Lord of the Rings?

T

Tine

There are no "spoilers" in my post, but this thread might ruin the story if you don't know it!)

Being a big Tolkien fan, I have mixed feeling about the film. What are your thoughts? Good? Bad? Did they rely to much on special effects/NZ landscape? Did they butcher the books? Was it the best movie you ever saw?

I suppose I think they did use to much SFX, but then again how do you adapt that book without them? I would have said they at least captured the spirit of the books until the third film and the lack of the scouring of the shire.
 
Well my experience of LOTR is a little ignorant. I havent read the books although tried to when i was much younger when it was just one book :)
Ive seen the animation which i liked a lot although they never could finish it.
I thought the CGI was awesome especially during battle scenes.
I think youll find you have to look at it as two different things - the book, and the movie and see them as seperate.

There is no way you are going to fit the entire 3 books into a trilogy without losing a LOT. In some ways though for me it's better this way round because i can love the movie and not be disappointed yet my experience continues to grow as i learn more about the characters in the books and additional info.

As a film it's great, as a book it's also great (i'm sure :) )
 
I agree w/ Ano 100%.

When watching films from books you have to seperate the two as two different takes on the same story. Tolkein also wrote in a lot of detail for a good deal of the books but occasionally left the writing ambiguous where Jackson can't really afford to do the same for film. Jackson has done wonders recreating the trilogy in unparalleled epic format, and stayed pretty close to the books albeit adding and taking here and there with not much consequences.. therefore I allow him as a viewer to take the liberties he does because the end product still blows my mind.

Fellowship and RoTK were better than tTT IMO though.
 
You know I had the same opinion all throughout the past 2 years on the films, that is until now. Obviously, scenes will be cut out. But I don't understand the point of making these movies if they were going to cut out the scouring of the shire, because that chapter was the whole reason Tolkien wrote the book in the first place.
(next paragraph spoils the book!)
See, in the scouring of the Shire, the hobbits return to the Shire to find everyhting has changed. There are bad hobbits, who opress the good hobbits, 2-level houses (instead of hobbit holes) and "gatherers and sharers", the ones who go around and collect everyones food and distribute it "equally" (Keeping most of it for themselves) Sound like a familiar country? Canada? US?
Anyways, they are all lead by "Sharkie", who we later discover is Saruman.

Lord of the Rings is about a battle between good and evil, in a world where evil represents industry. The scouring of the Shire is all about the industrial revolution and it's effect of western society. The difference is in our world, Sharkie won. In LOTR, he was defeated. Now there are other important themes in this chapter like WW1 & WW2, but anyway, nI just think it should have been left in because off all the things in the book, this chapter was the most important.
 
Okay, now I'm a big Tolkein fan, and I thought it was a good decision to leave out the scouring. Think about it, Jackson was not only making this movie for long time fans, but also for new fans. If he built up this whole story about the power of the ring and then destroyed it, only to have another hour of needless story, it would have weighed down the movie. In the story of the war of the ring, it needn't be told.

At least that's my opinion.

It is also pretty needless in the book, now that we mention it. I believe that the reason Tolkein included it (by the way, how does "'gatherers and sharers', the ones who go around and collect everyones food and distribute it 'equally' (Keeping most of it for themselves) Sound like a familiar country? Canada? US?" sound like the US or Canada? Sounds more like The Soviet Union to me, but the USSR was not yet the menacing power when Tolkein wrote LotR, so ...) was to merely show that 4 hobbits left the shire one year, and came back extremely changed (Merry, Pippen, and Sam had become valiant and brave, while Frodo had become withdrawn). We already have seen the changes take place throughout the adventures of the fellowship, so why do we need further exploration of it. I would have had as much respect for the characters without it. And by the way, houses were not uncommon in the shire before Frodo left, if you remember he bought a house at Crickhollow when he sold Bag End in FotR.

There's my two cents ... now don't spend it on porn.

Poke
 
You make a good point and I am sure that is how the film makers saw it. But they knew they could not include everything, so they wanted to keep to the themes of the book, and the scouring was the most important one. The problem is I guess that Tolkien didn't write in "proper" structure, so they took it out.

Merry and pip were not valient and brave in the movie when they returned to the shire, and well I guess Frodo was sort of withdrawn. Yes the gatherers and sharers sound like USSR too, but you know that north america produces enough food to feed the entire world, yet there are still so many who are dying of hunger.

It was not merely to show the change in the hobbits, it was, well, I've said it all above. And it is a huge part of the war of the ring, it was just a different kind of war. Now, it was just the battle for the shire. And the fact that it all ended on the doorsteps of bagend was really significant too.

What I ment was two level houses were not in the hobbiton area. Remember, they hate change to the fact that it changed so much was really in important part.

But anyway what do I know? Nothing really, I don't really know about how films have to be put together, I havn't gone to film schol yet, but I don't think there is one format/structure everyone has to follow

Having said all this I still DID like the movie. The part when frodo carries sam up the mountain was done very well (one of my favorite parts in the book) And I loved Mt. Doom and the grey havens, and I think Howard Shore (composer) did an excellent job.
 
I think this thread simply shows that when translating a book or series of books, the major downfall of the picture can be had by simply omitting one section, albeit one very important section. For some viewers this is the downfall of the pictures, for some this is simply an oversight or a needed omittance in the face of an already overly long and incredibly complex epic.

So two totally different takes on this series of flicks... interesting to note as a filmmaker.

Regarding the US somehow not providing enough Aid for the rest of the world, I believe we are #1 in international aids from mobile fire and medical units to food to military assistance. If you are looking for us to grow food by the boatload and simply donate it internationally I think you are looking for the US to become utopian rather than democratic capitalism. Also, did you know we have people whom are starving in this country as well? Anyways, I digress from the USA politics.

While Tolkein may not have been around during the heyday of communism or marxism, the downfall of all socialist governments have been present in for centuries: ie. greed over equality in an equality situation. Or maybe Tolkein was just ahead of his time.

Ultimately my feeling over the whole epic is that Jackson accomplished
A - The best representation of the trilogy on film to date
B - Some incredibly imaginative CGI and interpretations of actions that occur in the books but details were seemingly ambiguous, and so interpretation really came into play.
C - Scouted the best possible location to shoot the trilogy so that it could represent all of the facets of the map in the books from the forests to the shire to the mountains.. I think New Zealand is a beautiful place to visit or live and it certainly lended itself very well to such a demanding exterior epic.
D - He didn't RUIN this trilogy like so many others might have been drawn to do with so many complex dramatic and CGI infested situations. His directing style and the acting featured was pretty much on the mark.

But, he failed in a couple areas including the omittance of the scouring of the shire, and several other details like I think Saromon was written more into the books (its been awhile since I read them).

So from a storytelling and directing point of view I think he did a near perfect job. As far as the actual translation of the book word for word, he did error on a couple of smaller occasions, but might have really turned off part of the audience whom had seen the first two flicks only to be dissapointed that the third didn't end the way the books did. Also, I felt dissapointed with the second movie as a whole. It felt drawn out in a lot of areas, it felt like a filler on occasion from Act I to Act III. It felt like the typical sag in the middle that a lot of films suffer with. FotR and tRotK kept me riveted to my seat most of the time, even the more dramatic intimate situations of the first film, but tTT had some really slow and weak moments.

And just to tap on what pokewowplayer said, in some viewers eyes, the transformation of the shire from peaceful, nothing-can-go-wrong bliss to the wraiths coming through and slaughtering the hobbits, I think we saw how the shire was destroyed, and maybe the extra pain of watching what the shire has become was simply too much or not needed. We knew the place was trashed and lit on fire.
 
OMG Widescreen you just said everything so perfectly, I was finding it difficult to translate my feeling into words but you just did it.

No, North America will never be able to aid other countries the way it should and the world will never be perfect. I just think logically we do produce enough food for everyone, but we are just so greedy. Also I think it is better to think of the orld as a whole, and not "our country" and "your country", but then again, I'm kind of a hippie. I sometimes catch myself being so selfish, complaining I don't have enough money for a new this, or that or some luxury and at that very moment there are kids jus wishing for clean water, or to see their next birthday. Arggg it makes me so mad!... Sorry got a little carried away

To stay on topic...

As for the script, I was quite impressed acctually with how much they kept it the same, I didn't expect whole passages to be taken from the book, I was happy about that and also small references, like "A shortcut to what? Mushrooms!" Because I did miss that chapter. I can't even imagine how hard it must have been to be able to put in as much as they did, and reference to alot that they didn't and still make is detailed, but not so detailed that it would confuse everyone, and all that... I guess I just appreciated the obvious effort they did make to keep it close, but yes some of it was different.

About the second movie... I feel that they made so many changes, but I didn't mind them. Some things that work so well on the page, would just look sill on screen. Like in the first film, I think if Strider drew a broken sword, the audience would have laughed, I know I would have. But are you refering to the ents with the "lag" in the second movie? I know a lot of people felt that way, but to me I love the ents so much and I guess to actually see them come alive in front of me was so thrilling I didn't notice. I love treebeard! But was really glad they put in the entwives in the extended edition, very much appreciated. Anyway, I felt the changes they did make were improvements. Not to the story, but to the way the film would have been if they kept to the story... if you know what I mean.

And maybe I am slow... but when did hobbiton catch on fire in the movie?! I remember in the second age a little clip of some buildings on fire, but I thought that was a town of men... and in Galadriels glade there was some reference to scouring but I must have missed that, or I'm slow and I can't think of what part you mean...

But yeah your post totally describes how I feel. It was amazing and very well done except a few points where I feel he failed, mainly the scouring of the Shire. I guess the book just means so much to me that I sort of take it as an insult to Tolkien! (Yes, I am aware I am a freak. I don't care.) :wink:
 
Two things real quick.

Saruman actually never makes an appearance in the books until TTT (he is referenced in FotR, but there is never an honest to goodness scene with him), in RotK his is only scene in a small passage on the road to Rivendell near Moria (after the ring was destroyed, Treebeard let him out of Orthanc), then as Sharkey in the Shire. So, Jackson actually bulked up Saruman's screentime. In the books he was a presence, but an invisible one - much like Sauron.

In the film version of FotR, when Frodo looks in the Mirror of Galadriel, he sees the scouring of the Shire taking place (it is Sam that witnesses it in the book, for Sam was with Frodo when he was at the Mirror). Galadriel will not tell him if it was the past, present, or the future. I think Jackson and company figured it would be better to leave well enough alone and let the audience think this was what would have happened if Sauron came back into power. Also, when the black riders first enter the Shire (film version) a hobbit is killed.

Now onward ...

I've, of course, been hearing a lot about the changes that Jackson made, and I keep hearing that he made the most in TTT, but I felt he made more changes in FotR. Everything he left out of TTT (Shelob, Pip and the Seeing Stone) was placed into RotK, and don't forget that he has already pledged to put "The Voice of Saruman" in the extended edition.

Anyway, I think all that is moot. As has been said in this thread, there was no way to include it all, Jackson made the absolutely perfect movies out of the books. For so many years people have wanted movies from these books, why after we get them and they're great do people play-a-hate on Jackson?

Poke

PS If we make so much food, how come may wife keeps making me order small salads at restaurants?
 
Yes, Jackson did put in the end of the TT into ROTK, but I was refering to the changes in helms deep. ie the ents who in the book go to helms deep after they distroy Orthanc, that was a really big change.
And of course there are the little LITTLE things only the freaks (like me) notice, like when Legolas, Aragorn and Gimli are running, would it not make more sense for Legolas to be in front, as elves are so quick and light on their feet? He ran the fastest on Carhadras (s/p?) when he went back. Not that it matters but I sometimes notice little details like that hehe. But I notice they do really well with the small stuff, like they did a really good job making Celeborn's hair look silver.

One scene that I thought was particularly good was Theoden's first scene when he is so "old" That was so well done, not only make-up & acting, but script wise, the way it was explained it was very clear, and I thought it was a great additon to have those couple of shots of Sauruman falling, and then his bloody face. What did you think of that scene?
 
Tine said:
the ents who in the book go to helms deep after they distroy Orthanc, that was a really big change.
Click to expand...

Actually, Trees of Fangorn went to Helm's Deep, not the Ents themselves, and that is shown in the extended edition. More of a change there was that Pippen and Merry were responsible for leading Treebeard to Isengard, to discover the pillaging of the trees by Saruman. In the book, Treebeard knows of Saruman's actions beforehand and he convinces the Ents to go to battle.

Tine said:
would it not make more sense for Legolas to be in front, as elves are so quick and light on their feet?
Click to expand...

Now see, that isn't really a change, that's more of an interpretation of a situation. Yes, of course, Legolas is faster and he never tires like Aragorn and Gimli, yet even in the book it says that at times Aragorn was in the lead.

Tine said:
What did you think of that scene?
Click to expand...

I thought that was the second best Theoden scene of the entire trilogy (the first being Theoden leading the Rohirrim onto the feilds of Pelennor). It was done well, especially when Gandalf reveals his true self and the battle with Saruman begins.

Poke
 
Oh yes that Theoden scene was excellent too, you know I found myself just wanting to be there, hehehe ridding with the soldiers! Even though I would probably be peeing my pants... oh well, I loved his line from the trailor and the film, "Ride now! Ride for ruin, and the worlds ending!"

Another Theoden scene I thought was acted very well was after Theodreds funeral, at the tomb with Gandalf. Also, I loved the way Miranda Otto sang in the EE at the funeral.
 
I was wanting to be Aragorn when he jumped out of the ship with Legolas, Gimli, and a whole bunch of angry dead guys behind him. It was honestly the first time since I was a child that I wanted to be a character in a movie.

Poke
 
Awwww! That's so cute! haha, I want to be characters in movies all the time, or well play them when I see a really good one. I always wanted to be Eowyn in the books, she's one of my favorite characters, but Miranda Otto does such a good job in the movie, how can I be jealous?
 
Well it seems ive been away too long :)
Apologies but for the moment i cant read ALL the posts. I must say though that the "scouring of the shire" may be a spoiler for the book but certainly it adds to the whole story in my mind.
I believe poke was right saying that the film was mainly about the Ring and adding to that would have confused people. It's like the Hobbit, that is a story in its own rights yet in some ways connected to the LOTR as Bilbo meets Golem and the ring etc.
I heard a rumour they were going to make it?

Still remember that there are much more things on the extended versions and dunno if theyll include anything like you mentioned

Still i thought they were great films
 
OK ive read it all now :)

Thanks for the insights into LOTR, it is quite ignorant that my only ref to LOTR is the animation (which i did love even tho i didnt even realize it didnt have the last part - i was young :) ).
If i didnt have so many screenwriting books to read and scripts to write id prob spend more time with the epic.

I didnt realize Sauromon didnt show up until TTT though as ive been told the cartoon movie is pretty exact with what it shows and im sure he appears before then but then the animation is FOTR and TTT not ROTK as had no more money or the guy passed away im not exactly sure

Yes the extended TTT has more with the Ents and in the forest and also a little more background on Gondor and the relationship between the brothers and their father

Cant wait for the extended ROTK. You know i watched the extended FOTR, normal TTT and then went to see ROTK on same day. Had to start at 12:00pm :)
 
Just to get back to the original point about the absence of the scouring of the shire, I just watched FotR (on the channel Action! of all places) again last night, and the part I was referring to regarding us seeing the scouring of the shire.. well we kind of see that in the mirror in the forest.

We are told this is something that will happen if Frodo does not complete his mission, and Frodo sees: a village (perhaps not the shire, perhaps it is, it is a very wide shot with flames but it is too far away and shot at night so it is difficult to tell) burning and the wraiths are killing and razing. The next shots we see in the mirror are of the shire looking very much more Mordorish with muted garbage colors and then we see Sam and other Hobbits in chains, visibly upset and visibly under the control of the wraiths or Sauron.

Obviously this is not adequate because it is only a preminition and it really does happen despite Frodo continuing on with the mission, but it sets the story in the viewers mind that the shire is as good as destroyed if he doesn't continue on. Powerful enough of a message for me, but the end result in RotK and TTT is we don't see the Pippen and Meri doing their thing. A tradeoff I'm sure Jackson made just in the effort of trimming the ending which was already so anti-climactic, he didn't want to stray the story further from the main story as pointed out in this thread earlier, the ring.

Perhaps it will end up in the extended version, I'm not sure I haven't even checked.

And after seeing RotK in theaters again the other night, I still have to say this interpretation of the trilogy is 1) The best so far. 2) Fantastic in its own right. 3) Definitely to be remembered as a classic epic. 4) Not without errors (and I say this with difficulty because the whole trilogy was so well done that it is hard to recognize.)

Interestingly, after seeing the ending of RotK and then watching FotR back to back, I must admit I totally ignored the shot(s) of Sam checking out the chick with the bows until this last time. I also must admit upon further watching of FotR you can clearly see the second-unit or re-shoots in a couple of areas which I presume were added for foreshadowing. Most notably I'm thinking of the shot of Gandalf when they are atop the rock deciding which pass they will take and he spouts some pretty obvious foreshadowing when I look at the film now retrospectively. Its a close-up, its only that one line, and Gandalf's facial and acting expression have changed a slight bit from the shot before and the shot after.

Also, does it seem to anyone else like the score, while incredible in all 3 films, seems almost 100% present in FotR, but there are quite a few moments of no overwhelming score in RotK (but obviously still present and fantastic during needed times.) Perhaps Jackson's way of driving the slower dialogue sections in FotR?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top