I want to start a new LOTR discussion!

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 06:20 PM

Hell---with today's technology, they could have had William Shatner play EVERY role, which would have made for a VERY significantly different film!

Sigh....I'm sure that's exactly the way Tolkien would have wanted it, too....!

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 02:41 PM

The most fortunate thing of all is that they nixed the idea of having William Shatner play Saruman...or serve as the offscreen narrator. In either case, it could have made for a significantly different film...

- LH

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 10:38 AM

Is this not more to do with Radio 4, which was even more middle class then than it is now!

Middle earth = middle class?

We went to see the film for the second time last night. It was even better......

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Penny S.
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 09:37 AM

BBC Radio 4 is rebroadcasting LOTR. I was astonished at how upper middle class Merry sounded. It really emphasised the class point above.

Penny

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 02 - 02:41 AM

I'm sure that seeing the movie will bring more people to read the book.

I just want to see the version that Peter Jackson would have liked to have put out and don't want to put him off doing that. After he has done this, we can all then qibble with that as much as we like.

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Jan 02 - 03:12 AM

Yeah, Shambles, you're probably right that this thread gives a bad impression. But I often find I like a movie more if I go with low expectations, so maybe we'll create true fans this way :-)

On another note, sometimes if I've read a book, I'll go see the movie and be disappointed because my expectations are unreasonably high. Then if anyone convinces me to see it again, I'll enjoy it much more because this time I have low expectations due to my first viewing. That happened to me with the Harry Potter movies!

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Jan 02 - 03:07 AM

The problem is going to see the movie with preconceptions. If you have read the book, this is inevitable and leads to most of the opinions expressed here.

The only real reservations on the film I have heard from those who had not read the book, is that it was too short and had a funny ending.

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Jan 02 - 03:01 AM

Shambles, it could have been worse but it also could have been better. David Lynch did his best when he made Dune, but that didn't stop it from sucking. I'm not saying LOTR sucked (it didn't), but it was as many have said on this thread, a sped-up, dumbed-down, action-flick version of the story. To some extent this is inevitable, and as I've said before they made a good movie. But it hasn't got the greatness factor of really classic movies, and I think in time this will be recognized. We'll have to wait and see, though.

That is about right but I feel the general impresion that would be gained from reading the quibbles in these threads by someone who had not seen the film (or the director), would most probably be that it did suck.

Although some of the issues are inevitable in making a big budget blockbuster in the 2000s, to his great credit the director has has avoided many of these problems and temptations.

Only time will tell if it is to be considered a great movie it is true, but I would say with some relief it is certainly a fine and creditable effort.

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Jan 02 - 12:15 AM

Nicole,

hmmm...it could be that Bilbo has simply had his years fall on him all at once because he no longer holds the ring, but that's not how it's supposed to work. The ring's prolonging power is supposed to linger with the bearer to some extent, and aging proceeds at a slightly slower than normal pace--the slowness depending on how long you held the ring. Gandalf explains this in the book; Gollum was originally a hobbit, he says, and held the ring for hundreds of years. If it worked as you suggest, and he suddenly aged when he gave up the ring, he would have dropped dead! In the book, Bilbo is older and rather tired when the hobbits reach Rivendell because he is seventeen years older, or 128. He is the oldest living hobbit (barring Gollum), according to one passage which claims that no living hobbit except Bilbo was old enough to remember a given event (I can't remember what it was, though!)

This is all getting very esoteric, though. My main point was just that the filmmakers clearly wanted to have youthful actors playing the hobbits because they were going after the 18-29 male audience, and that some of their manipulations of the plot were clearly designed to allow that. It's not a big sin, but there it is.

Shambles, it could have been worse but it also could have been better. David Lynch did his best when he made Dune, but that didn't stop it from sucking. I'm not saying LOTR sucked (it didn't), but it was as many have said on this thread, a sped-up, dumbed-down, action-flick version of the story. To some extent this is inevitable, and as I've said before they made a good movie. But it hasn't got the greatness factor of really classic movies, and I think in time this will be recognized. We'll have to wait and see, though!

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: DonMeixner
Date: 04 Jan 02 - 11:27 PM

I read these books 30 years ago. I remember the age differences quite clearly. But as it applys to this movie , so what. This is an area of alteration I'm more than willing to forgive. It doesn't hurt the story as presented.

Don

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: 8_Pints
Date: 04 Jan 02 - 11:20 PM

I took the family to see the movie last night and everyone was thoroughly entertained by it.

It certainly took me many months to read the trilogy over 25 years ago, and I can remember struggling to read it. (I'm still a slow reader even now!) The book was very slow in parts: not like the Hobbit that I had read earlier.

In contrast the movie was pacy, though I agree with Desdemona that at times the incidental music was intrusive and redundant.

The menace that was observed by the wraith-riders was exactly right. Bilbo Baggins transformation into the grasping monster seeking the return of the ring from Frodo was brilliant.

Gandalf was of course credible, but I was a little dissappointed that we did not see much of Golum (I think his role develops more in the next sequel).

Couldn't help noticing that Gimli seemed to possess a broad South Wales accent early in the film, which later became broad Scots!

The whistle playing sounded vaguely Celtic I thought, but did not at any time detract from story.

As DtG advised in the first post, I think its an excellent film but go see it and judge for yourself!

Bob vG

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Jan 02 - 02:26 PM

I feel for the director really. He has done his very best, made an excellent film and has to put up with what are all really just minor quibbles.

It could all have been so much worse..............

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 Jan 02 - 11:54 AM

Nerd,

I thought Bilbo looked so much older at Rivendale because he's no longer being kept young by the ring, not because a lot of time has passed. "A lot" being relative, of course -- they don't tell you how much time in the movie, but I get the impression Mr. Jackson wasn't trying to make 17 years pass.

A lot of people are complaining about bits and pieces, but did anyone really not like it at all?

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Jan 02 - 10:44 AM

Sophocleese said:

Why have the characters wobbling around forever on a piece of crumbling masonry?

"Forever", indeed! I thought they'd never get on with the story, and for an incident that didn't even advance the plot. I'd have to look at the book again, but I don't recall anything at that point that could even give an initial basis for the crumbling-masonry scene. And not very believably done, either. A case of a screen writer wanting to leave a personally desired Disneyish mark instead of picturing Tolkien's story. Bah!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: GUEST,sophocleese
Date: 04 Jan 02 - 09:22 AM

Well I went back to see it again since I had an idea of what to expect. I liked it better the second time when I wasn't hoping for a particularly faithful adaptation of the book.

Still can't understand why they made some of the changes though. Why leave out the words that brought Boromir to Rivendell? Why put the fight with the cave troll in the mines? If you want a dramatic fight why not use the one in the book with the wargs? Why have the characters wobbling around forever on a piece of crumbling masonry? Why bring the palantir in so soon and destroy any mystery or uncertainty about where exactly Saruman stands? He may be controlled by Sauron but he believes that he is still working for his own interests.

I think dentists all over the world should hail this as a major breakthrough though. A persistent message in the film is that moral decay and dental decay are linked. So keep brushing mudcatters!

On this second viewing I started to wonder if the actor who played Pippin shouldn't have been Frodo and Frodo shouldn't have been Pippin. It seems the actor playing Pippin has the ability to shift expressions three times in the time it takes Frodo to alter once.

A lot of the people I hear being enthusiastic about this retelling are people who haven't actually re-read the book in many years. I still think Peter Jackson Conanized the story. It seems strange to me to create a movie of a book but not trust the book that has kept many readers enthralled for years to tell the story. Compression is necessary and understandable but substituting extra fight scenes and banal dialogue for what the book writes is silly and in no way lives up to the vaunted and advertised desire to be faithful to the book itself.

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Jan 02 - 11:52 PM

I think that's very perceptive, Desdemona. I agree that the class difference is very palpable in the book, and not at all so in the movie. Also, at the moment that Sam sees the mirror of Galadriel and knows the Shire is being attacked and his father is in jeopardy, he has to make the choice: go back for the Gaffer, or go on for Frodo. So it's a very personal heroic sacrifice that he makes for the sake of his master...all of which ls left out of the movie.

BTW, the previous post I made in response to PeteBoom made something occur to me that hadn't before. They really do play with the Hobbits' ages in the film...the 17 years DO seem to have passed for Bilbo: he looks years older, not a few months older, when they arrive at Rivendell. But Merry and Pippin and Sam look just the same. This hadn't occurred to me before, as I said, but again I think it's just an attempt to have the hobbits be "tweens" for that audience.

BTW, and Hetty Wainthrop fans out there? One of the Hobbits (whichever of the Merry/Pippin duo DOESN'T look just like Donovan) was her sidekick on the show...I've been trying to place the face...

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 03 Jan 02 - 10:41 PM

I tend to think of my own 20-something acquaintances as being in their "tweens"...perhaps that's a function of being a "30-something"!

I just wanted to say that I like Fortunato's comments about Sam Gamgee; one of the prime reasons he's the most important character per se in the books is the very quality 21st century political correctness excises from the film: the inherent class difference between he & Frodo! It's clear from the outset that Sam "does for Mr. Frodo", and his gradual transformation fron servant to hero is deeply associated with his own conception of HIMSELF as a "good & faithful servant".

Not a popular approach in 2002, but nonetheless the one that was intended in the novel(s).

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Jan 02 - 10:00 PM

Pete's right about Frodo's aging more slowly...but even Merry and Pippin should be older, and certainly Samwise. They all look like teenagers in the movie, which corresponds to the twenties for Hobbits (tweens). But in reality, they were that age at Bilbo's party, not seventeen years later. What the movie did was to eliminate the seventeen years between Frodo's getting the ring and setting out on the quest. There is no suggestion at all that such a long time has passed. So Merry and Pippin and Sam are all still kids. I think they did this partly so they could cast with twentysomethings to appeal to that audience. Also, remember, if Bilbo was fifty when he stopped aging, and Frodo 33, then Bilbo should look roughly 17 years older. But they've picked actors who are about 60 and 20 for these roles, accentuating Frodo's youth once again.

As for Aragorn, as you say, it is often suggested how grizzled he looks. In fact, everyone who doesn't know what the rangers really are, including Butterburr, thinks Aragorn's essentially a bum..."Strider" is old Barleyman's word for "tramp," and Aragorn expresses anger at Elrond's council that such a soft fat man should call him such a disrespectful name. In the movie you never get the sense of Aragorn as a grizzled old fart, which is the way many others perceive him in the books. Again, the target audience respects athletic-looking, young-looking men, and that is what they're given. It's not a big deal, and it's a bit picky as Pete suggests to make a fuss, but I definitely think it's a case of going after that young crowd.

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: PeteBoom
Date: 03 Jan 02 - 09:28 PM

Ummm... not to be picky, but 33 years is when a hobbit came of age - that is - one is recognized as an adult. Thus, at Bilbo's eleventyone birthday, combined with Frodo's 33rd birthday, their ages totaled 144, or one gross - the same number of people under the pavillion under the "party tree" at Bag End. Fifty was more reaching their prime.

I thought the lack of gore in the combat sequences refreshing. Everyone knows you bleed like a stuck orc when a limb gets hacked off - so hint at it and move on.

So much of Tolkein's work is centered on creating the atmosphere and describing the environment the Fellowship moves through, it is almost impossible to capture that in a film. That's life, I guess.

Remember, when Bilbo first speaks, he looks identical to how he looked when he found the Ring. He was 50 at the time he found it and is 111 at the time of the party. The power of the Ring extends mortal life - it gets talked about quite a bit in the book. So - when Frodo sets out 17 years after getting Ring, he looks very much the same as he did in his early 30's.

Aragorn's age is not openly discussed in the books. However - he makes mention of knowing a certain Rider of Rohan's father, and grandfather if I remember right. THis makes him probably 100 years of age - allowing for a man of pure blood taking up arms by 20 or so. He does mention in the book that it would take the hobbits many years of living in the wild to look as he does. So, who knows...

Ah well...

Pete

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: robomatic
Date: 03 Jan 02 - 08:31 PM

I read the LOTR in college because all my friends had. It didn't grab me. I don't think it was not a great series, I think the subject matter just didn't draw me in. It struck me as fantasy when I was a sci-fi sort of guy. Which brings me to Star Wars. What an over-rated, un-imaginative series it has proved to be. The only reason I can conceive people like it is number one, the hype, and number two, if people can think of The Ring Cycle as high art when it is 90% making big things go loudly about the stage, I guess the same applies to movies.

I'm not planning to see LOTR which is a shame, I know it's got to be better than SWARS and I did see those losers.

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Jan 02 - 07:01 PM

As to the apparent age of Bilbo, Frodo et al., and Aragorn, remember that these peoples age very slowly. That's why 50 is just coming of age among the Hobbits. Aragorn is the scion of the Kings of the West, leader of the Dunedain (men of the West), and although they don't have the surpassing longevity of their great forerunners who came over the sea, they live much longer than ordinary men, and presumably would age more slowly.

It is still true that Aragorn has a lot of miles on him, and a lot of living with hardships in the wild, so he would look older than he might have had he lived a courtly life consistent with his royal ancestry.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 03 Jan 02 - 06:34 PM

I agree with what Lamarca says--except, perhaps, that LOTR is a "guy movie." My wife liked it much more than I did. It's certainly an 18-29 year old movie, though, to the point of making the middle aged characters look younger--Aragorn has got to be at least 50 in the books, and Frodo is just 50.

I agree that we got a little ripped off with Balin. The weirdest thing is that when they decide to go to Moria Gimli simply says "my uncle Balin will look after us," as though Balin just lives in Moria! In fact, Balin went there with an expedition years ago and was never heard from again, which made the dwarves suppose he MIGHT be living there, or he might be dead.

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: GUEST,Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Jan 02 - 06:16 PM

test

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: lamarca
Date: 03 Jan 02 - 04:49 PM

I saw both Harry Potter and LOTR at DC's super big screen theater, the Uptown, and noticed the same thing about both of them - too many super-quick camera cuts! Maybe it's just that I'm getting older, but it seems that big screen films used to have more leisurely panning scenes to let you experience the depth of the view you were seeing. I remember seeing Dr. Zhivago on a big screen in July, and shivering in my seat when they were showing the Siberia scenes (maybe it was just the theater's AC...)

Both Harry Potter and LOTR seemed to rely on high speed swooping, disorienting scenes and quick cutaways at various times. Perhaps some of these were to mask flaws in the digital magic (if you can't focus on a shot too closely, maybe you won't notice discontinuities in the digitally created parts), but I think it has more to do with the style created by the time-limited music video format, where bouncing camera angles, quick cuts and flashing lights substitute for masterful photography to create a mood or scene.

In talking to friends after seeing LOTR, several of us women agreed that it was more of a "guy" flick. The movie pasted the action scenes in the novel together as vignettes of fights and chases; while I understand that Tolkien's leisurely expositions and discussions might not translate well to the screen, to depict the Fellowship of the Ring as one long series of chase scenes diminished the richness of the books, but certainly plays to the all-commercially important male 18-28 year old market. (My friend's 19 year old son has been to see LOTR 3 times already...)

Also, by leaving out discussions and dialogue, much of the plot just doesn't make sense to someone who's never read the books. One of my co-workers asked me who that Boromir guy was - the council at Rivendell scene never made obvious who the various paticipants were. The first we ever heard of Balin was upon finding his tomb in Moria- no reminiscences about Balin and Dwalin and Thorin's company and their links with Bilbo. Etc, etc, etc.

I enjoyed LOTR, but will probably not go back for a second viewing - I'll try to find my old hardcover copies of the books in the Dreaded Basement Book Boxes and re-read it for the first time in 20+ years...

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: NicoleC
Date: 03 Jan 02 - 03:00 PM

I'm going to disagree with almost everyone here and say that I loved the fight scenes. I get so sick and tired of slick, gore-splattered Hollywood fight scenes with people leaping about with superhuman ability and whatnot that it was utterly refreshing to have the fight scenes depicted as the confusing, frightening experiences that they are. Minus excessive fake blood and entrails.

I haven't read the books in years, so I didn't really miss anything they left out. Overall, I was thoroughly pleased with it as a movie experience. It just doesn't compete with the book experience to me -- both are worthy of their genre. But it was nice that they balanced the economic needs of creating an action movie that pleases the general crowd, but still wove in some of the complexities of the book.

But I have never sat in a theater with so many pissed off people -- hello, it's a TRILOGY, what did you expect the end to be like?!

Dune: The original movie was fine, but a few years later I saw a 6-hour directors cut version which ROCKED. I haven't seen it for sale since, but it's worth a watch if you find it, especially if the 3-hour version disappointed you. (The recent TV miniseries remake of Dune just didn't measure up, IMHO.)

Peter Jackson seems to be exhausted by the project, so I doubt we'll see a longer Director's Cut version of LOTR. One can hope, though...

Harry Potter, the movie: Snore! If I hadn't been with someone else, I would have left. (Turns out that person was thinking the same thing.)

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Fortunato
Date: 03 Jan 02 - 11:15 AM

PeteBoom. I agree on Sam's importance to the book and the movie. I have long felt that he is in fact the central character of the story. Before alll the rest of you start throwing things at me, let me explain that I say that because he is the true hero, IMHOP, and embodiment of the central theme, bravery and steadfastness out of loyalty and indomitable spirit. Unlike Aragorn or Gandalf he was not born in greatness, but rose to it through love of his master and the Shire. I won't give examples here and spoil the plots of the coming movies for those who haven't read the books. If anyone cares to discuss the later books, then, please PM me. cheers, Fortunato

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Jan 02 - 09:41 AM

GUEST, Grab:

As to your number 5, there is no link by Tom Bombadil to the Silmarillion. He doesn't appear in the Silmarillion, and the whole style of his character and situation is foreign to the Silmarillion.

On the other hand, I'm sorry to see him eliminated. I DO understand why they had to take that whole section out for the movie, though.

I disagree with you on Boromir's death scene. That battle is, to my mind, an unfortunate change. Bringing characters into the fight who weren't there in the book, and having Boromir die in the Aragorn's presence is, I suppose, a cinematically faster way to clarify for Aragorn what's happened, so I suppose it's justified. It has the unfortunate effect of having Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli KNOW that the Uruk-Hai have carried the two hobbits off, which changes motivations some.

As to "the sword that was broken", it had been reforged in Rivendell before the Fellowship left. I don't understand why no mention of this is made in the movie. Wouldn't have taken much time.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: GUEST,Grab
Date: 02 Jan 02 - 06:56 PM

I've only got four real quibbles with the adaptation:-

1) The music - stock mystical tat for any scene involving elves;

2) The elves wired up to the mains and glowing in the dark;

3) The computer-generated scenery - too much (in minutes) and too little (in variety);

4) All the dialogue cut - particularly between Galadriel and Gimli, Legolas and Gimli, and Boromir and Aragorn.

Good additions:-

1) The changed ending did make sense, since Aragorn has a different motivation - he's not interested in kingship, he's scared he'll let the world down by making Isildur's mistake;

2) Aragorn carries a normal sword for fighting with, not just his broken one;

3) Pippin and Merry learning swordsmanship from Boromir and fighting the goblins, so their later exploits are more credible (which they aren't really in the book - you're left wondering where they learnt to use a sword or plan a battle);

4) The ring effects, and bringing Sauron in as an ever-present threat to the ring-bearer, instead of just an empty name as in the book;

5) Removing Tom Bombadil, who serves no purpose beyond making a link between LotR and The Silmarillion;

6) The battle scenes - I'll differ and say I thought they were very well done, as was Boromir's death-scene.

I've no doubt that there will be a director's cut of the film. The worry this time was just whether anyone would watch it - now its quality has been proven, that's no longer an issue. Hang on another 5-10 years. I have to say I'd rather see the director's cut on the big screen than on DVD though!

Graham.

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: GUEST,G
Date: 02 Jan 02 - 06:36 PM

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 27 Dec 01 - 01:36 PM

Oh ya... best book to movie adaptation...

hands down...

THE EXORCIST!

;-)

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Kim C
Date: 27 Dec 01 - 12:27 PM

I never read any of Tolkien's books. I tried when I was very young and was bored beyond belief. Perhaps I might like them now.

I loved the movie. Mister has read all the books, and he loved it too. Usually when we see a movie, he'll say, "well, that was pretty good, BUT..." There was no big BUT this time.

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: hesperis
Date: 27 Dec 01 - 02:33 AM

I loved the scene with Galadriel's test... that was so cool. Unfortunately, it's been over seven years since I read the books. (Chalk it down to a _____ mother... who wouldn't lend me the books because she was reading them, and she's a bloody slow reader! I could have had them all back to her in two weeks, but no... *sigh*)

If I get a job soon I'll have to buy them.

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: DonMeixner
Date: 27 Dec 01 - 12:53 AM

Luckily for me I can suspend disbelief and go see a film and have a great time. I was entertained for three hours. I can't wait to see what heppens next. So what if it wasn't the perfect job on the book. I went with the boys, we had a great time. Its is after all just a filming of a pretty good book.

My one complaint was the volume was low.

Don

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: PeteBoom
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 10:02 PM

Just got back from seeing the film. My step-daughter bought my ticket to see it - then the three of us (wife, step-daughter, self) went and had a MARVELOUS time.

Were there some differences - absolutely. And as Crane Driver pointed out, they are 2 different idioms. THings that make INCREDIBLE prose, like world-building, make for bloody dull movies. I thought this handled some of the ticklish bits fairly well. I missed the change in the two main hobbit characters, Sam and Frodo, from their encounter with Tom Bombadil, BUT - all in all it was not bad.

Had a good laugh along with the folks next to us, as the eejit behind us said "Three hours and they don't finish the story?"

As for the number of "books" in Lord of the Rings. Remember, Tolkein was opposed to splitting the book into three volumes. THe publisher insisted because a single volume THAT LONG simply could not be bound and sold affordably. Many libraries in the UK (and the States) at the time the work was orriginally published had fairly low limits on the amount per volume they could spend. This made sure that libraries and the "average" person could afford to but the book.

Little Hawk - Its good to see that Tolkein's efforts were carried into the the film. Pippin and Merry are characterisations of the classic village buddies - always hanging about and ready for a drink or three, but generally considered layabouts. Their growth is part of the story where they develop from "blokes" to hardened men (or hobbits) unafraid of anything - rather like TOlkein's own experiences with the Tommies of WWI.

In the previous thread, Clinton (I think) mentioned that the only FULL character is Samwise. Bingo. Spot on. It is hinted all the way through the book. Sam develops from near village idiot to being the most resolute, steadfast character there is. I've always thought his growth is what moves the story forward from being a tag-along in the Fellowship to being the anti-Hero in Return of the King. I'm hoping the film version will carry that forward as well.

Regards-

Pete

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 06:48 PM

Oh, God, you're right; *I* thought he looked like Donovan as well! half expected him to break into a chorus of "Mellow Yellow" after a few pints at the Prancing Pony!

So, AM I the only one who thought Rivendell looked an awful lot like the Tavern on the Green?!

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 06:41 PM

Well, those are all worthwhile comments. We should probably all be glad that the movie is a pretty good one, and leave it at that.

I don't know who Paul Sirman is, but I think Pippin looks like Donovan...or is it Merry who does? Kind of hard to separate those two in my mind.

- LH

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 06:39 PM

I haven't read "Wicked" yet. Years ago I read all the Baum books and a few from his successors. They were very interesting reads, quite imagininative.

Ron

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 05:23 PM

You're quite right, of course; who doesn't love the Wizard of Oz film? And how very unlike L. Frank Baum's book(s) it is! BTW, did you happen to read "Wicked"? It's the Wicked Witch of the West's story told from HER perspective---excellent, I guarantee you'll never look at Glinda the same way again!

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 05:12 PM

I loved the Mary Poppins books too!! The movie was one of my favorite childhood films. It was so good to have both, and the fact that they were so different speaks to the point I was making. Thanks Desdemona!

Ron

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 04:30 PM

I liked Mary Poppins better in the book >;~) !

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 04:28 PM

Crane Driver - you are the first post that makes sense!!!

I'm not sure why we have such a fascination of comparing movies with books. Sure one is the source of the other, but why compare apples and oranges? Can't we just accept that the book is the author's artistic effort and a film is an artistic vision of a director and their crew? Each has it's own merits and plays to different senses.

Granted LOTR has been read by millions of people who will walk into the theater with a preconceived idea of what they want. We sit back in a theater and watch a director's interpretation. When we read a book, we may be reading the author's words but in our minds each of us creates an individual picture of the characters, scenery, and the voices of the characters.

Some of the best movie adapations have been the ones that DON'T follow the book. Mary Poppins on screen became sweet as sugar instead of the gruff figure in the book. John Ford's take on The Quiet Man certainly differed from the short story, but it didn't stop the film from becoming a favorite. The book M*A*S*H* was as different from the film as the film was from the TV series - yet each can be viewed as a success.

To each their own, and hopefully most of us will appreciate the film AND the book on their own merits.

Enjoy them!!!

Ron

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Crane Driver
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 04:00 PM

Yeah - I've always liked the book(s), and I liked the movie too. But they're two different things, books and movies, to be appreciated for different reasons. I enjoy the books as books, and I liked the film as a film, without bothering to compare it to the book. Unlike Dune, for example, another book I really enjoy. I didn't like the film much, as a film.

BTW, any other UK folkies noticed that one of the Hobbits looks just like Paul Sirman?

Happy New Year!

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Penny S.
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 10:30 AM

Can I put in a word for the BBC radio version, available on cassette and CD with Ian Holm as Frodo, and other big names I forget, and music - very very long, can't remember how many episodes, but much better development of relationships.

And I like the film.

Penny

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 12:47 AM

Yeah, but it's still not as hard as keeping track of whose elbow, chain mail, or sword grip you're looking at in the fight scenes...second by second. No wonder Sauron's eye gets so red...major eyestrain.

- LH

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 02:26 PM

What makes the filming of these three films different, evidently, is that they filmed all three concurrently. Sometimes they did scenes from Film #1 and #3 on the same day. I suppose they did it that way so that they would not have to return to individual sites. Can you imagine keeping track of wardrobe, hair, weather, etc...!

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 02:32 PM

I quite like the "Harry Potter" film as well; although there are inevitably things missing (I for one wish we'd had more time to really dislike the Dursleys, who were SO implacably stolid and stupid in the book, and I thought Snape was a little too icky & 2 dimensional), it's a very good attempt, and the casting is excellent for the most part. Maggie Smith, Richard Harris & Robbie Coltrane were all perfect in their roles, and the children were fine as well, although they made Hermione prettier and Harry rather more cuddly than I'd pictured them. I also loved the way it "looked" overall. The locations were great: Hogwarts looked wonderful, and the Hogwarts Express; and the vision of all those owls besieging the Dursley's tidy semi-detached house was terrific! I especially liked the Quidditch match---it was great fun to see how they managed to put such a thing onscreen.

My children loved the books so much, we opened; we actually took them out of school early to see it the day it opened, & made it an occasion. In fact, I'd be more apt to give that movie a 2nd viewing than LOTR, which I'd actually been looking forward to more!

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 02:11 PM

Clinton penned: "All the filming for all the movies was finished months ago... it's an unprecedented way to present a trilogy of movies... PJ took the cast to NZ, and filmed EVERYTHING... so there will be no 'learning curve' for the actors as the films are released..."

Strictly speaking, this is correct...but if we are to include sequel films, "The 3 Musketeers" and "The 4 Musketeers" (Richard Lester versions) were filmed back to back as well.

And I had all but forgotten them until my honey mentioned them...

I'd have to say they were my favorite "book to film" adaptations. Which says a lot, as I am a huge Harry Potter fan.

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 12:53 PM

Just heard an interview with Annie Proulx on NPR this morning about the movie just released of her Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award winning novel The Shipping News. She seemed fairly pleased with the overall result, but, "Film will never engage the imagination the way a novel does . . . in film, the imagining is done for you."

I couldn't help but think of some of the radio programs I used to listen to as a kid (you remember radio . . . like TV, but the pictures are do-it-yourself) and compare them with some of the TV shows that that were made later of those same radio shows, e.g., The Lone Ranger. The pictures I made in my head were much better, much more vivid than the ones that TV set presented. Same thing with a novel. It's really hard for a movie to measure up, because it's someone else's vision rather than your own. Also, in a novel, you can get inside a character's head in a way that's impossible in a movie.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 11:41 AM

Oh, Little Hawk, you have discovered my deepest darkest secret.....the reason I never watch reruns of "Star Trek" is that the very sight of William Shatner in his harvest gold lycra uniform threatens to UNHINGE me!!!! I fear an utter loss of control, and so prefer to keep a safe dostance from temptation.....lest my children be exposed to the truth: their mother is a wanton, insatiable vixen when it comes to Captain Kirk!

Where are my smelling salts.....

Hey--did anyone see him on the US "Iron Chef"? To my eternal wretchedness, I missed it--*SOB*--though seeing yet another side of that big ol' stud muffin might have sent me right round the bend!

Subject: RE: I want to start a new LOTR discussion!
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 10:04 AM

BEST book to movie? Man, that's hard!

But a candidate that leaps immediately to mind is Cider House Rules.

Two things must be said:
A. It does cut way back on the book, but with all that it's excellent and faithfully gives the feel of the book, in my opinion.
B. The screenplay was written by the book's author, John Irving. Several of his other books had been turned into movies by others, and he'd also worked with other screenwriters on one or two of his books, and was fairly well pleased with the results in both processes. But he let everyone know early on that for The Cider House Rules that either HE would write the screen play, with full artistic control, or there would be NO MOVIE.

Result: a triumph.

Dave Oesterreich