Ok someone had to -- LOTR?

I loved the first one. Jackson did a fantastic job bringing the story to life. The acting was superb -- huge kudos to the casting director. The effects were incredible, but subtle. They didn't get in the way of the characters or story. I got the 4 DVD set, which goes into detail of all the techniques they used to shrink the hobbits. And of course the sets and scenery were breathtaking.

Like with every book adaptation, people always complain about this was missing, or that was wrong, but remember: the book is still there. It's unchanged. If you want the book, read the book. The movie is "inspired by" the book and should be a good story on its own merit.

So I didn't really mind the love story. It didn't make a lot of sense but otherwise, there would have been little for the ladies. And Liv added a lot to the movie. (hubba hubba)

The second movie was also excellent, especially the battle scenes. I thought the bit with Strider getting carried off by a Warg was dumb though. Why waste screen time with this fluff?

Looking forward to #3. I'm concerned, though -- Jackson still has a lot of story to cover. Hopefully he doesn't leave out too much.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
EmptyKube's picture

Re:Ok someone had to -- LOTR?

[color=blue][/color]
Never read the books. Tried, got bored out of my wits. Tolkien, a historian, paid too much attention to details which never moved the plot along. Like, do I really care much about the hair on a Hobbits feet? Laughing out loud
Anyway, the first movie made me go back and reread. Still couldn't get through the thing, but at least I had a better sense of the story.
Haven't seen second film yet. Looking forward to it.

Re:Ok someone had to -- LOTR?

Mike, the first book bored me out of my wits as well. Most people who enjoy the first book admire the world-building. The action picks up in the second book, and the third book doesn't disappoint. But you definately have to enjoy fantasy to enjoy Tolkien.

In my opinion, the Hobbit is his most purely entertaining read.

To err is human. I am not human.

camidon's picture

Re:Ok someone had to -- LOTR?

Tolkien is hard to wade through. Back when I was taking writing classes, I remember thinking if I ever submitted something like Tolkien's writing, it would get trashed to pieces today. As Greg said, the first book is overly slow. Tolkien loved his world and spent more time with it than most of us spend using the bathroom. It's very much a older British style of writing and it takes some patience to get through. But as also pointed out, the third book is incredible. All the setup has its payoff. When I reread the series, the climatic end with the Gollum and the Hobbits just tore me apart. I felt like I had just been through the same hell they had.

Movies are good, if taken as movies. To many people get stuck on movies being just like the book. Cinema is a different medium and can't accomadate everything a book can. A good example is: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep vs Blade Runner. To incredible works, in my opinion, one based on the other, but Blade Runner is an entirely different story than the book. Ridgely Scott did not want to just adapt Dick's work, he wanted to further explore ideas presented by Dick and add in his own ideas.

Here I am stuck on Phillip K again. I blame Mike! Cool

----

Life is a lot like caving: Most of the time you grope around in the dark.

EmptyKube's picture

Re:Ok someone had to -- LOTR?

[quote="camidon"]

Movies are good, if taken as movies. To many people get stuck on movies being just like the book. Cinema is a different medium and can't accomadate everything a book can. A good example is: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep vs Blade Runner. To incredible works, in my opinion, one based on the other, but Blade Runner is an entirely different story than the book. Ridgely Scott did not want to just adapt Dick's work, he wanted to further explore ideas presented by Dick and add in his own ideas.

Here I am stuck on Phillip K again. I blame Mike! 8)[/quote]

The first thing that struck me when I read Do Andriods Dream Electric Sheep was the difference between it and Blade Runner. I loved the movie, but was surprised at what Scott chose not to include. The novel has this whole religous under current that really sets a tone, and nothing works without that religous under current. Now I can't decide if I like the movie that much. I'll have to rent it and watch it again. Its been YEARS!

Re:Ok someone had to -- LOTR?

I enjoyed the visual artistry of Blade Runner, but not the plot. Harrison Ford's character was supposed to be the best at what he did, yet he kept getting the crap kicked out of him by the androids, who were too stupid to take his gun when he was down.

To err is human. I am not human.

Re:Ok someone had to -- LOTR?

I too think that Peter Jackson's LOTR is a masterwork of book to film adaptation. It was one of those stories that people tended to think of as truly 'unfilmable'. Jackson has done a magnificent job!! I would agree with everybody that has said that reading the books is a bit of a labour of love. I too got bogged down on the first one. I do a lot of travelling to and from work and take every opportunity to read to pass the time. It took me almost a year to read Fellowship! The other two books I read in a matter of weeks. To those of you who are struggling to get through the first book....persevere! it's worth it.

As for Blade Runner, I have never read Do Androids.... so I can't really compare. The film is one of my favourites though. If you liked the film before you read the book, Mike..... why would finding out the book is very different diminish the film in your opinion?

Re:Ok someone had to -- LOTR?

Did I mention that, on our first date, my husband took me to see the director's cut of Blade Runner? And then stopped on the way home and spent an hour helping some poor woman change her tire?
From that moment on, he had me. Laughing out loud
If you haven't seen the director's cut (the version without the annoying voice-overs), rent it. I think the director's cut flows much better, even if some of the plot details are more ambiguous as a result, and the religious overtones are better addressed.

Pohl's Law: A sufficiently advanced form of technology is indistinguishable from magic. Programmer's Corollary: A sufficiently rigged demo is indistinguishable from magic.