Next Generation Emulation banner

1 - 20 of 331 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
With the movie relase a few days from us, its time to do a little thinking...

We all know what critics say, we all have our opinions, but i wonder... has anybody thought what JRR Tolkien himself would say about this? Many say he wouldn't agree on the making of the movie... and I'm with those. Before he died he specificly said he didn't want Disney making a cartoon version of LOTR... jeez, that would simply kill the books! they would turn LOTR into a simple kid story! Now we see, not Disney but a great director named Peter Jackson making it. OK, its not disney, he didnt turned it into a kid story. It is a serious movie, with serious actors. But I wonder what will this bring to the books credibility... One of Tolkien's books great trumph is the many interpretations it can have. One can imagine the characters as he wish, and interpret all the writings as he wish. But after the movie, much will change. For many, after seing the movie, Frodo will be forever Elijah Wood, they will see forever things as PJ understood them. The movie will limit the imagination of many readers... The worst thing? After watching the movie many won't ever _read_ the books, cause they've seen the movie and think they know everything about it... I mean... DAMN, many of the critics haven't even read LOTR, how do they think they have the right to critic it? It really pisses me of...

I'm sure the movie is well made, the special effects are great, and all that, but plz, dont let the movie ruin your idea of the books, don't let Elijah wood change your idea of Frodo... Don't let the movie spoil the best thing Tolkien created... Books that can be read in a lot of diferent ways by diferent readers with diferent ideas. Don't let it kill the imagination...

And this, is what i think...

"The Road goes ever on and on
[Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
Pursuing it with eager feet,
Until it joins some larger way
Where many paths and errands meet.
And whither then? I cannot say."

J.R.R. Tolkien LIVES!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
Very insightful post, Neojag.

> For many, after seing the movie, Frodo will be forever Elijah Wood

I was also briefly worried about the books ruining my image of the movie, but then I realized that what the characters look like isn't all that important - the way I interpret the overall themes of the book (for me, friendship and loyalty) is what really matters. Sure, we may see Gandalf as Ian McKellen the next time we read the book, but eventually the memory will fade out.

> they will see forever things as PJ understood them

It looks to me like one of the great strengths of the movie is that how PJ understood them is how we ALL understood them. Maybe that's not the right wording... let's say rather that PJ's vision can relate to all of ours, sort of a "universal vision" that isn't exactly the same as ours, but close enough that we can identify with it. For me, at least, everything that I've seen so far looks pretty much how I had imagined, or better... I mean, take Sauron for example. I assume you've seen the pic from the trailers where he reaches toward you, wearing the ring? God... I couldn't have imagined something that scary in my nightmares.

> After watching the movie many won't ever _read_ the books, cause they've seen the movie and think they know everything about it...

I think you're wrong on that. After seeing FotR, "Tolkien virgins" will flock to bookstores to grab TTT and RotK to see how it ends. *SPOILER* I mean we all knew that Gandalf wasn't really dead the first time we read it, right? People will want to know what happens to him. And if the movie is good, people may become engrossed in the world and want to know anything they can about it - that means reading The Silmarillion, LotR, The Hobbit, etc.

> ...a great director named Peter Jackson making it. OK, its not disney, he didnt turned it into a kid story. It is a serious movie, with serious actors. But I wonder what will this bring to the books credibility...

The fact that PJ was chosen to do this is definitely a work of God. He is the PERFECT man to do this. His style of directing matches PERFECTLY with the extremely visual nature of the books, and his vivid imagination allows for some incredible visuals. Not to mention the fact that he's a Tolkien fanatic. I mean, we could've gotten Michael Bay or something to do it instead... man, I would've shot myself. Have no fear, Neojag - if anyone can do it, PJ can. The man is a genius.

I think your fears are well-grounded, Neo, but come Dec 19th (for us in the States anyway), they will all be dispelled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,441 Posts
there are 2 cartoon movies that were made in the 70's:
the hobbit and return of the king..
they werent disney and they werent half bad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
i was expecting a great reply like this one from you :)

>For me, at least, everything that I've seen so far looks pretty much how I had imagined, or better..

i dont think there are better or worse things of imaginating environment :) jes different...

>After seeing FotR, "Tolkien virgins" will flock to bookstores to grab TTT and RotK to see how it ends.

i partly agree, but many ppl (jeez, when i went to see FF - TSW for the first time there were sum **** saying the actors didn't look like real persons, and shouting KISS KISS when Aki was lookin for the 7th spirit... :dead: ) will just go to see "the babes" and "the monsters". making the movie is a way of giving this people what they don't deserve, but there is not way of avoid these ppl going to cinema, so there's nuthin to do here. And obviously these ppl wont buy the books...

>The fact that PJ was chosen to do this is definitely a work of God. He is the PERFECT man to do this. The man is a genius.

agreed on that... IF there is anyone capable of doing this is him...

but, as you say, lets wait for the movie... till then, i'll be a little skeptical :) man, i wish Tolkien was alive :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Originally posted by Bgnome
there are 2 cartoon movies that were made in the 70's:
the hobbit and return of the king..
they werent disney and they werent half bad
yeah i know... i've seen pics of those (from The Hobbit) and hated them :dead: :dead: :dead: :dead:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,506 Posts
I know one critic whos only got as far as page 30 at the mom :innocent: So I'll *ahem* HE'll probably see the movie before he finishes it. Hence unfortunately he cannot comment much on this topic. Although that said he very much doupts that it will be another potter (no soft drink companies in sight).

As to your original question: Probably something like "Ok as long as you keep the same spirit as the origina. Oh and BTW what's a DVD?l";)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
> there are 2 cartoon movies that were made in the 70's: the hobbit and return of the king.. they werent disney and they werent half bad

I'm kinda surprised you say that... because everyone else I know thinks they were absolutely god-awful. I've never seen em, though, so I can't really comment on that. Check this out, though: Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings, Part One: A Critique

> i partly agree, but many ppl will just go to see "the babes" and "the monsters". making the movie is a way of giving this people what they don't deserve, but there is not way of avoid these ppl going to cinema, so there's nuthin to do here

Heh, great point... After all, why do you think PJ made Arwen a more prominent character, and cast Liv Tyler? :wtf: :D Seriously, though, you're right. Nothing you can do about the idiots, though. Fortunately, the movie looks like it'll appeal to the idiots and the hardcore JRRT fanatics alike. As long as no one yells "Fight! Fight! Fight!" at the Balrog scene, I'm OK ;)

> man, i wish Tolkien was alive

Don't we all... I can't help but think he'd kinda... eh... mess up the movie though. He'd get too involved, say things HAD to be a certain way, instead of letting PJ take some creative liberties like cutting Bombadil and whatnot. Really, now, he was a pretty darn useless character, and took up like 30 pages.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
The movie looks decent but it seems like there gonna be dancin on his grave with HIS money after they realease it

movies always have a way of dissipionting people who read the book first
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
laugh @ Betamax :D

> He'd get too involved, say things HAD to be a certain way, instead of letting PJ take some creative liberties like cutting Bombadil and whatnot.

He had all the right of getting involved :p NOOOOO NOT THE CHEERIE TOM BOMBADIL!!! :cry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,716 Posts
Originally posted by Bgnome
there are 2 cartoon movies that were made in the 70's:
the hobbit and return of the king..
they werent disney and they werent half bad
there's also a FOTR, and it was better than ROTK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
Originally posted by Neojag
He had all the right of getting involved :p NOOOOO NOT THE CHEERIE TOM BOMBADIL!!! :cry:
Come on, you know every time he said "Hey dol, merry dol" you wanted to just put a bullet between his eyes. And he was so useless! He didn't advance the greater plot at all! You could cut out the entire Old Forest - Bombadil - Barrow Wights section, and the only thing you'd lose is the sword that Merry uses against the witch-king. Oh, and let's not forget all the hobbits running around naked on the hill. Ack.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I wouldnt cut out anything =P he was a little uh... anyoing... but he actually saved the hobbits at the hill (sorry, i only read the english version once and can't rember the actuall name)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,716 Posts
Originally posted by Neojag
I wouldnt cut out anything =P he was a little uh... anyoing... but he actually saved the hobbits at the hill (sorry, i only read the english version once and can't rember the actuall name)
a little is a major understatement. Plus, treebeard (or whatever his name was) was, IMHO, thrown in for a little relief from the tension. Thus, dispatchable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
Originally posted by Gk1986
a little is a major understatement. Plus, treebeard (or whatever his name was) was, IMHO, thrown in for a little relief from the tension. Thus, dispatchable.
I'd say that for Bombadil, but definitely not Treebeard. If you get rid of Treebeard, you lose Gimli and Legolas' trip to Fangorn and the Caverns. More importantly, though, if you take out the Ents, who takes Isengard? (That right there will be an amazing scene in TTT come Dec 2002) Who rescues Pippin and Merry in the forest? I agree that he may have served a comic relief role, but he was also vital in the plot, unlike that yellow-jacket-wearing cretin Bombadil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
yup, treebeard is really important, like Asfaloth said, in the second book, and he actually helps forming your idea of Sauron's orcs...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,307 Posts
Well, with less than two hours to go, I guess I'll soon get to see whether the movie does any justice to FotR or if it's just a "boring movie" (as a critic put it).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
Originally posted by Ryos
Well, with less than two hours to go, I guess I'll soon get to see whether the movie does any justice to FotR or if it's just a "boring movie" (as a critic put it).
Whoever said that was obviously dead while watching it. I'm seeing it in 8 hours, baby! WOOOOO!
 
1 - 20 of 331 Posts
Top