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

Thread: Who has seen it and what did you think?

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Fellowship of the Ring > Who has seen it and what did you think?   << [1] [2] [3] [4] >>
Ooh! The choice of luthien, very interesting concept.
In reply to Stormy Pete, I f***ing loved the Movie as a movie. I just love to shoot holes in things!
And you're not the only Elrond fan on the planet, I think he's a pretty class character really. And if you try a sunday night, I'm quite often hanging about the chatroom waiting to see if anyone turns up!
Well, I'm happy, that I'm not the only one, who is able to love the books AND think the movies are great. I nearly got the impression as a Tolkien-fan you cannot possibly like them.
You can't. You have to forget you're a Tolkien fan, and just watch it as a movie, totally seperate from the book. That way you can still get upset when Gandalf and Boromir die! (Don't tell me what happens to Gandalf, I don't want the next one spoiled!) Wink Smilie
*Plastic
okay i have finally seen the movie Smile Smilie

1) It's A great movie!!!

2) it totally sucks as(s) a Translation of the books... its like trying to build the white house and ending up with the louvre.

3) the elves in general suck, okay they are tall, but have pointy ears... Legolas and arwen are great thought but the rest they just are... ******* wrong

4) err... ooh iI almost wanted to spoil a lot of details... can i?

5) anways here are a few things bothering me.. there's more to come

6) There weren't any hints of Gandalf "still" living like when frodo sits on Amon Sul when he hears " Take it of you fool, take it of.." something like that. And Aragorn is clearly wearing a ring... would it be the ring gandalf should have worn so that gandalf could be left out in the next movies?

7) since when did frodo crack the riddle of the doors

8) Moria looks great though

9) sam is almost forgotten let alone bill the pony

10) the fireworks are incredible

11) the shortening and tall making are in a lot of shots clearly fake Sad Smilie

12) as for the scourching of the shire... it can still be in the 3rd movie instead of frodo seeing doomsday for the shire it is frodo whom sees it, only galadriel says these are things to happen when the ring isn't destroy (load of bull in my opinion, cause the scourching just has to take place!!!)

13) Aarghh!!!!!

14) I really enjoyed the movie just as the movie though!

15) to be continued

16) merry Christmas!!
One thing I really would like to know is: How did Gandalf get his staff back after being rescued from Isengard? Or did he have it with him and I can't remember it?
I still love both the book and the film. ;-)
Conjecture on regaining of Gandalf's staff: How about if Saruman had tossed it out on his trash heap and Gandalf merely levitatied it to himself while flying away upon Gwaihir?

I received some horrible news yesterday. My son-in-law has to work tomorrow so I now don't get to see the movie until Sunday. Bummer!! Sad Smilie

(Nevermind...had a question but answered it myself...)

As for the staff...I think it's probably one of those few but present inconsistancies in the book...I tried to come up with a good explaination, but I haven't been able to...oh well.

[Edited on 26/12/2001 by chikakat]
Hmmmmm....... maybe he went to Staffs R Us and got a new one on the way back?
And commiserations Grondy, bad luck Sad Smilie
*Plastic
Hey, I liked that with Staffs R Us. Seems reasonable to me... ;-)
Hmm, I doubt that it was an inconsistency...battles between wizards were messy but I think once Gandalf had gracefully admitted defeat, Saruman kept him locked up in Orthanc, but allowed him to wander around freely & keep his staff. Probably some kind of wizards code of honour or something like that?

Kinda like the medieval code of gallantry - like Richard the Lionheart being captured by the French but was allowed to stay unmolested and semi-unrestricted until the English paid his ransom, or something of that sort. Only the masses got chained up you see. *ungoliant
Saruman? Morals? Code of Honour? I don't think so! Kind of inconsistent!
Quote:
The figure lifted his arms and a light flashed from the staff that he weilded


This bit is from Frodo's vision of Gandalf escaping from Orthanc...so I guess Gandalf did get his staff back from Saruman at some point...I s'pose you're right about the code of honor deal, Ungoliant...
Thanks for checking, chika. I knew I read it somewhere... Smile Smilie

And is it so unbelievable that Saruman could be a villainous weasel yet still adhere to some sort of wizard's honour code? Even the Mafia has it's own code of conduct. And what about 'honour amongst thieves?'
but with the Mafia and theives and things it's between two bad guys...they're all on the same side...Gandalf and Saruman were working against each other...it just seems weird that Saruman would give Gandalf a weapon that could potentially be used against him
Mafia Dons have respect for anything that deserves it, especially the "Little" people. Saruman doesn't appear to show anything approaching respect for anyone or anything, observe his treatment of the Shire and even his loyal helper, Wormtongue. Can you see a Corleone acting like that? No.
Ok...this has been bugging me but I never have yet remembered to post it. You know the whole deal in the book about Aragorn having the sword that was broken and all that? In the movie, they introduced it...they showed the shards and all that, but then they did nothing more. I don't understand why they started to talk about it then totally left it alone. (Unless they actually did something with it and I missed it...I got distracted at that point becuase my amazing friend got lost coming back from the bathroom...hahaha).
Well now .... where do I begin. The scenery was fantastic. Always wanted to go to New Zealand. Elrond...too hoyde-toyde. Galadriel...nice job, could have been a little friendlier. Gandalf...great, fantastic, but he's not suppose to tell Saruman who has the ring! Orcs looked amazing, Balrog gets two thumbs up and a great job of portraying Rivendell, Barad-dur, and the Shire. The Ring....way to over done. Brought out and handled by those who have no business touching it. Ending was good, Boromir with black-feathered arrows sticking out of him was very well done. Loved all the battle scenes. Give it an 8 out of 10.
Okay in the movie gandalf DID NOT have his staff with him on orthanc when he escaped and i think he just got a new one scraped from the forests ground.

As for narsil in the film it is said (i think) in a faint whisper that it shall be reforged again...

btw I have seen the making of today and Elrond was fighting and not that fighting in the opening scene...
so maybe he will go and hack some orcs... in the ensuing movies of lotr? wouldn't it great? and why shouldn't they throw in some elf magic to... in these battles like telekineses (ripping orcs apart like errr... giftwrappings)
Narsil/Anduril is done as a special treat for the vigilant and obsessive (like myself) you will notice that when the shards are introduced, the camera lingers on the hilt for a long time. Then you will notice that the first time Aragorn draws his sword after that, the camera yet again lingers on the hilt for a while. Compare the hilts and say "My, my Mr. Jackson, what a fine job you have done getting the point across without wasting too much time on it. The Tolkien nuts will be happy and normal movie goers won't give a shit anyway!"
Ok, What did I think of THE movie? I have lots of thoughts on it, though overall I liked it - as a movie! In terms of it's best parts it could be in serious danger of becomming another Jurassic Park - people only go to see it for the special effects which are definitely the best part.

As for what I thought of the rest - I'll keep it as short as I can:

Hates:
-Treatment of Elrond - I retract my earlier criticicism of H. Weaving. He did the best he could with an unkind script.
-Galadriel tranforming into a wraith-like monster - a bit over the top I think.
- Aragorn as a rebel exile? Why?
- Elrond at the cracks of Doom. Too much tampering with the story. I kept wondering why he didn't just push silly Isildur over the edge if it was that important. In the book this was better dealt with
- Elrond screaming - Sorry MrW. Elrond would not scream. He would not need to.
- Felowship shallowness - didn't get a real feel for their close friendship


Loves:
- Elija Wood as Frodo - wanted to kiss and cuddle him!
- Ian Mckellen as Gandalf.
- Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn *sigh*
- Costumes, details, props - brilliant!
- Scenery and camera work
- Expansion of Arwen character - why not?
- Boromir's death scene - I cried
- Behedding of Lurz - people clapped!

In terms of the characters, the best part was also the worst part. Elrond and Galadriel would almost have been unrecognisable to me if they had not been clearly introduced. Because many characters were so far removed from the books, they didn't destroy the book (real) versions of them for me. My personal Middle Earth lives on!




[Edited on 4/1/2002 by Allyssa]
Erm, they seem to be now!
I was watching Elizabeth last night, the film which was the very reason I thought Cate Blanchett would make a great Galadriel, and she's more like Galadriel in that than in the Lotr movie! I think she was made to do it badly by Mr Jackson (booo!!! You knackered up galadriel you git!)
I agree with most of what you said! Blimey! I never agree with people! Especially the Orc Beheading, I laughed til I was nearly sick!
WOW!!! I missed too much here to be good. I'll just say now where I agree and where I disagree with most of you:

Hate:
- way Elrond is portrayed
- way they made Galadriel behave - too witchy
- lovestory between Aragorn and Arwen - too much Hollywood (I mean, the scene in Rivendell, HELLOOO??)
- way Boromir dies (THREE arrows??), good for a film, but this is not just a film!
- way they made Elrond talk about men
- way Merry and Pippin are portrayed (like two infants who don't know what they are doing, like when they meet Frodo and Sam in the fields) (but Jackson made up for that when he lets them distract the Orcs so Frodo can escape)
- some things that I cannot recall just now

Like:
- scenery (AMAZING!)
- shrinking (well done, if you don't pay too much attention to it)
- Bag End (where Gandalf keeps bumping his head! I laughed mine off!)
- Orcs (fantastic!)
- eye of Sauron (palantÝr) - marvellous and scary
- choice of characters (cast, I mean Smile Smilie )
- details and stuff (well done!)

I suppose I have said this all somewhere else, but I just had to post here. Otherwise I would have missed too much! Hope to see the movie again soon though. To get a better view, you know... Wink Smilie

Dolly jolly greetings,

Tom Bom
Okay, we who prop up the bar of an afternoon in the Palladium Club have voted on our favourite line from the Movie, and the winner is......... (trumpet fanfare)
"So where are we going then?"
Dear All-
Ungoliant - point is taken on the Arwen character and Tolkines intention. I'm not trying to encourage politcially correct feminine heroes - I just think her charcter helps the film.
I agree with Grondmaster's reply. The Arwen relationship is hinted at several times in the novel. So I think Jackson has just added to this foundation. From what I can recall, Arwen is an importnat character to Aragorn, so that is justification enough to include her. Secondly dramatically she is or has become by the "magic of film" a combination of Glorfindel/Arwen.. Thats why I appreciate her charcater. I think we should look at her in that light and not just as Arwen the Princess from the LOTR novel.

Grondmaster, sorry for all of us, but the Arwen Anduaral and the arrival of the cavalry (last Elven HSot / Men alliance???) will most certainly happen. Although that irks me, lets see how it works on the movie. So Arwen will then be a combination of Glorfindel and Eowyn. !

Grondmaster, I believe, although the scene is "missing" that Narsil has ben reforged. It seems to me that Aragorn already has Narsil with him at the end of the first film. Miust see again.

Plastic Quirrel - try Ent ale next time.
Regards- Huan
Alrright, I have now seen the movie for the second time and I really enjoyed it. The first time I sat there and just thought about what they had left out and what not and how they trasformed it and so on.
Now I could just watch it and didn't think about it and it was even greater. It's perfekt as a movie and I still think they did the best they can to put The Fellowship Of The Ring into three hours of movie entertainment.
Of course there are some flaws but nothing can be perfect. Just look at is this way: Take the book as a given thing, maybe something that really existed. In that way the movie is an adaption of it, with a little bit of freedom to change things (look at any movie that has some historical story as theme...).
Well, I'll definately go and see it a third time...
*stupid *stupid *stupid
I totally agree Pete! Big Smile Smilie
LOL! Good one, Plast. (good line, too...) Big Smile Smilie
I so need to see that movie again, I've agreed with Pete the whole time!
Thought it time I did as well!
Big Smile Smilie
Hey, cool, there are some, who agree with me at last. ;-)
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) Smile Smilie Smile Smilie Smile Smilie
Thanks Tom!
Was that meant as a general rule, or just in this case, because I'm right? ;-)
Who are those two you mention first... didn't quite get that.
Anyway, I'm happy to have found this forum. Seems like the right place to discuss things. I fear this isn't quite what the topic says... Okay, I shut up for now.
The big three get their own icons...except that Grondmaster's have gone missing... *taz is for Taz, *Plastic is for Plastic squirrel.

darn those capital letters, by the way...couldn't get *Plastic to work at all...

[Edited on 31/12/2001 by chikakat]
Well I finally saw it this afternoon and was impressed. Considering that it is "The Fellowship of the Ring" as told by Peter Jackson not JRR Tolkien, it was beautifully done. So far it hangs together as a story, while It remains to be seen how he will dodge around the missing bits, when we finally get to view the next installments.

The architecture of all locations was eccellent, except I counted two extra horns on Orthanc and didn't find Rivendale in compliance with my idea of a Last Homey House (which I probably developed from 'The Hobbit').

Sorry Skwerl, I thought Enya's vocals were fitting. Maybe your threatre just played them too loud; 'twas soft in mine, especially during the credits.

On Elrond: See my comment under Characters.

On 'The White Witch' Galadriel: I have this to say. Maybe Cate was afraid to show off her braces and couldn't find a smile or some sign of warmth. Had Peter let Gimli's infatuation develop and left in the gift-giving scene we would have seen her in a better light, not all-concerned about the well being of her people and with just a little empathy for those in of the company. "It is lonely at the top" was what she meant when she said to Frodo, "Ring bearers are alone", or words to that effect.

I probably won't get to see it in a theatre again; however, I will be first in line when it comes out in video. Well Done Mr. Jackson. Cool Smilie

(Should I offer the above to Taz as a main site review, after deleting the apology, filling in the Elrond paragraph, spell checking, and grammarizing? You be the judge.) *wave

TA DA!!! This was Number 100 and I think we should really lighten up on posting just to post; at least keep it on topic, what ever that is? Big Smile Smilie

[Edited on 31/12/2001 by Grondmaster]
*stupid
I totally agree, except on Elrond's case. He was a bit too angry, I thought. Maybe cos his home was not portrayed as a last homely house, like you said, Grondy... Big Smile Smilie
You should post this as a review, Grondy. So far there's only one in reviews, and that's mine... I feel lonely... Wink Smilie
Big Smile Smilie
Only one! Have you seen how many there are in there? There's thousands, admittedly a lot of them are rubbish (sorry to anyone who's in that category, assume I didn't mean you) and The Big three? What are we Don Skwerl, Don Grondy and Don Taz?
"You mess with me, you mess with the family"
Who is posting just to post? And what's the topic anyway? Thoughts? I think it's great and I agree with Grondmaster... I got to see it again...
Must check back to reviews then... Oopsie. My mistake... Smile Smilie
Am I part of the big three now? Just like the three musketeers (who were actually four). Big Smile Smilie
I'm sure I don't know what Grondy means about posting just to post! *innocentandsweetface
And you can be the little girly one Tommy, Dogtanian or whatever his name was.
I can be d'Artagnan? Great! I love him. But who are you then? Aramis, the Pries? Porthos, the gay one? Athos, the one with the silly eyes? You know what, you can be my horse... :P
hey folks, I'm back. And I've seen it. so here's my opinion:
In general, I think the movie was terrific, technically. The scenery was great and the costumes and special effects were superb.
But I think the movie concentrated too much on battle. True, there are the battles and they are important, but there's is hardly any focus on doubt or mind making and the power of knowledge. The decisions were made to fast.
And those little differnces that are not to be explained with money saving or such:
why does frodo solve the riddle at durins door. why do the fellowship know about frodo leaving and why does frodo lose the ring on caradhras.
Worst of all: There you've got a book so detailed, long and full depth, that you have to leave out huge parts and then you INVENT new scenes!!!!! That part in moria with the stonetroll was too long, they didn't fight really in the book. And that steps with the crack in it: WHY??? well, at last here are my pros and cons:

pro:
-prologue
-hobbiton
-the characters except elrond were quite good
-black riders (they were just right)
-the twilight zone when frodo wears the ring
-sarumans place (though the wizard fighting was too long)
-bruinen scene (though I'm still not convinced about Arwen)
-moria (visiually)
-the balrog scene
-galadriels mirror
-gollum (and all the other creatures. great)
-boromirs death

contra:
-bree (there was no mind making about aragorn, they just went with him)
-wheathertop (the nazgul had to withdraw. in the movie aragorn fought against
five of them alone !?! )
-Elrond (he was not himself and rather ugly for an elf Smile Smilie )
-Lothlorien (not lovely enough, and they weren't blindfolded, and nothing about Gimli seeing the most beautyful woman in his life)
-Boromirs horn (I only thought: "I am popeye - tut tut" )

well, there is much more but in total:
the movie is an A+ in optics, but a D- in content. I am a bit disappointed and it is definitly not the best movie ever. what a pity.

by the way: there was only one song sung in the movie: bilbo, as he went off, sung his "the road goes ever on and on", but none other had the guts to raise his voice.

[Edited on 31/12/2001 by Rincewind]
Good review Rince; I agree about those battles lasting too long and the one in Balin's Tomb was really just a skirmish.
Boo hoo! I get left out again! Sob! Bawl! Cry! Sad Smilie

Just saw you Mafia reply, Plastic - no, Don Corleone would have never done that, but the first Don in Sicily (the one that killed Vito's dad, brother & mom) did. So there: :P

Besides, at that time, Saruman wanted to have Gandalf on his side. So he handled Gandalf with kid gloves...'he only locked him up at Orthanc hoping that Gandalf would see reason.
*ungoliant
OK - first time on forums so patiense. i'm probably not even in the right place. Whatever.
Little background on me for those who want or who care(s)!
Have been fan of LOTR books (plus Hobbit, Silmarillion and first Unfinished Tales - rest seems to be money grabbing .. thats another subject.) So have been reading regularily for approx 20yrs. Stillenjoying it for different reasons. Now working in the writing and movie business for about 12 yrs
Not a great fan on Bashki's work - but Black Riders were excellent.
Jacksons film - all things considered he did very well. Edited, cut and changed characters and content, but overall improved the movie - as a movie.
I read a few of the comments and people seem upset about reperesentation of Elrong and Galadriel. The book characters are improtant becaue they bring History and Wisdom but they do not contribute to (except Galadriels gifts) to the Quest or to the overall action. Thematically Jackson seems to be preparing for a grand finale in "The Return of the King". That is why I belive he is putting the Elves in the "backseat". Straight from the beginning, the voice over indicates it is the end of an age; the film doesn't have time to go into the intricacies of history and power and culture of elves - simply because the film is about Hobbits and Men . Its about growing up, moving through conflict and turmoil to assuem responsability. Hence Frod and also the new characterization of Aragorn.
I found te change in Aragorns character as a rluctant king an excellent decsion. It gives Aragorn room to evolve and to finally get the courage to assume and create his destiny. Hence the 3 film title which offers a imprtant and limpid insight into what Tolkien is talking about; The end of the books is about the rule of men and of King Aragorn. Not about Elves, Hobbits. All the elves, hobbit ring bearers and wizards leave. The MEn remain. So I belive that the Aragorn character is going to bbe interesting and a pivotal figure in the remaining films. Also this makes the somewhat Hollywood relationshipwith Arwen more important. (Note this relationship is scandalously overlooked by Tolkien in his books. I presume Jackson will bring it to its rightful place. Arwen will most certainly fight in the films and participate in the battles; and will be a determining factor in Aragorn becoming the central character.

Sorry -I'm going on a lot. It just seems important to place the KjAckson characters in the context of a 3 movie. Not a single movie. And itr think he did well, leving room for all the main characters to evolve.

My gripe with the move is that the music - Enya and H. Shore - did not provide the overall coherency that it should have; I don't remember an musical leitmotiv or recurring theme that could have servied as an emotional and thematic "cement" to the movie.
Secondly I am glad the pic had an overal gritty realstic, harsh look but also I think that some scenes are just too pretty. (Hobbiton, Rivendell for example. It seemed that Jackson falls back on traditional "fairy tale" aesthetis - back lighting, soft focus, bright ligts, airy new age music... i was expecting a bit better and moreoriginal from them.

Last think I liked the Nazgul, but even if in the books they "hiss" too talk, I would have prefered if the 9 were more personalized, and also if we could at elast understand what they are saying. (Somewhat Like whne Jackson chooses too personify the Uruk-Hai using Lurz(!) it helped us identify our ideas of orcs. I thing he could have introducted the idea of the Nazgul Cpatain and try to personify him - maybe as Aragorn's nemesisio (sas is hinted in the books..)

Thanks for your patience and sorry for ataking up so much time Happy New Year

Welcome huan! Large review, but a good one, though I do not agree on all points, but that's ok. Wink Smilie

Quote:
My gripe with the move is that the music - Enya and H. Shore - did not provide the overall coherency that it should have; I don't remember an musical leitmotiv or recurring theme that could have servied as an emotional and thematic "cement" to the movie.


If you buy the CD, you'll clearly hear the leadmotive. It's in about every song, except in the Enya ones. And I think Enya added a sort of mystical treat to the movie. In my opinion the music went very well with the film. Smile Smilie

I disagree with you stronly on the point of Arwen and Aragorn, I'm afraid. I think Tolkien had a very good reason for not mentioning the romance between them in LOTR. That would have interrupted the story, turning the book into a romantic sticky thing now and then. And the scene at Rivendell between them reminded me too much of the cheap Hollywood pictures in which the romances are portrayed this way. Yuk! Sad Smilie

Rincewind: good review indeed. There were too much fights in the film, the battles lasted a bit too long, you're right about that. I totally agree with you... Smile Smilie
Welcome as well Rosie!

I think Tolkien's description of Hobbits was pudgy, but maybe that didn't happen until after they hit 50. Because Frodo had the ring for the past seventeen years he didn't show his age, so in effect he could look young like the rest of his 33 year old 'teenage' cousins. Smile Smilie

Maybe the following comparison will help:

1 Human's year = 7 Dog's years
1 hobbit's year = 2 human's years

And then again maybe it will only muddy the water. Big Smile Smilie
Hello Huan, great review. I heartily agree about the Music, don't get me wrong, i like it (except Enya, obviously) but it's not like you can whistle it, like the Indiana Jones theme, or the Star Wars theme. And a whistleable tune is important for a movie imho.
I agree about the song stuff, Rincewind...I was really interested to see how they were going to pull off all the little songs and poems that come up throughout the book...granted, they had to cut really a lot of them when the Old Forest part and Crickhollow were scrapped, but I would have liked to hear some of the things at Rivendell, especially. And the scene in the Prancing Pony, when Frodo fell and slipped on the Ring...that was seriously cheesy...they really should have left in the part with Frodo singing...
Dear Tom and others
Thanks for the replies. Sorry about the spelling mistakes - bad typing. I agree with what you say about the treatment of Arwen /Aragorn scenes in Rivendell in the movie. The shots are dreadful - spoft focus, close ups, back lights etc. However I think that for the structure of the trilogy as film and for the development of the plot and the develoment of themes and characters, it was good to add a "relationship". Plus in the overall "masculine" environment of LOTR - it was good to introduce a female warrior. It addsa "modern" slant to the story. I don't agree that Tolkine left out the shhmaltzy love story out of the book for "action/plot" reasons. I think he just didn't no anything about women and couldn't write about female characters without turning them into semi-goddesses or martyred heroines. Considering its the 21st century I think Jackson has "overridden" Tolkiens post Victorina Oxford pritanism and has added a dimension to Arwens character which I'm sure Tolkien would have liked to have written. Remember Luthien fighting and risking her life for Beren.
Thanks for your repy
PS haven't got the CD.
Quote:
Considering its the 21st century I think Jackson has "overridden" Tolkiens post Victorina Oxford pritanism and has added a dimension to Arwens character which I'm sure Tolkien would have liked to have written. Remember Luthien fighting and risking her life for Beren.

Now, *that* I don't agree with.

Even if it was the 41st century, directors & other movie people should never be so presumptious as to imagine what the postAuthorID would have, or would not have written.
Arwen was a just a wet, gold-digging, gloryhunting, useless lump of meat who just used her charms and lineage to dazzle her man. What made her better than Eowyn? Nothing! But why change her character? There are women (and men) out there doing the exact same thing - bimbos, trophy wives, tarts galore - and they do tend to fare quite well in life. So why admit that it doesn't exist?

Some may think of the new dimension in Arwen's character as 'progress for the women's movement, but I personally find it patronizing & rather insulting. If I wanted a strong warrior-like woman on the screens, I'd go watch Zena, Alien, T2 or interviews with Reno/Thatcher. Not a second-hand princess suddenly brought to the fore because someone thought the original postAuthorID forgot to put enough women in the story. Tolkien may have been puritanical, but he wasn't a hypocrite - so I can accept that. And still enjoy the book.

And besides, Luthien was a tough mother - she literally fought for her man. Ditto for other strong women in LOTR - Eowyn, Galadriel, Goldberry & Shelob. Arwen was just a sit-at-home love interest. Not in the same league, really.

Besides that, good review, Huan!
*ungoliant
The Arwen and Aragorn love story was included in the books, it just wasn't stressed. There were snippets alluding to it in Rivendale, Lothlorien, and Rohan.

And I'm afraid Haun has just confirmed my worst nightmare that Arwen will indeed ride with the Dunedain to Rohan, bearing not only 'The Banner of the King', but the reforged 'Shards of Narsil' which Aragorn will then at that time rename, 'Andural, the Flame of the West'.

On 25/12/2001 at 21:49 StormyPete posted:
Quote:
One thing I really would like to know is: How did Gandalf get his staff back after being rescued from Isengard? Or did he have it with him and I can't remember it?
When I saw the movie last Sunday for the first time, I did pay some attention to this problem:

When Gandalf was driving the fireworks cart into Hobbiton, he had a staff topped by a gnarly clump of wood that looked like it may have been the root end of a sapling with the roots cut off. When on top of Orthanc he was staffless. When he was in Moria, his staff had a crystal on its head; thus it was a different staff, unless it was a Swiss Army Staff.

Therefore, I believe the movie Gandalf obtained a new staff in Rivendale, except he would have needed one in Edoras. So when Gwaihir carried him to Edoras, they must have first gone to Gandalf's personal stash of spare staves or STAFFS-R-US even. Wink Smilie
  << [1] [2] [3] [4] >>