I know this isn't entirely a book, but I was wondering if it would be all right if I did a sort of open review thing like Jaynin did with Eragon...I'm watching Fellowship for the first time today, so I want a place to vent (or gush, depending on how I like the movie )

eruheran

That could be an interesting discussion.

Agreed. I saw the Council of Elrond section, and it as so different from the book that I have no plans to see the movies. Ever. I could rant on all the reasons why if I have time later. There are a lot.

First, big squeee over how pretty it looks here now.

The LotR movie wasn't really that bad. They could've done much worse. Movies are such a different medium than books, you can't translate a book perfectly into a moive. That being said, there were many things they missed the mark on. The angstification of Aragorn (Wahhhh, I don't wanna be king!), yes the Council of Elrond section, the Ring's power over Frodo beginning way too soon (In my family the Ring is known as Hobbit Crack), the entire Bree scene, but overall it did capture the spirit pretty well, I thought. I didn't mind Glorfindel being replaced with Arwen too much, because they had to bring her in and if you haven't read the Sil you wouldn't care one smidgen about Glorfindel, and the only other way they could really have brought in Arwen was having a big monolouge of "As you know, Aragorn, you are in love with Arwen..."
I loved all the Shire scenes, I thought Lothlorien was great, I didn't like Gimli being reduced to comic relief, I thought Cate Blanchett was excellent, I loved the beginning with her telling the history of the Ring, I thought the Moria scene was way over dramatized with all the skulls and stuff, instead of the nice, building feeling of something watching you, Rivendell was sufficiently beautiful, Hugo Weaving was actually a pretty good Elrond, and Elijah Wood has really blue eyes.
Oh, you know one of my favorite scene maybe in all the movies? It's in the FotR Extended Edition, where Gimli is talking about his gift. It's great; you get to see Gimli being totally in awe of Galadriel, his dwarvish prejudices going away, Galadriel being completely awesome, and then Gimli and Legolas's frienship just emerging. Plus, it's always just squee-worthy in general that Galadriel gave Gimli hairs when she wouldn't give Feanor any. But then they banished the scene to the EE. Lovely.

I think once you've read a really amazing book like LOTR it is hard to watch a film that lives up to your imagination. I enjoyed the LOTR films but I do think the books are better. I find that once I have watched a film it completely ruins my imagination of what I thought the characters looked like and spoke like, because after the film you can only see the people in the films fill the characters in the books, if that makes sense! They're okay, I'd watch them again but they don't exactly live up to the books altogether.

OBVIOUSLY no movie will ever measure up to Tolkien's MASTERPIECES! *dreamy sigh*

On the other hand, I think Peter Jackson did an admiral job with what he set out to do. If I want the feel of the books, well, I'll read the book! And if I want the feel of the movies that's what I do. They're really two separate entities to me.

I LOVE Gimli. I love Aragorn (he isn't as arrogant as he is in the cartoon. Thankfully!). I love Arwen. I feel that they did Eowyn just right. I LOVED GANDALF! OH MY! He's so...wow.

The only thing is Frodo. He's like Luke Skywalker. Totally type-cast. He'll never be able to get another role as long as he lives because people will always see him as Frodo Baggins.


And then we come to Sam...the crowning glory! Sean Austin did an incredible job. Sam makes me cry. He's the kind of guy I want to marry someday. He's the hero of the story, and aaaaah. I'm rambling now.

That movie makes me happy.

I actually think The Fellowship of the Ring is the best of the movie trilogy, since The Two Towers is even less faithful to the book. The Return of the King is more faithful than The Two Towers, but less faithful than The Fellowship of the Ring.

The books are definitely better than the movies, but I still enjoy the movies. I have the extended version of the trilogy, which has some scenes from the books that were left out of the theatrical version, as well as some scenes that were entirely made up.

I also like the animated The Return of the King and The Hobbit. The animated The Lord of the Rings was decent, but pales in comparison with the modern live action movies.

Isn't Sam the best? He makes me cry too!

I was wondering where that scene got off to...the giving of the gifts was one of my favorite parts in the books and that whole relationship. (Though I won't 'squee' over it. )

Here are my thoughts on the movie, written as I was watching it.

No Tom Bombadil or Old forest for that matter. I can see why they cut it out since it's not like a 'thrilling' scene or anything, but still...wah!

The whole ferry thing still in the Shire is messed up...Frodo actually moves down to Bywater? and there finds Merry and Pippin and they leave for Bree without the Black Riders ever catching up to them...in the movie the Black Riders do catch up to him...at the ferry. I can see how it was added for dramatic effect, though.

Gollum's friend...I forget his name...is gone...I would have liked to see more of Gollum's past even though it's not crucial to the story (and really more a part of the Hobbit, I guess)

He trips over a foot and accidentally puts the ring on? C'mon...what about his little song and dance routine and 'crawling under the tables quickly' to go see Strider.

In the book you don't know about Aneras (I forget the name) or Kingsfoil until RotK! In Fellowship it only mentions that Strider found a leaf...it was still emphasizing they didn't really know who he was or what he was doing. Oh well.

The whole thing with the staffs between Saruman and Gandalf...seriously? In the books they took that all from one sentence: And he took me and put me at the top of Isengard. That's it. ..I don't like the 'force-like' staffs. And the butterfly at the top of Isengard is added as well.

Arwen does not destroy the Black Riders at the river...Glorfindel does!

Also, one last comment...my opinion of Brisingr went down very significantly when I remembered that Tolkien came up with the 'glowing-blue-swords-when-orcs-are-near'.

Also, if I can write the setting in Chapter 6 in my book to be like Moria, I'd be very, very, happy.

Them my thoughts...

eruheran

I think you'll see more of Deagol in The Return of the King. According to my 'annotated score' document I downloaded, anyway. (I listen to the very awesome Complete Score soundtracks on Grooveshark)

Willow, re: Elijah Wood -- I believe he has gotten other roles since LotR, but nothing really major, AFAIK. Even with all that makeup (didn't they give hobbits slightly elvish ears?) I think he is going to end up having a hard time.

Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker) ended up in voice acting because of Star Wars. (Crazily enough, I actually watched a documentary a few weeks ago...and was shocked when I saw the credits roll at the start -- the narrator was Mark Hamill. Who sounds a lot older and not much like Luke anymore, though I'm sure part of that was because he was using a narrator-tone and narrator-voice.)

But, then again, there are people like Harrison Ford (Han Solo, Indiana Jones), who get famous roles and yet are in tons of movies... I just don't understand acting. ;D I'm inclined to only cast an actor once, because each character should look, act, and sound different.

[I hope I'm not derailing things, Eruheran!]

No, that's fine. I've already posted my thoughts!

eruheran

Look, being faithful to a book and changing some scenes can be done.

The movie retained all the major moral and artistic themes, for example, especially the obvious analogy between the Ring and sin. Finally, though Peter Jackson only changed things when he had to, in order to make the series work as movies.

As a counter-example, take a look at Prince Caspian. (Don't murder me.)

Prince Caspian actually breaks faith with the book in a number of ways. Susan falls in love with Caspian, for example. Also note that the scene where they attempt to revive the Witch was completely different and really spoiled the Peter character for the rest of the movie. Finally, an entire plot point and set of themes was forced into the movie through the "invading the castle scene" which was really a deathblow for faithfulness.

LoTR, on the other hand, is faithful while still being palatable as a film. (And remember, the extended edition is much better than the theater edition. Only watch the extended edition. And if you want to know just how much Jackson strives for faithfulness, watch the Appendices that come with the extended edition box set.)

Gollum's friend (the name Deagol comes to mind) does make an appearance in the ROTK movie via flashbacks.

We all know that there was no way a movie could measure up to Tolkien's books. Simply not going to happen. That said, I really enjoyed the movies. I decided right from the get go that, knowing they were bound to mess some stuff up, I was just going to watch the movies for the movies and read the books for the books and try not to be too judgmental.

I actually just rewatched ROTK the other night (extended edition, of course). I had forgotten how much I loved it. The blood thirsty romantic in me loves all the 'fight to the death' stuff.

Ugh, don't get me started on Prince Caspian. (Or derailing threads. )

Two parts that threw me on the little I've seen: 1, Arwen had a lot more to do in the movie than in the book, and 2, the rivalry between Aragorn and Boramir. Seriously, that is NOT how it was in the books. I understand that it was hard to stay with the books, and from discussion with my Daddy it sounds like they did a pretty good job.

To conclude my rant, I will say that they nailed the perfect actor for Sam.

Oh yeah. Sam was excellent. I heard that on set he would act like Sam and fetch things for Elijah Wood and make sure he was eating right and stuff. So cute! But really awesome that he'd care that much about a role, especially as it's Sam who, as we all know, is the hero.

As for Arwen, a lot of her part was actually decently canonical. "It was like I stumbled into a dream" is a bit cheesy, but Aragorn did think he had stumbled into a dream, because he'd been singing about Luthien and right there is a lady that looks like Luthien. Besides the warrior princess (snarl) and the "Arwen's dying!" she really wasn't that changed from the book. The problem was, there was too much of her. They took away from other parts to develop her, but another problem was a lot of it was pretty much the same. Aragorn has a dream, he sees Arwen, he smooches his horse (I wonder what that says about the state of Arwen's lips) and then the next part is pretty much the same. We could've done with less of her and still had a great story, and really the character of Arwen probably would've been stronger had they cut some of her out. But overall, I don't think they made any huge changes to her character, though I do wished they'd better developed just how darn strong and brave she is. But they had to go the Girl power! Woot! route, and totally forget that there are different kinds of strength. The character of Arwen (in the book) excelled because she was strong in a different, more traditionally "feminine" way, and I've always loved how JRRT did that. But in the movie, they seemed to have forgotten that and gone with the more obvious, easy physical strength, totally forgetting that in Tolkien's world and mind, physical, warrior strength was one of the lowest, if not the lowest, form of strength and honor.

As for Prince Caspian, have you guys seen the Dawn Treader trailer? Oh kill me.

Sam? Really? I imagined him totally different. Now Gandalf, however, was perfect.

The thing I hate most that they took out is the character development of Gimli and his hate of Elves.

I seem to remember this was in the books.

Agreed, Sam and Gandalf were perfect. Boromir was nearly so but should have been a bigger sized guy.

eruheran

Really? I don't. There was some tension, but I don't think it was nearly as prevalent.

I just remember they clashed a lot over what direction to go, etc. Maybe it was me.

eruheran

Yeah, there was that, but they weren't "arguing" about the throne. Boromir was always very respectful of Aragorn, from what I recall.

And Legolas didn't know Aragorn before. Ugh, that bugged me so much, how they seemed to be "Best Buddies!" the entire movie, and at the council scene. The whole point of having Aragorn grow up in Rivendell was so people wouldn't know who he is, and then this random elf in a purple robe knows. It was so annoying! Really, Orlando Bloom's Legolas was just annoying in general, something about his super intense "I must get into your face each and every line!" way of speaking. Does anyone else feel this way?
If you do, Youtube "They're taking the hobbits to Isengard." It's hilarious! (And not my work, just a recommendation)

Wow, I didn’t know this thread had taken off!

Okay, while we can all nitpick over Peter Jacksons’ work, we all also have to agree that he did an amazing job in, like Neil said, keeping the essence of LotR. This movie was my favorite out of the three, and I’m sorry, but I doubt anyone could have done better. It is easy to critique directors and all the little things they messed up, but Peter Jackson is to be commended for his work. He was true to the story and the heartbeat of Tolkien’s piece (unlike the Prince Caspian movies which undercut lots of essence!). While I have some things I wish were different, I can’t complain about this movie at all.

And yes, Shawn Austin was the most amazing actor for Sam!

And Elijah Wood has had several other roles since LotR, including some leading roles in movies I would not go see. He’s also done some voice acting for movies like Happy Feet and 9, I think… Anyway, Elijah Wood will be around for years to come guys. He’s been a child actor since he was 5, and a very popular one in main stream culture at that, although again, I’ve never seen his other movies, I just happen to be plugged into the film industry.

Oh come on, let us vent and nit-pick. We're allowed.
Oh my gosh, Aragorn had a knife in his Ranger sword's hilt! That wasn't in the book!
Kidding.

In other news, is anyone excited about the Hobbit movie? I so am! But I don't really like the guy they got to play Bilbo, and I'm worried because PJ's dwarves aren't really that good and you just know that there are going to be all kinds of fat jokes with Bombur.

What's this about a knife in the hilt? I actually preferred RotK, but they may because my favorite parts of the trilogy are all massive battles with much despair, gloom, and sense of defeat.

I actually don't remember much of the books, and that's probably because I think they're a novel written in a textbook style.

I heard about the Hobbit, yes. I'm glad they're doing it, especially if they get Howard Shore to score it again, but I'd almost rather it be an animated Pixar movie. LOL I probably won't get to see it, with P.J. as the director.

The Hobbit is a childrens' book. They're going to make it into another Lord of the Rings. Which I guess is fine for their audience (people like me, incidentally) but is kinda disappointing because the reason why I haven't seen the LotR films is because they're too violent.

The violence aspect is kind of hard to get away from since the books themselves have violence.

Well...a completely different sort of violence.

Actually, it was the giant battles that disappointed me. I was able to handle everything (I even thought some changes were a good idea as far as film is concerned) but the battles. They lost the essence of the books. First of all, the battle of Helm's Deep took a big hit when the Elves show up. Their presence really interferes with the themes that are supposed to come up. Likewise, the Battle of Pelenor Field in RotK was disappointingly un-epic. It didn't convey the epic size and scope of the battle.

Also, one of the themes I appreciate from the books was that it was men who prolonged Sauron's existence and they have to pay a heavy price for it. In the movie, the interference of the Elves at Helm's Deep killed that theme.

Books are different.

I can limit my imagination with books.

In a movie, you're slapped in the face with the violence.

It's like... um... in a manga I read, there was a scene in which a character had a grave medical condition in which he was coughing blood/etc. It was really gross/I didn't need to see that in the manga. But I've read plenty of books with the same situation and I was fine.

So I think that there are certain things that don't need to be shown in movies, such as decapitations and most major blood.

I agree that violence is very different in a movie than it is in a book, but I can also understand (although I don't always agree with) showing those things you see in a book visually. A movie can also be much darker than a book for this reason. I think these kinds of movies could have been done with less violence, but I do see why Peter Jackson did them the way he did. Also, the movies were created for the culture we live in, and unfortunately our culture craves blood and horror. Personally, the worst part of the entire movie series for me was the transformation of Sméagol into Gollum in RotK. Yuck! I personally think P.J. could have revealed the transformation without forcing you to involuntarily feel your stomach heave. However, I believe that was his intent.

Yeah, there can be good reasons... it just cuts off the part of your viewing audience who can't stand that kind of thing. (it's not a problem for some people, which is fine.)

I'm of the opinion that all films should be made by Pixar. j/k!!

(...but Pixar does make the best films...)

You, too? I'm not alone!


In what way?


This is going unanswered on a fantasy forum?!

Nope, not alone Jonathan.

I happen to know the Botkin family (Isaac Botkin ring a bell?) so I keep tabs on what’s going on in the Christian film industry. I also closely follow the Moore Family (Huemoore productions) although I do not know them. And who doesn’t love the Kendrick brothers?

While you might be wondering what that has to do with secular films let me just say I keep tabs on things. Cinematically it helps to know what is going on in mainstream filmmaking even though you don’t plan on using their material for reference, generally speaking.

That’s how I’m plugged into the film industry. I don’t do film myself, although I love the process. I just don’t have the equipment. I was also involved in drama when I was younger and have continued in skits done through my church, so I love the intricacies of the acting portion of film as well.

Does that answer your question well?

And no, I’m not going to address Varon’s Tolkien assessment because I have actually heard that from a lot of people. Tolkien’s work is not for everyone I’m afraid, and I don’t think he is the quintessence of all fantasy, although I respect and admire him as an author. I also enjoyed his books, but I can see where other people might not.

I've dealt with this too many times. Through school, through family, through "My goodness, you're one of those freaks who dresses up for the movies, aren't you?!"s (Incidentally, I was too young to go see the movies in theatres) that I've just given up. My only answer, does a textbook have the ability to make you cry? To have generations still falling in love with it, to have epic fanfictions written about it, (actually I guess that's called historical fic, hm?) to still get people year after year to dress up as Gandalf and go to ComicCon, to still have "Master of Fantasy" be Tolkien's title, to have a great fantasy writer be "Tolkien's heir" instead of any title of their own, to be the first thing people press on you in libraries when you ask "What's a good fantasy book," to have some of the biggest internet communities made in its honor (only getting bigger, even after decades)? Do little kids dress up year after year as characters from a textbook?
Clearly there's something to Tolkien. Thank goodness he didn't live in our age, where he would never in a million years be published.

I guess I haven't given up...

While I agree with most of what you said Celearas, Tolkien is a textbook to those who don't feel the emotional pull of the trilogy that you, and other Tolkien fans, do. Not everyone likes Dekker, not everyone likes Lewis, and not everyone likes Tolkien. An author cannot appeal to everyone, no matter how hard he or she tries.

Hey, cool that you know the Botkins! And John Moore is very good... I wish I was in San Antonio right now so that I could watch the screening of Ace Wonder later this week. Airianna, are you a member of christianfilmmakers.org?
[feel free to answer in a PM if I'm derailing too bad...]

Novel written in a textbook style is the Silmarillion. But I can see why many would think of LotR that way. Different people, different interests, different ages, different backgrounds........it all plays into which books you read.

I second that! And I'll PM you.

I love the Silmarillion! It's not written like a textbook; the imagery is so beautiful, if you care to look for it. And all the stories and the charcters and the situations and the traitors, oh, I love it so much. It's possible I love it more than the Trilogy, at least, I've written more about it.

Um, on topic. Right. I love the extended editions! There was so much detail put into all the movies in terms of sets and costumes, and so much of it no one really noticed, but of course if it hadn't been there we'd have noticed. Ian McKellen got embroidered underwear, I believe, when he was in Gandalf the White mode. The props people put so much in terms of detail, too, all the inscriptions on the armor and weapons, even the ones that weren't "important" (as in, not belonging to a main character)
Oh, and does anyone else really just like Viggo Mortensen? He's so cool, he would sleep in the stables with his horse so he could have a closer bond with him, and he'd repair his own clothes when they got ripped. He'd also carry his sword around everywhere, just so he could stay in Aragorn mode.

Obviously you are a 'watch all the behind the scenes and commentary stuff' buff like me, Celearas.

I like the Sil. too -- was just comparing the style to that of LotR.

I like that style of acting. (When I was about 12, I thought that I came up with a new kind of acting...lo and behold, I learned that it was method acting. ) It would be so awesome to be allowed to carry props around all day...

Weta does such a good detailing job with everything. They're on my dream list of 'who I'd get to work on a fantasy/sci-fi film if I had a big budget'. And the cloaks from Stansborough Fibres were awesome too. (I want to get some hanks of yarn or some cloak fabric from them, but it's really expensive.)

In my humble opinion, I thought The Fellowship was wonderfully done. Of course, I have not yet finished the book... BUT! As a movie in itself I thought it was great. ^^ *thumbs up*

All three movies were carried out very well for as complicated as the books are. Plus, the director and/or screenwriter had to compress a lot, and even then each each movie/disc is 2+ hours long. And there are two VHS's/DVDs a movie! I'd say that's pretty good.

It is sad they weren't able to keep everything in the movies--such as Tom Bombadil--but you don't know how much money they had in their budget for the movies originally, so maybe they weren't able to afford to get everything in. Or maybe they thought that people could only sit and watch a movie for so long. I know people who can't stand watching movies that are two hours in length because they get to long to hold their attention anymore. *shrug*

Okay, I'm done. I apologize for ranting. >< I just gotta defend the movies, because they really are good. Especially if you can separate the movies and books from each other, and you just enjoy them individually.

By the way, I'VE SEEN THAT! Oh my goodness! I thought that was so funny! (Yet annoying.) My brother's friend showed it to us.

As always with books made into movies, there are going to be a number of inaccuracies present. A book relies on dialog, description, and the thoughts of the characters. In a movie, you only get to see the dialog and the outcome of that description; thus, one of the major components in actually making a book so good and so captivating is snatched away from the glory of a movie. So, for theatrical purposes, drama or action is probably going to need to be added in order to avoid lulls in the story where you would normally be piled on with character development through thoughts and getting into the characters' minds.

Secondly, if the movie contained all the scenes in the book, well, who would ever want to watch a movie that would last all day? A movie can only be so long before the viewers start to get sick of it and want it to hurry along already. The changes in the scenes also happen because the viewers' attention must be kept. There are a number of reasons why a book and movie are just not going to be perfect. Therefore, I rarely, if ever, look at the book and movie side-by-side because I always know I will be disappointed with something.

I am a book-worm by definition, and absolutely love reading books. I also tend to stay away from movies that come about because of books mainly because I have my own mental picture of what the story is like. But, in all honesty, Lord of the Rings is one of those series where I can clearly distinguish the books from the movies and not think anything of it. Tolkien creates a world unlike many I have seen, and when I want to live in that I will. Peter Jackson also creates a world unlike many ever seen, and when I want to live in that world, I will.

For the director of such a big novel series to actually get the feeling of the movie right, despite the inaccuracies, is monumental; it is almost never done. Thus, overall, I felt the Fellowship of the Ring was extremely well done, selecting a cast that actually really represented the creatures from Tolkien's world. Jackson basically recreated Tolkien's world, just on screen. Of course, the book is always going to be better; you get more character development and go more into the peoples' minds. Thus, I would say that Peter Jackson definitely be given credit for putting himself out there in recreating a masterpiece of the past and doing it rather successfully.

::thinks she would actually like to watch a movie that lasts all day::

But yeah, I know why changes happen. (I'm a screenwriter; I have pity for adaptation-writers because I know how hard it is. ;D)

It was, and I think Tolkien would have appreciated it. Jackson was demonstrating visually the emotional and spiritual effects of the Ring. (And remember that, although Tolkien was never out-right allegorical, the Ring is an obvious metaphor for evil throughout the books. In fact, the Smeagol-Gollum transformation is an interesting parallel to destructive and pervasive nature of sin, how it tempts, corrupts, and obsesses.)

True.

I don't have a weak stomach, but that scene with the first during the transformation was nauseating! However, I won’t continue since it’s not exactly part of the discussion at hand.

Good observation Neil.

I totally agree. For those of us who really can't stand violence I would actually still suggest the movies. You don't see anything gruesome. Sure. There's a battle, and you know people die, but there's no blood, no guts. Just swords ringing for the most part.

I thought they were going to be way to scary. I watched the movies when I was 7, and they were my first PG-13 movie. But I handled them just fine! It was NOT as bad as I had thought.

Actually, violence in books I find to be worse. My imagination runs away with me. So in movies where it's just all there it's much easier. LOL! Just different people.

And as for Glorfindel not being in the movie. I'm SO happy that he isn't. It would have ruined the movie for everyone who hasn't read the Silmarillion. No one CARES about Glorfindel much if you haven't read other books besides the trilogy. And there were few enough women in the trilogy that it was a smart move to add Arwen. It helped lighten some of the mood, I thought.

And in reply to eruheran about Tom Bombadil--

For movie, that whole sequence wouldn't have worked. It was a departure from the real plot, and although it was cool, it would have made an already long movie even longer. And it would have broken up character development, and there was a greater chance for impropriety. (If you're thinking of the same part of that that I'm thinking of.)

I totally agree. Plus, Tom is the kind of character, in my opinion, better read than seen. In a movie, you just couldn't get the true feeling of him, he'd just be a silly guy in a hat. You couldn't make of him what you wanted, you wouldn't know how peaceful Frodo and co. feel with him.

As for violence, I don't really see any at all. In the movies it was mainly just swords ringing and arrows firing, and then in the books I think the most description there was was "They sang as they slew." (How fantastic was that line, by the way?) There was absolutely no blood or real description whatsoever, the reason Tolkien was so great at writing battles wasn't that he could paint great images of blood and gore, but that you got the emotion of a last stand, huge armies moving around, emotion of seeing a friend or relative dead. And, of course, the leading to. All the building tension, the people fleeing, it was great. And utterly non-violent.
As for the Smeagol/Gollum scene, yet it was kind of gross but it gave more gravity to the horror of the Ring, that this is what it can do to people. I rather liked it. It's not the scene I would grab the DVD and go to, but it was very effective.

And I didn't think that scene was so much gross as just disturbing, seeing how corrupt someone who starts off "nice" can really become!

(Unless you've never gutted a fish. In which case it might be a little gross.)

No, I've gutted a fish, and yes, I thought the scene was effective. I don't think it should be taken out of the movie, but it isn't one I watch over and over again.

The violence didn't really bother me, but the fish scenes did. Perhaps it's because the first live-action move I can remember watching was Star Wars.
I agree with the discussions on Tom Bombadil, he wouldn't have really fit in the movie because he didn't really do anything other than get them out of a tree and sing and dance.