Please list your criticisms

[Talimon]

I've been seeing a lot of anti-PJ flack making the rounds, and I'm just kind of wondering what it comes down to. It seems to me that the people complaining have been preparing to do so long before the movie was even released. If anyone here possibly could, make your arguments against the movie. I don't want to hear why it was unfaithful to the book. I want to hear why it was a bad movie. I get the feeling that everyone's arguments here are made with the book in mind. This is fine, but have you ever stopped to think about the movie? Please explain.

[Elias]

If you forget the book the movie was excellent. ;)

[Talimon]

Quite frankly, I haven't forgotten the book, and I still think the movie is genius. It's easy to nitpick, but then again that goes both ways. For every detail that was left out 20 more were included. That's what I mean by only seeing the negative. I can't even start on how much "inside" stuff was included. You can either rate the movie by starting at 100 and docking a point for each spot it deviates from the book, or you can start at 0 and add a point for each spot it remains faithful. And you know what? I'll gaurantee that if you start at 0 you'll get a higher score. But you must have quite high expectations if you are starting at 100 before you've even seen the movie.

I have much praise to give (look out for a review of mine coming soon), but the point is, in nearly all respects this is as good a tribute to Tolkien as anything you could ever dream for. Notice the key word being "tribute". This isn't an accurate adaptation, it's rather an adaptation made in the spirit of the writings. Sure, there is the small stuff like Frodo not defying the Nazgul, but when all is said and done, the big themes are captured. And where ever these are absent it is easily replaced by a much more powerful cinematic equivalent.

[Ancalagon]

For a start, you cannot detatch this movie from the book, so if one has to make comment, it must be with that in mind.

The editing is dreadful. The characters for the most part lacked the conviction with which they were originally intended. The liberties taken with storylines simply to appeal to the masses and the PC brigades is shameful. The film itself lacked suspense. The character of Frodo is both wooden and unconvincing as an unlikely hero. In parts the scriptwriting is dire to say the least; 'tossing a dwarf' and 'let's hunt some Orc', spring to mind. You cannot speak in 'olde English' one the one hand, to suddenly switch to 'bar-room slang' an the other. It lunged from scene to scene, leaving most who have no idea of Tolkien completely bewildered as to reasoning or need. However, I will accept that due to cuts in length much of this may be recovered by the time of the DVD release.

Don't get me wrong, overall it looks good, can be pleasing to those who are ignorant of the Author and his vision, and has excellent attention to detail in many areas. However, it is not above criticism, especially the characters; Merry and Pippin were fools, Aragorn lacked the mystery that ought to have stood out from the minute we meet him in Bree, Legolas was devoid composure and elegance, as for Frodo, one couldnt care less whether he was decapitated in the first five minutes.
So, all in all, who do you blame for these inconsistencies and lack of depth?

[markrob]

Its not your fault but you are a little too late to open up a topic such as you have. If you will go back and review the earlier threads from DEC,JAN, and possibly FEB all will be revealed. That was a time of the great war of FADS VS. NPWS. Some battles were won on both sides but I doubt we got anything accomplished other that stating our own opinion. But stay tuned, it will all re-hatch as we draw ever closer to the release of TTT. I am afraid that this forum (FOTR) is all but spent, but alas, my entry into the TTT forum is forthcoming so Thorin, and other extreme purists get ready to renew our ongoing conflict. Now if I just could find my Foe-Hammer?? :D

[ReadWryt]

But my complaints about the movie intrisically involve the Book and Peter Jackson's insistence that he was not going to make "major changes" in the characters, and that he kept getting the screenplay closer and closer to the books with each revision...the latter making me believe that it started out as a story of a young Water Farmer on a backwater planet who gets sucked into an adventure to save a pricess being held captive by an evil Empire in a galaxy far far away...because if it actually got closer to the book over the three years they were writing the screenplay with all the changes that were in the film then it couldn't have resembled the actuall source material in the least at the start.

My problems with Jackson stem from his publicity machine and the lies upon which a measure of the success of this movie's early box office figures depended, like the story about how amazing Jackson was for being the first person to have filmed three movies at once, and then seeing him tell people in Barnes and Noble in NYC that the SCREENPLAY isn't done yet, making it obvious that he couldn't shoot all three at once in reality...or the insitence that things like the Ford scene did not constitute "major changes" in characters when it's quite obvious that having Arwen call forth a flood, having Frodo fail to stand against the Nazgul and leaving Gandalf out of it alltogether are indeed quite major changes.

[Thorin]

Aye karumba! Where do I start???


I agree with Anc on the characters. From a movie standpoint the characters were poorly developed (maybe with the exception of Gandalf). The editing was awful and confusing. The time sequences were too compressed and many scenes were underdeveloped. Even for a knowledgeable Tolkien-ite, the plot progression was perplexing and frustrating at times, never mind someone who had never heard of Tolkien

Hopefully the DVD uncut release will fill in some of the major gaps that FoTR was riddled with....

As Anc also said, you cannot separate the book from the movie, for the movie only has reason and meaning within the context of the book. It is the standard by which it is judged. (Can someone honestly tell me that movies made about the Bible are judged only on their own merit without the Bible as a reference? Adaptations of great works are inevitably and rightly judged by those great works. It's just a fact)

From a book perspective....Well I have said over and over pretty much how I've felt about it all....Put both of these things together (movie quality and book quality) and you have a poorly done movie over all IMHO. (Technically, it was a fantastic movie, though)

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Ancalagon


The editing is dreadful. The characters for the most part lacked the conviction with which they were originally intended. The liberties taken with storylines simply to appeal to the masses and the PC brigades is shameful. The film itself lacked suspense. The character of Frodo is both wooden and unconvincing as an unlikely hero. In parts the scriptwriting is dire to say the least; 'tossing a dwarf' and 'let's hunt some Orc', spring to mind. You cannot speak in 'olde English' one the one hand, to suddenly switch to 'bar-room slang' an the other. It lunged from scene to scene, leaving most who have no idea of Tolkien completely bewildered as to reasoning or need. However, I will accept that due to cuts in length much of this may be recovered by the time of the DVD release.

Don't get me wrong, overall it looks good, can be pleasing to those who are ignorant of the Author and his vision, and has excellent attention to detail in many areas. However, it is not above criticism, especially the characters; Merry and Pippin were fools, Aragorn lacked the mystery that ought to have stood out from the minute we meet him in Bree, Legolas was devoid composure and elegance, as for Frodo, one couldnt care less whether he was decapitated in the first five minutes.
So, all in all, who do you blame for these inconsistencies and lack of depth?

I'd just like to remind you that this is the first film. Although I'm sure it is quite above anyone who has read the books dozens of times, try and imagine what you're thoughts on the book were after finishing Fellowhip of the Ring. It's not a stand-alone story. It's less then half way done.

To say that the film appeals to the masses and then say it lacks suspense is kind of an oxymoron. The fact is, if you are trying to make a film that appeals to the masses you don't make it 3 hours long. You don't base it around a ring. Jackson could have taken many liberties that would have been much more severe.

To say Frodo is an unlikely hero is very true. In the book he is indeed quite unlikely (unless you have other views on hobbits). Never in the book is he the "hero". His heroic aspects are all relative. They come from his struggle with the ring.

The movie never has "Olde English", so I don't see where your inconsistency comes from. Also, in terms of non-Tolkien fans being bewildered, that's quite a subjective statement. I don't know what to compare it to, but for a film of it's kind it made much more sense then most.

I beg you to detail to me the "authors vision". That's such an ugly term for anyone to assume to have knowledge of, but please detail it none-the-less.



But my complaints about the movie intrisically involve the Book and Peter Jackson's insistence that he was not going to make "major changes" in the characters, and that he kept getting the screenplay closer and closer to the books with each revision...the latter making me believe that it started out as a story of a young Water Farmer on a backwater planet who gets sucked into an adventure to save a pricess being held captive by an evil Empire in a galaxy far far away...because if it actually got closer to the book over the three years they were writing the screenplay with all the changes that were in the film then it couldn't have resembled the actuall source material in the least at the start.

My problems with Jackson stem from his publicity machine and the lies upon which a measure of the success of this movie's early box office figures depended, like the story about how amazing Jackson was for being the first person to have filmed three movies at once, and then seeing him tell people in Barnes and Noble in NYC that the SCREENPLAY isn't done yet, making it obvious that he couldn't shoot all three at once in reality...or the insitence that things like the Ford scene did not constitute "major changes" in characters when it's quite obvious that having Arwen call forth a flood, having Frodo fail to stand against the Nazgul and leaving Gandalf out of it alltogether are indeed quite major changes.

You have created a very demented vision of Peter Jackson if this is how you see him. We aren't talking about some exec there to cash in on big dollars. We are talking about a big fat director who walks barefoot and wears the same clothes for weeks on. This isn't a money hungry individual. Also, I can't understand why you'd care if he shot them at the same time or not. Does this detract from your enjoyment of the film? I hope not for your sake. If anything it should be the other way around.

Having Arwen call forth the flood is a story change, but does that lower the quality of the film on it's own? In fact, out of all the scenes in the book, does it really matter whether she did it or Elrond and Gandalf did? Does it change any of the themes? No. Likewise, does it in turn flesh out a new charachter? Does it add some badly needed female precense to the movie? Yes.

I agree with Anc on the characters. From a movie standpoint the characters were poorly developed (maybe with the exception of Gandalf). The editing was awful and confusing. The time sequences were too compressed and many scenes were underdeveloped. Even for a knowledgeable Tolkien-ite, the plot progression was perplexing and frustrating at times, never mind someone who had never heard of Tolkien

Hopefully the DVD uncut release will fill in some of the major gaps that FoTR was riddled with....

As Anc also said, you cannot separate the book from the movie, for the movie only has reason and meaning within the context of the book. It is the standard by which it is judged. (Can someone honestly tell me that movies made about the Bible are judged only on their own merit without the Bible as a reference? Adaptations of great works are inevitably and rightly judged by those great works. It's just a fact)

From a book perspective....Well I have said over and over pretty much how I've felt about it all....Put both of these things together (movie quality and book quality) and you have a poorly done movie over all IMHO. (Technically, it was a fantastic movie, though)

The charachters were poorly developed? From a movie standpoint? Anything but. The only two characthers that weren't developed were Legolas and Gimili, movie wise. You may like to say Merry and Pippin, but movie wise they served thier role. You can't develop everyone, and those who are developed are developed as plenty. Jackson made Merry and Pippin relatively shallow charachters to begin with, and so there is nothing to truly develop. What is true, if anything, is that by the end of the movie they have become far less happy-go-lucky.

To say the time sequences were poorly compressed, for a non-Tolkienite, shows a serious bias. If you didn't know the distance between the Bradywine and Bree, whose to say they couldn't have arrived there that very same night? You have to be more open minded when you talk about non-fans. There are assumptions people make that as a fan of the book you wouldn't even think of. That's the magic of the movie. It fills in the holes without being blunt. It never "says" that the ring makes you invisible. It just shows it. It never "says" hobbits smoke, or like thier second breakfast. It just shows it. For anyone who is even slightly paying attention to the movie it's easy to pick up a lot of info, just by looking.

Like I said, it's easy to nitpick, but that doesn't make any worse a movie.

[Gothmog]

Some battles were won on both sides but I doubt we got anything accomplished other that stating our own opinion.
markrob, Is there any thing else to be accomplished other than stating opinions?

I'd just like to remind you that this is the first film. Although I'm sure it is quite above anyone who has read the books dozens of times, try and imagine what you're thoughts on the book were after finishing Fellowhip of the Ring. It's not a stand-alone story. It's less then half way done.
Talimon, after reading The Fellowship of the Ring My thoughts were "What's next, where's the Two Towers?" After watching the Film my thoughts were "Ah well, hope the next is an improvement."
I beg you to detail to me the "authors vision". That's such an ugly term for anyone to assume to have knowledge of, but please detail it none-the-less. It starts "This tale grew in the telling, until it became a history of the Great War of the Ring and included many glimpses of the yet more ancient history that preceded it." and continues until " It must be observed, however, that when the Oldbucks (Zaragamba) changed their name to Brandybuck (Brandagamba), the first element meant 'borderland', and Marchbuck would have been nearer. Only a very bold hobbit would have ventured to call the Master of Buckland Braldagamba in his hearing."

Having Arwen call forth the flood is a story change, but does that lower the quality of the film on it's own? In fact, out of all the scenes in the book, does it really matter whether she did it or Elrond and Gandalf did? Does it change any of the themes? No. Likewise, does it in turn flesh out a new charachter? Does it add some badly needed female precense to the movie? Yes.
out of all the scenes in the book it does matter very much that she did not in fact do it. It changes the theme of Aragorn and Arwen beyond recognition. What "New character was needed? And Arwen was not a "New" character. As for some "badly needed female presence in the movie" The Film was supposed to be based on Tolkien's book. So there was no need of "female" presence, only for the Charaters from the book. If you have a need for females then Arwen could have been introduced by a simple One for One exchange with Glorfindel Who was supposed to be there. This would not have affected any themes. Pandering to the PC brigade is an insult to the book, the people working on the film and the paying public who watch.

[Dûndorer]

my complaint isnt about whats in the movie but its about the movie only needing a half a star to be perfect. couldnt they give it that half of the star!

[Talimon]

So there was no need of "female" presence, only for the Charaters from the book. If you have a need for females then Arwen could have been introduced by a simple One for One exchange with Glorfindel Who was supposed to be there

I have no need for females (well, actually... ;) ), but movies do. It's just part of the chemistry of movies. Movies with only women don't work, movies with only men don't work. I won't deny the fact that Liv Tyler had a few corny scenes. But in my opinion that's a worthy pay-off. I think it would be slightly corny to have Glorfindel just arrive, and then leave the story. In the book it works, because there is more time, but here it just wouldn't fit. I think replacing Glorfindels role with Arwen's, plot wise, makes a lot of sense. Liv Tyler being corny is another story.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
I think it would be slightly corny to have Glorfindel just arrive, and then leave the story. In the book it works, because there is more time, but here it just wouldn't fit. I think replacing Glorfindels role with Arwen's, plot wise, makes a lot of sense. Liv Tyler being corny is another story.

Even if Arwen had only replaced Glorfindel it still would have been out of place and hard pressed to forgive PJ for putting her character in where she never was and where she never belonged....It would, however, have been understandable from a movie standpoint (allow her to be introduced to the audience early)....

However....

The fact is, is that she didn't replace Glorfindel...She came and said cheesy things and did cheesy things and did things Glorfindel never did....Not only that, she replaced the role of Frodo (most unforgivable), Elrond, and Gandalf as well.....What PJ did was far from just replacing Glorfindel.

[Talimon]

Quite frankly, it couldn't matter less in terms of Gandalf and Elrond. Them triggering the river is a minute detail that has no implications story wise. The important part is that it is triggered to protect Rivendell. Plot-wise I think it's a great twist to have Arwen trigger it.

The one thing I will agree on, regarding Arwen's flight to the ford, is that it dropped out Frodo's defiance against the Nazgul. This was pretty important in the book. It deffinitely helped flesh out a part of Frodo. I will also admit, however, that it is foolish to criticize a movie over one scene, especially when that same scene had some great aspects to it. There is some beautiful cinematography of Arwen being chased by the riders. And the shot of all 9 un-sheathing thier swords simulataneously was great. Even if you criticize that scene script-wise, you still have to give credit for it's other aspects. And since that's the only specific scene that I've heard people criticize so far, I find it hard to see how you can say it's a bad movie.

[Minas]

The fact that all 3 movies were shot at the same time still stands even though PJ and Co are shooting more action.

Some of these extra scenes include Boromir which can only be for the DVD as he is dead and I guess are a result of his fantastic performance in LOTR.
New Line are responsive to the feedback from the first movie and are looking to change Movie 2 and 3 to make them more money.

As ever the only thing that seems universally agreed is that Frodo is weakened by Arwen at the ford. Hopefully that also will be some one of the extra scenes that are being filmed or in some way put right (if that can possibly be done other than a public opology from Arwen) in TTT and ROTK.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
Quite frankly, it couldn't matter less in terms of Gandalf and Elrond. Them triggering the river is a minute detail that has no implications story wise. The important part is that it is triggered to protect Rivendell. Plot-wise I think it's a great twist to have Arwen trigger it.

And the shot of all 9 un-sheathing thier swords simulataneously was great. Even if you criticize that scene script-wise, you still have to give credit for it's other aspects. And since that's the only specific scene that I've heard people criticize so far, I find it hard to see how you can say it's a bad movie.


The nine never had swords. Another deviation PJ felt he had to do to make LoTR his own creation.....but who's being nit-picky? :D

To me, the issue with the whole Arwen/Ford fiasco is the lack of sanctity PJ seems to be showing to the characters that JRR created....And despite all the pooh-poohing people have done with JRR's quote to Disney, he obviously was quite adamant about his characters remaining true to how he wrote them.

Cinematically, it is not the end of the world if Gandalf does not create the white horses or Elrond loose the flood....However, you must question the integrity of PJ that he was claiming the movie would be true to the book and that every scene practically came dictated and approved from JRR himself through Ouija board....Then in a few consecutive scenes, he eliminates and distorts the duties of 6 of the characters Tolkien created and fabricates cheesy dialogue in the middle.....That's pretty hard to swallow.

Tal, because you came in late, you haven't seen all the criticisms that I've had about the CONTENT of the movie that has made me determine that it was bad....This thread was about it being judged as a MOVIE and not as it's content....I feel that as a movie alone, Ancalagon and I have laid out why I feel it was a bad movie.

[Talimon]

Each to his own... People have different tastes no doubt. But what I will say is that not every change from the book should be automatically considered an ill one. I think one mistake many purists have made is to automatically shun every change from the original story, instead of looking at what's there. The vast majority of the changes were made in the spirit of Tolkien, and helped enforce one point or another. Like I said, I am not extremely keen on the Arwen scenes either, but that has nothing to do with the change itself. Theoretically it's a great change. It's just carried out with some corny lines and mediocre acting. Which, being but 5-10 minutes of a 180 minute movie, hardly detracts much.

[ReadWryt]

You have created a very demented vision of Peter Jackson if this is how you see him. We aren't talking about some exec there to cash in on big dollars. We are talking about a big fat director who walks barefoot and wears the same clothes for weeks on. This isn't a money hungry individual. Also, I can't understand why you'd care if he shot them at the same time or not. Does this detract from your enjoyment of the film? I hope not for your sake. If anything it should be the other way around.

What we ARE talking about is an individual who, instead of stating from the start that "...we are taking a 1200 page book and making it into three movies, and so to make it as accessable to the broadest audience we are making several changes in the events and characters..." he blatently practiced upon the credulous simplicity of the pre-existing fan base by making false statements to ensure that they did not rip the films apart before they were released. He and the promotional department at New Line have done all they can, up to and including lie, to make certain that they could gain the return on their work and money and that is unforgivable when you consider that this was done at the expense of the hard work and loving toil of one of the greatest authors of the 20th century. I normally would NOT care if all three films were made at once, but I DO care if great pains are made to spread a LIE that all three were made at once, only to have the Director and Screenplay writer admit off handedly that the Screenplay is not even finished, making all too apparent that it would be impossible for the films to have been shot already...

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
I think one mistake many purists have made is to automatically shun every change from the original story, instead of looking at what's there.

The vast majority of the changes were made in the spirit of Tolkien, and helped enforce one point or another.

I don't think that there are any purists (of which, I'm sure, I'm the staunchest on this forum) who object to every change....I winced at Gandalf bumping his head, and M&P acting like buffoons, and some of the cheesy dialogue...But I also enjoyed the Shire scenes (much of which was fabricated in terms of details and dialogue), I enjoyed Moria, despite the comical cave troll and regardless of the many little changes there. I was touched by Amon Hen and the performance of Sean Bean as Boromir, though some of the changes annoyed me slightly....I do not object to little changes....

I have said before...There are many changes that could be made and still be in the "spirit" of Tolkien....However, there comes a time when it stops being JRR Tolkien's epic and a loosely based one by Peter Jackson....Who wants that? I was promised the real deal, not some added, altered, fabricated and chopped up version of a true epic....

[Talimon]

He and the promotional department at New Line have done all they can, up to and including lie, to make certain that they could gain the return on their work and money and that is unforgivable when you consider that this was done at the expense of the hard work and loving toil of one of the greatest authors of the 20th century.

At the "expense"? Sales figures world-round have shown that the movie has boosted the book sales very dramatically. The end result is that more people are reading the book. If you think that's at the authors expense, I can't help you. Likewise, if Peter Jackson was the marketing whore you make him to be, he wouldn't be spending what will turn out to be more then a decade of his life pushing for and making these films. If New Line wanted to make a blockbuster out of these movies, they wouldn't give them to a director whose previous work has been obscure low buget horror films. They wouldn't make it 3 hours long a piece. Quite frankly, they wouldn't make 3 movies. Finally, while it might not be deemed much, Tolkien's grandson loved the movies so much he actually stood in line at the debut to get Ian McKellens autograph. A very close friend of Tolkien wrote a review on the film, and said that, other then a few minor details, he believed the film was the result of relentless dedication to Tolkien's vision. The key word here is vision, and once some of you purists actually realize what that means, you'll see that it's more then just lines or charachters.

I normally would NOT care if all three films were made at once, but I DO care if great pains are made to spread a LIE that all three were made at once, only to have the Director and Screenplay writer admit off handedly that the Screenplay is not even finished, making all too apparent that it would be impossible for the films to have been shot already...

"Great pains"? All three films were shot over an 18 month period. This has made up 99% of the material. Of course, a lot of the Special Effects and Editing were done after that, but that's not what PJ claimed. It's no secret that all 3 films aren't complete. That was never the claim. The claim was that New Line was investing in 3 films all at once. That is to say, they put down the money for it all. All 3 films were gauranteed to be made. This can be compared to Star Wars, or the Matrix. Star Wars, when it was released, were it to not make any money, would not have any sequels. The Matrix, were it to crash, would not be getting any sequels. All PJ is saying is that from the get-go it was clear 3 movies were being made. This allowed them to shoot the bulk of them together, and edit them more efficiently. I still don't understand where your complaint is coming from...

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Talimon
Quite frankly, it couldn't matter less in terms of Gandalf and Elrond. Them triggering the river is a minute detail that has no implications story wise. The important part is that it is triggered to protect Rivendell. Plot-wise I think it's a great twist to have Arwen trigger it.

The one thing I will agree on, regarding Arwen's flight to the ford, is that it dropped out Frodo's defiance against the Nazgul. This was pretty important in the book. It deffinitely helped flesh out a part of Frodo. I will also admit, however, that it is foolish to criticize a movie over one scene, especially when that same scene had some great aspects to it. There is some beautiful cinematography of Arwen being chased by the riders. And the shot of all 9 un-sheathing thier swords simulataneously was great. Even if you criticize that scene script-wise, you still have to give credit for it's other aspects. And since that's the only specific scene that I've heard people criticize so far, I find it hard to see how you can say it's a bad movie.

Plot-wise I felt it was a load of rubbish. and as for the Flight to the Ford BS. That was to me the worst part of the Film. All that "beautiful cinematography" nearly sent me to sleep. I thought that the best thing that could have been done with it would be to have left it on the cutting-room floor.

[Talimon]

The cinematography sent you to sleep...? That's hard...

[Minas]

I still don't see the evidence. As I've stated before when the accusations of Lying and gross misrepresentation appear where are these quotes and when were they made. When I started to follow the movie's release closely 1 month before 19 Dec-01 PJ stated that it could only be his version of Tolkien's work. I have since since earlier quotes where New Line and PJ have said that they would keep it as honest to Tolkiens work as possible. The quotes I have seen are interspersed with references to having 6 hours of material and maybe if the movies are sucessful include Tom and Gollums travels in another 3 hours material to explain things better.

But things changed. Does that make comments lies when the basis of your comment has moved 90 degrees?

Most of the pressure, IMHO, must have come from New Line who were under threat of being shut down. The pressure for them was to make a commercially sucessful movie and as far as I know they held final sway on content and had representatives on the ground throughout the project watching it be created.

They all made a fantastic movie out a masterpiece book.

[Talimon]

I'd also like to remind Thorin and Company what the alternatives could have been. Just think what it would have been like if Disney had gotten hold of the license?!?! Can you even imagine that? The possibility of Gollum singing an Elton John song? I am just really happy that Peter Jackson got the license, as opposed to someone else.

And also, look at the other versions that have been made. They have all attempted to stay true to the book, and have ended up being horrible. Quite frankly, the BBC version wasn't even that great.

Basically, for me it breaks down like this: Peter Jackson has made two accomplishments with this movie. One, he's told the tale of The Fellowship of the Ring. Is it different from the book? Yes. It's Peter Jackson's version, and I love it. It's emotional, and it takes your senses to Middle Earth. It's not the book, but the payoff is that I can get through the whole thing in 3 hours. The second thing he's done, however, and the far more important one, has been to create a mindblowing movie. It's not mindblowing for the book crowd, perhaps, but as far as these types of movies go it's sure to live on for many decades. This trilogy is gauranteed to be the Star Wars of this generation of movie-goers. It's the best fantasy-adventure film ever, hands down. Every time I go see it I am just blown away. I know a lot of you purists can't handle it's fabrications, but for better or worse you are part of the minority. The majority of Tolkien fans (and LotR readers) aren't purists, and for them this movie has gone above and beyond the call of duty.

The point I'd like to make, however, is that in my opinion the reason this movie is so special is because of the Tolkien tale it's built on. That's the important thing to remember. It's those lines from the book that will make this film timeless.

I might seem preachy, but I've just come back from seeing it again, and I'm just horribly in love with this movie. I've finally detached myself from all expectations, and taken this movie completely for what it is. I love it.

[ReadWryt]

"Great pains"? All three films were shot over an 18 month period.

Additionally, he said that they are still finding gaps in the story as they edit, which will require "pick up" filming both this year and next, to complete scenes as yet unwritten, to flesh out both TTT and ROTK. http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=57967#post57967

"scenes as yet unwritten" means something to me that I guess it does not to others because I read that as "We haven't finished the screenplay yet, ergo the movies are finished being shot".:rolleyes:

[Talimon]

If you are going to quote me, please quote my whole argument.

I can actually explain the situation very simply: PJ wrote the whole script for all 3 movies before hand. The script was complete, and everything on that end was done. Once he started eiditing, however, he discovered that the script he had written would end up being 4 hours of movie time a piece. Having discovered this in the editing room, he had to come up with a solution, and that has been to trasfer some of those lines to TTT. That's why he is going back to reshoot. There are certain parts of the story that need to be explained, and he is going to put those in to TTT instead of FotR (or in RotK instead of TTT).

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Talimon
The cinematography sent you to sleep...? That's hard...
Yes I found it moderatly so. Fortunatly the chairs in the cinema were even harder.

As a whole I was disapointed with some of the film (mainly editing of scenes.) Most of the changes I could see the reasons for and I admit that they work within the film. However, the changes made to the charater of Arwen and to the Flight to the Ford scene I cannot understand as there is no reason for such things.

[Talimon]

The only part regarding the flight to the ford that I don't like is the fact that Frodo never resists the black riders. This was an important part of the book. Other then that, I can completely see why Arwen replaced Glorfindel. She's going to be playing a bigger role in the trilogy as a whole, and I think it's important that she was introduced in the flight rather then in Rivendell.

[taylorstaten1]

I don't like how people are so nit pikky either. I loved the book and the movie, so what if they couldn't fit everything in the movie, it was long enough. It's the same with HP. If there were every detail in the movie as in the book, the movie would be like two days long.

sorry if there is a bunch of repeat sentences, i'm a newbie

[PRH]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
only to have the Director and Screenplay writer admit off handedly that the Screenplay is not even finished, making all too apparent that it would be impossible for the films to have been shot already...
RW, this is a really weak argument that you just keep milking and milking. This happens all the time. Principal photography takes place over the course of several months, then the movie is edited together, then pickup shots are done or even additional scenes if the edited product is found to be lacking. The screenplays were done. The areas found to be lacking in the editing room are the ones that are 'as yet unwritten.' It's not as though PJ went into shooting with unwritten material knowing he'd write it later and pickup shooting again. That would be a horrible waste of time and money. Additional shooting is completely par-for-the-course in movie making. By your criticisms, many movies are not made 'all at once.'

That being said, I personally don't think it's such a big deal that all 3 were done at once. It's the smart and obvious thing to do. Furthermore, it was more like one very long movie than 3 distinct films. The press really just took this and made a story out of it. "Wow! 3 movies at once!" It's just one of those soundbyte type facts that you can throw around. There is merit to the claim though. The point is that it was certainly a hell of a lot of footage to shoot in one long principal photography session.

[LadyGaladriel]

Plot-wise I felt it was a load of rubbish. and as for the Flight to the Ford BS. That was to me the worst part of the Film. All that "beautiful cinematography" nearly sent me to sleep.

PLOT WISE YOU THINK ITS RUBBISH? THE PLOT WAS BASICALLY THE SAME AS THE BOOK!!!! PJ MADE SOME CHANGES THAT WERE TOTALLY NECCESARY! HE WASN'T AS THOUGHT HE TURNED THE WHOLE THING ON ITS HEAD WAS IT? THEY HAD SOME PERFECT QUOTATIONS FROM THE BOOK AND THE SHOTS WERE MAGNIFICENT . IF THEY SEN YOU TO SLEEP THEN OBVIOUSLY YOU DO NOT HAVE TASTE OR IMAGINATION.

[Camille]

Ok ok LadyGaladriel you do not need to shout.. ;)

Ok here it is a different point of view, I went to see the picture with two non tolkien people, they both thought that the super evil character was Saruman and did not undestand that Sauron was back, at the begining somehow the movie explain the Sauron issue, but later the focus is on Saruman, so the black riders, were from Saruman or Sauron?
I do not know if they were not paying attention but that happened.. I think that PJ fail in that point.
And the answer has not to be will see more Sauron next movie...

[Talimon]

If you'll remember the books, Sauron doesn't play a direct role in the books until RotK. Well, I guess in book 4 with Frodo and Sam you could say he plays a role, but we don't actually see the armies or Mordor until Pellenor Fields.

If your friends got Sauron and Saruman confused they must have not been paying attention, because we cleary see that Sauron is that big flaming eye, and Saruman is just the way we see him. And when Saruman says "We must join him, Gandalf," it's quite obvious he's talking about Sauron. Not to mention the fact that Gandalf innitially tells Frodo that Saruman is wise and will know what to do. No, there's no excuse for getting the two mixed up.

The only thing that is really confusing in the movie for new-comers is Gondor. When Boromir talks about Gondor at the Council it's slightly confusing if you haven't read the books.

[Camille]

Probably you are right, they had to pay more attention, but, again the hole nazgul thing? who sent them? I have not seen the movie a lot of times so I cant rememrber all details but I think that in the movie, that is unclear, also the big bad guy is Sauron not Saruman anyway, and in the movie you see Sauron as a .. how can I said it? like a distant danger, that glimpse some times, but Sauron was desperate looking for his ring
Well Gondor yeah they did not say almost anithing about the city.

[taylorstaten1]

When i first read it i totally got the two mixed up. Then i read it a lot slower. It totally isn't confusing if you really pay attention

[Popqueen62]

I completely agree, what are people's problems nowadays? I can't wait for TWO TOWERS to come out, or the special edition of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, they're putting an extra hour on it

[joxy]

Wow Talimon, you've really stirred things up this time!
There's far more here than I could ever reply to or comment on.
Some of it looks as if I've been here already- I could have written
"in parts the scriptwriting is dire to say the least; 'tossing a dwarf' and 'let's hunt some Orc', spring to mind. You cannot speak in 'olde English' on the one hand, to suddenly switch to 'bar-room slang' on the other.",
and described Pippin and Merry as "fools",
but no, it was someone else who said those earlier today!
btw I am sure he meant "Olde English" as a shorthand way of referring to Tolkien's writing style, not in the literal sense. The "dwarf" and the "some orc" DO clash with that style.

[Ariana Undomiel]

Ok, ok, attempting to withdraw from the books influence and look at the movie as just a movie.

Cinematography - Excellent

Special Effects - Excellent

Costumes - Excellent

Acting - Good

Character Development - Moderately Good

Story Development - Moderately Good

Music - Excellent

Sets - Excellent


Ok, now this is just my opinion and I am definately not an expert judge. Overall I really enjoyed the film and I had several friends who went to see the movie without having a clue to what it was about and they loved it and understood the gist of the story line. I think PJ did a fairly good job and I look forward to seeing the next to films that he has in store for us.

~Ariana

[Talimon]

Um... I'm not a big fan of pulling old threads of out the closet. Often times opinions change, and I can deffinitely say I don't agree with everything I said here. I still stand by most of it though. The one thing I would have to say though is that I don't feel Arwen is there for "female presence", something I claimed. She is there to further develop the story and charachters. Also I don't feel as though Merry and Pippin are shallow.

But I still stand by the claim that if you view this movie for what is there and not what's missing you'll realize that you have a tremedous tribute to Tolkien. Some people say that Tolkien is probably rolling in his grave because of the movies. To me that is completely absurd. If Tolkiens daughter could appreciate Bakshi's attempts, I'm sure Tolkien could appreciate PJ's. If nothing more he would be humbled by the fact that his books were made into movies. But once he got beyond that I'm sure he'd recognize just how much of a tribute the movie is to him and his tale, his world and it's details. I don't mind arguing over what people think, but to say this movie was done with no regard to Tolkien's integrity is insane.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
Um... I'm not a big fan of pulling old threads of out the closet. Tolkien..would be humbled by the fact that his books were made into movies. But once he got beyond that I'm sure he'd recognize just how much of a tribute the movie is to him and his tale....to say this movie was done with no regard to Tolkien's integrity is insane.
Yes, I hadn't realised it was an old one dragged back- thought you had started a NEW area of controversy! I wonder why it WAS brought back..
I don't see T being "humbled" by anything to do with films, or being interested in any sort of "tribute".
No-one says it was done with NO regard; but even if they did, that would not be an indicator of insanity- eccentricity maybe?!
The irritating thing is that we know it WAS done with the intent of that regard, and most of the time succeeded, but at intervals from start to finish it diverts from that standard, quite unnecessarily.

[Talimon]

On the bridge Legolas jumps over the gap first. Fine. Gandalf is next, fine. Why wasn't Frodo third? Why toss everyone else over before Frodo? Surely he was safer with Gandalf and Legolas then with Aragorn alone.

That's the reason it was done. It makes the scene much more dramatic, and adds symbolism: Both Aragorn and Frodo are heading onto dangerous paths, and must make decisions about thier destiny. Thier fate is uncertain. But mostly it's there to make it more cinematic, which it does a great job at doing.


I don't see T being "humbled" by anything to do with films, or being interested in any sort of "tribute".

Considering that his tale was influenced by the oral story telling tradition, and considering that PJ's movie was made with these oral story telling values in mind, I think Tolkien would appreciate it.


No-one says it was done with NO regard; but even if they did, that would not be an indicator of insanity- eccentricity maybe?!
The irritating thing is that we know it WAS done with the intent of that regard, and most of the time succeeded, but at intervals from start to finish it diverts from that standard, quite unnecessarily.

I mean insanity in every sense of the word. People who cannot see the movie for what's there are insane. I have no other way of saying it. If you think, after watching this movie, that the film-makers couldn't have cared less for Tolkien, you are within the realms of insanity, figuratively speaking.

You seem to be bothered by what is in most peoples opinions are rather small scenes/lines. All I can say is this: Every reader of the book has a point where they draw the line on certain changes. The mistake here is to argue that those who have a more liberal tolerance to changes are greater Tolkien fans. In many cases it's the exact opposite. Berkeley has one of the largest fantasy/science fiction communities in the world. The head of a fantasy store here, who happens to be a fanatic Tolkien fan, and who has given many deep lectures on Tolkien for over 20 years, loved the movie. When I talked to him about it it became clear to me that what mattered wasn't how true to the book it was. It was the fact that it maintained the oral tradition. PJ's movie played like an old man sitting around the fireplace telling a tale. Often the details are changed to make the tale more exciting for the story-tellers audience, but that's part of the tradition. What is key here is that main themes and ideas behind the tale remain. PJ made his movie with this mindset, knowing that he could only please so many people. As the storyteller he had to use film as his tool, and the movie going public of 2002 as his audience. He told an incredible tale, and one that has left everyone waiting in anticipation for the next chapter. It is only to be expected that some people will not like some parts. Since many of your complaints against the film have been stated by others as actual compliments, I think that should be enough to prove that the film, as a whole, did it's job.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon

quote (by joxy):
I don't see T being "humbled" by anything to do with films, or being interested in any sort of "tribute".

(by Talimon) I think Tolkien would appreciate it.


Appreciate it certainly, I entirely agree;
"humble" and "tribute" are two quite different matters.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon

I mean insanity in every sense of the word. People who cannot see the movie for what's there are insane. I have no other way of saying it.
If you think, after watching this movie, that the film-makers couldn't have cared less for Tolkien, you are within the realms of insanity, figuratively speaking.
You seem to be bothered by what is in most peoples opinions are rather small scenes/lines.
The mistake here is to argue that those who have a more liberal tolerance to changes are greater Tolkien fans. In many cases it's the exact opposite.
....a fanatic Tolkien fan....loved the movie.
....what mattered wasn't how true to the book it was. It was the fact that it maintained the oral tradition. PJ's movie played like an old man sitting around the fireplace telling a tale.
Since many of your complaints against the film have been stated by others as actual compliments, I think that should be enough to prove that the film, as a whole, did it's job.
1: You are speaking a new variety of English: those people (if they exist) are NOT insane, in ANY sense of the word- fact, full stop.
2: I don't think, and as far as I am aware no-one thinks, that they couldn't have cared less- where did you get that idea from?
3: I am not "bothered" by them; I just think they are badly done, and I don't like them. And I quite agree they are, mostly, small scenes and lines- I've hazarded a guess of 5% of the whole.
4: Good for the fan; his opinion is no less- and no more- important than anyone else's.
5: Now this is a really interesting proposition, one that I haven't seen before, from you or anyone else, that the film is in the oral tradition. At first sight it seems a plausible idea, and I think it's worth developing.
6: I'd like an example of someone complimenting what you call my complaint. But no, any difference of opinion does not constitute proof that the film "did its job"; it just proves that different people have different opinions, and "vive la difference", say I! And I agree anyway, that ON THE WHOLE, 95% of the time as I've guessed, the film DOES do a (good) job, so to speak.

[Talimon]

I'm not reffering to you when I am talking about the people who thought the movie had no regard for Tolkien. But there are many others, if you look around, who argue that PJ just didn't "get" Tolkien. I'm sorry if the use of the word "insane", used liberally, bothers you, but I see many people that are so attached to the book that the moment they see any change they immediately strike down the whole movie. Maybe I'm the one that's out of my mind, but I just cannot see where these people are coming from. Either they're in denial and just enjoy bashing adaptations, or they are not in thier right mind.

2: I don't think, and as far as I am aware no-one thinks, that they couldn't have cared less- where did you get that idea from?

Go take a look at different Tolkien forums that get more action then this one and you'll see what I mean. There are "purists" who make out PJ to be the devil, a money-hungry capitalist who will make any change necessary to make another dollar. This forum happens to have a much higher class of forum-goer, due either to the fact that it's well hidden or perhaps the moderators. That's why I don't visit to many others. :)

4: Good for the fan; his opinion is no less- and no more- important than anyone else's.

Obviously. My point was to show that it's not a simple case of "the purer the fan the more dissapointed with the movie". When people use the world "purist" they often give it connotations that I completely disaprove of (i.e. being a more "hardcore" Tolkien fan, having read more of his books, understanding his charachters better). The issue here is a little deeper then just "fans" and "non-fans".

5: Now this is a really interesting proposition, one that I haven't seen before, from you or anyone else, that the film is in the oral tradition. At first sight it seems a plausible idea, and I think it's worth developing.

I've made numerous posts about this that date back quite a while, actually. While I can't find any at the moment, hopefully someone who I discussed this with at the time will come here and attest to it (Thorin, RW, or maybe even Grond). We a had a long thread about it, but I guess I didn't start it because when I did a search under my name I couldn't find it. It must have developed out of something else. I'll post it if I find it, though. It's not a very new idea, though, regarding Tolkien view on his tale. While I have no idea as to whether PJ conciously made the changes in this light, it can deffinitely be seen this way. He wanted to make the film better, and he had a specific audience that he knew would see this. He made it with these criteria, which can easily be compared to a story-teller telling a tale. My point is that you have to see in what light the changes were made. To say PJ just didn't "get" the movie is a little thin, in my opinion.

While you can find reviews by the dozen on such sites as theonering.net and Amazon.com, I'll get you some "real" reviews later. I'm reffering to Arwen and Merry & Pippin, by the way.

[Ancalagon]

Go take a look at different Tolkien forums that get more action then this one and you'll see what I mean. There are "purists" who make out PJ to be the devil, a money-hungry capitalist who will make any change necessary to make another dollar. This forum happens to have a much higher class of forum-goer, due either to the fact that it's well hidden or perhaps the moderators. That's why I don't visit to many others.

Ahh Talimon, flattery will get you everywhere;)

[Talimon]

Snicker... only a matter of time before I conquer the forum and intitute my dictator-like moderating...

What were you saying? ;)

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
I'm not reffering to you when I am talking about the people who thought the movie had no regard for Tolkien.
But there are many others, if you look around, who argue that PJ just didn't "get" Tolkien. I'm sorry if the use of the word "insane", used liberally, bothers you....Either they're in denial and just enjoy bashing adaptations, or they are not in thier right mind.
I know you're not- we're both talking about people who think it has NO regard for T, people whose existence I still doubt.
"Insane" used liTerally doesn't bother me, it worries me, about you- it's simply wrong, inaccurate, also derogatory, insulting.
Used "liBerally" perhaps,it might just be acceptable, as extreme hyperbole, like "not in their right mind"!

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
While I have no idea as to whether PJ conciously made the changes in this light [of the story-telling tradtion], it can deffinitely be seen this way.
He wanted to make the film better
I agree, and I hope you can find those references from previous threads.
But "better"?- better than what?
Your other responses to my last one were also very interesting.

[Talimon]

I'll start posting those extremist views when they start popping up again (most likely around the time that TTT is released). Here is a slightly exagerated one from our own forum, but I've seen other ones that are much more extensive:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1191

Man...I am STILL surprised by some of the opinions in that thread. People were really making fools of themselves, it seems...

But "better"?- better than what?


I mean better then what it would be were he to copy scenes word for word and detail for detail. The effect of most scenes written down is much different then the effect they have on a movie screen.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
....those extremist views....Here is a slightly exagerated one from our own forum
I mean better then what it would be were he to copy scenes word for word and detail for detail.
Thanks, there certainly is a lot of over-the-top material there!
I pick out the occasional item I agree with but most of it is far too much.

"word for word, detail for detail" is just what the film DOES give us, within reason, most of the time; that's one of the reasons I like it so much!
The only way it could be better would be if that last few per cent that is so wildly NOT w-for-w, d-for-d, were left out in favour of the real thing.
Maybe perfection would be bad for us, like eating too much rich food;
PJ has probably done us a favour by letting us imagine what could have been.

[Talimon]

Some of my favorite complaints:



the Crebain flying over what did not look like Hollin.

the cramped quarters of the Prancing Pony's common room.

Legolas wearing boots.


I've seen petty complaints before, but c'mon, "did not look like Hollin?". Sometimes I wonder if these "purists" expected PJ to come to thier houses, perform telepathy with them, get the exact picture of every scene, and put it on screen. I just never knew that so many fans were that naive about the movie.

By the way,

makes sure moderators aren't looking

you can find a lot of jolly PJ bashing at the very top of this forum. It's called "Any Movie Questions?". A lot of really good stuff. I'm not sure what amazes me about it more: the content, or the fact that one of the moderators felt that the only way he could vent his frustration was by posting a permanent post on the forum.

[Talimon]

All in all, I have concluded that PJ has a lot of trouble making charactor's actions seem realistic.

?!?!?

No comment