View Full Version : Lord of the rings - am i the only one to think its ....
dean richardson
14-01-2002, 08:34
DULL !!!!
great effects and cinematography, but as a movie to enjoy it was dull, nothing of any note happens to make me even remotely care about the characters. a few short decent scenes ie the battle between the wizards, the faceless horsemen chase but this does not help 3 hrs or so pass. Worse than Pearl harbor!
Dan Druff
14-01-2002, 08:47
No. My girlfriend thought the same. I loved it though.
I wnet and saw this on friday and I must say I was disappointed. The trouble is that with all the hype around the film my expectations where incredibly high and if I'd of watched it nearer its release I would have enjoyed it more.
Wendelius
14-01-2002, 09:15
Both myself (I've read the books) and my wife (she hasn't) loved it. We never got bored or thought nothing was happening.
Hopefully, you did enjoy some of Moria too and you did feel something when Gandalf fought the Balrgog and fell down, or during the breaking of the Fellowship .
It does feel like the first piece in a bigger story though. There are a lot of exciting things to come and I can imagine this particular movie not grabbing everyone and keeping them interested for 3 hours.
Wendelius
RoboCop4
14-01-2002, 10:08
I certainly wouldn't say that it was "dull", but it definitely lacked something IMHO. There was virtually no character development, and I didn't feel any empathy for them or their quest. In some ways, it felt like a Bond film - some good action pieces linked by a few minutes' travelling between locations.
But that's just one criticism outweighed by many commendations. And considering the size and scope of the source material, it's inevitable that they couldn't bring it to screen unabridged.
Roll on the DVD... :)
Going by the film , i can't believe the book is supposed to be a classic.
In the film the story just does not seem to go anywhere.It just plods along from one battle scene to the next.There is no real development of any of the characters either.
And the last half hour.....what an anti-climax , nothing interesting happens..
I think you can probably guess that i wasn't impressed by it :D
"Worse than Pearl harbor!"
You been drinking? Its not dull at all IMHO ;)
beobrand
14-01-2002, 11:39
Originally posted by Simes
Going by the film , i can't believe the book is supposed to be a classic.
In the film the story just does not seem to go anywhere.It just plods along from one battle scene to the next.There is no real development of any of the characters either.
And the last half hour.....what an anti-climax , nothing interesting happens..
I think you can probably guess that i wasn't impressed by it :D
It's great to see Tolkien's books being judged by people who haven't read them!
Peter Jackson has said all along that the films are just that - films. Like almost all instances of films being made after a book, the film pales by comparison. However, I still loved the film and thought that it was "an impossible task done exceptionally well" to use the words of a friend of mine.
By the way, Simes...nothing interesting happened in the last half an hour? Were you asleep by then, or watching a different film?:cool:
tj_director
14-01-2002, 12:34
you only have to read a couple of thread in the Review Forum to know i'm an avid fan of this film -- but i can see why some people are left dissapointed with the film, and say it's just one action sequence after the other (although discounting the intro, i can only count 3 actual major action setpieces). And concerning character build-up -- maybe it's true, i feel the film does it subtely, it never really gives the life history of these characters, or anything like that, whereas people who have read the books, including the Hobbit, and even The Simillarion, will know most of the main players inside and out.
So i think it may be a case of the film is better after having read the books. Maybe that's the film's main flaw when being an adaptation. But if they wanted to build up character as well as have the whole adventure stuff in, then the film would have been considerably longer.
If a book was made of the film, then i'd estimate it would be around 300 pages long at most, but FOTR stands at almost 550 pages, so for those who have seen the film, but not read the books -- trust me, there's quite a bit that's had to be left out. That said, i still think it's one of the absolute best and faithful adaptatons i've seen :)
SqueakyG
14-01-2002, 16:20
Originally posted by Simes
Going by the film , i can't believe the book is supposed to be a classic.
In the film the story just does not seem to go anywhere.It just plods along from one battle scene to the next.There is no real development of any of the characters either.
And the last half hour.....what an anti-climax , nothing interesting happens..
Well, it is only the first third of the story! The film "doesn't go anywhere" because it is mostly exposition. Actually, it DOES say a lot, but it's all in the details, of which there are thousands of magical little details. The character development is possibly less than you expect, because it is the first third of the story -- Frodo *will* develop, as will the others, in the other two thirds of the story. The film can be criticised for missing out some character development between Legolas and Gimli... that was a good piece of characterisation in the book, an Elf and a Dwarf becoming close friends... unfortunately, it was all but dropped in the film.
If you read the book, and you finish The Fellowship..., you are aware that you're only 1/3 finished, and you still have 650 pages to go. This makes you aware that the characters didn't *need* to develop much yet, and the story didn't *need* to climax yet. But the film is a contained story, and you leave the cinema expecting a full amount of character development and a full climax to the story. Just remember it is a trilogy? Was Luke Skywalker a Jedi at the end of the first film? No. Was Han and Leia's relationship developed fully bu the end of the first film? No. So just be patient.
dean richardson
14-01-2002, 16:36
Was Luke Skywalker a Jedi at the end of the first film? No. Was Han and Leia's relationship developed fully bu the end of the first film?
fair point, but star wars was a good film as a stand alone, which is LOTR is not IMHO.
Unfortunately a lot of the character development that takes place in the book occurs in the sections that have been left out of the film. Having said that, I still think its a good film and is probably one of the best fantasy / sword and sorcery films out there.
Scott
Cornelius
14-01-2002, 17:25
The only thing I found disappointing about TFOTR was that it was over too soon. and I've got to wait 12 months (11mths now) for the next instalment.
Just got back from seeing it.Sore arse but it was worth it.:clap:
The scenery was breahtaking.Never imagined i would like it.
When i went with my mother, she thought it was dull and slow, she really enjoyed the book tho :confused:
I thought it was a very good film, and i was impressed with what they did, i would of loved more of the book in the film but then it would of been alittle bit longer :p
Dynamic
tj_director
15-01-2002, 01:54
Originally posted by dynamic
When i went with my mother, she thought it was dull and slow, she really enjoyed the book tho :confused:
Dynamic
honestly, i also find that a bit odd!! :o
I thought the first half of the film was quite slow, and I could hear my mate yawning next to me, but once it got into the mines it certainly picked up. The special effects were pretty good (apart from a few dodgy scenes) and the fights were actually quite violent for a PG. I'm not a big fan of the books, but I thought it was quite faithful to the original. It's a shame there wasn't more character development but the film was long enough without it...
Also, the scenery was beautiful! I can't imagine New Zealand having a better advert than this.
Michael Brooke
15-01-2002, 10:45
<B>said, i still think it's one of the absolute best and faithful adaptatons i've seen </B>
Isn't that a contradiction in terms? For me, a truly great adaptation is one that has the courage <U>not</U> to be faithful, to jettison great chunks of the original material while remaining true to its spirit.
The absolute worst adaptations are those that plod through the original book in brain-numbingly literal detail, just to satisfy fans of what is, after all, a completely different medium.
Milan Kundera's advice to Philip Kaufman when the latter attempted <I>The Unbearable Lightness of Being</I> was "eliminate" - pare down the material to its barest essentials before attempting to convert it into film. The resulting film was very different from the book in many respects - but far more satisfying than attempting to film it literally would have been.
beobrand
15-01-2002, 11:27
You obviously haven't read the book and/or seen the film, Michael.
The film leaves out a lot and even changes bits form cinematic effect but remains faithful to the story and the characters of the book.
Are you saying that any film adaptation of a book that resembles the book in more than name is a poor adaptation? If so, then why not just change the name of the film to something completely different from the book?
reg_on_delivery
15-01-2002, 11:31
It seems odd to suggest that a film adaptation has to be unfaithful to its source material to be a good adaptation, as Mr Brooke states.
I thought it was good, but not the best piece of cinematography ever, like alot of other people. My other half has seen it twice and is presurising me to see it again, but if I'm going to spend £5 I'd rather see a film that I havn't already seen once.
I thought it was absolutely awful and so did all the people I went to see it with. No charachter building,samey battle sequences and nice effects. Nothing like the feeling I got from the book which I really enjoyed reading all those years ago. Sean Bean well don't go there. 3 and a bit hours of my life wasted I'm afraid. No chance I will be queing for the second and third , which I believe have all been filmed. There is one thing I got from it though and that's a taster for the country of New Zealand where I am heading this year.
Cap'n Al
15-01-2002, 14:33
I disliked both <i>Lord of the Rings</i> and <i>Harry Potter</i> for very similar reasons, namely that neither succeeded entirely as a film in their own right. The obvious comparison is <i>Star Wars</i>; while I'm anything but a fan of Lucas' empire, I'll happily admit that the first film works superbly as a stand-alone action/adventure, with <i>Empire</i> again working as a film in its own right.
I also thought that many technical aspects of <i>Rings</i> were flawed, with some odd performances and indifferent special effects just failing to rock my boat. Still, there are other, better films left to come...
I wish they told me at the start of the film that the ring could not be simply destroyed. I was sitting there for 2 hours wondering why no one had tried to break it instead of going on a quest.
Michael Brooke
15-01-2002, 15:54
<B>It seems odd to suggest that a film adaptation has to be unfaithful to its source material to be a good adaptation, as Mr Brooke states.</B>
It depends on what you mean by “unfaithful”. Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood is technically “unfaithful” to Macbeth because it makes sweeping changes to the original at all sorts of levels (not least the total elimination of any of Shakespeare’s verse), yet I’d argue it captures the spirit of the play far more effectively than many far more literal-minded versions.
Stanley Kubrick’s films provide similar examples – with the possible exception of <I>A Clockwork Orange</I> (which sticks pretty close to the text, the last chapter controversy apart), virtually all his adaptations radically differ from the source material, yet they’re far more satisfying as films than other adaptations from the same works. Just compare Kubrick’s <I>The Shining</I> with the TV movie version – the latter is fine as a series of moving illustrations of the book, but has little cinematic merit in its own right.
<B>Are you saying that any film adaptation of a book that resembles the book in more than name is a poor adaptation?</B>
No, not at all – I’m just saying that when you’re adapting one medium to another, the demands of the medium should come before the desire to appease fans of the original. And if that can’t be achieved without making major changes, then major changes should be made – and what depresses me about many adaptations is that it seems the film-makers are more concerned with pleasing fans of the book than with making a totally satisfying film.
(I freely acknowledge there are exceptions – <I>A Room with a View</I> is very close indeed to the original novel, and I’d say that’s a near-perfect adaptation)
<B>If so, then why not just change the name of the film to something completely different from the book?</B>
This does happen – sticking with the Kubrick example, <I>The Killing, Dr Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket</I> and <I>Eyes Wide Shut</I> all had different titles from <I>Clean Break, Red Alert, The Short-Timers</I> and <I>Traumnovelle</I>. But if the book is extremely well known – or, more to the point, the producer paid a lot of money for the rights! – it’s easy to see why the original title is retained.
beobrand
15-01-2002, 16:10
I’m just saying that when you’re adapting one medium to another, the demands of the medium should come before the desire to appease fans of the original. And if that can’t be achieved without making major changes, then major changes should be made – and what depresses me about many adaptations is that it seems the film-makers are more concerned with pleasing fans of the book than with making a totally satisfying film.
This is my point exactly when I said that you obviously don't know much about the film or book as the film has kept to the feel of the book and there are changes to make it more cinematically pleasing.
Jedibitch
15-01-2002, 16:32
to me it is this simple:
Book - amazing
Film - Dull as dishwater and was cast by a monkey!
Cornelius
15-01-2002, 16:41
Originally posted by Cap'n Al
I disliked both <i>Lord of the Rings</i> and <i>Harry Potter</i> for very similar reasons, namely that neither succeeded entirely as a film in their own right. The obvious comparison is <i>Star Wars</i>; while I'm anything but a fan of Lucas' empire, I'll happily admit that the first film works superbly as a stand-alone action/adventure, with <i>Empire</i> again working as a film in its own right.
I also thought that many technical aspects of <i>Rings</i> were flawed, with some odd performances and indifferent special effects just failing to rock my boat. Still, there are other, better films left to come...
But Lucas didn't make his first trilogy back to back, I think in his case the sequels were an afterthought in the sense that the first film was a huge success and the studios asked him if he had anymore and his reply was 'it's funny you should ask' and then we got this whole conviluted trilogy.
TLOTR was made back to back and TFOR is part one of a three part act. It will be unsatisfying because of the cliffhanger elements. People really should hold judgement until they've seen it in it's entirety.
Michael Brooke
15-01-2002, 16:46
<B>This is my point exactly when I said that you obviously don't know much about the film or book as the film has kept to the feel of the book and there are changes to make it more cinematically pleasing.</B>
I've never claimed to know anything about either - I was responding to people who seem to think that the film of a book must stick as close to the original text as possible in order to be satisfying, which I would totally disagree with on principle.
Originally posted by dean richardson
fair point, but star wars was a good film as a stand alone, which is LOTR is not IMHO.
Actually SW is a bloody awful film, badly acted, cliched story, if not for the entire story arc, i'd probably never watch it again!
I wish people would stop saying LOTR has no character development, it's an epic story, the development takes place over all 3 movies...would you have preferred that it was made by the first film studio that threw in a bid and was compressed into a 2 hour film...just for quicker character development.
The trouble is, people today are too used to fast paced, no brain action movies, they haven't got patience for a well paced film with a decent intelligent story.
I was quite surprised that the fights scenes were so violent though, I read that they could get away with this because the blood was black & not red, but hey, i'm not complaining, we have far too mant cuts in tv, music & movies these days anyway!
CountSatyr
16-01-2002, 08:42
I disagree with Michel Brook when it comes to movies like Harry Potter and LOTR. The reader base for these two books is massive. Also in our modern world hype is something that helps sell movies, and like it or not a very large part of it comes from the net. With the two above mentioned movies it is safe to say that the reviewers/web masters have read the book and will want the movies to be as faithful to it. It will also be fans of the books that go see the movies right away and whose reactions will attract further people. They will also be the ones that go for repeat viewing.
On the other hand it is not easy to translate book to film, and certain modifications are inevitable. IMO, Harry Potter and LOTR offer the best compromise. I wish more character development was done but Peter Jackson has two more movies to get it together. The best that I can say about the current episode is that it looks very promising and I can’t wait for the next.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.