[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LOTR (possible spoilers)


huh? Did we read the same book?


Probably  You are just looking for different things in a cinematic adaptation.

  I saw the movie, too, yesterday and I was
quite disappointed. The whole first book   was completely changed and not for the better.


I tend to agree, but I also recognize that if one was to adapt the first book totally, then the movie would have stretched to about 4 or five hours since the first book included lots of planning of moving to Buckland, waiting for Gandalf, wandering in a forest that would hve required a whole new set and bunch of FX for a project that was already stretching an enormous budget.

Merry and Pippin didn't come with Frodo out of friendship but
their way happened to   cross that of Frodo and so they thought "oh, why not come with them",


This did anger me because I always liked Merry and Pippin as complex characters, not just as comic relief.  I don't think it would have been too hard to have Gandalf set up the plan too quickly to say that he was going to Buckland, etc.

  the black rider is just some feet away from the hobbits but
rides on. And not because there are elves coming, no there are no elves at
all until Rivendell. The whole Old Forest and Tom Bombadil and the
Barrow-Downs were missing,


Very saddened to see this go, but again it would take valuable time and money for what is basically a very side story.  The only effects of the later events is the acquisition of the Barrow swords

    the hobbits followed Aragorn and it's not until
they are on their way that one of the     hobbits wonders if they can trus him at all.


True, but again it would take a good deal of time to come to the same outcome as the movie, they get to Rivendell and trust him.  I am angry that Sam is not more protective against Strider.  I also miss the length of the trip from Weathertop to Rivendell and the battle on Weathertop between Gandalf and the riders.  They kinda simplify his imprisonment, although that is done well.

 Saruman is portrayed totally wrong as in the book he believes he can
betray Sauron   in the end.


In the movie, I got the impression much as I did in the book that Saruman was very confused.  At times in the book he claimed to have his own will, but then he was controlled by the Palantir.  I'm also mad that Gandalf knows about the seeing stone because it ruins a neat little side plot that would come up later that I won't spoil.

You can see the stone trolls in the background at
one time but nobody seems to  bother...


I'm not sure about this.  You would have to be more specific.  In Saruman's army?  He did have Stone Trolls in his army although mostly they were put to work in the vast furnaces.  It talks about it in the section on Ents.

I could go on with this for hours.
Then from Rivendell on the story was ok but the mood... at least Lothlorien
should be a beautiful place where the soul can breathe again after Moria.
But it's all shown as dark and Galadriel is shown more as a witch than an
Elven-Lady. The elves in general... where are the songs, the merriness, they
are all grim.


I'm not sure if there is THAT much merriness in the Elves of LOTR rings.  There is definitely times of song, but in the book most of those are somewhat serious and would take up vast quantities of screen time.  Jackson has chosen to go with an image of the elves as being very serious due to their imminent departure which although I agree makes Galadriel more of a witch than a queen (I mean what was with that effect when she is tempted by the Ring?  That royally stank up the film).  I know that Lothlorien was a very serious place when they got there as the elves were fighting off the invading orcs.  I thought that Jackson caught a good deal of the cold beauty of the elves in moments, still it was somewhat dissappointing.


 The only merry parts of the whole movie were the scenes in the
Shire.


True but this is another part of adapting a book to film.  You have to reduce the essence of the story to a few major motivations.  Jackson sets up the series as the exploration of the destinies of Frodo to save his home and Aragorn to reclaim his throne.

Well, I'm really disappointed. Very good acting (Gandalf, Frodo, Bilbo and
Sam at least were great. But you can't deny that Merry and Pippin were used
as a kind of Jar Jar Binks),


I agree, but I think they are also used that way in the book to a great extent.  It is more subtle and British, but Tolkein reaaly goes to great lengths to explain what rascals they are.

  a lot of effort but the movie just missed the
point, imo.

Interesting, what do you see the point being?  I mean there are a number of view points that would be equally correct from reading the series, Jackson has just chosen one that is different, even from mine.

This is one thing I have been reading a lot about, the method of taking a work of literature and trying to put it on screen and make it somewhat commercially viable, even more so because of the cost of this film.