What's your take on the 2 movies so far? How would you rate them:

1. Just as movies
2. As adaptation of the books

As a total fanatic I'm very happy with the movies so far, even with the "adjustments" to the main plot, and this is from someone who's nearly memorized all 5 books :-)

I think you have to like the books first. I haven't seen the second one, but I got so bored in the first I ejected the tape during the first hour.

Technically, I don't see how you cannot be anything but impressed by the cinematography.

Merry Christmas,

I tried to read the LOTR books, but stopped after about 250 pages. I have to admit I am not a fan of the triology or the genre. Therefore, I cannot comment on how it follows the books.

That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the first movie and found it interesting, and in fact - saw the movie twice.

However, I was not pleased with the TWO TOWERS. Yes, it is big, and it is an epic. There is more action than the first one. But, perhaps not reading the books, I found it extremely hard to follow. I'm not a huge fan of computer-generated effects and the TT has quite a bit (though I have no idea how PJ would achieve what he needed without CG FX). I got bored with the final battle scene (I thought it was very long and repetitive), but again, I think that is more of not knowing the books or being a fan, than any technical aspects/flaws of the movie.

From an entertainment standpoint, I was disappointed, but I'm not a fan. From a movie standpoint, both movies seem to be extremely well-made. I thought Gollum (evil-Dobby?) was done very well, but I got tired of seeing him. I did not like the tree walkers, but other effects were very nicely done. I loved the big sweeping views of the landscapes. New Zealand looks to be a very beautiful country.

I thought Ian M was extremely entertaining and wished he could have been shown more. I enjoyed the back-and-forth dialogue between the dwarf 'warrior', Legalos and Arragones (sp?, sorry I don't know the names that well).

Keep in mind, this is only an opinion, from a non-fan - and probably from the person with the least amount of experience on this board! Reading the reviews (and other boards), I think I'm the only person (or one of the few people) who doesn't like the film.

Of course, I should make such a successful film in my lifetime! It's up to what . . . $160M now? It will be interesting to see what PJ's next project is - after the third LOTR film.

The tree walkers (Ents) were better than I expected. This secton of the trilogy is like the book, a little hard to take but a necessary part of the Story. A lot is left hanging, but the actual CG in this movie was better than the first. I guesss they had time to do additonal cleanup.

I like the fact that they didn't take themselves so serious that they were able to throw in a Dwarf tossing joke.

Without reading, knowing the books, this movie will confuse many. The two hobbits with the ents were not given as much time in the movie as they had in the book. Nothing was mentioned about the effects the Ent elixor had on them.

Still, I can hardly wait for the final one. I wish they would put it out this summer instead of next winter.

Then when all is out on DVD, I can watch the entire 9 hour tirlogy in a single sitting, so to speak.

First thing: I haven't read any of the books and I didn't actually
know anything about LoTR. When I saw the fellowship of the ring
in theater I thought it was a tad too long (but I might have been
a bit tired). I do have the movie on DVD (extended edition, adds
another 30 minutes) and it is much more enjoyable there. Even
if you don't like the movie(s) I think we can all say they did an
amazing job in the way they brought it all to the screen (visually).

I really like it thus far. The Two Towers was a lot broader and
I could follow every bit of it (I watched The Fellowship of The Ring
the night before on DVD though). Some things were a tad long
again indeed.

What really amazes me is the DVD set though. What a marvelous
piece of work. I have the 4 disc extended version and there is
very very much to learn about movie making from those discs. And
I haven't even listened to all the commentary tracks yet. Can't
wait for the 4 disc extended DVD of TTT.

Now as for watching the three movies in one go when they are
all out on DVD, consider watching the following movies/series
in one go:
- The Matrix trilogy (when done)
- Godfather trilogy
- Star Wars (when done)
- 24 (in realtime)
- Taken

Interesting stuff to see in one sit. Some things might be quite
challenging to watch in one go too!

I'm glad someone else has pointed out the obvious Dobby-Gollum relationship. I found the movies okay. . .not nearly as good as the hype would have you believe. Found the eyes on some of the CG characters a tad more cartoonish than fit the tone of the movie (the Ents and Gollum). Have not read the books. Tried to work my way through Fellowship, and found Tolkien's writing style drier than dried crap. Very pretty though, the movie. Next PJ project? Definitely "Bad Taste II: Worse Taste."

Well, being an avid Tolkien fan i must say im thrilled watching these films. Ever since i was a wee lad of 10 when i first read LOTR, i've longed to see a movie made of them. After the first attempt (the semi-cartoon version) failed (they ran out of money i think), things just didn't look to good for this to happen. And now, 20 years later, i get to sit down and watch the places and people i've read about so many times.

Now i thought i'd load off some feedback :)

Tolkiens writing & the movies "accuracy"
Tolkien was not the worlds greatest writer. The LOTR is not an easy book (it was 1 from the beginning) to go through, and he has a tendancy to drift off in his story, making it hard to follow. This is very evident in his later work (and mostly the work based on his drafts & notes) such as Silmarillion & Book of the lost tales.

In the movie adaptation they opted to shift around some of the story elements to make them fit better, and remove others which did not really fit into the story scope (Tom Bombadill for example). This made a good story even better i think. The movies have more logical "endings" and such than the books, allthough some people have commented that since its a trilogy, they wont have an ending until the 3.rd film.

Whenever you try to adapt a book, especially a Sci-Fi or fantasy book, you are litterarely battling the minds of every reader who picked up that book. We all form our own images in our minds when we read these books, and no matter how well described the scenery and events are, their interpretation will differ. Me, personally, were very happy with how they have shown things in LOTR. If i have any objection it would be with the Ents, as i had a more humanoid image in my own mind. Though I do think they work in the context of the film. Furthermore, i really liked the way they depicted Gollum. And coming from the 3D VFX arena myself, i was really impressed with the work they had done.

The cinematography
What can i say. I wonder if this may not be the most beautiful picture i've seen so far. I can pop in the DVD and just sit and admire the lighting, the colourshiftings, the settings. If anything, i just wished he had refrained from doing all those "impossible" camera moves when doing 3D/Minature scenes, but thats just my personal preference.

The acting
Isn't this Sean Beans best performance ever? And Frodo works soo well with Elijah's semi-panic state when he has to make decisions for the fellowship. Im no actor/acting expert and as a leyman(spelling?) i definately enjoyed their performance.

The conclusion
I get the feel, that these movies are made by people who had one goal before any others; To give life to Prof. Tolkiens world. Not to make a bucket of money, or they would most likely have made it more "mainstream". These movies demand quite a lot out of its viewers just like the books. But those who preserve and dives into the story get a whole new world of characters and astounding cultures.

Regards,
Henrik

I've seen both movies, but the only Tolkien book I've read straight through is The Hobbit.

I think in the future we'll marvel at audiences' patience for these films. The two films released thus far are already a mess of contradictions: at once slow and action-reliant; too tame yet too violent; overlong but corner-cutting; goal-driven though inconclusive; fantasy-prone but adult in theme and execution; thought sparse, still way too wordy; environmentally inclined yet war-mongering; simultaneously visually fulfilling and rife with hokey fakery; at once preachy and demoralizing.

The Two Towers follows three sets of characters that never once meet each other, entertains a romance between two characters that don't come into contact with each other while shunning a romance between two characters that are in contact with each other, and fails to explain the significance of its title.

And yet these films manage to escape the criticisms of racial stereotyping that plagued early and recent entries in the STAR WARS franchise, for example, the Lord of the Rings films feature characters of only caucasian ethnicity and Gollum is a slave who alternately dotes adoringly on his "master" and deliberates insurrection. Jar Jar Binks should have been so lucky.

I would say that the contradictions are what have made millions of readers of the original books so enchanted for so many years. It's much deeper than your average fantasy type story, with much more involved characters. Life is full of little contradictions, and I think that is what attracts so many to this story.

Also, it's important to note, that The Hobbit is a completely different animal. In comparing them, you will find the Hobbit to be more of a children's book, with much lighter themes. The Lord of the Rings is almost a different story altogether.

And sure, the three stories by themselves don't mean much. The first is a beginning with no ending, the second has neither a beginning nor an ending, and the third has no beginning, but an ending. But in the end, it's all ONE story, with a beginning, a middle, and an ending. Just very detailed and intricate, and for the sake of marketability and 'ingestability', divided into 3 parts.

As far as the film escaping the criticisms of racism and such... It would be important to note that Tolkein vehemently disagreed with interpretations of his stories as relating to politics and warfare of his time, and his history. It would behoove anyone who wishes for a greater understanding to watch some of the documentaries in the extended DVD of The Fellowship. It explains most criticisms away, through detailed literary discussion.

Very good deal, that DVD.

I'm sorry, missed the racist implications in LOTR, someone explain? Definitely saw it in star wars though.

Well, i gues its the same old debate that if a story shows a lot of caucasian people all around, and no other ethnical groups it is considered racist. Then add the fact that the orc's are of a dark complexion you can interpret that as coloured ethnical groups are evil and such. That is how some people would interpret it.

The funny thing is that you can basically interpret it as you please. Another interpretation is that all different races, humans, dwarves, elves, hobbits need to work together in the face of evil. And you can also add that orc's are not evil in nature, but rather have been created /shaped (references in the movie and books) by evil lords (Sauron & Saruman). LOTR also contains a lot of morals that you should protect the weak, and not judge others. Friendship is the most important part and without it all is lost.

You can do this treatment with just about any book. And interpretation of religious books have even started wars (and still do btw).

I personally feel that these interpretations are about as interesting as trying to decide what is art and what is not.

Ps. and Robert. Tolkiens work has been accused of both satanistic propaganda and racism since they were released. I guess the accuser have yet to see the movies =)
Ds.

I missed Tom Bombadil. I know he doesn't add too much to the story and understand removing him but I liked him in the books. He had that below the surface "kick arseness" which I liked.

It's great he removed all that poetry. I hated it and when I read the books I ended up skipping all that stuff after reading the first few.

I thought some of the CGI was badly done in TTT. The scene where they ride out of the keep and orcs fly everywhere. They sort of rode "through" some orcs.. Gollum on the other hand was done as good as I've seen, although still not perfect.

I don't like Elijah wood, or at least something about Frodo. Whenever he looks serious and said and says something to Sam It just doesn't look like he's truly there. It looks fake.

I think it was paced well. Neither of the 2 movies bored me at all.

I didn't like the ents. When I read the books, I was imagining something much bigger and thicker. They didn't seem to be too huge when the hobbits were sitting on TreeBeard's shoulders..OH, was it me or did the size of them change when they got to Isengard? They looked a lot bigger there.

As far as movies of that type go, it's great and I think a pretty damned good adaptation of a legendary work.

If any of you haven't seen Peter's other works, like Bad Taste and Brain dead (Think it was called Dead Alive in the US), then go see them. They are great movies. If you can rent the DVD of Bad Taste and see the mini docco on making it, it's well worth it. Inspiring stuff.

And don't forget Meet the Feebles, aka Muppets on Crack.

I personally think both movies have been absolutely fantastic, and are certainly some of the best films to come out in this generation. As a long time Peter Jackson fan, i was very excited to see what he'd do with this trilogy, and i think he's hitting the nail right on the head. I don't think he meant for any racist implications, although it may have slipped out subconsciously (we are all subconsciously racist, are we not?).

The problem with CG is that it always doesn't look real, period. Jackson is using it in the right way... i feel like he's not letting the SFX control him like most big budget hollywood movies might do. The CG in both films is some of the best i've seen in any movie, but it's still CG. I seriously wonder if CG will ever be able to look "real."

Can someone explain to me how they have those shots of the Hobbits standing next to, say, Gandolf? I mean the actors aren't that short in reality... I guess it's probably some blue screening/compositing technique, but i'd like to know how they do it in more detail. Any one?

Well, if you haven't yet, get the 4 dvd spec. edition of Fellowship of the ring and you will learn everything about the techniques used. But a short rundown is:

1) pushed perspective.
Put the actors at different distance from the camera. If you put the props and camera angles right, it will look like the actor further away is smaller.

2) Blue screen
Simple digital scaling.

3) Scale doubles
Short people & even one kid (12) was dressed up similar to the actors and used in the scene. Mostly filmed from behind / side or wide shots, but one or two face replacements were made too (Moria sequence where frodo is dragged away from Gandalf's fight with the Balrog)

4) Giant suits.
Where it wasn't good to use scale doubles but they had to have the hobbit walk next to a human, they built giant suits to mimick the human.

The extra material on the 4 DVD edition of Fellowship of the ring explains in a lot more detail how this effect was made.

/Henrik

I wish I was still in film school. I'd love to research and write a master's-level thesis about the process of adapting a large literary fictional narrative into a large visual-media fictional narrative. The LOTR trilogy represents an excellent example of the shortcuts and trade-offs that must be made due to the forced economy of film. Despite a total run-time of most likely 12 hours when it's all said and done, the film version of the complete LOTR will have made some significant sacrifices to the book version. I think it would be a fascinating area of film study and hope to see what some sharp graduate student will write someday about this subject.

Well, you still could Chris. You might even be able to sell it if it
is any good... But time might be more pressing than anything
else I'm afraid!

>>And yet these films manage to escape the criticisms of racial stereotyping that plagued early and recent entries in the STAR WARS franchise, for example, the Lord of the Rings films feature characters of only caucasian ethnicity and Gollum is a slave who alternately dotes adoringly on his "master" and deliberates insurrection. Jar Jar Binks should have been so lucky.<<

Tolkeins work is based primarily on Northern European Mythology, with elements from Egyptian and ancient MiddleEastern mythos thrown in for good measure. He was a product of his times, and like most others wrote in in EthnoCentric style. That doesn't make him racist, nor the movie racist. It is doubtful he ever had any meaningful contact with nonwhites, and was as ignorant as others at the time. Changing the movie to make it more PC would have been the true crime.

Thin skinned knee jerk reactionaries sometimes read to much into things. They see racism in every word, in every scene. They are usually wrong.

There was even some psycho marxist lenonist who was claiming the fantastic french film 'Amalie' was an attack on non whites. Really digusting how people will twist things to their own ends.

I can't help but get amused at the various criticisms of the movies in particular and Tolkien in general. Tolkien and the LOTRs have been so over analysed, interpretted and spun over the last 50 years that it all gets really silly. The Orcs are metaphors for the Nazis, no they are the Communists. The Hobbits represent the good common folk of England. Now the film, especially the TT suggests that the Orcs are the products of the machine age against the pure pastoral elements of the Hobbits and Elves. Ignore the dwarves who are also machine age but siding with the good guys all the same. The charge of racism is equally silly. In the case of Lucas and old Jar Jar, it may have some merit but not in jackson's Middle Earth where the heros are halflings, elves, and dwarves, unless one gets really hung up on skin pigment.

Ultimately LOTRs is grounded in Finnish folk tales which had their own magic rings and quests. By modern standards the book and movies are all totalitarian. Good kings and bad kings are still all despots, elightened despots or not.

Overall I think Peter Jackson has done one hell of a job bringing the books to life. The weaknesses of the first and second movies are largely the weaknesses of the books.

I saw a video clip of one of the CG managers addressing a Linux convention. Apparently they used a lot of Linux workstations for gang rendering. The stuff they did was fascinating. In the battle scenes they used a program they developed called Massive which used object oriented programing and artificial intelligence to get whole armies of CG elves, orcs and Gondorians to fight on their own. Apparently they had something 100,000 CG critters fighting each other in the TT and will have more in the Return of the King. The also relied heavily on CG "doubles" of the major characters in scenes where the action would have been too dangerous for a human actor or where the camera angles would have been impossible without a 300' crane shot.

Now having seen the first two movies I am enjoying the trilogy much more than I did the first time I read it, some thirty odd years ago. Great fun. but best not thought about too hard.

Rick

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46263-2002Dec27.html

For the stupidest, most ridiculously politically correct analysis of the LOTR you have to check out Chris Mooney's article in the Washington Post.

First he charges the Riders of Rohan with war crimes, draws all sorts of parallels between the LOTR and Al Queda, Sadaam and US foreigh policy and finally ends up with the statement - "And even orcs are living creatures -- just not ones possessing rights under the Geneva Conventions."

Amazing.


Rick

Well Rick, it's all a bit tongue-in-cheek. But you know, for me, at least, his points aren't without resonance. With rhetoric like "axis of evil" somehow back in the mainstream, it's important to recognize and be sensitive to enemies' humanity, even in times of war.

My problem is Mooney's "orc's are people too" is too much. I want to say "Chris, it was a movie!"

He suggests "But if we're going to use "The Lord of the Rings" as a heuristic device to debate the gravest matters of international politics...."

If we are to use the LOTR as a heuristic device to debate the gravest matters of international politics, we have bigger problems than imaginary orcs. Maybe we should use Harry Potter as a heursitic device to establish domestic policy and Sponge Bob Square Pants ... oh never mind.

Rick

No you've got it all wrong. Harry Potter is the Bible, the Sirius character is Jesus. . .at least that's what they're teaching in some classes (seriously!).

What? So some evangelicals are burning the books and others are reintepreting them as Biblical.

I don't even want to know how Sponge Bob is being reintepretted.

Rick

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/01/jaromir.html

Another look at LOTR.

Rick

I think I read it in Newsweek or something. They have cliffnotes for it now.

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : I think I read it in Newsweek or something. They have cliffnotes for it now. -->>>

That is very sad. How can a Cliffnotes version even begin to do this tome any justice.

Here are more theories on Tolkien's books.
* warning, these might be a little deep into Tolkien lore :-)

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/theories.htm

My favorites:
Ten rejected Lord of the Ring plot twists
http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/10twists.htm

The Great Balrog Slippers Debate (for those who saw the animated version)
http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/10twists.htm

The Truth about Windows 95
http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/win95.htm

And the 2nd half of Pulp Tolkien (scroll down a bit)
http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/pulptolk.htm

Harry Potter is a tome?

Hello all! It's been too long since I last habitated here :)

As far as the movies go, I have only seen the first, but I thought it was beautifully shot. The story wasn't too bad, but like most Book to Movie crossovers, it paled horribly. Of course, someone already pointed out the best sacrifice- the poetry. I can't stand reading poetry and songs in a book, unless it is a book dedicated to prose.

Tom Bombadil was not overly important, but the rescue of the Hobbits from the tomb was a pivotal point. I would have liked to see that sequence of events over some of the other material that was added in.

As far as the special effects and cgi, I liked most of it. There were many scenes with the hobbits next to the tall folks that looked cheesy. It reminded me of the original Star Trek fight scenes with the stunt doubles. Nice thought, but awful when done.

I did thoroghly enjoy the books, and still look forward to seeing the other two movies- just not in the theater. I'll wait for the DVD. It's a trade off between great sound and big screen vs. being able to pee and get munchies without missing an integeral bit of the film. But, I have a nice home theater sound system, and will eventually get a screen that is more worthy.

One last scrawl... I would have rather seen them do the Hobbit this kind of justice first, and then do the LOTR. But, maybe thats just me... again :)
Keith

I haven't seen the TT but the first one was decent from a movie standpoint. I did feel like it was a little childish (but not as bad as "Episode 1") at times but it was still a good flick. (let me tell you if the devil is chasing me I am not gonna stop and just look at some dumb ass straggler, I'm gonna RUN!)

As far as special effects, you should look at this months CineFX magazine. It has a great article about TT, and for the Texans, Spy Kids 2 as well as some Triple X FX. It's a great mag and one can learn a great deal from it.