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

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:01 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: 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: 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: The Shambles
Date: 21 Dec 02 - 09:47 AM

Going to see it tonight.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: smallpiper
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 07:05 PM

Hey Lepus Rex I saw it at 3.00pm today and there was only 12 in the theatre it was great!

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 06:45 PM

Dunno, Homeless. I have never been an accademic and therefore fail to see the relevance of accademic questions! I read the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Silmarilion, Book of lost tales and many others before the films were thought of so how can I answer? I enjoyed the books. I liked Ralph Bakshis cartoon. I think Peter Jackson is a god:-)

I equaly enjoyed the works of Conan Doyle, John Steinbeck, C S Forester and Dr Seuss all before seeing any films stemming from those pens. Films I enjoyed include Goldfinger, The Maltese Falcon, Conan the Barbarian and Captain Correllis Mandolin all before reading the books!

I have seen hundreds of films and read, probably, thousands of books. The two media (medii? mediums?) are entirely different and should and can be enjoyed on different levels.

Incidentaly I also read Homer before seeing Oh Brother where art though and read Herbert before seeing Dune. In the former case I enjoyed the film but did not understand the book. Vice Versca in the latter.

There are also many films and books that do not have a literary or cinemagraphic counterpart so back to my original point...

Why even ask?

Cheers and thanks again for keeping my brain alive!

Dave the Hobbit:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Nerd
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 06:17 PM

I just saw Two Towers and it was better than I had expected. I was worried, because Peter Jackson has publicly commented that this is an action movie, that he deliberately departed from the story of the book, etc. This worried me, and I see what he meant --there's a McGuffin in which Aragorn gets separated from the rest of the party for no real reason, Faramir acts very differently from his character in the book and indeed destroys one of Tolkien's points in the process, and there is an extraneous visit to a beleaguered Osgiliath--but none of this really detracts too much from the movie. They had to insert Arwen and Galadriel as well, to which no one who appreciates beauty can object.

What is actually done better than a literal rendering of the book is the intercutting of the two storylines which in the novel were separated into Book 1 and Book 2. This allows for the stupendously-rendered battle of Helm's Deep to act as one of the butt-kickingest climactic fight scenes in movie history.

As to the acting, I just can't understand how someone could see Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn and Ian McKellen's Gandalf in that light. Granted, the humor in the first movie was rather broad, and Merry and Pippin were pains in the ass, but surely Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett made up for that!

As to characterization, I'm happy to say that an improvement on the first movie has been made: Merry and Pippin cease to be stupid buffoons who cause every setback and attack, and begin to understand what the world is coming to--which bodes well for their development into adults in the final movie. New characters Eomer, Faramir and Eowyn are very well-played, though they're all small roles. The bigger roles of Theoden and Grima Wormtongue are done brilliantly; it reminds you that Brad Doruif is a fine, fine actor despite having been stereotyped as a lunatic or weirdo ever since One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

I think Tolkien fans may lament at some of the plot changes, but will ultimately accept this as a great adaptation. More importantly, I think general moviegoers are more likely to enjoy this as a combination of costume epic and hard-hitting action-adventure film; it just happens to have much better acting and writing than, say, The Scorpion King.

As a final endorsement, I saw this movie with my wife (who normally goes with me to more "intellectual" or romantic films) and my friend David (who normally goes with me to action movies). They never like the same films, but this time all three of us thought it was one of the best movies we've seen in a long time!

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 06:13 PM

I disagree with your thoughts on the FoTR dvd, Ron. I wish it had been longer. The whole trip to Bree, with Farmer Maggot, Old Man Willow, the Barrow Downs, and of course Tom Bombadil, etc, is missing, but was an important part of the book. I don't mind some of Jackson's changes, but these omissions were a bit too much for me. Grr. Still, loved FoTR.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 05:40 PM

Homeless, I would like to answer your question - "given just this one movie, would you still consider it a wonderful story if you had not read any of the books beforehand?"   I would answer, yes.   I had read The Hobbit and found 3/4 of the book captivating, and the last 1/4 rather contrived and anti-climatic in comparision to the rest of the book.

I found the theatrical release of Fellowship to be a wonderful film - I don't think I would call it a classic, but to me it is an enjoyable film that I have watched a few times (once in the theater and several times at home with my son).

I was also inspired to buy the special edition DVD with over 30 additional minutes of film. On one hand I thought it answered some questions and expanded on a few plot points and characters, but overall I thought it made the film drag and I really don't think critics and audiences would have responded as warmly if that were the intial release.

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 05:31 PM

Haven't seen it yet, but I plan to, probably next week. I can't stand seeing movies in a crowded theater, and last time I went to a movie I had to sit in front of two flatulent Russian pigs, so I'll wait for a weeknight not on opening week. Looks good. Can't wait for the real version on dvd next year.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: smallpiper
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 05:27 PM

I've just seen the Two tower and was almost copletely blown away by it. I thought that some of the changes unneccessary but never the less was totally taken out of my own reality for 3 hours and to me it was worth it just for that alone. I will be going to see it again to catch all the bits I missd on first viewing and I can hardly wait untill the extended DVD is released (if it is and I hope t will be)

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Homeless
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 05:26 PM

Dave tD -
Too late, most of what I love has fallen foul of the critic's pen - tho that may tell you something of my tastes. *g*

Believe it or not, on my first post I was trying to "don't say anything." Yes, I could have commented on elaborate sets being incredibly detailed, but that any given shot didn't give you long enough to appreciate the scenery, or that I found the use of wide angle lenses on the cameras very distracting (even tho I understand why they had to use them.) Rather than give a long list of criticisms, I tried to cut it short and express my opinion and deliberatly avoid saying anything "bad". I guess I made a mistake in doing so this time.

...why I thought it was good. Superb acting. Magnificent sets. Spectacilar effects. Wonderful story.
Okay, this very much explains to me why you think it's a great movie. And part of it is a matter of tastes. While I could debate each of these points with you, which would be fruitless, I can at least now understand why you like it so much. What is still beyond me tho is that the difference between the number of people who do like it and those that don't is just so overwhelming. There have been "great" movies and "bad", but usually you don't see quite so large an imbalance in those that liked it and those that didn't.

I can understand things being not my cup of tea. Most of society fits in that category for me personally. However, I can appreciate things I don't like (such as some forms of Jazz), and there are some things I like that go against my tastes - I guess I have to be "in a mood" for them. But for me to appreciate something I don't like, I have to understand why it *is* someone else's cup of tea.

As far as movies go, there are some I like that had zero literary or emotional content. Some movies I didn't like, but they moved me deeply. Some I didn't care for, but could appreciate the literary aspects of them (character development, plot, setting, etc.). This movie didn't strike me well on any of those fronts. I can see now that at least some of it was a matter of taste rather than some hidden point I was missing.

I do have one question for you tho - given just this one movie, would you still consider it a wonderful story if you had not read any of the books beforehand?

Homeless.

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 04:24 PM

No offense taken, Homeless. I was just pointing out what someone said earlier - If you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all.

'Mediocre' 'Another Disney Kids film' etc. is not good. It is just criticism.

'I thought it was mediocre because...' Is also criticism but can be constructive. This is good.

I am happy to provide an explanation of why I thought it was good. Superb acting. Magnificent sets. Spectacilar effects. Wonderful story. But, again, all these are subjective rather than objective. So I am not realy helping. Let me know how I can objectively define the beauty of a film, book, song, or person and you are certainly a better man than I am Gungadin!

Why do I like some music and dislike others I'm afraid it's simply down to 'Because I do. Because these are my tastes. Because these things make me what I am.'

I fully understand that not everyone has the same tastes as me and I try and do them the courtesy of explaining that it is not my 'cup of tea'. Just because I don't like it, or perhaps don't understand it (as I don't with Jazz music) I would never dream of calling it bad, poor or even mediocre. I would like people to offer me the same courtesy.

Having said all that I never intended this thread to become contraversial but now it has it is becoming quite enjoyable. I can now add to the films endearing qualities 'Causes enjoyable debate'

Good luck and may the things you love never fall foul of the critics pen..;-)

Dave the Diminutive (Love it) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 03:42 PM

Saw it last night. When I read the trilogy years ago, I always thought of The Two Towers as the one you sort of have to slog through to get from the enchanting Fellowship to the grand finale of Return of the King. The movies so far have struck me the same way. I liked Fellowship better, but it has more to do with the content than the execution. The execution is fine in both movies. It's not the director's fault that the Plains of Rohan just aren't as cool to me as the Mines of Moria.

It's been too long since I read the books to know whether or not something was left out. All I can remember is the important parts and the movie seemed to hit them all. My wife has never read the books and she just didn't get some of it. (But she also plays bodhran so she ain't right to start with.)   

The Gollum/Smeagol portrayal was worth the price of admission.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Naemanson
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 03:42 PM

Mudlark, Homeless, have you heard the whole explanation of the two levels the story is working on? I'm wondering if that would help.

Level 1: Adventure story - Gang of people, varying races, goes out to accomplish the impossible while facing improbable odds.

Level 2: Tragedy of Loss and Endings - No matter what happens the world as it was known by the characters is going to change. And the main character (Frodo) loses everything including any chance at happiness.

But then there are always those who just aren't turned on by this kind of thing.

But I am and I can't wait to see this film! I'll see it this weekend and then again on January 4 with my kids and some friends. We will have an LOTR day, by watching the extended version of the Fellowship and then going to see TTT in the theater.

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 03:13 PM

Gonna see TTT the night we pull into the hometown for X-mas... I'm looking forward to it...

For me Fellowship was the Good Parts version of Lord Of The Rings that I've been waiting on for years and years... I liked it better than I've like the book ever since it was brought to my attention exactly how overcrafted, overlong, and undercharcterised the book is... It's a good thing Ol' JRR came first in the "High Fantasy" genre, cause if he hadn't, he never woulda got far...

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 03:06 PM

I haven't seen the second. I liked the first a lot, but I didn't love it. Eye candy, good casting, and the story was, well, THE story. It might grow on me if I saw it again. I do think that some disappointments might have existed because folks who'd read the books knew loose ends would be tied up in future movies. At the end, I was thinking "that's it?" There are also many, many details that have to be left out when a film is made from a book such as this. Sometimes they choose to not include things that are really needed for the story to make sense. Maybe that happened with this movie? I don't know - I'm just speculating. I haven't read the books either although I started at least 4 times. I DID, however, see the South Park "take off" on it before I saw FotR.

I'll see the Two Towers.

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 02:25 PM

Homeless, I agree with you on your points about dragging the book into the comparision. I abhor the statment "the book was better than the movie" or vice versa.   While I may enjoy eating pizza more than ice cream, I will have different reasons and needs to satisfy for ordering each and I can't compare them.   You are looking at the vision of the author in the book and the vision of the director in the movie. They do not, nor should they, match.

As to why someone said "don't say anything", I think the point was that unless someone has a constructive reason for not likeing something, they shouldn't say anything.   Too often people just like to see their words in print and hope to stir up a reaction.   You did however give a one reason for not liking it (effects).   However your estimate of "weren't all impressive" and "mediocre" are simply your opinions. You are certainly entitled to them. I felt the effects were as impressive as they needed to be - subtle and realistic.   

You also requested that someone explain why this is a good movie. Aside from stirring up arguements, it is a pointless exercise.   I loved the movie because of the beautiful sets, the acting (which I thought was perfect for the material), and the story.   My reasons for finding those elements enjoyable are purely my own taste, and it is obvious that your tastes differ. That is not a problem for me. That is why we have 100+ channels on cable TV. Variety and diversity.

Ron

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

Ron

Enjoy the movie.

Allan

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: alanabit
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 02:09 PM

Couldn't agree with you more Ron. The great thing about the Fellowship film was that it actually added something to the movie I had in my mind. I can't wait to see the Two Towers next week.

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 01:57 PM

Allan, you are right, the movie in the mind is always the best.

As for the celluloid version, I think that the more realistic the effect, the easier it is for a viewer to be drawn into the film. I do see your point though, I thought that the Star Wars films were nothing more then puppet shows. The fuzzy and obviously fake characters really took away from my enjoyment of the film, not that I found much to enjoy in those anyway. I'm not a big science fiction or fantasy film fan, but I do think that LOTR is really a good piece of cinema. Grab a box of popcorn and sit back. I like the DVD of Fellowship, but I am glad that they didn't release the "directors cut" special edition as the regular feature.   While it may play well for Tolkien fans, it really added nothing to the story and made it a tedious experience. Jackson did a superb job of editing for theatrical release. My son and I will be watching Two Towers on Saturday.

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Homeless
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 01:51 PM

Dave the (One of Indeterminate Race but Short Stature)-
I didn't mean to sound like I was trying to invalidate your opinion in my above post. Nor was I trying to be mean or slandering in my saying it was a mediocre movie. That's just my honest opinion.

I realize I'm among the minority in this world with my lukewarm reception. When I find myself in that position on any subject, my reaction is to try to understand "Why?" I honestly do want to know why the vast majority thinks this (these) movie(s) is so great. Any time I've said anything to any raver, the only response I've gotten is "read the book." I'm sorry, but to me, the book being good should have no bearing whatsoever in how the movie is rated. Any intelligent explanation that anyone could give me on why this movie is good that is not just a variation of "read the book" would not only be invited, but encouraged.

As for my "...don't say anything", while I usually try to live my life by that proverb, if I were to remain silent all the time I would never be able to resolve any quandries of this nature. Yes?

So, can you (or anyone else) explain to me why this is such a good movie?

Homeless.

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: allanwill
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 12:30 PM

The "movie" that's playing in your head as you read a book is always going to be the best version, IMHO.

As for special effects in movies, I guess it's a matter of whether you prefer a not-so-real (surreal?) visual impact or rely on actors, directors, production values to engender the right emotion that the film is trying to project.

Allan

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 11:59 AM

If you don't want special effects, you read the book! Nothing wrong with that. How would they make such a film without effects?

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: allanwill
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 11:57 AM

I dunno'- all these computerised "special effects" in movies these days. If I wanted to watch cartoons, give me Bugs Bunny any day.

Allan

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 11:51 AM

I'm in the midst of reveling in a book called The Lord of the Rings; The Art of The Fellowship of the Ring. It's filled with the paintings and drawings that went into the design and actual creation of sets (real and computer generated), the costumes, the jewelry, the armory, the creatures.

It's interesting that in many cases there were/would be no sets built, and the actors did their stuff in front of a blue screen, and computer sets were added. Hobbiton was built "real", yes. Indeed, it was built a year or so in advance of when it would be needed, so that sodded roofs and so forth could grow in by the time of filming.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Hollowfox
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 11:22 AM

Mudlark, Homeless, et al, I thoroughly agree with you that everybody's entitled to their opinion, and folk dhould be allowed to not go ga-ga over something that everybody else is nuts about. I laso think it proper for you to post to this thread.
That being said, Toy're absolutely right, Dave the, er, gnomic Dwarf. I think this is the second part of the best movie I've ever seen. The craftmanship and attention to detail just blow me away when I think about them, much less watch the film (again). Mary the FanGirl

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: Peg
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 11:18 AM

love the first one and wanted to see the DVD version in preparation for Two Towers this week. i hope to go to a matinee tomorrow!!!
peg

Subject: RE: BS: Just seen it - WOW! (Three guesses)
From: GUEST,Sarah
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 11:10 AM

Saw it last night - came out feeling quite shell-shocked.

Read a review today that likened 2Ts to "Saving Private Ryan with Darth Vader costumes". Kind of agree with that. It was brilliantly done but not comfortable viewing.

Loved it anyway. Specially Viggo and whoever that guy was that played Faramir!

Cheers
Sarah