What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[Curufin]

I agree with you there, DPR. I did like the cast. Especially Ian McKellan, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Karl Urban, David Wenham and Cate Blanchett.

I watched most of Wenham's movies when I heard he was going to be Faramir. I was most impressed. It's not his fault his character got gang-banged by PJ.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Hated Cate in this, not that she had much to do.

[Curufin]

See, I liked her. I didn't think her Galadriel was all just wimpy and beautiful, as she could have been.

Artanis is a tough cookie, and I think Cate played her more that way than could have been done.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

The glowing green part sucked but otherwise, she was wonderful. Moreso in the extended edition. I love the gift giving in both the book and film.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

*giggles* for someone who's iffy about this movie, you sure know it backwards and forwards. *friendly poke*

[The Gaffer]

I'm going to commit blasphemy and say that I didn't particularly like McKellen as Gandalf. A bit too cozy somehow. He was OK, but he's been much better in other things. Michael Hordern was a better Gandalf, and that was on the radio. Christopher Lee rocked! And might have been a better Gandalf.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Do you think Gandalf needed that much edge?

I thought Lee's Saruman was marvelous, and would have enjoyed more of it, but I thought the avuncular Gandalf was well suited to LOTR.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I'm going to commit blasphemy and say that I didn't particularly like McKellen as Gandalf. A bit too cozy somehow. He was OK, but he's been much better in other things. Michael Hordern was a better Gandalf, and that was on the radio. Christopher Lee rocked! And might have been a better Gandalf.

Agreed on all points. I just didn't want to be the first to say it.

[Curubethion]

Jon S.: couldn't agree more, that's actually a view of PJ's movies that I hold as well.

[Curufin]

Agreed on all points. I just didn't want to be the first to say it.

I agree with Sis that Lee had a bit too much edge for Saruman. Of course, maybe he could have tempered it, you never know.

[Jon S.]

I have a question regarding Elrond's character and Weaving playing him. I've heard it said that PJ casted a character more akin to Thingol than Elrond, is that a fair assessment? This, unlike the changes to Faramir, did rankle me. In any event, he certainly did seem to have made a point out of emphasizing it was Galadriel who was the "high elf who gave a damn as to the men who remained."

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I agree. "Men are weak," was one of Elrond's lines, as was, "the blood of Numenor is all but spent." Awful misanthropic stuff definitely reminiscent of Thingol.

[The Gaffer]

I would agree with that. However, although his personality was totally different to the book, I thought it was OK. They used the change to convey information about the history of Men and Elves and Aragorn's background.

Unfortunately, his subsequent actions didn't make sense; "oh wait, I was wrong, here have a sword". They should have gone the whole hog and had Arwen re-forge Narsil in secret, then sail the White Ship up the Anduin, with Tom Bombadil at the helm, or something

[Curufin]

I would agree with that. However, although his personality was totally different to the book, I thought it was OK. They used the change to convey information about the history of Men and Elves and Aragorn's background.

I think Elrond was entirely the wrong character with which to do this.

Elrond and Elros were the culmination all three races - Maiar, Eldar and Edain. Not only does it seem wrong that Elrond would write off the glory of men (being the descendent of both Beren and Tuor), but it also seems wrong that he would so off-handedly condemn his twin brother as "weak."

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Curu, lol.

Where are you going to get ordinary people, who buy tickets to see a movie, up to speed on the ancestry of Elrond?

Elrond loses his daughter. That IS an element in Tolkien's story, and a reasonably important one. It's also something people can relate to. They have families. Most of them do NOT have an historic ancestry that brings the focus of the End of an Age into their personal path.

Most of these purist quibbles would result in there being no movie, at all. Now, I've sat through literally dozens of productions of Midsummer Night's dream. And anytime a word of Bottom's conversation with Titania's sprites is omitted, I wince, and mutter under my breath. But when I walk into a theatre or film with a 2-3 hour playing time, I KNOW something has been left out.

There were an awful lot of pages in LOTR, guys. Too many to film. And trying to drag in any of those other pieces of posthumous work...well, it's flat out impossible.

Now, you may say, "Then don't make the movie." That's a point of view. Personally, my interest in the New Testament falls off sharply when Paul arrives...I liked the earlier characters, better. And, of course, there are people who take no notice of the New Testament at all. But if you assume someone WILL be filming the movie, it comes with the assumption that they'll be cutting some. And if you were filming the New Testament, insisting on a flashback to Daniel in the Lion's Den would be... Well, stupid. Even if it DOES importantly presage the mercy of the appearence of Christ at all.

But I don't ever think you'd make a decent film out of the Sil. It's designed for a grand ballet.

[Curufin]

Curu, lol.

Where are you going to get ordinary people, who buy tickets to see a movie, up to speed on the ancestry of Elrond?

Hey, it isn't my fault that Joe Schmoe movie goer is an illiterate buffoon.

Elrond loses his daughter. That IS an element in Tolkien's story, and a reasonably important one. It's also something people can relate to. They have families. Most of them do NOT have an historic ancestry that brings the focus of the End of an Age into their personal path.

Quite so. But most people don't have to carry a magical ring that turns you invisible and is the embodiment of evil straight into the fires of hell, either, but they seemed to accept that alright.

Most of these purist quibbles would result in there being no movie, at all.

*sigh* Wouldn't that have been a beautiful thing?

There were an awful lot of pages in LOTR, guys. Too many to film. And trying to drag in any of those other pieces of posthumous work...well, it's flat out impossible.

Granted. And I'm not that upset with "cutting" stuff. I'm fine that they cut Bombadil, Gildor ( *sniff) and Glorfindel. I can understand that. It's the stuff they added in and the stuff they changed that annoyed me. Think what they could have done with the ten minutes that they wasted on the warg attack and the horse snogging. Instead they could have had Aragorn sing all or part of the Eärendil Was a Mariner song, and introduce Elrond's ancestry.

Now, you may say, "Then don't make the movie." That's a point of view. Personally, my interest in the New Testament falls off sharply when Paul arrives...I liked the earlier characters, better. And, of course, there are people who take no notice of the New Testament at all. But if you assume someone WILL be filming the movie, it comes with the assumption that they'll be cutting some. And if you were filming the New Testament, insisting on a flashback to Daniel in the Lion's Den would be... Well, stupid. Even if it DOES importantly presage the mercy of the appearence of Christ at all.

Sure. And as I said, cutting isn't a problem. Changing is.

But I don't ever think you'd make a decent film out of the Sil. It's designed for a grand ballet.

If they tried I think my head would spin around 360 degrees and I'd vomit all over them.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

So, we have one vote for no movie. (and no treatment of the Sil, at all.)

[Curufin]

Yes, no movie.

As for the Silmarillion, if it had to be done, I agree that it would be best done as a ballet or possibly an opera. Les Misérables was also long and complicated, but the operetta did a good job with it, I thought. I still think it would be necessary to concentrate on just certain parts of it, though - like Beren and Lúthien, perhaps.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Hey, it isn't my fault that Joe Schmoe movie goer is an illiterate buffoon.

He votes, too. And runs for office, heaven help us. Reality is what it is, chica.

Granted. And I'm not that upset with "cutting" stuff. I'm fine that they cut Bombadil, Gildor ( *sniff) and Glorfindel. I can understand that. It's the stuff they added in and the stuff they changed that annoyed me. Think what they could have done with the ten minutes that they wasted on the warg attack and the horse snogging. Instead they could have had Aragorn sing all or part of the Eärendil Was a Mariner song, and introduce Elrond's ancestry.

Elrond's ancestry isn't an important feature of LOTR.

Sure. And as I said, cutting isn't a problem. Changing is.

All cuts change something. The Romeo and Juliet I saw the other day used cuts to emphasize the family conditions at the Capulets. It was an interesting choice, although wouldn't have been mine, particularly with some casting issues they'd saddled themselves with. You bring in Aragorn singing...why wasn't Aragorn bathing? Hard to imagine any elf, however severely dysfunctional and with father issues, gettin' cozy with THAT piece of long road. I felt he'd be lucky to GET the horse. But Viggo clearly WAS Aragorn, however hygiene-impaired.

It's a movie. It's added to the whole body of work, not instead of it.

[Curufin]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

He votes, too. And runs for office, heaven help us. Reality is what it is, chica.

I'd prefer not to be reminded of this so close to an election. Kthnxbai.

Elrond's ancestry isn't an important feature of LOTR.

That depends on whether you see LotR as a stand-alone story, or as the last chapter in a larger legend starting with The Silmarillion. In the first, no it isn't. In the second, it most certainly is.

All cuts change something.

Yes. But they don't have to change the essential themes. There were a good number of cuts/changes, for instance, in the operetta version of Les Misérables, but none of the themes were changed, and the basic feeling of Hugo's story was brought across. I don't feel that PJ succeeded in this. He made wrong choices.

You bring in Aragorn singing...why wasn't Aragorn bathing? Hard to imagine any elf, however severely dysfunctional and with father issues, gettin' cozy with THAT piece of long road. I felt he'd be lucky to GET the horse. But Viggo clearly WAS Aragorn, however hygiene-impaired.

Don't get it, either. Legolas stayed clean the entire time they were travelling. Aragorn could too. But I still would have liked him to sing Eärendil's song.

It's a movie. It's added to the whole body of work, not instead of it.

For us, yes. For many people, no. I don't know how many times I've asked people if they've read LotR and they answer "no, but I've seen the movie," as if it's somehow the same thing.