Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Films/DVD Asylum

It's very close to the original story (i.e., if in doubt, read the BOOK)

12.238.114.147

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ] [ FAQ ]

Audiophilander

In Reply to: I just finally watched it...you guys didn't tell me it was a kids movie. posted by cfraser on August 25, 2002 at 14:20:54:

Besides, it's only the first third of Tolkein's epic. Try to keep in mind that nothing one is likely to see on the screen is ever going to be entirely "original" and the material that this epic trilogy is based upon is nearly 70 years old! That doesn't make LoTR less original, it just make other contemporary storylines a bit more derivative. Besides, there are always certain patterns to epic story telling, whether fantasy, SF, mythical heroic fiction, etc.
BTW, the "Director's cut" IS the version currently available according to Peter Jackson! The longer version might well be described as the "Tolkein version" because it's supposedly going to flesh out the characters closer to the pacing of the original novels; that's fine for living-room watching at one's leisure, but would've been more difficult to watch at one sitting in a theater unless an intermission were employed. FTR, those who find LoTR inspiring tend to enjoy broad sweeping epics on the order of Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago, Gone With The Wind, etc., or movies involving quests with alagorical content (i.e., think Lucas's Star Wars concept, but with sophistication on the order of 100 fold greater in magnitude).
Oh, I'm glad you liked it, even if you didn't find it particularly inspiring.
AuPh

Follow Ups:

Re: It's very close to the original story (i.e., if in doubt, read the BOOK) - Larry S. 12:48:06 08/27/02 (3)
The way the movie ends is completely different than in the book. I found that very annoying, and unnecessary.
- Consider it an artistic decision on the Director's part. - Audiophilander 04:41:22 08/28/02 (2)
  There are one or two scenes in the picture that I felt could've been dispensed with, but overall it was a stunning success both artistically and from the standpoint of respecting Tolkein's original vision. Keep in mind that this is an epic that most folk's had given up on ever being filmed properly.
  AuPh
  - Re: Consider it an artistic decision on the Director's part. - Larry S 17:10:19 08/28/02 (1)
    And how about that terrible portrayal of Elrond. Of course, I don't know what an elf would behave like, but somehow, I doubt it would be like a an Agent from the Matrix. Was practically the same (stiff, wooden) performance.
    - I beg to differ. - Audiophilander 19:58:03 08/28/02 (0)
      The actor's portrayals in those two films were entirely different, IMHO; if my wife hadn't pointed out to me who he was I wouldn't have made the actor's connection with both movies. Of course some may see this differently, but I found the actor's performance in LoTR was restrined, aristocratic and circumspect, reflective of the Elfin character's wisdom & long life (i.e., immortality).
      AuPh
Re: It's very close to the original story (i.e., if in doubt, read the BOOK) - cfraser 11:25:19 08/26/02 (1)
I know what you mean...but, I guess I've watched too many similar plot movies lately. The movie was well-done, looked and sounded great, but I think I found it kinda derivative, as a movie that is. The story may actually be the original, but too many other movies have taken from it, they got there first. Gotta admit, I never liked the books much as far as that goes, fantasy is not my preferred SF genre. Let's just say your opinion of a movie can be directly affected by movies you watched just before it, so I gotta space the genres out better.
About the director's cut, guess I got which is which mixed up...usually it's the version that doesn't get shown in the theatres. Was this the theatre version?
- Yes, the version shown in theaters is the one Peter Jackson considers the "Director's cut." (nt) - Audiophilander 04:36:44 08/28/02 (0)
  (nt)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

You can not post to an archived thread.