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.

 

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 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

 

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:

 

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"

 

> 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: 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.

 

"The TV guide channel called him Frodo Baggans? Didn't these guys at least read a ****ing review?"

 

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

 

Not really his money... he sold the rights back in the 60's or 70's.

 

hoo boy i bet his family is regretting that now

 

laugh @ Betamax

> 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 NOOOOO NOT THE CHEERIE TOM BOMBADIL!!!

 

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.

 

Originally posted by Neojag
He had all the right of getting involved NOOOOO NOT THE CHEERIE TOM BOMBADIL!!!

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.

 

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)

 

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.

 

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.

 

yup, treebeard is really important, like Asfaloth said, in the second book, and he actually helps forming your idea of Sauron's orcs...

 

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).

 

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!

 

:evil: I saw it yesturday :evil:

It was fun trying to get a seat though. I haven't finished the book yet so I can't compare but I quite enjoyed it. Albeit 3 hours is always a little too long for any 1 movie IMHO.

 

I saw it opening night and although it was packed, causing me to split up with my friends to get a seat, it was worth it. Oh so much

It was so very long, yet I was /never/ bored. The scenery, the character development, all great IMHO. The only people I've seen slag it were those who hadn't read the book. And their only qualm was pretty minor at that.

Can't wait until The Two Towers

 

Some minor thoughts on the movie, then more specific spoilers when finished. When I finished, the first thing that came to my mind was, "Wow, that was the best live action film I've ever seen." It wasn't as good as the book, but WOW. As for your comment, CD, I've seen the same trend, and I see why. The movie, even being three hours long, had to cut out quite a lot of details (and important ones at that). People who think this film is a substitute for the book is sorely mistaken. I'll have to read the next books before they're out so I won't face the same problem. Now for some specific and major spoiler parts. Obviously you should NOT highlight this unless you've read the book and/or seen the movie (preferably both).

***********spoiler section***********

Other than the exclusion of some fairly important characters, at first I had quite a few doubts about Saruman's performance, because his first few lines did not lead me to believe he could pull off the part. That soon ended with the battle of the wizards, however.

The one part that really bothered me, however, was Galadriel's scene. I did not like a bit of it, especially when Galadriel was going through the "test." I could barely understand a word she said. Obviously the same problem was not in the book.

What the *#(&$#* did they do with Sam? They cut out almost all of his character. While the actor did a fine job of being him, almost all of the important details (why he was as loyal as he was, etc.) were strangely nowhere to be found.

The last nitpick I'm going to bring up is Balrog. Although he was done very effectively, I never quite got the same impression I had while reading about him. Sure, I thought he was a fearsome and omnipotent demon of death, but he wasn't that big (and, imho, clumsy). However, the part with the entire goblin army fleeing in terror was pulled off much better in the movie.

Although I thought most of the movie was not done as well as the book, there were a few parts I liked MUCH better in the movie. The first was after Gandalf's "death." The scene that followed was much more emotional than in the book, and it really hit me. That was one of the rare occasions where I almost came to tears. The second was an even more noticeable change. Boromir's death in the book was...well, less than impressive. He just seemed liked a greedy warrior. Here in the movie, however, his final hurrah had much more of an impact. Seeing him continue trying to save his comrades, despite being struck again and again by the poisoned arrows (nice of the movie to neglect pointing that out -_-) was a much better way of ending his life.

Another scene I liked better in ways was both battles at Moria. The Nazgul were also pulled off surprisingly well, especially with their spectacular recurring theme. I heard some people actually gasp in shock when these guys appeared.

On the note of really good performances, Ian Mckellen was even better than I had expected. I do not think anyone could be quite as good of a Gandalf, because he practically WAS Gandalf. Viggo Mortensen's role as Strider was particularly surprising. Initially I did not think he would do a good job, but he was much better than I had thought.

***********end spoiler section***********

Oh well, it was much better than I could have expected, and certainly was not "boring."

 

Well I wasn't bored for thouse 3 hours (on rereading my post I think it could be misinterpreted that way.) I just find 3 hours a bit long in general (but that's just me.) I have to agree CD's main point about thouse that were slagging it off as I noticed this with a few ppl sitting in front of me (They thought the "ending" was crap :eyes: )

 

> (They thought the "ending" was crap)

I can hear Tolkien rolling around in his grave...As for the three hours, I do admit that's a bit long, but if it doesn't seem like three hours, that's all that matters. Besides, considering how much was missing as it is, think what shrinking down the movie to say two hours would have done.

 

Originally posted by Betamax
Well I wasn't bored for thouse 3 hours (on rereading my post I think it could be misinterpreted that way.) I just find 3 hours a bit long in general (but that's just me.) I have to agree CD's main point about thouse that were slagging it off as I noticed this with a few ppl sitting in front of me (They thought the "ending" was crap :eyes: )

those guys should be stabbed with the ringwraiths king sword :dead: :dead: :dead: :dead: