08-05-2002, 10:38 PM | #81 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hobbiton
Posts: 739
|
we do not have to praise him, but i bet everyone here can find one good thing about his movie, other then the point that it was made after jrr tolkiens book
__________________
Jesus loves you! Movie vewing count from the theater: Return of the King:9 Two Towers: 11 Fellowship: 13 FRODO LIVES! |
08-05-2002, 10:42 PM | #82 |
I am Freddie/UNDERCOVER/ Founder of The Great Continent of Entmoot
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Plainsboro, NJ
Posts: 9,431
|
Well I stayed away from this forum for months - because I had said everything I liked and didn't like about the movie before.
Really the only reason I checked this out was because the DVD is coming out tomorrow and I wanted to see what people were saying.
__________________
Come back! Come back! To Mordor we will take you! "The only thing better than a great plan is implementing a great plan" - JerseyDevil "If everyone agreed with me all the time, everything would be just fine"- JerseyDevil AboutNewJersey.com New Jersey MessageBoard Another Tolkien Forum Memorial to the Twin Towers New Jersey Map Fellowship of the Messageboard Legend of the Jersey Devil Support New Jersey's Liberty Tower Peacefire.org AboutNewJersey.com - New Jersey Travel and Tourism Guide |
08-05-2002, 10:43 PM | #83 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
But why should we? Debate is much more fun when people disagree anyway.
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
08-06-2002, 09:29 AM | #84 |
Hobbit
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: rural America
Posts: 37
|
Movie is mine today
Well. I bought it months ago, but I'll finally own this movie. I'm 47 and this will be the first movie I ever bought for myself. I do enjoy it. I do think PJ did a good job on it...but I still have to hide my face when Arwen does her little "want him come and claim him" bit with a weak, corpse-like Frodo in her arms.
Oh where is the valiant little hobbit--resisting against overwhelming odds and in the face of the nine with "You shall have neither the ring nor me!" Sigh. Oh well. I will quietly go into the West. Good job, PJ!
__________________
Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere. |
08-06-2002, 06:54 PM | #85 | |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 463
|
Re: Movie is mine today
Quote:
It may not be the best movie I've ever seen because I may have bad taste, I hate modern literature . .. but it's my favorite. |
|
08-07-2002, 03:10 PM | #86 |
Hobbit
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 36
|
guys, a fan is a fan.... lol
__________________
See ya! Becky. Guys are like roses. You gotta watch out for the pricks. lol. Anyway, keep on lovin! |
09-14-2002, 09:17 AM | #87 |
Elven Maiden
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,309
|
i think it doesn't matter if you read the books before, after or, heck, during the movie. just don' t think you know everything because you saw the movie. this goes for me. i saw the movie first. i am not ashamed though. actually if wasn't as if i didn't know anything; i had sort of read the hobbit, and all of my dad's side is into tolkien. but still. anyway, i am 14 right now. i think when i was younger, even a few years ago, i wouldn't have enjoyed the books nearly as much as i do. hey, my dad read LotR when he was around 17. i think i eventually would've read it even if it weren't for the movie, especially after hearing my friend at camp talk so much about it. for me i think it was just an age thing. i don't feel inferior (except when i read threads like this or the decline of entmoot one) to pre-movie fans. i am not an expert, how could i possibly be? but i don't need to feel second rate.
|
09-21-2002, 03:21 PM | #88 | |
Fowl Administrator
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Calgary or Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 53,420
|
Hmm... I think a bit of refutation is in order.
Quote:
All of which are masterpieces, all of which are comprehensible, all of which are "palatable for non-fans". You don't need to be a history major to thoroughly understand any of these. But if you have such a background, it helps, because then you catch a lot of details. But it's really no use to get anal about the things that were altered or not there. Heck, The Wizard of Oz is probably the most unfaithful adaptation of a well-known work of fiction I've ever seen. It's still an emotionally resonant classic as well as a landmark technical achievement; the fade from sepia to lush Technicolor when Dorothy opens the door to Munchkinland is one of the most legendary shots in film history. And that's not even mentioning how the film's music, "Over the Rainbow" in particular, has penetrated the realm of popular culture in a way that is almost unparalleled. Was "Over the Rainbow" in the Baum novel? No. The Fellowship of the Ring is, relatively speaking, an extremely faithful adaptation. I'm glad Peter Jackson took on the project, because he actually understands the dynamic of cinema as an inherently different medium from the written word. Exposition is not done by description or lengthy background histories, because one cannot afford the luxury of interrupting the flow. Film goes at a very rigid pace, and the story has to keep up; you don't get as much push-and-pull dynamism as you do with the novel. That's not a flaw, that's just the characteristic of the medium. And since description lies in the visuals, the pace is pushed by action and reaction, which is the whole principle behind the very concept of drama ever since the days of the Greeks. Minor characters must be trimmed, because names are inherently easier to remember and keep track of than faces; and while you can flip a few pages back to check a name, recognizing faces on film has no crutch except for, perhaps, an often poorly inserted flashback. What baffles me is why people are picking on the film when I never saw them devoting their efforts towards trashing Alan Lee and John Howe for not visualizing "their" interpretation, or leaving out certain details despite all the other ones that are expounded upon. Maybe that's because the film had more to deal with, so people found so much to pick on that they could actually formulate some semblance of a case. Personally, the impression I got out of the film was that it was made by someone who cares.
__________________
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 |
|
09-23-2002, 10:37 AM | #89 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dorset
Posts: 608
|
I disagree.
I will agree that many 'classic' films are simplified for non-knowledgeable audiences. But if you are a member of the knowledgeable audience then you begin to get frustrated with bits that are 'wrong', out of character, pointless and generally too simple. This was a film I may have enjoyed with no previous knowledge of the book, but being an avid fan I was disappointed to see so much that had been ignored or altered for no apparent reason.
__________________
I would wish, were it to any avail, that the LORD OF THE RINGS FILMS had never been wrought. ROLLING STOCK, WE'RE ROLLING STOCK!! |
09-23-2002, 05:31 PM | #90 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: minneapolis MN
Posts: 920
|
Nice post IP.
__________________
Gandalf lives...oh and Frodo too. Haldir Lives!!! |
09-23-2002, 09:13 PM | #91 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
Agburanar said: "This was a film I may have enjoyed with no previous knowledge of the book, but being an avid fan I was disappointed to see so much that had been ignored or altered for no apparent reason."
No apparent reason?!?!?!? Get out of your Tolkien Ivory Tower and get real. Jackson gave us a THREE HOUR theatrical release movie and will be adding another 30 MINUTES in the extended version DVD. Contractually, Jackson was obliged to give New Line a two hour movie. He was able to convince the NL brass to release a three hour movie only after they screened it. I have no doubt that the Extended Version will be the definitive version for Tolkien fans. A lot of the little things we had hoped to see in the theatrical release will be in this one. |
09-23-2002, 10:12 PM | #92 |
'Sober' Mullet Frosh
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Queen's
Posts: 1,245
|
I personally disagree with how PJ interperts some of Tolkien. But it's his interpertation and he did it well. The fact that it isn't the book doesn't make it a bad movie, the opposite in fact.
__________________
"Earnur was a man like his father in valour, but not in wisdom" |
09-23-2002, 10:21 PM | #93 |
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Detail = Debate
PJ did a great job of the movie. This is because he made a movie eveyone could enjoy, while remaining as true as possible to the book.
The Lord of the Rings movie is for people who only read the Hobbit in elementary school and people who speak Elvish. No matter what your level of involment (or fan-ness) you can enjoy the movie. This is as it should be. I wouldn't want LOTR to be only for snobs. (I'm not saying that purists are snobs, only that non-purists should be able to watch it too.) A book and a movie are incredibly different forms of media. There are things you can do in a book that are impossible in a movie and vice versa. I think this has been pointed out before, but it's only too true. I would have been prepared to watch a six-hour long Fellowship of the Ring if it had meant the inclusion of the Old Forest part and other details. However, I'm a huge purist-fanatic and not everyone has this kind of stanima for Lord of the Rings. Most people in this forum are probably pretty hard-core too. I missed Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil, and Bilbo and Aragorn's friendship, but we can't have everything. In the big picture, these details aren't super important anyway. I'm happy because the movie rocked! |
09-23-2002, 11:53 PM | #94 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
I understand his reasoning for making things more clear to the less than well read fan, I really do. BUT. The expansion of the Arwen role so that SHE saved Frodo, and was wandering around a rather dangerous countryside.... well, it seems a bit stretching it. And if he's put in Lurtz, and isn't putting in some of the major ork characters and factions, well, it won't be pretty if I have to go down to Wellington.....
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
09-24-2002, 03:59 AM | #95 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dorset
Posts: 608
|
By changes for no apparent reason I meant useless bits of rubbish like the collapsing stairs in Moria, what did that serve? It's also details like Pippin's accidentally knocking the skeleton into the well. In the book the fact that he INTENTIONALLY throws a stone in demonstrates an important quality in his character missing in the film.
__________________
I would wish, were it to any avail, that the LORD OF THE RINGS FILMS had never been wrought. ROLLING STOCK, WE'RE ROLLING STOCK!! |
09-24-2002, 12:09 PM | #96 |
Enting
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 76
|
BoP:
Arwen is 5, 5 and 6 (I think) generations removed from Finwe, Olwe and Elwe respectively. She is a recent decendent of a Maia. I doubt there are many places in Middle-Earth, much less the outskirts of her homeland, where she would be in much danger.
I won't have minded one bit if she arrived and gave Frodo her horse, or even if she was with Frodo when he says his line ("by Elbereth and this chick's great-great-grandma....") her lame line makes me cringe though (along with Gimli's dwarf-tossing line).
__________________
Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the lidless eye. |
09-24-2002, 12:13 PM | #97 |
The Buckleberry Fairy/Captain
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Washington State again (I miss Texas).
Posts: 1,345
|
If only you understood the reason for the snobbishness: it has to do with the sharing of "a deep and abiding knowledge of literary masterworks of extreme detail and delightful creativity", to quote bropous. Watching the movie for the first time was almost like putting up a drawing from art class that you were really proud of, and then coming by later to find that your annoying little brother has drawn mustaches and devil horns on all the people. I'm sorry, was that too harsh? I'm late for class, will edit later!
[later this afternoon...] but I shouldn't say that PJ has marred the work completely. Gandalf was the same Ganalf I met on my way to the Lonely Mountain when I was 13, and the same again when I crossed paths with the Fellowship for the first time five years ago. The scene at the Fords, and in Lorien are the only two that really jolt me. Sween, I think, has proven that Tolkien can be for everyone. It's a shame that so many people shrug it off by saying that they're not the literary types.
__________________
A day will come at last when I Shall take the hidden paths that run West of the Moon, East of the Sun. Last edited by crickhollow : 09-24-2002 at 05:08 PM. |
09-24-2002, 05:20 PM | #98 | |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Re: BoP:
Quote:
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
|
09-24-2002, 07:11 PM | #99 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: minneapolis MN
Posts: 920
|
Re: Re: BoP:
Quote:
__________________
Gandalf lives...oh and Frodo too. Haldir Lives!!! |
|
09-24-2002, 07:30 PM | #100 | |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Quote:
In the movie it is not really made clear, but I stand corrected if wrong. Regarding the Arwen wandering, well, whether Elrond put his foot down, or whether Arwen chose not to is immaterial, as either way lands with her NOT wandering around the countryside. The situation with Celebrian should have been enough of a deterrant....
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HP Vs. LoTR | Pytt | Harry Potter | 53 | 01-17-2011 01:33 AM |
Blatant LoTR Copy-Cats | ItalianLegolas | Middle Earth | 81 | 08-13-2010 12:17 AM |
LOTR Discussion: Appendices E and F | Forkbeard | LOTR Discussion Project | 11 | 09-15-2008 06:16 PM |
LOTR Discussion: Appendix A, parts 2 and 3 | Forkbeard | LOTR Discussion Project | 12 | 12-28-2007 07:10 AM |
Funny LOTR Insults | Haradrim | Middle Earth | 0 | 08-22-2004 01:19 AM |