LotR Films in Retrospect and Changed Opinions

bropous · 01-07-2006, 01:38 PM

Now that the old Entmooters have seen all three films, and their "extended" versions over and over, and you've had a good year or two to think about it, have your opinions you originally stated changed? How?

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.

Also, do you think that very many people actually made the full journey "there and back again" once they bought the books? Or do you think that Jackson's facile treatment was so different from the books that folks who saw the films first were turned off by Professor T's masterworks?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

**Nurvingiel** · 01-07-2006, 06:54 PM

On Watching the Movies and My Opinion of Them Now

I actually haven't seen any of the extended editions. When I watch movies, I'll watch one or the other. I'll rent the EE if I have the chance. Most movies I can't be bothered to watch more than once.

There are a few notable exceptions, with genius works like Mostly Martha and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Jackson's movies, interestingly, also fall into this category.

I wouldn't call his movies "genius works", but I got very caught up in the idea of a Lord of the Rings movie when it first came out. I really enjoyed the first movie (with the pointed exception of that one scene we all hate with a passion) and I saw it three times in theatres. I have never watched it since.

I actually wanted to see FotR three times. When TTT came out, I was still excited. I saw it, and was crushed to find it sucked harder than an industrial vacuum. I went with friends to see it again, and I found that it still blew. I think this is where most of the bile surfaced and I vented my spleen about the movies in these forums. The forgivable plot holes from FotR annoyed me now. And Gimli as comic relief? Stab kill maim injure stab stab stab.

I went to see RotK with my Pedantic-Movie-Watcher Stun Gun set to extreme. I was pleasantly surprised to find that RotK didn't hardcore suck. I ennjoyed this movie, possibly because I was expecting drek like the second movie. RotK wasn't as good as FotR due to two scenes that still burn my mind. I don't think I can ever forgive Flaming Cordless Bungee Jumping Denathor. And Gandalf hitting Denathor? No. Just no.

And, as much as I pity Jackson for having to convey a bodiless entity whose symbol is an eye, and whose spirit searches for the Ring like an eye, the Sauron Eye Spotlight was just too silly, though not as bad as FCBJD though.

I did enjoy RotK. The Battle of Pelennor Fields was awesome (I have nitpicks, but it was awesome). Minis Tirith (despite their lack of foresight in purchasing trebuchet ammunition) was incredibly beautiful. Minis Tirith, Pelennor, and also Éowyn definitely made RotK for me.

Throughout all three movies the Hobbits, Aragorn, and Gandalf* were wonderful, rich characters.

*Except when Gandalf hit Denethor with his staff. Then he sucked old lemons.

Now, looking back on the movies, only two things have really changed. First, I didn't like Frodo when the movies first came out. He wasn't wise like I imagined him from the book, but even I must acknowledge that's too harsh. I think the asthma attack encounters with the Ring made him look bad unnecessarily. Elijah Wood really did do a great job with Frodo, who was an awesome character. It's not Frodo's fault all the calm parts of the plot got cut, leaving him to jump from one dramatic scene to the next, an expression of horror permanently on his face. (Frodo's Mom: If you keep making that face, it will freeze that way!)

The other aspect that change is my level of loathing for the movies. I used to grudgingly like FotR, despise TTT with the fire of a million hot suns, and feel more or less neutral about RotK. Now my hatred of TTT has lessened to the fire of a thousand Red Dwarf suns.

However, I no longer fly into a rage at the mere mention of the movies, but I still don't like them overall and I won't bother renting them. (The exception is if my boyfriend really wants to watch them. He really likes all the movies, and he's such a wonderful guy that I'd even watch TTT for him!)

On Movie Goers Making the Journey

The only effect the movie really had is a surge of hype surrounding the book. This, if anything, is what effected who read/reads it, and it was positive. A new publication was made with movie pictures on the cover, and I think more books were published. More of Tolkien's works stocked the shelves of even crap bookstores like Chapters. This will probably cause a huge amount of people to read the books.

rohirrim TR · 01-07-2006, 11:46 PM

why do you hate gimli so much? I thought he totally rocked, I love John Rhys-Davies hes the perfect side kick dude (got started with Indiana Jones for petes sake) Gimli rocked, and as for comic relief Merry and Pippin and Gimli are the only characters that have room for some comic relief without ruining the character. sorry sorry off topic.

I like the movies especially the extended edition, TTT was a bit of a dissapointment, and the WK breaking Gandalfs staff in ROTK EE really ticked me off but sith happens even on the best films.

Serenoli · 01-08-2006, 11:01 AM

I loved the books when I first read them. Then I saw the movies and they were very different from the books, but having previous experience of book-to-movie transitions, I expected that, so it didn't disappoint me that much. And so I loved the movies too!

And I still do. The changes that do annoy, like Arwen, or the change of Faramir's character, etc., are more than over-compensated by some brilliant scenes- such as the battle for Helm's Deep. The movies, in my opinion are very very good... but I haven't changed my opinion in retrospect, so maybe I shouldn't even be posting here!]

BTW, The Two Towers was my favourite movie... funny how people's opinions vary!

Halbarad of the Dunedain · 01-08-2006, 04:40 PM

I will post a more detailed thought on the subject when I'm not so tired, but the jist of what I think is that the films were the films and the book is the book. To be perfectly honest I did not read the book untill after Fellowship of the Ring had released. In fact I had not read the books untill shortly before The Two Towers released! But once I started reading I couldn't stop, I read all three books in less than a two weeks. At the time of the films my bestfriend and myself were Lord of the Rings and Tolkien nuts so naturally I loved the films! I could hardly wait for the Return of the King. All of that sort of fanatic stuff. Yet as this thread says, in retrospect I feel the films were lacking, even as films go.
I know that the films are going to be altered from the books, that would be understandable, even things like Faramirs change and presence of Arwen, but certain minor inclusions are what made the films lose points for me. Espcially in the Extended Editions, sceans like "The Drinking Game" with Gimli and Legolas. What was the point!? A split second of comical relief? I feel that sceans with no purpose sould have been and could have been time spent in film dealing with something more important to the story. Jackson left out a lot but could have added it if he wasn't busy adding his own story!
However I still love all the films, and no matter what book to film it is, the book will always be superior. I'm also a bit LotR'd out! I have put my books and films aside and haven't looked at them for nearly a year! The films were great, and the works of Tolkien are amazing. My feelings for the films have slightly changed but even still they are still extremely great!

Oh and my favorite film was Fellowship of the Ring, favorite character in the film was Eomer. Favorite book was Return of the King, favorite in book character... ... Halbarad!!!

BeardofPants · 01-09-2006, 02:37 AM

I thought the first movie was naff when I went to see it, and I still think it royally sucks ass. The second movie was a little bit better, and I certainly enjoyed seeing the ents brought to life, but it still wasn't something that I'd want to re-watch beyond seeing the EE. RoTK was nothing but cheese. I was bored through most of the end, and when I went to see it a second time at the Embassy in Wellington (so my friend from Germany could say that she'd seen it in NZ), I was bored further. Bah, I say. Bah.

King of The Istari · 01-09-2006, 09:02 AM

there is a lot of dislike of the movies about but I would like to disagree, peter jackson's movies I think succsessfully captured the essence of tolkiens books even if things were taken away the essence has been there through all of them I think in all the films the good points have outwayed the bad. and these movies ARE creating new fans of the books, I'm one of them, I saw the first movie and a week later I had finishesd reading FOTR and was partway through TTT and now I can say I am officially a "Tolkien" fan even if it did start out with the movie.
I own and have watched many times the extended films (which I think are a lot better and closer to the book) and thought yes there are differences between the book and the films but I still think they're a very good adaptation. I personly think they have been adapted better than some of the harry potter films which have let out important infomation and added in stupid replacement scenes.

as for the age old problem of tom bombadil and the scouring of the shire not being present I don't really mind. tom even though he is a great character he doesn't really drive the story past a certain point and the scouring of the shire I always thought that started the story up again after everything had been resolved.

brownjenkins · 01-09-2006, 10:18 AM

i loved 'em all, especially the EEs... not because they necessarily captured the books perfectly, but because they were decent movies... i would have cast a few parts differently (galadriel mostly, who really bugs me), and shaved off a bit of the retrospective in TTT, but all-in-all, they did well... i know that they are favorites among my kids, who have not read the books yet, so that holds a lot of weight for me

**Nurvingiel** · 01-12-2006, 04:35 AM

rohirrim TR, I don't hate Gimli - far from it! What I hate is those horrendous "comic" relief lines he was given. They were brutal and completely devoid of humour. I mean, "You're going to have to toss me?" Stab me in the face with a million knives!! Aaa!

edited to add:

You have inspired the following comic:
http://www.deviantart.com/view/27580845/

rohirrim TR · 01-12-2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

rohirrim TR, I don't hate Gimli - far from it! What I hate is those horrendous "comic" relief lines he was given. They were brutal and completely devoid of humour. I mean, "You're going to have to toss me?" Stab me in the face with a million knives!! Aaa!

edited to add:

You have inspired the following comic:
http://www.deviantart.com/view/27580845/

LOL nice comic.

well okay the whole tossing thing got old, but if you think about it Gimli, Merry and Pippin are the only characters that have room for comic relief without taking away from the story, you gotta have some humor dramatically, so yeah....sith happens

Last Child of Ungoliant · 01-16-2006, 09:00 PM

i liked the films as films based on books. as accurate representations of the books, i curse at PJ for his warped view of arwen, and i curse that elven dungheap even more, but never mind.

fotr is the only ee i have not seen yet

Stephen · 01-25-2006, 05:42 AM

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.

Wayfarer · 01-25-2006, 11:00 PM

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.

Sorry, but that's exactly what they weren't.

It's hard to compare books to movies. Fine. Let's hand wave all that away, and just look at the movies. The source material doesn't matter.

Take away the wildly popular source material and what do you have? Yet another uninspired film with an incredibly bloated production budget, a half-assed plot, practically every annoying film trope that has ever been done, and a garnish of cheesy one-liners to top it off with.

The entire trilogy was less 'incredible' and more 'mediocre.' Let's face it, if weren't based on what was already one of the most (if not the most) wildly successful works of fiction in modern times, the first film would have passed without comment with the rest of the boring wannabe epic films.

I'll give the producer credit - he does a good job of cashing in on things which are already monumentally successful. He's not so good at actually making films that stand on their own merits.

Arien the Maia · 01-26-2006, 12:04 AM

hmmm what do I think...ok

FotR: I absolutely LOVED this movie when it came out! I saw it 9 times in the theater and countless more when it came out on DVD. It truely did turn me into the Tolkien nut that I am today. Prior to seeing it I was reading the Silmarillion for the second time I think. So I was already a Tolkien fan but not to that extent. I do like the way most of the Elves were portrayed (as far as looks go) and their culture was awesome. I obvously didn't like Arwen in the movie at all! Not that I'm against hell-raising females (heck, I am one at times

) but that was NOT what Arwen was! That was Eowyn all the way! I was disappointed that the Barrowdowns and Tom were left out. FotR is my fav LotR book mainly b/c it deals the most with the ancient things like Elves and Tom and it also has alot of "quiet" times in it...the whole journey from the Shire to Rivendell...the stay at Tom's house etc. all in all though I though that it was a great movie.

TTT: I went in with super high expectations and was really let down! I hated the way they changed Faramir's charcter! OMG! I loved him in the book and it was horrible to have to watch him on the screen! It was after this movie that I joined Entmoot so it did strength my Tolkien-loving a tad more

I only saw this one 4 times in the theaters....each time I kept thinking "ok, now THIS time I'll really like it!" I have the DVD anyway to complete my collection. The extended Edition really did add a bit more to it I thought. I must say that in this movie Elrond comes off as a bit of a jerk towards the race of Men. Well he's kinda like that in FotR as well. I mean come on...he is half-elven after all! They should have made that come through more...he was portrayed as an Elf not as a half -Elf...in fact I wonder if people who hadn't read the books would understand...

RotK: I really did like this one too. I didn't like the whole "spotlight Eye" or the fact that the Eye was just an Eye and not really Sauron in bodily form. I think I saw this 5 times in the theaters. I saw the Extended edition which I liked as well. I also didn't like the whole Gandalf hitting Denethor scene. This movie really inspiored me to do my Senior Project dedicated to Tolkien's world. So I did, and I must say it turned out pretty well!

All in all I liked the movies and when something bothers me I just remember to tell myself that I should like the movies for what they are...movies...far below the books really...but they helped me to imagine Tolkien's world more vividly I think.

Stephen · 01-27-2006, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

... Yet another uninspired...&c

The visual recreation of middle earth is completely uninspired? We must have been watching different movies. Name one visually unpleasing aspect of the movie and i'll name 10 amazing ones. Half of Tolkien's work is in the building of the setting of middle earth, if not more. So if even visually, middle earth is recreated well... Jackson did at least a 50% good job. Now we can argue the plot and quirks all day long but that arguement is only for the remaining 50%. You may have to be content with about 20 if we keep going.

**Nurvingiel** · 01-27-2006, 04:41 AM

I think the themes and characters matter rather a lot more than beautiful scenery. Besides, 50% is still a D. That is a crap grade.

(I have a couple Ds on my transcript, but never mind that.) Tolkien spent some time building Middle-earth, but that was fleshing out the history, geography, languages, and family trees of the different characters. Not describing every rock.

I think the movies have pretty excellent scenery, especially Rohan and the White Mountains. But... meh. That doesn't make an impactful movie IMO. I watch a lot of movies because I love movies, but I have become jaded to shiny CGI. You just can't impress me with obviously fake mountains of Mordor or Sauron's evil eye spotlight. What moves me is a gripping plot, and I don't feel the LotR movies had a gripping plot. There was suspense around the Battle of Pelennor Fields, but the overall movie was cheapened by the random crap like Denothor's death and the bad dialogue. I found those things distracting, and once distracted, I realised the movies weren't great.

This is my view, and as an art form, movies are subjective. You're free to enjoy them of course.

But you know what movies I'm really enjoying right now? The Rocky movies. My roommate and I have watched I and II, and we'll watch III through V the next chance we get. There is no CGI to speak of, and the most elaborate makeup is giving the two boxers realistic-looking beat-up faces. I find these movies exciting and compelling because of the interesting characters. The plot, when scrutinised, is a tad predictable, but I found this didn't bother me. Not everyone is going to enjoy Rocky, but my point with this is you don't need CGI to have an enjoyable movie.

You also can't use CGI to make up for bad dialogue or silly characters. Obviously CGI was necessary to portray Middle-earth (the Balrog was pretty rad), but this can't be an excuse to not write a good screenplay.

brownjenkins · 01-27-2006, 09:59 AM

true, movies are subjective... this is part of the reason why i do see the lotr trilogy as a good set of movies... many people i respect were very moved by them, and not just in a "cool graphics" kind of way... so they must have done something right, at least for some people

Wayfarer · 01-27-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

The visual recreation of middle earth is completely uninspired? We must have been watching different movies. Name one visually unpleasing aspect of the movie and i'll name 10 amazing ones. Half of Tolkien's work is in the building of the setting of middle earth, if not more. So if even visually, middle earth is recreated well... Jackson did at least a 50% good job. Now we can argue the plot and quirks all day long but that arguement is only for the remaining 50%. You may have to be content with about 20 if we keep going.

Well, clearly you fail to grasp the correct meaning of the word inspired, because 'uninspired' is not the same as 'visually unpleasing.' Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse, or does it come naturally?

If taking pictures of the New Zealand countryside with some pretty people and CGI monsters is your idea of a great film, I could make one on a lot smaller budget than Jackson did. Sorry, but taking pictures of beautiful scenery is what makes a good photographer, and being able to create inspiring images is what makes a good artist. Neither is enough to make a good filmmaker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

. Besides, 50% is still a D.

Where I come from, it's an F. But that's beside the point, since the claim was completely fallacious anyway. *gives Nurvingiel a cookie*

Arien the Maia · 01-27-2006, 03:12 PM

[QUOTE=Nurvingiel]
You just can't impress me with obviously fake mountains of Mordor or Sauron's evil eye spotlight.
\QUOTE]

this is hilarious and I love it! Sauron's evil eye spotlight! I'm going to refer to it as that from now on!

The Gaffer · 01-28-2006, 11:53 AM

Yup, I am also of the "initially amazed that they'd achieved it, subsequently increasingly disappointed at the failure to tell a simple goddam story" school of thought.

Still gets 10/10 for design (e.g. costumes, cultures, etc etc) but I think they should have taken a much bigger axe to the story to make it fit properly into a film. Some bits were great (Sam, Gollum, Galadriel, Saruman, Mumakil, Theoden + Rohirrim), some were dire (Osgiliath, Flight to the Ford, Denethor, Frodo, Aragorn); but overall I found it a frustrating experience.

I too thought that Mordor looked very fake indeed.

01-07-2006, 01:38 PM	#1
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	LotR Films in Retrospect and Changed Opinions Now that the old Entmooters have seen all three films, and their "extended" versions over and over, and you've had a good year or two to think about it, have your opinions you originally stated changed? How? 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. Also, do you think that very many people actually made the full journey "there and back again" once they bought the books? Or do you think that Jackson's facile treatment was so different from the books that folks who saw the films first were turned off by Professor T's masterworks? Discuss amongst yourselves. __________________ "...[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.

01-08-2006, 11:01 AM	#4
Serenoli Head of the Department for the Invention and Propagation of Sugar, Spice and Everything Nice! Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Ithilien Posts: 852	I loved the books when I first read them. Then I saw the movies and they were very different from the books, but having previous experience of book-to-movie transitions, I expected that, so it didn't disappoint me that much. And so I loved the movies too! And I still do. The changes that do annoy, like Arwen, or the change of Faramir's character, etc., are more than over-compensated by some brilliant scenes- such as the battle for Helm's Deep. The movies, in my opinion are very very good... but I haven't changed my opinion in retrospect, so maybe I shouldn't even be posting here!] BTW, The Two Towers was my favourite movie... funny how people's opinions vary! __________________ "I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worthwhile?" Death thought about it. "Cats," he said eventually. "Cats are nice." -Terry Pratchett, Sourcery Join the Harry Potter discussion, click here Last edited by Serenoli : 01-08-2006 at 11:02 AM.

01-08-2006, 04:40 PM	#5
Halbarad of the Dunedain Elven Warrior Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Arthedian Posts: 460	I will post a more detailed thought on the subject when I'm not so tired, but the jist of what I think is that the films were the films and the book is the book. To be perfectly honest I did not read the book untill after Fellowship of the Ring had released. In fact I had not read the books untill shortly before The Two Towers released! But once I started reading I couldn't stop, I read all three books in less than a two weeks. At the time of the films my bestfriend and myself were Lord of the Rings and Tolkien nuts so naturally I loved the films! I could hardly wait for the Return of the King. All of that sort of fanatic stuff. Yet as this thread says, in retrospect I feel the films were lacking, even as films go. I know that the films are going to be altered from the books, that would be understandable, even things like Faramirs change and presence of Arwen, but certain minor inclusions are what made the films lose points for me. Espcially in the Extended Editions, sceans like "The Drinking Game" with Gimli and Legolas. What was the point!? A split second of comical relief? I feel that sceans with no purpose sould have been and could have been time spent in film dealing with something more important to the story. Jackson left out a lot but could have added it if he wasn't busy adding his own story! However I still love all the films, and no matter what book to film it is, the book will always be superior. I'm also a bit LotR'd out! I have put my books and films aside and haven't looked at them for nearly a year! The films were great, and the works of Tolkien are amazing. My feelings for the films have slightly changed but even still they are still extremely great! Oh and my favorite film was Fellowship of the Ring, favorite character in the film was Eomer. Favorite book was Return of the King, favorite in book character... ... Halbarad!!! __________________ "Can you feel her, running through your veins? She will always live forever!" ~ Atreyu [Her portrait in Black] "I want to see pretty people doing ugly things..." ~ Unknown "Damn it n' such!" ~ Stewie Griffen Last edited by Halbarad of the Dunedain : 01-08-2006 at 04:41 PM.

01-09-2006, 02:37 AM	#6
BeardofPants the Shrike Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA <3 Posts: 10,647	I thought the first movie was naff when I went to see it, and I still think it royally sucks ass. The second movie was a little bit better, and I certainly enjoyed seeing the ents brought to life, but it still wasn't something that I'd want to re-watch beyond seeing the EE. RoTK was nothing but cheese. I was bored through most of the end, and when I went to see it a second time at the Embassy in Wellington (so my friend from Germany could say that she'd seen it in NZ), I was bored further. Bah, I say. Bah. __________________ "Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords

01-09-2006, 09:02 AM	#7
King of The Istari Elven Warrior Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Some where quite interesting with psychedelic trees Posts: 124	there is a lot of dislike of the movies about but I would like to disagree, peter jackson's movies I think succsessfully captured the essence of tolkiens books even if things were taken away the essence has been there through all of them I think in all the films the good points have outwayed the bad. and these movies ARE creating new fans of the books, I'm one of them, I saw the first movie and a week later I had finishesd reading FOTR and was partway through TTT and now I can say I am officially a "Tolkien" fan even if it did start out with the movie. I own and have watched many times the extended films (which I think are a lot better and closer to the book) and thought yes there are differences between the book and the films but I still think they're a very good adaptation. I personly think they have been adapted better than some of the harry potter films which have let out important infomation and added in stupid replacement scenes. as for the age old problem of tom bombadil and the scouring of the shire not being present I don't really mind. tom even though he is a great character he doesn't really drive the story past a certain point and the scouring of the shire I always thought that started the story up again after everything had been resolved. __________________ So do all who see such times, but that is not for us to decide, all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us Gandalf And what happened to the rest of your party, killed, eaten, gone home? Beorn, The Hobbit Dark and difficult Times lie ahead Harry, soon we must all face a choice, a choice between what is right and what is easy! Dumbledore Neo Are you listening to Me? Or are you too busy looking at the Woman in the Red Dress? Morpheus, The Matrix

01-09-2006, 10:18 AM	#8
brownjenkins Advocatus Diaboli Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Reality Posts: 3,767	i loved 'em all, especially the EEs... not because they necessarily captured the books perfectly, but because they were decent movies... i would have cast a few parts differently (galadriel mostly, who really bugs me), and shaved off a bit of the retrospective in TTT, but all-in-all, they did well... i know that they are favorites among my kids, who have not read the books yet, so that holds a lot of weight for me __________________ Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.

01-16-2006, 09:00 PM	#11
Last Child of Ungoliant The Intermittent One Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: here and there Posts: 4,671	i liked the films as films based on books. as accurate representations of the books, i curse at PJ for his warped view of arwen, and i curse that elven dungheap even more, but never mind. fotr is the only ee i have not seen yet

01-25-2006, 05:42 AM	#12
Stephen Hobbit Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Green Bay Posts: 19	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 ground is not the rock i thought it to be~mjk

01-26-2006, 12:04 AM	#14
Arien the Maia Fëanáro's Fire Mistress Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Indiana, USA Posts: 1,423	hmmm what do I think...ok FotR: I absolutely LOVED this movie when it came out! I saw it 9 times in the theater and countless more when it came out on DVD. It truely did turn me into the Tolkien nut that I am today. Prior to seeing it I was reading the Silmarillion for the second time I think. So I was already a Tolkien fan but not to that extent. I do like the way most of the Elves were portrayed (as far as looks go) and their culture was awesome. I obvously didn't like Arwen in the movie at all! Not that I'm against hell-raising females (heck, I am one at times ) but that was NOT what Arwen was! That was Eowyn all the way! I was disappointed that the Barrowdowns and Tom were left out. FotR is my fav LotR book mainly b/c it deals the most with the ancient things like Elves and Tom and it also has alot of "quiet" times in it...the whole journey from the Shire to Rivendell...the stay at Tom's house etc. all in all though I though that it was a great movie. TTT: I went in with super high expectations and was really let down! I hated the way they changed Faramir's charcter! OMG! I loved him in the book and it was horrible to have to watch him on the screen! It was after this movie that I joined Entmoot so it did strength my Tolkien-loving a tad more I only saw this one 4 times in the theaters....each time I kept thinking "ok, now THIS time I'll really like it!" I have the DVD anyway to complete my collection. The extended Edition really did add a bit more to it I thought. I must say that in this movie Elrond comes off as a bit of a jerk towards the race of Men. Well he's kinda like that in FotR as well. I mean come on...he is half-elven after all! They should have made that come through more...he was portrayed as an Elf not as a half -Elf...in fact I wonder if people who hadn't read the books would understand... RotK: I really did like this one too. I didn't like the whole "spotlight Eye" or the fact that the Eye was just an Eye and not really Sauron in bodily form. I think I saw this 5 times in the theaters. I saw the Extended edition which I liked as well. I also didn't like the whole Gandalf hitting Denethor scene. This movie really inspiored me to do my Senior Project dedicated to Tolkien's world. So I did, and I must say it turned out pretty well! All in all I liked the movies and when something bothers me I just remember to tell myself that I should like the movies for what they are...movies...far below the books really...but they helped me to imagine Tolkien's world more vividly I think.

01-27-2006, 09:59 AM	#17
brownjenkins Advocatus Diaboli Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Reality Posts: 3,767	true, movies are subjective... this is part of the reason why i do see the lotr trilogy as a good set of movies... many people i respect were very moved by them, and not just in a "cool graphics" kind of way... so they must have done something right, at least for some people __________________ Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.

01-27-2006, 03:12 PM	#19
Arien the Maia Fëanáro's Fire Mistress Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Indiana, USA Posts: 1,423	[QUOTE=Nurvingiel] You just can't impress me with obviously fake mountains of Mordor or Sauron's evil eye spotlight. \QUOTE] this is hilarious and I love it! Sauron's evil eye spotlight! I'm going to refer to it as that from now on! Last edited by Arien the Maia : 01-28-2006 at 04:24 PM.

01-28-2006, 11:53 AM	#20
The Gaffer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In me taters Posts: 3,288	Yup, I am also of the "initially amazed that they'd achieved it, subsequently increasingly disappointed at the failure to tell a simple goddam story" school of thought. Still gets 10/10 for design (e.g. costumes, cultures, etc etc) but I think they should have taken a much bigger axe to the story to make it fit properly into a film. Some bits were great (Sam, Gollum, Galadriel, Saruman, Mumakil, Theoden + Rohirrim), some were dire (Osgiliath, Flight to the Ford, Denethor, Frodo, Aragorn); but overall I found it a frustrating experience. I too thought that Mordor looked very fake indeed.