View Full Version : LOTR extremely unsatisfying …
SOME MILD SPOILERS (no plot given away)
I must precede this review by saying I haven’t read any
Of the trilogy, but have a working knowledge of this fantasy
Genre.
The film didn’t work for me on any level, if you’re gonna
do a film with this sort of pace and this sort of breadth, you need
to give your audience hooks, plot points, raise and lower tensions, good example of long films for this, Schindler’s List & Casino.
The problem I had with the LOTR FOTR is you could have packed
three books worth of detail into a three hour film and made
a punchier, more exciting film. FOLR took its time unnecessarily,
and your weren’t rewarded. For the first two hours I struggled to
engaged in the characters, they were dull and clichéd..(Sure the book is getting on a bit now, and I’m not asking for MTV generation story telling.) It's not as if a lot of information was actully being explained in the first few scene's, it was just character setting but it took forever to get to Rivendale.
.
Plus unlike a lot of people I didn’t care for Bilbo and gang, they really annoyed me and the scene where they were being carried up the mountain, I was hoping that Sean, Viggo and Co would throw them off. Bilbo's collegues also seemed to pop in and out at random intervals just propping up their existence, rather than carrying a story foward.
Why oh why do these so called well though out universe's seem to have paradox's in the special powers, witness Gandalf fighting like he's out of the matrix, and randomly summoing powers to kill some monsters some of the time.
The exposition cheated for me, I found the voice over introduction
much more interesting than the story that followed. What really hurt me though was the felt like I had been watching Phantom Menace (Big Film and big disappointment.) In that it tried to save its self by having a big cgi showcase half way through and then a token battle at the end that seemed to be one in a long line of confrontations, that we had seen before such as the “we can’t go through this we’ve got to go around it’s too dangerous.” And then going through it, Princess bride did a brilliant parody on this with the Swamps scene.
The CGI was not very convincing, as soon as they started matting actors on scenes it looked like really old blue screen a la King Kong.
Overall, saddened that I couldn’t sense Peter Jackson at the helm of this film, Just a studio film, that incidentally I don’t think it will be the big hit everybody is expecting it to be.
:(
Yonathan Gal
22-12-2001, 16:12
Afraid I have to disagree with you there....
First of all, for someone who has "knowledge of this fantasy
Genre", you don't reall. I'm not having a go at you for not reading the books, but Tolkein practically invented fantasy as we know it today, so if you haven't read them, then you really can't know much about fantasy...
I and all the other tolkein fans would havve been angry if they'd squashed all 3 books into one film, it's impossible. there was already heaps of FOTR taken out to fit it into 3 hours, but no way all 3 books. Have you seen the size of them?
I though the characterisation was brilliant, thorugly engaging and superbly done. Visual style was excellent and the SFX too were perfect.
And don't talk about Gandalf fighting like he's someone out of the Matrix, Gndalf is one of the most famous fantasy characters evere created and has been about for 50 years, he is in no way loike Keanu Reeves...
And you simply can't compare this film to Casino and Schindler's List...
It would appear to me that fatasy just is't for you, you're into more modern things, e.g. the matrix, so if you have no appreciation for this type of fantasy, you're obviously gonna not like it..
http://www.the900thdimension.com/reviews/films/reviews/lordoftheringsfellowshipofthering.shtml :)
Read that :)
Just my opinions of course...
Hmm too close to the material I think...
I like fantasy, well done fantasy, but don't even begin to diss me just because I don't appreciate the film. Don't hinge everything based on fantasy around Tolkien. I don't like shakespeare, but that doesn't make me not an expert on literature.
And i said working knowledge, I am in no way an expert on LOTR , like yourself. However I did read the hobbit a long time ago and do own the books.
And I agree Gandalf is in NO WAY like Keanu Reeves, but the fight sequence seemed reminscent of the film Matrix (which to be honest is hyped up avergae sci-fi)
I can and WILL compare LOTR to whatever I like when we are talking about films of great scope and length, and you can defend LOTR books all you like but a great film is a great film with a great script.
Why on earth do you think the effects were ground breaking, Phanton Menace did CGI to this complexity, as did starship troopers months before, why is the opening sequence so ground breaking? Why when Gandalf is stood on that tower does it look like he's been put there with Rentaghost computer renderer.
How exactly was the characterisation brilliant? How? Bilbo came across as a pawn to other charactersm my attention was never drawn to him.
Why do you think fantasy starts and ends with this film (oh by the way I would consider Matrix fantasy as well).
Yonathan Gal
22-12-2001, 17:53
I'm not dissing you at all. I hope we can have a friendly debate without shouting at each other...
I can't stop you from comparing it to whatever you like, I just didn't see the matrix as a good thing to compare it to. And yes, I agree, The Matrix is over-rated.
About the characterisation, I thought I knew thee characters well befor elong, that's all I can say.
CGI. Maybe not ground-breaking, but they used it brilliantly and to the right amount. It wasn't like Star Wars Episode 1 which was just CG from start to finish...
And I did think the script was excellent, pretty much as good a version on film rather than book that we're gonna get.
I would soncsider the matrix more sci-fi than fantasy... :)
SithLordSi
23-12-2001, 00:47
MAJOR SPOILERS.....
The film didn’t work for me on any level, if you’re gonna do a film with this sort of pace and this sort of breadth, you need to give your audience hooks, plot points, raise and lower tensions, good example of long films for this, Schindler’s List & Casino.
I found the movie to have all of these in spades. Raising and lowering tensions? How about having Gandalf and Frodo sharing a quiet moment, followed by being attacked by Orcs, followed by Gandalf falling to his doom, followed by that lovely sequence where they all arrive in Lorien? Plot points - the movie was full of them: Bilbo leaving the Shire, Frodo accepting the quest, Gandalf facing Saruman, the hobbits meeting Aragorn...these are examples of plot points, no? If not, explain yourself further. What are hooks? Things to grab the audience? I thought that the amazing prologue did the trick for most, but almost every frame grabbed me. So, to sum up, I disagree with you strongly. I felt the movie handled the balance between quiet, emotion driven scenes and big, dramatic action scenes perfectly.
The problem I had with the LOTR FOTR is you could have packed three books worth of detail into a three hour film and made a punchier, more exciting film. FOLR took its time unnecessarily, and your weren’t rewarded. For the first two hours I struggled to engaged in the characters, they were dull and clichéd..(Sure the book is getting on a bit now, and I’m not asking for MTV generation story telling.) It's not as if a lot of information was actully being explained in the first few scene's, it was just character setting but it took forever to get to Rivendale.
Packing all three books into one film makes little sense, just as if Tolkien had tried to tell the whole story in 500 pages or so. You complain about the lack of 'breadth', but what you suggest would have lessened it considerably. The story isn't necessarily meant to be constantly exciting, but always involving - some of my favourite scenes in both the book and the film were the quiet ones, such as when Frodo is reunited with Bilbo at Rivendell, or when Bilbo gives his "I know half of you..." speech at his 111th birthday party. I found the characters anything but dull: a stealthy and graceful elf who embodies the senses and emotions; a wizard who is at the same time both witty and awesome; a band of hobbits, each different but all prepared to lay down their lives for a worthy cause; two men, one conflicted due to his pride and love for his people, the other a future king who's self-doubt is holding him back....I could go on, but the list above is already anything but dull. And cliched? Sure, if you're comparing Tolkien with Tolkien, but that would be folly. :)
Plus unlike a lot of people I didn’t care for Bilbo and gang, they really annoyed me and the scene where they were being carried up the mountain, I was hoping that Sean, Viggo and Co would throw them off. Bilbo's collegues also seemed to pop in and out at random intervals just propping up their existence, rather than carrying a story foward.
Well, I just don't understand this. If you didn't like them in the film you wouldn't like them in the book. Plus it's Frodo you are thinking of, not Bilbo. Why did they annoy you, out of interest? Oh, and while I agree that each hobbit was not focussed on equally, to me each had a distinct and obvious personality which was made crystal clear (and will no doubt be developed further as the story progresses).
Why oh why do these so called well though out universe's seem to have paradox's in the special powers, witness Gandalf fighting like he's out of the matrix, and randomly summoing powers to kill some monsters some of the time.
An unjustified nitpick, I think. Gandalf used all of his powers to fight the balrog, and as a result was too weak to cling onto the bridge. He never fought any other huge monsters directly because such a use of power drains him completely (although I seem to remember that in the book he has an encounter with the Ringwraiths at Weathertop and kicks their asses). This is why he uses his sword - Glamdring - against the Orcs in Moria. As for the fight with Saruman, how was that like The Matrix? They were using powerful magic to send one another crashing into stuff - I don't seem to remember Keanu and co. doing that, as they had guns at their disposal. The only bit that you could be thinking of was the 'breakdancing' bit, but when I saw it, I thought "Why not?". Gandalf was immobilised, and Saruman used the opportunity to disorientate and imprison him. Made sense to me. At the end of the day, Wizards and Elves are not superheros with unique super-powers. They are in touch with the environment and its inhabitants, and can summon or control them depending on their proficiency. This is never contradicted in the film. If you disagree, give me an example.
The exposition cheated for me, I found the voice over introduction much more interesting than the story that followed. What really hurt me though was the felt like I had been watching Phantom Menace (Big Film and big disappointment.) In that it tried to save its self by having a big cgi showcase half way through and then a token battle at the end that seemed to be one in a long line of confrontations, that we had seen before such as the “we can’t go through this we’ve got to go around it’s too dangerous.” And then going through it, Princess bride did a brilliant parody on this with the Swamps scene.
Well, the problems you have with the film are problems you would have with the book also. I think that the book is a piece of fine storytelling, and the film captures this. No disappointment here whatsoever. How did the exposition cheat, exactly? I felt that it was all told from the viewpoint of Gandalf and Frodo, on their two seperate quests, and Saruman as the villain. Telling the story from a fixed viewpoint/s is always a smart move, and I thought Peter Jackson executed it with aplomb. The expositionary sections always occured from one of the viewpoints (i.e. Gandalf when talking to Frodo, Frodo when talking to Sam, Frodo when talking to Aragorn, Gandalf when talking to Saruman, Saruman when talking to the Orcs). As for the CGI 'showcase', I felt there was never more CGI than there needed to be, and when it occured it was forwarding the story. By the time we reach the point you are obviously referring to (Moria), the film was far from having to save itself - in fact, for me and everyone I know, it would have taken a lot to undo all the good in the first half. And the "token battle" at the end was a significant turning point for the characters - the film had been building to that point (Boromir's downfall, the Orcs finding the hobbits, Frodo breaking away, Aragorn realising his fate doesn't lie with the One Ring etc. etc.) and at the end of the "token battle" the story has taken a completely different direction. So it hardly feels 'tacked-on'. Also, I think they only change their plans ("we can’t go through this we’ve got to go around it’s too dangerous.") ONCE in the entire film, when Saruman halts them by conjuring an avalanche on the Misty Mountains. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have changed their course and ended up dying? Wouldn't this have made for an altogether less satisfying experience? :rolleyes:
The CGI was not very convincing, as soon as they started matting actors on scenes it looked like really old blue screen a la King Kong.
Oh, come on! Weak example/comparison = useless argument. Have you even SEEN any really old blue-screen work? Sheesh. You should try rotoscoping a constantly moving environment such as Balin's Tomb (as a result of the steadycam work) and adding a motion-captured troll who interacts with the surrounding environment. Go on, try. I admit that not every single effect was stellar, but even the 'bad' ones weren't enough to distract me for even a second. I think you need to suspend disbelief a little, because CGI is never going to be perfect. The simple fact is that this movie could not have been made without computer effects. The litmus test: Can you tell me what Isengard looks like (Saruman's tower)? Were you convinced that the cave troll was ugly, big and posed a threat? Was Legolas a bad-ass with his arrows? Was Mordor far away from the Shire? Did the One Ring shrink and expand depending on the wearer? If the answer to the above is YES (which it should be unless you are nitpicking for the sake of it), then the effects did their job.
Overall, saddened that I couldn’t sense Peter Jackson at the helm of this film, Just a studio film, that incidentally I don’t think it will be the big hit everybody is expecting it to be.
I sensed Jackson big time. It had the mark of his care and love for the subject matter, which is the most obvious thing in any of his movies. He is not a slap-dash director, but careful and detailed. He did put his vision up on screen. I think you underestimate the power of the studio - if the studio didn't have total faith in Peter, they could have ripped this movie to shreds in the editing room. "Lose the elves, they're too camp; "More of the love story"; "Lose the dwarf, he's insulting to vertically challenged folk"; "Cut down Sam's role, he doesn't do much anyway. But have more of the others, they're funny"; "We want less violence, it should be family orientated, after all it's got a big, cute troll in it". :eek:
Finally, I do think it will be a hit. Not as big a hit as it should be, in my opinion, but a hit nonetheless. It's already critically acclaimed, and the weekend ratings aren't even in yet. As soon as people hear about Oscar and Golden Globe nominations, word of mouth will do the rest. And it deserves it, much as any superb film does.
SithLordSi
23-12-2001, 01:10
MORE MAJOR MAJOR SPOILERS!!!!!
Why on earth do you think the effects were ground breaking, Phanton Menace did CGI to this complexity, as did starship troopers months before, why is the opening sequence so ground breaking? Why when Gandalf is stood on that tower does it look like he's been put there with Rentaghost computer renderer.
The films you mention did not 'do' CGI to the same complexity. The way I understand it, in The Phantom Menace, Lucas got away with using a lot of CGI backgrounds (which looked a little fake to me), so he didn't have to blend live-action with CGI so much. Blending real backgrounds with CGI characters, you have to take into account the movement of the camera (see my previous post about the cave troll sequence), and ILM had it relatively easy with Jar Jar because everything was so steady. Starship Troopers did boast super CGI, and it still holds up today. However, the effects were mostly either spaceships (easy to do, as shiny metallic objects are far less complex than matte textures, realistic shadows and complex lighting such as fire) or giant, identical bugs (which were basic objects anyway - jagged, simple structures), whose contact with the environment was masked by adding little dust particles around their feet. Simple and effective, but nowhere near as complex as Fellowship. I don't recall the effect you refer to with Gandalf at Isengard, but if it was fake looking it was due to bluescreen, much in the same vein as Star Wars.
How exactly was the characterisation brilliant? How? Bilbo came across as a pawn to other charactersm my attention was never drawn to him.
This is exactly the point of the movie - for nearly the entire duration, Frodo is the quietest voice in the Fellowship. Decisions are made for him and people guide him because he doesn't know how to do it alone. He expresses his anxiety about being the Ringbearer at numerous points with total conviction, such as at Bag End when he urges Gandalf to take the One Ring from him. It is only after his meeting with Galadriel at Lothlorien that he realises what he must do, and breaks away from the Fellowship. Remember the pain in his face as he stood on the bank of the River Anduin, facing his task alone for the first time? Frodo's quest has only just begun.
Mr sith,
complexity with regard to graphics = allsorts of aspects of 3d raytracing modelling and animation. But generally speaking with regard to LOTR, I believe we were talking about the amount of characters in the voice over sequence in the prologue, was I believe what I was talking about.
Complexity within this sequence revolves around the sheer number of nested animations, and individual animations to make up such a vast amount of characters. Starship Troopers and PM were two such ground-breaking films that (especially ST) were specifically testing the complexity of hundreds of 3d modeled creatures or robots. Try looking up websites in relation to the use of high-end graphics compositing software such as FLAME and its other brothers or even AFTER EFFECTS (which was used exstensively in ST) and you may appreciate complexity from an animators point of view.
Admitadly (this as 3d animator I know myself) it is easier to recreate a fantasy world rather than emulate real-life, we are too sophisticated with our judgment, (witness live action CGI people aboard the Titanic). We are talking ground breaking, STAR WARS was ground breaking, as was SUPERMAN, as was THE ABYSS, as was T2, as was JURASIC PARK. Since then we have witnessed a slow down of big leaps of technology and more subtle effects are now being improved. LOTR is not ground-breaking, it is impressive sometimes, but you can tell explicitly computers are invloved and there was SOME shoddy work.
With regard to Frodo, how is his reluctance to take up an impossible task brilliant charactarisation? Brilliant characterisation
is about breathing life into words and onto the screen, all you have done is explained his motions and what he does in the story. Characterisation is the ability of an actor to take you beyond just the actions and motions of a script to make it their own and to bring your empathy in.
With regard to your explanation of plot-points within the film, I except your examples, but I didn't find them gripping enough for a epic adventure. A quiet moment followed by a battle is not always enough, sometimes suspense or humour, or a suprise or two is needed. I take your point but they didn't work for me.
With regard to packing a the books into three hours, well I'm never going to convince any Tolkien fan that this would be a good idea. But your a film student (as I am involved in production), then you must appreciate a film is not a BOOK. Its an interpretation, an edited version. Books contain a tremendous amount of excessive detail (or necessary), a film does not operate under the same dramatic frame work as a book. Editing is about what you leave out, and to believe that you couldn't have packed this story successfully into three hours, I find incredible. Okay you must remain as faithful where possible to not destroy the original vision, but why make a page by page copy? Interpretation is what is exciting about film making, the whole point of having a director to direct the screenplay. For example, there was the scene in LOTR where they went into the mines, first there was battle with ORCS (my terminolgy my be off here), then a battle with the creature with the hammer, and then the battle with that fire demon. Why 3 creatures all in one scene, why not just one? Surely you wouldn't have missed that?
No comment on the annoying aspect of the hobbits, my personal opinion.
You are extremely knowledgable of the material something I cannot hope to compete with but a film should stand up on its own right, and all the other comments I made about exposition and character could be argued till the cows come home.
I respect Peter Jackson very much, and he may be careful and maticulous, but the films that show him up for what he is, for me are the earlier ones, much like Robert Rodriguez, money has taken away what was special about these film makers, and when a film looks like it could've been made by Spielberg, Cameron or Fleischer you know he has joined the ranks of the expert but recently mundane craftsman.
I don't understand why people say well you shouldn't have seen it if you don't like the fantasy genre, ahhem, excuse me ... but I had reasonable expectations for this film and it bored me, and didn't stimulate me in the right way, I make no apologies for this. I stand from a perfectilly objective viewpoint, something I'm sure some of the fans of this sort of thing don't.
Wow.
Long paragraphs.
Headache.:nuts: :nuts:
SithLordSi
24-12-2001, 02:05
I see that I underestimated your knowledge of special effects techniques - I apologise, but your first post was so brief on the subject and so exaggerated (effects like King Kong?) that I felt I had something I could teach you. I was obviously wrong! :) Perhaps we are both right. We agree that the effects were occasionally very impressive, and I acknowledge that parts were shoddy ("less than stellar" is how I put it). Maybe Fellowship is not a groundbreaking film in terms of CGI, but for me it was far more visually awe-inspiring than, say, The Phantom Menace. Even if the CGI didn't have the 'wow' factor that T2 and Jurassic Park had, stuff like the cave troll still makes me giddy just because it looks so right to me. I think what impressed me overall - and this is something that has not yet been mentioned - is how WETA seemingly rose out of nowhere and achieved something that Lucas boasted only HIS visual effects artists could. Moving on from CGI, I was more impressed by the simple visual effects, such as forced-perspective, different sized sets, stand-ins, make-up etc. In terms of the sheer amount of this stuff, I think WETA should be applauded.
As for Elijah Wood's characterisation...acting is not my specialisation, nor is writing for the screen. However, I love film - it is practically my life - and having grown up in a theatrical family I understand the importance of characterisation in any story. I am rarely won over by big bangs and cheap thrills. Also, I believe that some of the best acting is that which is done subtley. For me, Elijah's Frodo was all in the eyes - a longing for adventure, a yearning for knowledge, but a reluctance to leave behind what he loves. This is all you need to know about Frodo for the movie to work. The audience can identify (or I did, at least). Why leave the idyllic shire? It's home. Who wants to encounter orcs or trolls or balrogs? Just as we leave home for the first time and step out into the big, bad world, so Frodo begins his arduous quest. Just like in the book, the audience IS Frodo. Frodo IS the audience. We're not talking De Niro in Taxi Driver here. We are meant to identify wholly with Frodo from the first second we see him, and that means that half the performance must come from the audience and their emotions. As a conduit for all of this, I felt Elijah Wood played the part perfectly. As I said before, it is only in books 2 and 3 that he begins to change, and we see a different side to him. So, shall we just beg to differ? :D
Packing all three books into 3 hours simply would not work. Editing is my specialism, and I'm telling you this with all the benefit of my experience, from both watching and making movies. I don't know if you remember the books, but how can you have Frodo go all the way to Mordor in 3 hours? It just wouldn't seem that daunting. Similarly, Boromir would have to die somewhere within the first hour, and I don't think that is anywhere near long enough to develop his character and show his slow corruption - especially as we only meet him halfway through book one. Aragorn...well, cutting his story down from 9 hours to 3 would just ruin it - ruin it totally. I can't say any more here for fear of spoiling the sequels. How do you develop small characters like Legolas, Gimli, Merry and Pippin when you're so pressed to develop the main characters in the 3 hours? Do you cut them completely? I could go on, but I suppose it's already clear how different the story would have to be. Different characters, different events, different order, different feel...different story. Not worth doing.
As for converting the book to the movie, Jackson has already made significant changes and edits from the original text, which (for me) make it work perfectly as a movie. His Fellowship is by no means a page by page copy. He has added, subtracted and mutated some bits so much as to be unrecognisable. But the good stuff is all there. As for the Moria sequence, I loved it. Peter has actually lengthened it significantly from the book, adding more for the cave troll to do. The triple climax is so cool, and it works perfectly on screen. You've got your orc combat, which we've been waiting for since the Fellowship set out. This is where we get to see some of the cool little characters like Legolas kick some serious ass. The cave troll wasn't necessary, I grant you, but it did make the battle a lot more interesting than if it was just a bunch of orcs getting impaled (in my opinion, any way). It was also neat how the cave troll attacked Legolas first, and the two kind of had a little scrap, then in the end Legolas got the kill-shot. Having a creature so vile and clumsy spar off with someone so agile and pure was a really good idea. Anyway, moving on you've got your bridge jump bit (extended from the book), and this was the least necessary section. However, it served the purpose of lulling the audience into a false sense of security, so that when they finally get across you kind breath a sigh of relief. Then the Balrog catches up with them, and this bit is vital. Get rid of it, and you lose the drama of Gandalf the Grey's last stand. Focus solely on it, and you lessen the overall impact of Moria, so that the weight of the Fellowship's loss isn't felt so much after they exit. If Moria was just a bunch of orcs or just a fight with a Balrog, Lothlorien wouldn't seem like such a refuge afterwards. So yeah, I would have missed all that.
I take your comments about Peter Jackson. However, I for one am glad this isn't a 'Peter Jackson' movie. Instead, it's Lord of the Rings, up on screen and giving me exactly the same emotions that the books did. That's how it should be, I believe. I wouldn't want to see 'Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings', because it wouldn't have the same feel as 'Tolkien's Lord of the Rings'. The reason I think he was the right man for the job: he understands the importance of what I've just written perfectly.
I may appear knowledgeable about the books, but I've only read them once, and in preparation for the movies. Reading them, I had the actor's faces and voices in my head, and the scenery of New Zealand all around me (I was over there while reading Fellowship and Two Towers). I do not consider myself a slave to the source material, and my objectivity certainly hasn't been clouded by my love for the story. I still understand the need for the movie to stand on its own, and I believe unreservedly that it does. If the book had never existed, this would not feel like a literary translation.
Ahhhhh, I love a good debate. At the end of the day, I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the movie as much as I did. However, I respect your opinion, even though I don't feel the same way. If we all liked the same things, the world would be a pretty dull place, wouldn't it? :)
However, I cannot stress how highly Fellowship of the Ring kicked my ass. You must understand that neither one of us is right, but try not to look down on me because I enjoyed the film so much. Even if you don't understand why, realise that if it rocked millions of people's boats, surely that's a good thing. I cried in Fellowship, and that sort of emotion is something you cannot fake.
Agree to disagree on most points bar the editing. I have been editing/post-producing for 10 years and although I have never made LOTR (Yet! still struggling with my feature), I have found the biggest mistake with clients is they want a longer and longer piece, without one consideration of what you can actually leave out to make it stronger.
Great debate (Incidentally I haven't been to see HP for the reasons opposite because I didn't want to spoil LOTR with an inferior fanatasy maybe now I should have gone!)
Merry Christmas.
Er...
I'll let you two discuss the technical aspects of the film...
However the one groundbreaking part of the whole film for me was the natural scenary.
I don't think I've seen a film with so many natural locations that are so beautiful.
There was good, medium and slightly ropey CGI imo. The worst and the best was the mines of Moria.
I think though that there is a good point about this film being unsatisfying.
It wasn't for me, I loved it! but I can see where people will start to feel that..
"The problem I had with the LOTR FOTR is you could have packed
three books worth of detail into a three hour film and made
a punchier, more exciting film. FOLR took its time unnecessarily,
and your weren’t rewarded"
It did spend a while developing the characters, and setting plot lines. However I feel that this is a necessary trade off for the trilogy as a whole.
Imo, this is the weakest of the books actionwise and does get going slowly. But as a whole rather than a standalone film I think it's worth will only increase.
This may be one film where the sum is greater than the parts.
Just my opinion, not a producer, editor or anything like that, I just watch films.
WiggyWog
24-12-2001, 14:18
The problem I had with the LOTR FOTR is you could have packed
three books worth of detail into a three hour film
Lol. :D
That statement truly shows you havent read the books. Thats worse than saying you could have fit all 4 harry potter books into a 3 hour film. Personally, I felt the film was too rushed, especially from leaving Hobbiton to getting to Rivendell. Slow down PJ! He should have given this part of the book a extra half hour and maybe cut down some of the slower parts from Rivendell onwards. A 1000 page + novel in 3 hours, hehe, not even Bakishi would attempt that!
SithLordSi
24-12-2001, 18:08
Other differences of opinion aside (regarding acting and SFX), ROne's comment that the film should have tackled all three of Tolkien's novels at once seems to be the point where we differ most. I'm sure that, true to his word, he has read the books. Perhaps not recently, as I agree that to anyone with even a remote understanding of how important the books' detail is, ROne's idea would seem a silly one.
However, I can see where he's coming from. ROne's Lord of the Rings would have differed from the novel even more than Bakshi's. It certainly wouldn't be the film most of us want. We want to see the story we all know and love put faithfully on the silver screen, with as few drastic changes as possible. Does this necessarily make for a good movie? I personally think so, but ROne is raising the interesting question: could the movie have been better with even more editing of the source material? What if the story was remodelled completely, retaining some elements but essentially becoming a tighter, shorter tale?
I think that a more valid question would be: do many of us want a shorter version of Lord of the Rings? I doubt it. Maybe slightly faster paced, but by no means hacked to pieces so that the entire trilogy of books could fit into 3 hours. From the comments I've read, some people wished the movie was slightly longer, some wished it was slightly shorter. However, it appears that *generally* Peter Jackson got the running time right.
Therefore, I must conclude that ROne was simply wishing for a different movie, not Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. It simply wouldn't be the same story without the immense detail, the huge cast of characters, the multitude of places and the many battles. Personally, I'm surprised that as a supposed fantasy fan, ROne apparently longs for 'Lord of the Rings light'. I'm no fantasy buff. I generally don't get along with fantasy movies, books or games. But I do understand that the fascination comes in the detail and scope of it all - the illusion that these fantasy world actually exist.
At the end of the day, Lord of the Rings must be approached with its single most important element in mind: fantasy. Yes, the characters are vital. Yes, the moral of the story is key to its understanding. However, without fantasy Lord of the Rings is just another so-called 'adventure', set against the backdrop of war. ROne is apparently an editor, and I'm sure he knows his stuff. I too know the importance of making a movie trim, to retain the audience's attention and ride along at a cracking pace. However, this is not written in the rule book. Nowhere does it say "a fantasy movie MUST have a fast pace". Some of my favourite movies are slow-paced, and that reflects my personality and taste. You see, I also know that importance of dwelling on a scene, of stringing out a speech. Oh, how I preferred Almost Famous: Untitled to it's theatrical counterpart. The extra details MADE that version of the film. It improved upon it (for me) to a degree I didn't think possible. This is what makes one editor different from another, and what attracts certain audiences to certain movies.
For me, Lord of the Rings is not an adventure story to leave the audience breathless. It is a real, living world which once was, full of magic and heroism and tiny things that are so different from the world we inhabit in this day and age. Dragging the audience through this epic tale or good and evil just to make a 'pacey movie' would be to miss the entire point of the original story. The Star Wars trilogy repeated itself. THAT story could have been told in one movie. A long movie, to be sure, but it could be done. Hell, you could have fitted the entire SAGA into one 3 hour film. However, the three Lord of the Rings books are so different from one another that the movie would make no sense, thematically. For this reason alone, I cannot accept what ROne is suggesting. Even though his opinion is valid, and I can see WHY he would think that way, I cannot see any value in it.
tj_director
25-12-2001, 00:08
v.interesting thread :)
i'm in total agreement with everything Sith has said -- then again i'm also one of those people for whom the film kicked major ass!!
as for SFX - i don't know how long it will be until we get a truly Ground Breaking Effects film -- but FOTR for me had the most convincing SFX i've seen in a film for quite some time. For me the only unconvincing moments were when Legolas jumps on the troll, and when Galadriel turns up the volume. Otherwise, for me the effects completely worked, especially the long tracking shots, which could have turned out to be very poor indeed. And i think Gollum will show ILM how a CGI character should look like.
i may not be someone who knows all about SFX technically, but i know what looks crap. Who can't say they weren't impressed with the way they made regular human beings look like Hobbits!! -- sure a couple shots could reveal plates/layers etc... if you're the kind of person to pay attention, but for a 3 hr film with almost every shot having some sort of SFX -- it's really some achievement, and in that respect, we'll look back on all 3 films, and see them as ground breaking. :)
the argument whether to have totally re-arranged all 3 books into one film, may at the end of the day produce something visually astonishing, and if done well, have ended up with a pretty decent film -- but yep, it just wouldn't be LOTR, you'd have to say it was inspired or loosely based on the books. As mentioned it's actually the quieter moments in the books which stand out, not just the action etc... without that, then i really don't see how the books would have been so popular. And i'd hate to have read the books, then to see what would essentially be a 'Best Of' album plastered onto the screen. It's like a Beatles Greatest Hits album.. sure there's good stuff, but it's just not the same as the original albums...
man when am i going to be able to watch it again...??? :(
Wiggy wog,
I have not claimed to have read the books, I am looking at it from
a different POV to you, I am looking at it from a cinematic POV.
Things can be better if they are cut down.
A film is always cut down.
Most novels take a lot longer to read than the respective films, most films are around 100 mins, go figure. Most scripts are 120 pages and take a couple of hours to read. If you don't think it could have been cut down then how did Peter Jackson several hours worth of text into 3 hours worth of screen! Its already been cut to suit 3 hours.
Incidentally why is 3 hours enough, why is 4 hours enough etc .. etc. Its ridicoulous to place a time limit on the conversion from script to screen. Can any one claim to have read a book faster than a film, I don't think so.
That's why we have editors ....
Whether you would have wanted it cut down it another question, but I am now not excited at the prospect of the other two films.
The mistake i think everybody is making is that i want more action, a frenetic 3 hour film ... I don't! I just want more interesting hooks and how can you say the books couldn't be edited down, they could, but they may not appeal to you as Tolkien readers, I accept that but.
We are talking about cinema, and a cross section of audiences. And even though, I did actually warm initially to the idea of three films at 3 hours, time is not that important, whats in there is.?
Anway try these.
Pearl Habour 40mins version (no crappy seen it all before love story, just the battle.)
Titanic 1 hour version (boat sinks.)
Phantom Menace 5 mins (Jar Jar binks cut out)
Now tell me that shorter films wouldn't be better!
SithLordSi
25-12-2001, 11:33
I think ROne has missed the point of my last post...I wasn't saying that Lord of the Rings couldn't be squeezed into a 3 hour movie. I was saying it simply wouldn't work.
The simple fact is that ROne has not read the entire trilogy, so he cannot possibly judge how well The Two Towers and Return of the King would go together with Fellowship. I cannot stress how different each book is from the others.
As for your examples of shorter films being better, ROne, I disagree. With the exclusion of Pearl Harbour (which was awful), I think you're missing the point of the movies in question. Sure, Titanic was over-long, but without the love story or the tragic build up the film would have been nothing. And I may be taking you too seriously, but wasn't the entire point of Menace to set up the characters and themes of the 'saga'? Having said that, I agree that it was average at best, and therefore nowhere near reaching its true potential.
I simple do not agree with your ideas on editing. Shall we just leave it at that?
Just like to congratulate you all for the intelligent, interesting, thought provoking thread i have seen on here in a long time
well done gentlemen:clap: :clap: :clap:
Very interesting topic, good too see an arguement where both sides are laying out their arguments porperly instead of slagging each other off!
I'll start off by saying that I have never read the books at all but I loved the film, it was probably the best film I have seem at the cinema and will def. be seeing it again.
Onto some of the points raised. Characterization. I liked it, yes there were some slow bits bit they added to the characters. When Gandalf and Boromir died I cared about it because the film had made me care about them, I see so many complaints in these forums nowadayd about films having weak characters and not doing any characterization, ie. The Phantom Menace, who cares when Qui-Gon died, I certainly didn't. You can't have it both ways, the film has so much plot and character too fit in it has to be long.
The FX, on the most part very good, there were only a few scenes where I saw it as obvious. CG creatures will for some time to come IMO always look slightly fake, and they do again here, but they acted with the environment very well, especially in the complexity of some of the shots. Places like Isenguard (sp?) looked amazing as did the Balrog. The only bit that made me really groan was where Aragon and Frodo were on the bridge in Moria and had to wait for it to fall across, there was an obvious blue screen matte line around them.
Acting was excellent, esp. McKellen and Lee. Music was very good and the sets and costumes (Orcs, Ringwraiths) were fanatastic. I loved the film and can't wait for the next two. The only people who I have seen complain about the film are those who are mad about the books and thought the film was sacrilidge and people who have never read them and couldn't understand why the film just 'ended'.
Sith, willing to leave it anywhere - there are other debates ...
I was kinda joking about the three films (but with an element of truth!)
And yes I may read the books one day, and I may change my mind...
Hmmm
Ive read THE book(not books), as LOTR is really just one book, probably split into three to make more money, and ive read it more than twice. (to those who havent read the book thats why fellowship just suddenly ends, expect the next film to start off from the second the last one ended)
I enjoyed the film, but didnt think it was a patch on the book at all. It saddens me that someone who hasnt read the book will come along and think that LOTR is what Peter Jackson interpreted it to be. Shame, because the book is far far better. Jackson did a fine job bringing it to the silver screen, but hes no Tolkien. Again shame Tolkien himself isnt alive today and able to write screenplay himself.
In regards to the film, personally i think Jackson left a little too much out, especially in regards to characterisation, the first half to 3/4 of the film seemed more like a trailer of the Fellowship of the ring, rather than a film, the story seemed to jump about like crazy, and there were some very important plot elements not explained at all and some bits completely rewritten to give a totally different meaning, shame on you mr jackson, when you can write a book thats been on the best seller list for over 50 years and is voted the best book of the 20th century then you may be qualified to rewrite Tolkien.
Its also a shame that Jackson chose to cut the bonding between the characters in the early adventures, before they even make it Rivendell. However i can understand why those cuts where made, as the fellowship told in its entirety would probably have been over 6 hours long, and any film on LOTR is probably better than no film at all.
Again thorougly enjoyed the film, but didnt expect it to be as good as the book and it wasnt.
Lets hope MR jackson doesnt cut too much out of the next 2 films, or choose to rewrite any more characters (like Pippen and Merry) and scenes (such as how the fellowship splits), or LOTR might become less and less how Tolkien originally envisioned.
Mr Flibble
28-12-2001, 09:52
I haven't read LOTR, I have read the Hobbit however, so I knew a couple of the characters (well, Bilbo, Gandalf and Gollum really)
Lets face it, a book on the scale of LOTR would be a nightmare to bring to the screen - you can't please everyone and for sheer cost/running time some elements of the book need to be skipped or re-wrote for pacing etc.
Perhaps they filmed other parts that simply could be put in the final cut of the film due to running time - who knows, they could well end up on a DVD - I hope so.
I think (and this probably sounds a bit daft) if it hadn't been based on a book - i.e. 'Here's a movie, its the first of a three part franchise called 'Lord of The Rings' then it would be universally acclaimed without much criticism from fans of the original novels.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it makes me want to buy the books now to find out what happens next. It's been a long time since i've sat in the cinema, watched a movie and genuinly cared about the characters, enjoyed the banter between them and thought 'This movie has a real story to it', which is what a movie should be, a story that engages the viewer and makes them want to care about the characters. If you watch a movie like, I don't know - Jurrasic Park or something, sure, it's a great movie, but watching this, it stays in the mind longer, makes you think about what you've seen for a lot longer and actually care a lot more about what happens to the characters in it.
If I had once thing to say against it, the movie uses an awful lot of shots where the camera focuses on the fellowship, then pans back to show the scale of where they are - be it on mountains, in forrests - that sort of thing - great scener etc. but maybe a bit overused.
When the movie ended it left the audience wanting more. All the hype during the year was for Harry Potter, but I think that, regardless of box-office takings etc. this movie blew it away. I know they are two different movies, but for a movie that goes beyond the hype you can't beat this.
A great movie, one to enjoy over and over again and a definite pre-order :)
I enjoyed the movie, and I hope others do - if you're yet to see the film then I thoroughly recommend you do. It needs to be seen on the big screen.
Blimey - my longest post ever :eek:
khaavren
28-12-2001, 12:11
I must admit to being a long time fan of the books having read them a number of times over the last 20 or so years, and I really enjoyed what Mr Jackson has done in the movie. He has captured many of the best remembered scenes and dialogue of the book with only a few changes which are in most cases understandable.
Lets face it (those familiar with the books) who was surprised at the omission of Tom Bombadil and the barrow wights, much of the journey through the swamps and the slow departure from the shire (eg selling Bag End and the slow wander through the shire). There were a few changes which I didn't like (but will probably be understandable in two years time:( like
like why did Saruman declare his allegience to Sauron instead of (as in the book) trying to take the ring for himself and replace Sauron, which made more sense as it allowed the fellowship to play the opponents off each other
But on the whole I loved the movie and can't wait for the full saga. Just a warning for those upset at the cliffhanger ending, the ending of the second will be a LOT worse. In fact I predict riots and huge internet petitions demanding the third movie immediately. You have been warned:D
Read the books, loved the film but WHERES TOM ?
Michael Brooke
01-01-2002, 12:24
When adapting a book for the screen, the absolute worst thing you can do is rank fidelity to the text ahead of cinematic merit.
Since we're dealing with fundamentally different media, films that slavishly follow the original text almost invariably tend to be plodding and unsatisfying - while the most successful adaptations are usually those that have the courage to make major changes while still remaining true to the spirit of the original (Kurosawa's <I>Throne of Blood</I> changes <I>Macbeth</I> so radically that it's barely recognisable - yet it arguably gets closer to the dark heart of the original than any other version).
So what I'm concerned about isn't whether <I>Lord of the Rings</I> is true to the text but whether it works in its own right <U>as a film</U>. If not, it's just a series of footnotes and illustrations rather than a work of art in its own right. Fortunately, I'm approaching it as a Peter Jackson fan rather than a Tolkein fan, so I suspect I'll be rather more objective!
That's a good point Michael. In my madness I went to see Harry Potter. I thought it was incredibly dull and boring, and the actors were completely wooden. I can't see how a small child can seriously enjoy that film, without reading the book.
I got slammed by friends for saying that I thought it was a terrible film. Their reply was, well what do you expect if you haven't read the book? Surely it is not too much to ask for a film to be its own entity rather than an illustration to a book? :rolleyes:
rumbletum
01-01-2002, 19:41
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
what I'm concerned about isn't whether <I>Lord of the Rings</I> is true to the text but whether it works in its own right <U>as a film</U>. If not, it's just a series of footnotes and illustrations rather than a work of art in its own right.
Well said, and while I do feel it did work, it's nowhere near 'the greatest film ever made' as so many fanboys seem to be proclaiming
SithLordSi
01-01-2002, 21:07
While I do feel that the film stays true to the spirit of the books, I wouldn't say that it was hindered by sticking too closely to the original text (a mistake that Harry Potter made, in my opinion). However, there were countless references to the book(s) - more than enough to please die-hard fans, I would think - and a lot of the original dialogue seems to have been retained, albeit slightly abridged.
I think that Peter Jackson and the other people responsible for the screenplay were meticulous in what they used and what they left out, so that the film would end up pleasing everybody. Those bits that would clearly have hindered the pace and structure of the film were abandoned, and parts that the film needed in order to work as a film were added. These were relatively minor additions and subtractions, and to be honest I can't recall them in great detail. In other words, for the most part the film felt like a film, rather than an adaptation.
I certainly wouldn't call it the greatest film ever. However, it has to rank as one of my favourite action/adventures. It is relatively humourless (in fact, the comedy elements worked the least for me), but given the subject matter and overall atmosphere, this is understandable. In other words, its a totally different creature from Star Wars, Raiders et al, and should not be compared to them. In fact, in all honesty, I can't think of a film that it could be compared to (that I've seen, at least).
Michael Mackenzie
02-01-2002, 01:03
PLENTY SPOILERS
I'm not sure how much I can add to this, but I'll just give my impressions about it.
First of all, the comment that Gandalf was fighting like someone out of The Matrix -- I agree with that. The bit when he and Saruman exchanged blasts didn't suit The Lord of the Rings at all. I didn't think it was right in the animated version when Saruman froze Gandalf with a blast of color, so I was even more upset with the way Peter Jackson handled it. The book doesn't quite explain how Saruman overpowered Gandalf, but I don't exactly imagine Saruman spinning him around and throwing him against the walls.
The pacing wasn't quite right. In fact, I'll go on the record and say that I thought the journey started far too quickly. Okay, so it got the adrenaline pumping, but I couldn't help but feel I had missed something. So had Frodo -- nothing was ever explained to him. Gandalf basically just said: "You're in danger. Take the Ring to Rivendell. I'm going to go and visit my boss Saruman. The Road's really dangerous but never mind, I'll meet you later." That bit didn't work for me.
And what's with them getting to Buckleberry Ferry so fast? Is it not just a little bit of a lucky coincidence that they were a few feet away from it when the Black Rider first appeared?
My final complaint would be the ending sequence. The battle went on forever, and the whole storytelling got a bit heavyhanded at that point. Plus, the fact that Aragorn simply lets Frodo go -- I don't imagine he would have done that. In The Two Towers, Aragorn says (roughly) "I would have guided Frodo all the way to Mordor". Here, he basically says, "Off you go, Frodo".
Aside from that, it was great. I'd give it 4 out of 5. Can't wait for Part 2. Bakshi's is still good though.
DVDWotcha
02-01-2002, 12:11
Interesting debate although I think a few people are missing the point a bit.
I think that to talk of fitting the entire LOTR into one movie is ludicrous. Yeah sure I expect you could make a film 3 hours long but it would in no way be LOTR. And that is the point isn't it, you cannot fit LOTR into 3 hours.
The one thing that I was slightly dissapointed with was that due to FOTR being only 3 hours long middle earth seemed very small. The protagonists seemed to hop very quickly from one place to the other with very little shown of the journey. If LOTR were made into a 15 hour TV dramatisation then this aspect could be expanded and brought more inline with the book. It's a minor gripe though and to be honest I doubt anyone would fund a TV show of that scale anyway.
So as with all other book/film conversions, you have to strike a balance and I think PJ has done so extremely well.
Hmmm fair point, LOTR was a good film.
But maybe if it is just an adaptation they should emphasise that it is based on a book by Tolkien, rather than being Tolkien. Also being such a different media why even call it Lord of the Rings? Why bother making it three films like the book, why not make it four or five? Why not make Sauron the hero of the tale?, why base it in middle Earth when a council estate in manchester could do? and why even bother to try and tell the story?
;)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.