PM	#32
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	*Quoth arrogantprick: "Talk about 'the emperors new clothes'...the movie sucked, is anyone too afraid to say so."* Had this movie "sucked", I'd have been one of the first Tolkien fans in the front ranks of the assault on the film. It did not, and I was not. *Quoth again: "Scenically it was pleasant enough, the casting was OK but all in all (with few exceptions) it was bloody awful. Enough "understanding" for poor old PJ, he could have done heaps better than he did."* Well, I must respectfully disagree. This film is a masterwork of the filmmaker's art. The scenery was perfect; costuming, armoury, swordwork and bowwork, all wonderful; casting absolutely untouchably perfect; Peter Jackson's irecting and conceptualizing, incomparable. Kubrick could not have done any better. A Minor point: We are still discussing only a THIRD of the work, and the full verdict cannot be rendered until we see the full finished product. *Additional quotation: "It was a poor shadow of the book with little of its magic. Poor Legolas was relegated to the background, there was nothing made of the "special" characteristics of the different races, Elrond was pitiful and the line "you are the fellowship of the ring" was so trite that an apprentice screenwriter must have written it."* Again I must heartily disagree. Elrond came across as an extremely powerful and competent character, Legolas got no more attention than his character got in the book, and the aspects of the different races were absolutely touched upon, but not worked to death, to the point that a novice would have yawned and lost interest. We may all love each and every arcane aspect of Tolkien's creation, but in a three hour film it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully develop each and every aspect of the races involved, as it is impossible to include each and every scene and each and every character, no matter how minor. As for the triteness of the line regarding the Fellowship, again we will politely disagree. Maybe you can grace us all, dear friend, with a link to YOUR screenplay for the film. I am sure it will enrich all our lives and open our eyes to that to which we are all so obviously blinded. ***Quoting: "There were many minor and a few major changes, a lot of which were completely uneccesary." Already addressed above. Changes were necessary and needed. Each of us would make different changes to the story to fit it on the screen in the amount of time available. No matter who made the film, SOMEONE would be all in a snit about this-or-that change. Artistic license permissable here. Final quote: "I fail to see how anyone who loved the book could like the movie.....do you all just want to like it so much that you fear to admit that the movie crashed and burned?" Oh, come now. You may not like the film, and I sense you may have gone into this, like a few other detractors, with your mind already made up, to hate it no matter what. Maybe I misjudge here. However, you must understand that each who reads ANY book takes away a different slant, a different opinion over this or that detail, a different effect in his/her heart. Don't presume to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, to paraphrase Frank Herbert, and do not deign to tell another that if they loved the film they obviously did not love the books. I, for one, have honestly defended this film as a work of love for and respect for the works of the Master, not as a verbatim regurgitation which would have driven off audiences not familiar with Tolkien's world, but rather, as a retelling which invites millions to join us in reading of the Ringbearer's quest. Mr. Jackson, in walking a tightrope between the purist and the novice, produced a work of rare insight, deep detail and breathtaking beauty and scope. It IS a faithful retelling given the constraints of studio bosses and watchable length, and works an excellent balance between the books and audiences of lovers of the books and uninitiates alike. All in my humble Entingish opinion... __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

01-03-2002, 09:29 PM	#33
arrogantprick Sapling Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 10	Quote Pailan : Well one measure of this films success is the steady and very large box office draw. If you are under the misguided impression that a big box office draw makes a good movie then there is no point even arguing with you. I enjoy the cut and thrust of a good debate and we all see differently on this subject obviously, but the fact you resort to making fun of my nick, show that you have no coherent arguement. Bropus : Actually I went into the movie really excited. I booked my ticket weeks in advance to the first session on the first day of release. For some reason whenever I express my disappointment in a MB people automatically dismiss me by saying I had made my mind up in advance. I had not. I honestly cannot fathom why LoTR fans like it. I dont dispute it had good parts to it and I particularly thought ian McKellen and Elijah Woods did a good job. I dont dislike Hugo Weaving, but his part was awful and his lines stank. Someone (maybe you, but I cant remember) sarcastically said something along the lines of "lets see your screenplay".....well I am a writer, but you do not need this talent to recognise a trite piece of Hollywood cliche when you hear one. I know there was the need to compress a lot into the screenplay and I knew changes would be made, but I dont like the way PJ did it.

01-04-2002, 08:58 AM	#34
Lightice Elven Warrior Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 192	Well, I'm a true Tolkien-fan that liked the film. There was some minior annoyances, but none was enough to destroy the whole movie. Elrond was most annoying, but not even he was bad altogether. So could we drop this "Emperor's new clothes", please?

01-04-2002, 09:26 AM	#35
arrogantprick Sapling Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 10	Consider it dropped Lightice.

01-04-2002, 12:34 PM	#37
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	"As for picking on your screen name, I am sorry. We all have reasons to name ourselves as we do. I shall refain from slamming something that is so personal." Good on ya, Pailan. Well, arrogantprick, I admitted that I could be wrong about you deciding you hated the movie prior to seeing it, and I see that I was. Apologies for the rash assumption. I guess we'll just call this one a friendly disagreement. I absolutely loved the film, each and every aspect of it, and still cannot recall a better-crafted film. I'm absolutely taken with it, and unlike some folks, I think it did great justice to the books. And I do have to admit I saw the film with a bit of a cynic's spirit because I was really annoyed that Liv Tyler, whom I have never before been able to stomach, was going to be in the film, which I felt was simply the studio bosses' forcing the casting to add a bit of popular "Eye Candy". I was happily disproved in my assumptions. I came out of the film absolutely effusive in my praise for it, and have returned to see it three more times since. I have very little criticism for it, and though I may have a niggling change I would have done here-and-there, again I fall back on the argument that Mr. Jackson, in walking the tightrope between us die-hard Tolkien fans and the rest of the world who have not read the books, did a beautiful job. I recall his statement that he did not want people coming out of the theater saying that one needed to read the books to get the film. I think he succeeded rather wonderfully in avoiding just that. All the best, fellow travellers! __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

01-04-2002, 05:58 PM	#38
Liviaine Elven Warrior Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ithilien Posts: 203	This is THE best movie I have ever seen.

01-04-2002, 06:31 PM	#39
arrogantprick Sapling Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 10	Pailan: You are a gentleman, thank you. I have only seen the movie once and was initially refusing to go and see it again out of disenchantment, but the general reaction to the movie has been so good (much to my surprise) that I am considering going back again. Having been divested of my original (perhaps unrealistic) expectations by my first viewing, i may be more open to the movie the second time around. Part of my problem was that it was something I has been waiting 20 years for and my expectations were high and i had also only just finished re-reading FoTR so every little detail was fresh in my head. Bropus: For now we shall agree to disagree. Perhaps I will be swayed by further viewing. I never really thought it was a bad movie as such, just that it was a bad representation of the book, but I shall perhaps revisit the movie and reconsider my opinion. Thank you both for your debate on the issue....you have been most kind. BTW - My nick is a carry over from a different MB and perhaps its innappropriate on this one. If so I apologise.

01-04-2002, 06:37 PM	#40
Kevin McIntyre Elven Warrior Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Bree Posts: 148	[QUOTE]Originally posted by arrogantprick [B][bPart of my problem was that it was something I has been waiting 20 years for and my expectations were high and i had also only just finished re-reading FoTR so every little detail was fresh in my head. I would like to hear what you think after a second viewing - perhaps it was the freshness of the story in your mind that preconditioned you to expect too much?