By stephen gilbert (Cresshead) (62.254.0.4) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 06:33 am:| By stephen gilbert (Cresshead) (62.254.0.4) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 06:33 am: |
i really think they ought to rename it the "two hours" not the "two towers" some areas of the film were incredibly slow with repeat scenes to "make sure" you understood what they were putting over...you could have cut 30mins to an hour and had a more pacey film.
gollum was extreemly brilliant...a move up from final fantasy.
some of the battle scenes were magnificant too...although keep an eye out on the side of the rampart in helms deep...the texture has no bump map and the pixel blending is very evident..looks like a good x box model...one that slipped thru the quality control net i think...some say it's actually a miniture..well if so it looks like a toy rampart then!.
over all a nice film that when it come out on dvd/video will beefit from the fast forward button to a great degree.
god knows what the extended version will be like...the pack might even have a bic razor in there so you can stay clean shaven thru the film!
seems as the film suffered from the "really labor these points so they understand" a typical device added for film watcher who may have they're heads in a popcorn bucket quite alot.
steve g
www.cresshead.com
info@cresshead.com
e n d o f l i n e
| By stephen gilbert (Cresshead) (62.254.0.4) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 06:36 am: |
also the VERY poor depiction of the dwarf was insulting to the book and the viewer, i find the idea of a running "gag" on the dwarf to be insenstive and truly detracted from the epic feel of the film.
steve g
| By antonius pius (Antonym) (203.58.21.205) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 09:11 am: |
When I saw the Fellowship of the Ring all I saw was Xena the Warrior Princess with a $100 million FX budget.
Same New Zealand locations, same sets, same lighting, same outfits, same props and probably even all the same extras from 10 years ago with the exception that it has zillions worth of CG to spruce it up with the ooh-aah factor.
I know people who snootily scorn Xena and have never watched it, yet pay money to see and then rave on about how brilliant LOTR is because it's so original and different.
As for myself, I'm looking forward with baited breath to be impressed by the new Thunderbirds movie. That's a much bigger challenge than bringing the LOTR book to the big screen by revamping Xena and Hercules. Can CG handle the ultimate challenge and improve on the magic of miniatures and marionettes? We shall soon see - 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....!
| By Kelly Lee Myers (Kmyers) (142.59.135.242) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 09:21 am: |
"As for myself, I'm looking forward with baited breath to be
impressed by the new Thunderbirds movie. That's a much
bigger challenge than bringing the LOTR book to the big
screen by revamping Xena and Hercules. "
OHHH MAN!! Are you telling me there is going to be a ThunderBirds movie?? I was not to fond of the original 60's puppet shows, but I loved "ThunderBirds 2086" with a passsion. I would kill to work on that show. Do you have any links or info about it??
I take it that the show is still really early in pre-production??
Email me about if you can... kmyers@truenorthentertainment.com
| By antonius pius (Antonym) (203.213.84.119) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 10:05 am: |
It was mentioned in a current CGfocus interview with Stuart Penn (Dinotopia, Harry Potter II) who says he is the current lead modeller on the new Thunderbirds movie. Here's the interview url, you'll find it mentioned on the second page where they ask him what he's currently working on. (PS. He is using Lightwave for all his modelling while all around him are using Maya.)
http://www.newtek-europe.com/uk/community/penn/penn_1.html
I only read it myself yesterday so I haven't gotten around to searching for more info about it yet.
Thunderbirds 2086?? Was that an animated show or something? Geez, I must be getting old - I only know the Thunderbirds as marionettes!
| By Joe Irvine (Twistedvertex) (66.108.153.121) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 10:07 am: |
Myself Being a "HUGE" Lord of the Rings fan, I totally loved this movie. Sure they took a couple to many stabs at the dwarf, be it was the kind of humour you can picture.
Before the I went to the movies, I had read a review, saying that "The Two Towers" made "The Clone Wars" look like it was done in a barn with handpuppet...I fully 100 percent agree.
Gollum, of course was brilliant. I am still to shocked to talk about it fully 
| By Mike Pauza (Mikepauza) (65.84.248.153) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 04:43 pm: |
Sorry not everybody loved LOTR. I thought it was great. Some of the birage of effects were very mediocre, but the movie was impressive and much "bigger" than the first IMO. Gollum was great, but it took me about an hour to accept him as a physical character and not just slick looking CG. It is amazing that totally believable CG characters are almost here.
BTW, I didn't feel like the dwarven jokes were slurs but rather self depricating comedy. Part of the story is about Gimli comming to accept the differences between himself and others in a healthy way. Jackson
Some of the dialog at the end was weak, but at least Aragorn didn't say anything in a whiny girly voice in this one.
| By Lernie D Ang (Faulknermano) (202.57.89.25) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 05:53 am: |
never thought much of the fellowship of the ring. some parts were worthy interpretations of the book. but most of it, imho, fell short, especially in the area of character development and the role-playing. i also didnt like the way rivendell looked, or lothlorien. i wish they had REAL small people play the hobbits instead of a visually shrunken guys.
looking forward to watching two towers, though. dont think any movie will live up fully to the book in all its detailed richness, but it's _sometimes_ nice to see them try.
| By jin choung (Jin) (63.28.231.227) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 03:50 am: |
yah,
i'm amazed at the tremendous acclaim that the films have received.
certainly, they were a ludicrously risky endeavor on the parts of everyone involved. and by now, the trials and tribulations of actually getting the thing made is utterly well known.
BUT
if you strip out the conditions of production and heroics of cast and crew,
the films themselves are rather - meh. (the story of the making of the movies actually make a better film [the documentaries on the dvd] than the films themselves!)
i love the books but the films are merely workmanlike so far - with some wildly inappropriate cinematic aesthetics accompanying the content.
and the second film feels more like an inaccurate synopsis than a movie on its own right. kind of like what a cliff's notes would be to the book itself.
some of the effects are really cool but yah, in the tremendous volume of fx shots, others end up being merely acceptable to mediocre.
for more detailed ranting, you could check out my gripes with the LOTR movies here on my website (this is my first plug for my website ever!)
www.jinchoung.com
under 'criticisms'.
jin
p.s. yah, not much else there yet.
| By Thomas (Tommi) (80.129.39.237) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 04:25 am: |
The biggest challenge in making such a movie like Lord of the Rings, is pleasing the guys who read and love the books. They ever find something to criticise because while reading a novel you'll use your own imagination, visualise what you read and you'll be likely to identify with one or more protagonists. A feature film cannot show up every single detail. And a feature film is not able to look in the audience's brains to fit their individual tastes.
And as far as a character or a setting does not look or behave (actually... can a setting behave?) like I imagined, the whole movie is crap...
People who never read the books, are more likely to love LOTR.
To my opinion, Mr. Jackson and his "army of craft people" did a great job. I love the imagery, the colors and I can't believe that someone compares LOTR to that Hercules and Xena crap... Oh Lord (of the Rings...) Nah... those TV series have actors and actresses which would better fit into p*rn movies. But forget about that...
| By Lernie D Ang (Faulknermano) (210.14.21.102) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 04:37 am: |
which brings me to say: i think/hope/guess there would be other LOTR interpretations in the movie. i was actually introduced to middle-earth by way of a graphic novel of the hobbit. the soft, watercolory (or gouache-like) rendering was 'fitting.' there are just too many visual possibilities to play around with. there is no definitive interpretion, even with this big production. it's not the end. why, what if i wanted to do a full CG / cel-animated version of LOTR one day? only the tolkiens could stop me..
lastly, LOTR: FOTR screwed up the characterizations to make way for some people who didnt read the book. like arwen, for instance.. need i say more? (yeah, what ever happenened to glorfindel?)
jin: your website remind me of the game fallout.
| By Szabolcs Matefy (J3st3r) (213.197.82.141) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 06:44 am: |
It`s obvious that hard to adopt such a great novel to movie. But (judging the first part) Mr Jackson and his crew made a perfect job. I`m a fan of Mr Tolkien, I`ve read LOTR at least 2 or 3 times each year since I first read (it was in 1987). I think everything was perfect in the movie. Why is Arwen pronounced instead of Glorfindel? Seriously, Aragorn`s relation to Arwen is very important. It could be ununderstandable to the viewers if Arwen appears for 5 minutes in FOTR then for 15 mins in ROTK.
Anyway I really loved Ralph Bakshi`s adaptation as well
Jester
| By antonius pius (Antonym) (203.213.84.87) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 07:21 am: |
Thomas, I'm not merely comparing LOTR to Xena. I'm saying it IS Xena, on steroids.
Your second paragraph appears to fit the description in my third paragraph perfectly. ;)
| By Leslie Jon-Pierre Lloyd (Nicodemus) (68.50.64.22) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 10:42 am: |
It is far from Xena on Steroids.....especially when you consider that most people view LOTR as the catalyst for most modern fantasy stories. There are similarities but if you want to get picky like that then lemme whip out pretty much any fantasy and I can draw parallels with LOTR. By the way, I like XENA so I am not trying to trash it just don't see the movie as XENA on steroids.
As for the movie (which I have read more times than I care to admit).......I enjoyed it. I have to agree that it was a bit jarring when Jackson took some liberties with the story. At the same time his adpations for the most part remained true to the spirit of the book if not always the letter. The repetitive nature of certain topics and even the pacing matches the book pretty well. One thing that worked really well was Gollums monologues...they really went far towards depicting the duplicitous nature of Gollums existance. I do take certain exception to his departure from the book with regards to Boromir's brother Faramir but even that was resolved without to much pain and in a way that felt Tolkienesque. I have to say I liked the movie......it felt like what it is.....the mid part of an epic tale more than a movie onto itself. When the third comes out I look forward to being able to sit down and watch the story in one sitting. Tolkien wrote it as one long thousand page book originally, it was later broken out into three.
One last thing.......this movie defiantely felt better than clones story wise. Just one opinion though.
| By Larry Shultz "SplineGod" (Larrys) (209.178.189.165) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 03:10 pm: |
I paid my money and was thoroughly entertained by it. Mission accomplished.
| By kevin phillips (Kevman) (210.48.25.220) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 06:27 pm: |
Larry, you couldn't have said it better! That's what Movies should really be about - Entertainment value!
IMHO - Don't overanalyse it - You'll just ruin it for yourself! (Trust me - I know - I've done it myself too many times!)
Have a great Xmas everyone! I'll catch up with you all next year!
| By Jim Williams (Hiraghm) (65.70.121.97) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 08:42 pm: |
Remember some of the revisions have to be made to match the story up with modern (non)sensibilities and "sensitivities". Like playing up a romance that occupied maybe 4 scenes in the entire story.
I was excited by the first movie coming out, enough to sit down and read the entire thing start to finish for the first time. Then I took another look at the trailers, and decided not to see the movie. Same with the Two Towers trailers. The more I see and hear about the movie, the less I want to see it.
| By jin choung (Jin) (63.28.231.48) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 02:02 am: |
actually,
gollum's dual nature would have been quite clever - if it was not done in exactly the same fashion by willem dafoe in SPIDER-MAN!
geez, it's like the animators went to go see spider-man and just said "heck, why don't we do it like that?"
just waaaaaaaay too recent and familiar to everyone to put it in two towers. it's the same problem that i mention on my website about hugo weaving as elrond.
i keep hearing him say, "you MUST destroy the ring... MISTER andersen!" too distinct, familiar and recent to have been a good idea....
also, i completely agree that when you adapt, you almost MUST change things. especially if the work is going to stand up as being a good example of whatever the target medium is.
but given that, you can make good and bad choices about such changes and i feel that PJ makes a lot of bad ones.
his directorial style is way too MTV with slow mos and cross dissolves with cameras careering around at mach 2 to sit well as an appropriate style for tolkien's work - for me.
jin
p.s. thanks lernie! i hear that's a really kick ass rpg that used a lot of lw too! alas, i missed it in its heyday, though i keep lingering over the box at the bargain bin.
my first website ever.... done completely with photoshop 7 and html text courtesy of outlook express!
| By Colin Kai Heaps (Colkai) (81.86.199.212) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 05:16 am: |
Well,
Saw it last night and totally enjoyed it.
There were many things in the book which were not dealt with, or handled differently, but I think for a commercial film, they were seamless. If you've read the books you naturally want to see everything, but realistically, no-one will sit down and watch a 24 hour film!
Peter Jackson uses a nice trick of taking lines from the book and giving another character a line to say from a different scene which provides flow. Personally I was thrilled the whole Gandalf/Balrog thing was handled.
There have been mention of the film being slow, my wife and I were surprised when it ended as I hadn't realised 3 hours had passed!
Another things that struck me about this thread, Steven Gilbert has already mentioned faults in the CGI and bump-mapping, which begs a question.. Do those of you in "the business" automatically scan for faults, or do they leap out at you? Watching the battle at helm's deep, I was far too engrossed in the action to start scanning for defects in the filming & textures, I also feel if you are doing that, surely you're not giving yourself the pleasure of "just watching"? Just curious is all. To me there was only one or two shots where I noticed anything, and these were simple "held" shots of the hobbits in the cave with Faramir.
As for Gollum, many times, I completely forgot I was watching a CGI character, loved the way they handled this, (though I was hoping for the famous "sneaking" line, maybe in the collectors edition DVD?) ;-)
I was also waiting for the scene with "her" at the end, but I guess PJ wanted to end on the 'continuing journey' theme, which is a bit more upbeat than the ending of the Two Towers book. Plus of course, Gollums comment about "her" made the tension even better..what happens next???
Anyhoo, personal rating.."KICK ASS" - Downside..12 months until the next film!
-Colkai
| By Colin Kai Heaps (Colkai) (81.86.199.212) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 05:36 am: |
Jin,
You are forgetting one thing, Spiderman came out after ALL THREE FILMS had finished primary film work. The films were done in one stint, PJ states in the FOTR DVD's that the whole story is in the can apart from some ADR and CGI work, with maybe secondary film work here and there. So no way did they steal the idea.
I think the scene with Gollums torment with himself was handled wonderfully, even down to the "we hates you" line, we know from the book he loathes himself at some level.
As for Elrond, I guess I can more easily separate an actors character, based on the film they are in, otherwise poor old Sir Ian would just come across as Magneto in a white frock ;-)
The problem lies in a simple truth, we all have ideas of how things should be when we read a book, (for me Aragon is spot on)! There is no way on earth you could make a "definitive" LOTR to please everyone for that very reason, never mind as to if the end result would make any money outside of some hardcore fans. Let's be honest here, it is after all a commecial venture.
Out of curiosity, who DO you think would have made a good Elrond? Who was your most "well placed" character?
Personally, I think PJ is doing a superb job of bringing LOTR to the masses whilst still keeping relatively true to the book. Frodo's decline is really good, with Sam's pain at this very visible.
As for the way Gimli is handled, whilst providing some comedy, I think he is "brought to the fore" more than he is in the book. Let's face it, it's all about Frodo & Aragorns destinies really, thus the final title ROTK. By using the comedy I think it makes Gimli more appealing, plus I think it is as if he tries to induce humor to break up the sometimes palpable bleakness of their tasks. But hey, I love physical comedy ;-))
-Colkai
| By jin choung (Jin) (63.28.231.31) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 06:29 am: |
howdy ckh,
actually, i totally think that the pacing of the series is now stilted because of when TTT ends. in the second book, the entire episode dealing with 'her' actually happens. as does another major confrontation.
these last bits are a setup for the final battles to come in the return of the king. alas.
as for SPIDER-MAN - actually yes, you are correct in that principle photography was finished (more or less, it seems that they are filming things as post production progresses - 'pick up shots'.
BUT
gollum's performance, especially in that scene where he 'does' willem dafoe, is entirely CG. in that scene in fact, i wonder if even the BACKGROUND involved principle photography. it is perhaps all cg.
in which case, it is quite possible that the lead animator saw spider-man and said, hey, i should just do it like that. and it is entirely possible that they arranged another recording session with sirkis.
in any case, if it was imitation, it was a poor choice. and if it was coincidence, it was poor luck.
as for elrond, i say quite a bit more about hugo on my website. and indeed, i don't have a problem with gandalf because IM's characters are appropriate for him. but HW is VERY PARTICULAR in the way he delivers lines and such. so much so that it is impossible for him to 'become' someone other than HW - or in my case, agent smith.
this is common of many actors (pacino) but then again, guys like that are almost typecast now because it is impossible for pacino not to be pacino. and again, the issue of being too recent in popular media, too fresh in peoples minds, ends up being a problem - this phenomena is well documented in cinema history, but usually concerning leading roles (clint eastwood in play misty for me after his uberhero roles, roy scheider in pickup52 (i think) after playing a like superman in jaws).
as for who i would have chosen, i would have probably cast no elf character with an actor over 35. wrinkles and such don't evoke 'immortal' for me. hmmmm, i probably would have chosen Jude Law.
as for sam, his character is particularly irksome in the movies because his devotion to frodo is inexplicable in modern reasoning (which is the way the movie portrays it).
in the books, sam is as devoted as he is, and that is considered tremendously good, because he is a SERVANT. he is of a lower class and does indeed consider frodo his MASTER. and the devotion in the book is admired almost as one admires a dog that is loyal to its master. these are concepts that pj considered bothersome so he superseded it with a mere friendship. but considering sam's devotion under strict friendship doesn't cut it for me. Sam's actions are understandable as a loyal servant. as a friend, they are ludicrously obsequious.
in this sense, smeagol's relationship with frodo seems more explicable since he does take on a servile role.
the actor that best played out for me was sean bean as boromir. actually, i think he would have made an awesome aragorn. viggo is a bit too urban and american for me to have seen him as a natural in this role.
gimli's expanded role as comic relief was fine for me.
finally, i do indeed do some cross media nitpicking comparing the movie to the book. but even in considering LOTR movies as JUST cinema - i don't consider them at all masterpieces of the form. in fact, a great deal of the acclaim that they get derives directly from the content. seen as just another example of cinema, it's not much more than a flashy popcorn flick.
and yes, i admit completely that this is merely my mere (albeit elaborate) opinion which carries all the weight and authority that that entails. feel free to disagree.
jin
p.s. actually, i would argue the reverse for GANDALF - IM makes a perfect GANDALF. he made a horrible magneto - in the comics, magneto is old but formidable physically - that is, not merely tall but buffed out. physically, a Clint Eastwood circa Heartbreak Ridge would have been more appropriate. Halle Berry was also a stupid choice. if anyone knows the character of storm, angela basset would have been the natural choice. berry was way too lightweight for the part - though the part was paper thin.
also, a big problem that i had with xmen was the origin of magneto. in the comics, they had a horrific scene where magneto is lined up with his parents to be executed by a nazi firing squad. as the automatic weapons began firing -it is at that moment that magneto's mutant powers manifested for the first time. he collapsed with the others in the line out of shock - but later, he claws his way out of the mass grave - untouched by bullets.
this moment where he finds his power in time to save himself but not his parents inspires tremendous guilt and self hatred and perhaps goes a long way to explaining his later psychosis.
in 'taming it down' for the pg rating, they totally watered down a dramatic point that i considered essential. tsk tsk.
| By Borhan Berthet (Labuzz) (81.49.119.9) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 09:23 am: |
You can buy the ring too!
It's everywhere :
http://www.emerchandise.com/product/COLOR0001/s.qLWLslmo
Hey Newtek what about The ultimate bundle LW and the Ring...Sorry i couldn't resist...
| By Colin Kai Heaps (Colkai) (81.86.199.212) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 11:23 am: |
Jin,
As regards Magneto, I guess, like Sam Gamgee, he suffered from todays terrible obsession with being very P.C. Personally, I'm about as far from PC as you can get without being *too* rude ;-)
As for watering it down, yeah, I think they should have been "15" films rather than 12A/PG.
I can see why PJ went for the ending he did, though that's not to say I wasn't disappointed. I figured though that "Joe Blow" would leave thinking .. well after that they can't go on can they? Even after all the publicity, I still hear of people leaving the cinema with the "that's a strange ending" comment.
The problem will always be that PJ is trying to appeal to the masses whilst not totally messing up the story, For me he strikes a balance.
Is it what I'd *really* like to see, no, it isn't, but then the version in my mind from reading the books has one huge advantage over his.. Unlimited budget.. That's the wonder of the mind, you can go for broke without worrying about time or budget restraints in your image of the scene ;-)
- Am I wary of how the last book will be handled? - Sure, it's inevitable. - Will I get the special edition DVD when it comes out? You bet! - Will I be keen to see the final film ..too right.
I guess, when all is said and done, it's still a good way to spend a couple of quid and a Friday evening with the wife.
| By Jim Williams (Hiraghm) (65.70.121.97) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 11:29 am: |
Jin, an excellent description of the relationship between Frodo and Sam, and one of the reasons I don't want to see the movie; they changed it to mere friendship to reflect modern "sensibilities". Sam was, to me, the hero of the story. Yeah, Frodo had a destiny; he was a big-shot from a family of big-shots. Gandalf was a big-shot among wizards. Everyone but Samwise was someone to one degree or another. Sam was just a gardener and servant. But without Sam's devotion and sense of honor, the ring wouldn't have been destroyed.
That's why I'm a purist about making old books into movies. They tell the story based on the sensibilities of the age in which they were written, and when you "modernize" the story with modern sensibilities, at least some of the meaning is lost. Or at worst you end up with the horror that was Starshit Troupers.
I'm surprised they *didn't* have Xena swinging her two-handed sword in the fight, leading a dozen half-naked amazons in to carve through thousands of orcs and save the day.
What was the running gag on the dorf?
PS - Jin, you have more courage than me to run an editorial section on your website. If I were to put one on mine where potential employers, acquaintances or the thought police might see it, my mail server would be overridden with hatemail and I'd never get another contract. 
Of course, then again, your views in that section appear to be a *lot* more PC than mine.
| By Swan Glecer (Swan_G) (68.155.178.249) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 04:48 pm: |
Hmm... while reading the thread, I was thinking about replying... but I'll let a link speak for me, since I agree with most of Harry's review here >>>> http://linux10985.dn.net/display.cgi?id=14060
BTW.... I agree with Jin that if the Gollum scene was a coincidence, it was poor luck... but for Dafoe!
Well anyway... it's just entertainment... I love the LOTR saga so far... if PJ keeps this level on ROTK, we will have the best trilogy so far, and with no chance to silly prequels :P
Well... actually, there's allways "The Hobbit" to be made...
Take Care..
Swan
| By arthur argote (Archiea) (66.32.129.192) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 06:42 pm: |
Well I guess people are entitled to their opinion....
I read the first book long ago. When I heard about the films being released, I decided to NOT reread the books, as I wanted the films to stand on their own interpretation. That was one of the criticism from harry Potter: that if followed the books TOO much, that it lost its identity as a film. It ONLY appealed to people who read the book, as thats what it was created for... thats what themeparks are for, not movies.
Peter Jackson has vision. He's definitly an artist, as opposed to a "studio director". All of his movies exhibit a quirkiness that, while its his trademark, are manifested uniquely in each of his films. whatever topic or genre he gets involved in, he pushes it 120%. Clearly its his impression thats left on the movie. That has a habit of drawing both praise and criticism.
I find it hard to think that there are people here who would refuse to watch the film because "its not the book". Well its not, thats why there are books, and thats why there are movies. Movies have a visual language that its responsible for while the book has the luxury of the reader's imagination. Such a comparison is unrealistic and unfair.
In the book Dune, many of the characters spoke in their inner thoughts. Lynch decided to make that part of his movie, adding to the intrigue. The Sci Fi miniseries defaulted to the usual, but safe over exposition. Again, different interpretation...
I think, so far, the LOTR movies stand as honest work. As an artistic re-interpretation. A miniseries on cable, at best, would have had perhaps one more hour to tell the story (10 hours) but only 120 million to work with. And it wouldn't have had the passion that jackson had.
As one who's relatively unfamiliar with the original material, I think the film stands well alone. There was great effort to tell this story as if it were a historical event. The directorial approach has to be credited for giving the film an authentic feel. People are grimy, hair is unkept and "unconditioned". Also, the authentisity of the look, props, and acting make for an engrossing adventure. This is what movies where made for, and special FX. The casting of actors as hobbits, as opposed to willow-like dwarfs, offer's a performance from far better actors. As far as the issues with Sam, I can't vouch for the movie as I don't recall the books. From the movie, i see Sam's devotion stemming from their friendship at the shire. They have each other the way soldiers have each other in times of peril. Also, in the movie, when Sam challenges the soldier of Gondor, the Soldier asks "are you his bodyguard". Sam says dead serious with no irony or anything "No, I am his gardener". The audience laughs not because the line reads as a joke, its the situation, and because of Sam's unyeilding heart: Here's a professional soldier being challenged by one half his size. Expecting a verbal challenge to his query regarding his role, sam is honest. By not lying about his role (a gardener), it displayed to the soldier how serious sam's devotion is to frodo. A man will risk his life not because he's a paid soldier or a hired bodyguard, but because he's his friend and servant.
As far as the effects, I look at the movie first of all. I can stand for quirky FX if the story, acting and direction is taking me somewhere else. LOTR did. My eye is very critical since I work in FX and I picked up alot more from this film than the last. The forest sequence was the weakest both in tracking, composition and integration. it appears that sequence suffered in either time and/or personnel. I noticed some roto and tracking issues in select areas. I also noticed that the focks on the set of the Keep looked like foam in some of the shots. Does this ruin the movie for me? no way, not his movie. Movies like the Mummy, thats all thats left to do since the story and charaters are silly. Funny that in my opinion, Clones has better tracking and compositing, but I don't care. I bought the DVD to study the FX and art.
I think thats the problem with FX movies these days: that there now exist a genre that we call FX movies. Its like an exploitation film.. in this case the audiences senses on both accounts: in that all of their senses are overloaded and in another that their common sense is obscurred that lead people to think ID4 and the Mummy are entertaining.
I hate it when its the FX sequences that are what become the selling point to the film. I wish I had never heard of the efforts in the Keep battle sequence. I'd love for it to be a surprise. How can it be, though, with all of the press.
The result from that is that we all go to these movies looking for the FX stuff like the way we did with 70's horror films when we'd go see them because we heard some actress shows her t*ts in reel 4.
So while I noticed like 30% of the FX in the two towers needing another 3 months work. who cares. its a great movie. I mean, people applauded like three times in the middle of the film! I love that!
Gollum stole the show, not because of the CG, but because of the direction. Spiderman looked too CG because of the direction. Gollum was directed as a live action character. I think this is what people latched on to. He got his own applause!!! people really felt that this was gollum, not an actor in a suit, not some mocap exercise. To me, gollum looks CG, he just does, thats the limit of FX. Same as harryhousen's creatures look like fur and latex. But both harryhousen's creations and Gollum had great PERFORMANCES. Final fantasy didn't have perfromances, just Mocap. Mocap alone looks like reality seen through their shadows on a wall. You recognise the gist of the movement, but its just eh.. its like rotoscope animation. Performance, thats something else. Gollum is SO a jackson creation, while the cave trolls's are SO randy Cook, which is also great.
Too bad, though, that some of you couldn't enjoy that. I pity even more the people who consciously decide to not see it, or worse, consciously decide that they don't like it. Many people compare it to role playing which is even more of a glaring miscomparison than comparing it to the book. Its a unique film in that it doesn't have studio heads picking and proding as its done at Disney, WB, Square and other places.
I'm curious since that i was raised listening to wagner and watched opera, if people here could relate to the operatic look of the film in general. because alot of the critcism I hear about LOTR is similar to when I've taken people to see opera. opera is felt, not just seen or even listened to. I don't recall too many films that made you feel. Partly its the medium, as film has a different presence. Nonetheless, performances, direction, music, that all can lead to an operatic presence in a film. Gladiator had it with the performances, music, and direction. I think LOTR has it from its scope, look (talk about Wagner), but most of all performances. The sense of pathos is unusual to experience in films, let along popular films. producers often mistaken it for 'being a downer'. A good example, many a US producer, perhaps from disney, would have insisted that Gollum be the comic relief. Its easy, he's the CG gag, they want kids to relate to him so that they'd buy the toy, gollum plush toy, etc.. Oh and can you make him cute and not so sullen? we can't scare kids now...
Just goes to show....
| By jin choung (Jin) (63.28.231.224) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 01:37 am: |
howdy again fellows,
hey jim. actually, i would recommend that you do check out the films. i would imagine that you would merely be confirming your guess but it would be interesting to get your opinion on the films themselves.
at least you don't pay ticket prices by the minute and it's worth it just for eye candy alone.
actually, considering that i am somewhat disappointed by LOTR series so far, some half naked elven chicks storming into the fray in an MEDIEVAL CHICKS GONE WILD fashion would have been of interest. keen interest.
the dwarf humor centered primarily on his height.
-------------------------------------------------
LOTR FOTR Pet Peeve-
WHY DIDN'T THEY HELP GANDALF on the bridge? i know the situation in the book but it is ill constructed and portrayed in the movie so that i was scratching my head as to why boromir held frodo back and then nobody does a thing as gandalf scrambles around a full 30 seconds before he finally bites the dust! some friends!
better constructed scene would be:
1)gandalf gets whipped by balrog, pulled off bridge but grabs on at the last minute.
2)the entire fellowship rushes forward to help - with frodo in the lead.
3)just as they recklessly scramble to the edge, gandalf's grip fails and he falls.
4) frodo's torso hangs off the ledge as his stubby little arms reach out futilely, you see aragorn securing frodo by his cloak. frodo: "GANDALF!!!"
5) gandalf wheeling back into the abyss in slo mo, just as he disappears, he screams "FLY YOU FOOLS!"
was that so hard?
i took my parents to fotr and even my mom turned to me to ask, "what's wrong with them? why won't they help gandalf?"
jin
| By Jim Williams (Hiraghm) (65.70.121.97) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 03:20 pm: |
A professional soldier values honor. There are too many examples in history where professional soldiers have fought literally to the last man, and more courageously than fanatical zealots, to suggest that mere friendship would make Sam willing to pit his small will against a larger and more competent opponent. Nor would such "friendly devotion" impress a professional. Certainly not as much as the devotion of a servant to a master, since, after all, a mercenary is a servant himself.
Unless one wants to suggest that Samwise had homosexual tendencies, the relationship between him and Frodo is only explicable in terms of a much earlier era and culture. It has to do with things like pride and honor, both of which have been confused with ego and aggression, anymore.
And that's why, if I watch it at all, I'll wait for it to hit television. I neither need nor wish a translation to current cultural prejudices.
| By arthur argote (Archiea) (66.32.16.152) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 04:21 pm: |
Well, that is true that the nature of Sam's commitment is an example of human bond from the past where the comforts and securities that we take today for granted was non existant. When I saw LOTR in large AMC theaters with bratty teenageers and 20 somethings, sometimes Sam's devotion got giggles from the immature crowd. When I saw in in art theaters, it didn't.
To not watch it in the theaters with the fandom in the audience is to miss an experience. Realize that TV, or even DVd, was not the format of intent for the film. If i were you, i'd wait for an art theater to show all three during an anniversary. Thats the best way to see it. Otherwise, don't even bother, since to judge it on some uncalibrated TV with commercials butchering the pace is to not do the filmmakers who worked so hard any justice.
To equate real soldiers to the fictitious ones in LOTR is silly. Gee, I wonder how real soldiers would react to a wizard and a glowing staff...
lighten up.
| By Lernie D Ang (Faulknermano) (210.14.11.101) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 09:14 pm: |
"the actor that best played out for me was sean bean as boromir."
hey! that's what i thought so too. i'm not sure if i would have liked to have him cast as aragorn, but boromir was protrayed nicely.
ps: i havent watched two towers so you guys dont spoil it for me.
| By Jim Williams (Hiraghm) (65.70.121.97) on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 12:16 am: |
Arthur, you have it backwards. It's from back when we had human bonds and commitments. Back when one person was better than another in personal estimations.
Probably the same way they react to tanks and cannon and aircraft today. If you're going to say you can't compare them to real soldiers, then you can't compare anything in the movie, or anyone, to anything real. It's just as silly to compare Sam's loyalty to a 21st century friendship as it is to compare a medieval fantasy soldier's honor to 21st century honor.
| By arthur argote (Archiea) (66.32.16.152) on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 03:10 am: |
No, what you are discussing is a difference of opinion. And recipricating my points or reasons in a discussion isn't a response. Its being argumentative. Believe what you want.
I think the LOTR movies provide a unique experience that is rarely enjoyed considering the amount of money behind it is usually reserved for more commercial fare. What jackson is giving us is an interpretation of the novels through the medium of film. Whoever wishes to enjoy it will relish the rarity of such an offering.
| By Alan Kott (Fallen) (63.207.227.103) on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 05:04 am: |
Hmmm.... on a less philosophical note, any thoughts on how ROTK will vary from the book? I am starting to get the feeling that they will NOT show the ring being destroyed in the middle of the story. I am betting on them only showing it at the end, perhaps as a flashback. I always thought it was a bit too anticlimactic to read 100 more pages after the rings distruction.
And on a StarWars conspiracy theory....
The planet Curascant WILL become the death star! Muhahahahahaha
| By Lernie D Ang (Faulknermano) (210.14.22.23) on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 08:20 am: |
to begin with, i always thought that, modern-ly-speaking, ROTK was rather anticlimatic that it didnt "show" sauron go head-on and get defeated. you just hear a boom at the distance... and that's it. 2000-ish films dont really exhibit such plot progression (or resolution) and i do wonder what they're going to do about that.
| By arthur argote (Archiea) (66.32.20.63) on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 04:52 pm: |
I haven't read ROTK yet, so I'm not sure of the content. I'm not surprised by what you described as tolken's stuff tends to be very unclimactic and uncommercial. Thats why I enjoy so much how jackson has spiced it up and made it more sophisticated and didn't leave it as dry as the text.
The original text really reads like it was written at the time of the events. Great for authenticity, but not best translated to film. jackson made the character's "more cool" wihtout sacraficing the content
take how both handled gandalf's death in the first book. the book had Aragon saying something like "farewell gandalf, did I tell you not to go through the mines. Who will lead us now". Kinda corny.
Meanwhile the movie handled thing far more sophisticated, alot more sublte. You saw aragon lead by action, not by declaring it. This is what I love about the films. Its token's work reinterpreted without fear.
| By Gabe DeLang (Gabe) (216.26.74.36) on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 10:06 am: |
I forced myself through those damn books last year before the first movie came out. Man, talk about a tough read. Those books are NOT page turners. This is one of the few times I really think the movies are BETTER than the books. Yes, I said BETTER. I loved parts of the books, but man could they drag!!! How many times do we have to read about hobbits camping!?!?! I think the movies got rid of all the really boring stuff and kept the cool exciting stuff. Sure, there are some nice plot elements that had to go but at least I'm entertained througout the viewing.
And I agree about ROTK the book being really anticlimatic. I was actually pissed by how it ended. I felt like after forcing myself to read all the material there should have been a much better payoff. Oh well, hopefully Jackson will *ahem* reinvision the end.
| By Lernie D Ang (Faulknermano) (210.14.24.229) on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 10:36 am: |
well, i dont really mind the 'anticlimatic' ending. it was anticlimatic from the standpoint of moderness. LOTR was written decades ago and the way people read and wrote then were different. sensibilities were different. attention span was DIFFERENT. much longer back then. that is partly the reason why i'm not so hot on the movies. it reflects modern sensibilities. and while i respect that i wish for a taste of a more tolkien-like storytelling.
my girlfriend, a writer, just absolutely loved tolkiens descriptions of the wilderness of all the books. though to some it was long-winded, to her tolkien managed to always make the descriptions different each time. but my girlfriend grew up on classics so her sensibilities are much more suited to LOTR (the book). i grew up on tom clancy so i did have some trouble finishing the book. but because i love c.s. lewis' books, and i knew they were both friends, i decided not to hit too hard on LOTR. 
| By Lernie D Ang (Faulknermano) (210.14.24.229) on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 10:41 am: |
"Why is Arwen pronounced instead of Glorfindel? Seriously, Aragorn`s relation to Arwen is very important."
if they ever decide on making a movie of Silmarillion then they're going to regret removing glorfindel out of the picture.
digression: my worst is coming: did you know that c.s. lewis' narnia was licensed for a movie? i'm not even bothering crossing my fingers.
| By Jason Morris (Manfriday) (64.81.145.27) on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 12:00 pm: |
I heard the narnia was going to be made into a movie.
I wonder what hollywood will do to such a novel, considering the blatant christian allegory in Lewis's books.
Unlike his friend tolkien, lewis loved allegory and was quite overt with abous infusing his religion into those books.
Hollywood tends to kill off that sorta stuff.
Guess we'll see.
| By Jason Morris (Manfriday) (64.81.145.27) on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 12:01 pm: |
dont ask me where the word "abouse" came from.
I have no clue.
Speaking in tounges apparently.
yeah thats the ticket.
| By Valan Chan (Valan) (203.218.161.32) on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 12:30 pm: |
The camping stuff was always my favourite bit. It portrayed and embedded an image of the Shire on the reader and illustrated its' contrast with the rest of Middle Earth. After all it is why Frodo and Sam were so determined and the reader understood why Gandalf loved the Shire and Hobbits so much.
It is the lack of this and the rewriting of the initial journey and companions that indicated the deviations from the books. Therefore the movies cannot be compared to the books at all.
They are simply two different mediums telling the same story.
My girlfriend has not read the books and thought the FOTR was fantastic. She gasped at the ending, She didn't know it was a story told over 3 movies. She was amazed at the story and thought it much better than the predictable storylines we normally watch. She commented on how rich everything was and so much had happened.
I think the FOTR(I've not seen TTT yet) brings the story excellently to the movies. Like the Matrix I hope this has a possitive effect on future movie storylines.
Valan
| By Karl Stocker (Pixeltek) (67.28.81.232) on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 02:11 pm: |
I love the Tolkien stories, but that did not keep me from thoroughly enjoying the movie version. Just from looking at the volume of the four books that tell the story of the hobbits and the ring, you can tell that as with most books, the film version will/can only capture the spirit of the story, details be damned. So it is up to the director and screen writer(s) to get the story to the big screen as best as possible. I think this was, given the time and $$$ constraints, a particularly successful interpretation. To judge from J.R.R.T.'s own drawings, I like to think that he would have been totally delighted by the movie version as well. Compared to the grand spectacle of that tale, Nemesis, which I saw yesterday, was, except for the expectedly fine VFX, a story that left me detached and wanting. A failure, IMO. Sorry Trekkies ;-).
| By Alan Kott (Fallen) (63.198.18.65) on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 09:07 pm: |
'A failure, IMO. Sorry Trekkies ;-). '
I felt it was more like a death stroke. The story was the flatest I've experienced among the ST movies to date.
| By Valan Chan (Valan) (203.218.161.32) on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 09:55 pm: |
From my observation the best ST stories are those 'how do they get out of this situation' ones.
IMHO I think Tolkien would have preferred a long tv serial in 1.5 hr episodes than 9hrs of movie. He wrote a long book and only the publisher convinced him to split it.
I agree with the visuals. They are very nearly exactly how I imagined the people and places.
Valan
| By Lernie D Ang (Faulknermano) (210.14.21.7) on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 12:07 am: |
"Unlike his friend tolkien, lewis loved allegory and was quite overt with abous infusing his religion into those books.
Hollywood tends to kill off that sorta stuff."
do they ever! remember prince of egypt? probably the most politically correct 'religious' cartoon i've seen. it's funny how you almost never(?) hear any of the characters mention the word "God."
i say damn them - to make turn great christian literature into some commercial venture. ah well... maybe some good will come out of it.
a very pessimistic lernie..
| By Gregory Douglas LeMieux (Lone) (161.231.1.21) on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 09:24 am: |
i read the books back in '86, and have since forgotten enough of the details to enjoy the first film without comparing it to the source material. is FOTR the CITIZEN KANE of its day? no. of the fantasy genre? more or less.
| By richard hagen (Beverins) (148.4.33.125) on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 02:56 pm: |
On the issue of Faramir, I think that Jackson improved the character. According to Tolkein's own tale, the Ring corrupts EVERYONE who touches it, and tempts EVERYONE who even looks at it. This EVERYONE goes for Faramir as well, because he's human... and is genetically related to his brother Boromir (obviously.. unless one was adopted.. and even then they're both human), and since Boromir fell for the ring, then naturally Faramir has to as well.
For Faramir to be a saint concerning the ring is a fault of Tolkein, and Jackson put right the character.
| By jin choung (Jin) (67.116.166.130) on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 05:49 pm: |
ah richard,
but if everyone is SOoooo strenuously tempted by the ring, then frodo would not have had even an ally in aragorn now, would he?
actually, much of the series LOTR ends up being about how different people are tempted by the ring in different ways and can be seen as a series of TESTS taken by different characters at different times.
whether it is the original fellowship (of whom only legolas is of an immortal order) or bilbo or gandalf or galadriel or boromir or faramir or tom bombadil.
only boromir and smeagol - and to an extent frodo - actually SUCCUMBED to the temptation.
everyone else PASSES.
so faramir's own virtue is not necessarily singular. hell, even sam resists! and the book, it is very well established that faramir, though of the same blood, is a very different character altogether.
tolkien added complexity to things where jackson stripped it down to make things more 'readable'. it's a choice - but not necessarily a better one.
gregory,
you're probably right but that's not saying much. i can name maybe a handful of sword and sorcery movies and probably the best one besides LOTR was a conan movie. perhaps it's fitting that an adaptation of tolkien becomes the premiere example of S&S in the movies but i've no doubt that it can be done better.
-----------------------------------------
as for the woods and wilderness - this is part of the books that i missed much in the movies! so much of the book is not about fighting or even CHARACTER INTERACTION! much of the conflict comes from the protags just being out in the wilderness and hiking and camping and the cold and strain, etc.
the conflict is very much MAN VS. NATURE. but the movies aren't designed with that kind of sensibility - too fast in plot points to slow down for the journey itself.
but in forsaking that, he leaves out opportunity to further characterize hobbits - the fact that they are unsuspectingly lithe and stealthy and quite capable in the outdoors and that although they are by nature hedonistic, unambitious, and possibly even petty it is precisely these qualities that perhaps so enabled them to bear the burden of the ring without succumbing greatly - and when pressed, can be quite hardy.
------------------------------------------
as for christian themes in movies, there are plenty - but most of them aren't REVERENT.
christ symbology is almost constant in films - including the matrix (which is actually a pretty good re-telling of the new testament), blade runner, last of the mohicans, too many to name.
but as for christian doctrine and teaching - yah, they tend to avoid that like the plague.
but ya gotta admit, the audience for that would be pretty small. and the more specific you get, the smaller the attraction:
mention jesus and you cut out a bunch of people.
don't mention mary and you cut out a bunch more.
adhere to calvinist doctrines and you cut out all that adhere to arminianism. etc etc till you get down to denominations.
defeats the goal of hollywood which is mass media.
(at least prince of egypt is inclusive of the big 3 monotheistic religions)
personally, i don't think cs lewis's fiction can hold a match to tolkien. just as fiction i don't think they're very good.
his sci fi's not very compelling either.
i think his lay theological series of books may make better movies than his fiction.
for example - the screw tape letters may make an interesting and odd movie in the right hands.
jin
| By Lernie D Ang (Faulknermano) (210.14.22.92) on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 07:37 pm: |
"till we have faces" beats the living hell out of LOTR. HANDS DOWN, BABY!
| By Borhan Berthet (Labuzz) (81.49.119.146) on Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 04:50 am: |
BlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBla....
DWARF THROWING!ENJOY!
http://www.balloondancer.co.uk/dannyblue/dwarfthrowing3.html
| By Gregory Douglas LeMieux (Lone) (161.231.1.22) on Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 10:03 am: |
the fantasy/sword & sorcery genre has definitely been underserved by hollywood. b films seem to be the rule. i think what Jin is saying about LOTR is true; the films lack the subtlety of the books. whether that was a concious choice on the part of the director, or just the way it worked out, i don't know, but i doubt it truly matters, as subtlety is pretty much lost on the modern movie audience.
| By Gabe DeLang (Gabe) (216.26.74.36) on Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 06:01 pm: |
I don't think there was anything subtle about the books at all. Almost every character was very much an extreme. Totally noble, totally wise, totally dwarflike, totally evil, etc. Yeah, almost to the point of being ridiculous stereotypes. Subtle? No, not subtle. Not even a little subtle. Hell, the Aragon in the movies is far more subtle of a character than in the books. I think they watered him down a bit too much for the movies. Sam with the hobits.
| By Gregory Douglas LeMieux (Lone) (161.231.1.22) on Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 06:24 pm: |
i was referencing what Jin said about the temptation of the ring.
| By arthur argote (Archiea) (66.32.159.240) on Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 07:18 pm: |
I tend to agree with gabe. in the books, the characters seemed sterotyped if they weren;t being flamboyant. This is more a reflection of the times than a criticism of the book. The movies is already criticised as showing too much of the "journey", i.e. character's running and camping. I mean the movie is already 3 hrs, I don;t think the audience is interested in an explicit portrayal of hobbit camping techniques. I think jackson inserted enough cues of hobbit's appetite, they pettiness, and their love of small things.
I clearly got the message that they are simple farmers who don;t grasp the weight of their situation. remember sam's plea to Frodo in the first movie when they arrived to Rivendale in the first movie? They delivered the ring, now lets go back to the shire. Same in the second movie with pippin suggestion in the forest that they go back to the shire. its not until the end of the second movie that Sam kinda understands that they are part of something big.
this is perhaps the appeal of the film.. simple folk getting involved in something so biblical. here are kings and lords and immortal elves, and its the simplist, most uncomplicated creature that's entrusted with the ring. Kinda of the appeal of the first SW, where the farmboy saves the universe. kinda reflects the views of WWII, where citizen soldiers defeated hitler's superarmy.
In a nutshell, i think that the appeal of these films. We are so used to larger than life heros who always win at the end. Here we have an underdog who was forced on this journey, dreading each step, and who is so fallable. he's is also surrounded by potential enemies as everyone is after the ring. I think of how the ring becomes this abstract threat thats not too tangable is something that makes us feel like the heros are in constant threat. that there is no safety....
| By Lernie D Ang (Faulknermano) (210.14.13.157) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 09:11 am: |
"Here we have an underdog who was forced on this journey"
i would interpret a part of tokien's work in that way - that hero, or at least the Ring Bearer is not elf, human, but a hobbit. something about humility there.
unfortunately, i didnt really see it in the movie. strictly my opinion: the protrayal of hobbits was not good. probably owing to a lack of sensitivity. (how many of you liked the way they made baggins end?)
i agree with greogry, btw, on subtely being lost on modern audiences.
| By Chris Burkert (Cb_3d) (212.113.164.97) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 10:15 am: |
At the end of WWII Hitlers "superarmy" was composed of hungry boys with empty gun barrels.
Don´t get me wrong, though. Good thing they were defeated.
And Luke was always a sissy,hehe;-)
As to the topic, i didn´t read the books and liked the movies. And the SE has all the camping and journeying you feel are missing in the cinematic release.
IMHO most people are missing what this series is all about! Once TROTK is finished we will have a complete 10 hour movie, and not a trilogy.
Therefore much of the pacing has to be adapted to that format, not individually to each movie.
| By Chris Burkert (Cb_3d) (212.113.164.97) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 10:18 am: |
It could even be hacked into a miniseries for tv, once it´s all finished,LOL.
Would still be better than all those Stephen King adaptions.
| By Anon Amos (Bandwidthbuzerd) (65.235.142.115) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 06:01 am: |
Being a huge fan of Tolkien throughout my short life thus far, I loved the movies. It was every thing that I had expected it to be. Being into CG I read the LOTR website daily, I wanted to absorb every last detail about the making that I could. After spending months following the filming, WETA Workshops detailed construction, and re-reading the books yet again I had a fairly good idea of how the trilogy was going to play on the big screen. From the start of the whole project there were critics, die hard fans, and a new generation of fans. To me it seems that these films are aimed at this new generation. Jackson and most of the cast were already huge Tolkien fans. The goal of the movies was to share an already epic tale, to give one visualization to an enormous world. They knew full well what they were getting into. They wouldn't have undertaken such a challenge without fully understanding how crucial it was to accurately portray the novels. I don't think that any cast of any movie prior to this one has had as much dedication or shared such a love for the script as this particular one.
As for comparing LOTR to Xena and Hercules... Are you mad??? There is no way that such a comparison can ever be made fairly. First off that drivel that you see on TV is just plain old crap. How can anyone say that Xena has anywhere near the depth that LOTR has? LOTR is based on over 1000 pages of excellent English literature, not to mention the hundreds of artists who have depicted Tolkien’s world in the past as well as the ones Jackson hired to help conceptualize his own ideas. Tolkien has been taught in many an English class from elementary school on up through college where some universities have semester long courses based off LOTR and the Hobbit. Xena and Hercules are short; less than an hour long after all the COMMERCIALS. It is a show designed for TV, filmed at more repetitive locations than the whole of New Zealand; the stories are often weak ineffective interpretations of ancient Greek mythology, accompanied by flat characters portrayed by terrible actors with no real understanding of the story they are supposed to be involved in.
Does anyone remember the old cel animated version of LOTR, the first attempt to bring the trilogy to the screen? It was a disaster I was ashamed after watching it. This time around LOTR looks set to break one billon dollars for all three films at the box office by the time all the movies have been released. If they weren't good films that fans of the novels didn't like they would probably follow the animated version into obscurity.
And great films they are, my little sister had no idea that smiegel (Gollum) was CG. My uncle asked me, "How much money do you think they spent on the extras?", as we were walking out of the theatre (it was my third time). The point is the only people who are going to notice that the inside of the keep lacked a bump map, or realize the massive battles are run by a complex script are the people who do CG either as a profession or hobby.
About the only bad thing I can say about LOTR is how the marketing mania has already begun, from action figures to tee-shirts to collectors edition DVD's. Board games, calendars, movie books and much more, I won't even start on the horrible video games that have been made. If Tolkien were alive today I think he could appreciate these new films. The propaganda that goes along with them would probably send him to back to the grave though.
We should enjoy the films for what they are, a very well done synopsis of the books. Sure there are a few areas that could use improvement but overall the films are top notch.
Sorry for my long winded response.
My thoughts have been shared now I will diminish go into the west and remain Anon Amos.....
| By Matt Clary (Mattclary) (208.255.196.28) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 07:29 am: |
I've made several attempts to read LOTR, once I even got to the beginning of the Return of the King. Call me a blasphemer, but I think Tolkien sucked as an author. The concept is good though, and I think Jackson has improved the tale by omitting all the detailed descriptions of dafodils blowing in the wind. During the FOTR, at the end of Bilbo's party, I turned to my wife and said, that was the first 150 pages of the book. She thought the MOVIE belabored that part too much. I would love to read this story as interpreted by Stephen King. I think he could make this the scary tale it should be.
| By Bionic Antboy (Bionicantboy) (66.203.194.135) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 09:09 pm: |
Stephen King SHORTEN LotR? Heheh...that WAS an attempt at humour, right?
If Stephen King were to write LotR, it would have been twice as long, and had about a half the depth.
For the last 15 years or so, Stephen King's books have all been about twice as long as needed. You would think this was 30's pulp fiction, and he was getting paid per word, not novel. The first time I noticed this was in Pet Semetary, when after Gage's (I think that was the kid's name) death, there's over 150 pages of pointless mourning for the child. A tragic event in the novel, yes, but I got the point the first time it was made.
I haven't given up on King yet (I try once a year or so), but would rather read a long book of substance, like anything by Neal Stephenson or James Ellroy.
As for Tolkien, the beauty of the books is their depth and breadth of detail. Middle Earth is still the most cohesive and believable imaginary world ever envisioned. I do agree that the books bog down in minutae, and when I first read them 20 years ago, I skipped sections.
To faithfully adapt the whole thing would take a 45 hour mini-series I like how Jackson treated the material, and Gollum is just brilliant.
Not to go too off topic, but it's kind of cool to see two of my favourite directors of horror movies (Peter "Bad Taste" Jackson and Sam "Evil Dead" Raimi) making big budget blockbusters that are actually worth paying money to see on the silver screen.
Just my 02
Doug
| By jin choung (Jin) (63.28.231.49) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 11:51 pm: |
yah,
i don't think tolkien was a literary giant - as literary giants go... he's not a dostoevsky or tolstoy or melville.
he does bring to the table a great deal of detail and imagination that even the giants didn't though.
and he tells a damn good story clearly - if not with the greatest of subtlety.
after all, LOTR is an adventure story. tolkien is more burroughs and leiber and doyle and howard than he is hugo. but that's not necessarily a fault. i daresay most sci fi authors have more in common with tolkien and howard than they do with other authors we had to read in school.
as for the wilderness parts, i think that has a lot to do with whether you like CAMPING or not!
if you've been in the wilderness and felt the scary kind of thrill of being out there and vulnerable, the simple pleasure of huddling by a fire at night, i think those parts of the book may strike a resonant chord.
(i am TOTALLY a weakling of a city kid but i did 'half dome' in yosemite national park once - NEVER in my entire life have i encountered so many moments where 'if i just do this...' i would easily and unquestionably die. it made a lasting impression on me - ambivalence really - of love and hate and fear of the great outdoors)
but if that's not your thing, i can see how those details may be dull.
jin
| By Lernie D Ang (Faulknermano) (210.14.15.227) on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 04:58 am: |
i did a four-month long bike tour from l.a. to boston with my brother and sister. it wasnt in the particular "thrill" or certain moment: it was the just overall experience that just blew me away. it blows a hole in some kind of longing (at least in me) that leaves me partly hollow if i dont fill it again with the same experience.
but that was four months. in a movie, you barely have four hours.
| By Matt Clary (Mattclary) (208.255.196.89) on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 07:09 am: |
Bionic, I never used the word "shorten". I think King could probably take the material and make 3 more books out of it (a la Gunslinger) I love to camp, and that is the one part I liked about LOTR. I remember trekking off into the woods around my house as a kid and imagining I was heading off to some great adventure...
| By jin choung (Jin) (67.116.166.130) on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 07:11 pm: |
oh, as for the raimi comparison - i think that it's quite astute.
i feel the same way myself.
but whereas raimi has been able to refine his film making aesthetic through several surprisingly non genre films (some romance movie, the gift, that three guys with the money thingy) and hit it big time with a film that's right up his alley - a film that he was almost born to direct,
jackson's craft still seems pretty crude and raw and not to have developed beyond the gimmicky and hit it big with a film that required a bit more than he had to offer.
i know a lot of people don't feel that way and if you don't that's cool... it's just one guy's opinion.
jin
p.s. i think one of my favorite raimi films (excluding army of darkness) is The Quick and The Dead. that was an awesome picture that upon a reviewing recently had a heckuva a lot of stars!
| By Swan Glecer (Swan_G) (67.34.197.71) on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 07:28 pm: |
http://www.realmoffantasy.com/swords/lotr.asp
Check this out... I'm becoming a geek... at 40! (and I haven't read the books until days before I saw FOTR). :P
Well.... anyway... Cool stuff there.
Swan
| By richard hagen (Beverins) (148.4.33.125) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 02:03 pm: |
by the way, to the earlier comment on the rampart of Helms Deep looking like it had a shoddy bump map texture...
Helms Deep was a physical model. No 3D used for that set-piece, I do believe (reference the extended DVD - they built Orthanc, the pits of Isengard, the forest, the mines of Moria, Rivendell, etc. - I think they built Helms Deep as well)
| By stephen gilbert (Cresshead) (62.254.0.4) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 04:00 pm: |
c n p'd...
by the way, to the earlier comment on the rampart of Helms Deep looking like it had a shoddy bump map texture...
Helms Deep was a physical model. No 3D used for that set-piece, I do believe (reference the extended DVD - they built Orthanc, the pits of Isengard, the forest, the mines of Moria, Rivendell, etc. - I think they built Helms Deep as well)
here's my reply on that:
yeh most of the shots were a real model..but take a look at when the good guys break thru the main gate and batter the bad guys on the rampart...that to my recolection was a 3d model with a mip mapped or poorly painted stone texture...one that slipped thru. the vast amount of superb effects shots..i'm not by any means saying the film was rubbish..just that ILM seem to have better attention to detail on any small fixups needed in films..maybe due to the amount they push out.
i'll revisit the film once it's on dvd so i can wind thru the [in my view] dreamy, boring bits.
steve g
[hopeless 3d artist and film fx critic!]
| By Szabolcs Matefy (J3st3r) (62.68.161.87) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 05:06 am: |
Cg building was used almost exclusivly for matte-shadow process, when cg elements casted shadow onto the buildings. Different sized maquettes was built for the shots. Anyway, check out the film official site, and there are links to the production., Check out. I think it`s the most detailed film ever. And to that user who think it`s Xena on steroid...He must learn to see. The main different is between Xena and LOTR is that in LOTR everything is used, dirty. Look at the hands, the faces.
Jester
| By Matt Clary (Mattclary) (208.255.196.37) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 06:51 am: |
Is it Xena on steroids, or is Xena an anemic LOTR rip-off? LOTR was undeniably the progenitor of the sword and sorcery genre, even though I still maintain Tolkien is not a very good writer.
| By Szabolcs Matefy (J3st3r) (213.197.69.24) on Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 06:42 am: |
Personal opinions as always. No one can declare as a rule what film is good, what is not, who is good writer, who is not. I think Tolkien was a very good writer, or our translators are the very good translators .
Jester
| By richard hagen (Beverins) (148.4.33.125) on Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 03:22 pm: |
there are plenty of CGI slipups...
my pet peeve in this regard is that the elven swords do not glow blue. Sting is supposed to, as is Legolas' blades as well as Gandalf's sword Glamdring. All are supposed to glow blue in the presence of evil, which in this case are represented by goblins/orcs/uruk-hai (which apparently are all the same species). Frodo is in a city being overrun by them, Gandalf and Legolas are fighting in the crowd of them... With all the self-effacing talk on the documentary disc about how their digital grading skills make all the difference, they completely forgot to track the elvish blades.
| By Matt Clary (Mattclary) (208.255.196.122) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 09:41 am: |
I doubt they "forgot".
| By Szabolcs Matefy (J3st3r) (213.197.71.115) on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 07:10 am: |
You`ve never read the book Richard, have you? Glamdring and Sting was magical elvish swords. In the book, Merry, Pippin and Sam was captured in a tomb by a wraith, and Tom Bombadil has rescued them. They`ve found elvish knives among the treasures of the tomb, but not any of them had blue glimmer...
Orcrist (Thorin Oakenshield`s sword), Glamdring (Gandalf`s sword) was magical, but as far as I remember only the Sting was mentioned as an orc-alarm.
Please next time, take more care what is declared, as a mmistake.
I`m sorry, but I`m pissed off by the "professionals", and "Tolkien-gurus". It`s a film ( the best ever possible of the book), and not everything can be translated perfectly. And I`m soooo pissed off, when it`s about mistakes. Who cannot enjoy a movie, without spotting mistakes, faults, don`t go to the cinema. Stay at home. And keep quiet.
Sorry guys...
Jester