The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
I’ll keep this short. Save your time and money if you’re a huge fan of the books. While it looks like Middle-Earth, it sure as hell doesn’t play like Middle-Earth. The changes made range from the predictable compression of dialogue, chronology and geography (a short step from the Bucklebury ferry to Bree?) to major alterations of character and motivation.
I could go into great detail about the changes, such as the Bree gate being wrong or the non-existence of the Brown Lands, but I won’t. I will sum up my beef with the film in one name; Arwen. She is far more prominent in this film than she should be. It is she, not Glorfindel, who takes Frodo to the Ford of Bruinen, in fact she crosses it with him as passenger instead of Frodo going it alone. It is she who challenges the Nazgul, not Frodo defying them alone, and apparently she can call down the waters (complete with rampaging white horses) on her own. Seems Elrond and Gandalf aren’t needed in this new, politically correct and culturally diverse Middle-Earth. I won’t even bother going into the whole Saruman/Gandalf action scene.
As for the direction, editing etc. I’ve seen The Matrix and didn’t like that either.
Forget it. Read the books instead. Peter Jackson has taken a silk purse and made a sow’s ear of it. I won’t be wasting my time or money on the next two films, and I urge all of you to do the same.
Craig Andrews
This probably didn’t get thru first-time either, so here ’tis.
What can I say about this film that hasn’t already been said? Yes
it’s spectacularly shot and each scene is superbly crafted. Yes it’s
got fantastic acting and direction. Yes the music is beautiful and not only is
wonderfully effective within the film, but holds its own as a work of
“operatic” scale.
Is it a perfect film? No.
Did I want a perfect film? No.
Did I want a classic? Yes. And that’s what Peter Jackson and Co delivered.
It’s what we all wanted from George Lucas back in ’99. It’s
what we all got from Lucas back in ’77. Lord Of The Rings is and
will be _the_ adventure movie saga of the early 21st century, like Star
Wars was in the late 20th.
Now, the reason I’m only writing a summary review instead of a full
blown one.. I just don’t think I could do FOTR justice by writing a
review where I didn’t try to explain why they did what they did in the
film when it may have been different in the book.
Let me just say that I think this is the most faithful adaption of book
to film I’ve ever seen (The Shawshank Redemption was a short
story adapted to film, not a book. But if it had been a book, the
FOTR
would be the 2nd most faithful adaption I’ve seen).
To convey the natures and thoughts of the various characters in the
book, the awesome majesty of the lands (while still keeping them as
realistic as possible), and the story of a world at war over "such a
small thing" — in a 3 hour film. From a book of about 530 pages. Phew!
I really don’t know how to describe what I think about this. In a way
I almost feel it wrong to compare the FOTR to Star Wars because
they are both such different entities. Made differently. Told differently.
But both have become such pillars of the epic/adventure/fantasy genre
that comparisons will be made. Not because I’m trying to show one as
better than the other. But because they are both such lovable films.
They’re classics!
And so if you want to talk differences between the book and the film, and why they should have done this in the film, and why did they add that in the film.. Email me (or we could get a discussion list going). Then eventually I may get my full review of this film complete by working out in my own mind why what they did worked so well as a film adaption of the book we love so much.
Bring on The Two Towers! ;-)
ps. Any film where they can get the pronunciation right, ie. as it is stated in the appendices to TLOTR (eg. Sauron is pronounced "souron", and the r’s _are_ rolled in pronouncing Mordor and Moria), has my admiration for such attention to detail!
pps. Regarding Jonathan’s comment about the movie’s score. I guess if you don’t like the adventurous orchestral & choral music of James Horner (ala Willow) or the bombastically creepy sound of Elliot Goldenthal (ala Final Fantasy), then you won’t like Howard Shore’s score for FOTR. I’ll admit, the simplicity of it’s themes can be a little disappointing if you hear it for the first time on CD. Williams and Goldsmith would probably have come up with something more hummable. But in the film, the music really does work perfectly (just like Horner’s Willow, and Goldenthal’s Final Fantasy).
I think Shore is up for an Oscar with this one, and in any case the majority of critics and the populace love it (and I’ve read more reviews and talkbacks than I can remember). To me the themes have a "British" film sound (remembering Morley’s score for Watership Down) and I’ve heard Tolkien saw Middle-Earth as a sort-of mythic Britain, so that works too.
As I’ve already said, Peter Jackson has made an epic adventure/fantasy film. It’s spirit is that of Star Wars, without the spaceships. And the music reflects this. BIG orchestra and choir (a Maori choir in parts!) for the majestic shots and battle sequences. Quiet orchestra for Hobbiton, and choir for Rivendell & Lothlorian (along with Enya, who blends so well with the score you may almost miss her contribution).
If you were to try a minimalist approach to scoring FOTR, it would be a different movie in the end with a different feel. If you want an adventure movie. BIG orchestra is tried and true! :-)
ppps. Regarding Craig’s comment about the extension of Arwen’s character in the film. Remember this is an adventure/fantasy movie. Indeed the first part of three, where most of the main players are introduced. If you had not read FOTR, the film flows without a problem during the first scenes with Arwen. So as a film, FOTR succeeds. And that’s how it should be viewed. I’m sure Hollywood took some artistic license when they made The 10 Commandments too. :-)
After all, Arwen is.. erm, SPOILER SPACE:
R
E
A
D
T
H
E
B
O
O
K
S
N
O
W
Arwen is going to marry Aragorn in The Return Of The King. We as an audience have to believe that she is worthy of a King! So she helps Frodo, and in so doing is introduced to us — rather than Glorfindel, who is never going to be seen in the story again.
Also, Peter Jackson and Co decided to speed up the descent of Frodo into sickness after he gets stabbed by the Morgul-blade. In the film this works perfectly to highlight how close to "a fate worse than death" Frodo came, and also they couldn’t have had Frodo just getting sicker and sicker and then still be able to credibly cross the Ford on his own, dodging and passing Black Riders, and only after they’re gone fall into the shadow of the blade’s poison. That works beautifully in the book. It wouldn’t have in the movie.
So Arwen helps. Frodo is shown to be strong, but still a mortal little hobbit. And we get to see the nature of Elves and Hobbits in a nicely descriptive movie style, rather than a nicely descriptive book way. ;-)
As for the Saruman/Gandalf battle scene. In the book Gandalf comes to Saruman for help, and when Saruman shows his true colours (literally) and Gandalf refuses to join with Sauron as Saruman would like, Saruman has his people take Gandalf away to the pinnacle of Orthanc. Now this works in the book, because Tolkien doesn’t describe how Gandalf is imprisoned. We’re just told that he is taken away.
In the film we get to see Saruman’s wrath in a physical sense, and it’s he who sends Gandalf spin-flying up to the top of the tower. It’s a kick-arse scene! IMHO if you appreciate the movie for what it is (ie. treat it like reading the book for the first time), then differences from the book become trivial.
Thor
Partly in reply to Craig Andrews’ posting and a general review of Bored of the Rings.
Summary: Great props, great scenery, pity about the music, dialogue and heavy handed directing.
While no where near as damning in my scorn and derision for Fellowship, and for slightly different reasons, I cannot help but agree. Read the book; the film is average.
I don’t care much about total accuracy to the book. That would be, frankly, impossible as everyone has their own interpretation and will be disappointed by anyone else’s. It’s the details that were left out and the focus of ideas that were left in: unimaginative and certainly uninspired. It skipped far too much dialogue. The feel of chilling horror of the goosebump variety was replaced by mundane violence where-ever possible. Seeing Sauron knocking over knights like skittles was comic, alas.
The film managed to drag at times, dwelling on panning shots of New Zealand (lovely, but why throw out so much just to keep scenery shots) and the cast posing. Characterisation favoured stereotypes (Pippin & Merry as "Comic Relief" -*shudder*).
Bad casting: Aragorn the Designer Unshaven (Viggo Mortensen, who’s career highlights included Texas Chainsaw Massacre III and the remake of Psycho) , Elrond (Hugo Weaving) looking like an American Indian and still sounding like an agent from The Matrix (that’s probably just me), and a wooden performance (maybe she’s a wood elf) of Queen Galadriel (Cate Blanchett, what went wrong? Too much starch in the costume?).
Good casting: Bilbo (Ian Holm is better at more serious roles, but he gets the job done), Frodo, Sam, Boromir, Arwen (whether she’s supposed to be there or not), Gimli (played, unrecognisably, by John Rhys-Davies), and a great performance for Gandalf by Ian Mckellen and his beard. Even Legless (ahem) played by Orlando Bloom was good (and apparently the girls think he’s cute). Merry and Pippin are both competent performances considering the characters didn’t have much to do in the first book, but why they got the characterisations and lines they did is a mystery. Christopher Lee plays Christopher Lee playing Saruman.
Worst thing: BLOODY ANNOYING MUSIC!! Sounded like the Hobbits brought a (very loud) symphony orchestra with them! It would have been better to have used classical music or modern ‘name’ composers (even Enya who did nondescript stuff for the closing credits could have knocked together better medieval sounding incidental music) but instead there was the very intrusive evil of French horns, heavenly choirs and stirring strings. ARGHHHHH!!! Sorry, I have a thing about bad movie music.
Willow is about as entertaining for a dungeons and sword’o’rama type film and the animated version of the Fellowship (1970s?) was better in every way except visually, mostly because it was animated. I’d say P.J.’s version is an _average_ film. Not really bad, ignoring the book for a second: if I hadn’t read the book I’d think it was fair average quality. If anyone goes in expecting a great film, full of depth and/or true to the book, they will be disappointed.
Jonathan
Well it’s good to hear both sides of a critical appraisal. I’m all rung (sic) out after all the TV Tolkien specials and Making Of doccos and adds and competitions. Worse than the Harry Potter movie. Well, maybe not...
I hate French horns. Reminds me of Deep Space Nine’s soporific theme and American films involving their president. Hideous things.
There were some Irish whistle music played every time you saw Hobbits just in case you forgot who you were looking at; perhaps Enya did those.
Votes for best film music, anyone? Best: 2001, Run Lola Run.
OK — Willow & bloody Star Wars I suppose!, Blade Runner, The Crow, Altered States, Baraka. Heaps of vitally important landmarks of cinematic music I’ve left out, I’m sure. I’m not counting The Wall because it’s basically a music video.
Jonathan
Hi all,
I could add my 2c worth (except over here in the states, my 2c is only worth 1c), but Thor has pretty much covered it .... however, on one point I would contest .....
> Let me just say that I think this is the most
> faithful adaption of book to
> film I’ve ever seen ("The Shawshank Redemption" was
> a short story adapted
> to film, not a book. But if it had been a book, the
> FOTR would be the 2nd
> most faithful adaption I’ve seen).
I hate to argue (actually, I love to, but hey), but I would add to the top of the list the Dune miniseries ... yeah, it’s not a movie, but it was so well done it deserves it (or maybe it was just so well done in comparison to the movie Dune) ..... also, I haven’t yet managed to read the book, but I know many who claim that Harry Potter was the most faithful adaptation .....
Stephenski the Far Away
PS I found a second hand book store here with a _big_ SF/Fantasy section, a lot of books I’ve been looking for a while ...... nine books later (I was good) ....
With its length, huge cast of characters, and immensely detailed back history, bringing LOTR to the screen was always going to be a great challenge.
With a few caveats, which I’ll come to, I think Jackson did a good job. The look of the film is (mostly) perfect; design, cinematography, and special effects are (mostly) superb; and the casting and acting are (mostly) wonderful.
Jackson took some big liberties with the book, but I don’t think he was unjustified. Consider, for example, what Craig calls the “Saruman/Gandalf action scene”. In the book, this encounter is not depicted: we just get a short report afterwards from Gandalf. He doesn’t mention whether he used his power to resist captivity, but one can imagine him doing so. We know from other incidents that the old bugger defends himself vigorously when the need arises. So Jackson giving us a “wizard’s duel” was not unreasonable. [Trivia: Christopher Lee (Saruman) first appeared in a film in 1948, and recently claimed to have been in more movies than any other actor!]
This highlights one of the biggest problems with making a film version of LOTR. While some action scenes are depicted in the book, many others are simply related by one character to another. If you filmed it literally, you’d have huge stretches of time with characters just sitting around talking to each other — which most people would find awfully boring. (And then it would flop at the box office, and no one would get funding for fantasy/SF movies for years to come.)
Instead, Jackson has tried to show the audience everything visually — even, to my great surprise, the ancient battle in which Sauron is ‘killed’ by the combined armies of elves and men. I didn’t imagine it exactly the way Jackson did, but I applaud him for bringing it to the screen.
Turning to another bone of contention, I was expecting to loathe Liv Tyler, but in the end I didn’t mind her. The scene where Arwen uses riding skills and her horse’s manoeuvrability to keep out of reach of the Nazgul is nicely done.
Craig complains that Arwen’s role was exaggerated from the book, and indeed it was. But many reviewers had the opposite complaint: that her role was too small. For example, The New Yorker’s critic wrote “It would have been nice if Liv Tyler had been given more to do. ... The women are stunning but essentially decorative.”
As for poor old elven-lord Glorfindel — it was inevitable that he’d get the chop. He’s a well-drawn minor character in the book, but the film is already overcrowded. Movies must practice a certain economy with characters: if you have a new one appearing every 5 minutes, the audience won’t be able to keep up.
The two big gripes I have are with Galadriel and the music. In the scene where Galadriel is offered the ring, there was no need for those tacky special effects — her temptation should have been conveyed by acting (an ancient practice occasionally used in movies before the invention of CGI :)
The music, as Guy wrote, was loud and intrusive, and generally detracted from the movie rather than enhancing it.
In conclusion, Jackson made many changes, large and small. But I don’t really mind. He remained faithful to Tolkien’s central theme — that power (or knowledge) sometimes comes at too high a price. (Indeed, Jackson hammers away at this even more insistently than JRRT did, inventing the encounter between Frodo and Aragorn right at the end, which isn’t in the book.)
I look forward to the next two installments.
Paul.
>With its length, huge cast of characters, and
>immensely detailed back history, bringing LOTR to the
>screen was always going to be a great challenge.
Perhaps too great for a profit oriented studio system? Remember that the Unwin guy who published it expected to lose money, but his father gave him permission to do so if he was totally convinced it was a work of genius. Try making a film like that, especially with this budget. It can’t be done, and I firmly believe that if this is the result then it shouldn’t be done. There are crummy ‘original’ scripts which can rake in the cash just as easily, no need to belittle something great.
>With a few caveats, which I’ll come to, I think
>Jackson did a good job. The look of the film is
>(mostly) perfect; design, cinematography, and special
>effects are (mostly) superb; and the casting and
>acting are (mostly) wonderful.
> >Jackson took some big liberties with the book, but I
>don’t think he was unjustified. Consider, for
>example, what Craig calls the “Saruman/Gandalf action
>scene”. In the book, this encounter is not depicted:
>we just get a short report afterwards from Gandalf.
>He doesn’t mention whether he used his power to resist
>captivity, but one can imagine him doing so. We know
>from other incidents that the old bugger defends
>himself vigorously when the need arises.
Actually, without having a copy of Fellowship with me, I can tell you the confrontation is pretty simple, and Gandalf doesn’t resist because he realises he’s powerless against Saruman. He makes an empty threat to try and bluff his way out, Saruman laughs and then Gandalf is led away. I felt the fight scene was a vulgar display of power from two Istari. People that wise and powerful need do no more than look into an opponent’s eyes to know where they stand.
Also the fact that the palantir is brought out in the beginning, and Nan Curunir is still pleasant and green at the time, when the fortifications started only a few years after the Battle of the Five Armies, some 50-odd years before Fellowship. But these are just the beefs of a purist I guess.
>This highlights one of the biggest problems with
>making a film version of LOTR. While some action
>scenes are depicted in the book, many others are
>simply related by one character to another. If you
>filmed it literally, you’d have huge stretches of time
>with characters just sitting around talking to each
>other — which most people would find awfully boring.
>(And then it would flop at the box office, and no one
>would get funding for fantasy/SF movies for years to
>come.)
If this and The Matrix are the SF/fantasy films we’re lumbered with, I’m not adverse to doing without them! Personally I love the way so much information is second hand, it enhances the reality of Middle-Earth, just as we in this crappy primary world find out most things indirectly, to our delight, surprise, horror, heartbreak etc. A wordier film wouldn’t have bothered me if it stuck to the book.
>Instead, Jackson has tried to show the audience
>everything visually — even, to my great surprise, the
>ancient battle in which Sauron is ‘killed’ by the
>combined armies of elves and men. I didn’t imagine it
>exactly the way Jackson did, but I applaud him for
>bringing it to the screen.
The reason you didn’t imagine it this way is because it was changed. Sauron was killed by the combined might of Gil-Galad wielding Aiglos (also spelt Aeglos) and Elendil wielding Narsil, which broke beneath him as he fell. Isildur cuts the ring from Sauron’s dead hand, and when Elrond urges him to throw it in the Sammath Naur he refuses, saying he takes it "as weregild for my father and brother". He was also ungloved, for the ring burnt him, and the pain never leaves.
>Turning to another bone of contention, I was expecting
>to loathe Liv Tyler, but in the end I didn’t mind her.
> The scene where Arwen uses riding skills and her
>horse’s manoeuvrability to keep out of reach of the
>Nazgul is nicely done.
But as I said, it decreases the importance of Frodo in the confrontation at the Ford of Bruinen. He’s just luggage for the poster chick to do her thing, there’s no hint of the moral power of the hobbits which is actually one of the book’s central themes.
>Craig complains that Arwen’s role was exaggerated from
>the book, and indeed it was. But many reviewers had
>the opposite complaint: that her role was too *small*.
> For example, The New Yorker’s critic wrote “It would
>have been nice if Liv Tyler had been given more to do.
>... The women are stunning but essentially
>decorative.”
Of course the women are decorative! Tolkien was a conservative Catholic for a start. Movie-Arwen represents the evil nexus of target audience and political correction. Although I’ll not waste my money on the next two abominations I would remind you to wait and see how Eowyn is dealt with. Sure, they’ll have her doing the warrior thing, but how about her decision to give up arms and do the domestic thing in Ithilien? I can’t see that bit being done quite the same way.
>As for poor old elven-lord Glorfindel — it was
>inevitable that he’d get the chop. He’s a well-drawn
>minor character in the book, but the film is already
>overcrowded. Movies must practice a certain economy
>with characters: if you have a new one appearing every
>5 minutes, the audience won’t be able to keep up.
But audiences are idiots aren’t they? No memory or attention span.
>The two big gripes I have are with Galadriel and the
>music. In the scene where Galadriel is offered the
>ring, there was no need for those tacky special
>effects — her temptation should have been conveyed by
>acting (an ancient practice occasionally used in
>movies before the invention of CGI :)
I was also hoping for Galadriel’s boat to sublimate from the mist in an homage to Lohengrin. Surely they could have stolen some music for that as well.
>The music, as Guy wrote, was loud and intrusive, and
>generally detracted from the movie rather than
>enhancing it.
The bastard love child of James Horner and John Williams was this soundtrack. Only Khazad-Dum sounded atmospheric enough.
>In conclusion, Jackson made many changes, large and
>small. But I don’t really mind. He remained faithful
>to Tolkien’s central theme — that power (or knowledge)
>sometimes comes at too high a price. (Indeed, Jackson
>hammers away at this even more insistently than JRRT
>did, inventing the encounter between Frodo and Aragorn
>right at the end, which isn’t in the book.)
Yes, I hated that meeting because once again it alters the motivations of the characters. We can’t then have Aragorn agonising over which path to follow at the beginning of The Two Towers. Will he tell Legolas and Gimli what Frodo has done?
>I look forward to the next two installments.
You and most of the world it seems. But I’ve got enough pain in my life without going through two more films like this.
Craig A.
As has already been remarked, it’s impossible to assess LOTR without reference to the book. As a film it’s enjoyable enough but it’s main contribution is a vehicle for considering methods of adaption. I agree with Paul that the alterations made are generally necessary and generally worked well. I agree with Craig to the extent that I am disappointed that the worse habits of cinema are carried to such extremes.
One cinematic technique is to evoke mood with music, the banality and excessiveness of which I’ve already complained about.
Another is action: yes, we were always going to have battle scenes and, by and large, they fitted in all right. I actually like the Gandalf-Saruman fight scene precisely because it was so unexpected and unexpectedly brutal while still appropriate to context. (It was a tiny bit comical, however.) I’d say the same about Galadriel’s negative backlighting trick. Unfortunately, PJ had his eye firmly on the 15-year-olds and the battles were often quite overdone. The cave troll fight was INTERMINABLE and Boromir had more screen-time dying than alive.
And dialogue: it goes without saying that the dialogue has to be altered to accommodate new scenes and different handling of existing scenes. It’s a shame that so little of Tolkien’s power and facility with language survived. The tendency of cinema towards dumbed down dialogue — laconic one-liners and simplistic sentimentalities — is something that really annoys me. (As an aside, there are a few films that have almost no speech but succeed in conveying the story and mood really well — Mad Max 2 and Pasolini’s Medea are examples. Rebel Without a Cause had its moments.)
And Arwen: she sticks out like a sore thumb! Introducing herself with the sword-under-the-chin is such a cliché! And the romantic scene was so painful and unnecessary! Again, these are cinematic clichés. Surely a director with sensitivity and imagination could have done better (see comment on dialogue above). The dignity of the original deserves more than to be debased with such facile motifs.
Guy
sumwun rote:
>As has already been remarked, it’s impossible to asses LOTR without reference
>to the book.
I saw Harry Potter without reading the book, and so I had no book to
reference in assessing the movie. I took the movie for what it was,
and assessed it on its own merits.
I guess people who haven’t read LOTR would assess its movie adaption
in a similar way.
I have read LOTR, and all I can say is... Babylon 5. Why Babylon 5 I hear you ask? Let me explain. Babylon 5 was a sci-fi TV series who’s story covers a 5-year arc. It takes the first couple of years to establish the universe it’s set in, let you get used to the characters, and set the scene for the events that are about to take place in said universe. Fellowship Of The Ring (the book) is similar to this set up. It’s incredibly detailed, harkens back to an elaborate and brilliantly conceived history, and still lets you get used to the characters and lands, and understand the events that are about to unfold in the course of the adventure.
FOTR is a 3 hour movie. Not forty 50min episodes covering two seasons
of a TV show.
Could a 3 hour movie ever match 2 years of story-arc in a TV serial?
Could a 3 hour movie ever hope to contain the rich, fantastic detail
of FOTR-The Book?
Unless anyone here wants to make their own attempt, I guess we’ll never
know.
Instead we’ve got Peter Jackson’s FOTR. An epic fantasy/adventure movie that harkens back to classic adventure movie storytelling of King Kong, Ben Hur, and Star Wars. Of course this will be appreciated according to personal taste. :-)
>One cinematic technique is to evoke mood with music, the banality and excessiveness.
>of which I’ve already complained about.
>>Most Appallingly Overused Incidental Music:
>Lord of the Rings
As I think I once wrote, the music matches the style of film it’s in. FOTR is an adventure movie (like it or not), and the music is orchestra & choir in full adventure mode. :-) ..and I think it’ll be nominated for more Oscars than Razzies (but who cares about Oscars anyway, eh?) ;-)
Thor
> As has already been remarked, it’s impossible to assess LOTR without
reference
> to the book. As a film it’s enjoyable enough but it’s main contribution
is a
> vehicle for considering methods of adaption. I agree with Paul that
the alterations
> made are generally necessary and generally worked well. I agree with
Craig to
> the extent that I am disappointed that the worse habits of cinema
are carried
> to such extremes.
It’s surprising in some ways (I had hoped P.J. knew his cliches and how to avoid them) but his previous works have been great because of overstatement and shock and taking things as far as possible and then some. This style just does not suit complex, emotional, subtle and thoughtful material.
> Another is action: yes, we were always going to have battle scenes
and, by and
> large, they fitted in all right. I actually like the Gandalf-Saruman
fight scene
> precisely because it was so unexpected and unexpectedly brutal while
still appropriate.
I totally agree with Craig. The time the two wiz’s spent beating each other up could have been used for other more important things. PJ could have just cut away then & there and left how S subdued G to the audience’s imagination.
And as for victimised characters, what about Radagast (spelling? I don’t have a copy of LOTR) the Brown being replaced by a moth! Actually I thought that was a neat idea, but still feel pity for another character being chopped.
Thankgod Tom got cut — inevitable as Willowwood was a mere appendix in the intestine of the story (as it were) and the guy and his bit on the side were just annoying! ARGH the singing!
The black riders weren’t creepy in the film, just good old fashioned monsters, though you got a glimpse of Tolkien’s intent when Frodo whacks his ring on and we see them as the kings they once were. The idea of the black riders, as with the ring bearer, is that Sauron’s power breaks people. [side note 45321: Sauron being a servant of Melkor who’s main hobbies included corrupting the young, teaching bad manners, being chased about the place (look, evil works behind the scenes, it hides from daylight, it is unseen until too late, it avoids direct confrontation until it has grown powerful and even then prefers to use others as its weapons) and poisoning really important trees — the trees that are depicted on the doors of Moria, by the way.] Hobbits have more resistance to this evil corruption (that stuff with Frodo surviving the stabbing set up this idea, as Craig pointed out) which is why, in the end, Frodo could do what he did (is saying that the good guys win REALLY a spoiler? :-> ).
> to context. (It was a tiny bit comical, however.) I’d say the same
about Galadriel’s
> negative backlighting trick. Unfortunately, PJ had his eye firmly
on the 15-year-olds
On the scene of the Galadriel’s birdbath... telling Frodo that the images he saw were what would happen if he failed completely ruined the whole point of the scene, which wasn’t very important to start with and could have been cut. It’s like P.J. was saying ‘in case you didn’t pick this up earlier, people, bad things will happen if the side of evil wins’. No kidding! The stuff with Gimli and Sam falling for her was cut, and the friendship Gimli attains with the elves, Legoland (sorry) especially. It’s another important theme that seems to have been binned.
> and the battles were often quite overdone. The cave troll fight was
INTERMINABLE
> and Boromir had more screen-time dying than alive.
I liked the massed battle scenes that opened the film. The massive number of orcs in Moria was silly — the orcs could have overwhelmed the company in a second instead of standing in a circle filing their nails. I’m not nit-picking, it really did look daft. In da book, there was a fiery chasm that separated the good guys from the orcs.
> And dialogue: it goes without saying that the dialogue has to be
altered to
> accommodate new scenes and different handling of existing scenes.
It’s a shame
> that so little of Tolkien’s power and facility with language survived.
The tendency
> of cinema towards dumbed down dialogue — laconic one-liners and simplistic
> sentimentalities
Yes yes yes. Yes! One of the Tolkien doccos on TV had a passage read aloud where Aragorn tells the hobbits what the black riders really are. It took 10 seconds and gave me goosebumps. J.R.R was a damn fine writer. There was NO need to cut as much dialogue as was cut. Maybe the actor for Aragorn had problems talking and walking at the same time or perhaps he couldn’t be heard over the symphony orchestra the hobbits brought along.
That’s enough bitching from me. Now someone else’s turn.
PS. Yes, I have to agree with comments made about people’s average attention span and inability to grasp moderately complex stories. The truth is very simple: most people are stupid. Really stupid. There’s no getting around it. That’s why Gladiator got Best Picture last year. :-)
Jonathan P
You are standing in a dark corridor. There is a large wooden door in front of you. There are large claw marks gouged into the door’s surface. From behind the door emanates the tortured screams of Thor K.:
> > sumwun rote:
> >As has already been remarked, it’s impossible to asses LOTR without
reference
> >to the book.
> > > > I have read LOTR, and all I can say is.. Babylon 5. [..snipage..]
> FOTR is a 3 hour movie. Not forty 50min episodes covering two seasons
> of a TV show.
> Could a 3 hour movie ever match 2 years of story-arc in a TV serial?
> Could a 3 hour movie ever hope to contain the rich, fantastic detail
> of FOTR-The Book?
I think I agree with Guy’s sentiments that the Hollywood movie-making industry and American mass market target audience is as much to blame as the movie format.
I think it goes without saying that dozens, if not hundreds of hours
worth of time to play with is necessary to tell really long and complex
stories. There’s no technical reason why LOTR could not have been made
into a set of nine or twelve 3-hour movies ... or three 6-hour movies
for that matter. The only reason is commercial ... what will the audience
swallow? Well it’s unfortunate, but the only format that has any chance
of leaving a string of pearls on the face of "the mass market" (read
American masses) is (drum roll) ...
... THE SOAP OPERA
Yes, that’s right folks. Where else will you find the telling of epic tales that span vast amounts of time and space? Yeah! Think about it. Look at all the Sci-Fi TV series like Star Trek (all the various series), Babylon 5, Farscape, et cetera. These are soap opera through and through. The futuristic setting of the series does nothing to alter this. All it does is allow an otherwise unreachable demographic, specifically teenage nerds who have a lot of trouble with things like emotions and human interaction, to pretend they are not watching a soap opera. But I feel it is the soap opera series format, especially the character-driven nature of it, that provides the commercially appropriate vehicle for telling a long-winded and insanely complex story. It allows an entire universe to be adequately developed in which to place the story.
Just look at David Lynch ... heh heh here we go :). Think about Twin Peaks. The movies did not do very well commercially at all ... I quite like the movies myself, but they are ... awkward stories. However the TV series did very well, on a commercial level. Same story, different vehicle. Now think about the other stories David Lynch has told via movie. The story in Twin Peaks is as bizarre as any others. Yet most of his "bizarre" movies have had limited commercial success, achieving mainly cult status. So why did the Americans (and everyone else) lap up Twin Peaks? Because it was in soap opera format. Indeed, I have heard the rumour that David Lynch made Twin Peaks after a nasty viral infection (glandular fever or something) left him fevered, semi-delerious, and bed-ridden for a while. This allowed him to catch up on day-time television programming, and he was surprised at just how simple the soap opera formula was. So, he decided to make a soap opera of his own, and Twin Peaks was it.
Anyhoo, I’m about to get side-tracked. What am I trying to say here? I dunno. I guess the point is that all you people whinging and hand-wringing over problems with the adaption of LOTR from book to movie are tilling old soil. The problem is inherent in the movie-making industry and the expectations of the target audience.
I find I get a lot more enjoyment out of movies if I keep in mind that I am not the target audience and my expectations will not be met. Thus I might as well just sit down and enjoy the story, and do my best to ignore the flaws of the story-teller.
> Unless anyone here wants to make their own attempt, I guess we’ll
never
> know.
Don’t tell anyone, but I’m currently working up a treatment on 250-episode soap opera rendition of LOTR. Wanna help? :)
Matt Lowry
