* * * The Lord of the Rings REVIEW THREAD! Post your reviews in here!! (here's mine...)

[IJump]

I saw FOTR last night. I loved it, thought it was great.

I think they did a great job of adapting the book to a movie. I agree with a few about the character development being a bit short in the beginning. I wish they would have been able to find a way to explain where each of the characters in the fellowship came from. I am not sure that they adequately showed the change in the relationship between Legolas and Gimli either. But, I did think the acting for Gimli was fine. Those are nitpicky things, though. It was awesome. I will probably see it at least once more in the theaters and then buy it when it is relased to VHS/DVD.

 

[BigJohnKC]

I saw the film last evening at a 6:15 showing. I'll start out my little review here by saying that I am generally harsh on movies that I really like, especially the "epics" (Titanic, Episode 1, Pearl Harbor)

When I walked in, I too was nervous that the movie would not live up to the book. I walked out slightly disappointed, but still happy I had seen the movie. Here are my gripes.....Even though it was 3 hours long, the movie felt less than epic. A lot of the story was cut out and in its place was action and, unfortunately, romance. I liked how the book would stop periodically and sing a song. The movie did no such thing - it was in too big of a rush to get to the special effects. I thought near the beginning of the movie that they might stop every once in a while for a tune since Gandalf was singing on his little cart on the way to Hobbiton, but I was disappointed. The flight from the Shire was rushed, and I didn't like the way that Pippin and Merry joined up with Sam and Frodo. They treated the characters like children, or at least teenagers, but neglected to mention that Frodo was 50 years old when he started this adventure, and had waited 17 years after Bilbo's big party to leave Hobbiton. I know Hobbits aren't sophisticated, but do you really think at that age they'd still be stealing vegetables from the farmer's field? It seemed like they arrived in Bree the next day after leaving the Shire, which was also a fallacy.

Then Strider joined the group, but unlike in the book, the Hobbits had no assurance he was all right - they showed some resilience in the book, but were pretty naive to just follow him - where was Gandalf's letter that Butterbur forgot to send? Also in this place the Ringwraiths seemed too ceremonious - I expected them to be lightning fast warriors, not ghost-like floating things that hold their swords like they don't know what to do with them.

Then we come to Arwen, the hardly mentioned Elf-princess who suddenly saves the day in this new version of the story. SHe could have ben left out of the movie entirely, or the part could have been given to a pretty extra who would simply stand by Elrond and not say anything, but I imagine some politically correct producer said "We don't have enough women in this movie, and the one we do have is a spooky forest b!tch" so they had to add some big name actress and give her a few speaking lines and a chance to do something that she never did in the original story. Now, I like Liv Tyler, and I think she did an excellent job in this role - she seems the perfect fit for the role, but the role wasn't the perfect fit for the story. When the kissing scene came up, I just about lost it......WTF was that all about? I even said that to my friend I was sitting by - who wrote that sh!t? It wasn't JRR or anyone related to him, I'm sure of that. Elrond was awesome - unlike everyone else, I didn't really see him as Agent Smith, but I did have trouble getting past the little hair loops he had....and did anyone else think the pointy ears on the Elves were just a bit too Spock-ish?

Wow, there is so much more - Gandalf rocked, best character - hope he at least gets an Oscar nomination for it. Saruman was played well, but I agree with whoever said it before - Isengard was very "Temple of Doom"-ish to me. Sauron was a great character, very well done, and Isildur seemed to have the same appearance as the rest of the humans - hard to imagine that hairstyle stayed popular for 2500 years....

I liked the Moria sequence - very action packed - the Troll was great. OMG, the Balrog...was....amazing! Oscar for Best Villain. The orcs were done very well - what I didn't get was why did Aragorn just stand there in the doorway when they were across the bridge shooting arrows - he just stood there lamenting for Gandalf and he could have been shot - are they really that bad of a shot?

I only read about 3/4 of the way through the book before I saw this movie - I think I got to Lothlorien, but not to Galadriel. Anyway, after I had finished reading (well, re-reading, since I read all the books in high school) the movie seemed better, but it felt less like an epic novel than a Hollywood action flick. Especially one of the last lines "let's go hunt some orc..." Gimme a break.

BTW, I was laughing my ass off when Gimli made the dwarf-tossing reference....another example of cheesy humor and modern day moviemaking rules taking over a film supposed to be set in a parallel universe.

Conclusion:
I saw the Hollywood effect often in this film - they had to include a love interest, a few bad modern day cultural references, plenty of special effects, and the movie had to take a great pace to put in all the action and all the story. I think they could have made this more like the Dune miniseries that came out a while ago - if you haven't seen it, get it on DVD, very excellent - I think they could have made three 1.5 hour movies about each book and shown all three simultaneously for the die hard fans or one at a time for the others - could have made a lot of money that way. Overall, it was a very good movie - 3.5/4 stars in my book.

 

[JasonG]

I agree with much of what BigJohn says.

I was also disappointed in the way it was portrayed.

From the movie, it appears that they just move from one fight scene to the next...

Here are just a few of the inconsistancies compared to the book:

There is no sense of the time that it takes to move between the large distances that occur in the book.

There is no mention that 17 years passes from the time that Bilbo leaves the Shire and when Frodo leaves. They could have easily just said that "17 years later" or some such thing.

Then, the trip to Bree is totally ruined. Frodo sells Bag-End and everyone knows that he is supposedly moving to Crickhollow. Frodo, Sam, and Pippin leave together with Merry and Fatty going ahead to make the residence ready for Frodo.

In the movie it appears to be just chance that Frodo and Sam meet Merry and Pippin. Then, suddenly, they become part of the journey. Anyone who hadn't read the book would be really wondering why they came along. There was no indication beforehand of the friendship between the 4 hobbits.

Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin and Fatty have dinner together the night before they leave for Frodo's birthday. Yes, Frodo has the same birthday as Bilbo but you wouldn't know that from the film.

And what about the conspiracy between Sam, Pippin and Merry. The three of them had always intended on going with Frodo on the journey and were kept informed by the "spy" Sam.

Saruman was also played up far too much and the time spent there could have been better spend developing the relationship between the hobbits who seem to play second fiddle to the other characters in the movie. In the book, the hobbits are the main characters and the story is told from their perspective.

I could go on and on with the inconsistancies. It's one thing to cut out scenes due to time restrictions but it's another to totally change what happened in the book in the scenes that are shown.

After saying that, I do think some things were done well. Like the Balrog sequence in Moria was amazing! The battle scenes were good although too lengthy. Some things were changed for more dramatic affect which is fine.

I for one have lost my enthusiasm for seeing the next two films (although I will definately see them at some point when they come out) which will probably be even more of battle scene after battle scene becuase the other parts of the books are just "too boring" for the tastes of most people who seem only interested in action and gore.

I am surprised by the overall lack of criticism by Tolkien fans.

Taken as a separate piece of work, I think it was a very good movie but it was not faithful to book by a long shot and there was no reason why it couldn't have been since that was supposedly the intention of the director.

I will probably be flamed for this opinion but I think Chritopher Tolkien's stance of not supporting the films was probably the correct one after seeing the product.

Jason

 

[apoppin]

<< Actually, I have participated in discussions that talk about this. Basically, having bunch of giant eagles fly to Mordor would be alot more visible than having 9 person walk there. Eagles don't go to Mordor (except in the end), so them being there would have been noticed, and Sauron would have made sure they don't make it there. Also, The Ring could have corrupted the eagles as well. >>


No flock, just one medium sized eagle to deliver the ring-bearer (and maybe a couple of decoys). Remember, Sauron wasn't really watching the road into Mordor for awhile and it never came into his dark heart that anyone would want to destroy his Ring (plus the Nazgul hadn't taken to the air for quite awhile into the story). I am just disappointed that JRR didn't address this in the book.

You think I am nitpicking. Liv was perfect for her role of rescuing Frodo. In the book, he is alone on the elf great white horse at the ford. Although Elrond commanded the flood, it was fine that she could also. And there was a love affair between her and Aragorn (she married him after).

True, the film does skip around. Watchers get some idea of time passage between Bilbo's disappearance and Frodo's hasty exit from the Shire. We also note how much Bilbo ages.


<< I was very confused about why Gimli thought Moria was teaming with life >>


His cousin was supposed to be mining there. He was hopeful. Gandalf was realistic and knew the Dwarves had delved too deeply to awaken the ancient evil.



<< I am surprised by the overall lack of criticism by Tolkien fans. >>


You are nitpicking on such tiny points. We DO see Merry and Pippin at the party and get the idea that they are well know by Sam and Frodo. Who really cares (in the movie) about the fine details of Frodo planning to sell Bag End? The movie SPEEDS up the book and makes his leaving critical.

As for large distances, that is a function of editing. We see them climbing the mountains only to turn back and go into the mines. I guess a map and a scale of miles along with some red dots to show their progress along with a calender would have been more satisfying for you.

The Saruman story was well developed. The interplay of wizardy between him and Gandalf was well-developed although only hinted in the books. Sauroman was the chief of the wizards and totally corrupted as a traitor. He laid waste to his own realm and dug the caverns to create great weapons of war and bastardized orcs as soldiers. I thought that was GREAT.

IMO, it was an ADAPTION of the book. And done amazingly well. I am looking forward to owning the DVD AND rereading LOTR. They can co-exist in my mind very well.

 

[Electric Amish]

It's called Poetic License.

I think they did a great job. The things that were left out are nice in a book, but film is an entirely different media, especially these days. Most people under the mid 20's would have no patience to sit through a direct copy of the book to film.

I heard criticisms of Harry Potter because it stayed to true to the book and caused many scenes to be a chore to sit through.

amish

 

[Electric Amish]

<< You think I am nitpicking. Liv was perfect for her role of rescuing Frodo. In the book, he is alone on the elf great white horse at the ford. >>



He's not alone, he's with the elf lord Glorfindel.

amish

 

[Crashedout]

I saw the movie last night and found it okay. I did not read the books at all so my POV is different than most of the vocal movie goers. I have come to the conclusion that the books are needed for full enjoyment of the movie. So I plan on reading the book and rewatching the movie but here is what I thought:

-the backgound FX are amazing
-the acting/casting is top notch
-the locations are breathtaking
- while the creature FX is merely okay, fake looking but neat
-the large battles, again, neat looking but fake mainly things like individual movements and shadows that were wrong (what can I say, I notice the small things)
-the smaller battles neat and well done, albeit a little shaky
-the pacing is bad, not a lot happens for most of the movie...I beleive that once I read the book this will not matter but there was very little charchter development to one who has no background on the story
-it all felt like it has been done before...I think this is due to the fact that I love fantasy fiction, movies and games and they all came after this series. I think if i had read LOTR before all the other series I would have a much different perspective
-the elf warrior and the elf race itself was cool, the way I would expect them to look/act/be

All in all I find the movie okay, 7/10. Will re-evaluate after I read the book. I will be first in line for the sequels though, as I suspect it will get a lot better and the production teams listen to all reviews.

 

[DesignDawg]

<< He's not alone, he's with the elf lord Glorfindel. >>



NO, he is NOT. Check your facts. He is ALONE on Glorfindel's horse.

Ricky
DesignDawg

 

[JasonG]

I didn't say that they had to keep every detail from the book.

Why the chance meeting between the hobbits in a field? If Merry and Pippin hadn't known that Frodo was leaving than would they really just pick up and leave the Shire? In the book the journey just to Bree was a huge process which was cut to just a few short scenes.

Poetic license? Please!

All I'm saying is that I think they expanded into some things which weren't necessary (like the creation of the orc creatures) when they could have used that time to actually have some character development (heaven forbid!).

So, the book had to be "dumbed down" for the general public. Is that what your saying?

I guess it's sad but true. There has to be fight scene after fight scene or else people will be bored I suppose.

Jason

P.S. Frodo is sent alone on Glorfindel's horse to the Ford (if you check the book).

 

[isildur]

What are you guys smoking?

Add the songs? Oh yeah, that makes for great cinema.

The Sale of Bag End? What does that do for us - in the book it gives us more insight into the family relations of the Baggins', something that has NO PLACE onscreen.

All that nonsense about a 2nd residence in Bree? What does that add? NOTHING. It serves NO PLOT/CHARACTER PURPOSE. CUT IT. It seemed like they arrived in Bree the next day after leaving the Shire, which was also a fallacy. Weren't you listening? It was explicit during each journey that time lapse was taking place! Have you guys never seen a movie before! What do you want, realtime like the new tv show?

Arwen as a hollywood romance addition?? Where have you guys been!? It is NOT changing Tolkien to add this! Have you read the Silm? Have you read the appendix to ROTK? The parallels between Beren/Luthien Aragorn/Arwen are obvious! PJ said he wants to be able to have some of this theme in the film, since it figures so strongly in Tolkien's mythology. Don't think that was a good idea? Fine, but DON'T presume that this is a lame hollywood insertion of romance when there is good reason to believe otherwise. Futhermore, you objection that her duties SHOULD have been given to a nobody is just retarded. The LAST THING this movie needed was the addition of another character who only shows up for 2 tasks! The reason her addition makes sense is for the very oposite reason! They took duties that were Glofindel's (which is like having freakin Superman show up, deliver a pizza, and then never come back) and gave them to somebody who actually matters to a major character, and thus to the film!
Who wrote the kissing?!? GET A GRIP! Again - READ THE APPENDIX! This stuff is ALL consistent with the tale of Aragorn and Arwen. Sheesh.

Frodo left too sooner than in the books? Yep, sure did - DOES THAT CHANGE ANYTHING?? What happened during that interval? NOTHING. Cutting this gap provides some much needed urgency to the narrative.

Ring-wraiths as not physical enough? Reread is all I can say. The more sensible objection to the Nazgul, from the purists perspective, would be that they are TOO physical! The Nazgul in the book never really do any fighting - they stab Frodo (who puts up no fight) and they scare the bezesus out of people. The WitchKing starts to get into it w/ Eowyn, but even that fight is just a few blows.

Dwarf-tossing? Sure, that isn't a direct lift - but what is IS is consistent with Dwarven mentality.

Oh yeah, another Dune miniseries is just what we need - a strange desire from someone who had so many absurd objections to textual deviation in this film.

Taken as a separate piece of work, I think it was a very good movie but it was not faithful to book by a long shot and there was no reason why it couldn't have been since that was supposedly the intention of the director.


LOL
Absurd. It is faithful. It is NOT exact.
Thank God - flim is no medium for the kind of ethnography that is much of what you are missing.

I am surprised by the overall lack of criticism by Tolkien fans.

Ha! Some of us understand the inherent differnces between film and text! Some of us also realize that staying "faithful" to the characters/feel/heart of a text is not the same as mindlessly reproducing it!

I could go on and on with the inconsistancies. It's one thing to cut out scenes due to time restrictions but it's another to totally change what happened in the book in the scenes that are shown.

Only 1/2 true, since you can't do the 1st w/o doing the 2nd - and since they are both working towards the same end: making the movie accesable to the audience. There comes a point where the director must make a priority decision: what things/themes/plotlines are the most important to this film (and text in the case of adaptation)? What scenes/actors/dialogue will best express these prorities? You guys aren't willing to make these hard decisions and would have produced a sh!tty film - which is a much different story than disagreeing w/ the decisions that PJ made - objections that would hvae been more lucid than the ridiculous, "this is different than the text and it shouldn't have been."
No kidding there were some things that were different - that is necessary.

Get to the point where you understand that it isn't the step by step, word by word reading of Tolkien that makes the LOTR a great work! It isn't! What is great about LOTR is the characters, the heart and the world that he created and THESE THINGS were preserved and expanded in this film!

In the future, if you have a complaint about a deviation - ask yourself: what is gained by adding this scene? How can it be filmed? How long should it be? Does it move the movie along? Does it drag?
The scenes you suggest adding would do nothing but make this film weaker, slower, more convoluted and, in the end, less effective.

 

[DesignDawg]

Hmmm... Looks like someone might need to settle down.

{{Throws a bit of cold water toward someone who can't let people disagree about film adaptation}}

Ricky
DesignDawg

 

[Rastus]

My review is simple:

FRODO LIVES!!!!

 

[bigdog1218]

i thought the movie was great, and i didn't mind any of the changes or the scenes that were cut out i mean JasonG, all those scenes you talk about and developing that in the movie would have taken over an hour alone, they had to cut stuff out, and they had to change other things, this movie wasn't only made for the people who read the book, and i hear more complaints from people who are die hard fans than i do from the people who never read the books,
some of my friends that didn't read the books thought the movie was sweet, and not just the action scenes, they really enjoyed the whole movie, while my friends who read the book were complaining about this missing, and this wasn't right, i don't understand, instead of trying to compare everything to the book why not just look at the movie and judge just the movie, do you think any non LOTR fan would want to sit though all the little stuff in a 5 hour movie, who on earth would understand tom bombadil(spelling), and why the ring didn't affect him, and the stuff they changed was just because they had to leave out certain scenes but they still had to incorporate aspects of the story line

anyway i thought it was awesome i'm gonna go see it again friday with my little sister, she refuses to see harry potter and wants to see lotr so she could shove it in her friends faces

 

[JasonG]

Yes Isildur, the film was perfect.

Thank You! I've seen the light!

Do you have personal stake in the film? I guess you're getting a percentage of the gross to defend it so resolutely.

As I said, I don't mind things being done differently than the book but I have a right to disagree with the way it was changed! Don't I?

I guess not according to you.

Jason

 

[Electric Amish]

Yeah! What Isildur said!

amish

 

[khtm]

OMG!!! OH NO! AIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! NOOOOOO!O!OO!O!!!!

I went to some crappy, budget theatre last night to watch LOTR with a couple friends. Half way through, the film melted into the projector! The screen looked all messed up, as if someone was on an acid trip! Everyone in the theatre was like:

OMG!!! OH NO! AIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! NOOOOOO!O!OO!O!!!!

So they were unable to fix the projector, everyone got their money back, and we left after seeing a kick-ass 1.5 hours.

I'll have to see it in a better theatre next time.

 

[puffpio]

In the movie, I felt they should have developed the love/hate relationship between Gimli and Legolas more (They are nothing more than placeholders currently).

I also felt they should have developed Borimir (sp?) more before killing him off. I felt something when Gandalf fell, but didn't feel anything when Borimir was killed because he wasn't a full person yet.

On more thing I would have liked is to have shown that Gollum was still tracking them as they went down the river. At the end of the movie, I completely forgot that Gollum was still tracking the Ring. It would have made for a more ominous ending

And I felt the the tower at Isengard (Orthanc?) was too evil looking. Wasn't it described in the book as perfectly smooth? It didn't look like some perfectly smooth forbidding tower. But rather an angular evil tower.




aside...who is Large Marge?

 

[isildur]

Why the chance meeting between the hobbits in a field? If Merry and Pippin hadn't known that Frodo was leaving than would they really just pick up and leave the Shire? In the book the journey just to Bree was a huge process which was cut to just a few short scenes.

Poetic license? Please!

All I'm saying is that I think they expanded into some things which weren't necessary (like the creation of the orc creatures) when they could have used that time to actually have some character development (heaven forbid!).

So, the book had to be "dumbed down" for the general public. Is that what your saying?

I guess it's sad but true. There has to be fight scene after fight scene or else people will be bored I suppose.


The text of the trip to Bree is not a "huge process," it just takes up lots of text! Not the same thing! The trouble is that nothing important happens during the journey to Bree to justify the necessary screen time!

I'm also not sure how any of the changes made equal being "dumbed down." How do any of the changes simplify the material? The only place I might agree with this catagorization is the fleshing out of the explanation of the Uruk-Hai - which is alluded to in the text, just not fully explained!
I personally think this is a good move for these reasons:
- it explains why the Uruk-Hai are able to move in the sunlight
- it furthers and gives a face to Saruman's efforts to find the ring for himself
- it makes the physical difference between the orcs and the Uruk-Hai immediately obvious.
All of these are good things.

Why did Merry and Pippen join up the way that they did? Probably time: in order to keep the whole thing moving (which the text hardly does at all), they cut the dead time during which Frodo waits and plans the trip. With this gone, there is no way for them to have their conspiracy! I am surprised that we didn't have more indication that they were friends - but you are mistaken if you think that they are as close to Frodo as Sam is anyway. Perhaps it was decided that, in order to emphasize the relationship between Frodo/Sam, they should slightly distance Merry/Pippen from Frodo - a debatable decision, but one I can understand, especially since nothing is really lost here!
However - remember how they immediately joined up w/ he and Sam? And remember how they immediately threw themselves behind Frodo in the council? The audience SHOULD see that they are friends from these things.

As for the action - this is NOT simple question!
Was there this much action described in the books? No, certainly not; BUT, were there this many situations described in the book where serious action makes sense, described or not? Oh yes. The question here is, is the obligation to hold to the older narrative style of the text, where action is typically glossed over, or is it more sensible to go ahead and explicitly depict the action that the plot events necessitate? I think it makes sense to do the latter; after which you have to decide what, where, how, and how much.

As I say, Tolkien wrights about war, strife, conflict and terror, yet he actually depicts very little of any of these things. Is it then really a "change" to do so now? I really don't think so - I think it is being faithful to the text, while expanding it.

Jackson loves these books and he made some tough decisions when filming - either make an attempt to understand how and why they were made and keep the silly, "this is different so it must be bad" comments for those who think so simplistically.

 

[isildur]

I guess not according to you.

LOL Nothing of the sort! But if all you can offer is, "this was stupid/bad because it wasn't how it happened in the books" then you aren't doing that!

Changes are simply NECESSARY - thus, it is insufficient to discredit something simply because it was a change.

Most of the changes or omissions that have been lamented here were better the way they were filmed - and while those who complained about the changes could do no more than whine, I dicussed reasons for the changes.

 

[BigJohnKC]

<< Get to the point where you understand that it isn't the step by step, word by word reading of Tolkien that makes the LOTR a great work! It isn't! What is great about LOTR is the characters, the heart and the world that he created and THESE THINGS were preserved and expanded in this film! >>



I absolutely agree with you, friend. But this movie did very little to develop characters. What did we really find out about Dwarves and Elves from this movie? Well, they are good fighters, elves use bows, dwarves use axes....that's about it since the movie was one fight scene after another interspersed with scenery from the New Zealand countryside. Okay, that was simplifying it a LOT, but my point is that if they had taken less time to use special effects to make the fight scenes grand and more time to develop the characters' relationships with each other they could have had a better dramatic effect on the audience than just the dramatic effect of seeing amazing special effect scenery. That was the way that movies used to be made, but now it is all thin characters and flashy computer graphics. Maybe that is best for this movie since it is more fight scenes than the other books - perhaps we'll find out more about the thoughts of a hobbit in the next two movies.

 

[apoppin]

<< He's not alone, he's with the elf lord Glorfindel. >>


Reread it again. He is alone on the horse. The elf lord got off to slow down the dark riders (lighten the horse) and Frodo is speeding toward the river ALONE. The ring is drawing him back and he slows the horse. When Elrond commands the flood at the right instance, the dark riders are caught between the elf lord in his wrath and the flood and they are swept away.

The movie used Liv in place of Glorfindel - which in my opinion is excellent poetic license. It works fine.

And there is some nitpicking about Aragorn/Strider battling the Ringwraiths on Weathertop. They didn't have the full power of their master granted to them yet - they were afraid of fire and their whole purpose was to wound Frodo so he would become like them. Time was on their side (or so they mistakenly thought).

 

[isildur]

had a better dramatic effect on the audience than just the dramatic effect of seeing amazing special effect scenery. That was the way that movies used to be made, but now it is all thin characters and flashy computer graphics

this is where I must disagree - I think this film did a fantastic job of using the actors...BUT this is the 1st movie and it, for good reason, focused on Frodo and Gandalf. Sure, I wanted more of Legolas and Gimli too, but you must admit that, even in the book, these guys are really just 2ndary characters, or at least characters who really don't get developed until the 2nd film.

One of the difficulties of filming these books is that there are just so many characters, locales, themes and forces. You have plenty of time, during however many hours it takes you to read each book, to get to know each character - to learn who they are and how they relate to everyone else. This time is simply not there for the film - even when we are talking about a 9 or 10 hour trilogy. Thus, you have to pick and choose; so, while I do expect (and hope!) to see more of Gimli and Legolas in the next film, I didn't really expect to see much more of them than we did in this one, and I really don't think it would have been a good move to attempt much more.

Seriously, PJ could spend the first three hours doing nothing but setting up all of this massive cast!

 

[apoppin]

<< I also felt they should have developed Borimir (sp?) more before killing him off. I felt something when Gandalf fell, but didn't feel anything when Borimir was killed because he wasn't a full person yet. >>


They developed the character of Boromir excellently, IMO. He was a MAN (we all know they are obsessed with power) torn between his desire to help Frodo and to take and use the ring. He gave his life for Merry and Pippin (who were unable to escape anyway - and well see that development in the Two Towers).

Most of what you guys are picking on as not true to the book is based on a misunderstanding of the book.

The film is true to the SPIRIT of the book, not the letter. It is obviously made by someone who LOVES and admires LOTR and is doing his best to adapt the book (which I thought would have been - up till now - an impossible task).

Isengard is more than I imagined, too - but so what? That pinacle is GRAND and looks pretty smooth to me. There are no rough edges an enemy could grapple to.

I am REALLY looking forward to the director's cut on the DVD and the other two parts.

 

[stressgirl615]

I agree. I can't wait to see the other two. I just wished I didn't have to wait so long.

I have not read the books, so I was a little confused with the lady in the woods thing. Can someone explain what happened when Frodo offered it to her and she got all scary-like. Thanks.

 

[isildur]

<sigh>
Ok, I'll be more specific:

Poetic license? Please!

All I'm saying is that I think they expanded into some things which weren't necessary (like the creation of the orc creatures) when they could have used that time to actually have some character development (heaven forbid!).

So, the book had to be "dumbed down" for the general public. Is that what your saying?

I guess it's sad but true. There has to be fight scene after fight scene or else people will be bored I suppose.

1. the description of the Uruk-Hai creation isn't entirely new - it just is much more explicit in the film - as I said before, I think this is a good move for several reasons that are posted above

2. I really find the notion that this movie skimped on character development to be somewhat absurd, especially for the reasons you mention! Sure, the movie focused mainly on Frodo and Gandalf (with a little Aragorn and Boromir thrown in), but Merry and Pippen ARE peripheral characters in the first book - they get their time in the limelight in TT. I've already mentioned why I think they join up w/ the party as filmed. In a way, this did bother me somewhat, but the more I think on it, the more I like it. Merry and Pippen are the impulsive pranksters. Thus, they run into Frodo, he and Sam are off for someplace, they up and decide to go along. When it turns out to be somewhat dangerous and scary, the don't hesitate to stick w/ their friends. When Frodo volunteers at the council, they don't hesitate to commit to helping. When Frodo needs help to get away, they don't hesitate to sacrifice themselves for their friend and the quest. Since Jackson HAD to cut the gap between the party and the leaving (there really is just no way around it) I think establishing this pattern is an ok way to proceed.
<shrug> I think you MUST cut the gap, so you MUST find a new way for them to get involved. After that, its a judgement call and I think PJ sayed faithful to the character of these two.

3. I've already discussed the action angle in great detail - but let me just add that some people seem to make it out as if there are big fights left and right in this film, but that really isn't the case. Also, each of these scenes lends credability to something that this movie simply CANNOT work without: and that is a sense of constant danger, desperation, and impending doom. For this movie to work, we must believe in the danger, and, it is appropriate the Jackson's middle earth be full of danger. There are many sources of evil in Tolkien's middle earth (though ultimately they have only one source), and Jackson is faithful to this. I think adding action was a gimmie in order to make ANY KIND of good movie out of this - what PJ didn't do was create his own events to provide action, he took the confrontations that were in the plot and shot them with more action than the text describes, and I think he did so in a way that works and reveals both more of the fellowship and of middle earth.

And, let us just quit with the "hollywood" accusations - Jackson is anything but a "hollywood" director. No "hollywood" director would have done these movies, because no "hollywood" director would be interested in taking such a big risk with such a small budget.