The Lord of the Rings

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
I'm curious what people thought about the movies? Did you like them? Do you think they were faithful to the books and to Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth?
 

Goblin

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
145
Reaction score
2
Location
Erie, Pa - USA
Country
llUnited States
I liked them, but admit to being a bit put-off by deviations from the books. Still damn good though.


Goblin
 

Cheetah772

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
316
Reaction score
0
Location
Silver Spring, MD
Country
llUnited States
Hello,

When I began watching the movie, I soon realized the fantasy genre wasn't just my thing...I wasn't too impressed with them. They were long and full of gibberish...I nearly fell asleep...

Never understood why so many people are obsessed with LOTR thing...

But then that's just me. :D

Dan
 

JAMiAM

TOAW III Project Manager
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
1
Location
Standing in the way
I have the extended versions of the first two on DVD, and the inclusion of the extra minutes cut from the theatrical releases go a long way toward filling in some of the gaps that really should have never existed in the first place.

That said - I was mildly surprised at the generally faithful spirit of the movies to the books. My biggest gripe was in the first movie's conversion of Glorfindel into Arwen at the Fords of Bruinen, followed by the Third Movie's perverting of Faramir (albeit briefly) where he shows much more of a temptation to bring the Ring to Gondor, including that ridiculous detour to Osgiliath while it was under attack.

Oh well...I could go on, but the kids are hungry.
 

SoccerDJ

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
552
Reaction score
6
Location
On your left flank..
Country
ll
I've seen all three movies at least 4 times if not more. I absoultly love them. They are some of the greatest movies. I enjoy the attention to detail and the soundtrack alot. I have read all three books as well and was a little dissapointed to see some deviation. But if they had included everything I think that would have made the to long. However I still would have sat and watched them:nuts: All that to saw I thought Peter Jackson did a good job of putting a books into movies. Most movies based on books are absoultly horrible because the barely follow the book. Yes LOTR are defintly awesome:love:
 

JAMiAM

TOAW III Project Manager
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
1
Location
Standing in the way
I was originally a little upset that Tom Bombadil wasn't portrayed in the movie, but considering how much time it would have taken to do his role in the books any justice, it would have added at lest 15 minutes to the film, and especially in the first one, which had some high standards to set so the following movies would continue to draw, I can see how leaving him out would be the best thing to do.
 

Prester John

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
Don Maddox said:
I'm curious what people thought about the movies? Did you like them? Do you think they were faithful to the books and to Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth?
I saw the movies once each in the cinama and the first one about four times on TV, and thought they were a good bit of hack and slash. I also thought it was a good idea to tell a longer story over three installments and enjoyed the effort the production crew went to with the sets and outdoor shots.

Then I decided to read the book after reading about how Tolkien was influenced by WW2 in his writing and had something more to say then how a little guy and his mates got rid of a bad guy and his ring. Three quarters of the way through the book and I have decided to buy the extended DVD's to see all the extra bits. Evidently Peter Jackson is still working on the third one and may even be still filming extra bits before it's release in November (I think). The reason for wanting the DVD's is to see if they make sense out of the variations from the book (as opposed to the omissions which I'm not too worried about). I expect that the changes to the battles and roles of the secondary characters were just for dramatic effect to make the whole story flow better on film, but I would have been happier if things had been a little bit more true to what I am now reading. That might have caused more problems with secondary charactor development though and turned it into four movies and not three.
 

Priest

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
2
Location
Denver, Colorado
I've seen the first two and all in all I am pleased with them, I too was a little put off by the absence of Tom Bombadil, but, with the movies clocking in at 3+ hrs I can understand why Jackson decided to drop him.
 

MikeJ

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2003
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
I really enjoyed them. I have a soft spot for a good old epic. I could have done without the hairy, hobbit feet though.
 

screamer

Member
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
393
Reaction score
0
Location
's-Hertogenbosch. NL
Country
llNetherlands
i agree about the tom bombaldil absence, i really really liked that part in the book.

overall i think they are really good movies. however i think they are somewath overrated/hyped since you are likely to see all 3 movies in the same top ten list, or overhere, in one list published by a tv station all 3 in the top 3.
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
I agree with JAMiAM about Faramir. I do understand why Tom Bombadil was cut out as it would have taken up too much time and was basically incidental to the story, however, I don't see any good reason for altering the situation with Farmamir. If anything, what they did took up even more than than what was in the book!

The extended version does go a very long way in making up for some of the missing stuff. The Two Towers, in particular, was really improved with the extra scenes. I find the shortened version to be disjointed and somewhat hard to follow. The extra scenes bring the movie up to the level it always should have been.

Of all three movies, the deviations in Return of the King upset me the most. These are among some of the most important moments in the entire triolgy as Tolkein finally gives the reader what he/she has been craving since page one! I don't understand why certain aspects of that were changed as the original didn't take up more time, nor was the original in need of any extra "kick." This annoyed me to some extent, although the battles were still good. In particular, I was annoyed that the big confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch King of Angmar was deleted, and I also didn't care much for the way the incident at the orc tower was done. I won't go through the whole list, but the deviations in the third movie were more significant than in the other two and I found them unecessary for the most part.

Still, I give Jackson a lot of credit. Surely these are the best fantasy films every created and they are very good.
 

Reepicheep

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
34
Location
Toowoomba, QLD
Country
llAustralia
Don Maddox said:
Of all three movies, the deviations in Return of the King upset me the most. These are among some of the most important moments in the entire triolgy as Tolkein finally gives the reader what he/she has been craving since page one! I don't understand why certain aspects of that were changed as the original didn't take up more time, nor was the original in need of any extra "kick." This annoyed me to some extent, although the battles were still good.
The good news is that the extended edition of the Return of the King is supposed to include an extra 60 minutes or thereabouts of footage that wasn't able to make it into the film. I can hardly wait till November, or whenever it is that it comes out.

I really would have loved to have seen the scouring of the shire included... I understand some of the reasons why it wasn't included... yet, it still would have been nice to see.

Overall though, I think Peter Jackson provided us an excellent visualisation of Tolkien's Middle Earth, even if the deviations from Tolkien were sometimes unfortunate. Most of the characters were also just as I imagined them. But it's in terms of the visuals that I really got blown away.
 

Wolfe Tone

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Messages
407
Reaction score
0
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Country
llIreland
The Lord of the Rings film Trilogy has certainly turned out to be huge commercial success story. Well deserved too.

I went to the first film expecting to be disappointed as books turned into films usually are. However I really enjoyed it and Jackson’s determination to stay true to the storyline (well almost!). OK Tom Bombadil wasn’t there but IIRCS the Company spent just one night there. Then there was the drowning of the Ringwraiths, which was not in the book, but hey the lovely Liv was there instead so I wasn’t complaining.

I went to the second film expecting to be really entertained and found that I was a bit disappointed overall. For some reason the pace was a bit too dry. Though there were great scenes as well. The breaking of the Company was very well done, the Ents were fantastic special effects but of course Gollum stole the show.

Given the hype leading up to the final film of the series I decided to try and keep an open mind until I had time to see it and think it over. I must say overall I enjoyed it. The battle scenes were great with plenty of action. The way Gollum baits Sam and Frodo up the stairs of Cirith Ungol and into Shelob’s lair was high drama at it’s best.

As was the final end to their journey, when Gollum and Frodo grapple for the Ring on the edge of Mount Doom.

The final part when Frodo departs for the West was moving too. Though perhaps to those not steeped in the books this was an unnecessary afterthought. It seems to have put some reviewers off anyway.

As for the Lord of the Rings as a book it stands as one of the great works of Modern English Literature IMO. Why? Because it recreates a whole world in great detail that encompasses many of the great stories and traditions of Western European storytelling. He interwove and altered somewhat many Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Norse, Germanic and Roman mythological tales within his work.

Some people have criticised Tolkien as being a bad writer who should have kept to his studies of old Anglo Saxon manuscripts. Maybe they forgot that he was a Professor of English at Oxford University, and also a literate man of the first order. His writing consists of good English geared towards a reading public not particularly in search of a work full of words only found in dictionaries. Hence I think one of the reasons it has such a large following. No doubt the LOTR also appeals to those with a spirit for adventure and possessing a certain level of unconventional’ imagination!

Tolkien was concerned that the English people had lost their legends and myths, which he rightly considered to be an important part of the conciseness of a Nation. He had spent the most influential years of his youth living in the English countryside amongst the villagers and peasants who could trace their ancestry back to the Anglo Saxons of the 5th Century. Their way of life was only just beginning to change in Tolkien’s youth and it was this older way of life, rather than the brash new Age of Machines that appealed to him.

The storyline never flags throughout an ever-changing background of scenery and characters. Some have described the characters in LOTR as ‘wooden’ and lacking depth but I did not find them so. To me they are ‘live’ personas, who I can empathise with. I think about their battles, struggles and fears regularly and I suppose if there is a moral lesson to be learnt it is that the struggle against evil is something that we must never surrender to. Nor must we be afraid to resort to the sword to protect our communities and our friends, even when the odds look hopeless. Even Sauron had feet of clay once the source of his power had been destroyed.
 

Goblin

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
145
Reaction score
2
Location
Erie, Pa - USA
Country
llUnited States
The drowning of the Ringwraiths' horses was in the books, but it was Glorfindel that did it, with Gandalf adding the foaming horses, IIRC.

I wanted to see the barrow on the Barrow Downs. That would have been a cool part.


Goblin
 
Top