Thread: Who has seen it and what did you think?
<<     >>
Ungoliant: Ooh! Get You! *clutches handbag to chest girlily*
Huan: I totally forgot that i'd already said hi to you here yesterday, so i've done it again somewhere earlier. I apologise for being thick again, but I had a hell of a hangover yesterday, so that must be taken into consideration!
Huan: Point taken about point taken. Sorry if I sounded rather sore there - got up early to play golf & found out it was cancelled, which explained my foul mood. And then I saw was I thought was a pc statement - must really learn to control myself. S'like waving a red flag at a bull...
Grondie - loved the Swiss Army staff.
but i don't think i'll be needing that much research. it's only meant to be 6000 words long, so should be able to get it done in two weeks. but it's due in october.
Anyway, Wizard's staffs will most likey always be Swiss Army Staffs.
Now, to all those reviews: I liked Huan's very much although I don't agree in some points with him. Generally I think it just depends on how much freedom you are willing to give the director of such a movie whether you like certain changes or not.
As for Arwen, I think it was done too much, on the other hand it could be made to get a heroine character just to please some parts of the audience who don't know the books.
Similar to that I'd say the fighting scenes have been made so large to get a bit more action. This could make the difference between comercial success or flop.
Happy New Year to all of you!
I nicked the handbag off of some old lady outside in the street. Very handy, it had two quid, a small mirror and a chelsea bun in it. Nice. And nothing's worse than having your golf cancelled, so I'll hold off the ninja badgers til next time you make a sasquatch crack!
Any time you feel like I'm getting PC - send me a warning. Always appreciated.
In the end someone always will, Pete, trust me... You may need to have some patience, but at some point you'll even get *taz, or *Plastic, or Grondmaster behind you... (the big three haha)
I was referring to that...
Don't confuse me...
*rubs head in bemusement*
This is my first time to this website and i get the feeling from reading few of these postBodys that everyone around here are old chums.
But since being a Tokien fan myself, though i confess i have only read the Hobit and LOTR once several years ago and only skimmed through them again last year to write my critical analysis of LOTR for a school report, i decided to put my two cents worth.
Personally, i thought the movie was absolutely fantastic, given the enormous amount of pressure peter jackson was under from Tolkien freaks like you people! =)
And secondly, i would have been more than disappointed if jackson had stuck to the book word for word, i think best movies are made when the director takes the essence of the original book and creates something utterly new and different.
Generally i thought the movie was excellent in scenary and casting, (Orlando Bloom as Legolas gets two thumbs up from me!) and practically everything else, except that i always pictured Frodo and other Hobbits as someone chubby middle aged blokes. But i guess that would have taken all the romance out of the story...
what do you mean with old chums? I'm only 20, I betch Tommy is even younger
thanx for sharing yet another way of looking at a movie, thanx i've never thought of that
as for the hobits you're right, I thought i knew something but i couldn't get my finger on it... they were indeed a bit chubby and middle aged insteead of in their tweens
How wonderful to finally meet a fellow countryperson at PT.
Everyone is friendly here but by no means old! Neither are we all old hands. I only joined myself about a fortnight ago.
Don't necessarily believe anything they tell you about me.... it wasn't me who tried to strangle Hugo Weaving, honest!
Anyway, extra warm welcomes from me. Let me know if you are interested in the chat line (no one else is in a compatible time zone with me! I refuse to get up at 4.00am for anything)
Hope you are safe from the bushfires!
Please post soon![Edited on 23/1/2002 by Allyssa]
Want a Whole Lotta Rosie!! etc. etc.
Welcome. We are indeed Tolkien freaks, and some of us have been here a long time, and Grondy's pretty old, yeah
And if he'd done something totally different I'd have loved it, but it wasn't totally different enough to get in that league, but it was sooooo pretty!
Somehow I think I nedd to say a few words as well. So, I'm in this chat for about three wekks only and I'm not old. *G*
And now just to stick to the topic: I think you're right about hobbits. Frodo doesn't look anthing like 50 years old. Neither do the others look any younger than Frodo.
I will be leaving pretty soon to watch FOTR for the third time. I just can't get enough!!
It's even appearing in my dreams..
Last night, i dreamt that Legolas and Gimli were in my room and my first impulse was..get a camera!!
then sadly i woke up.
With a post like that, Plastic will have field day - Imean Rosie, Gimli and Legolas in the same room with a camera.....
I'm new here too - but what's enjoyable about this site : forum is it is "chummy" not PC and within reason you can call a cat.... a cat.
Know what you mean though my dreams usually involve Viggo Mortensen...
...and within reason you can call a cat.... a cat.
Unless you're talking about the real thing, add the word 'dog' before or after it, and post it outside the taverns. Then Taz will come down on you like a ton of those rectangular building things...
Hmm, wonder if he'll see this...
"CATS & DOGS, CATS & DOGS!"
*normal voice* Welcome Rosie! And I'm not that old, really. Only 17. Nearly 18. With Oldies we mean the ones who have reached the status of friend, the others are still strangers. But we're one big bunch of... crap really... ANd we love it!
And I like to call a cat a foul hissing little ball of mange that isn't worth the oxygen it takes up
Oh that'll get Taz going then.
The reason a lot of us seem to know each other, Rosie, is because this board has been around for a while...it's been on different servers and things. This particular one is just the most recent incarnation...I think it's about 2 months old? The original one started really a while ago...it was already well-established when I turned up this past summer. I think Tommy and I are the youngest ones around here...I'm 17, but unlike Tommy, I'm nowhere near 18 (grr...)
And to keep from getting in trouble about being way off topic, this is the part of the post that's relevant to the original topic...I liked the movie very much.
This scene is about TWO things (PJ failes to understand both):
1) For the firts time Frodo understands thru the mirror that the eye is seeking him. Jacksson has by that time made so many stupid "ring on"-special effekts that the mirror is like putting on the ring, and the burning cunt (sorry eye) has been exposed like if it was a Coca-cola comersial.
2) Galadriel lets Frodo understand that if he succeds her ring will lose its power and the beautiful Lorien will disappear. It's one of the most moving parts of the book - even if Frodo does good it will bring bad thing with it. There is no good ending.
Sorry my english is as bad as the movie.
still, i would have perfered a chubby, jolly, mushroom-loving and pipe-weed smoking Frodo..
i forgot that he was only 33.
perhaps i should go back and reread the books..
oh and the movie for the third time is still fantastic, but a little too much for the bladder, especially after a jumbo mango smoothie.
and i'm still hopelessly in love with Orlando/Legolas.[Edited on 8/1/2002 by Rosie]
The hobbits did look a bit young and immature. A bit too young and immature.
I don't think I really want to weigh in on the "I hate Elrond, Galadriel was awful (since actually I kinda liked them both ), where's this, where's that..." stuff, because, as interesting as I think my opinions are, I'm sure somebody else has already said it somewhere. But I just wanted to offer a bit of support to Swampfaye's last post.
Wait, don't hurt me. I don't mean that the movie was "better" in some abstract sense than the book. But I did find it more entertaining. I've read LOTR a number of times, but I've found that over the years my relationship to the text has changed enough that the sense of wonder that first attracted me has been lost (or redirected or even mutated). See, I'm a graduate student working on Old English and Old Norse texts. "Ah, very Tolkien of you!" I often hear. Exactly. That's the problem. When I read LOTR these days, it's tough to keep myself from thinking "well, that word looks like it's derived from ...." or "that scene is right out of saga x". LOTR is an epic text, sure, but I'm surrounded by them, and it's no fun when Galadriel smiles and I think "Chapter 3 of my diss needs so much work!". Tolkien's language, characterization (and lack thereof, in cases), structure and even pacing are too steeped in his academic world, now my academic world, to be an escape for me.
The movie, on the other hand, isn't work. It has beautiful scenery, beautiful music and beautiful people, plus some nice gore to keep the kiddies up at night. It's a distillation of the wonderful text that first caught me years ago, and I didn't once think of Njal or Hrafnkel or Hrothgar or anyone else I should be researching when I'm really at the movies. Some bits I liked in the book weren't there, of course, and some were quite different, but the sweep of the thing, the sense that this group was embarking on a terrible adventure that would mean triumph and pain and death and glory, that was there for me. Where reading one of Tolkien's lovely but very, very long descriptive passages means a possible nap these days, the movie made me want to go charging around with a sword! For my students' sakes, I won't, but I had missed that thrill that comes from a great story well told. And, for me, that made up for every odd casting choice, every cut scene, and every "Sauron the Power Rangers' villain" moment. It's not a perfect translation of the text to the screen, but I really believe that a perfect translation would have made a poor film. And left me without an excuse to avoid Chapter 3.
Beside, Legolas sure is nice to look at!
For me, the movie of LOTR is a better movie than the book LOTR is as a book. does that make sense? i know i'm going to get slaughtered for this... but to me it seems that Peter Jackson has taken the best parts from the book and improved on it. Dont get be wrong, I love LOTR and the inhabitants of Middle Earth, but it's not my favourite book. But Peter Jackson made a fantastic film which knocked off No. 1 from my list.. Aladdin. Do we need any more validation?
For me, the movie of LOTR is a better movie than the book LOTR is as a book. does that make sense?
I totally agree, LOTR bumped my favorite movie from it's #1 spot. (and I never liked the trillogy books, hobbit was great, but LOTR never was even in my top ten)
One of my classes was talking about this the other day (instead of talking about Beowulf. what a bad teacher! oh, wait, that's me...), and one student said that she thought Tolkien was a great thinker but not really a great writer. And I agree, mostly. He's such an influential postAuthorID, "father of modern fantasy" and all that, but LOTR is pretty uneven. There are great ideas and some wonderful scenes, but there are also some REALLY BORING parts (and not just in the prologues), some barely-there characters and some of the worst dialogue I've ever read.
I always liked the idea of the trilogy better than the works, I think. So, yeah, LOTR was never a desert island book for me either. The movie, though... I don't have class tomorrow, so I'm ditching the research and seeing it for the fourth time!
Jehanne, did you say you taught Old English and Old Norse texts? then perhaps you could help me.. i'm trying to gather some research about the background of LOTR and its symbolism and linguistic aspects... and it's driving me nuts![Edited on 10/1/2002 by Rosie]
I actually teach medieval history- this term it's "The World of the Anglo-Saxons" and "The Age of Invasion" (I throw the Vikings in there, a bit odd chronologically, but hey, I wanna teach them). So I inflict these texts on my students to show them how to read and use primary sources. I use translations but I'll help any student so inclined to use the original.
Somewhere in my wreck of an office I have a nice bibliography of texts that talk about Tolkien's influences and my own notes on "that bit looks like it came from here." It's under something though (many somethings) and it will take me a bit to find it. Offhand, I know that T.A. Shippey's work is readable and easy to get. Verlyn Flieger at UMaryland and E. L. Risden have written on this too. And don't forget the big Arthurian scholars- Frodo is a mini Grail knight, with his failure at the brink and his wounds that will not heal.
will now have to go to the library and look these up.
know any good websites that might have stuff?
I guess some people feel strongly about movies. I don't - I lump it all together since it's just a form of entertainment, and doesn't change my life one way or another. But I guess I would feel as strongly if you said a sewage pipe is the same as a gas pipeline, or if all engineers were the same. *That* would get me on my high-horse.
But back to the topic. I think that replacing Glorfindel with Arwen doesn't do anything for the plot. It just made it a tad boring...waste of a good 5 minutes I think.
Ondaatje was so annoying! I still haven't finished English Patient and In the Skin of a Lion was ok.. i guess.
I'm not a big movie fan so those names don't really mean much to me. But i do like foreign films, especially the french ones. We get World Movies at home so i check'em out whenever. Jean de Florette was excellent and so was ..i think Le Gloire de Mon Pere.. or something similar.. or was it le chateau de ma mere??? argh..them french names.
anyway, getting back to the topic, Lord of the Rings rocks!! ooohhhh-hoooo~
*still high on Bacardi Breezers*
will definitely become a classic of the 'pop' movie culture. like Star Wars.
Kurosawa swings. His "Seven Samurai" is another case of better in 'black and white'.