Off Forum - Lord of the Rings

[Kimball]

I have never read the books, so I don't have a stanted view, but I thought the movie was fantastic. A little too long (3h or so), but worth it.

[Growltigga]

sounds excellent, I think you have decided for me what I am doing on Friday night

I have read the books (about 30 times) so will be going along nervously

[Spyder]

We're going to catch a matinee tomorrow right after work http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I have read ALL the books, a couple of times and I'll post a critique Monday http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ZeroAdunn]

Me and some of my friends have recently been watching some movies that are done by the same guy who is doing lord of the rings: Peter jackson. For people who are unuware of his filmography I thought I would post a few interesting titles here:

The Frightners (1996)
Dead Alive (1992) hailed as the gories movie ever (one scene has the hero killing hordes of zombies with a lawnmower of all things)
Bad Tase (1987) A real screwey movie about an intergalactic fast food company that wants to serve the human race as its main food.

All off these are horror/comedies with very comical special effects. After having seen many of his movies I begin to wonder about Lord of the Rings.

[Val]

I saw it yesterday afternoon with 4 of my friends (that are actually a rather diverse group from a die hard gamer to someone who had no real interest in the movie) and everyone of us loved it (though there were some comments on it being a little too long).

It followed the books pretty close, though I don't actually recall one of the characters (the female elf - Tyler's character) in the series, but I haven't read it in forever.

The special effects were superb, and the fight scenes are vicious. The opening fight reminded me a bit of the beginning of Gladiator, but it didn't have that weird 'stepping' effect during combat scenes, it was more fluid.

The characters are true to Tolkein's books and are a thrill to see on the big screen. The monsters are well done and the way the made all the characters the 'correct' height was unreal.

Even though the movie was 2 minutes shy of 3 hours, I would sit through it again gladly.

Hope you enjoy it!

[Growltigga]

Has anyone seen this film yet and if so, what's your critique?

[Will]

I saw it opening night, and the only regret I have is that there wasn't a midnight showing nearby http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

About the time, I didn't even notice. If I didn't know better before I went into the theatre, I would have sworn it was only an hour long.

* Some stuff below could be considered spoilers, so shield your eyes if you don't want to see those http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif *

It follows the book fairly closely, leaving only a few main parts out (most notably, Tom Bombadil and the barrow-wight), and changing the order a bit to make it a stand-alone movie. People who had not read the books would be wondering, "What the heck is going on?", had the introduction not told of the 3 Elf Rings of Power, 7 Dwarf Rings of Power, 9 Man Rings of Power, and the forging of the One Ring by Sauron.

The increased role of Arwen (Liv Tyler) wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. She is barely mentioned in the first book, only saying a few words and being seen with Aragorn/Strider by Frodo in Rivendell. You don't really find out what that's all about until the end of Return of the King, where Aragorn marries Arwen. In the movie, the only thing Arwen does is carry Frodo to Rivendell after his wound on Weathertop.

Also something that I noticed is that it seems Saruman has become a servant to Sauron in the movie, where in the book he only feigns cooperation while conspiring to replace him as the Dark Lord. It may turn out that way in the Two Towers movie, but it doesn't seem like it in the Fellowship of the Ring.

The parts that are sticking the most in my mind are the two "scenes" from the book that I was most anticipating to see in the movie: the Balrog of Moria, and Boromir's "Last Stand" (technically should be in Two Towers, but I don't care too much about that). I wasn't disappointed, both were done well.

Only other thing I can think to say of the movie, is that there wasn't nearly as much singing as there is in the book (which is about once every three or four pages on average, IIRC). That's probably a good thing, as it would get annoying after a while http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Go see it!

[Puke]

i thought they spent too much time hamming things up when they could have spent it developing characters.

the effects were great, the fights were fair, everything looked convincing. most things i expected to be skipped were skipped, and the major scenes i expected to see were there. i guess it met my expectations..

its just that there was so much ham. instead of spending time dwelling on little things or hamming up scenes to try and make them dramatic (and ending up sappy) they could have given that time to a little more dialogue. Gimli and Legolas hardly said two words to each other, when they could have had a constant banter.

its mildly irritating that Aragorn was swinging a sword around when half his character revolved around his being broken, but i guess thats to be expected from hollywood. i hear JRR Tolkien had the same complaint about a script that was written for the book during his lifetime.

[dogscoff]

So it *is* th bad taste guy. I'd heard rumours, but...

Bad Taste is a brilliant film. It was made on a budget of just about nothing at all but the splatgore special effects are fantastic, and the whole film is just really funny. A cult classic.

[Growltigga]

Although off topic, I thought this would be a useful thread.

I saw LOTR Last night. Given that I am a complete Tolkien purist, I was absolutely delighted and 3 hours flew past.


The movie is FANTASTIC, ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC

thanks to you all for your comments.

[Mephisto]

It might not be in the film but Anduriel, Aragorns sword, is re-forged in Imladris/Rivendell after the council of Elrond and before they go on their journey.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puke:
its mildly irritating that Aragorn was swinging a sword around when half his character revolved around his being broken, but i guess thats to be expected from hollywood. i hear JRR Tolkien had the same complaint about a script that was written for the book during his lifetime.<hr></blockquote>

[tesco samoa]

I saw it yesterday as well. And I enjoyed it.
***Begin Spoiler****
You know the coolest thing about the movie.
Legolas and his bow of speed.

Then as an added affect when the Orc's were too close just thrust them manually in their heads and chests.

***end spoiler*********

How was the sound in the theaters??

In the one I saw it the centre channel seemed a little low and alot of the background conversations came from the front right speakers

[ZeroAdunn]

Don't get me wrong, I loved Bad taste and Dead alive (the only movie that I almost lost my lunch during) but it is just looking and those movies, then lord of the rings, Hmmmmm, something doesn't seem to fit.

[tesco samoa]

That's what happens when you have a CDN / NZ production team.

1 reason to go hmmmm, I am glad its him.

The Hobbit town was built a year before filming so the locals could walk all over it and get that lived in feeling.

Now that is bully.

Bet Jackson than the regular Holleywood types.

Bet you 5 dollars that Lucas could ruin the movie.

Saw a trailer for STar wars 2 Send in the clowns.

Yep They have taken the final dregs of all that was cool about Darth Vadar and finished him off.

[Puke]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by [K126]Mephisto:
It might not be in the film but Anduriel, Aragorns sword, is re-forged in Imladris/Rivendell after the council of Elrond and before they go on their journey.

<hr></blockquote>

really? i thought it was a bit later.. in any event, he pulls the thing out in Bre when they first meet him. the do show the broken sword in Imladris where they refer to it as his fathers sword or somesuch, but to my memory they did not reforge it in the film nor take it with them. I distinctly remember him hiking around in half of the book with a broken sword, and blathering prophecies about wanders not being lost and the broken being reforged and all that. just a nitpick, i didnt really expect the movie to do it any differently, and im fairly impressed they got the sword in there at all.

[Mephisto]

I was not totaly sure myself so I looked it up in the book. They actually stay at Rivendell for 2 month before starting the journey and in this time they re-froge the sword. I know that you did not bash the film, it was just for your information. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Spyder]

Ok, saw it on Friday afternoon. I could not have asked for a better screen adaptation. The setting was perfect, the art was great, the camera work unbelievable (making those guys look 'little' was uncanny), the casting nearly perfect....I had a small problem with the Evil guy from The Matrix being Elrond http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

You MUST see this movie.

[AJC]

Well I saw it and I thought it was excellent and certainly captured the spirit of the LOTR story and the feel of middle earth. I will definately go see it again.

One thing to note is that this movie had some parts of the Silmarillion in it and parts of the Unfinished Tales of Tolkien.

[ 24 December 2001: Message edited by: AJC ]</p>

[Puke]

it did? which parts? (having not read either..)

Im guessing that you are refering to the little explination in the very begining, but you find all that out throughout the book, just not until much later. i think the bit in saroumon's (sp?) tower was out of place, but again, you find out about it later in the Two Towers. same with golloum, out of place, but you find out later. for movie go-ers and continuity purposes, i think they handled it well the way they did.

everything i saw seemed to be a direct adaptation of parts of Lord of the Rings. but, since i have not read either of the books you refer to, id like to hear what i missed.

[Atrocities]

I saw the movie Friday, and I enjoyed it a lot.

[tesco samoa]

Looks like the general 'insert big word here'
is that we like the movie.

I cannot waite for the second one.

Just 360 days to goooooooooo

[Askan Nightbringer]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ZeroAdunn:
Don't get me wrong, I loved Bad taste and Dead alive (the only movie that I almost lost my lunch during) but it is just looking and those movies, then lord of the rings, Hmmmmm, something doesn't seem to fit.<hr></blockquote>

Peter Jackson is just a genius. He can do movies anyway he wants to. I think its the way he doesn't take crap from the producers. Hearing Spielberg sook about Jackson getting the movie was priceless.
He has done some serious stuff (Heavenly Creatures) and I once heard him being interviewed on a radio station when this elderly lady rang up and said "I just loved Heavenly Creatures, I want to go see your other movies".
His reply was "If you liked Heavenly Creatures then you don't want to go see my other fulms".

Try watching his muppet inspired movie "Meet the Feebles", its much more tasteless than his other stuff. Dead alive was called Braindead here btw and I wouldn't have known the movie you guys were talking about except for the reference to the lawnmower.

Cheers all,
Askan

Oh...I forgot. Lord of the Rings was cool. Except for that bit when the bridge fell so Aragon and Frodo could jump to the others.
And why did the orcs bother putting armour on? It seemed to do them no good.

[Phoenix-D]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>And why did the orcs bother putting armour on? It seemed to do them no good. <hr></blockquote>

Security blanket? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Phoenix-D

[CNCRaymond]

LOL, any one notice that the orcs looked a lot like those vampires in Dusk til Dawn?

The movie was a tad long and slow in many spots. I actually fell asleep during it. If not for my girl friends elbo, I would have had a better time dreaming than watching this movie.

One other thing, the evil orc dude at the end, the one who lost his head, WTF was up with that guy, he looked more like a pro-wrestler than an evil half elf-human orc. It was almost comical.

Sorry, I am not a fan, and I regret having wasted my money on this movie.

[Puke]

time to change you sig, dude.

[Atrocities]

LOL.... @ CNC http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[henk brouwer]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by askan:

Dead alive was called Braindead here btw and I wouldn't have known the movie you guys were talking about except for the reference to the lawnmower.
<hr></blockquote>

I also know it as braindead. The most sick movie I've ever seen. epecially the scene with the baby in the blender. very sick..

About Lord of the Rings, it was great, I'm going again tomorrow. The only remark I have is that the hobbit-houses looked strikingly simiar to the house of the Teletubbies. (Must have something to do with the sick sense of humor of Peter Jackson)

[ 27 December 2001: Message edited by: henk brouwer ]</p>

[ZeroAdunn]

Just saw it wednesday, and I have never came out of a movie hearing so much complaining, and I have seen many a bad movie. The most common phrases were:

"Gee, that was a good waste of 3 hours."
"What kind of ending is that?"
"Finally, it's over"

It seemed their was a lot of guys there who had brought girlfriends and the GF weren't to happy to sit through this movie for three hours.

One humorous bit: When the guy in the movie got shot by three arrows and was dying, some dude in the back of the theatre was just laughing his @$$ off.

[Val]

Actually, I was surprised at how diverse a group of people there was both times I went to see LoTR(opening day and this past Sunday). Most of the chatter was pretty positive, and even my girlfriend (who is not into fantasy or even that much sci-fi) went both times (she enjoyed it more the second time, was able to follow it better). I was astounded at the range of ages from young teens to retirement age. I heard a few complaints about it not being "the complete story" and ( on the other side) how long it was, but most people were smiling (amidst the stretches and yawns).

[Dracus]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ZeroAdunn:

"Gee, that was a good waste of 3 hours."
"What kind of ending is that?"
<hr></blockquote>

I think it was not a waste of 3 hours. totally enjoyed the movie.
As for the ending, That was not the end. It is a 3 part set. That was just a stopping point.
When all three come out on video in 4 years. I will buy them all and watch them back to back.

[Puke]

hey, where did AJC go? what parts of the Simarillion and Unfinished Tales of Tolkien were in it? anyone else know?

[AJC]

Silmarillion- pg 365 paper back Version
Chapter - The three rings of power and the third age;
Specifically the 7 year siege in the valley of Gorgoroth at the beginning of the movie when Sauron comes forth and kills Anarion son of Elendial, Gil-galad and Elendil and Isildur uses Narsil the sword to cut the ring from Saurons hand.

Unfinished tales
Chapter- The Disaster of the Gladden Fields; when Isildur is ambushed and slain by orc arrows as he tries to escape the battle swimming in the river while wearing the one ring. The ring slips off his hand and he is spotted and shot with arrows by orcs. Page 271 Hard Back Version - this is a detailed account of the battle.

[Puke]

cool, thanks. i will have to pick those up at some point and give them a read.

[tesco samoa]

http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/directorscut/homepage.html

This review might sum up the movie for me.

Except that I have read all the books 2 times

[dmm]

Awesome film adaptation of LOTR. Reasonably faithful to books' details; very faithful to spirit of books. Definitely worth seeing, unless you absolutely hate the fantasy genre. Most definitely worth supporting whole-heartedly, if you are sick and tired of movies that you either can't take your kids to, or you can but you don't want to. (Parents out there will know what I mean!) There is NO cursing, NO sex/nudity/innuendo, NO potty jokes. The scariness/gore/violence is at an entirely appropriate level, IMHO. I took my 4 sons (ages 7-13), and plan to take them again, plus my wife. AND bought some of the action figures for Christmas. So I'm doing my part! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I actually like what they did with Arwen, even though it strayed from the books. Gave her more of an active role than Tolkien did, and yet kept it as something that Tolkien would have been able to swallow. (As opposed to making her Xena Warrior Princess, or Lara Croft, or similar idiocy.)

The hobbits were the best I've ever seen or heard in any film or radio adaptation. They aren't nearly plump enough, but they talk and behave the way I imagined hobbits behaving. Childlike and innocent, without being childish and stupid. Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise have impressed me already; I look forward to the development of Merry and Pippin.

They wisely didn't mention anything about Galadriel and Arwen being the most beautiful females in Middle Earth. Unfortunately, I've read the books, so I kept thinking, "Yeah, Kate Blanchett is beautiful, but she's no Galadriel." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Of course, even a plain elven woman should be beautiful compared to any human woman, so it isn't fair to expect any human actress to be able to pull off Galadriel!

[Sinapus]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Spyder:
Ok, saw it on Friday afternoon. I could not have asked for a better screen adaptation. The setting was perfect, the art was great, the camera work unbelievable (making those guys look 'little' was uncanny), the casting nearly perfect....I had a small problem with the Evil guy from The Matrix being Elrond http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
<hr></blockquote>

"One of these hobbits has a future... and one does not."

Yes, various parody quotes are coming up with regards to that guy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Saw it Last Friday and enjoyed it. Haven't read Tolkien in a loong time and don't remember it so I can't pick nits about what was and was not in the film vs the novel.

[GhostBear]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dmm:
I actually like what they did with Arwen, even though it strayed from the books. Gave her more of an active role than Tolkien did, and yet kept it as something that Tolkien would have been able to swallow. (As opposed to making her Xena Warrior Princess, or Lara Croft, or similar idiocy.)

[GhostBear]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by GhostBear:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dmm:
I actually like what they did with Arwen, even though it strayed from the books. Gave her more of an active role than Tolkien did, and yet kept it as something that Tolkien would have been able to swallow. (As opposed to making her Xena Warrior Princess, or Lara Croft, or similar idiocy.)<hr></blockquote>

My bad, I've been lurking for a long time and this is one of my first Posts, anyway...

I thought what they did with Arwen was ok, it didn't cause me any heartache (and I've read the trilogy about a dozen times). However, the question becomes what about Eowyn? Do they slip Arwen into that role too? I think that would be a shame.

All in all, I only had problems with a few places where the story veered from the books. Mostly with the way they handled the breaking of the fellowship and Boromir in general.

I thought the Orcs were very effective. Its not readily apparent in the books that they were originally elves that were "mutated", though it is mentioned (in the Silmarillion I think). The Uruk Hai were also very good, they definately came across as a "bigger and badder" type of orc.

GB

[tesco samoa]

Anyone read the article about Nynsc as jedi masters..................... and a song for the new soundtrack....................

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo........... ....

who ruined star wars ???????????

G.L. did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Growltigga]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Anyone read the article about Nynsc as jedi masters<hr></blockquote>

You are joking - but then I suppose Britney is going to be the new dark lord of the sith

[Will]

I saw it... I wanted to believe it was just a rumor at first, but when I saw it on both scifi.com and on CNN (television, not internet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ), a few things happened. First I screamed, "NOOOOOO!!!!!!!". Then I went into the fetal position, and tried to think happy thoughts about Star Wars. Then I tried to console myself by saying, "Hey, maybe they'll die!". Then I remembered that Jar Jar is going to be in this one too, and I went back into the fetal position. Then I said, "Screw Star Wars, it's over. Lord of the Rings rules!". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Spoo]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> (from scifi.com)
It's official: Lucasfilm has confirmed rumors that boy band N'Sync will appear briefly in George Lucas' upcoming Star Wars: Episode II--Attack of the Clones, according to reports on TheForce.net and E! Online. It's not clear which members of the popular band have cameos in the movie, a Lucasfilm spokesperson told MTV. The popsters will be seen for a fleeting moment in a "big scene with lots of extras," the spokesperson said.

It's also unclear why Lucas agreed to include the band. The New York Post reported that Lucas acceded to a request from his pre-teen daughters, who are big fans of the band. But Lucasfilm representative Lynn Hale told E! Online that Lucas' daughters "didn't have anything to do with it" and that the band's members, who are big Star Wars fans, asked producer Rick McCallum if they could appear in Episode II.

<hr></blockquote>

As far as I can tell, they're just going to be background. I don't see anything about "Jedi Masters" or a new song.

[Suicide Junkie]

Well, it does sorta make sense:
attack of the clones -&gt; attack of the boy bands
where boybands = clones

[tesco samoa]

i think that was attack of the clowns

[zen.]

This is what I love about this forum...I don't even have to leave it to find discussions on other interesting topics. lol

I simply ADORED this movie. For the most part, I don't remember anything I read of the first two books, so there was nothing to compare it to. As a Tolkien newb, I found it to be an excellent movie that left me full of wonder and awe...something I haven't experienced with a movie for many moons.

One thing this movie made me realize was how bitter a taste the Phantom Menace left in my mouth. Lucas is definitely losing it if someone with half a dozen movies to his resume can outdo him. I saw the trailers for Attack of the Clowns, too, and it was pretty weak. It's sad when you start rooting for the bad guys (when you're not supposed to http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ).

Q for the book readers: I don't know if anyone saw the animated Version; my girlfriend showed the Lord of the Rings to me after the movie. Some of the parts were eerily similar (e.g., the ringwraiths standing over the beds)...was the animation an influence on the movie or was Tolkien that accurate in the descriptions that two directors would see it the same way?

[MegaTrain]

I'm a big fan of the books, and have read them many times, so here was my reaction to the movie after seeing it Last week:

First thing is: Good Movie! I enjoyed it very much, although I found myself being a little over-critical of changes from the book. Thinking more about it after the viewing, though, most of the changes were necessary when bringing it into a movie format without making it a 7-hour feature. A few other odd points are discussed below.

Parts I liked:
The scenery. Great mountain and forest scenes, and I liked the river. They definitely helped to give the movie mood and flavor. Good depiction of the Nazgul. Both while black riders and when revealed as Frodo put on the ring. Overall adherence to the characters, the plotline, and most important elements. Some things were cut for time, but they kept all the important elements of the plot and the quest and even the ending of the first part (although they did include the orc battle which is really in the second book).

Items they changed that worked well for the film: Sequence. I liked the way they told things as they happened (Gandalf's imprisonment in Orthanc), instead of just hearing about it all later on. Although the book's method added to the suspense of not knowing where he was or why he was missing. Arwen being Frodo's elf rescuer instead of Glorfindel. For a movie audience, the fewer characters, the better. Glorfindel was the son of Elrond, but plays no other part in the tale. To introduce Arwen at this point makes sense, and even to introduce the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen, otherwise audiences are likely to be confused at the end of the 3rd movie when Aragorn weds Arwen. The Last time I read the series, I did the same thing. It was like "Where did that come from? I don't remember them having a previous relationship." Compression of time. The movie wasn't hung up on days and dates and lengths of time, at least not like the books were. They didn't give the impression that Gandalf had been away for 25 years between the leaving of Bilbo and Frodo, but I guess that time gap was not really that significant, except to show that Frodo had also not aged with the Ring.

Stuff they changed that I wasn't so sure about: The "Sword that was Broken". Well, first Strider shows up with a sword that looked just fine. Then in Rivendell they showed the broken sword but really made no reference to it's prophecy concerning the returning King, only to it's history as the weapon that cut the ring off Sauron's hand. They did not show any re-forging, and Aragorn certainly had a sword for the rest of the movie, but I couldn't tell whether it was his original "normal" sword, or the broken Narsil reforged as Anduril. If you're not going to follow through, why introduce the Sword that was broken? And if you introduce it, why don't you follow through with the rest of the prophecy? Perhaps they will revisit this in a later film. The escape from Moria: what was with that gap in the stairway? That was NOT in the book, but maybe it should have been, because it gives us such memorable lines as "Nobody throws a Dwarf!" and "Lean this way." (...so our 200 pound bodies can effect the balance of a 2000-ton rock stairway.) What a joke. The attack at Weathertop. A little long and dramatic, and what's with Frodo not stabbing the Nazgul King? I guess they couldn't say that any weapon that touched the Nazgul was destroyed if they were then going to have Strider attack them with his sword (which was supposed to be BROKEN. hmmm, maybe some of these are related...) Saruman. A visible enemy is better than an invisible one, so I do like how they played up his role (or at least the VISIBILITY of his role in this first book). Ultimately we learn that Saruman is in league with Sauron, but isn't his real purpose to have the One Ring for himself? I just looked it up, and on p341 says "...Saruman was mustering a great force on his own account, in rivalry of Sauron and not in his service yet." The movie plays it like he is just a pawn of Sauron, creating an army for him and sending troops to capture the Ring. Maybe they'll deal with that differently in the second movie. And what was with the Wizard Battle? The book simply says: "They took me and they set me alone on the pinnacle of Orthanc." I guess you gotta spice it up a bit for the movie, or maybe Gandalf was embarrassed at being whomped by Saruman and didn't tell the complete story at the Council of Elrond. (NOW we find out the truth...) Singing and stories. Obviously, you can't include it ALL, but at least you could put SOMETHING in. They only reference at ALL to singing or poems was in Lorien, as the elves were singing (behind the dialog) about the fall of Gandalf.

Other comments: Leaving out the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-downs made sense, because you could remove it as an entire unit and leave the adventure as a whole mostly unchanged. They only change they had to make was Strider bringing the hobbits their swords. It works, but it removes the significance of the weapons and their effect upon the Nazgul, which wasn't a problem because Frodo didn't use his on Weathertop! (I wonder if Merry will use his on the battlefield in book 3). The Ring itself "wanting to go back to its master." I simply got a much stronger impression of this in the movie than reading the books. Maybe I just missed it while reading; I always assumed that when Frodo's hand "crept toward the ring" that it was the power of the Nazgul or the Unblinking Eye and not the Ring itself willing Frodo to wield it. The 4 hobbits leaving the shire. Didn't it seem like Merry and Pippin were "accidental companions?" In the book, they were aware of the Ring, the quest, the danger, and made a conscious choice to accompany Frodo and Sam. Not at all the same in the movie. It's like "Whoops, hello! Quiet, there's a Black Rider! Hey, goin' my way?" Battle scenes. These were OK. Very well filmed and FX'ed, but I didn't come away saying, "Man, did you see those battle scenes!" The Orc-chieftan in Moria (or rock-troll, if that's what it was), also, was very drawn out, with an over-dramatic "death" scene where he stabbed Frodo.

You should also check out www.movie-mistakes.com (http://www.movie-mistakes.com). They've got some pretty funny mistakes, including a CAR driving by in the background of one of the scenes, a bouncing rubber Frodo on the horse as Arwen charges across the river, and a "dead" orc lifting his head to watch Strider run by at the end of the movie.

Despite some of these criticisms, I did enjoy the movie very much, and play to see it again soon. I did get to the theater late and miss the first few minutes, though. Was it just a retelling of the story of the Ring? I arrived as they showed Gollum under the mountain and Bilbo finding the Ring. Did I miss much?

[edited UBB code]

[ 08 January 2002: Message edited by: MegaTrain ]</p>

[Will]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MegaTrain:
Despite some of these criticisms, I did enjoy the movie very much, and play to see it again soon. I did get to the theater late and miss the first few minutes, though. Was it just a retelling of the story of the Ring? I arrived as they showed Gollum under the mountain and Bilbo finding the Ring. Did I miss much?

[edited UBB code]

[ 08 January 2002: Message edited by: MegaTrain ]<hr></blockquote>

The first few minutes was Galadriel narrating a little background. There was the whole "The world is changed" introduction, which some people just HAD to ruin by saying "They did that for the terrorist attacks!" (It was in the movie long before that, not everything has to be about suicidal maniacs diving planes into buildings...). Then, it tells of the forging of the Three, Seven, and Nine rings for the Elves, Dwarves, and Men; and the trechery of Sauron in forging the One Ring. Next was a mini battle sequence, showing the Elves and Men marching to Mordor, almost defeating Sauron's armies, then Sauron himself comes out (There's a comment below something to the effect of, "So THAT's what a +200 magic weapon looks like"). Isulder takes a swing at Sauron with the broken sword, cuts off the hand with the Ring, and there's a cool explosion of light that knocks everyone over, and Sauron's empty helmet falls to the ground. After that, it shows a brief sequence of the Orc ambush that killed Isulder and the Ring falling to the bottom of a stream, and it's finding by Gollum. Then you entered the theatre and saw the rest http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And to answer the question, no, you didn't really miss much except the cool FX in the mini battle scene. It was mainly an introduction for those poor souls who haven't read the books yet (I have a one-volume of the trilogy, and a boxed set of the trilogy + hobbit; the one-volume, the hobbit, and the fellowship are all lent out, two towers probably will be lent out in a week... I'm doing my part to help those who have lived in the darkness for so long http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

[Fyron]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Q for the book readers: I don't know if anyone saw the animated Version; my girlfriend showed the Lord of the Rings to me after the movie. Some of the parts were eerily similar (e.g., the ringwraiths standing over the beds)...was the animation an influence on the movie or was Tolkien that accurate in the descriptions that two directors would see it the same way?<hr></blockquote>

Tolkien wrote incredibly detailed descriptions in his books. That's part of what makes his books so great.

[zen.]

Great analysis, Megatrain! A pic of the epic battle scene you missed is at:
http://www.theforce.net/rouser/reviews/lotr-fight-big.jpg

For those of you interested in the CG of it, each of the warriors had a primitive AI...within a proprietary program, the agents would "...respond based on rules that use fuzzy values to approximate the way people make decisions", according to Computer Graphics World; "...thousands of warriors that, once set loose on a battlefield, would find an enemy, pick a fight, and fight to the death." They could even tell what type of ground they were standing on and when to strike, like an exposed front when the enemy hefted his weapon overhead, for example.

I had no idea they created the equivalent of a mini-game just for the battle sequences.

zen

[jaolhe]

Written by MegaTrain:

"Glorfindel was the son of Elrond, but plays no other part in the tale."

Where did you get this from? Glorfindel was in no way Elrond's son. He was a very powerful Noldorian prince from the first age. I'm almost sure he was also older than Elrond, most likely more powerful as well.

I'm sorry for this nitpicking...

You had vey good points in your review. I hated the Uruk-hai thing though. It wasn't included in the books nowhere near in the way it was presented in the movie. My opinion is that the whole super-orc thing was meant for stupid and illiterate people who just wanted to have some badass guy to whack head of in the end of the first movie.

[Mephisto]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jaolhe:
Written by MegaTrain:
You had vey good points in your review. I hated the Uruk-hai thing though. It wasn't included in the books nowhere near in the way it was presented in the movie. My opinion is that the whole super-orc thing was meant for stupid and illiterate people who just wanted to have some badass guy to whack head of in the end of the first movie.<hr></blockquote>

Uh, well, it was in the books. :-)

[zen.]

That was one of my bud's problems with the movie. He was upset that Glorfindel, 'one badass elf', as he described him, wasn't in the movie. Maybe it's a good thing I don't know any better. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

zen

[MegaTrain]

jaolhe - I guess you're right. I'll have to look back at the first book to see why I thought Glorfindel was Elrond's son. If I remember right, it was a phrase something like "Glorfindel of the House of Elrond."

Although Glorfindel did mention that Frodo's wound was "beyond my powers of healing", and that the Master of the House of Elrond would have healing powers far greater. I know that healing powers may not be the same as other power, but it seems therefore to me that Elrond was greater, at least in this respect, than Glorfindel.

And they certainly didn't play up the Uruk-Hai
"creation" in the book, but I do remember some discussion about Saruman combining orcs and men so they could run during the day, and the differences between the two Groups of orcs (Saruman's Uruk-hai with the white hand, and the orcs from Mordor) who were hauling away Merry and Pippin.

[AJC]

Elrond is a half elf, Son of Earendil and Elwing. He is the keeper of the Ring of Air, one of the three elven rings that Sauron desires.

Although there were significant differences to the books - I feel they did a excellent job bringing middle earth to life.
Great movie and I feel it definately represented the LOTR well.

I plan on seeing it again this weekend - I will have to watch for the rubber frodo riding with Arwen, and the car...

Aragorn and Arwen
In the Appendix of my copy of the LOTR is a section on Arwen and Aragorn and their lives together before the War of the ring and after the elves depart the grey havens. Aragron Met Arwen when he was 20 as he was wandering in the forest after he found out that he was Isildur's heir. He fell in love with her at first sight.
Elrond refused to let Arwen marry Aragorn until he ruled Gondor. So Aragorn became a ranger for many years.
Once Aragorn takes the throne of Gondor, Arwen and Aragorn marry. Aragorn dies at the age of 60. Arwen lives for many years in Lorien, alone, until she decides give up her life.

Arwen never gives up her immortality as the movie suggests, she instead chose to live with mortals and not leave middle earth.

[Fyron]

From The Fellowship of the Ring:

"This is Glorfindel, who dwells in the house of Elrond."

And from the glossary in The Silmarillion:

"Glorfindel: Elf of Gondolin, who fell to his death in Cirith Thoronath in combat with a Balrog after the escape from the sack of the city."

The Tolkien Companion, by J.E.A. Tyler, states:

"During the Third Age [of the Sun] few remained of the mighty Noldor who had returned to Middle-earth in Exile during the Elder Days. Of these, one of the noblest was Glorfindel, of the House of Finarpihr, 'an elf of a house of princes,' leader of the Host of Rivendell and one of Elrond's chief counsellors."

Apparently, the ancient elf-lord Glorfindel died, but he didn't die. Very interesting.

[Will]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AJC:
Aragorn dies at the age of 60. Arwen lives for many years in Lorien, alone, until she decides give up her life.

Arwen never gives up her immortality as the movie suggests, she instead chose to live with mortals and not leave middle earth.<hr></blockquote>

I'm going to have to disagree with this part http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

From Appendix B in Return of the King:
"2931 Aragorn son of Arathorn II born on March 1st."
Gandalf comes to Hobbiton for Bilbo's birthday in 3018, making Aragorn 87 at the time, and looking very well for a dead man http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Then, this entry is using dates of the Shire Reckoning, which is 1600 years less than the same year in the Third Age:
"1541 In this year on March 1st came at Last the passing of King Elessar... *More concerning the departure of the rest of the Fellowship*"
1541 + 1600 = 3141 T.A., or 140 Fourth Age.
Thus, Aragorn (King Elessar) died at the age of 210.

As for Arwen, I can't find the exact spot, but I am certain that she, like others decended from Elrond Half-elf, can choose between an immortal life and a mortal life, and that she did choose a mortal life in wedding Aragorn.

Ok, nevermind, I have found it... Appendix A, Section I, sub-section v, "Here Follows a Part of the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen":
"But Arwen became as a mortal woman, and yet it was not her lot to die until all that she had gained was lost."
Also here, it says she was married to Aragorn six score years before he died (120 years). He 'chose' to die, as he could decide when it was time (doesn't say how). So he died, and Arwen left for Lorien, and later died there.

[Fyron]

Technically, Aragon and Arwen are cousins or something like that. Aragorn is a descendant of the Kings of Numenor. The first King of Numenor was Elros, who was Elrond's brother. Elros chose the mortal life. He was granted a long life for a human because of his elven ancestry, which is mainly what made the Numenorians powerful. So, I don't know what the exact relation would be, but Arwen and Aragorn are distantly related. Maybe it would be cousin, but I don't know exactly because there are about 40 generations in between.

[ 13 January 2002: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]</p>

[AJC]

I saw the movie again this weekend - I found it even better the second time around - this time I could pay attention to the sets , costumes and all the other things in the background...

Now... how do we convince peter jackson to not make us wait an entire year? argh.

[tesco samoa]

Saw the movie again on the weekend and saw a trailer for the second movie.

WOw. is all I am going to say...


And I enjoyed the trailer for Spiderman.

I just wish they would throw in some of that classic music for the cartoon I grew up watching ( Rocket Robin hood would make a good trailer for it)

[Growltigga]

for what it is worth, a computer tech friend of mine showed me a 3 minute battle scene extract from the second movie (Helm's Deep I think it was)

All I can say is "Lordy - you ain't seen nothing yet"

[Dravis]

Now I'm more excited about the the next movie (The Two Towers) than I was about SW Episode 1. Not bad considering I read the entire LOTR trilogy less than a year ago.

[mac5732]

I just heard on the radio yesterday, that it got 13 Academy Award Nominations including best picture..

just some ideas mac

[Daynarr]

Watched the movie few days ago and I can say only one word for it - GREAT!!!!!

Can't wait for the second and third part.