The movie and the book [Archive]

oss91

12-26-2001, 05:36 AM

i have yet to see the movie, but i have plans to see it very shortly. i have a question i would like answered before i see the movie though. does the movie do justice to the book? i mean, does the movie follow closely with the book or is it vague in trying to capture the entire book in a few hours? the book is great, and i know i will like the movie, i am just curious.

Greymantle

12-26-2001, 05:44 AM

Welcome to the Forum! :)
I would advise that you immediately go to the movie Forum and read what you can! If I indoctrinate you too much with my purist views, all the Jacksonites will get on my case... suffice it to say that I most certainly did not think the film did justice to the book, but was rather a money-inspired perversion of The Fellowship of the Rings that essentailly would be best viewed as a parody. Others will disagree. :rolleyes:

stratosphere

12-26-2001, 09:21 AM

hi

Just seen the film , it was very good as films go..would even watch it again.Only a year to go to see the next part..

But as puritan friend says it is not holly true to the book..but then no film could be,it would have to be 10 hours long(is three as it is)
none lord of the rings fans would get lost with trying to follow it..as you would have problems telling the history of ppl and places that give the book its grounding..

unfortunately movies are a money making biz so its all about action and effects..bums on seats and all that

as films go i would give it a 9/10 but the book is far far better.

stratosphere

p.s

maybe an new animated movie would be the best..but if you like LOTR then watch the movie

Ridley

12-26-2001, 09:34 AM

The book is better, but the movie does make some interesting interpretations.

Anyway Let's remember that The Movie and Book are separate things and should be treated away, the book is Tolkien's work while the movie is Peter Jackson's work which is based on Tolkiens work

Retrovertigo

12-26-2001, 10:31 AM

What? Stratosphere, why are you just accepting that big budget selling movies are the norm and you can't do anything about it so you may as well join them.
Thats a pretty poor attitude.. why should we have to put up with it?

curious_nomad

12-26-2001, 07:26 PM

Put it this way. The is about as good as a movie based off of a book can get. Granted there has to be cuts here and there to keep the movie at a sane duration. For instance, Tom Bombadil dissappears in the movie. Also, you cannot completely critique the movie based off your own opinions, for instance Balrog and wings argument, because the director of the movie is entitled to artistic license. So the movie is really Jackson's interpretation of the book with cuts here and there to keep the movie flowing.

However, seperately...
Movie is excellent. All sources I've seen give the movie a good rating. Kinda the Nutcracker of Tolkien. (The Nutcracker Ballet has lured many people to the world of classical music for those of you who are puzzled.) Stunning opening, spooky music, amazing digitized effects. Truly a movie masterpiece.

Rosie Cotton

12-26-2001, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Elwood
What? Stratosphere, why are you just accepting that big budget selling movies are the norm and you can't do anything about it so you may as well join them.
Thats a pretty poor attitude.. why should we have to put up with it?

Well, to pull off a good movie version of LOTR you need a very big budget to get all of the neccessary special effects. Because the movie would stink if it had a small budget, you need to make a movie that will appeal to everyone (not just us) to make money on the film. We DO have to put up with it, because no matter what we do, Hollywood will always do whatever it can to bring in the most money. We might as well make the most of it....

Maria Atilano

12-27-2001, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Rosie Cotton

We DO have to put up with it, because no matter what we do, Hollywood will always do whatever it can to bring in the most money. We might as well make the most of it....

Which would be to take both the book and movie as two separate works of art based off of the same story. The movie is a marvel mainly because of the fact that it's based off of the novel, yet it's different in it's own right. As for doing the book justice? No and yes. Even though any perfectionist would tell you that they screwed up the story line and some of the characters, could we expect them not to?

See the movie, though, and enjoy. It's a masterpiece in it's field... yet no way a comparison to Tolkien's world :)

Mithril 2000

12-27-2001, 02:50 AM

Just got back from seeing the movie. I have mixed feelings about it. I HOPE that it will inspire millions of people to read Tolkien for the first time, but have read the book too many times to be able tp predict how someone who knows nothing about middle earth will react to the movie. However, I'm afraid that such a person, in order to really follw the story,would have to pay VERY careful attention to the introduction and to much of the dialogue.
I will say that this is a MUCH better result than the "cartoon" version from the 1970's. The film does a very good job of depicting the "feel" or ambience of LOTR, but jumps from scene to scene so quickly that one of the wonders of LOTR-- its leisurely pace, camping, cooking out every night, etc.-- is utterly lost.
Still, the movie is well cast, the effects are very satisfying and the scenery is great ( fit with my imagination very well).
Again, I hope that the movie leads people to take on the Hobbit and LOTR as serious works of literature.
M2k

Curufinwe

01-01-2002, 09:17 AM

Well What can I say. The movie was great, although it doesnt follow the book all the time , it does keep you entertained. The way it doesn't follow the book isnt too bad because that means people will still have to read the book to learn of the things that really happen.

Tolkiens book is still and will always be better than the movie though . But would you say that the book is full of that much action?

Dengen-Goroth

01-01-2002, 02:52 PM

I would be so bold as to say yes. For the most part that is. All the battle scenes are from the book, unless I know nothing of the movie, or the book. Think about it, Weathertop, Moria(Though I don't think the orcs would be in that great a force), and the paring of the Fellowship by Rauros. Now if he added in something in Rivendell, or right before it then I would be displeased, but it seems fine.

Talierin

01-01-2002, 05:24 PM

The book is more like watching a Hitchcock film than a Rambo one or something like that. The suspense builds quite a bit before it explodes into action for a bit, slows down, only to start building again. The action is there, but there's more suspense than action. I like it better that way. The movie had entirely too much constant action, and made it move too fast. PJ, I think, would have done better filming it more like Hitchcock. You can make an interesting and exciting film without having to have action scene after action scene without a break to sit back.

aragil

01-01-2002, 11:31 PM

I keep comparing it in my mind to Gladiator (which, for whatever reason earned the Best Picture oscar last year). They both open with battle scenes, which are quite minimally related to the rest of the story. Both movies cast thousands of extras to fill out the ranks in the battles, and both used copious amounts of CG animation to enhance the battles. The point is, Gladiator spent at least 15 minutes out of a 2.5 hour movie on the opening battle, while Fellowship of the Ring spent about 5 minutes out of a 3 hour movie on the battle.
Other 'fighing' parts of the movie were also brief. The action sequence on Weathertop was about 2 minutes of screen time (2 pages in the book). The fight with the wargs was omitted altogether. The fight with the watcher at the gates was admittedly dragged out, as was the fight with the cave troll (fighting the orcs in Moria didn't take long, though). The only other fight scene was the battle at Amon-hen, which was properly climactic. All in all, I think PJ showed an admirable amount of restraint in swordplay- much less than Gladiator.

Chippy

01-02-2002, 02:45 AM

I agree with tal..... one thing i noticed is that they didn't talk much ....it was always go, go, go.......no rest just fight, walk, fight....

lilhobo

01-02-2002, 08:00 AM

well the movie had to be a go-go since jackson wasted so much time in the shire and on the epilogue......and confusing people by revealing the other rings......

much of the shire shouldnt have been there.....only a quick idyllic panoramic view of the shire he had been using so well later on would have been enough ...and then just highlight Bilbo's disappearing act to introduce the ring and let gandalf reveal its origin

SAFN49

01-03-2002, 12:35 AM

------I keep comparing it in my mind to Gladiator (which, for whatever reason earned the Best Picture oscar last year). They both open with battle scenes, which are quite minimally related to the rest of the story.------

Except it was a brilliant and engrossing way to show the history of the ring, the power of Sauron, and set up the relationship between Aragorn and the ring!

aragil

01-03-2002, 01:10 AM

Except it was a brilliant and engrossing way to show the history of the ring, the power of Sauron, and set up the relationship between Aragorn and the ring!

I totally agree. My point was that the Lord of the Rings did not dwell on that battle, it showed just enough so that people would have an idea of the history of the ring. If PJ was as eager to please 'ignorant, illiterate, red-neck American teenagers' as some have implied on these boards, then he would have really indulged himself on this battle, much like Ridley Scot did in Gladiator.

Gloer

01-03-2002, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Talierin
The book is more like watching a Hitchcock film than a Rambo one or something like that. The suspense builds quite a bit before it explodes into action for a bit, slows down, only to start building again. The action is there, but there's more suspense than action. I like it better that way. The movie had entirely too much constant action, and made it move too fast. PJ, I think, would have done better filming it more like Hitchcock. You can make an interesting and exciting film without having to have action scene after action scene without a break to sit back.

I totally agree!

This is the single alone standing fault in the movie whether it is in accordance with the book or not!

There is action but no suspense!

I first noticed it when I was disappointed with the awesome looking Balrog. It looked perfect, but it failed to scare me. They showed it too early!

My girlfriend pin pointed also that the same is the problem with the Ringwraiths. She described them as being disgusting, but not that frightful - as we would want. Their horses scared her more. This is an example of how it is more effective to show the victim's of terror than it's cause! (Tolkien never really tell's what Ringwraith is. He keeps making them more and more immaterial as the story goes on.)

Then they showed Gandalf getting caught before the Prancing Pony. For the reader it is very disturbing to NOT to have Gandalf there. And even in the movie Gandalf says he is NEVER late, so we could have expected suspense when he IS late and WHY!?They must have done an editing mistake here.

They showed the palantir and the connection between Saruman and Sauron: This made Saruman look weak. And how do we get exited when Pippin goes and examines the palantir? On the otherhand the viewer couldn't really figure out what palantir was. Enough though.

Jackson should trust Hichcock's example!

I think SUSPENSE IN LOTR should be brought up in a new Thread!

Greenleaf

01-04-2002, 05:59 AM

-----The movie had entirely too much constant action, and made it move too fast. ----------

I disagree, if the movie had had any less action LOTR virgins would have become bored, and as much as we would like it to be, the movie was not made exclusively for JRRT fans. The movie had to appeal to the masses, it had to make money. The only other way for it to have done that would have been to add some sort of bed scene, and that would have been absolutely disastrous!!!!!!

Undómiel

01-04-2002, 10:18 PM

They showed the palantir and the connection between Saruman and Sauron: This made Saruman look weak. And how do we get exited when Pippin goes and examines the palantir? On the otherhand the viewer couldn't really figure out what palantir was. Enough though.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "palantir" ?

Greenleaf

01-04-2002, 11:36 PM

OK I think I know what a Palantir is but I may end up getting nailed to the wall.... o well.

In TTT chapter 11 entitled "The palanir" it'd history is told by Gandalf. “The Palantir came from beyond Westernesse, from Eldamar. The Noldor made them."

You use it "To see fare off, and to converse in thought with one another"
"But alone it could do nothing but see small images of things far off and days remote. Very useful, no doubt, that was to Saruman; yet it seemed that he was not content. Further and further abroad he gazed, until he cast his gaze upon Barad-dur. Then he was caught!"
That is all I know about it. Hope it helped. :)

CRAIG

01-05-2002, 09:02 AM

I MAY OPINION THE MOVIE LOST THE PLOT BUT HOPEFULLY IT WILL BRING MORE PPL TO READ THE BOOKS AND DISCOVER THE REAL STORY

Thorin

01-05-2002, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Undómiel

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "palantir" ?

The palantir were the seven "seeing" stones. They were made in the Elder days by Feanor (Galadriel's uncle) who also made the three Silmaril jewels. Some were given to the Numenoreans and out of the seven, only three remained by LoTr (The stone at Orthanc, Minas Tirith and Sauron's). the others were lost.

Curufinwe

01-05-2002, 11:48 PM

Feanor isn't Galadrial uncle, Half uncle.

Thorin

01-06-2002, 01:21 AM

:confused:

Hmmm? I guess that would mean uncle in some fashion, right?

AH_Lothlorien

01-06-2002, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by Gloer

I totally agree!

This is the single alone standing fault in the movie whether it is in accordance with the book or not!

There is action but no suspense!

OK I understand they couldn't fit the whole book into a movie; and I did enjoy (some) parts of the movie, but it was WAY too dark for me. Tolkien is such an eloquent writer and incredible painter of scenery. I always felt like I was right there. The movie had some serious misgivings in that area. Too dark and too evil. Tolkien did not intend middle earth to be this way.
Not even a Tom Bombadil, one of my favorite parts! PJ even made Lothlorien, the most majestic and magnificent place in all middle earth, seem like an evil, dark, forboding place. A lot was lost in the majestics of the book when the director attempted to cator to what they THINK the mass audience needs to see. I was dissapointed.

ReadWryt

01-21-2002, 07:13 AM

That's funny...I felt that Moria was not DARK enough for me...Heheh

lilhobo

01-21-2002, 10:10 AM

this is a bit of deja vue!!!!!

doesnt it feel like "1984" the book, where they just re make history and re make the past :D :D :D :D

Lorien

01-21-2002, 12:28 PM

none of the "scary" elements in the movie were actually scary....the balrog just looked big thats all.....and the ringwraiths looked like almost normal riders except for their cloaks and horses.....and when frodo puts the ring on and sees the ringwraiths at Amon-Hen they arent really indimidating or anything....and Tolkien never revealed it to the leaders until late that Saruman was under Sauron's will....until the point of revealing readers think that Saruman is on his own....(which he is...but they dont know about the Palantiri and Sauron).....

*my two bits*

TulKas Astaldo

01-21-2002, 10:40 PM

On the subject of the Palantir... From my understanding, (Which should be great, since I'm still reading JRRT's books, but I've never gone back and reread, so I forget some things... I'm working on The Lost Tales, and it's been quite a while since I've read anything about the Palantir, so bear with me) the Elves made the Palantir and gave them to the Numenoreans... One was brought to Orthanc, which was an ancient stronghold of Numenor, one lost in the Ice Bay of Forochel, and the rest were brought to Osgiliath before the Drowning of Numenor. One ended up in Minas Tirith, which is Denethor's stone in LotR. I believe one went to Minas Morgul, which is now a stronghold of Sauron's Nazgul. No one really knows what happened to it, perhaps it's still in that tower or maybe Sauron took it to Barad-Dur... I believe that's 4 of them, and I believe 2 were left in Osgiliath with the two original Kings of Gondor, and perhaps one to the King of Arnor. Either way, Sauron now has the Ruling Palantir along with 1 or 2 others... Some people believe the Eye of Sauron and the Mirror of Galadriel are both Palantir, but I disagree...

taylorstaten1

01-24-2002, 01:42 AM

I liked the movie a little bit better, b/c (because) the book is more confusing than the movie, and the book is a little harder to read, but it was very well written

JoS Metadi

01-24-2002, 09:10 PM

Seven stars and seven stones and one white tree

This is part of a quote regarding the arrival of the Numoreans, and the explanation of their emblem. The Palantiri were the stars and seeing stones. They were used to talk to each other, as well as to survey the land.

Both Denethor and Saruman were influenced by Sauron through the Palantiri. We know that Sauron was able to drive Denethor to despair and eventually insanity by causing the Palantir as Minas Tirith to show him only the "bad news". We can assume Saruman was influenced in the same manner which led to his despair and eventual betrayal.

After Grima threw the Palantir down from Orthanc, Pippin touched it, and later looked into it. Because he was not as strong as Saruman or Denethor, Sauron was able to have such strong and direct control over him.

Later, Aragorn (the rightful heir and owner of the Palantiri) wrested back control of the Palantiri away from Sauron, and used it to discover the Corsairs threatening the shore areas of Gondor.

It is my understanding that the "Masterstone" refered to the Palantir at Osgiliath, but I can't remember the exact reference.

JoS Metadi

Lindir

01-24-2002, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by JoS Metadi

It is my understanding that the "Masterstone" refered to the Palantir at Osgiliath, but I can't remember the exact reference.

"The chief and master of these was under the Dome of Stars at Osgiliath before it´s ruin"

That´s from TTT, Gandalf telling Pippin about the Seeing stones.

Ancalagon

01-25-2002, 02:16 AM

That's funny...I felt that Moria was not DARK enough for me...Heheh

Do you know RW, I have to agree with you (for once) on this one. I felt something dark and terrible was missing from Moria, certainly not the presence of a Balrog or Orcs, yet something deeper. I think it lacked the true darkness that one felt when reading the book. Groping and stumbling along the passages, barely able to make out the carvings, structures or pathways that riddled the caverns. Yet, we were treated to clarity, and for that we lost atmosphere.

Moria, although a place of majesty (for it was a palace in its own right), lacked the feeling of complete emptiness of it's original inhabitants. The demise of a great Dwarven culture, vibrant and productive, now gone forever. Hmmm, I feel somewhat remeniscent of my first reading of Moria, for I pictured vast halls, awesome and stunning, yet now dark and foreboding. As mch as I liked the visual beauty of Moria in the movie, it lacked the dark, brooding atmosphere of Tolkiens imagination, that can only be found in the pages.

Samwise

01-25-2002, 11:59 PM

I agree. Moria was too open. It was supposed to be passageways and great halls. It should've been darker, but don't forget, PJ couldn't make the movie and have no light. You need light to make the film and many other things, so I don't think it's possible to get movie exactly like Tolkien decsribed it.

dgoof911

02-06-2002, 10:55 PM

I am wondering to know,what do people like more? The movie or the book.

I like the book much much more becuase it was much more exciting to make up my own pictures as i read it. I liked the movie but I like to read and make my own pictures (not someone elses opinion).

Treebeard

02-06-2002, 11:14 PM

Book.

Lord Aragorn

02-06-2002, 11:42 PM

Book. No brainer.

dpcooldude

02-07-2002, 12:01 AM

Definitly the book, the movie leaves out to much, you don't even know what more than half of the places in the movie are named.

Goro Shimura

02-07-2002, 12:14 AM

They should have made six movies instead of three.

The great dialog of the book is replaced with "If you want him, come and claim him!" and "Nobody tosses a dwarf!" and "It's just a broken heirloom!" (Very bad stuff even by Screenplay standards: "Why, you look strong enough to pull the ears off a nerf herder!")

The suspense of Book 1 is ruined... Just seeing a Nazgul in the distance... sniffing... swaying... all of those close calls. It was just condensed into a couple of "Run Away!!" type scenes. And the Nazgul just look clueless when you remove the Old Forest material... and when you let Strider set them on fire. (Also it's more nervewracking to spend the entire part of Book 1 wondering where the heck Gandalf is.... PJ spoils it!)

Strider's tracking abilities don't appear... no Farmer Maggot scenes (hearing about the Nazgul second hand makes them more fightening than actually showing them on screen) No Bill Ferney. "Nob! You slowcoach!" No forgetful Baliman Butterbur. No Gildor...

Basicly... all the texture was removed... and the scenes that were most moving were edited, deleted or mutilated.

Bill the Pony

02-07-2002, 12:19 AM

No need to think about it: BOOK!

PRH

02-07-2002, 12:35 AM

Goroshimura:
They should have made six movies instead of three.

That would've been great but PJ & NLC would never have won nearly as many people over with the first movie if it only covered the journey to Rivendell. It would've certainly seemed good artistically after subsequent movies came out but from a business standpoint it wouldn't have fared well as the first effort (meaning financially it probably would've flopped).

baraka

02-07-2002, 10:56 PM

Definitely the book. I would like to see someone say that the movie is better than the book.

Nimawae's hope

02-07-2002, 11:22 PM

You, know I really loved the movie. In fact it is one of my favorite movies! However, I can say without the slightest doubt that the book is my favorite. It is way better that any movie they could ever come up with. But then that is the way its supposed to be. Movies adapted from books are almost never as good as the book itself. That is why I can take the changes in the movie with out too much trouble!