Lord of the rings...

[K_Kinnison]

<marquee>spoilers </marquee>

 

Saw it yesturday... and i have NOT read the books

 

From what i have herd, those that have read the books, nitpicked the moive. I enjoyed the movie, and was not confused by it at all (tho i do want ot read the fellowship and the hobbit now)

 

One thing i did like abotu seeijng the movie was the EP II Trailer

 

The Elf archer guy was darn kewl, tho i thing is arrow thing is what he is only going ot be known for, and as said before his walking on top of snow... next i expect ot see him walking on water.

 

I liked the dwarf... very very kewl

 

One thing i liked about gandalf, wasthat, he appeared NORMAL... jsut an old guy with long hair and beard. Even got dirty on occasion. Too bad he has to land on top of the balrog.

 

I did not enjoy the fight sceens, i saw it at the Ultramax (Really big scren) and with the camera shaking nad zipping around i had a hard time focusing on stuff. THo having the big orc keep the sword running thru his boby was AWSOME (yet stupid.. orcs)

 

Overall a enjoyable movie, and i will see it again... i think this moive rates up there with the Matrix, but i think those that read the book were not able to enjoy it as much

[Rogue9]

on an unrealted note: Niner the "water horses" were in the book too

[Rogue Nine]

I know that, 9. I just don't think Arwen did it.

[guildenstern]

Nope, Elrond caused the flood, and the horses were thanks to Gandalf.

I didn't mind having Arwen do it in the movie, though; it would probably have been difficult and confusing to show E & G doing it.

 

I posted the following over at RS.net, but no one seemed to read it, or perhaps they are just too young, so I'm going to post it here for you guys. From the reviews you guys are writing it's clear that you all really, really liked the film, so I can imagine what kind of response I'll get. But I have to post it anyway, just to see what you guys think!

Lemme know your opinions on this. Thanks!

 

 

""But I do have something to add to what I said earlier. In my last post I said that perhaps I over-reacted and maybe it is a fine movie - since nearly everyone else I've heard from thought the movie was fantastic and couldn't have been better.

(Note: the following string of thoughts is going to be very disjointed - this ain't no english essay - bear with me)

So I thought, Well, maybe the movie was good then. But I've considered it a bit more and have come to a conclusion: no, the movie was not that good. Here's why. Hear me out for a second.

As a purely cinimatic experience, judging by just the movie with no account for Tolkien or the books whatsoever, then yes, I think it was pretty good and exciting, and will continue to be. But, when considering Tolkien's own vision... it's a whole nother story. I think if he saw the film today he would be completely aghast. Not for some poor directing or special effects, or for not sticking close enough to the story, but for an entirely different reason.

(This might get long.)

Think about it: in this movie, (as well as in virtually every other movie in our world) 'evillness' seems to get glorified. Not that we start thinking that the bad guys are actually the good guys; we know that they are evil. But you know that there are going to be all kinds of 'orc' toys and such along with the 'elf' and 'hobbit' toys. And the Ring inscription (something Tolkien did not like - I'll get to that later) is virtually everywhere now, on books, on toys (think of the Burger King toys. If you collect all the figures, you can get the light-up "Ring of Power" - as in, people are now striving to get this "Ring"), even on rings that people can buy. (this is actually going somewhere) And it's because if this movie.

The mood of the film was also much darker; it seemed to show a lot more of the 'evil' side of magic than the 'good' side of it. (Even the Galadriel and the Lorien scene - Lothlorien was supposed to be a place of rest, and healing, and peace: a safe haven. But in the movie, safety was the last feeling I got from it.)

This is completely opposed to Tolkien's vision for the book.

He thought the evils, the orcs, Riders, and the Ring, were terrible things, and certainly not be glorified in such ways. He says in Letters that someone made and sent him a silver goblet with "that horrible Ring inscription" on it, and that he's never used it except as an ash tray.

He also began to write a sequel to LOTR, called The New Shadow, which can be found in book 12 of the History of Middle Earth series. In it he describes just what is common in our world today, the glorifcation of evil. It takes palce in Gondor only a hundred years or so after LOTR. Of it he says, "I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall [of Sauron], but it proved both sinister and depressing. Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless...while Gondorian boys were playing at being Orcs and going round doing damage."

And we know that this, something Tolkien never intended, is what will happen through this movie. It is precicely why the "Lurtz" character was created (he was the big, blue Orc): so that people could go, "wow, he's cool" and buy the little action figure, and 'play at being orcs'. Something which Tolkien called both "sinister and depressing."

 

The whole movie was dark and demonic, can you deny that? I know, all of those evil, demonic things are in the book, too, but...it's different. It just is, I can't explain it. It's like this, the movie says, "this is an Orc, this is a Balrog, they are evil but cool!" [i'll use RNine's "the balrog was TEH KUHLEST!" as an example. Sorry Ian ] and the book says, "this is an Orc, this is a Balrog, they are the epitimy of evil and Men should stay as far away from them as possible, or they might become like them...and there is no fate worse than that."

 

Tolkien was a very strong Christian, and had a very firm faith in God - Jesus Christ. It was this faith in God that directed his writings. He would never want anyone playing with an Orc action figure, or wearing a ring with the Elvish writing on it - he would instead want everyone to praise and glorify God. If he knew what kinds of things were being portrayed in the film of his life's work, I think he would be sorely disappointed. More than that, I think he would hate the film.

 

Unfortunately, I don't hate it. I just don't like it.""

 

And these are from a later post!

 

""I actually just came back because I realised that some might need more than just my word to believe that Tolkien's writings grew from his Christian faith. So I've gathered a few quotes, but I'll look for more if anyone wants them!

 

"What many Tolkien fans don't realise is that The Lord of the Rings - the epic fantasy that has sold over 50 million copies and inspired the recent film trilogy - grew out of the author's strong Christian faith." -- Kurt Bruner, Finding God in The Lord of the Rings"

 

Okay, that was cheating, it was just a restating of what I already said.

 

"The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels, particularly artistic, beautiful, and moving: 'mythical' in their perfect, self contained significance.... But this story has entered History and the primary world.... This story is supreme; and it is true. Art has been verified. God is the Lord, of angels, and of men - and of elves."

-- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Tolkien Reader

 

Here's another quote from Tolkien which cannot be mistaken!

 

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. ... For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little; and should cheifly be greatful for having been brought up (since I was eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know; and that I owe to my mother, who clung to her conversion and died young, largely through the hardships of poverty resulting from it." -- J.R.R. Tolkien, Letters, 172.""

 

That's all! B-bye!

[Rogue Nine]

I knew that...just couldn't remember. Gotta re-read the books.

[guildenstern]

Hey Nine! I edited my post - perhaps you'll want to read it since you are mentioned in it.

 

p.s. Nice av! Where'd ya get it?

[K_Kinnison]

now that i think back, more and more movies are making the Bad guys into the kewl ones.

 

YOu had Murdon killing scores of people with each stroke, and the wicked a$$ armor. You had the Ors with thier grisly viages. The Balrog was jsut awe inspireing. The Mountain Orc or "big orc" was jsut mind boggling. And Saron was a guy that would kick butt and take names.

 

numerous times we see Gandolf STRUGGLING. Geting cuts and bruises and yet Sauron did not recive a scratch, yet remained a spotless white. while Gandalf was getting mud dirt and grime on his face.

 

That is interesting, the evil guys might have been nasty looking and disfiqured, but they were clean (armor and such). While the fellowship, seemed to be allways battered dirty and unclean. I dont know how many times you see frodo's hand and you see specks of dirt in his hand, and the numerous closeups of gandalf with dirt on his face.

 

THe only guys that remined clean were the elves. But yet seemed to have very shallow characters with no depth to them (except the Agent smith guy)

 

I wonder what the director and producer where thinking when they did that.

 

Good movie, good story, but i agree, not staying true to the books

 

frankly, that is what i have learned to excpet from recent book ---> movie adaptions. *cough* starship toopers *cough*

[Rogue Nine]

The balrog looked like something out of Diablo II. I liked it, but it didn't hold to Tolkien's view of everything being demonic. I'm a guy, I like scary things. Sue me.

 

I just saw it for a third time, second day in a row. Still saw the hella cool Spider-Man trailer (Kirsten Dunst...mwaaaaah....), but I did notice a lot more things this time around. What surprises me was that I noticed them just now, because I had my girlfriend with me. You'd think I'd not notice the movie so much this time. But I did. Mind you, I was distracted (OYAH), but I did pay attention.

 

They spent a lot of time cutting back to Saruman and the making of the Uruk-Ha. Granted it was cool, but once was enough. They didn't need to keep doing that. Another thing was that they spent too little time at Rivendell and Lothlorien. I mean, how did Legolas, Boromir and Gimli get there? Why were they there? Who called them? And what about the poem? And weren't there a lot more people at The Council of Elrond? Plus, at Lothlorien, they spent too little time with Galadriel....egggh....

 

Well...more ranting later. I'm seeing it again tomorrow.

 

Oh yah, and I made this avatar, g. I can make you one if you like.

[Nute Gunray]

I've always thought making the bad guys look cool was a nice touch. Evil is seductive and making evil flashy and cool makes it so much more seductive. This is a pattern that repeats itself in movies and in reali life quite well, from the gleaming lines of an Imperial Star Destroyer to the extra-snappy SS uniforms of the Third Reich. I've seen many a movie where dirty, gritty US and British tanks fought Nazi Panzers with factory fresh paint jobs.

[guildenstern]

Nute: Exactly! That's just what I'm saying. It *is* in our nature as Men - due to our "quick satiey with good" - to make evil - which is seductive - flashy and cool. And that is of course what PJ did for this movie, since it is the norm for films and everything else.

But it is not what Tolkien would have wanted. You know what I mean? That's why I said the movie wasn't very good - because it was completely contrary to his vision. He did not intend for evil to be 'cool'.

I mean, I'm sure the movie will win all kinds of awards and praise because it was good - according to this worlds standards. But it was not good according to JRRT's standards. You see?

[Nute Gunray]

but how would you make the bad guys look like...bad? If you made both the good guys and the bad guys look dirty then you couldn't tell them apart and if you made the good guys look clean and shiny then they're cliched knights in shining armor.

[Cmdr. Cracken]

Personally, i think the movie was great. It accomplished what it set out to do.

 

Tell a story.

This is the most important part, and i think it did it well. GRANTED, it wasn't true to the books completly, and Mr. Tolkien might be rolling in his grave, but i think it was good at telling the story. if they totally fudge the story, the movie would just be flashy effects, but it didn't. it had an epic feel to it, like this is big, and it's gonna take awhile.

 

my .02

[Guest Conor]

I thought the movie stuck very well to the spirit of the books.

 

Lord of the Rings is a dark story, make no mistake. Often people will not be hit by the darker aspect because they won't get past the easy-going dialogue of the hobbits as well as the patience with which the story is told.

 

The good guys are outmatched. Their trek leads them through hopelessness as well as dirt while the bad guys can sit safe in their towers. Every victory the heroes get is either short-lived or won through much sacrifice. Several of the good guys get offered and refuse a chance to win the 'cool' way.

 

I disagree with the idea that the bad guys were glorified so much as they were powerful, a quality that we are naturally attracted to, and why we say they are cool when we look at them. Darkness is attractive. Its power, and indeed glory, is desireable.

 

Tolkien knew this. Read the Silmarillion and see how many times men or elves fell into darkness because of what it offered them.

 

So I have no problem with the movie's portrayal of evil, and I believe Tolkien would have few problems with this aspect as well. If one of the main characters took the ring, overthrew Sauron and became a benevolent ruler, that would contradict the spirit of the book. Making the bad guys look cool is just stating the facts.

 

The merchendising is another matter.

[Guest Conor]

As well, I think the Balrog was spot on with Tolkien's descriptions of them. It was a huge demon made of shadow and flame with a sword and a whip.

 

It looked like it fit that description to me.

 

In fact I think it is even more accurate than the drawings of Lee and Howe.

 

By the way, I've seen the movie 3 times and I love it. I thought it was a remarkably accurate adaptation. The only problem I have is the scenes that were cut from the final release, such as some of Rivendell and much of the Lothlorien part. Several bits showing her lighter side were left out, leaving her powerful, intimidating side (which I thought was very well done.

 

They left the scene where she gave them their cloaks (I've sure some of you noticed them). It was shot, so it should be on the DVD. The Director's Cut is going to be fantastic.

[Admiral Odin]

I just saw it last night, and I believe it does the books justice.

 

All this about the bad guys looking cool, well do you remember the very begining, when the first war was going on, the good guys were great. I loved their weapons, and the armor also looked good. The part where many of the good guys are killed with one blow, goes to show you how powerful he was, that was all.

 

Sauron fight with gandolf, I thought was good, since Sauron was more powerful then Gandolf.

 

The movie allowed people who didn't read Lotr to appreciate the story, while for the fans it does the story justice.

[Rogue Nine]

It was Saruman who was fighting with Gandalf, not Sauron.

[Taarkin]

How come every single person and place in the move has a crappy retarted name with like 824398 extra vowels?

[Nute Gunray]

perhaps you mean retarded?

And there's not all that many extra vowels.

The only names with a lot of vowels were Sauron, Boromir, Aragorn, Legolas and Saruman, and those only have three. Look at the names Nicholas, Elizabeth, Catherine, Valerie. Those have just as many or MORE and they're real names.

[Andromeda]

do i sense a certain bit of hypocrisy here? you're not exactly one to talk about extra vowels, mr. taarkin...

[Rogue Nine]

Ooh. OWNED.

[Keyan Farlander]

He must be the clone Tarkin.

[Taarkin]

I;m just following the clone name formula dammits.

[Guest rosencrantz]

well, at any rate i fully back guill up on this one. but i think you all missed her point.

 

*it has nothing to do with their costumes being 'clean' or 'dirty'

 

*it has everything to do with the portrayal of evil as 'cool'

 

i agree that it's true that irl evil is portrayed as cool, and that is part of its attraction. but i side with my stern-ish guill in saying that the movie distorted Tolkein's purpose for the book. the purpose was NEVER to glorify the coolness of dark, demonic things. it was to tell the story of the triumph of a little bit of good over such immense evil, despite all the odds. but the movie was so focused on displaying the grandeur of the beasts that you kind of lose the whole meaning/purpose in the process. dont get me wrong; i really liked the movie, and thought it was great in portraying the characters, good effects, blah blah blah, but the point is that IT DID NOT FULFILL TOLKEIN'S PURPOSE FOR HIS BOOK. and in that, it fails big time.

[Guest Conor]

In my opinion there is often no way to portray evil as being both powerful and uncool, especially when we are dealing with monsters and magic.

 

Even the books themselves do not escape this. Read the fight between Fingolfin and Morgoth in the Silmarillion. It is terrible and even heartbreaking, but the scene itself is almost ridiculously cool to 'watch'. In my opinion the Balrog scene in the novel is just as cool as it is in the movie. The difference is Tolkien can use words to generate a heightened sense of the dread and fear we would be feeling if we were there.

 

In my case the detachment I have, not actually being in the story, makes it inevitable that the appearance and actions of the assorted monsters and villains will often be cool. This goes for both movies and books to a lesser extent (depending on the skill of the author).

 

I do have a concession to make however. I admit that, while the focus on the evil has been terrific, I am slightly worried about PJ's ability to handle the good aspect. In my opinion he erred with Galadriel/Lorien, Bree and Elrond, while succeeding admirably with Bilbo and Boromir (I think he did Boromir better than Tolkien). I am really looking forward to seeing if he can actually portray Gollulm's hair-thin brush with repentance as well as his pitiable condition. The complexities of Eowyn and Denethor should be fun too.

[Gold leader]

One could ask oneself whether Jackson is to blame for “glorifying” evil. As a director, he is responsible of telling a story, presenting it to the public, using visual means. He portrays the balrog and orcs in a certain way, to make the public clear what they stand for. So they have ugly faces, consist of flames or have their noses riotously pierced. That people find this cool is IMO not something to blame Jackson for and no reason to call LOTR a bad movie or saying it is not staying true to the book. Rather, people finding the representations of evil teh kuhlest indicates the state of our society. Perhaps their (mine?) view on good and evil is corrupted. I think that people in the middle ages were much more scared of evil things than they are nowadays. For example, they were afraid that the devil would fly into their mouths when they yawned.

Is this because we have more knowledge, because living is so much easier these days, because we are less religious? I don’t know.