~The Penguin

The first film was at best a bare synopsis of the first two books (first volume) of Tolkien's masterpiece, and I don't expect anything better of the second. Some works do not lend themselves to the thrill-a-minute format the movies require.

/Mr Lynn

~The Penguin

quote:

---

Have you read the books?

The first film was at best a bare synopsis of the first two books (first volume) of Tolkien's masterpiece, and I don't expect anything better of the second. Some works do not lend themselves to the thrill-a-minute format the movies require.

---

------------------
MacMoose
Benevolent Genius, 68k MLA
Total 68K Macs liberated: 22 and counting
------------------

quote:

---

If they made the movies as in depth as tolekins mind and books, you would need intermissions for people to get some sleep....

---

The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn’t have a space program.
--Larry Niven

I was especially taken aback by the treatment of Galadriel at the Mirror. So many things were wrong--even the Eye of Sauron (which Tolkien even drew!).

I just hope the films don't supplant the books in popular culture.

My daughter agrees with me; no. 1 son would perhaps find himself closer to jt.

/Mr Lynn

I never did get around to reading the return of the king, but all the others I have read. For taht very reason I am reading it before the next movie, because there is no comparision to what your mind and a good book can do compared to actors and CG (although, the CG was soooooo incredibly awesome, *drools*)

~The Penguin

Okay, I find myself being redundant, as I have complained about this already on Stryder's Forums. If anyone would like to come over and debate the idiosyncrasies of Tolkien's works, please click on the already provided link.

quote:

---

Time passage is almost non-existant in the movie

---

The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn’t have a space program.
--Larry Niven

quote:

---

(BTW, I read the books first in 1957, and maybe seven or eight times after that, including once aloud to my kids).

---

WOW! Finally . . . there's a comrade here older than I am!

jt

quote:

---

My concern is that the kids watching these films will never experience the true depth and meaning of the saga, but see it as only a video-adventure, with lots of battles. In reality, the battles take up a very small portion of the story.

---

quote:

---

WOW! Finally . . . there's a comrade here older than I am!

---

/Mr L

In this movie I felt the changes were more about FX and spicing it up.

I loathe the way that Elrond's character has been butchered.
I loathe the way that Faramir's character has been butchered.
I despise the way entmoot turned out, plus it's a huge continuity error.
King Theoden doesn't know shite about defending a castle. (If you're going to radically re-write Tolkein, get your medieval warfare right!)
Gandalf and Eomer's charge was so unrealistic that magic or no magic, it completely broke the spell of the movie.
Haldir does not work for Elrond. He works for Galadriel.

On the other hand ...
I loved the Edoras set, and I loved Eowyn. She's one of my favorite characters, and I am looking forward to seeing her strut her stuff against the Witch King of Angmar next movie. She's the one strong and dynamic female from the books.

Ringwraiths rule! I *so* want them to make a Ringwraith and dragon action figure set. (BTW, Spaceboy, that's my action figures in the LoTR display on the 3rd floor.)

The dead marshes. Creeped me out. That part of the book gave me the heebie jeebees and they were everything I dreaded in the movie.

The Sam-Frodo-Gollum parts were just incredibly awesome. Very true to the themes in the book, and well, I think Serkis deserves an oscar nomination for his voice and character modeling.

---

And yes, I am a bit saddened that in the minds of many too lazy to read the books, the movies will become "canon."

I know that Tolkein is very difficult to read, and I know that he's very old fashioned in many places, but dammnit, I read the Hobbit when I was 10.

You DON'T read Tolkein for the action. You read him for the depth of the world and the characterization. (The man was a medievalist, for crying outloud, and you do not read medieval epics for action!)

I read the book a day or 2 before the movie came out and i had never been so dissappointed with the butchering of a book than in that movie.

I've read the LOTR books and i'm starting on the unfinished tales and continue on with other "history" books. I think that the movies, although, lacking in some details, are a great movie telling a great version of the LOTR tale. There has never been a trilogy better, and that includes starwars. I would rather have this movie series than nothing, and i'm sure nobody will ever beat it.

"my 2 cents"™

quote:

---

I know that Tolkein is very difficult to read

---

The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn’t have a space program.
--Larry Niven

I too, actually find Tolkein easy to read. The language is so lush and beautiful. Then again, I read 1200 words a minute with a 97% comprehension level.

A lot of people find him "too wordy" and "too descriptive".

Last year I went back and did a re-read (first time in a decade) and I found the books hardish to get into largely because it had been a long time since I had read anything written or paced in such a fashion. After I got past the first 50 pages, I was sucked in all over again and found the books hard to put down. I plan to give the Silmarillion another spin, too.

To me reading Tolkein is like reading Chaucer. Difficult, but richly rewarding.

And you are completely right that Tolkein is no Henry James. (Or Anne Rice, for that matter.)

---
The Lip,

Incidentally a friend of mine had some of the same problems I have with TTT vs the book, although we both liked the movie in the end.

In that discussion we both brought up Jurassic Park as the classic example of a very good book made into a horrible movie. The dinasaurs looked good, but since they gutted the stuff about chaos theory, the movie was robbed of a lot of dramatic tension.

Jackson, despite his transgressions in TTT cannot be said to have radically "dumbed down" the material.

quote:

---

I liked the first movie better than this one.

King Theoden doesn't know shite about defending a castle. (If you're going to radically re-write Tolkein, get your medieval warfare right!)

---

Anyway...

I was impressed with the first one, but as always the film will never be as good as the book. Even so I still thought it was a great movie and I doubt anyone will do it better, not for a long time. It's always a shame when they have to cut things out but if each movie was much more than 3 hours it would seriously limit the number of people going to see ethem. People who have never heard of it would be put off alltogether and it would really be an audience of die hard fans and little more. However it does mean that more people are exposed to Tolkien's work which is a *good thing*, even if they are edited somewhat.

Unfortunately I can't really coment on the descrepancies(sp?) as I read the triology when I was 11, it took aproximately 3 days whilst I was off school sick (I read the hobbit when I was 9). The Silmarilion was something else all together though. I think i got a copy for my 12th birthday and it took me several attempts to read it. I'd often pick it up and have a bash for an afternoon then put it back on the shelf. It wasn't until I was about 14 that I actually read it from start to finish, all those long names!

As much as I enjoy the Tolkien books the hobbits really, really annoy me! The ones in the film are far more irritating than the ones I ever imagined whilst reading the books. I think it's a lot to do with the fact that I don't like Ian Holm though.

Other little changes, even down to just one sentence, were made and made it better and truer IMO.

~The Penguin

68k Macintosh Liberation Army Forums

© 2001-2003 68kMLA