BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 07:11 PM

Lepus, If Jacksons ONLY purpose in making the movie was to please Tolkien fans, then he should have made it longer.    However, his intention was to make a good movie that would appeal to a wider range. The elements that you mention worked wonderfully in the book (I have since read Fellowship) but it would have made the film tedious to the person who goes to watch a good movie. More detail would have bogged down the production and destroyed the flow of the film. As I said earlier, it isn't fair to compare the book with the film - they are two different mediums with two different creative visions. Enjoy each of them for what they have to offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Homeless
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 10:01 PM

Dave -
the question wasn't meant to be purely academic. The reason I ask is because of how the first movie ended... or didn't. It seemed to me as the credits started rolling that it should have read "to be continued" or something. There just didn't seem to be resolution to much of anything that had happened. My thought was that maybe for those that know the whole story that the lack of resolution was acceptable, but for those of us who don't know the story it seemed to be incomplete. (I've found that when I'm stretching someone's brain I'm sometimes over-vague, usually because I don't want to ask leading questions - I want a response unbiased by my opinion.)

Ron - thanx to you too for answering that question. I hadn't meant to be excluding you, or anyone else, from my questions. I'd just been addressing them to Dave since he's the one who'd started the thread. So is the first movie based on The Hobbit? If you found the last quarter anticlimatic, could that explain why it seems to be left unresolved to me?

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Naemanson
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 11:13 PM

I'm going to see it at noon tomorrow WITH MY KIDS! YEEEHAW!

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 11:31 PM

No, the story of the Hobbit was only briefly touched upon in flashbacks (Bilbo finding the ring).   My problem with the Hobbit book was that the first 3/4 of the book captured my attention with Bilbo, Gandalf and their quest. The book ended with this rather odd "war" that I felt was a quick way of ending the story. It has been many years since I read it and perhaps it deserves a re-read.

I actually felt that Jackson ended the first movie rather smartly, "borrowing" from Tolkien's second book to give a more satisfying end for a movie. There are many movies that are left unresolved, the first one that comes to mind is The Graduate. I think the director sets up an ending to give the viewer something to think about.

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Alice
Date: 20 Dec 02 - 12:14 AM

Still haven't seen TTT, but after Ryan went for the second time last night, he said he no longer was bothered by the differences the movie TTT and the book. He was accepting that the movie would never be the book and that they are both great.

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 02 - 04:03 AM

Guest above was indeed me being cookieless on Son number 3's computer while he was out watching TTT for the second time!

I understand now Homeless. The first film did indeed lack resolution and if that spoiled your enjoyment it was a great shame. As I thought everyone was aware that this was a trilogy I assumed it did not need to have 'To be continued; at the end but perhaps not everyone did know that!

Now that you do know will you re-visit it with renewed enthusiasm?

I think it is rather a pity if you do not as surely that would exclude from you enjoying anything that is made as a trilogy, series or in multiple parts. I am sure that you must have read, seen or listened to many serialised stories without them being lessened at all? Does it not just add to the anticipation of the next installment?

Take no notice of the people that say you have to have read the books. In fact make sure you do NOT read the books before Janualy 2004! Enjoy it as an extended soap opera and i am sure you will see it in a different light:-)

Cheers

Dave the Elf...

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Dec 02 - 06:49 AM

I've only seen the first one & am not going to bother with the others. Yes 10 out of 10 for the special effects & if that's what you like then great. O out of 10 for following the story & developing the characters, I agree totally with Mudlark on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: mkebenn
Date: 20 Dec 02 - 07:26 AM

Saw it yesterday. LOVED IT. The only thing that bothered me is that I don't recall Faramir being quite so, well, Boromirish. And how do I keep my wife from noticing my deeping passion for Liv Tyler? Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 02 - 07:27 AM

Mmmmmm - sort of follow you, Guest. The story was not followed exactly but I did not have a problem with that. I can see how some would.

I think you may be quite surprised at the Character development in the second though, particularly the relationships between Frodo and Sam and Legolas and Gimli. The charater of Gollum is the best I have seen in a long while.

Although I am a long term Tolkien fan I can see that the criticisms leveled about his characterisations not being the best certainly hold water in a lot of cases. Some other writers certainly have deeper and more complicated characters but I believe that LOTR is primarily a story and do not worry too much about believing in or relating to the players.

Peter Jackson has, in my mind, taken some of those issues and made a lot of the characters much more understandable. After the last film and subseqent re-read of the book, I certainly saw Boromir and Elrond in a whole new light.

Give it a whirl - what can you loose but 3 hours of your time and a few quid!!! Let us know what you think. (Constructively of course) :-)

Cheers

Dave the Orc

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Grab
Date: 20 Dec 02 - 08:28 AM

Not seen the second one, but I was blown away by the first one. I could have happily had much longer on that, particularly on some bits which were rushed and so didn't really stand up, like the meetings with Elrond and Galadriel which are important characterisation elements.

In reply to Mudlark and Homeless:-

The good-guy/bad-guy themes you know are going to be in there before you see the film. This is a fantasy film, like Star Wars, Harry Potter, Conan, etc. Or for that matter like Dirty Harry, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, etc. There will be some good guys, and some bad guys.

In point of fact though, LotR *isn't* just good guys and bad guys - the whole reason the ring gets lost originally is that an originally-good guy gets tempted by the ring and dies; Boromir goes roughly the same way, but his last stand gives him redemption; Saruman was Gandalf's teacher/best-friend but sells his soul for power; the elves and dwarves hate each other (something which was cut is some major character development on this for Gimli); and the film has showed Elrond having real doubts about whether the elves should be helping at all, or whether they should just leave the "lesser races" to their fate.

Re the effects, I didn't think they were impressive either. I thought they were *seamless*. A good effect *shouldn't* jump up and down and say "Look at me!!!" The only times I thought it didn't work were in some of the long-shot stuff - long shots of the two elf towns, the big statues on the river, and a few of the "flying" shots around Saruman's tower. They didn't really do much for the story.

The tall/short bits you didn't notice, because they always worked perfectly. The ring effects I thought worked well, and the battle scenes were just stunning.

Regarding the film not tying up loose ends, I don't know of anyone who doesn't know it's the first of three films. I really don't see how that can be a criticism, any more than you can criticise Empire Strikes Back or other mid-series films for leaving loose ends.

Re developing the characters, that *is* a problem; I agree on that front. When cuts were made, a lot of those cuts were in the character development stuff. Another 15 minutes or so of conversation might have helped - I know (from the extended DVD) that these scenes were filmed but were left out of the final cut.

Ad for Guest's criticism of not following the story, who cares? Jackson's added a lot, and the first film at least was a better film for that. Elrond, Boromir and Aragorn all have much more depth than in the books, which is only a good thing. What makes a book is not what makes a film, and thank god Jackson understood that.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 02 - 08:33 AM

And what Grab just said...

Dave the Wizard

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Homeless
Date: 20 Dec 02 - 11:46 AM

Good gravy, Dave^dim, you have been having identity crisis problems lately, haven't you?

I did realize that is was one of three movies, but what I didn't realize was that it was basically the first installment of a mini-series, so to speak. Since others have used Star Wars as an example, I'll continue with it. When the first Star Wars came out, and I mean first by the one released in 1977, it was a complete and entire movie. When you watched that movie, it was a complete story in and of itself and you could leave and not need to watch any following movie.
But when Empire came out, I left the theater feeling like it was nothing more than a set up for the third one. That how the first LotR left me feeling. Like after the screen blacked out that there would be a commercial and then we'd get right back into the next reel. Serialized books are the same way to me. Yes I've read serials that have the same characters, but I detest books that seem like they just stop in the middle. I feel like I need to look to see if someone tore some pages out or something.

I don't think any given story should have complete resolution to the point that there can be no follow up, but it should resolve whatever conflicts are opened. For instance, how many horror movies end with the supposedly dead monster starting to twitch back to life?

Grab has hit on many of the things that did bother me, tho by no means all of them. The effects for instance. IMO, a special effect should only be used if it adds something to the story line. But in this instance it seemed like a lot of them were there because someone operates under the philosophy that "more is better". The same with the sets. There were some exquisite, detailed, ornate sets there that I would have loved to have studied at my leisure. But they just passed across them in a 5 second pan of the camera. I think that motion pictures was the wrong medium to present those. The artwork book mentioned above is much better. The clutter in the fast pan was just too distracting to enjoy.

A week ago I told my girlfriend there was no way in heck I was gonna go see this new one with her. But now I think you guys have me convinced to give it a try. Tho I still haven't decided if I'll go this year, or wait until next year so that I can see them all back to back and get the whole story at once.

One more thing. I've been well known in the past for being over-analytical. The people I used to work with called me "The Freak" because of it. From what a lot of you LotR proponents have said, it looks like you have noticed many of the things about the movie that bothered me, but for you it wasn't a distraction from the story. So maybe it's just my personality that kept me from enjoying the movie more.

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 20 Dec 02 - 05:57 PM

Much has been said of reasons the film is as it is. Films probably shouldn't try to be books and vice versa. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a good film made from a good book but the focus of each is different. The trilogy is a wonderful creation which I have read at least a dozen times (and I ALWAYS read the Hobbit first) I can't say that the books are better than the film. I have always preferred the "pictures in my mind" to those presented to me on the screen, with some notable exceptions. LOTR is one of those exceptions (another one is The Saragossa Manuscript, another The Wizard of Oz) I truly enjoy the LOTR as a read (when I have the time) and I truly enjoy LOTR as a film (when I don't). We were supposed to see TTT today but my friend came down with a raging case of flu so we will wait 'til after Christmas. I missed Tom Bombadil and while Merry and Pippin seem like total asses in the film I DO recall that I felt the same way about them in the book. I am looking forward to the great and seemingly hopeless battle for Helm's Deep. Already, even though I haven't see TTT, I wish The Return of the King were out too.

CB

PS I had sent my two boxed copies (Houghton-Mifflin's attractively presented set) to my daughters about three years ago. I thought I would replace them and stopped at Border Books to pick them up. YIKES!!! the two together cost over $100!!! I'm sure I didn't pay anywhere NEAR that when I bought them originally. $75 for the Lord of the Rings boxed set and $35 for the boxed Hobbit! Greed!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 20 Dec 02 - 06:16 PM

I really enjoyed the movies - I and II - and look forward to the final installment. For me it took what I had read, and reread, multiple times and put faces and sounds to the characters. And real pictures of the varying places the stories took place in.

I'm clear that it is a story like most others but still believe it to be worth watching. It was like reading the book with moving pictures to clarify what I was reading. But then I tend to be pretty visual.

A very exciting adventure story -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Naemanson
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 09:36 AM

Disappointed.

I hate to think I'm the kind of person who expected the movie to mirror the book but I came away disappointed in the movie.

I THINK my problem is with the treatment of the characters. The Rohirim were much nobler in the books than what Jackson put on the screen. Eomer stood by his king and uncle in the midst of the battle. They were cognizant of Gondor's difficulties and knew no help COULD come from there not that no help WOULD come from Gondor. Gandalf brought more than

Faramir found out about the ring and experienced the same struggle as his brother. But he was able to overcome that struggle. In the movie he is just an automaton following his father's orders.

I couldn't let go of these thoughts as I watched the movie. But that doesn't mean I hated it. These things made it difficult to enjoy it. I need to see it again and try to let go of the books.

Go ahead. Heap oppobrium upon my head.

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 09:47 AM

Going to see it tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 10:51 AM

Letting go of the books is a key, otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges. While one becomes the basis for the other, each has to accomplish different things.

I remember when I was in high school I read the book M*A*S*H* before I saw the movie or the TV show.   While it may not have been great literature, the book had a profound effect on me. Maybe because I was going through my high school years, but the way the characters actions were used as a method to cope with the situation struck a chord in me. Then I saw the film, which was a great anti-war movie, but that was not the theme of the book.   Then came the TV show, which carried on the anti-war theme but altered the characters where they became unrecognizable from the book and film.   IF I were to let my preconceived notions of the book become my benchmark, I would never have appreciated the genius of Altman's film, nor would I have recognized the importance of that TV series in changing the television landscape.

The same with LOTR.   Sure, the characters in the film are saying different words and reacting in different ways then the book said they would, but so what?   This isn't a documentary, this is Jackson's INTERPETATION OF THE BOOK.   I give him a great deal of credit for recongized elements that would have turned the story into something that wouldn't translate to the cinema and altering them to produce a story that would. 99% of the audience that sees the film will never have read the books, and they won't care if Arwen's role is expanded, or the Rohirim were nobler, Tom Bombadill did not appear, or Frodo had a mole on his left butt cheek.   These elements are what make Tolkien's books a fine read, but they won't necessarily make a great movie that will appeal to more than just Tolkien fans.

Jacksons role is as a storyteller. Like any good story, it will take on a new personality from the point of view of the teller. Jackson recognized his medium and dealt with it in a way that makes MOST Tolkien fans happy, and more importantly will draw MORE people into the world that Tolkien created.

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Homeless
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 11:27 AM

Ron - I'm confused by your last statement. Why is it more important to draw more people into the world that Tolkien created? Is this just from a profits point of view, or is there something more there?

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Hollowfox
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 12:01 PM

mkebenn, if you'll overlook her deepening passion for Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, or (her choice here), I think she'll overlook your thoughts for Liv Tyler. *g*
Coyote Breath, I'm with you all the way about books/movies and vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 12:02 PM

In the early Eighties, I had an opportunity to spend an evening with a three pretty well known science fiction writers: Jerry Pournelle, Larry Niven, and Frank Herbert. I had known Jerry since the Sixties, and at the time I didn't even know he was interested in writing. Anyway, one of the big topics of discussion that evening was the forthcoming movie of Herbert's Dune. Frank Herbert was pretty happy with the shooting script. He said that it followed the book very closely. But—if they shot it that way, the movie would be over eight hours long! So, cuts simply had to be made. He was trying to reconcile himself to the fact that novels and movies are two different media, each has its own demands, and at many points, those demands are incompatible.

It just ain't gonna be that same, folks. Line-by-line and scene-by-scene comparisons are doomed to failure, and as Ron says, the movie in your head is always going to be the best. Nevertheless. . . .

I haven't seen The Two Towers yet, but I thought that Jackson and the rest of the crew did an outstanding job. The best job that could be done on The Fellowship of the Ring. Mind-boggling, actually. I'm looking forward eagerly to the rest, and the videos will go into my library. The movies, like the books, will be Classics.

If you're "Bored of the Rings," well, that's the way it goes. Some people don't like chocolate, either.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Hollowfox
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 12:04 PM

Homeless, I think Ron just wants more people to discover something that he enjoys. After all, they can get the books from the library for free (and sooner or later, the videos as well.) Mary the FanGirl Librarian

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 01:01 PM

Homeless - you are too suspicious!   No, I do not own any stock in this enterprise!

My feeling is that if people see a film that they truly enjoy, and if they know it is based upon a book, they might make a point to read that book. On a whole, people are reading less these days. I feel it is very important to show people, especially the young, how much fun it can be. Being forced to read Beowolf as part of a high school English class is not fun. Picking up Tolkien for enjoyment opens doors. It may also open up the mind to see the interest in books like Beowolf as well - once the mind is open to new experiences it becomes a pleasure to read, not a chore.

Also, it is a pretty intriguing world to discover. I'm not a huge Tolkien fan, I've only read two of books, but I am interested and reading the rest right now. Well, not exactly right now since I'm typing this note - but you get the idea!!

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 02:39 PM

So I saw it last night and overall I really dug it...

With ONE exception...

I'd really like to hunt Peter Jackson down and kick him in both his nuts for what he's done to Gimli...

Other than that, loved the film! Will see it again, and likely again...

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 09:56 PM

First of all I am going break a very good habit of reading all the thread and make my contribution first. then i am going to read all the other posts.

Wonderful and staggering.

Best bit - Gollum

Worst bit- (a bit harsh as I have to stuggle to find this) The Ents.

Thank goodness for this great director and roll-on next Christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 10:16 PM

Still looking forward to seeing it, but appreciate that it's just a filler film, like Empire was to Star Wars (which incidentally started at episode 4....)

LTS