 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Hi,
the problem with this sort of fanaticism is that it has no substitute. The LOTR movies, as a movie, was a grand spectacle. I'm not fussy, put on a good show, give me some popcorn, and I'm happy. With LOTR, it's different, I have read the trilogy 5 times, and just started on a sixth. The current effort is to wash away the movie. But
I am getting ahead of myself. For me, the story really begins when the brave troupe leaves the Shire. The whole episode was excised, it's not only a favoite of mine, it has my favorite line from Tolkein....'short cuts make for long detours'. Gone. Tom Bombadil. Gone. All the singing, gone. The inner thoughts...gone. And there is more disappointment, and I've not read a hundred pages, there will be more.
So sure, I liked the movie, except for the dreadful scene of the wizards fighting. But is such a pale shadow of it's former self, one might almost call it..........Nazgul?
Follow Ups:
Unlike books that have really have no page limit (look at the ponderous drivel Stephen King turns out), there is a time limit for a commercial movie (for many reasons). They pushed the limit with this movie. Perhaps, maybe it should have been a made-for-TV mini-series? Or, maybe the script writers should have consulted you first in order to assure your satisfaction? But then, there would be all those other people who would be dissatisfied because their favorite part wasn't included. Basically, you've setup a no win situation for the film producer, director, etc.Catch 22 was another movie that could be criticized for all of the great lines, scenes, etc. that were left out. However, given the complexity of the book, the movie captured the essence & gave a pretty good depiction of the author's ideas.
Why not just learn to enjoy what the movie makers have done - and leave it at that?
I have read the books three times, and didn't miss any of what wasn't in the movie. Some of what you missed would have made it less accessible, and some of it would have lenthened it unecessarily.
I think that, within the constraints of a mass-market media like movies, they did an excellent job of capturing the essence of the story. I'm looking forward to seeing how they show the Ents attack on Isengard.
LoTR was certanitly a magical moment! I didn't read the book, but the movie was quite good and even compelling at moments..10 out of 10 movies suck... LOTR is one out of 500.
is what my poor memory recalls.
r
Disappointing that Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wights were cut--I reread the first book after viewing the movie. Still, I have seen mention that the Bombadil story was a kind of detour and perhaps something that didn't quite fit, overall, into the Tolkien epic. This, from a literary criticism point of view. Does Tom reappear somewhere down the road? I'll admit it's been too many years since I've read all the books. There was also some mention of how the character of a Balrog changed in different parts of the book(s). I guess this is not relevant to the movie, just to indicate that Tolkien has take some criticism for inconsistencies and problem areas.I do remember that the battle scenes in some cases were boring in the book(s), I think they were in book two. The movie battle scenes so far have been very engaging.
And it was Glorfindel, the elf of power at the river rather than Arwen. And Frodo was on the horse alone. Ah, well....
Still the movie was very good IMO. In some ways superb. What about the scene where Frodo tells the group that he will take the ring to Mordor? Now that was great IMO.
I think that with the time allowed, cutting out the old forest and tom was the only option, however, they then appear to make it to bree overnight.
Tom doesn't appear later in the book, but the ent's are similar creatures to the old forest, with this cut the parrallels aren't there.
The film I thought was an excellent adaptation and my only grumble is arwen carrying frodo to safety as it looses a lot of suspense that the book had when he was alone on the horse.
... when the SE Lord of the Rings DVD comes out in November. There will be 30 or more minutes of fellowship footage reinserted that was edited out for time considerations in order to make the film an acceptable length for bottom-line conscious theater owners and producers. I'm sure that it will not placate your concerns entirely, but I think you ask the impossible of a film trying to create the atmosphere of such an epic story. [see linked URL]BTW, I don't think there can ever be a fair appraisal of LoTR when comparing the classic books and the soon-to-be-classic cinema versions of the epic because they each have qualities that the other can not share. That said, I think Peter Jackson has achieved the best meld of the two genres which is an amazing accomplishment unto itself. Just remember, so much could've been badly done or ruined, when instead nearly everything was done correctly.
Audiophilander
Am just wondering how many different versions we're going to be hit with. It's something I've come to hate - - buy the DVD, then out come the special editions, one after another. I've got two of the Star Wars "ultimate" laser disk collections. It really pisses me off to buy a disk, then see editions come out I'd have preferred getting. It would be nice if they were released simultaneously.
I absolutely concur with everything you've said. Even so, I think LotR was about as good as anyone could have done given two considerations. First, length - A mark of good literature (IMO) is that every word, or almost every word, counts. There would have been no way to make a movie under about six hours long that would have captured all of the significant events and phrases in that book. That would have meant an 18 hour experience for the trilogy. How many people will take that much time out of their lives for a movie?Secondly, marketability (is that a word?)- As to what was cut, I'm sure there was discussion that the fight scenes and the scenes which could show off the special effects were emphasized, because that is what the average movie-goer wants (unfortunately).
So, even though there were definitely compromises, I think Peter Jackson did a good job. At least it was a film with action that didn't star Ah-nuld or Stallone :)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
