LOTR: Boring, lifeless and curiously uninvolving...
DMARCUS1
into this film with a completely open mind and no preconceived notions of
"how this film should be" or the precise translation, or any of that stuff.
I was willing to go with the film wherever it took me.
Sadly, I have to agree with many of the posters here, who find the film, for
lack of a better term, BORING. The action scenes are played out brilliantly,
but look at how the film grinds to a halt when there's no action. The acting
just isn't there, and tell me you truly care for any of these characters!
There's no one here worth rooting for, and no charismatic figure to carry
the picture. The only one who holds any weight is Ian McKellen as Gandalf,
and you know you're in bad shape when an 85-year-old man is carrying the
film all by himself!! No knock on seniors, but this is a film that needs a
captivating young hero, someone to make the audience care.
I didn't find anyone here worth caring about. Actually, I found most of the
characters here pretty annoying and useless. Roger Ebert has said that he
found the depiction of the hobbits a little demeaning. I would tend to agree
with him.
When the film ended (in front of a sold-out crowd), we also got a similar
reaction as described by others here: silence...and a couple of boos. It was
as if the whole audience was thinking: "Is that all there is?"
Think I'll skip the next one...and bypass Burger King and its LOTR mugs...
UV40
get killed. i was sitting on the edge of my seat- my hand gripping my mouth-
teeth chattering. this movie is a masterpiece. peter jackson did an awesome
job. didnt want the film to finish. good cast
Sandy McDermin
>
> Ok, as someone who has never read LOTR or any of the Tolkien books, I came
> into this film with a completely open mind and no preconceived notions of
> "how this film should be" or the precise translation, or any of that stuff.
> I was willing to go with the film wherever it took me.
Although I'm not sure I agree with your subject heading in its entirety,
I will borrow your first paragraph as, I too, have never read Tolkien
and came into the movie having no preconceived ideas.
I saw the movie on a Sunday morning in a very large, one screen theater.
It was packed, but everyone was very mannerly and appreciative. (The
management, however, forgot to turn on the heat in 27 to 30 degree
weather.;-)
Anyway, as did some others, overall I found the movie to be longer than
necessary. Mostly, it was the middle section, when the nine were
traveling and being constantly attacked, which had me fidgeting. I
understood that their pursuers would be ceaseless but movie-makers are
supposed to know how to make that type of thing entertaining and not
repetitive -- no?
The best parts of the film for me -- someone who's uninitiated -- were
when we got to spend time with the various peoples of this world as they
interacted "normally." I enjoyed the scenes in the shire, the brief
scenes in the elf encampment and even the short visit to the rough and
tumble inn which had me thinking of the cantina in Star Wars or Marion's
bar in Raiders. Rather than being interested in the evil Sauron (is that
his name?) I was far more curious about the other denizens of this world
and how they interacted. Do the Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, and Humans get
along? Do they integrate much? What's the hierarchy? Instead of learning
much about that, we were off on our quest and everyone seemed to get
along quite well. (I detected a slight unfriendliness towards the dwarf,
though.)
The film must have touched me somewhat, because at the end, I did feel
sad at Sean Bean's character's death. But, I think that's because his
character had an entire arc, from reticence/suspicion, to potential
evil, to redemption. You felt sorry that he was not going to realize his
potential. I cared less for Frodo, which seems strange, right? When he
was harmed, I really didn't care as much as I did for Sean Bean's
character (wish I could remember his name) aside from the implications
Frodo's death might hold for the ring's destruction. Also, it threw me
off every time Frodo's fellow Hobbits called him "Mr." and deferred to
him. He looked their age or younger and I thought they were all pals and
compatriots. Speaking of the other Hobbits, I must say, I found the two
who tagged along more annoying than charming. I understood they were
there for the humor, but they appeared to attract more trouble than
anything, and I kept thinking they should have left them behind, while
Liv Tyler should have been brought along instead. She seemed a much more
competent addition.... Okay, I realize the movie would have been a lot
shorter if that had happened. (Hmm, now there's a thought.)
Speaking of the elves, and I guess if I lived in that world I'd want to
be an elf, they're pretty damn attractive (cute elf guy;-). I couldn't
understand what the difference was between them and Cate Blanchett's
group. They looked very similar and I wondered if I missed some dialogue
explaining just who they were....
Which brings up another topic. The dialogue. I couldn't have been the
only one who had trouble hearing it, could I? There were times when I
was really straining to understand. Either some of the actors were
mumbling, or their accents got in the way, or the music was too loud.
Don't know. No matter. In this kind of film, where the uninitiated
audience has no real life context to rely on, clear dialogue is very
important. After all, I don't naturally know what hobbits are like or
what elves do or how humans live in Middle Earth.
Oops, I've strayed.... Back to things that touched me and didn't.
Gandalf's "death." Okay, I guess I didn't feel all that broken up by his
sacrifice 'cause it reminded me of Obi Wan's and I figured Gandalf would
make it back somehow. He's too good to lose ... but if they do lose him,
they'd better reinvent another.
Well, the bottom line is, I felt a little like I was invited to someone
else's family reunion, finding pockets of it interesting and others
tedious. Don't know if I'd want to see the next film. To be honest, I
went to this one because of all the critics' positive comments. I'm not
being nasty here, but I just don't see all that they do in this film. To
each his own.
Sandy
DMARCUS1
movie feels far too long and when it DOES end, it's very unsatisfying. I
know it's a trilogy and it's "to be continued" and all that, but so was the
original STAR WARS trilogy. Still, they managed to make the first film end
on a high note. You felt anything BUT a letdown following that first film.
Peter Jackson was not able to acheive the same thing or satisfaction in
LOTR.
I, too, found the characters uninteresting, as a whole. What is there about
Frodo that is supposed to attract any interest? There's no conflict or
difficulty to his character. He is, basically, just there for the ride. Same
for the others. Gandalf is the only one who brought a smile to my face, but
they needed more than one convincing character.
When will action/fantasy directors learn that a great fable doesn't just
have to rely on effects and fights, but great character development as well?
I think, like you, that LOTR got off to a great start in the Shire, but went
quickly downhill after that. Just one long roaming sequence after another.
Got old very quickly.
"Sandy McDermin" <smcd...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3C311156...@erols.com...
Eric San Juan
news:WW8Y7.54559$%u.16...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> Sandy...excellent post, and I agree with almost everything you wrote.
The
> movie feels far too long and when it DOES end, it's very unsatisfying.
I
> know it's a trilogy and it's "to be continued" and all that, but so
was the
> original STAR WARS trilogy. Still, they managed to make the first film
end
> on a high note.
I have seen this comparison made a number of times and it is simply not
accurate. Not even a little bit. (I *love* Star Wars, mind you, so this
is not even remotely a case of Star Wars vs. Lord of the Rings)
First and foremost, The Lord of the Rings is not a "trilogy," as the
author went to great pains to clarify while he was alive, it was simply
published that was. It is one story, not three interconnected stories
set in the same world/story arc, in much the same way that, for
instance, Roots was not four stories (or however long the miniseries
was) but one story.
As per most edition's notes on the text: "The Lord of the Rings is often
erroneously called a trilogy, when it is in fact a single novel,
consisting of six books plus appendixes, sometimes published in three
volumes."
Star Wars is three (now more) interconnected stories, all which exist
independent of one another and which largely do not rely on one another.
Yes, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are closely linked
through the Han Solo story arc, but I believe they exist independent of
one another. (I have amended a clip from another post I made on the
subject of Empire below) The actual *stories* are differing creatures
that do not rely on one another, though they share characters, places,
and history, in much the same was serials of years gone by do or
television programs like, say, X-Files.
And all of this ignores the fact that Lucas was only making *one film*
until he made enough cash to keep working on his vision; no matter what
his dreams were, he was making one film, one story, one film. The Lord
of the Rings trilogy of films is a far different beast.
So, in short, I think the whole "LOTR ends with no resolution, at least
the Star Wars did" is not a good argument because the inherent nature of
each beast is different.
(I have not read the rest of your post and will not comment on it; the
heading tells of your opinion and that is good enough)
---(quote on Empire from another thread, as noted)---
Regarding The Empire Strikes Back, from another thread: "I'd argue that
the main thread of Empire was Vader's search for Luke, leading to their
final confrontation; the Solo subplot was commingled with that and only
furthers the Luke/Vader plot. The movie *began* with Vader searching for
Luke, which was part and parcel of his attack on Hoth, as well as his
move into Cloud City. It climaxes in their confrontation, which is a
loss for both.
You are right, of course, one needs to see Return of the Jedi to see the
Han Solo subplot resolved, but I would argue that the subplot was
secondary to Empire as a film (though it was the story arc I like the
most). So that being said, Empire exists independently in a way The Two
Towers does not."
DMARCUS1
feeling of satisfaction following the end of LOTR. It's just sort of, blah.
I think the audience feels a little cheated at the end. That's the sort of
vibe that was in the theatre in which I saw it, at least.
Whether Tolkien intended to form a trilogy or not, surely Peter Jackson
realizes the value of leaving the audience with a positive feeling on the
way out the theatre. Merely saying, "well, come back to see the rest" was,
for me, a bit condescending and pretentious. Give us a REASON to come back,
one other than the mere continuation of the story.
For me, anyway, that was not enough, regardless of my comparison to STAR
WARS, etc...
"Eric San Juan" <shoeg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OQ9Y7.307782$ez.44...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
peacel
(SPOILERS)
> Sandy...excellent post, and I agree with almost everything you wrote.
> The movie feels far too long and when it DOES end, it's very
> unsatisfying. I know it's a trilogy and it's "to be continued" and
> all that, but so was the original STAR WARS trilogy.
The first STAR WARS was made as a self-contained film in which the hero
defeats the bad guy at the end and everything is set right (Darth Vader
is vanquished, apparently, and the Death Star destroyed). Then the
next two come out and what happens? Oh, wait, Vader is back, and guess
what? He's building another Death Star. I don't like STAR WARS and
never have, I'll admit, but even if I liked it I think I'd have to
admit that this is pretty stupid. It's as if FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
ended with Frodo destroying the Ring and Sauron seemingly defeated, and
then the next film opens with Sauron making another One Ring. "Grr,"
he growls, forging it into shape. "This time I'll get it right. My
all new Second One Ring will really kick hobbit ass."
Try to think of FOTR as the story of the fellowship, not the story of
the Ring. It makes it much easier to digest.
> What is there about Frodo that is supposed to attract any interest?
> There's no conflict or difficulty to his character.
He's a hobbit who's always dreamed of adventures, but has always been
too frightened to ever go on one. Finally he does and it's much
rougher than he imagined. He realizes that he's been placed in the
terrible position of the Ringbearer, which he neither chose nor
requested, and now he has to accept this fate and take this thing to a
place from which he'll likely never return. When he decides to take
the Ring during the council of Elrond, he's basically accepting his own
demise -- or at least that's how it would seem. He also, at the end of
this film, makes a second big decision and rejects all of his
companions except Sam, not for his good but for theirs. And beyond
that his character arc continues through the rest of the story, coming
soon to a theater near you.
--
peacel
peacel at sk.sympatico.ca
"What we have here is a company [TI] with unlimited resources that
wants to take film away from us and replace it with their system.
And the film community is so technically uninterested and illiterate
that there is no outcry."
-Roger Ebert on digital projection
Dale Hicks
> I was far more curious about the other denizens of this world
> and how they interacted.
Maybe it's time to read the book then? If you really want to know,
anyways.
> Also, it threw me
> off every time Frodo's fellow Hobbits called him "Mr." and deferred to
> him. He looked their age or younger
Frodo was the eldest, at 50. Pippin was 28, Merry was 36, and Sam was
38. 33 is the year of coming-of-age for Hobbits. The reason Sam (and
Sam only, I think) called him Mr. Frodo was because he was his gardener,
and that was the type of relationship they had (a close one, though).
> Speaking of the elves, and I guess if I lived in that world I'd want to
> be an elf, they're pretty damn attractive (cute elf guy;-). I couldn't
> understand what the difference was between them and Cate Blanchett's
> group. They looked very similar and I wondered if I missed some dialogue
> explaining just who they were....
I'm sure it's more complex (I think that Cate's group were actually
something called high elves, but I don't get all that stuff), but
basically Elrond lived in the northwest forest, Legolas came from a
northeast one, and Galadriel lived in a forest south of those two (but
still northeast of Mordor, the bad guy's land).
> Which brings up another topic. The dialogue. I couldn't have been the
> only one who had trouble hearing it, could I? There were times when I
> was really straining to understand.
The Galadriel scene was the only one I didn't hear.
> Okay, I guess I didn't feel all that broken up by his
> sacrifice 'cause it reminded me of Obi Wan's and I figured Gandalf would
> make it back somehow. He's too good to lose ... but if they do lose him,
> they'd better reinvent another.
Heh.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Dale Hicks
DMAR...@austin.rr.com says...
>
> Sadly, I have to agree with many of the posters here, who find the film, for
> lack of a better term, BORING. The action scenes are played out brilliantly,
> but look at how the film grinds to a halt when there's no action.
The irony is that the LOTR fans want the action cut, and the other scenes
enlarged (restored). (for the most part)
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Sandy McDermin
>
> In article <3C311156...@erols.com>, smcd...@erols.com says...
> > I was far more curious about the other denizens of this world
> > and how they interacted.
>
> Maybe it's time to read the book then? If you really want to know,
> anyways.
I knew someone would say this. My point was, however, that greater
detail about this world could have been in the movie and some of the
travel/action scenes trimmed a bit. I understand that Jackson is making
a movie based on a book. (Actually, since he has made/is making *three*
movies, he really does have the luxury of inserting more detail, more
character development, more exposition *through story,* i.e., show don't
tell, of how these beings inte-relate.) But, even so, adapting a book
doesn't mean he doesn't have an obligation to make a movie that can
stand on its on feet without the audience buying a owner's manual.
Really I say this without any hostility. I don't dislike the film, I
just was not as carried away with it as I thought I might be considering
the glowing reviews, and I think the reason is that the characters and
their world are not fleshed out enough for me.
Sandy
Bill Anderson
DMARCUS1 wrote:
> All fine points indeed, but the question still remains of the lack of
> feeling of satisfaction following the end of LOTR. It's just sort of, blah.
> I think the audience feels a little cheated at the end. That's the sort of
> vibe that was in the theatre in which I saw it, at least.
>
> Whether Tolkien intended to form a trilogy or not, surely Peter Jackson
> realizes the value of leaving the audience with a positive feeling on the
> way out the theatre. Merely saying, "well, come back to see the rest" was,
> for me, a bit condescending and pretentious. Give us a REASON to come back,
> one other than the mere continuation of the story.
I suppose when I read the books and reached the end of Fellowship I could have
cursed Tolkien for not giving me a reason to pick up Two Towers other than the
mere continuation of the story. Seems LotR didn't fit your preconceived notion
of what a movie should be -- and you're right in pointing out that LotR is
different from most. I'll bet you'll be back in line next Christmas....
Bill Anderson
R. Cohen
I agree with you, the movie should stand on it own and not require you
to read the book to appreciate it. There's a lot here and it's a
tough balancing act between being an adventure and character study.
That said, this really is just the opening part of a three book epic
adventure. Frodo and Sam and all the others have many more changes
to go through before this jaunt is over. They should be more then
fleshed out before this movie is over and perhaps Jackson is taking
advantage of that. Maybe that was a mistake on Jacksons part, it's
hard to say.
Smaug69
> All fine points indeed, but the question still remains of the lack of
> feeling of satisfaction following the end of LOTR.
You cannot have a great feeling of satisfaction following the end of
FOTR because the story hasn't come to an end.
> It's just sort of, blah.
> I think the audience feels a little cheated at the end. That's the sort of
> vibe that was in the theatre in which I saw it, at least.
Imagine how cheated you would have felt if PJ had decided to end the
film where FOTR ended(the book)- everyone split up looking for Frodo:
Pippin and Merry running off and Boromir chasing after them; Legolas
and Gimli running together; Sam running off and Aragorn following; Sam
realizing that Frodo would have gone back to the boats; Sam and Frodo
crossing to the east shore and heading down into Emyn Muil. You don't
know what has happened to any of the others.
PJ chose to show us the first chapter of The Two Towers so there would
be a better ending. But there isn't supposed to be any satisfactory
ending. This isn't a trilogy of films. It's one film in three parts-
telling one complete story. There isn't a better way to make FOTR end
without delving too much into the next book(third of six) of the story
or cutting off after Moria. Either way, you are going to seriously
affect how the next movie starts.
> Whether Tolkien intended to form a trilogy or not, surely Peter Jackson
> realizes the value of leaving the audience with a positive feeling on the
> way out the theatre. Merely saying, "well, come back to see the rest" was,
> for me, a bit condescending and pretentious. Give us a REASON to come back,
> one other than the mere continuation of the story.
>
> For me, anyway, that was not enough, regardless of my comparison to STAR
> WARS, etc...
Which was really stupid. Star Wars was only meant to be by itself.
Lucas was probably more surprised than anyone that he got to make more
films about the universe he created. You certainly don't need to see
any of the other films to be satisfied with the ending of Star Wars.
Smaug69
Jennifer Eubanks
Too much running and running and running and running and chasing
and chasing and chasing and fighting and fighting and fighting.
Gave me a headache.
At Sean Beans death my sister whispered "Die Already" and her
boyfriend pantomimed shooting a gun which cracked me up. We also
tried to 'buzz' through the many many slow walking scenes with our
imaginary VCR remotes. :)
Anyway to sum up, the production values were awesome but it needed
editing.
On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 02:13:10 GMT, "DMARCUS1" <DMAR...@austin.rr.com>
wrote:
Dale Hicks
sma...@yahoo.com says...
>
> PJ chose to show us the first chapter of The Two Towers so there would
> be a better ending. But there isn't supposed to be any satisfactory
> ending. This isn't a trilogy of films. It's one film in three parts-
> telling one complete story. There isn't a better way to make FOTR end
> without delving too much into the next book(third of six) of the story
> or cutting off after Moria. Either way, you are going to seriously
> affect how the next movie starts.
Maybe it would be better if they flashed forward and showed Frodo
chucking the ring into the Cracks of Doom just past Sauron's outstretched
hand?
Or maybe the scene from the next book where Frodo almost makes it to the
mountain, only to be hauled back to the Shire by a spell from Saruman?
What was Jackson thinking, anyway?
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Paulxfoley
>Ok, as someone who has never read LOTR or any of the Tolkien books, I came
>into this film with a completely open mind ...
> ...Sadly, I have to agree with many of the posters here, who find the film,
for
>lack of a better term, BORING.
It does go on, and on, and on. Less so than the books though. Some people
love them for just that reason... the detail, the endless, excruciating,
obsessive detail (the trilogy ends with almost two hundred pages of appendices
and index... who ever heard of a work of fiction with appendices and an index?)
There are two other films in the can that complete the Ring trilogy. I'm sure
there are some people out there wishing that they had been all spliced together
into one epic, marathon, bladder-busting movie.
--Paul
-------------------------------------
"Sooner is better than later."
Zeefor
news:aqg43uchg4v7u53uf...@4ax.com...
> Absolutely to everything. My take on it was it was WAY too long.
> Too much running and running and running and running and chasing
> and chasing and chasing and fighting and fighting and fighting.
>
> Gave me a headache.
>
> At Sean Beans death my sister whispered "Die Already" and her
> boyfriend pantomimed shooting a gun which cracked me up. We also
> tried to 'buzz' through the many many slow walking scenes with our
> imaginary VCR remotes. :)
LOL! :) People like you are the reason I now take a rape-tazer with me to
the cinema.
> Anyway to sum up, the production values were awesome but it needed
> editing.
--
(|||rise|||)=(Z][E][E][F][O][R)=(|||fall|||)
"We'd love to funk you, Funkenstein: your funk is the best!"
DMARCUS1
DMARCUS1
would happen to these characters? (Even if you've read the books). Having
never read the books myself, I did not have that feeling of needing to know
what would happen next.
For me, the idea of a cliffhanger fell apart at the cliff, when Gandalf fell
off. You can't knock off your main hero and expect the movie to carry the
same weight.
IMHO, Gandalf was the only character that held any compelling interest.
DMARCUS1
skills to play this character. I didn't see the fear in him...I didn't see
any conflict. I saw that in Bilbo, played wonderfully by Ian Holm. But Wood
was far too bland for my taste.
Hobbits are wonderful, quirky little creatures...and Wood played him like an
agonizing, adolescent "Afterschool Special" child.
DMARCUS1
DMARCUS1
action/adventure/fable flick is when the action DOES stop. Do you care
enough about the characters to listen to their dialogue? Do you passionately
care about their plight, not because of a book and their legacy in that
book, but because you care for the characters being depicted up on that
screen?
For me, (with the exception of Gandalf), the answer is no.
I hate to make this comparison (I know I'll get some knocks for this), but
IMHO, the Harry Potter flick was far more effective in denoting a real
WORLD, and a sense of place and atmosphere. I have not read any of either
Rowling's or Tolkien's books, but I found HP to be a far more involving
film, and more magical, more amazing. Again, that is also a film "to be
continued" and yet, we leave the theatre feeling very fascinated and wanting
more.
Can you really say that about FOTR??
Jeff Coleman
"DMARCUS1" <DMAR...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:eetY7.33192$4d.11...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> Let me ask you this: did you really leave the theatre dying to know what
> would happen to these characters? (Even if you've read the books). Having
> never read the books myself, I did not have that feeling of needing to
know
> what would happen next.
Absolutely I did. I've never read the books, and as fascinated by the
thought of what the hell is going to happen to Frodo and Samwise in Mordor.
They'd built up enough terror in me by what little we saw of Mordor--the
frightening wraiths, the huge mystical glowing eye, the giant castle and so
on--combined with the stories about the razor-sharp rocks and poisonous
swamps--that I was wishing the next film would start right away so I could
find out. Maybe after a bathroom break :)
> For me, the idea of a cliffhanger fell apart at the cliff, when Gandalf
fell
> off. You can't knock off your main hero and expect the movie to carry the
> same weight.
I didn't realize Gandalf was the main hero, of course, I could have sworn
that was Frodo. I was completely shocked when Gandalf fell into the pit,
but in a way that made me even more scared for our heroes about what would
happen next.
This movie did for me what many action movies completely fail to do--make me
feel, viscerally, how big and fearsome the enemy is, and how small and
relatively powerless our heroes are. Some American movies that have done
that for me are Die Hard and The Matrix. In Die Hard, Bruce Willis is
running around barefoot, tearing his feet up on glass, just barely on the
edge of being caught all the time. In The Matrix, Keanu Reeves gives
himself up to the agents rather than make a frightening leap--it's not until
the climax of the film that he actually gets some power and is able to fight
back.
Many times in Lord of the Rings--the first time the Hobbits see the wraiths,
the fight with the troll, the escape on the wobbly stone bridge, and the
balrog--I felt that way. Great story!
Jeff
--
www.isaacpriestley.com
Latest album "Days of Being Dumb"
available for download now!
Zeefor
> I hate to make this comparison (I know I'll get some knocks for this), but
> IMHO, the Harry Potter flick was far more effective in denoting a real
> WORLD, and a sense of place and atmosphere. I have not read any of either
> Rowling's or Tolkien's books, but I found HP to be a far more involving
> film, and more magical, more amazing. Again, that is also a film "to be
> continued" and yet, we leave the theatre feeling very fascinated and
wanting
> more.
>
> Can you really say that about FOTR??
No, subhuman. You can't use the word 'we'. Don't be stupid.
Eric San Juan
<unspecified attributions go here>
> > > What is there about Frodo that is supposed to attract any
interest?
> > > There's no conflict or difficulty to his character.
> >
> > He's a hobbit who's always dreamed of adventures, but has always
been
> > too frightened to ever go on one. Finally he does and it's much
> > rougher than he imagined. He realizes that he's been placed in the
> > terrible position of the Ringbearer, which he neither chose nor
> > requested, and now he has to accept this fate and take this thing to
a
> > place from which he'll likely never return. When he decides to take
> > the Ring during the council of Elrond, he's basically accepting his
own
> > demise -- or at least that's how it would seem.
>
> Well, that sounds pretty good. But I think Elijah Wood doesn't have
the mad
> skills to play this character. I didn't see the fear in him...I didn't
see
> any conflict. I saw that in Bilbo, played wonderfully by Ian Holm. But
Wood
> was far too bland for my taste.
>
> Hobbits are wonderful, quirky little creatures...and Wood played him
like an
> agonizing, adolescent "Afterschool Special" child.
"Hobbits are wonderful, quirky little creatures."
Gee, I thought you hadn't read the book. How, exactly, do you know this?
Ian McDowell
sma...@yahoo.com (Smaug69) wrote:
>PJ chose to show us the first chapter of The Two Towers so there would
>be a better ending. But there isn't supposed to be any satisfactory
>ending. This isn't a trilogy of films. It's one film in three parts-
>telling one complete story. There isn't a better way to make FOTR end
>without delving too much into the next book(third of six) of the story
>or cutting off after Moria. Either way, you are going to seriously
>affect how the next movie starts.
Yes, I would have thought this to be so clearcut that it didn't need
remarking upon, but things seldom are too obvious on Usenet. LOTR is
indeed one long novel broken up into three parts and there's no real way
to faithfully adapt it without making one long film that's equally
divided. There was, after all, a year betweent the original publication
of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and that of THE TWO TOWERS, and it was only
after THE RETURN OF THE KING appeared that it became possible to any way
fairly evaluate the "trilogy."
>Which was really stupid. Star Wars was only meant to be by itself.
>Lucas was probably more surprised than anyone that he got to make more
>films about the universe he created. You certainly don't need to see
>any of the other films to be satisfied with the ending of Star Wars.
Indeed. Despite Lucas's claims to have had a Grand Design for his series,
it's pretty clear that he was (and is) making it up as he went along.
Ian McDowell
paulx...@aol.com (Paulxfoley) wrote:
>It does go on, and on, and on. Less so than the books though. Some people
>love them for just that reason... the detail, the endless, excruciating,
>obsessive detail (the trilogy ends with almost two hundred pages of appendices
>and index... who ever heard of a work of fiction with appendices and an index?)
There are quite a few, actually. Some, like DAVY and HOUSE OF LEAVES,
even come with footnotes
Ian McDowell
<DMAR...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>Sadly, I have to agree with many of the posters here, who find the film, for
>lack of a better term, BORING. The action scenes are played out brilliantly,
>but look at how the film grinds to a halt when there's no action.
While I enjoyed the action scenes, especially for the sense of sheer
desperation they conveyed, it was the quiet moments I ultimately found the
most memorable. The look on Gandalf's face when Frodo agrees to take the
ring was one highlight of the film for me, and the scene with Sam and
Frodo in the boat ended it (despite the aesthetic misjudgement of Sam's
near-drowning) on a genuinely affecting note.
>The acting
>just isn't there, and tell me you truly care for any of these characters!
I can easily tell you that, and will do so now. I think the ensemble is
one of the strongest of the year, with excellent work by Wood, Astin,
Mortensen and Bean (McKellen, too, but everybody's noticing him). All of
them are imho better (in that they create more interesting characters
about whom I truly care) than anybody in BRAVEHEART or GLADIATOR or DANCES
WITH WOLVES, to name some recent epics, and while this is may sound like
heresy, I found them more interesting to watch than anybody in APOCALYPSE
NOW (regular or REDUX), other than Duvall, or even anyone in SPARTACUS
(not that both films don't have other virtues).
I'm not a stone Tolkien fan; my mother read the entire trilogy to me, a
chapter a night, when I was quite young (she died when I was seven and
spent most of that year in hospital, so I must have been five or six), and
I read it when I was high school. Haven't picked it up since (I'm 43
now), although I did see the Bakshi version when I was an undergraduate
and even suffered through the Rankin/Bass RETURN OF THE KING.
In other words, while having the book read to me at such an impressionable
age did make it an important part of my imaginative development, I can't
say that, as an adult, I have any huge emotional identification with it,
and my attitude towards Tolkien's achievement is one of somewhat distant
respect, tinged with some annoyance at what his success ultimately did to
the fantasy genre (although, as I've remarked elsewhere, the Extruded
Fantasy Product that gluts bookstores now should really be blamed on
Lester Del Rey, Gary Gygax and Terry Brooks).
Which is why I was actually surprised at how much I cared about the people
in the movie. As a small child, I identified with Frodo and idolized
Aragorn, but actually reading the books at the age of 17, I found the
former to be far too twee and the latter to be a cypher. The movie,
however, gives them shadings and nuances I don't remember from that long
ago reading, and I became quite engrossed in their plight. And Boromir,
who was (to the best of my recollection) unlikeable in the novel,
irritating in the Bakshi film, and not even that interesting in what I've
heard of the quite well done BBC Radio adaptation, attained true tragic
stature (I found his death more affecting than Gibson's in BRAVEHEART, not
the least because he didn't bellow out that silly "freeedooom!" while
being disemboweled).
>There's no one here worth rooting for, and no charismatic figure to carry
>the picture. The only one who holds any weight is Ian McKellen as Gandalf,
>and you know you're in bad shape when an 85-year-old man is carrying the
>film all by himself!!
Piffle. McKellen seemed to be in his 40's when I saw him on the New York
stage as Salieri back in the 80's, and I've seen a couple of 60's films
where he looks to be just out of his teens. No way is he in his 80's.
>No knock on seniors, but this is a film that needs a
>captivating young hero, someone to make the audience care.
Why? Aragorn ultimately seems more interesting than either Luke Skywalker
or Han Solo (despite the latter's considerable charisma, especially in
EMPIRE), and Frodo's burden actually gives him more emotional weight than
most heroes in most fantasy adventures.
>I didn't find anyone here worth caring about. Actually, I found most of the
>characters here pretty annoying and useless. Roger Ebert has said that he
>found the depiction of the hobbits a little demeaning. I would tend to agree
>with him.
Ebert seems to be getting increasingly wonky these days, not so much in
the sense of being obviously wrong as simply arbitrary.
>When the film ended (in front of a sold-out crowd), we also got a similar
>reaction as described by others here: silence...and a couple of boos. It was
>as if the whole audience was thinking: "Is that all there is?"
There was applause from my audience here in Greensboro. Degustibus and
all that.
Ian McDowell
"Jeff Coleman" <jcol...@NOSPAMhandofgod.com> wrote:
>"DMARCUS1" <DMAR...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:eetY7.33192$4d.11...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>> Let me ask you this: did you really leave the theatre dying to know what
>> would happen to these characters? (Even if you've read the books). Having
>> never read the books myself, I did not have that feeling of needing to
>know
>> what would happen next.
>
>Absolutely I did. I've never read the books, and as fascinated by the
>thought of what the hell is going to happen to Frodo and Samwise in Mordor.
Over on Dueling Modems and SFF.net, and in rec.arts.sf.written, a lot of
folks are mentioning how their children, or other relatives or loved ones,
have never read the books, but are eager to do so after having seen the
film. Bookstores are certainly noticing an upswing in sales.
>This movie did for me what many action movies completely fail to do--make me
>feel, viscerally, how big and fearsome the enemy is, and how small and
>relatively powerless our heroes are.
I completely agree, and think it's a rather neat trick that Jackson pulls
off, considering how the heroes slaughter several times their weight in
Orcs. Maybe it works (for me at least) because it never looks easy, and
because Jackson sustains a very convincing mood of desperation.
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>Absolutely to everything. My take on it was it was WAY too long.
>Too much running and running and running and running and chasing
>and chasing and chasing and fighting and fighting and fighting.
>
>Gave me a headache.
>
>At Sean Beans death my sister whispered "Die Already" and her
>boyfriend pantomimed shooting a gun which cracked me up. We also
>tried to 'buzz' through the many many slow walking scenes with our
>imaginary VCR remotes. :)
Sorry you didn't like the film.
BTW, hope the three of you do everyone one little favor: don't breed.
--Kevin
***
"They'll never catch me ... because I'm fucking innocent."
J. Alexander Panic
> I think, like you, that LOTR got off to a great start in the Shire, but went
> quickly downhill after that. Just one long roaming sequence after another.
> Got old very quickly.
I can't believe how many people are saying that. You can add me to
the list of people that were captivated at the start, and loved the
Shire scenes, but quickly grew bored as the second hour began, and was
close to hating the film by the end.
I read the book after seeing the movie and was surprised to see that
it wasn't much better (although it IS better).
Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"With natural aloe!"
J. Alexander Panic
> First and foremost, The Lord of the Rings is not a "trilogy," as the
> author went to great pains to clarify while he was alive, it was simply
> published that was.
And now all the author's fans are going to great pains to clarify it.
If it was a third of a movie, why was I charged full price? If it's
only 1/3rd, Jackson should have just put out the whole damn thing,
added a few intermissions, and be done with it. It's not like anyone,
other than those that have already read the books, and know how it all
ends, give a damn about the rest of the story, anyway.
Jeff Coleman
"Ian McDowell" <ian...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:iankmcd-0201...@pool-63.50.56.1.rlgh.grid.net...
Definitely--I think especially of the scene where the hobbits first see the
wraiths, with the camera down below the hobbits, below the path, tilting up
at the impossibly-tall-seeming creature on the frightening black horse. The
close-ups of the horses' hooves and mouths dripping with something foul
helped.
(I just watched BAD TASTE this afternoon, and was first exposed to Jackson
with DEAD/ALIVE--he definitely has a talent for making the most of fluids!
:-)
The way the wraiths increased in number just about every time we saw them
helped--and I loved the way they just knocked that town wall down on that
poor gatekeeper!
I noticed, intellectually, that it was only taking one strike with an arrow,
sword or axe to kill an Orc, but I guess there were so many of them, and
they were filmed in such a way, that the Orc-battle scenes really worked for
me. It definitely NEVER looks easy, and the mood of desperation was
tangible to me!
J. Alexander Panic
news:MPG.169b53971...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net:
> In article <3C311156...@erols.com>, smcd...@erols.com says...
>> I was far more curious about the other denizens of this world and how
>> they interacted.
>
> Maybe it's time to read the book then?
How about when you pay for a film you get to meet the characters and see
them interact? The film should be more than a companion piece to the book
it is based on.
Not that the book is much better.
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>I read the book after seeing the movie and was surprised to see that
>it wasn't much better (although it IS better).
Given that you were pretending to have knowledge of Pauline Kael's writings, my
guess is that you're fibbing about having read Tolkien as well.
Please prove me wrong by answering these questions three, which should be easy
for anyone who has just finished the book (J. Alex only):
1. Which two characters are called "Fatty"?
2. Which character is called, "Ass, fool, thrice worthy and beloved," and by
whom?
3. What nickname did a character give to some annoying insects?
Answer these correctly, and quickly, and the beer is on me.
Smaug69
You are such an ass.
Smaug69
Ian McDowell
"Jeff Coleman" <jcol...@NOSPAMhandofgod.com> wrote:
>Definitely--I think especially of the scene where the hobbits first see the
>wraiths, with the camera down below the hobbits, below the path, tilting up
>at the impossibly-tall-seeming creature on the frightening black horse. The
>close-ups of the horses' hooves and mouths dripping with something foul
>helped.
Yep. The Black Riders are even more frightening than the undead Knights
Templar in THE TOMBS OF THE BLIND DEAD, and for me that's very high praise
(the Blind Dead films are stupid in many, many ways, but they contain some
great nightmare imagery and the best monsters of the 70's).
>(I just watched BAD TASTE this afternoon, and was first exposed to Jackson
>with DEAD/ALIVE--he definitely has a talent for making the most of fluids!
>:-)
The interesting thing about DEAD/ALIVE is that, despite the cartoonish
gore, there's a real sweetness to it, of an almost silent movie type
quality, and a real sincerity. Lionel and Paquita may be flat characters,
but I actually cared far more about them than I do the protaganists of
most gore films (just as I cared more about the Fellowship than I do the
heroes of most English language fantasies).
>The way the wraiths increased in number just about every time we saw them
>helped--and I loved the way they just knocked that town wall down on that
>poor gatekeeper!
Yep, and when they escape the first Black Rider at the ferry, someone
mentions that the next crossing is twenty miles away. Suddenly, three or
four more Riders gallop past, silent in the fog, and twenty miles doesn't
seem that far.
Zeefor
news:1e65b9c4.02010...@posting.google.com...
> "DMARCUS1" <DMAR...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<WW8Y7.54559$%u.16...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>...
>
> > I think, like you, that LOTR got off to a great start in the Shire, but
went
> > quickly downhill after that. Just one long roaming sequence after
another.
> > Got old very quickly.
>
> I can't believe how many people are saying that. You can add me to
> the list of people that were captivated at the start, and loved the
> Shire scenes, but quickly grew bored as the second hour began, and was
> close to hating the film by the end.
*adds you to my list of people on usenet whose opinions are better than
everyone else's*
--
(|||rise|||)=(Z][E][E][F][O][R)=(|||fall|||)
"But were not out to make Christianity cool because how we believe that how
much cooler can you be get than coming on earth as human and dying...that's
pretty hard-core!!!" -Delirious
Geoff
McDowell) deposited this nugget in this here newsgroup
>>Piffle. McKellen seemed to be in his 40's when I saw him on the New York
>>stage as Salieri back in the 80's, and I've seen a couple of 60's films
>>where he looks to be just out of his teens. No way is he in his 80's.
McKellen turns 63 this May.
Regards,
Geoff "...a very young 63."
"Words, words. They're all we have to go on."
--Guildenstern, in Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead"
Jeff Coleman
"Ian McDowell" <ian...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:iankmcd-0201...@pool-63.50.56.174.rlgh.grid.net...
> In article <3kzY7.264292$3d2.12...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Jeff Coleman" <jcol...@NOSPAMhandofgod.com> wrote:
> >(I just watched BAD TASTE this afternoon, and was first exposed to
Jackson
> >with DEAD/ALIVE--he definitely has a talent for making the most of
fluids!
> >:-)
>
> The interesting thing about DEAD/ALIVE is that, despite the cartoonish
> gore, there's a real sweetness to it, of an almost silent movie type
> quality, and a real sincerity. Lionel and Paquita may be flat characters,
> but I actually cared far more about them than I do the protaganists of
> most gore films (just as I cared more about the Fellowship than I do the
> heroes of most English language fantasies).
That's always been one of my favorite aspects of DEAD/ALIVE--the sweetness
of the love story at its center. It would be a much different film, one I
don't think I'd care for as much, without the combination of sweet-sincere
love story and explosive gore. I haven't looked into it lately, but I'd
love to find a DVD that didn't have massive cuts in it, as I haven't seen
the movie in years.
If I recall correctly, there's a similar sweet love story in MEET THE
FEEBLES, although I don't think it's as pronounced there.
Watching BAD TASTE, I noticed during the opening sequence that, even with
the low-budget camera work and non-actors, he was able to create a nice
sense of danger by the shambling zombie-like "aliens" chasing the main
character at the beginning. He also did a good job with the objects in the
film--showing us the gun being dropped that the hero must go back for, the
walkie-talkie pieces that must be put together again to warn his friend, and
so on. Also nice was the way shots of seagulls preceded and surrounded the
Peter Jackson character Derek whenever we saw him--trying to put his brains
back in, or revving up his chainsaw.
I think good "object work" is important in movies. I tend to think of
Hitchcock and the Coen Brothers as also being especially good with
objects--the wine glasses, key and coffee cup in NOTORIOUS, the lighter, the
gun and the knife in BLOOD SIMPLE.
You can also see it in the treatment of the Ring in LOTR--very important for
a movie about such a small object.
Jeff Coleman
"Zeefor" <zee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iBFY7.41840$4x4.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> J. Alexander Panic <viti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > I can't believe how many people are saying that. You can add me to
> > the list of people that were captivated at the start, and loved the
> > Shire scenes, but quickly grew bored as the second hour began, and was
> > close to hating the film by the end.
>
> *adds you to my list of people on usenet whose opinions are better than
> everyone else's*
The list of people on Usenet who THINKS his opinions are better than
everyone else, definitely...
:)
Nystulc
>And now all the author's fans are going to great pains to clarify it.
>If it was a third of a movie, why was I charged full price?
Because it was three hours long, about twice as long and maybe four times as
expensive to make, as many other "complete movies" you get charged full price
for.
But actually, that is not the correct answer. The correct answer is that the
theater demanded "full price" to see the film, and you agreed to pay it. Had
the theater demanded more than the usual price, on the grounds of extra
length, and you had agreed to pay that, this would have been equally
legitimate.
Sometimes, theaters demand half price or less simply because it is Tuesday, and
then viewers agree to pay that. None of this has to be logical.
Perhaps you do not want to see 8-hour stories put on film, and that is your
gripe. But if such works of art are EVER worth making, then it certainly seems
unreasonable to demand that viewers pay the same price as for something that
lasts 85 minutes.
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
:And now all the author's fans are going to great pains to clarify it.
:If it was a third of a movie, why was I charged full price? If it's
:only 1/3rd, Jackson should have just put out the whole damn thing,
Well there's a stupid statement.
:added a few intermissions, and be done with it. It's not like anyone,
:other than those that have already read the books, and know how it all
:ends, give a damn about the rest of the story, anyway.
Quite a few people who haven't read the books seem to give a damn
actually.
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631
"Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment.
You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip
requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without
working at it." - The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran
Rupert Pupkin
Jennifer Eubanks wrote:
At Sean Beans death my sister whispered "Die Already" and her
> boyfriend pantomimed shooting a gun which cracked me up.
Thank god you weren't at my show. I wouldve loudly told all three of you to shut
the fuck up.
Rupert Pupkin
DMARCUS1 wrote:
>
> For me, the idea of a cliffhanger fell apart at the cliff, when Gandalf fell
> off. You can't knock off your main hero and expect the movie to carry the
> same weight.
Gandalf isn't the main hero. Frodo and, to a lesser extent, Samwise are the
main heroes.
Rupert Pupkin
DMARCUS1 wrote:
>
> I hate to make this comparison (I know I'll get some knocks for this), but
> IMHO, the Harry Potter flick was far more effective in denoting a real
> WORLD, and a sense of place and atmosphere. I have not read any of either
> Rowling's or Tolkien's books, but I found HP to be a far more involving
> film, and more magical, more amazing. Again, that is also a film "to be
> continued" and yet, we leave the theatre feeling very fascinated and wanting
> more.
>
> Can you really say that about FOTR??
Yes, of course.
Kevin FilmNutBoy
If anyone cares (and with a free beer at stake, you should), these questions
are now open to the floor. I think it's been adequately demonstrated by me &
others that J. Alex Panic hasn't read Tolkien or Kael, and is generally just a
run-of-the-mill liar.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Bob
Kevin FilmNutBoy wrote:
Kevin, you are far, far too generous, as to rate him as "run of the mill".
Bob
CintiBud
Off the top of my head and with no peeking at the book (which I
haven't read in months now)
filmn...@aol.comatose (Kevin FilmNutBoy) wrote in message
> >
> >1. Which two characters are called "Fatty"?
> >
Fatty Bolger(sp) Hobbit friend who covered as Frodo, almost getting
killed
Fatty Lumpkin, Tom Bombidil's pony
> >2. Which character is called, "Ass, fool, thrice worthy and beloved," and by
> >whom?
tough. I think Merry called Pippin that, but I don't remember the
circumstances
> >3. What nickname did a character give to some annoying insects?
> >
Sam called some noisy bugs something like neeker-breekers
> >Answer these correctly, and quickly, and the beer is on me.
Whoo-hoo!!
Bud
Kevin FilmNutBoy
Two outta three! (The answer to #2: Gandalf refers to Barliman Butterbur as
"ass, fool...")
Beer's on me. I take it you like Bud?
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>Kevin, you are far, far too generous, as to rate him as "run of the mill".
Come to think of it, I actually find J. Alex kind of endearing, like a slacker
Barney Fife. He says things that we know are lies, and he probably knows are
lies, but he doesn't know that we know. (If you follow me.) Kinda cute.
Bob
Kevin FilmNutBoy wrote:
Gee Kev, why get insulting at the guy, just because he missed one?
Bob
CintiBud
> Kevin FilmNutBoy wrote:
>
> > Two outta three! (The answer to #2: Gandalf refers to Barliman Butterbur as
> > "ass, fool...")
> >
> > Beer's on me. I take it you like Bud?
> >
> > --Kevin
> >
>
> Gee Kev, why get insulting at the guy, just because he missed one?
> Bob
LOL! Actually this Bud doesn't drink that much beer, so it needs to be
good. err that leaves Bud the beer out. That's OK, I'll just have some
Duff with my friend Homer. Can't get enough of that wonderful Duff!
Bud
Calabria
to have been 9 hours long and told the entire story of the Trilogy.
Although I love the first movie, I'm experiencing more trepidation
than ever over the next two, based on feedback like "it was boring,
there weren't enough love interests, it was too long, etc." If you
haven't read the books, you can't imagine the sacrifices they made to
get this movie to be three hours while retaining the richness and
depth of the story and characters.
I hope the movie gods or the producers or whomever they may be don't
taint and twist the next installments into some kind of American
blockbuster. Oh, and I'm American alright.
-- Rox
-------------------------------------
"What do the fish remind you of?"
"Other fish."
"And what do the other fish remind you of?"
"Other fish."
- Joseph Heller, Catch 22
R. Cohen
> I'll go on record as one of the people who would have liked this movie
> to have been 9 hours long and told the entire story of the Trilogy.
>
> Although I love the first movie, I'm experiencing more trepidation
> than ever over the next two, based on feedback like "it was boring,
> there weren't enough love interests, it was too long, etc." If you
> haven't read the books, you can't imagine the sacrifices they made to
> get this movie to be three hours while retaining the richness and
> depth of the story and characters.
>
I know. There's a real split between people who know what was left
out and people who feel the movie had too much "noise". I "think" it
will be ok, if only because Jackson does have about 6 hours to play
with here. This movie won't truely be appreciated until all three
episodes are complete. That "should" be quite impressive. While I'm
sure there will be significant differences I don't think he'll butcher
the next movies too badly. Even with the complaints about the length,
most reviews and buzz have been quite positive about the epic it is...
If this movie had serious problems, the "buzz" would have had the
movie attendance dropping like a rock after the serious fans had seen
it and that's not happening.
John F. Eldredge
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 01:19:06 GMT, "DMARCUS1" <DMAR...@austin.rr.com>
wrote:
>Let me ask you this: did you really leave the theatre dying to know
>what would happen to these characters? (Even if you've read the
>books). Having never read the books myself, I did not have that
>feeling of needing to know what would happen next.
>
>For me, the idea of a cliffhanger fell apart at the cliff, when
>Gandalf fell off. You can't knock off your main hero and expect the
>movie to carry the same weight.
>
>IMHO, Gandalf was the only character that held any compelling
>interest.
Let me give you a hint, then...
Gandalf will be back in part two (_The Two Towers_). He, Saruman,
and Sauron are all Maia, the equivalent of angels, which means that
they can survive having their mortal bodies killed. Gandalf is
reincarnated; Sauron would have been reincarnated after he was
killed, except that he had placed enough of his power in the One Ring
that he had to remain in a discarnate state.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 Int. for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgpinternational.com>
iQA/AwUBPEs51jMYPge5L34aEQI2aACgjDRrQXcIxqKnZ6B1cis99gsYz2cAmgJi
DVCniUPbu7LP7EBSxjV346vY
=9Dwp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
John F. Eldredge -- new address jo...@jfeldredge.com
eldr...@earthlink.net, eldr...@poboxes.com still work
PGP key available from http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371
"There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power;
not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace."
Woodrow Wilson