Announcement

**Seneca** · December 28, 2001, 19:49

Then there is the departure from the novel. Within the first few minutes, when I saw Sauron lost an entire hand of fingers, rather than just the One - I started to worry.

If that's the way you judge movies, you should worry...

**Robert** · December 29, 2001, 11:24

IIRC Isildur cuts off only one finger in the movie.
And all your points are valid but very unimortant.

And since LoTR consists of 3 books I really don't understand your '6 movies for 6 books' suggestion.

**Mercator** · December 29, 2001, 18:45

You hit the nail on the head Bkeela!

I already knew a lot of the changes that were mad (like the absence of Tom Bombadil and Glorfindel as you mentioned), but I did still expect a very satisfying movie due to the many good reviews I saw at IMDb and here as well. But I was way disappointed (I´d rate it 7/10).

The visual aspects were stunning, great special effects, beautiful landscapes etc. but apart from that I found the movie very bland. I kind of have the feeling it jumps from action scene to action scene skipping over everything in between with some nice scenery. And at the end of it I realized it was already over while I was still waiting for that one scene that would make up for the rushing through the rest.
Perhaps the end should have done this, but that was probably the part I hated most, because I simply have no idea why they changed it. The way they did it now was highly unsatisfactory and didn´t gain any time or anything... The thing that irritated me most was that Aragorn is represented as the hero, he kills the most Orcs and kills the Uruk captain. When Boromir dies, he has barely made up for the evil he has done, while in the book he ends as a remorseful and truly valiant warrior.

Some other things that bothered me were Galadriel in general and her flipping in particular. That just didn´t fit with my imagination at all. Also the "invisible world" looks way too freaky to me.

No thank you, this movie is not for me, I think I will see the sequels, but at least I now know what caliber of the movies really is.

I think for me also my first moment of doubt came when Isildur cut off all fingers. Why? Because it doesn´t add anything to the story, it doesn´t gain any time, it just happens like that because that would make for a jucier action scene I think. I know some things would have to be changed for a movie, but when things are changed to spice up the story, make things easier to film, or simply for no apparent reason at all, it pisses me off.

CyberShy:

And all your points are valid but very unimortant.

I hope you mean something like: "... but I don´t find them as important".

Unlike most people think, LOTR is not a trilogy. It is one whole, which happened to be published in three parts because that was more user-friendly. Furthermore, each of those parts consists of 2 books, so there are indeed 6 books (and an appendix)!

This definitely isn´t the definitive LOTR on film, unfortunately, if that could ever happen at all...
I´m afraid I´ll have to set aside a billion dollars or so of my future fortune to sponsor a 6 part LOTR film project true to Tolkien´s masterpiece.

**Robert** · December 30, 2001, 02:43

This definitely isn´t the definitive LOTR on film, unfortunately, if that could ever happen at all...

exactly, a movie will never be the same as a book.
As soon as you can understand that, you're allowed to write reviews. I'm not even going to explain why a movie can't be compared with a book, and why for that reason the given arguments are valid but unimportant.

Some other things that bothered me were Galadriel in general and her flipping in particular. That just didn´t fit with my imagination at all.

yeah, let's make a movie that compares with all 100,000,000 imaginations that people have of the movie ! That would finally make the ultimate LoTR movie

This movie is the best that could be made at this moment without making it a 36 hour movie. And I doubt if for that reason in the future a better one could ever be made. But you can keep on dreaming of course, and slam down every attempt to it.

CyberShy

**axi** · January 5, 2002, 09:46

I am posting my review again!

I did not write all this stuff for nothing...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relatively to the preposterous stuff we've seen from Hollywood these last few years, since directors shifted their preferrence to unrealistic effects (The Matrix, Armageddon, The Gladiator, Phanom Menace, Jurassic Park, Tomb Raider etc), the film was really good. At least it wasn't all a rush of adrenaline, it was slower. To one who has read the books, the plot looks rather coherent, but I don't know if the common spectator would feel the same about it. It felt good that I knew what's going to happen next, so I didn't get let down by the ending of the first part. But what made the movie irresistible IMHO is Tolkien's rather than Jackson's talent, since the greatest thrill was seeing ME come to life. This alone outweighs anything else.

What I didn't like inside the FotR movie, by order of importance:

1. NO SINGING WHATSOEVER. Everybody in ME sings, from Orcs, to Dwarves, to Elves, to Hobbits. Yet we heard not one song. They should sing in Bilbo's party, they should sing in the Prancing Pony, they should sing in Imlandris, they should sing on the Road!
And of course the film's soundtrack went totally unobserved, which wouldn't be the case if they'd put some Blind Guardian in it!

2. The Hobbit characters are quite off-target. Frodo is okay, but Sam looks too mature from the beginning, Pippin does not any different than Merry (he was younger and more naive) and they both look like kids. Visually, most of the times they are not short enough (they should reach Gandalf's waist at most), not to mention that their height varies from scene to scene. Their feet are not hairy enough. Plus their haircuts look like they've been adopted from Bakshi's cartoon (they're too 70's) while they should be more curly. Oh, and Butterburr was a Hobbit, not a man!

3. Frodo leaves Hobbiton in a hurry, which is not the case in the book, where he was stalling and leaving secretly (remember that the 4 plus Fatty Bolger were to go stay in the Brandybuck house for a while, in order to cover Frodo and Sam's flee). This part of the book was chopped up severely: No Old Man Willow, no Bombadil, no valley of the Tombs. We are missing the first adventures of the Hobbits, when they were travelling alone and were building on their adventurous spirit.

4. Bad allocation of time: we get tired of seeing closeups of the Ring and Frodo's face all the time, while other stuff could be shown instead.

5. The emphasis on the importance of the Ring and on the size of the threat posed by the Nazgul is given from the beginning, while all should be made clear in Imladris and not before that. This is related with the time compression mentioned before.

6. No geographic reference. Those who have not read the books have no idea on how the various places are related geographically, which sometimes heavily affects the plot, f.e. referring to the Karadhras - Moria - Isen dilemma and perhaps later, on the choice of the Cirith Ungol pass and the alternative routes from Rohan to Minas Tirith. The one scene that the film should always return to is not Sauron's defeat by Isildur, but the Middle Earth map.

7. Gandalf's fall in Moria was utterly dissapointing. He should have gone down fighting with the Balrog as they fell, as in the book. Also little is explained to us about Moria and who Balin was and what this meant to Gimli son of Gloin and Gandalf.

8. We missed alot of things in Lorien, most important of which was the mallorn trees. Also the other gifts by Galadriel, which tend to get rather important later on (lembas , the rope, the hoods) and the attitude shift of Gimli towards Galadriel (he should start championing her as most beatifull of all the Eldar from now on).

Other comments:

I think that most of the major departures from the plot are pretty well executed (although not always justified). Arwen might have been in the place of Glorfindel (although there is no was she could have flooded the river by a spell). There might have been an Olog-Hai (if that's that that big dude was) in Moria. If the Ishtari had a duel, it would probably be something like that. If the book would show Saruman creating the Uruk-Hai, then such a scene might have happened.

Someone commented on Aragorn giving to the Hobbits the swords they should have found in the tomb. What is going to look even weirder is the damage that Merry is going to inflict on the Which King of Angmar with one of those swords (which in the books is explained thus: the sword was magically custom-crafted with the sole purpose to kill the Witch King, by one of his enemies, some lord of the lost kingdom of Arnor). Perhaps they will overlook this little detail and they will have Eowyn single-handedly dispatch the Witch King, while Merry wil simply act as a distraction (after all, she is "no mortal man", she is a woman).

As for the effects: the Balrog was COOL, exactly as it should be, can't wait to see one just like that dying by the sword of Turambar in a future "Narn-I-Hin_Hurin" film. Every time Frodo wore the Ring was a feast too and the Nazgul should look like that. Galadriel's trial with the Ring was majestic too. The good side in the battle should be more colorful, but Sauron's exit was great and it was clear that no elf or man was a match for him. thumbs up for the effects team!

Details: Have you noticed that the right people (Hobbits, Strider) have dirty fingers and the right people (Elrond, Galadriel, Boromir, Saruman) get a manicure? Have you noticed Bilbo's ageing without the Ring? Have you seen the Ring shrink to fit Isisldur's hand, the second time we see the scene? Have you noticed the originally blue Uruk-Hai getting a suntan (becoming black) after some days under the sun?

**Wraith** · January 5, 2002, 10:14

Looks like my review got zapped, so here we go again.

Bottom line, if you're very familiar with the books, don't bother with the movie.

The scenery is great. The costumes are pretty decent.

The camera work is horrible. Aside from the MTV-Rap-Video style combat sequences, we get extreme close ups of almost everyone who appears on-screen. Sorry, but I do not want to be able to count the number of hairs sticking out of Gandalf's nose. The actors also should have been fed better, or given candies to suck on, or something to stop them from chewing on the scenery.

This was done poorly enough that it became the second movie I've ever walked out of. This was right after the Nazgul started going up in flames like mummies and Arwen appeared out of nowhere to speak in her subtitled elvish. Unfortunately, she obviously didn't practice the lines, as she was speaking in that slow and over-emphasized tone of voice you use when you speak to a complete moron.

The characters varied from slightly wrong to totally off. A hint to any future movie-makers adapting books: Do no rewrite major characters. What was done to Saruman was inexcusable, not to mention Merry and Pippin. Even Gandalf doesn't come off very well (and the performance doesn't come anywhere close to Nicol Williamson's portrayal of Merlin in "Excalibur").

The changes in the plot really got to me, as well. Axi mentioned a couple, the swords and leaving Bag-end. There's also the entire nature of the Prancing Pony, the hobbits going off with Strider without any real reason to trust him, the DragonBall Z of the Ring Staff Fight, etc. Worst of all was changing Saruman to Sauron's slave, which makes me expect that last half of Return of the King isn't going to find its way to movie form at all.

To take a couple other book to movie examples, let's look at Starship Troopers and Hunt for Red October. They fall on different extremes of the spectrum, from horrible transfer to good.
Starship Troopers, while a horrible movie in its own right, also manages to totally ignore just about everything in the book except character names.
Hunt for Red October, although missing a lot of things I would I have liked to have seen (top of the list being the A-10s giving a little warning to the Kiev), did not rewrite major characters or plot points beyond recognition.

LotR falls in between those two, but it's much closer to Starship Troopers than it is to Hunt for Red October. Very disappointing, and I'm not even going to be bothering with the other movies in the theater, much less buying them on DVD.

Guess I'll have to stick with Excalibur for live-action epic fantasy.

Wraith
Fantasy isn't our crutch -- its arcane

**Buck Birdseed** · January 5, 2002, 10:17

Ooh, okay, I'll review it (very briefly) as well. I thought it was pretty ****e- basically, they took an awful book unsuitable for filming, and instead of cutting heavily and removing the tedious bits they managed to only emphasise them. Not that the story itself is particularly strong either. When you come right down to it, once you've peeled off all the mock-serious poseurism and tedious semi-religious babble, you're left with the most basic bare-bone fantasy scheme: Throw a new (probably unrelated) monster at a group of travellers every few scenes, have them beat it, put in a few walking and babbling bits, rinse, repeat. Add the general humourlessness and the tedium often becomes unintentionally hilarious, from the giant statues doing the Hitler greeting to the (awfully unscary) Ringwraiths being run over by a Guiness ad.

I admit it picked up slightly in The Mines at Moria or whatever. The fact that the Orcs looked exactly like the Zombies from Jackson's own Braindead (a much superior film) kind of bought out the best in the filmmaker, I suppose- gore, blood, people with cool swords, giant demons, etc. Fun. Still, apparently there was enough time to put in a ten-minute yawn-inducing Boromir death sequence. The scenery, I suppose, worked decently well too, though I don't think it was that spectacular or artistically coherent- a common weakness with Down Under stuff, I always felt. Look at the awful Sydney Olympics opening and you know what I mean. No imagination, no humour, realism, realism, realism.

**axi** · January 5, 2002, 10:54

Add the general humourlessness and the tedium often becomes unintentionally hilarious, from the giant statues doing the Hitler greeting to the (awfully unscary) Ringwraiths being run over by a Guiness ad.

Oh come on, are you one of those all-too-politically-correct people who try to find malice inside everything? I 've listened to too much of the "no women - no coloured people" rant, I 've read about Saruman being modelled after Sheick Ahmed Yassin (spiritual leader of HAMAS), about the Uruk-Hai being black on purpose, but the giant statues doing the Hitler greeting is a new one!

In fact, the gesture of the statues speaks: "Go no further evil Orc, here is the kingdom of GONDOR and we'll take no ****!"

And I assure you the Nazgul are much more scarier in the film than in the book. It's not their appearance that counts however, it's the knowledge of what will happen if they get their hands on the Ring.

If the plot seems to cliché and shallow to you, perhaps this is because you are unaware of the special fate of the Elves and their kin in Middle Earth. Have a look at the Silmarillion first and then tell me if the end of the 3rd book isn't one of the most touching things you've ever read.

Plus, don't forget that Tolkien was a pioneer in his field. How many fantasy writers do you know of, before Tolkien? He had to write a modern story based on the epic myths and songs of the norse tradition - he had to develop an art from scratch.

If you want to see REALLY tedious semi-religious babble, read the writings of his friend, C.S. Lewis (which are great, if you're a kid, but don't fit with the sceptic and inquiring minds of juveniles and adults).

Insolent punks like you are put under whip and stick and made to draw carts in Mordor, you know...

**Buck Birdseed** · January 5, 2002, 11:35

There are loads of Fantasy writers well before Tolkien. Not high fantasy, certainly, but then most high fantasy is boring high-horse stuff. Naw, the greatest pioneer is not Tolkien but Robert E. Howard, author of the Conan the Cimmerian short stories. Now that's fantasy! Blood, monsters, faint racism and implied sex as with Tolkien or whatever, but no ****ing overarching mythos or alternative world-building. I actually tried reading the Silmarillon back when I vaguely liked LotR, and I gave up after a dozen pages. No matter how nice the world is if he can't write about it he shouldn't even try...

**axi** · January 5, 2002, 11:46

I like Howard's Conan too. But you have to admit that adapting LotR to the movie screen is much more difficult than giving Arnold

a sword and having him grunt a couple of phrases...

H.P.Lovecraft was before Tolkien too. But they were all kinda pioneers in their genre. Don't forget that befor Frankenstein (1815), there weren't even Science Finction and fantasy was found in obscured hand-made tomes stashed away in monasteries.

Harry Potter, OTOH, was fairly easy to write, I guess...

**Bereta_Eder** · January 5, 2002, 13:44

You can't really compare Howard with Tolkien.

Howard's world (because he DID create one too) was nothing special while Tolkien's was breathtakingly colorful. (assuming you had the patience to go through all 3 books).

As for the movie, it only verified my belief that NOTHING can substitute your own fantasy. But it was enjoyable.

**Buck Birdseed** · January 5, 2002, 14:13

Howards world is largely an afterconstruct. Basically the stories are unencumbered by location, mythology, self-connection and attempts at literature and are all the better for it.

**Bereta_Eder** · January 5, 2002, 14:16

Yes. I guess it depends on taste. Tolkien's book are weighted down by too elaborate descriptions I agree. But in the end they do form a more complete and colorful world.

Howard's world seems to be just an ancient - dark ages with some magic thrown in it. Nothing even remotely original.

**MOBIUS** · January 5, 2002, 17:33

Well I thought it was a cracking good Movie!

What did you guys expect? You can't entertain all of the people all of the time - but I think Jackson did a bloody good job!!!

What I don't understand is why you all venerate Tolkien's storytelling and writing abilities so much - they're not that hot really when you think about it...

What Tolkien is a genius for IMO is his realisation of one of the most richly detailed and fabulous fantasy settings ever! (Though a lot of that can be attributed to the prodigious output of supporting materials by the armies of fans out there, and things like MERP etc...)

I personally found reading LotR an uphill struggle - he uses too many descriptive words in his stories and lets face it, most of the first book is pretty boring...

If Jackson had stuck to the original storyline religiously, the film would have been longer and the audience would have fallen asleep! Characters like Tom Bombadil are nauseating in the extreme and deserved to be cut! Other parts of the film were shot to aid in the pace of the film and things like the character development IMO in general you were given just enough to know what was what - such as the whole Moria episode. Basically you know Gandalf doesn't want to go there because of the Balrog and that Balin got killed - if you want to know more, read the book...

I do have issues with some things such as Saruman being in league with Sauron (They probably figured the US audiences couldn't handle the concept of more than two factions vying for control over the ring's destiny!), the staff scene - which as well as being unnecessary also was badly flawed, how did Gandalf avoid being splatted on the ceiling and end up on the roof? Oh I forgot - he's a wizard...

Anyway, a lot of the character development flaws mentioned here are due to constraints on time and in the most case have been handled admirably IMO. Interestingly though, there is even dissent amongst the 'purists' as to which scenes they liked or disliked - which just goes to show that the book and the film are interpreted differently by each person. I bet there's even people out there that actually like Tom Bombadil's character...

So, if Tolkien hadn't written such a boring first book perhaps it wouldn't have been as badly mangled as all the purists make out?

More to the point, only 5% of the IMDB audience give it a '4' or less - I somehow doubt $300m (probably twice that amount to do it justice in the eyes of the purists!) would have been spent trying to appeal to such a minute number of people...

Oh Snapcase - yeah I thought they were doing the Hitler salute as well...

Announcement

My Unfavourable LotR's Review

My Unfavourable LotR's Review

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment