Lord of the Rings, your thoughts??
 

Return of the King is coming out soon and we ae being hyped on it - and we have the new Special Edition Version out of The Two Towers!! Here is something to think about:

So the movies to this point have covered the story. Is that story though what the readers of the books find sufficiant. Is the add in's with the extended DVD's enough??

I have two friends who argue about this all the time. One is a traditionalist and says the movie is raping the grandure of the Books. By putting it to print we are minimizing the world of middle earth, and turing it into a CNN broadcast of the War of the ring.

While my other friend - that being me - see the movies shortcuts as needed. As nice as it would have been to have Tom Bombadil and all the singing, it is okay, we get right down to it. The only thing I did not like was Froto being at Oglalith (tired, cannot spell). He did not need to be there.

Anyway, your idea's??

I don't think it would be possible to do a literal take on the books and thusly feel that what Peter Jackson did with the films was just. While I wasn't thrilled to see Faramir portrayed as such an ass and the whole Frodo in Osgilliath thing done, they did fit well into the film.

On the whole, Jackson should be lauded for his work. While he may not always be doing the books justice, he is certainly doing the themes and most of the situtations as well as he possibly can. Both are good, regardless.

Book vs Movie
 

Speaking in general terms a book is almost always better than it's movie counterpart. I feel that this is also the case with the LOTR trilogy.

However - in this particular case I personally love the movies, and I don't think anyone could have done the job better than Peter Jackson. From what i hear the Return of the king had it's world premier in Wellington, New Zealand yesterday. Critics that were present are already claiming that this movie will be the greatest of all three. I can't wait to see it and I don't really care if all the details from the book arn't in the movie. It'll still be one of the greatest movie trilogies of all time (in my opinion)

I've never seen a movie follow the book it was based on perfectly.

Lord of the Rings would probably suck hardcore if they followed the book to the letter. There's some cool stuff that got left out unfortunately, but the movies also make it a little more interesting for people who can't sit through all the detail that Tolkein goes into.

And hey, maybe some people will see the movies and want to read the books to get more out of it.

Personally I'd like to see other good fantasy series turned into movies. Sword of Truth series? Salvatore's Drizzt books? All 500 Wheel of Time books? Those would make some cool movies.

Of course, cutting out Chrisoper Lee's scenes didn't make me a happy person...

How the hell are they going to cover that?!

People need to realise that novels and films are two *COMPLETELY* different mediums.
A direct "word for word" translation from book to film would ahev made an awful unwatchable movie. An interpreatation is needed.
While Jackson was not faithful to the nitty gritty details, he did something FAR MORE important. He was failful to the *tone* of the books.
That is a far more impressive feat than just acting out a novel.

Even though i can find loads of ommisions, and other things i consider mistakes in the movies, i must say i am deeply impressed by what Jackson has accomplished.

27 years ago, when i read the books for the first time, i thought that it would be impossible to make a movie adaption. Even after Star Wars in '77 i had my doubts..when i heard that a trilogy was going to be made, i was still believing that it was impossible...maybe a watered down Hallmark'ish thing would be made and be the laughing stock of all...

When "Lord of the Rings" hit theaters i was blown away.... :)

Laladien - it's not that it isn't possible to do a straight translation from book to movie, it's just: 1. Jackson doesn't have the skills to do so. 2. there isn't technology, nor actors good enough to do so. 3. 98% of the public (the other 2% being hardcore "nerds") won't sit down and watch a 30+ hour trilogy in a theater, much less at home.

I think the LOTR trilogy was portrayed on the big screen about as good as it can get without being centered towards one audience. The movies aren't perfect, but they are much, much better than the world could have expected. I'm happy with them, even though I'll admit they're not perfect.

-Lasereth

have you seen the original that came out in the 80s. These movies are a step above that movie. If you haven't seen the 80s version see it, it will give you a greater appreciation of the newer version trust me.

As I said in the one of the many other Return of the King threads...


and CSFilm is right, books and movies are two completely different mediums and have to be treated as such.

While I do admit that some of the "edited" stuff would do better left in. I applaud Jackson for taking a very difficult series of books and making a fantastic set of movies.

If he were to follow the books exactly we'd end up with a 87 hour movie. And maybe I'm speaking for myself here, but I have neither the inclination nor "ass stamina" to sit in one spot and watch an 87 hour movie. I'm thankful that Jackson remained relatively true to the series and managed to cut them around 3 hours.

I hear a lot about "being true to the series," but would you really enjoy the film more if we had 15 minutes of Bambadil and crew frolicking in the forest dancing and singing?

The LotR movies have so far been immensely better than I would have expected. The Balrog is probably going to be permanently imprinted on my brain forever. Jackson and Co. did an astonishing job of visualizing the books and making the characters moving and complex. Elrond's speech to Arwen about immortality was magnificent.

If almost four hours of the Two Towers extended version isn't enough for a person, they will never be satisfied, IMO, and should get back to power leveling their rogue elf on EverQuest. He calls himself a "traditionalist," but perhaps he simply has too much psychological attachment to Lord of the Rings.

"Ass stamina" is an excellent phrase, by the way :thumbsup:

I just got back from a screening of Return of the King. All I can say is "wow!"

I haven't read the books so I can't draw a comparison but I was quite satisified. There are some nit-picks here and there but overall excellent.

After the film, an interview with Peter Jackson indicated the possibility of The Hobbit being made into a feature in the foreseeable future.

I personally loved reading the books. And the movies, well... I think they are AWESOME! Im just really stoked right now because i just got my fandang ol' midnight showing tickets!!!

Like others have stated, attempting to transfer the books to the screen more or less word for word would be terrible, both for quality and economics. I think they've been quite sufficient with the movie adaptation.

I agree completely. Yet I wonder how many hours of "Friends" I watched when I was married. (2 years worth). Could something like the LOTR be turned into a TV series so nothing would be left out? Would anyone watch an hour a week for a few years?

I rewatched my DVDs of the first (extended) and second (regular) volumes this past holiday weekend. I don't think I'd have "ass stamina" sit through 6 hours in a theatre, much less 87. God bless the pause button.

i've actually seen a trailer that was made for it, saying it was coming out in 2005 or 2006. i think i still have it on my computer, or burned to a disc somewhere. might be just a something some fan boy cooked up really well, or it could be something that was made while filming the LotR a a tease.

making lord of the rings the trilogy was a gamble. if the producers knew how popular they would be and how much money they would make, maybe they would have wanted to make 6 movies and keep everything from the books. i for one would have watched them happily. I lost my mind over the book(s) as an adolescent and still love them today. I've enjoyed the movies and appreciate the job jackson et al have done, but i'm a nitpicker, there are a lot of subtle changes that end up changing characters and focuses. some might say i'm crazy, but the pace is a little rushed for me.

I've never seen the trailer you're referring to. Jackson made some detailed comments about where things stood with The Hobbit and it's still caught up in the legal departments. Nothing in production.

Very well said CSflim. I absolutely loved the books, but I would have been bored to tears if they remade it word for word, scene for scene, chapter for chapter. Even the fanatical Middle Earth fans would have been. Peter Jackson has done a remarkeable job keeping the overall story and feel of the book, but making it entertaining for the audience.

Personally, I'm extremely impressed with Peter Jackson for even taking this task on. It was a lose-lose situation, but because of his vision - and New Line's willingness to do it his way - he actually turned it around! To anyone sane, it was a certainty that LotR movies would only piss off the hardcore fan, and wouldn't draw the ever important (and paying) mainstream film fan. Think David Lynch's Dune...

I appreciate the movie for what it is,
and I also appreciate the book for what it is.

However, even though I'm a very avid reader, I've found the books a VERY hard read.
Much of it is in old English, and the details can sometimes be overwhelming, awkward & cumbersome.

I like the movies better because they pace it better,
and the scenes are excellent...it's nice to see they finally did a fantasy right.
They've cut out all the gibberish, and gotten to the meat of the plot,
and enhanced it with the visuals.

The only thing I'm disappointed so far with is the change of plot with Faramir.
But otherwise I've enjoyed the movies much more than the books.

The Extended Edition of TTT has a lot of interview with Phillipa, one of the 3 writers of the films. She's pretty forthright in explaining why they made the plot changing decisions, and for the most part, her explanations are pretty satisfying. I don't envy her task of trying to distill these great books into a watchable set of movies.

Guess I'll be the odd man out.

I loved the book, I thought it was well written and got me more hooked on fantasy literature and RPGs.

However, the overwhelming media attention of these new movies coupled with the annoying lead actors really have me put off (I HATE how Frodo looks). I absolutely cannot wait for the hoopla to be over, so I don't have to see the same damn faces and trailers everywhere I go.

Tisk, tisk, tisk.

I'm definitely never ever seeing the 3rd movie. I tried to be patient as possible for the first two and nothing but boredom and anguish resulted from it.

a shame since the last one is the best of the three

On the contrary, I feel that Peter Jackson visualised the characters the exact way I imagined them. The plot changes are acceptable, when you think about it, 6 movies is the only way to complete the story.

The whole trilogy is visually magnificient but still vastly overrated. They take themselves far too seriously and are not interesting enough to justify 3+ hours each.

question about lord of the rings
 

I keep reading that "another actor" was hired to play Aragorn, but was let go after the first day, he wasn't working out or wasn't old enough. Viggo Mortensen was then contacted for the part. Does anyone have any idea who this other actor was? Just curious...

Stuart Townsend
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105651,00.html

Im so glad they didnt use him. Mortensen is much better suited to the role.

Damn, it would have been nice to see Townsend in another movie, but I definatley think that Mortensen plays the part very well. He just looks too young for the part, and Aragorn was anything but that. Can't wait for the 3rd movie to come out...only 2 more days!!

thanks for the tip and the link, Munk. I'm not too familiar with Townsend, but judging by pictures of the actor, Jackson made a good decision. Mortensen has been great, and this guy looks much too young.

too bad he cast wood, who is also way too young for his role

Ah Stuat Townsend looks kinda too evil to me...I've seen LOGE, I wouldn't trust my potato gun with that punk after seeing that movie...

Stuart Townsend would have made an excellent Faramir, and a pretty good Legolas (damn glad they got Orlando Bloom though. He's downright pretty - just right for an elf.)

He reminds me of JDepp, which is a compliment, but as for the role of aragorn? maybe

Lord of the rings: Return of the king COMES OUT TONIGHT!!
 

hey guys, WOW, the last installment, im so sad!!! Anyways, post your thoughts, and wishes for the 3rd movie, and by tonight/tomorow, we can bitch and jump for joy here!

all i can say is, wow, i CANT wait..

ive waited for this day for so long!

i havent read the books, nor seen the animated films, nor know anything that goes on in ROTK. So this shall be all fresh to me!

im going to see it at 12 midnight, this shall be a night to remember :)