's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Anyone seen Lord of the Rings yet?(11 posts)

Anyone seen Lord of the Rings yet?Sintesi
Dec 21, 2001 8:45 AM
Even at three hours it's a blur, and so much was left out that would have helped establish the characters better, still better than expected. Jackson realy got the sense of evil correct and kept it from being too corny. Insane attention to detail and the most awesome sets. Mines of Moria, Lothlorien? Incredbly cool. I liked it.
My buddy the movie critic loved itcory
Dec 21, 2001 10:38 AM
I share an office with the movie critic at our newspaper. He loved it, said it's probably the best film he's seen this year. Nothing but praise.
I never got around to reading the books, and I'm not a big fan of special effects movies, so I dunno if I'll even see it. But he's the man.
Yeah if your not into elves and goblins. . .Sintesi
Dec 21, 2001 11:09 AM
this ain't going to be your movie. 30% of the movie is special effects of one sort or another but definitely done with intelligence and care. It's not typical Hollywood.
I loved the books as a child so it was a special treat for me. Judging by the crowds and audience reaction though, I'm not sure this is going to be as huge success as they are projecting.
Thumbs upMe Dot Org
Dec 21, 2001 3:17 PM
No, it isn't 100% faithful to the book, but I think it's a wonderful adaptation. The movie feels like the book.

Some things were not as good as my imagination, but many were better. I think Jackson had a very difficult tightrope to walk between making a movie that was 100% faithful to the book and one that could engage viewers who had never read the book, and I think he did a masterful job.

BTW, if this movie prompts anyone to see some of Jackson's earlier work, I would reccommend Heavenly Creatures.
we went last night (warning, minor spoilers)lonefrontranger
Dec 21, 2001 3:20 PM
I totally loved it. Overwhelmed. Blown away. I don't think there are enough superlatives in the language.

I felt the changes that were made made were appropriate, especially for the benefit of all those who never read the book and/or aren't total JRRT geeks (like myself) who lived and died for everything Tolkien as a YA. There has also been a lot of discussion that material necessarily left on the cutting room floor for sake of brevity will resurface in a "non-rated" Director's Cut DVD version, and I eagerly await that interpretation as well.

I'm a Tolkien nut. However, I will admit (probably going to get burned at the stake here) that the books are incredibly convoluted and wordy, are difficult reads, and are at times almost needlessly trivial in detail. The changes made to the movie for sake of plot logic and pacing were very well thought out. For example, the interpretation of Liv Tyler's character was a brilliant adaptation done to replace a secondary and somewhat pointless "loose end" character as well as provide more drama, motivation and immediacy to a character who in Tolkien's books was rendered (I felt) sadly and unnecessarily remote. Story line, scenes, dialogue and characters essential to drive the plot were faithfully rendered in loving detail. When Frodo puts on the ring, the "wraith world" he sees is vividly hallucinatory, exactly as I'd imagined from the books.

I think folks should cast aside the hype and any preconceived notions to go see this film, as well as the opinions of both the professionals and armchair critics like myself. Go with an open mind and take your sense of wonder. Everyone who has read JRRT has their own, "treasured" view of how the story should look. The movie adaptation may or may not correspond in every sense, but as a film and screenplay it was (IMO) the most moving media experience I've ever witnessed.
Ain't It Cool NewsTig
Dec 21, 2001 8:06 PM
Here's my favorite film critic's website. Harry is just a big ol' jr college dropout that still lives at home who has become one of the most popular critics due to his unique point of view and writing style.
I think he liked it.(nm)I AM
Dec 21, 2001 10:49 PM
I gave it a 7 out of 10....Len J
Dec 23, 2001 3:49 PM
but there were still disappointments.

#1 disappointment was Liv Tyler's character Arwen. Talk about something that was only added to put people in the seats. Sorry LFR, but I thought this was transparent.

#2 disappointment was Gandalf. He had nowhere near the "presence" that he had in the book, he was way to accessable, not mysterious enough.

#3 disappointment was Aragorn. I have not found a female yet that agrees with me on this BTW, but I felt like his character was cast as someone searching for himself, someone who needed a women to save him (you watch, Arwen will do just that in the next two movies). In the Book he is very sure of who he is and is waiting for prophecy to come true to fulfill his role. There is very little if any wrestling with who he is like you see in the movie.

#4 disappointment is that they don't explore the Gimli/Legolis friendship enough. I understand that they had to cut something (or each movie would have been 7 hours) but this was one of my favorite parts.

All that being said, I really did like it. The rest of the cast is wonderful, the imagry is great, the changes in the timeline to make it have some continuity really work well, and the Orcs............The Orcs were perfect.

It's probably obvious, but I have read the books around 20 or so times. I kept being pulled out of the story by what was missing. But I really do think that it was great.

But I really do disagree about Arwen.

Dec 26, 2001 6:19 AM
Egads, I just realized it's been 28 years since I read Lord of the Rings. My, my but time does fly.

I saw Fellowship with my wife and 15-year-old daughter on Christmas Eve day. My wife was bored (go figure). My daughter had already seen it with a friend and it was her second time. She'll probably see it 30 or so times ... until she runs out of allowance.

Working from memory I thought it was a faithful adaptation. The wraith world segments when Frodo wears the ring were absolutely fabulous. I think the interpretation was dead on.

When we got home I got my dusty three-volume set of Lord out of the attic. My daughter is now working her way through The Fellowship and I've started the Two Towers. She's already half way through it in 1.5 days.

LFR, I think your opinion is very well said and accurate.

Not that Jackson lurks on RBR but my thanks to him for reawakening some magic from my youth.
You are all geeks. get a life . this movie sucks dongs (nm)Frodohata
Dec 26, 2001 10:00 AM
excellent (caveat too)Duane Gran
Dec 31, 2001 8:58 AM
I was very impressed by the movie, but I suspect that people who haven't read the book will be somewhat confused. Because of the volume of content I did sort of feel like I was whipped from one intense scene to the next without much transition and mental break.

My girlfriend found some parts of the movie to be downright terrifying and I have heard others say they found it scary. I personally don't scare easily by movies and found it gripping, but just a little warning. This isn't a children's movie in my opinion. I heard one woman describe the movie as akin to sitting in an airplane for 3 hours in the middle seat.

It's a guy movie, and as a guy I totally dug it. Go see it with the fellas, but I wouldn't make a date of it.