Heavyarms Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 I found it lacked seriously on details: unless you had read the book, you would have known these names: Gandalf, Sam, Bilbo, Sauron, Saruman if you were able to catch it, elrond. They did a bad job in some places, making some of the character's names hard to tell, and hard to do some of the work for the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 i could tell almost everyones name except boromir and arwen and maybe a few others here and there but those were the important ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted February 12, 2002 Author Share Posted February 12, 2002 names I only knew because I had seen some things about it: Legolas, Gimli, Pippin, Aragorn ,(I knew him as Strider). Names I did not know: Saurman, Merry. Seriously, look at the movie again. Tey did a bad job with names. Also, one more, the woman person in Lothlorien ( I forget her name already!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 Galadriel, Lady of the Wood. Married to Celeborn, Lord of Lothlorien. If you think about it, the Harry Potter movie was the same thing. If you hadn't read the books, you'd not get who anyone was, save for Harry. Book-to-movie adaptations usually require the viewer to actually read the book to get the gist of the story. Although Peter Jackson did leave out some key points, he did an admirable job of adapting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted February 12, 2002 Author Share Posted February 12, 2002 In Harry Potter, I knew almost everyone's name from the movie, and I never saw anything about Harry Potter. I knew Fluffy, Dumbledoor, Draco Malfoy, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Hagrid, snape, and Voldemort without reading the book. Didn't catch the one teacher with Voldemort on his head and the One that tells him to be a seeker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 I TOTALLY agree, and not just in names. The story in the book is like a completely different version of the LOTR book story. eg. In the movie they run into Merry and Pippin in the fields, but in the boook they go with them the whole time. Other examples: They never meet Tom Bombadil in the movie, but he has a chapter or 2 in the book. The "Evil Forest" is one or two shots and they skip the barrow-downs entirely. In the movie Frodo leaves like 2 seconds after Bilbo does, but in the book he leaves fifty years after bilbo does, and an entire year after Gandolf explains the ring to him. They walk in the movies but they ride ponies in the book. and LOTS more. I'm only a little ways in to the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 You want the book story, read the book. You want the movie story, watch the movie. They're not the same and they're not supposed to be the same. In fact, they can't be the same. I had no problems catching the names of anyone. Who exactly were you confused about? They will ride ponies in the next movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 you might not have had name probs cuz you read the books the only names i couldnt catch was bormir, after watching again, i realize that the most clearest place with his name mentioned is when he blows the horn and legolas says "the horn of gondor" and aragorn says "boromir" ahhh enjoyment to the highest degree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 I didn't have any troubles with the names (well except it took two times seeing it to get the pronunciation correct), and I haven't read a word of the books. Only name I didn't catch was Elrond...well I heard "Elrond" but I thought the ruling council of the elves was named Elrond. Caught it the second time though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted February 13, 2002 Author Share Posted February 13, 2002 one other change: Lothlorien. In the movie, they were there one night, and not in trees. Book, in trees, there like a month. When they are on the river, they have on last meal with the Lord and Lady. Movie, they just sailed on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 The movie was 3 hours long as it was and it was a seriously condensed version of the tale. If they had tried to introduce every character and situation that Tolkien wrote, it would have been at least twice as long. Certain situations and characters had to be left out, or merged with other characters. I think they did a great job considering the length and complexity of the source material, how well known it is, and how rabid the typical Tolkien fan can be. It could have easily been tuned into a movie like Dune, which was so condensed and chopped-up you can be left confused even if you had read the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 Originally posted by edlib The movie was 3 hours long as it was and it was a seriously condensed version of the tale. If they had tried to introduce every character and situation that Tolkien wrote, it would have been at least twice as long. i wouldnt mind that:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 Neither would I... but how much would that movie cost?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted February 13, 2002 Author Share Posted February 13, 2002 They should have split it into books, releasing both at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 .... Do you have any idea just how bad that idea is? The movie that Peter Jackson made is as close to perfection that an on screen interpretation of the books is going to get. Period. What did you want them to do? Spend another hour or two in these various locations so it made it seem like they were there for weeks? Did you want another three hours of them just walking so it felt like it did i the book? Please.... Some things that work in books simply can't be conveyed on the screen like you'd want them to be. *Points to edlibs' and his own last post* Reread those two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted February 13, 2002 Author Share Posted February 13, 2002 well, rhett, they could have at least said: 50 years later. It made him look like he left the next day. They needed to explain more, show more. I'm not saying it was bad, but it was badly rushed, and such can be told from reading the book and watching the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 Really, what difference does it make if Frodo starts his quest a week or 50 years later to someone who has never read the book. The fact that Frodo had an unnaturally long, un-aging life after Bilbo left was important for Tolkien to set up Gandalf suspecting it is the one-ring in the book, but it would just drag down a movie and bore an audience. Remember, the attention span for someone watching a film is a lot different than that same person reading a book, and film editors have to keep things moving. The exposition parts have to be kept as short as possible before people start to get bored, and the full-out action sequences have to come a lot quicker, and last longer than in any book. It's just audience expectations for a film like this one. The director also has the responsibility to non-LOTR fans to tell a great story and keep thier interest. Anything that doesn't have to do with Frodo's quest to destroy the ring is just fluff and needs to be cut to keep the movie going,.. and unfortunately that includes sequences in the book like the endless dinners, or Tom Bombadil, which have only the most minimal impact on the ring quest, even if he's a fan favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 14, 2002 Share Posted February 14, 2002 Originally posted by Boba Rhett What did you want them to do? Spend another hour or two in these various locations so it made it seem like they were there for weeks? Did you want another three hours of them just walking so it felt like it did i the book? Well, they could have extended the movie by 5 minutes so they could add a shot or two of them passing through places like the barrow downs and evil forest. Thats wouldn't be hard at all, but i think it would connect the movie with the book much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted February 14, 2002 Author Share Posted February 14, 2002 Well, the movie does NOT represent the book at all. It is like watching schindler's list and then reading a biography about him. THEY ARE VERY different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.