What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Have YOU read the books, darling?

I first read The Hobbit long before your parents met, Gordis, I'll betcha. If 33 is the coming of age, it corresponds to 18-21. That's the age Frodo is when Bilbo leaves. He has the Ring (which extends life) and hobbits age slower than today's men, so he continues to have the appearance of a very young man. You couldn't cast it older than 30. I can understand why they didn't cast someone actually 18-20, because people are still growing at that point, and the years filming would show. But not everyone is Micky Rooney, to play juveniles, forever.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Siscuza is right (except about Frodo's age... ) about art, but IMO I think you can convey the spirit of a story in a film much more effectively than was achieved on LOTR. And that's even with the hack & slash factor.

In fact, if they had been less concerned about the purists ("oh, we'll get our arses kicked if we don't include Treebeard", for example) they might have produced a better film. On the other hand, the stuff they did add was pretty gash on the whole and did not bode well for a major reworking.

Possibly. It's an enormous undertaking. I went to the movies with people who knew the material inside and out, and with people who had no clue. Both could follow the action, which was a point in its favor, I think. PJ made different choices than I would, but I'm sure my choices would be equally unpopular