posted
Loved the dwarf/halfling effects. Couldn't see the seams... Loved the way they spiced up the long opening exposition with that battle scene to keep us interested (but wasn't the battle on the wrong side of the mountains?). Agreed with most of the shortcuts, and especially with the choice to kill Boromir off and get Merri and Pippin caught this side of the cliffhanger.
Was scared out of my seat with Bilbo's sudden transformation. Loved the effect - a little something to surprise those who have read the book, and certainly dramatically very effective for all audiences.
Saruman was cool. Eisengard was cooler. The scenery simply rules (and the less CGI-augmented, the more impressive it is!). And the Frodo's-eye-view of invisibility sent shivers up and down my spine.
Won't get this one on video. It deserves a SDDS theater. Wonder if Jackson had gone the full circle and watched some Babylon 5 - the sound effects for the depths of Moria were so similar to what was done for Za'ha'dum...
posted
The Battle at the start - the Last Alliance of Elves and Men was set on the correct side of the Mordor mountains... The Last Alliance actually held Barad-d�r under seige... until Sauron finally came down and confronted them at the foot of Orodruin - or the Dark Mountain - there Gil-Galad and Elendil were Slain by Sauron, until the one ring was cut off his hand by Isildur.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Saw it yesterday. Thought it was a great film. I haven't read the books, although I might now, because I enjoyed the film a lot. The visuals were very good, as was the story. It's sort of a "Harry Potter" meets "A Clockwork Orange," but after seeing Harry Potter (which was aimed at a younger auidence), I welcomed a darker movie.
posted
You know... Harry Potter & LOTR: Wizards, magic, a sacred object. Clockwork Orange & LOTR: Torture, decapitated heads, fights, knives. Do you see the similarities?
posted
Yeah, but it doesn't have the black humour of A Clockwork Orange.
-------------------- "Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing. To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
The Battle of the Pelennor Fields.
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I would just like to say that I know several people who have read all three books who would in no way claim them to be the greatest work of fiction from the 20th century. Most of the criticisms were that the first book was a bit hard to get into, and the plot a little slow. They say it then picked up like a mad thing half way through book two.
Me, I dunno. I've only just finished Goblet of Fire, and The Fellowship of the Ring is next on my list.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I have read the Hobbit, the Lord of the Rings, and, now, the Silmarillon. All three are very good, and I think as a whole book are fantastic.
I have grievances on the movie. 1. Sauron. He is depicted as a stock villian with no real backstory. The books give more detail to his history. 2. Gollum. The movie gives the audience I think the mistaken opinion that Gollum is a man. For, as I believe the movie said, a Hobbit found the ring in the Misty Mountains. Gollum is a hobbit by the name of Smeagol who took the ring by force from his cousin. (The cousin died in the incident.) 3. Merry's sword. I have no trouble with removing the Tom Bombadil scenes. He is a minor character who is given 15 minutes of fame in the first book and mentioned very infrequently in the rest of the book. He is even considered irrelevent by the Riverdell Council. However, Merry's sword is important. Why? In the history of Arnor, a vanished kingdom, the rules of this land fought the Witch-King of Angmar. Long before the W-K was killed, the land of Arnor was destroyed and the last king of this land killed. He was buried in a barrow down which the hobbits visited. After surviving that harrowing experience, they recovered swords. One of these swords will belong to Merry uses it against the Lord of the Ring-wraith at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. This sword can cause injury to this wraith. The reason-the sword was forged to kill the W-K who happens to be the Lord of the Ringwraiths. 3. The sword of Elendil. In the book, this sword is carried by Aragorn. In the Prancing Pony, Gandald leaves a message to Frodo. With this message, Frodo is made aware of a friend of Gandalf. The friend of Gandalf will ride with a broken sword-the very same sword that Aragorn carries. With this sword reforged at Rivendell, Aragorn is able to fight his battles and prove his claim to the throne. 4. The Mirror of Galadriel. Sam sees the events that will transpire in the Shire later in the book. (Saruman will attempt to destroy the Shire.) 5. Amon Hen. At this hill, Frodo is able to see the armies of the enemy massing for war in the north-west of Middle Earth. In the movie, we only see the tower and given no indication that Sauron is calling upon allies. His only ally would appear to be from the movies Saruman.
Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Perhaps Sauron will be given more depth later on, but the bottom line still is that he's an "Incarnation of Evil" sort of enemy, all the bad things of the world put together. He needs a backstory as much as a tiger needs pajamas. We already see he has been fought once before, and knowledge has been lost. It's obvious that wasn't the first time this happened...
As for Gollum/Smeagol, his role in "Fellowship" was negligible. I trust we'll learn more in "Towers" and "Return", especially since the latter relies a lot on the character. Knowing too much too early is bad in the movie business.
Which I guess makes it a good idea not to have Gandalf write that message and reveal Aragorn's identity too early. The initial run from the Shire to Rivendell was IMHO cut to proper length and intensity this way.
I can't help but agree about Merri's sword, though. But how that much exposition could be worked into the story is a big problem.
The fact that Frodo didn't see armies massing doesn't worry me much. And he did see the ransacking of the Shire, in sufficient detail IMHO. It remains to be seen how the end of "Return" will be done - it's a bit anticlimatic the way it's written, but I hope it will be beefed up by some superfluous battle scenes or something, rather than by cutting out important bits...
posted
Whoop whoop! Saw it last night, absolutely loved it. Plus, I got to experience it not only after having read the book, but also through my girlfriend's reactions - she hasn't. OK, there were a few fright moments that had her leaping out of her seat that to me seemed absolutely telegraphed - that cave troll and the pillar - but apart from those near-heart-attacks she enjoyed it too. She was sad when Gandalf and Boromit died.
As for the changes, none seemed too bad. I suspect they'll bring up how Gollum got the ring in part 2, since it is all part of his character. I agree with Timo's assessment of Sauron, it's not like his motives were ever really delved into in the books anyway. As for Merry's knife, the whole thing about it turning out to be a blade designed to kill the Witch-King was clumsily done in the book anyway - far too much of a coincidence.
posted
Yes, and Eowyn inflicted the mortal wound with her plain sword. Of course, it shattered instantly whereas Merry's sword slowly melted. Eowyn also got more hurt by the contact through the sword than Merry, but this could also be attributed to the tougher fibre of hobbits.
Targetemployee, maybe you should add some spoiler-warnings about the last two books, there are some who haven't read them.
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Er.. Nimrod, you just did the same thing yourself!
I can't really talk, though, I spoiled it a bit on my brother and his gf, who haven't read the books. I told them, in a roundabout way, that $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Gandalf comes back. It was just that they were complaining about Gandalf being killed off. As for me, I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it couldn't have been made better. They left all the right bits out, and details like the time between Bilbo's disappearance and the beginning of Frodo's journey didn't alter the plot drastically.
I thought it was quite violent, in a powerfully effective way, for the rating it was given. I must go see it again.
BTW what do you think will be left out from the second book? The Ents would be prime candidates, in my opinion (I don't like the idea, seems too childish to me), although they play quite a major part in the book, with Merry and Pippin etc.
-------------------- "Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing. To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
The Battle of the Pelennor Fields.
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
They can hardly leave the Ents out; they play a major part. I hope they manage to keep the whole Rohan bit straight, it gets a bit confusing at times who's going where. I notice that no mention was made in the first film of Shadowfax. . .
posted
About Merry's sword - it's a coincidence I was reading up the Complete Guide to M-E by Robert Foster etc. and was flicking back and forth and I realised that there is no problem with omiting the Barrow-Wight scene. Merry's sword is now 'an Elven sword' given to him by Aragorn.
Spoilers ahead
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
That should do.
The fact that Merry's sword was a Barrow knife - doesn't really matter. Neither does it about any weapon - like Eowyns. The fact is or was that the prophecy was that no 'man' could kill the Witch-King/Head Nazg�l. It was a hobbit and a woman. It wasn't the sorwd being of Arnor - it did indeed have magics these could have originally been Elvish in origin anyway... cast about it - by whom is lost in time - but as mentioned above this seemed to only change the way the sword perished. They BOTH came under the Black-breath (Merry and Eowyn). Eowyn was particularly susceptible - says in the complete guide - because she had spent many a year doting on Th�oden. Plus she was enamoured with Aragorn and was overly concerned about him going the paths of the DEAD... plus she had to conceal her identity - she was already suffering before she took on the Witch-King. It comes down to Merry being a Hobbit and Eowyn being a Woman.
I'd LOVE to see (it'll never happen) some other stories of Middle-Earth being done by PJ... maybe a DVD extra!?! I'd love to see events such as the War after Sauron revealed the one ring - and Ost-in-Edhil was lost and nearly all of Eriador was lost until help came from N�menor - see "Unfinished Tales" Or maybe I hope PJ shows some of the events that take place after the destruction of the one ring - the Attacks on L�rien from Dol Guldur, The Ents wiping out the Orcs from giving up on L�rien and trying to invade Rohan. The Battle of the Dale, where Easterlings invade the northern lands and The Dwarves of Erebor and the men of Esgaroth and the Dale take them on - after a 3 day seige of the Lonely mountain. ALSO Galadriel and Celeborn crossing the Anduin and cleansing Dol Guldur and Mirkwood - helped by Thranduil - and eventually renaming Mirkwood - Eryn Lasgalen (The forest of Greenleaves)! (All mentioned in the Appendices!)
I wonder if we'll see Osgiliath or Pelagir or Dol Amroth!?!
Anyone reckon that they should maybe turn a part of the Silmarillion into a movie!?! Maybe Beren and Luthien!?!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
