My Unfavourable LotR's Review

[Case]

Re: My Unfavourable LotR's Review

Originally posted by Bkeela
I knew Tom Bombadil was unfortunately cut.

What's so unfortunate about missing out on his naff poetry?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Spoken like a man who never had to read Jaws.

Or Thackeray's Barry Lyndon.

Yes, yes, or King's The Shining (though I did have to slog through that when advising a thesis on Kubrick). But I still think The Godfather illustrates the greatest gap between source material and film adaptation.

[Zealot]

I went to see the movie this saturday, and frankly I left pretty disappointed.

I read the 4 books of the story. I started with "The Hobbit", then read the fellowship of the ring, two towers and then the return of the king. I loved them. They were absolutely great. J. R. R. Tolkien is a genius. I loved the details, and despite some being too long and dull, I respected Tolkien's literary taste, and read each line focused on it. IMO, it's one of the best literary master pieces of not only the XX century, but of all literature.

About the movie, it was, as I said before, a disappointment. I can't really understand how people who didn't read The Hobbit could understand what and who was Bilbo and Gandalf. And there wasn't any interaction with the respect that Gimly had for Frodo, since he was Bilbo's nephew. There was no importance given to the pony Bill. And Tom Bombadil was a magic character, important to give some magic to the film. As it is, the film is just action, with no magic from what is Middle Earth. In the books, you could feel that magic!

I could go on, but I really have to say that for the fans of Tolkien this movie is a true disappointment, and reminds me Civ 3. When LOTR came out, some reviews considered that Tolkien would revolve in his grave if he knew how the film was, and didn't give it good reviews. In Civ 3 the first players of it warned and ranted of how un-civ Civ 3 was. IYRC, the first Civ 3 reviews weren't that great either. But then both PR (LOTR movie and Civ 3) entered in action, and we just start seeing how reviews say that how great and loved are their product. This world sucks!

If you didn't read any of Tolkien's book, you might enjoy it. It has beautiful landscapes. But the plot is severely crippled, so I don't know if those who never read the LOTR master piece will really enjoy the movie.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Snapcase
No matter how nice the world is if he can't write about it he shouldn't even try...

Yes, and no matter how nice the world is if Peter Jackson can't make a good movie about it.

[DinoDoc]

Well I liked it.

Say what you will about the movie, but it interested me enough to get me to actually start reading the trilogy and that in and of itself is quite the accomplishment.

[Hans2]

Jesus, you all want a four and a half hour movie. GET REAL!! What do you want to see, New Line Cinema go bankrupt?! Here is a litte economic reality for you, a four and a half hour movie would:
-Increase print manufacturing costs by 50%
-Increase shipping costs by 50%
-Decrease revenue by 1/3 to 1/2 since theatres could only have 2 or 3 showtimes a day instead of 3 or 4

Do you ever want to see a fantasy movie on the big screen again? Do you ever want to see Hollywood attempt to make an adaption of an epic novel? Because watching a studio run itself into bankruptcy won't do it.

You didn't like Bombadil being cut, or the opening Shire sequence trimmed? Fine, what else would YOU have cut to keep the running time to 3 hours? The journey from Bree to Rivendell? Moria? Lothlorien? I geuss you just can't please everyone, but NLC has 200 million dollars in the bank right now that says a lot of people liked it.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Hans2
You didn't like Bombadil being cut, or the opening Shire sequence trimmed? Fine, what else would YOU have cut to keep the running time to 3 hours? The journey from Bree to Rivendell? Moria? Lothlorien? I geuss you just can't please everyone, but NLC has 200 million dollars in the bank right now that says a lot of people liked it.

Perhaps I wouldn't have put Bombadil, but I'm sure Iwould have let the unnecesasry prologue out, and I would have gone lighter on all those close-ups and slow conversation scenes.

You can put more of The Fellowship of the Ring into a three-hours lenght motion picture.

[November Adam]

it's easy to say that now... I wonder how you would have fared from scratch though?

It's always easier to criticize others work than create your own. All in all this was a good adaptation. Sure I would have changed a few things, but then this is PJ's work not mine. You have to take the good with the bad. IMO it was good overall, so there was little bad to take.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by Hans2
Jesus, you all want a four and a half hour movie.

No, I want a one and a half hours long movie. This would mean, I realise, cutting some bits and upping the wanton violence factor in others.

[November Adam]

But Snap I thought you didn't like typical Hollywood fare?

[Saint Marcus]

The movie was great. Made me cry

sniff, sniff


Book was better though, but this still is a great movie, and I've already went to the cinemas 5 times now in two weeks to see the movie.

[SnowFire]

Well, to each their own, but I loved LotR. There are two obvious factors in determining how good movie adaptations are: how much did you like the book, and how easily can the content in the book be reduced. For instance, Jurassic Park the book had some nice scientific stuff in it, but the movie cut it out and went straight for thrilling dinos. I prefer the book, but the movie isn't bad. On the other hand, there are some books with lots of useless filler (like Jaws) and thus the movie adaptations can cut 'em out and get straight to the point.

I liked LotR's ambience and style, but it's something that is really impossible to get on the screen. So it cut it out and went straight to the actual plot and the action, which I liked. In fact, in terms of quality per time unit, the movie was better since it cut out a lot of filler. Note that I'm not saying it was bad, just not as good, so the average quality got better.

The great example: Tom Bombasatan. Sorry, but I hated him. That entire sequence was unneccesary, and it's FAR more intense with the Nazgul chasing them the entire way. A little sidetrack to do battle with nothing important loses focus.

I have no problem with the vast majority of the changes. LotR was a great movie. It may have helped that it's been years since I last read the series, but oh well.

[Xuenay]

1. NO SINGING WHATSOEVER. Everybody in ME sings, from Orcs, to Dwarves, to Elves, to Hobbits. Yet we heard not one song.

*coughTheroadgoeseveroncoughBilboandGandalfsinging cough*

*coughTheElvensonginLoriencough*

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Snapcase
No, I want a one and a half hours long movie. This would mean, I realise, cutting some bits and upping the wanton violence factor in others.

No, it would mean that 6 movies would be made, instead of just 3. There were 6 books written, so there should be 6 movies! In fact there should even be a 7th movie, "The Hobbit"!