Does anybody feel the same as me about the movie

[uzuki]

I thought the movie was good but it left out a ton of the parts Frodo left to crick hollow for a purpos so that noonee knew he left on a journey i dont even think the director was paying attention to the book while he was reading it. My friends and I went and we wanted to see Pippin get caught in a tree so we could mock my friend who we call Pippin I hated it

[Talimon]

The director knew what was in the book and what wasn't. He read it dozens of times over the production. His goals weren't to remain absolutely true to the book in terms of details, but rather capture the "essence" or "spirit" of the books, whatever that might be. Everyone's favorite parts seemed to have been cut, but I attribute that more to the fact that so much was kept that it's easier to single out what wasn't. As a movie it's great a captures certain aspects of Tolkiens majesty perfectly. It doesn't shine everywhere, but where it does it's extremely powerful.

My favorite line that was cut was the one where Strider says, "So I look foul but feel fair?" or something like that. It was a funny line that showed his lighter side.

[Goldberry344]

i think that PJ did a good job. at firs i was really dissapointed that they left out the old forest and Tom Bombadil, but if they had included those parts the movie would have been too long. i like it the way it is, it helps separate "LOTR fans" and "Tolkien Fans".

Lotr fans have seen the movie and thats it.

Tolkien fans read the Hobbit, the trilogy, perhaps the sil, or unfinished tales. they tend to be more devoted to the characters than the actors.

[Shion]

Lotr fans have seen the movie and thats it.

Tolkien fans read the Hobbit, the trilogy, perhaps the sil, or unfinished tales. they tend to be more devoted to the characters than the actors.

Well, I guess I fall into both categories. :)

The film wasn't really anything like my own visualisation of Middle Earth... and yet I think it's a good visualisation in its own right, one that I enjoyed very much.

Personally, I've separated one from the other and view them as two different and wonderful things... so in a way, I've got two Middle Earth's. :D But I can understand and relate to those who are unable to do that.

-Bon

[Ithrynluin]

At first,I was shocked with the movie. It was NOTHING like I pictured the characters to be, but as I saw it a few more times it became better and better (i don't know why but it did).
I guess it's really hard 2 please everyone...

[Darth Saruman]

The casting was next to perfect.

The effects were fantastic.

The scenery and sets couldn't have been better if they were shot in Middle-Earth.

Peter Jackson did what he had to do with the script in order to make it a coherent, fast paced movie that was accessible to everyone, fans and casual movie-goers alike.

[Goldberry344]

Originally posted by Shion


Well, I guess I fall into both categories. :)



so am i, but i'd consider myself a tolkien fan, if i had to choose one.

[Talarion]

I am definately a fan of both I should say. I love the books in all their wonder and essence. But then again I love the movie for its majesty and magic.

I guess many fans dont like the movie that much because it also has the influence of a whole other man (PJ) who put his creativity into the movie next to the story of Tolkien. Really, what else could he do. Tolkien is gone, but his legacy lives on. PJ just wanted to capture a piece of J.R.R.'s mind and heart and put it on the big screen for fans to absorb fifty years after the the trilogy was created. I really pat PJ on the back for that. Even though some of our favourite lines and scenes were cut, some of our expectations were dwindled, we are still left with a wonderful piece of film that we can treasure forever even if it is not like the original. (Besides, it could be worse ;))

[Talimon]

Very well put, Talarion.

It could be much worse. I mean horribly worse. All it would take is one seriously miscast charachter and the movies would just be horrible. Instead of looking at the empty half of the cup look at the full. There is so much goodness here (both Tolkien influenced and not) that to nitpick at little bits here and there really doesn't do much.

Even though some of our favourite lines and scenes were cut, some of our expectations were dwindled, we are still left with a wonderful piece of film that we can treasure forever even if it is not like the original.

Here I have to actually disagree a tiny bit. Here's the thing: Tolkien's book isn't one persons version of the tale. It's the tale. It's like the completely objective version of a certain historical event. It just is. The creative merit of the events included within at this point don't even matter. What's written is what happened, period.

As such, compare PJ making the movies to another director making some sort of historical film, one based on events that took place thousands of years ago. I tend to compare it to movies made on the Roman empire. You can compare those movies one to another, but you can't compare the movies to the events that actually happened. That just doesn't work. I make the same comparison here: You can't really compare PJ's version of the tale to Tolkiens. Tolkiens book isn't his version, but is just the tale. As such, the most you can compare PJ's version to is Bakshi's, or any other film-makers.

[Talarion]

You have to respect some of PJ's work too. I mean, he spent many years of his life putting this movie together. I say he did a better job at it than maybe any other director might have. And he did some good casting as well. Sean Bean and Ian Mckellen were very good at their roles. I'm not saying that you have to love the movie but you have to give it some ounce of respect that it deserves. There are no horrible movies and this definately isn't one of the worst. This movie had it's ups and downs and we have to take what we got.

[ReadWryt]

I don't accuse the man of bad Direction, I just think he should fire the Screenwriter...oh wait, that was he and his wife...

[Seph]

I think he did an almost perfect job. Why? Because the initial plan was to create one single movie for the entire Lord of the Rings. Is that even possible? I don't know, but they were going to try.

So then they made it into a book for each movie. I could seriously make nine movies for each book. Imagine a total of 27 movies! :D

Well, I could more seriously think that a six hour movie for each book would be appropriate, but I don't think that the target audience was just fans of the books. I think it was about money as well.

The amount of details in the movies are great, but always compare the movies to the books and not the other way around!

[Talarion]

Good point Seph.

Besides, PJ really did make the movie THAT bad either. He didn't totally screw up any scene that could affect the story. They screenplay wasn't THAT bad nor the settings. I mean, he could've had Ben Affleck and Matt Daemon play hobbits! The movie really wasn't that bad

Quote from me:
Besides, it could be worse

[ReadWryt]

think he did an almost perfect job. Why? Because the initial plan was to create one single movie for the entire Lord of the Rings.

Actually, when Miramax picked it up originally it was supposed to be Two movies, and that is what Jackson and his wife had written. It was later, when Miramax wanted to gut the thing down to being one film, something that Disney is always wanting to do with it, Jackson and company shopped it to New Line who suggested from the start that they make three...

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Talarion
Good point Seph.

Besides, PJ really did make the movie THAT bad either. He didn't totally screw up any scene that could affect the story. They screenplay wasn't THAT bad nor the settings. I mean, he could've had Ben Affleck and Matt Daemon play hobbits! The movie really wasn't that bad


You folks have it the other way around. The critical consensus is that FotR was a very good movie. If anything those who are criticizing it should be doing more talking and those defending it doing less :).


What bugs me most, is that PJ did not cast unknown actors. I indeed believe that those well known faces ruin the authenticity of the respective characters.

That bugs you the most? What are you talking about? The casting for this movie is arguably one of it's strongest traits. There is a perfect balance of known and unknown actors playing roles here. In fact, the ONLY place where I was slightly distracted was when Hugo Weaving said "Men are weak". That sounded a bit too much like Agent Smith :). But other then that each actor here took on their role perfectly. And if you look at the actors cast for the future pars (Faramir, Eomer, Theoden, Grima, Denethor, Eowyn), you can see there are a lot of "unknown" names around. It's all relative, anyway.