🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

The movie and the book

J

JefftheStrider

Guest
Will the movie stay close to the book?

I know this has been probably asked a thousand times but I'm lazy.


Of corse, if it was exact, then the council of Elrond would last an hour by itself but I want it to be pretty close.
 
O

oss91

Guest
movie and the book

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

Registered User
Joined
Sep 19, 2001
Messages
348
Reaction score
2
Location
San Francisco
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:
 
Last edited:
S

stratosphere

Guest
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
 
R

Ridley

Guest
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
 
R

Retrovertigo

Guest
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

Registered User
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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

Registered User
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
111
Reaction score
0
Location
NJ
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....
 
M

Maria Atilano

Guest
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

Registered User
Joined
Dec 21, 2001
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Atlanta GA USA
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
 
C

Curufinwe

Guest
Movie vs book

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

Dark Lord of Arda
Joined
Aug 19, 2001
Messages
580
Reaction score
0
Location
NJ
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

Still here... sometimes
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
1,777
Reaction score
2
Location
Denver, Colorado
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

Just another loremaster
Joined
Aug 27, 2001
Messages
1,852
Reaction score
4
Location
Secondarily Beautiful State of Washington
I don't think the film had that much action in it...

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.
 
C

Chippy

Guest
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

Retired
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
1
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
 
S

SAFN49

Guest
------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

Just another loremaster
Joined
Aug 27, 2001
Messages
1,852
Reaction score
4
Location
Secondarily Beautiful State of Washington
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

Registered User
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Messages
177
Reaction score
2
You took words from my mouth!

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!
 
Last edited:

Thread suggestions

Top