The Lord of the Rings

[red indian]

one other thought.....

How is it all my mates are suddenly such experts on the works of JRR Tolkien? it seems I can not move in the pub for "learned sages" just arrived from their ivory towers for a quick pint of lager. Only a month ago no one gave a flying fuck about fairy stories.

 

[ReturntoGod]

RE

Well, I have waited a long, long time for these movies to come out. I've read the books and prequel (The Silmarillion) dozens of times. Needless to day, my expectations were very high!

All expectations were met. Yes, they got rid of Tom Bombadil. Yes, they increased the role of Arwen Evenstar. Yes, they greatly shortened the Councel of Elrond. Yes, they made some cheesy references to chapter titles in the books. Yes, they altered the characer of Galadriel from somone noble and sad to someone scary and sad.

However, all things considered, Peter Jackson did an exemplary job in making these movies. I had hoped for a seven on a scale of one to ten, I got a ten shoved in my face. In my opinion this is the best movie I have ever seen and it contains themes which very much apply to our times. We are facing an ultimate evil. We are seeing the dawn of a second darkness.

Tolkien was a devout Catholic who wrote about his experiences in WWII, but more than that, I think he wrote a tale that dealt with evil in all times and in all places. The ring is clearly a symbolic representation for materialism. The ring corrupts all those that carry and desire for it. Much as power, wealth, sex, greed, etc, etc, etc, corrupt all men who desire such things.

I'd love to write more on this, but I fear being longwinded 🙂

I hope you all enjoy the moive and the coming sequels,
Scott
http://www.calltochrist.com

 

[dvnc]

Ah, you didn't read it eleventeen times as a kid...

THAT explains it! You didn't read it a bunch as a youth. I can't imagine HOW one would follow it without reading it at least once.

That folks are talkin' like scholars about this, over pints, is just funny.

dvnc

 

[TicklingIsLife]

Should they make The Hobbit into a movie?
Kinda like what Star Wars did, make 3 then a prequel?
🙂 😀

 

[Darkknight]

Loved it, seen it twice. Gasp.. going again Saturday. 🙂

Read the books as a kid, loved them.
No movie can truely take from what is in your imagination to the big screen but I was grateful for the job they did.
I agree with Dave about it feeling like Middle Earth.

The Ring Wraiths were the exact duplicates to what I had in my mind as a kid and sounded damn wicked. Amazing.

DK

 

[XCalli21]

One thing about FOTR...

Any other "The Matrix" fans in here? Or more specifically, anyone else who, the first time Elrond came on the screen, sat up straight and exclaimed/thought, "It's Agent Smith!" In this case, about a quarter of the theater did. 🙂

Other than that strange juxtaposition...I think it had to be one of the best I've ever seen. It just narrowly beat out Harry Potter in my mind, probably just because it lasted longer. The Ringwraiths were beautiful. The Balrog was...tall. And the dwarf was the epitome of all dwarfishness. Any of us who had ever had experience with D&D and gaming laughed our heads off whenever Gimli did anything, because it's exactly the way we play *our* dwarves.

This movie was so great because for fantasy lovers, this was the beginning, and we could see for the first time what it looked like. Or at least that's my take on it. 🙂

Calliope
[email protected]

 

[Darkknight]

Calliope,

Too funny... we laughed when ever the Dwarf spoke as it was how all Dwarves spoke in D&D. Guess we weren't the only ones!

And being a big Matrix buff, I totally tried to erase.. "Mr Anderson...." coming from Elrond. The 2nd time around was easier. 🙂

DK

 

[R. Davis]

Lord of the rings

The best movie I've seen in 2001. Couldn't been done any better. Can't wait for the the rest of the trilogy!

 

[Cyrano]

I really enjoyed this movie. Though I have heard some drama buffs complain about how a film should stand on it's own regardless. About following the film without reading the books, my brother, his friend, and my friend had never read the books and didn't have one question, and we had many conversations about the movie. I don't think it's a problem with the movie, I think it's a problem with perception for some.
I was disappointed they favored Arwen over Glorfindel, who just happened to be my favorite character. I can understand why they removed ol' Tom. If people, who hadn't read the books, found this film to be strange....what would they think about Bombadill? He was one odd cat. I agree that they should have spent much more time in Lothlorien. They didn't even receive their gifts. I enjoyed how they drew out the shire and the parties a bit more, but I don't think they should have done so over scenes they removed.
Personally, I almost laughed when Elrond exclaimed, "We must destroy it," He sounded just like Agent Smith when he said that, but I think he did a great job, was well as every actor in the film. I was glad to see Golum did not have talons, as most cartoons portray him, and the Balrog was more than I imagined it, what a great new outlook, I'll think of it that way forever. Overall, I thought it was a great movie.

 

[Dr|zzt]

when i first found out that hugo Weaving was playing elrond... i sent this email to all my inbox with a pic of him and a caption saying " the names elrond, agent elrond" -- "you half elves all look the same to me!"

got quite a few laughs - i really expected him to say "hnumans are week - they are a plague - and we elves are the cure".. the funny thing is he used the same voice for both movies...

no really tho... he was great as elrond.

 

[TicklingIsLife]

Be sure to check out the Lord of the Rings Poll
🙂 😀

 

[TicklingIsLife]

I finally saw it.......
probably the best movie I have ever seen!


TicklingIsLife gives it 2million thumbs up! 😛 😉

 

[Dr|zzt]

went to see it again monday night, 5th time now. 🙂 its getting the better of me.

 

[summerdaez]

I have to say, I was honestly blown away by this movie. I absolutely worship the trilogy and the Hobbit, but even I was pleasantly surprised by the depth and power of the movie. Two huge, enthusiastic thumbs up!!! It also helps that I think Elijah Wood is like one of the hottest guys on the planet Lol. But I was also taken aback by Orlando Bloom (Legolas). He was wonderful! Anyways, I'll be seeing it again this weekend for the 4th time 🙂😀

 

[TicklingIsLife]

...and the say its dropping in the box office...😛

 

[tummyticklish01]

I've never read the books, but i saw the movie, but now i wanna read the book!

 

[Biscuit]

A few quick words

First of all, I am an unabashed Tolkien fan. Have been since before he was assigned reading in most university advanced lit classes, practically since the dawn of time. That said:

The movie was deeply stirring, humorous, and obviously meant to lead into another film. It was truly NOT meant to stand alone, and more than the Fellowship of the Ring did. Epic fantasy cannot be told adequately in a single film. To those who spout on about standing on it's own merits, I suggest you see all of them before passing judgement, since they are meant as a trilogy, not a series. Let me explain:


A series is another movie set with recognizable characters or locations, in the same "world" if you will, but does not necessarily continue the original plotline or story.

A trilogy is meant to be viewed or read as a whole, the parts do not stand alone, nor are they really meant to. Enough said.


Did you know that there have been no less than three attempted movies based on the Lord of the Rings or the prelude, the Hobbit? The preceding attempts have been without exception shallow attempts to tell a simple story that was never really meant as a children's tale to children. Some bright hollywood star apparently got the idea that kids would "like the little Hobbits". Sigh...

None of these movies had any real depth of storyline or insight into the soul of Tolkien's works. To give an obvious example, the One Ring of power was a cute little toy that let you turn invisible, hee hee, in all of these putrid films. I firmly believe that Tolkien watches somewhere, with satisfaction.

There have already been several great reviews, so I'll just add a few personal comments here.

Dwarves, unfortunately, seem to be always stereotyped into simplistic "ale and axe" characters. I dearly hope to see some more Dwarvish character development in the next movie, as well as the interplay between him and the tree-dwelling, pointy eared one. Dwarves have deep, abiding passions and souls, but tend to be portrayed as dullards because they don't dance lightly through the treetops. "An elf sitting in a tree may fall for several hundred feet, but a dwarf sitting on a rock has a shorter fall" pretty much sums up their outlook.

The RingWraiths were portrayed exactly as they should be, especially good use of sound and silence to give an effect that lasts long after the film.

I'll be interested to see if SamWise's character is given the sympathy and importance he achieves in the books. His steadfast love and courage in the face of adversity and temptation are the very heart and soul of heroism, much more so that the sword-wielding characters who take center stage throughout most of the books. His return to the Shire at the conclusion of the trilogy is one of my favorite parts of the books, bar none.

Ok, I'll shut up now. I liked the movie, and eagerly await the continuation.

😉

 

[guffaw]

RE: Biscuit--LOTR

I liked it myself. I agree with all your comments Bisc, but have one to add in regards to portrayal of characters. Namely: Where is Tom Bombadill? He's always left out, be it Bashi's animation or the current movie. He's been my favorite character--fun-loving, one of the Eldest of Middle Earth, and not taking anything too terribly seriously. A lifestyle I easily model myself after.😉

Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow, his jacket's blue and his boots are yellow!--A slave to fashion.

Guff

 

[Biscuit]

Actually,

I agree with the decision to not include Bombadil. While I always found him intriguing, his character is far from central to the story, and as it was, the movie was 3 hours long! I would have quite happily sat through another three hours, but I doubt most audiences would agree. Thing's got to make money, to pay for expenses (ever the pragmatist...)

😉

 

[Strelnikov]

A Dissenting View

I read The Hobbit and the Ring Trilogy 30 years ago, and was Bored of the Rings half-way through the first book. I slogged through the rest, hoping they would get better. They didn't. Tolkien needed a decent editor, who would have whacked the doggrel verse, the long winded speeches, and the long narratives when nothing much happens. The result would have been a tight, fast-paced story that would fit into an $8.95 paperback.

I haven't seen the movie. A friend who has said that the time compression imposed by the movie format addresses my complaint. Maybe I'll rent the video.

Strelnikov

 

[Prime]

yep sometimes books have a way of going into deep explainations and in depth stuff that can bore you to death during the down time...i never read the books...i saw both the hobbit cartoons when i was a kid..i liked them...so on that i wanted to see what happened next.. i found the movie excellant ...for as long a movie as it was it kept me interested and had surprisingly little downtime ..or time with no action....i think just about everyone would like it that has the slightest interest in science fiction and fantasy.