Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: So What did you think of the movie?

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Fellowship of the Ring > So What did you think of the movie?   [1] [2] >>
Back to movie thoughts, the title of this topic:

I have just been to see the movie the second time. I did enjoy it better this time. Like someone said (I forget who) the movie is better 2nd time because you stop looking for differences and details and just watch the show.

I still hated Elrond and strongly disliked Galadriel (except for the witch bit, didn't mind it this time)

I loved Gandalf and fell in love with Frodo all over again (along with the rest of the cast - what's with that you think?)

I cried again at the death of Boromir. My brother, who was with me, must have thought me nuts, but that scene has got to be the most moving of the whole film. My nephews (aged 10 and 13) also enjoyed the bit where Aragorn slices off the head of Lurtz. I'm no lover of violence, but I enjoyed that.

All in all, a great movie! Possibly better fi you haven't read the book.
No, I'd read the Hobbit first, cos it's easiest, then the Lotr to get you good and hooked, and then the Sil, cos it's really hard going if you're not already into it. Then go back and read the other two again, and watch how all the pieces start to fit together and it all starts to make sense.
Just read it in any order as often as you like really Wolf, there's no cut and dried rules for this sort of thing. But we do offer much in the way of helpful advice for those who are struggling with the Silm. (see the Sil section for this)
Same here zza. I have yet to read the Silmarillion. I want to though. i just have to take the time to actually GET it and read it.

It didn't realy seem to matter with the order you could read the other two. Does it matter for this one? Or after I read it should I go read the others agian? :o
I've always wondered about that since all these books are on every bookstore in town.

So it means, that the recommended reading order would be :
1. The Silmarillion
2. The Hobbits
3. Lord of the Rings.

Also means I need to get the book. I have the last two.
Welcom to the forum Wolf. I agree with you. I also wanted to hear Sam say, "...somebody's going to catch it hot!"

I moved this topic from the Taverns because it was movie related. [Edited on 9/1/2002 by Grondmaster]
I LOVED THE MOVIE! I think they did a fantastic job with the movie. Though I have found those that disagree with me. I also loved the scenery, I think they made a good decision to film it in New Zealand.

Something funny though, obviously there are people who don't know that there are going to be three movies. When my dad and I went to see the movie, at the end there were these people sitting behind us who said things like, "That was a sucky ending. I sat there for three hours, my butt is sore! I wanted to see him throw it into the fire!" My dad was surprised that there were adults who had never heard of Tolkien.
I'm constantly surpised by that as well! Especially considering that the movie's been hyped as a TRILOGY Big Smile Smilie Welcome by the way Wolf and Fangorn.
Thanks.

I realy liked the Lord Of the Rings books when I read them. After seeing the movie, I feel like I have to read them agian.

I agree with you though, that some people realy need to be clued in on the fact that they NEED to read the books. They're SO much better, even though the movie was pretty good.
Hi - i just found the website and looking at the forums i think i found my haven.

i've seen the movie twice and planning to catch it again. even though the cinema has shown it to a full house at every showing but there are some of my officemates who have not yet and not interested to see the movie. i mean this is like star wars/titanic sort of thing - a must see. some people can be so dense about this things.

I've finally got all three books to years ago and read up to the mid of The Two Towers. I find it so sad becoz the fellowship broke. My brother say that the book The Hobbits is a good read and must be read before the LOTR. How true is it? Most definite will read again LOTR.
The Hobbit is a good book, naturally since it was written by Tolkien. It is a book for older children though, so you may find it a litte childish compared to TLoTR. It is Bilbo Baggins adventure story, and tells how he found the ring and encountered Gollum.

I don't think it is essential to read it, but it does fill in some background info.
You don't need to read the hobbit first at all, cos the prologue "Concerning Hobbits" in the Fellowship of the Ring covers all the important points you need (and a few more) but it's worth a read as a nice little story anyway. Welcome by the way zza, interesting name Smile Smilie
Quote:

some people realy need to be clued in on the fact that they NEED to read the books. They're SO much better, even though the movie was pretty good.


I didn't like the book. I liked the movie SOOOO much better. I never thought Tolkien was much of a writer...but he was an excellent story teller (which is why the movie is so excellent). I'm so glad they made it the way they did. Tolkien has a bad habbit of reapeating the same scenes over and over in the books.
Quote:
You don't need to read the hobbit first at all, cos the prologue "Concerning Hobbits"

And if you aren't bored to tears by an entire chapter on pipeweed, you may actually finish the prologue and keep reading the Trillogy. Ilike the Hobbit much better than LOTR. I wonder if he wrote it first or last. It is much clearer than LOTR.
I like that bit, that Tolkien isn't much of a writer but he is an excellent storyteller. He's an excellent historian, too. 'Course, that may be the problem. We can be a dull crowd.
Hey, Faye, you know that bit of rope I was waving around earlier?
I think that it's Ok to read LOTR before The Hobbit, but it's a really good book and not sometihng you'd want to miss. I think it's a good introduction to the series. To me it makes it even better knowing how it was started. Big Smile Smilie
*stupid
The book-Boromir was much more a character than the movie-one. I got to liking Boromir in the book, I almost cried when he died in the book, but in the film it was just like: he deserved to die. Smile Smilie
I think movie was great but like Wolf said they left out small parts i wanted to c well cant wait for the next to come out to c what it like
Book or Movie Boromir? Who's better?

That's easy, the book version is better because you have the time a book has to develop some things. I think part of Boromir's development in the book comes well after his death; you get a better sense of his heroic nature in the Minas Tirith chapters; also the sense of overwhelming pressure that had played on him and Denethor, making them more vulnerable to the wiles of Ring and Stone. But the movie Boromir was great; I think they did a great job given the limitations. Think about trying to develop all the incredible characters of FOTR in 3 hours. They could have screwed him up like I think happened to Elrond (and maybe to a lesser extent Galadriel--although I didn't mind the witch-queen bit--that was in the book and was necessary to express her usually-hidden power). Sean Bean was outstanding and lays down a formidable challenge to the actors playing his brother and father.
I've always find that movie that is based on books - is better to have a read, either b4 or after. Its more in depth and you get to know the characters of the book.

I love to come back to this, but the movie really lived up to it for Strider/Aragorn character. When I first read the book 2 years ago I literally fell in love with him...
Elves_Rule!!!: Welcome to the forum. Like yourself, I can't wait either. At least the DVD/video of FOTR will probably be out in the fall so we can then view it as many times as we want while waiting for TTT. Smile Smilie
My post may be a little late compared to others here, but having seen the movie twice now I wanted to post my comments.

First: I thought the movie was terrific, though hardly faithful to the book in detail or tone. No movie could ever convey the detailed vision I have of the book, so I accepted it for what it is.


Comments and criticisms:

1.) Having Merry and Pippin join in on a life altering journey just because they ran into Frodo and Sam in a cornfield seemed ridiculous. (and hey what was corn, a new world plant, doing there anyway? when JRRT used that word in the book he was referring to grain, such as wheat)

2.) The battle between Gandalf and Saruman was cheesy and stupid. This reflects the general tone of the movie in which things which were subtle in the book had to be made more overt or dramatic. PJ had to leave out real scenes from the book because he put in stuff like this.

3.) The pointy elf ears looked stupid, especially Galadriel's. While Tolkien did say that elves and hobbits did have pointy ears (an idea that is not consistent with the book) he described them as "leaf shaped, very slightly pointed." Still many fans picture the elves as having pointed ears, an idea that they got from sources other than LOTR. PJ was probably trying to appease them.

4.) Many minor details of the book were changed for no apparent reason. Hair color was specified for many characters, yet was changed in the movie. Galadriel was the only blond elf in the book (she was certainly the only one specified as such). All, or nearly all, of the other elves should have had dark hair. This makes the story appear more racist than it is. Why was Boromir blond? Making him blond disguises the fact that he and Aragorn are related. It seems odd the PJ would change things like this which would make no difference to those who haven't read the book, but might offend those who have.

5.) I didn't care for the depiction of Elrond, as others have stated. Really old and wise people are very serene and don't take themselves or the world too seriously. To his credit, I thought that Legolas was well done and showed this quality.

6.) I liked the depiction of Moria, except for the scene on the teetering stairs. I thought that was rather cheesy and video gamish.

7.) The depiction (or lack thereof) of Lothlorien was very disappointing. PJís dark, mysterious and misty forest was quite at odds with Tolkienís bright and vibrantly alive Lorien. The beauty and unstained quality of Lorien (read the scene in FOTR at Cerin Amroth) showed what the elves represent and was a statement of what Galadrielís power was all about. She is the ultimate (in ME al least) incarnation of feminine power. The idea that Lorien and Galadriel are mysterious and perilous was fostered by the lies (disinformation) of the enemy. It is important to remember that Sauron was expert at subtle deception and was constantly working to sow dissent and distrust between the races. Galadriel had experienced 8,000 years of Morgoth and Sauron and knew their hearts and desires intimately. She was wholly good and would never be tempted to use the ring. Her renunciation of the ring in the book was a response to Frodoís offering, not a rejection of any desire in her own heart.

The departure from Lorien was a truly heart wrenching scene in the book. It is a shame that it was left out of the movie since it would have been the best way to convey the power and sorrow of the elves.

8.) One problem with shooting in New Zealand is that islands don't have large rivers. Thus the Silverlode was transformed into a creek and Anduin a rather small river.


Welcome to the forum, Eorl. You obviously have a discerning eye for detail. I do think it a bit harsh to call some of the decisions PJ and company made "stupid", though. I didn't necessarily agree with them all, but even the ones I felt were misguided or unfortunate I still considered rather bravely done. I mean, imagine yourself as a middle-aged, rather plump fellow who probably can't run very fast and doesn't seem to have a bodyguard. Then you decide to film a text powerfully beloved of millions of fanatics armed with 25 pound hardcovers, replicas of Glamdring and reams of fan fiction starring Tom Bombadil... PJ is a brave man for even attempting it.

Somewhere in the character threads, the topic of Merry and Pippin's rather rash decision to join Frodo came up, and someone (Ungoliant? Allyssa? I'm sorry, I'm too lazy to go check) pointed out that that could be an indication of the hobbits' very close relationship- that they would drop everything and head off to someplace unknown to do something unknown, just because their friend wanted them to. It is different than the book, and played for laughs, it's true, but still I thought it was touching that Merry and Pippin joined up without thought or question. And the corn... well, alright, Latin sources mean grain when they say corn, but still- Middle Earth is a proxy-medieval England, not medieval England itself. Tolkien may very well have meant grain, classicist that he was (did he say in his letters or something?), but surely it isn't impossible that something like New World corn would grow in Middle Earth.

As for hair color- did Tolkien specify it that often? I really didn't notice (I haven't read the books in a while, I admit). Galadriel is fair, certainly, but I always had the impression that Arwen's beauty was made even greater by the fact that she was dark and therefore a bit exotic. I could be wrong on that though. And I certainly wouldn't equate hair color in elves with racism, despite its occassional connotations in modern times- the elves seemed to be a well-mixed group. I felt what racist overtones are found in Tolkien's work were more noticeable in the book than in the movie. And surely Sean Bean isn't blond? His hair is more reddish-brown.

I didn't care for the wizard battle either- man, was it goofy looking ("ow! my hip! you whippersnapper!"). But it wasn't a very long scene, at least.

Even when they tell the same story, a movie is often less subtle than a book- written text allows you meditate on what you have read, letting you move back and forth within the words at will and allowing you to draw conclusions slowly and subtly. Comparable freedom to move within the text cannot be found in a visual medium like film, which is hampered by the fact that the eye won't understand a film played backwards to catch missed bits, and, while watching, the brain cannot meditate for long on what has passed because new images must be incorporated. Details that are gently and easily presented to the reader are made twenty feet tall to the movie-viewer, and are accompanied by music to help guide reactions. I felt that, despite working in a different medium than the source and despite presenting the work to a very different world than Tolkien's, PJ and company did an admirable job of capturing the essence of the story. It's not perfect, but what is?
Eorl, welcome to the forum. Smile Smilie


Jehanne posted on 29/1/2002 at 03:48
Quote:
... but surely it isn't impossible that something like New World corn would grow in Middle Earth.

In answer, I almost found the following in LOTR Vol. II, The Two Towers, Book 3, near the end of Chapter 8, entitled 'The Road to Isengard.
Quote:
'... It was Horo Hornblower, out of Longbottom in the "Southfarthing", who first discovered the true maize in his journeys to the New World, about the year 1294 according to our reckoning. How old Hory came by the plant ...'

'You do not know your danger, Theoden,' interrupted Gandalf ...
I apologize to both JRR Tolkien and CS Forester, and also to the reader of the above, I just couldn't resist: The Ring made me do it. Big Smile Smilie
Welcome Eorl, good points, some of which I had forgotten since I saw the Movie last. As to the river, it looked pretty big to me, though now I think about it, it's hardly the Severn is it? Thanks for bringing that one up.
And Grondy: dear, oh dear, oh dear.........
Eorl, nice post. I hadn't even noticed the fact that Merry and Pippin didn't have a reason to go to Bree; just that it seemed it was the same evening as when they escaped from the Rider on the Brandywine. That was a little jolting.

It was a shame that the important "pauses" in the book couldn't be well handled in a 3 hour movie. I think that was a key but maybe unavoidable weakness. They seemed to really miss the atmosphere of the Prancing Pony. The Council of Elrond was maybe my biggest disappointment; they could have introduced the characters much better (I would have cut the invented cave troll to allow time!). Lothlorien, like everyone notes. But I'll take it, because it was still a really great if not perfect movie! (Wasn't the exposition on the slopes of Mt. Doom COOL--I'm with my 9 year old son on that one)
(((Horo Hornblower! Well, I know where Tolkien got that name.. Horatio Hornblower was one of Englands finest sailors but I digress!)))

I don't think it's fair to expect a movie to be so "deatiled". That being said, PJ did a great job because he did pay attention to details. He put in so many nods to fans, Bilbo's Trolls, Sam's "what did I forget" (rope) in Rivendale, "A Shorcut to ...." "Mushrooms!", PJ was truly concerned for the fans of the book and did all he could to please them IMO (and I've already said I'm not a big fan of the books). He paid attention to detail without making the movie Tedius (read the thread about Harry Potter/LOTR by Tracy Hickman at Prancing Pony). I give him 5 out of 4 stars.[Edited on 29/1/2002 by swampfaye]
OK folks let's see if I can stick the topic. I have seen the film a total of six times and each time I have seen it I have been totally amazed at the complexity of it. The characters are everything I expected, each actor playing his/her character to perfection. My favorite if you forced me to choose would have to be Woods portrayal of Frodo. To start out so innocent and then transform before our eyes into a very brave person who chooses to bear a burden that few can even imagine is awesome and Woods does it to perfection. But really I can't leave out Ian McKellan's role as Gandalf he was a great...I was floored from the beginning to the end. I believed it was Gandalf I was seeing on that screen. Especially his final battle with the Balrog in Moria. Finally I must admit that the scenery was breath taking. Mr. Jackson's team did an outstanding job of creating "Middle Earth" it all it's glory and beauty. Never once did I doubt what I was seeing. Nothing was left out, not one detail. So as you can see I loved to movie and will always love it and I can't wait to see the next two films. God willing that I live that long. For those of us who have loved Tolkien and been fans for years often talking among ourselves over the years about which actor could be which character and so on, the wait is finally over. Enjoy it!
Welcome to thee forum JG; I'm assuming your nick is your initials plus your last name.

Glad you liked the movie so well. Six times is a bunch, probably the record for around here. Now we only have to wait less than twenty-three months to see the downfall of Barad-Dur.
Ohhh, record eh? Well then I get to break it... saw it 7 times (twice this week because I got to the first showing late... and well, I wanted to see the "entire" movie) So actually I guess I've seen it 6.85 times (only missed 10 minutes for the popcorn line...)

Quote:
Book or Movie Boromir? Who's better?

That's easy, the book version is better because


Movie was better... Boromir was doing too many "I told you so's" in the book. He was a real twit (so I couldn't really understand why Pippin says in ROTK: "I liked him from the start") but in the movie he has more character, more friendliness toward the hobbits and his death scene... wow... way better than the book... gave you more than one reason for Pip to have a fond memory of him.[Edited on 1/2/2002 by swampfaye]
:o Hey, what's going on here? I'm agreeing with faye more and more.

Agree that Boromir was one character that PJ developed well. I felt sorry for him in the movie, and bawled like a baby when he died. Didn't feel anything for him at all in the books. As someone pointed out earlier, I finally understood what made him tick - his passion & despair for Gondor & the fate of his people.

But I remember one scene in the book where he insisted that the Fellowship turn back since the mountain would be the death of the halflings. Maybe he wasn't so bad then either. Must seriously read the books again.

[Edited on 1/2/2002 by Ungoliant]
Booooooo! Movie Boromir was crap. (not that I can really remember that well now) but I remember not liking him at all.
Must see that movie again sometime...
Hey there jgPoole Smile Smilie Wish I had time and money enough to go see the same film 6 times.
Let me see if I've got this figured out:


Ducks like water.

Beleriand sank beneath the waves.

Gollum's cousin Deagol, found ring in bed of Anduin.

Hobbits don't take to water, except when they run out of beer.

Arwen didn't save Frodo at the Ford of Bruinen.

The Watcher almost pulled Frodo into the pool at West-gate.

Sam couldn't swim the Anduin so he dried to drink it.

Boromir last journey included the Falls of Rauros.

Frodo saw faces in the Dead Marshes.

Gollum found fisheses in pool at Henneth Annun.

Aragorn sailed up the Anduin to the Harlond.

Legolas and Gimli took the last ship across the sea.

Therefore, hobbits aren't ducks.

You know I could say alot of things about Boromir but PJ saved the day when he directed that "death scene". I still laugh evertime I see the orc lift his head up to look at Aragorn as he steps over him to get to Boromir. I thought his character was very touching and much more his love for his country and people. I think we will see a cnange in Aragorn as the next two films come out and the final film will show us a true King returning. Hey six times was really not that hard to do or that expensive. Besides my wife new that if she did'nt let me go I would just drive her mad....with my whinning and crying. LOL Tolkein turned me into a fantasy fanatic at a very young age and I will always be grateful for that. Come to North Carolina and look in my office and see my book shelves full of postAuthorIDs like Terry Brooks, Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, Anne McCaffrey, Stephen R. Donaldson, Marion Zimmer Bradley etc. It took me 12 years to get my wife to read Tolkien and now she is reading fantasy too. You know I can remember when you would never see a fantasy book on the Top Ten Best Seller List and now it happens on a regular basis. Have a good one folks.
Hi jgpoole, nice to have more LotR fans around here. Smile Smilie

I totally missed that Orc lifting his head thing. Goody, now I have a new reason to drag hubby to the cinema again, the 'Elrond is hot' excuse is wearing pretty thin. Book Boromir was nobler but movie Boromir was nicer, even though, as Plastic had pointed out earlier, Aragorn had stolen his best lines. And I was a bit disappointed with Gandalf - I had expected a gruff & crotchety old wizard. Gandalf was far too nice in the movie...he seemed weak, tired & slightly disorganised to me. Didn't believe for a moment that he could defeat the Balrog.
Quote:
Didn't believe for a moment that he could defeat the Balrog.
That's because you cheated by reading the book ahead of time; you knew Gandalf was heading for a fall. How can you suspend belief when you know what's coming? Only Charlie Brown can do that when, Lucy holds the football or when he says to his assembled baseball team, "This year were going to win". Big Smile Smilie
LOL! Very good grondy. Big Smile Smilie
You know even when I read the books I always felt that Gandalf was holding something back. I do remember one part of the movie that made me question the character and that was when he explained to Frodo that he must meet with the leader of his sect who was both powerful and wise. That struct me as odd. I always believed that Gandalf was above Saruman and if I am right I believe that history says that the Elrond and Galadriel had wanted Gandalf to be the head of the Council of the Wise and not Saruman. Am I right Grondmaster? Anyway I would have liked to have seen a more self assured character portrayed of Gandalf. One more thing that bothered me a bit was when Gandalf returned to meet with Frodo and startles him by jerking him around and saying almost as if he is frightened out of his mind, "Is it safe? Is is hidden?" Gandalf would have never spoken like that. Sad Smilie
Quote:
You know even when I read the books I always felt that Gandalf was holding something back.
Gandalf was holding something back so as not to scare the hobbit completely out of his tree, or back under his bed.
Quote:
I always believed that Gandalf was above Saruman and ... I believe that history says that the Elrond and Galadriel had wanted Gandalf to be the head of the Council of the Wise and not Saruman.
Saruman the White was above Gandalf the Grey in their Order, as he had more knowledge, and in politics he remained head of the Council of the Wise (The Hobbit's, 'Council of the White Wizards') over the objections of Galadriel and Elrond who thought Saruman was too isolated from the world while Gandalf had kept up on its happenings and thus had more practical experience, more wisdom.
Quote:
I would have liked to have seen a more self assured character portrayed of Gandalf. One more thing that bothered me a bit was when Gandalf returned to meet with Frodo and startles him by jerking him around and saying almost as if he is frightened out of his mind, "Is it safe? Is it hidden?"
Gandalf was worried, but less than frightened, and not having enough time to let us learn this for ourselves, PJ used this not too subtle method to get the point across.

True, the book Gandalf would have kept himself under control so as not to spook Frodo. He knew that if The Ring proved to be Sauron's, that he could not take it, but that it must soon be removed from the Shire. He also knew that Frodo was the only one available to do the job; therefore, he waited until daylight before making the test and the telling his story in such a way to ensnare the unsuspecting hobbit into the enterprise. "Beware of dabbling in the affairs of wizards." Here, ladies, is the spot where you can feel sorry for Frodo.

While Sauron remained, Gandalf had been tight lipped and gruff but kindly in his dealings with the others, but having a job to do, he did so knowing that as a tool, honey was more efficient than vinegar. After the quest was over, we saw the true nature of Gandalf, as Pippin or Merry mentioned: less closed mouthed, eyes twinkling, and filled with laughter. PJ just let us see him early, so we needn't wait another two years to find this out.
I thank you Grondmaster for making this a little more clearer to me. Sometimes we forget or without the luxury of a group of people who share the same interest we loose the ability to discus and share thoughts on certain subjects. Hopefuly this forum will allow me to participate in what I have been missing. And I in turn can contribute something back. Agian thanks!! Smile Smilie
Quote:
That's because you cheated by reading the book ahead of time; you knew Gandalf was heading for a fall.

Actually I meant I didn't believe that he could defeat the Balrog in the ensuing battle, Grondie -*after* they had both fallen n the abyss.
Quote:
While Sauron remained, Gandalf had been tight lipped and gruff but kindly in his dealings with the others, but having a job to do, he did so knowing that as a tool, honey was more efficient than vinegar. After the quest was over, we saw the true nature of Gandalf, as Pippin or Merry mentioned: less closed mouthed, eyes twinkling, and filled with laughter. PJ just let us see him early, so we needn't wait another two years to find this out.

True, tight-lipped & gruff in the book, and I have no problems with the movie Gandalf being more cheerful and open. I do, however, find it annoying that the movie Gandalf seemed weaker. He was, after all, a powerful Maia and not a bumbling old wizard. In the movie, he just seemed hopelessly incompetent at his job, that's all.
Okay then, how about if PJ made Gandalf the Grey, as you say weak and bumbling, to show more of a contrast with the future Gandalf the White, who will be strong and resolute?
Quote
________________________________
I do, however, find it annoying that the movie Gandalf seemed weaker. He was, after all, a powerful Maia and not a bumbling old wizard. In the movie, he just seemed hopelessly incompetent at his job, that's all.
__________________________________
Or perhaps Ungoliant, we can go back to Gandalf statement to Bilbo in their confrontation at the begining of the movie,
Quote
_____________________________________
BILBO BAGGINS! DO NOT TAKE ME FOR SOME CONJUROR OF CHEAP TRICKS! I AM NOT TRYING TO ROB YOU!!
_____________________________________
This in its self would seem a pretty clear explanation to the audience of what true character to expect from him in the future. Although I do tend to agree more with Grondmaster that PJ is setting us up of for a very strong and powerful Gandalf the White in the next two films. I hope he does not let us down.

Wink Smilie
Quote:
BILBO BAGGINS! DO NOT TAKE ME FOR SOME CONJUROR OF CHEAP TRICKS! I AM NOT TRYING TO ROB YOU!!
_____________________________________
This in its self would seem a pretty clear explanation to the audience of what true character to expect from him in the future. Although I do tend to agree more with Grondmaster that PJ is setting us up of for a very strong and powerful Gandalf the White in the next two films. I hope he does not let us down.

Yes, that's what PJ is trying to do but I think he may have overdone it though, that's all. I couldn't sense Gandalf's power beneath that cheerful and friendly exterior - I could with Saruman though. Even the book Gandalf felt more powerful from the very beginning, even though he didn't demonstrate his capabilities until later on.
Hey guys, I just read the news on the new traier for TTT and it sounds to me like Gandalf the White is going to be a force to be reckoned with!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA~

What do you think? Wink Smilie
Sounds pretty promising don't it! Smile Smilie Smile Smilie
Yeah they will soon all know not to bend over when Gandalf is staring at your back :P
LOL Big Smile Smilie Gandalf the Gay!!!! Big Smile Smilie
lol! But I'm sure he'll be a stronger figure in TTT...PJ obviously didn't believe that his audience could appreciate subtle contrasts and thus decided to use the movie equivalent of a piledriver.
WOW!!!! I missed too much here, time to make up.
I still liked the book-Boromir better than the movie one. I didn't feel anything for the movie one. He was just... there. That's all that's to it. He was not even sexy. Sad Smilie

PJ did his best to add as many details as possible to satisfy the die-hard fans, but like (I think it was Jehanne) said, he was d*mn brave to even try it. Who else would have done so great, I can't think of...

I'm sure Gandalf is going to develop in the next movie. He looked kinda old and weary in this movie, but then he had a lot to deal with, there's the Ring-thing, he's concerned about first Bilbo, than Frodo, he can't trust the head of his council any longer, and he has to battle him as well (didn't like that part, btw, looked a bit crappy) and then there is the journey through Moria, which he rather would not have made, and on top of all that there is the battle with the Balrog. How much can you deal with in one movie, as a character?? In the next one, he will have had time to refresh, to reload his batteries, as it were. And there's the fact that he'll be Gandalf the White, equal to Saruman. Can't wait... Big Smile Smilie
  [1] [2] >>