LOTR film - responses (SPOILERS)

My own response: I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, congratulations for making the story exceedingly pleasant to watch, and for distilling such a long book down to three hours whilst retaining a semblance of the original plot. On the other hand, plot is all there is now - there are no explanations for anything and what would usually take a good ten minutes of token character development in most films is distilled down to one-liners, and yet it's still too long (an audible sigh went through the cinema when the credits finally rolled).

It's not a matter of them failing to live up to the book, but rather that the book itself makes it difficult for the film to be of the standard worthy of it. At some point getting the right director, right script, right actors etc. only gets you so far, because trying to make a film out of such a long and laborious tale is foolhardy from the get-go.

I'm confident that the two follow-ups will be better because if I recall less actually *happens* in them (or at least, more stuff can be slashed without compromising the integrity of the piece), so maybe they can put in more character development there. As it stands only Gandalf (and Saruman! - they're really setting him up as Darth Vader, aren't they?) got more than about twenty lines in the whole thing, so I can't see how anyone who hadn't read the books could feel that strongly about them.

The only insignificant fan-gripes I had were when they would make small changes to the plot for no discernible reason - like making Gimli and Aragorn pro-Moria and Gandalf anti-Moria. Cutting out the old forest, Tom Bombadil and the barrow-downs was a necessary move, but these little changes are distracting to a fan because it's hard to work out the reasoning for them - they're just puzzling.

Other thought: the film really does bring out the whole male-bonding-through-violence aspect quite strongly, doesn't it? If I wanted to write a review skewering the film that's probably what I'd focus on.

i loved it, seeing it this morning, even tho i accept it heightens a lot of the things that are wrong with the book (i sort of want to pull a what's wrong with it is also what's right with it, but while i think that's ABSOLUTELY TRUE in the case of nevah mind the bollox, i'm not prepared to elevate LoTR up that high noway)

i wanted it longer and more dwelling on tales told within tales told (i realise this was unlikely to happen): i was a teeny bit irked by the scene-setting at the start

spoilers: eep. it kinda nevah occurred to me that SOME PPL DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. Even if the two ppl i was with were all, "Blimey I really hoped the dwarf got it, not Sean Bean".

what did YOU think of the fiery vagina tim!?

(fv as discussed here)

What did YOU think I thought, Mark?

Actually, it's not nearly as scary as the one you can make with your hands. More lifelike = more scary.

Perhaps I didn't note strongly enough that I really enjoyed the film and thought it was as good as it could be. With these sorts of EVENT films it's hard to do anything *but* note their shortfallings.

Also: My reference to Spoilers is more to do with the film's changes to the plot - like Saruman's sudden elevation to Dark Lord's Evil Henchman Number The First. Actually a lot of the Saruman stuff I thought was a bit unnecessary. Do we really *need* to know about his genetically created Orc-Stud? Granted it was hella cool looking, but in a film so starved for time, it seemed a strange emphasis (unless Jackson et. al. were worried about needing a human face for the evil).

i am sort of working up a Big Theory which will encompass goth before tolkein and goth after, faery and buffy and metal and xena and gor and D&D and Tombraider: also robin of sherwood and arthur rackham no doubt, and the link between Art Nouveau, radical 1890a sexuality and goofy elven shit

(anthony will hate it)

there was a good-ish made-for-Brit-TV King Arthur twofer on last xmas: actually the acting and plot were lamentable, which is poss.why it was buried on two afternoons and only i saw it, but the CHI and design was fantastic, and the elven-witch stuff genuinely beautiful-frightening

the film slipped pretty adeptly between tweeness, prettiness and harder stuff, i tht (what else did pj make apt from heavely creatures?)

i was kind of assuming the orc-stuff and the saruman stuff are set-ups for pt two: book two is all orcs and saruman (+ horses and denethor)

the inimitable mark s asks: What else did pj make?

Bad Taste (ie lo-budget gore fest)
Meet The Feebles (ie lo-budget Muppet gore fest)
The Frighteners (hi-budget Michael J Fox ghost story

Time & being at work precludes me from elaborating further, I'm afraid. Still - check 'em all out if you can!

You owe it to yourself to see Meet the Feebles at least (some don't like Bad Taste).

Meet the Feebles just might be in my top ten list, though you might think it very odd of me.

and of course the brillant and inestimable heavenly creatures.

i might watch this this weekend .

I screwed up and put the feebles link on jess' eating disorder thread, I am a drunken eedjit.

the frighteners was the funniest-in-a- good-way horror film since the bride of frankenstein.

My own response: I'm ambivalent.

You are in a different universe from me, Tim. Not even the basic laws of physics apply.

Just got back.

*shakes head in astonishment*

I cannot, I *CANNOT* find the words. I have been trying, I have been trying for almost half an hour now.

Look, relatively sane perspective, fine: I know the books, duh. I know the story cold, down to the last line, duh. Going in, I thought I couldn't be surprised by anything other than necessary contractions for time's sake, the various extrapolations on the elements of the story glided over in the original but not fully explored, and the cinematic shorthand necessary to establish points with brevity. Turns out there were more, but nothing to me disturbed the interpretation of the text as set up. Yes, this is not quite _LOTR_ as it stands.

But...

I CAN'T FIND THE WORDS. I CAN'T FIND THE FUCKING WORDS.

Okay, take this however the hell you want, but I'm standing by this right now and we'll see where I think on it in future, but here's all I can say and all I will say:

For me, for myself alone, the experience of seeing this film is the equivalent to when I heard "Soon" by My Bloody Valentine for the first time.

That is all.

Meanwhile, to backtrack, Meet the Feebles can't be praised enough. And Nicole even quoted my favorite song!

I'm actually thinking that I'll enjoy it a lot more upon second viewing, when I know better what to expect and am prepared for the film's eccentricities - it didn't help that I saw it at a morning session with a lot of professional film critics - there was that whole 'critic' vibe in the air, and I was sort of wincing on behalf of the film at points that I knew they would dislike.

I doubt that it could be a lifechanging event for me though, Ned.

Re. PJ former work: don't forget: Braindead. Essential stuff. [Of course Heavenly Creatures contains the hatching of LotR -so to speak- in their castle fantasy.]

--------- i am sort of working up a Big Theory which will encompass goth before tolkein and goth after, faery and buffy and metal and xena and gor and D&D and Tombraider: also robin of sherwood and arthur rackham no doubt, and the link between Art Nouveau, radical 1890a sexuality and goofy elven shit (anthony will hate it) -----------

I will love it though. On the double then.

--------- there was a good-ish made-for-Brit-TV King Arthur twofer on last xmas: actually the acting and plot were lamentable, which is poss.why it was buried on two afternoons and only i saw it, but the CHI and design was fantastic, and the elven-witch stuff genuinely beautiful- frightening ---------

Is this the one with Isabella Rosselini and bloody Sam Neil as Merlin? Saw bits & pieces, alas not the elven-witch stuff.

Haven't seen the film yet and suddenly got a bit wary of seeing it. Hard to explain, but it's not so much about somebody defining characters on screen you could so strongly fantasize about, but more with giving away the fond memories I have of reading the book as a kid. Ah well, let's do the job!

MERLIN - classic tv - played it to yr8 pupils and it went down great - especially ubergothic miranda richardson wiv sxy vox - sam neill is brill as usual. isabella r = yr racer lost for words!

It was wicked. Much much much more enjoyable than the book (though when I got home I dug up the book and enjoyed IT more too - a virtuous circle yay!). Made me feel 12 again, and in a good way.

In fact I want to see it again, so if any London kids are interested, I'm game.

Isabel had never read the book and followed it OK though could guess the plot easily enough - she thought it too long but very much enjoyed it, gave big props to Christopher Lee and was annoyed by McKellen, to the extent that I didnt have the heart to tell her he's back in part 2.

More comments to follow.

The half-hearted love scene, and the creation of the Uber-Ork, both stuck out like a Playstation in Galadriel’s wood, but I suppose they were the necessary familiar multiplex motifs in what as a book (IMHO) had a creepy, slightly autistic lack of feeling going on….

But there were some amazing scenes, the black riders hunting the Hobbits at the start was terrifying, I really wish more of the monsters had had this kind of carefully sustained / edited menace, rather than just being extras from Hellraiser. And from Sarumans castle to all those ad-agency style Epic Camera Sweeps, unintentional (?) camp was lurking everywhere. Which I thought was quite charming. I’m looking forward to seeing it again.

Emma wuvs Elijah Wood so you might be able to convince her with a trip, if she was well enough.

I liked it. But more on that later. It had a tough game though trying to be more entertaining than me actually pulling a ladies wig off with a button from my coat in the cinema.

i want to see it again too, but must wait i spose till new year (yes robin there are cinemas in shropshire, they are just a bit rubbish)

i think there is something interesting going on with the camp and the sweep and the FX and hellraiser stuff: jackson is THINKING abt the meanings of these, and digging away at material in the books which is buried by their rep, and by tolkein's own [fave word alert] evasions. PJ has rubbed thru the carapace to some of the mythic reasons for the backstory (which is after all JRRT's actual never-finished project), but is then putting torque on this mythos, rather than just laying it out pat. (I assume this is what Ned is respnding too...)

the birth of the uber-orc = the ONLY BIT OF ON-SCREEN SEX in the movie (ie the OPPPOSITE of the aragorn/arwen snorebore: yes yes liv tyler = rowr w.pointy ears, but sam&rosie actually means more, to pj AND to jrrt, and thus the elf-glamour => beauty is a trap not a solution (and as since milton's satan, demonic = deepsexy)

Also ORCSEX = "you will taste manflesh....do not spoil them", and the come-on-big-boy spear self-impalement in the orc's deathscene.

Happy Christmas Mark S., by the way!

I thought the art direction was magnificent in more than just a special effects way. The colours used in Rivendell and just the whole autumnal ambience of those scenes really suggested that the age of elves had passed, similarly with Galadrials bits (and how scary was her vision of having the ring - yowsa - I didn't expect that).

The film did manage to get across the danger of the ring, and the temptation it must be. However the ring probably got a bit more time of characterisation than any of the actual characters (but then what foolish scriptwriter would plump for a cast of nine good guys...)

Agree on the visuals Pete but blimey -

and how scary was her vision of having the ring - yowsa - I didn't expect that -

that was the one weak bit for me. As Isabel said "It looked like when someone gets electrocuted in a cartoon". But I always hated the Lothlorien chapters - least favourite bit of book.

The scariest ring bit was snarling Bilbo I think.

predator has nine good guys surely pete: tho they are picked off more ten-green-bottles-ish

There's not nine left after about ten minutes even in Predator - plus there are No Other Charcters (cept the Predator hisself).

Bill doesn't get enough screentime, which is a pity though he is at least acknowledged. The sweeping shots I though were a very good device to try and suggest the scale of the jourwas impossible to do that otherwise). Yes, they get a bit silly on the lake and occasionally the film falls into an almost computer game like selection of levels (with end of level bosses too). But it worked, and it appeared to work in the cinema for those who did not know the book, and its cultural progeny.

Yeah, definitely with Pete on the sweeping shots - looking (quickly) through the book last night what struck me was how much of it was are- we-there-yet? stuff*, and this more so than the Tom Bombadil sequence is what the film really had to chop. The way they did chop it worked very well.

*which Tolkien actually does much better than the set-pieces as it means more conversations about LORE, dark hints etc. and less of the action-writing he wasn't so good at. Pretty much every fantasy writer since though has been godawful at the journey stuff but feels obliged to stick it in since JRRT did.

My overall impression boils down to - "Goodness, I'd forgotten, LOTR has a plot! And a quite good one!"

the computer-game thrill-ride angle - eg levels etc as an emergent creative potential in movies - is an increasingly fascinating aspect to me: S&S under P.Dodd did stuff on this but under N.James not so interested sadly. Of course LoTR is one major genesis of D&D fantasygame world in first place: cf Orcworld off Cambridge Circus.

David , the motherfucker, loved the books ( he is perfect aside from this) and is dragging my sorry ass to see the film on sat.

one of the reasons my dad (= a botanist) i think loves tolkein is his scenic nature-writing is pretty good

It is incidentally impossible to do are-we-there-yet stuff in D&D too. As a long-time 'dungeon master' in my early teens I was perhaps more sympathetic to Peter J on this front than some purists might have been.

i was thinking last night of the recurrent event in the Chronicles of the Years appendix: "2nd anniversary of Frodo's morgul wound on Amon Sûl"/these anniversaries happen in the course of the quest... ie it takes them MONTHS to get from North to South

also the way frodo looks when the ring calls him = abt to vomit = excellent

I though Elijah Wood was fantastic at conveying both the uncomfortable bruden of responsibility and the constant doubt - not to mention the rings pull on him. Previously I had thought his stress ball-esque face would look silly and grate, but that strange ricktus he is pulling on the posters makes an awful lot more sense when you see it int he film.

I also thought the Pippin & Merry were rather good as comic relief (which they don't really do in the book) - and it will be interesting to see how their characters develop via The Two Towers - as theirs is one of the hardest stories.

The only thing that really grated was Sam's constant crying of "Frow- dow", as it sounded too American - which was odd because apart from that his accent was pretty good. Indeed the whole accent thing for demarking different parts of the Shire, dwarves etc I'm a bit torn on. It just avout worked for me (though it did seem a bit crude in places - daft hobbits are Irish, hard, dour dwarf was Scottish) but it might confuse the cold viewer.

Note that I am using the word grate in the above post in the non- Molesworth sense.

When my dad read me the first book (aww!) he gave Merry a welsh accent.

(I got impatient round abt reaching Rivendell and asked if I could read it myself instead. He said yes. Later I found he had been looking forward ever since I was born to reading me the whole lot. Um.)

That's odd, the girl I wentwith last night tells an almost identical story vis a vis being read LotR and via it bonding with her father with whom she has very little else in common. He refuses to see the film because Tom Bombadil has been taken out.

I used to make my Dad read the same chapter of LOTR to me again and again, according to him. He got totally sick of it as he knew full well I could read the whole thing myself. We bonded over the triffic BBC Radio Adaptation (which was big on cliffhangers! and had an awesome theme tune).

Ian Holm = Frodo in radio adaptation.

Anyway proof prositive that reading Lord Of The Rings is not an act of rebellion. We suggested infact that its enduring popularity is due to it being a grown up sequel to a kids book which is nevertheless pretty easy to read if very long. Hence kid who reads is very impressed with himself for reading such a long book, thinks himself more clever or grown-up: therefore LotR is inticately intertwined with coming of age.

Having had a night's sleep (which almost wasn't one, I kept waking up, thinking about it, then nodding off again) my opinion is essentially unchanged if only because I still can't find an easy way to describe the whole dang thing to my own satisfaction. But to grab at points -- good call, Mark S, about my responding to PJ's own spin, such as building out of the hints of the sheer psychic power of the high elves, Sauron, etc. to create a world of entrapped tension. Frodo seems and looks at points to be not just crushed by the burden of the Ring but torn to pieces by both bad and good powers making their feelings known. I liked that.

Gotta get ready for work, more snippets of thought later.

as i've said before my jump from narnia etc to punXoR was less far than cliche supposes

---------

But I always hated the Lothlorien chapters - least favourite bit of book

---------

One of us must be a total crackhead because that's by far my favourite bit in the book. But then I am a sucker for "elf glamour". ;)

omar it's a trap!!

Oh I've been trapped forever, so you get used to it. ;) Is this something you're going to deal wit in Zee Very Beeg Zzheory?

yup

I love the way Mark S and a few others talk about me as though I was still a regular poster. I wouldn't be seen dead in any Dorset cinemas, so no problem there.

My jump from mid-English mid-class children's lit *generally* to everything that led me to her was less far than cliche supposes, likewise.

But I've never discovered Tolkien. Oasist cousin loved his work, you see, so there was the five-year curse (which is just about up now).

"led me to her" = "led me to here"

Don't forget that PJ also made Dead Alive and Heavely Creatures!

Fkn' ACE! film. I had the book on in my bookcase for years but I never could get the inclination to plough through it, so it remained a housebrick of paper taking up space on a shelf..
But, yeah, it's like all the best bits of Heavenly Creatures - but lasting forever!
Didn't really like Cate Blanchett's charecter though, she kept speaking in that Mystic Meg / I'm a bit spooky me, undulating tone.
Still, what a flippin' movie!

Omar:

One of us must be a total crackhead because that's by far my favourite bit in the book. But then I am a sucker for "elf glamour". ;)

Me also. Galadriel = RoWR, esp in animated version. I may see this film after new year. I am somewhat disturbed by reports of cartoon "oirishness" in hobbit shire. for fuxake, hollywood "Irish" stereotype = k-sux0r. Give it a rest already etc etc

I am somewhat disturbed by reports of cartoon "oirishness" in hobbit shire.

Nah, more like rural drunks with varying accents. It could be Leicestershire, it could be Kentucky. Well, nothing *that* twangy.

Okay, though lack of sleep is catching up to me now, I have a more cohesive response to the film to offer, and some specific examples and thoughts.

I think Tim's point about the distillation and still being too long is an interesting one, especially since I don't sense that. I think nobody debates that distilling/pruning was needed if the attempt was to be made to begin with. But the film did not feel overly long to me, in fact quite the opposite -- nobody I was with commented on that as well. Indeed, the general reaction was, "Damn! Just screen the next two right now!" Now, a restroom break, yes, but that's a different matter. ;-)

So it might be a matter of either expectation or taste in the end, I'm not sure which. I am pretty convinced, however, that however boiled down/cut down that the plot not merely survives but in many cases thrives, and that the characters aren't so much stripped down in interpretation as they are given other areas to expand into, and that Jackson is especially good as using visual shorthand and film technique in general to 'say' things without dialogue. We may not get the full details, but I don't think the full details are required for the medium in question.

And that's the core of my reaction to the film -- it is not Tolkien's _LOTR_ and should not be considered as such. It has to be viewed as a self-contained, internally consistent adaptation of LOTR that stands or falls on its own merits, and I think it does that beautifully. Rather than an evisceration of characterization, I see an alternate extension. A criticism that's been aimed by a few viewers is that Merry and Pippin seem to have no motivation to join Frodo and Sam -- a fair call, but I think that they're almost spooked into joining them after the first Nazgul encounter. Safety in numbers, helping someone who is already a friend, etc. It is implied rather than spelled out, but it is not entirely absent or missing.

That's a small point, but a larger one can be seen with the encounter between Frodo and Aragorn at the end, which I found to be a crucial scene. Very much not in the book -- Frodo last sees Aragorn there when Frodo steps away to debate which road to take. Here, the farewell is formal and face-to-face, but the reason for doing so -- to fully push the issue of *Aragorn* being tempted -- is excellent. There is, I recall, little or in fact nothing of Aragorn's suffering from the temptation there -- even Gandalf faces his moment when Frodo offers it to him directly (I also thought the brief bit involving Gandalf looking at the ring on the floor of Bag-End a fine extra bit, and again, not in the book). To spell out more thoroughly what somebody who, no matter how thoroughly committed to the right course of action, could go through in a desparate moment of potential indecision was I think a masterful touch. Brief, but it worked very well.

There are points where an extra line or two would not have hurt -- I cannot recall, for instance, whether it is specifically spelled out in the film that Arwen is Elrond's daughter. If not, it makes his reaction in the conversation with Gandalf, as he recalls Isildur's failure to destroy the Ring and the lack of promise from men in general, of less impact that it could be, as the double meaning of his feelings can be missed vis-a-vis Aragorn.

More later...

suffering from the temptation there

I should say, 'there in the book'

Ned - to reiterate, I was there with a whole host of nasty critics, and I think the criticisms I posted originally are ones which I perceived bubbling amongst the crowd and internalised. So am anxious to see it again.

Ah, fret not, good Tim, I was not trying to tear you to shreds. :-) Clearly the differing audiences we had could have an effect on both of us.

But did you like it Ned?

Ask me again later. Did I mention I'm seeing it again on Saturday and Tuesday?

Lord Of The Mings? What?

I have already received a porn spam a few days ago advertising that hot new site, lordofthedings.com -- oh dear.

The movie ROCKED and I am very disappointed in Ned for putting the mental image of that porn site in my head.

Sorry, Dan. I am evil.

Okay, more thoughts...

Another reason the film worked -- *threat.* Active, fast, sudden, violent, heart-in-throat threat. Reading LOTR, you control the speed of the action, however it happens. Seeing the film, you take it as it comes. Sauron's actions at the beginning alone -- hell, the whole * battle* alone at the start -- really felt like the fate of the world was being decided. The Nazgul are frightening, yes, but they're especially frightening because they are so destructive, they don't merely scare, they can and will kill and destroy without compunction. I like Pete's call on the video game nature of the Moria sequence, I admit! But the way that the initial encounter with the troll played out -- the initial series of sudden, swift cuts, nothing but flailing action and reaction and destruction, sudden quick death for fear of being killed. That's the sense I had, that these weren't 'the heroes doing heroic things,' it was more 'react, don't think, kill or be killed!' Etc.

The sense of conflict and squabbling among apparently allied forces was a sharp touch. The Council of Elrond's ending -- *much* different from the book, perfectly suited for the film -- has Frodo screwing himself up to decide in the midst of chaos and a sudden gripping fear of what the Ring might make everyone do. In the book, Aragorn and Boromir have only a brief exchange of wills but otherwise Boromir generally goes along with Aragorn and implicitly accepts his role and leadership. Things are much more tense and unsettled here -- favorite new scene in this light, when Boromir takes the ring from the snow after Frodo's fall. I had been wondering about that scene ever since I saw a snippet in an early preview, and seeing it all helps again draw the line between book and film, and how the film creates its own newer logic to follow -- but again, without disposing or ignoring the original characters. It was brief, but it said quite a lot.

Acting -- brilliant. Stop thinking about it after a while, everything was compelling enough for me. Effects -- after five minutes of initially thinking how cool it was they got the sizes right and all, I just stopped thinking about that too. It all just happened. Yow. :-) The Barad-dur, now that's a tower.

Random observations:

-- Mordor, as viewed both from Gondor and at the end of the movie. In Tolkien's geography, the mountains are in the distance, they are there, but not meant to be as commanding, as downright harrowing to see, as the monstrous visions on the screen. It's audacious in ways, but it works beautifully on the screen.

-- Saruman calling down the storm on the Fellowship, the swooping shot suddenly arcing up to see him looking up the Mountain -- *beautiful*.

-- The conversion of Orthanc from treeland to mine -- excellent shorthand for establishing the interest of the Ents, whereas in the book things were long since changed to a wasteland/manufacturing setting by the time of Gandalf's visit. Good way to preview the next film in part.

-- Saruman and Gandalf's battle -- as mentioned, threat presented onscreen, vividly, viciously. In the book, the two talk, but there's no sense of *how* Saruman traps Gandalf. Great spin for the purposes of the film, gives a sense of how power functions here, how things are *alive* and happening. Also helps to explain the switch as to why Gandalf rather than Aragorn wants to try the pass -- there's a sense that Gandalf feels that he can at least try to defeat Saruman's will at a distance where he feels unsure of himself in Moria.

-- The depiction of the world when wearing the Ring was wonderful. So nightmarish, and very in keeping with the book's description -- and then ratcheting it up a notch. And that flaming eye! Brilliant.

-- They kept the 'pity stayed his hand...do not be so quick to deal out death' speech. Fantastic. It's the core of the whole book in ways, and they not only kept it, but foregrounded it by switching it to a new, tense moment in Moria. I am very, very glad.

Ah well. Wonderful. More reflections later, maybe after reviewings. But right now, all is oh so well.

Ah, a final thought, and one key reason why I'm so enraptured -- a couple of weeks back I picked up the Bakshi DVD, as I mumbled elsewhere, and have watched it a few times to count down the days. The amount of time in that film spent on FOTR material was ninety minutes, almost exactly half that of the new film. But rather than feeling like they had only twice as much time to expand things here and there (and the two adaptations made many of the same specific cuts -- no Tom Bombadil, etc.), Jackson and team seemed like they packed in many, many times more in the amount of detail. The two simply don't compare.

ned
you are sick like dog

Yes, yes I am. Yes yes.

Overall, very impressive. Last 45 mins dragged a bit despite compressing a lot of what was in the book by this stage. But Jackson deserves all the praise that is/will be coming. I'm not gagging to see Parts 2 and 3 tho'

QUIBBLES (my list of things I loved is much longer, but not v. interesting to read):

(a) the music. ugh. uninspiring, standard hollywood score. too much of it too - there was underscoring in important dialogue scenes, where silence would have been much better

(b) not enough colours, esp. in the clothing. Why was everyone dressed in drab? (or grey or white)

(c) the significant pauses before the name of each new monster or land/mountain was pronounced with awe got a bit tedious ("Bal-rog"!).

(d) I'd rather they had spent a bit more time introducing the characters - for example, Arwen barely on screen for 5 seconds before her big heroic moment - how are we supposed to empathise, when we've no idea who she is? Also, was Galadriel's name even mentioned once?

(e) Aragorn = Boromir! Consequence of (b) + (d) above. I didn't realise they were two different people until they had a dialogue scene. Shave your beard, one of you!

(f) Sam = woefully underwritten part. Changing him from a servant to a friend and eliminating most of his obsession with elves didn(t work at all. He's left running around after Frodo, whining, with no plausible explanation (other than the one mentioned elsewhere: he's hopelessly in love with F)

(g) Keeping some of Tolkein's humour would have been preferable to making Merry and Pippin the sole comic light relief elements. Pippin = jar jar binks!

Arwen does mention when she rocks up for the first time that she will take Frodo to her father, Elrond, to be healed. So it is mentioned Ned.

The score was pretty uninspiring in its obviousness, but I'm glad the faux Deus Irae from the trailer did not raise its ugly head.

Jeff, I take issue with a couple of your problems.

b) Why the drab clothing? Well partailly to contrast with the happy bright clthe hobbits early doors (and note Pippin still has a mustard waistcoat on all the way through). On top of thios let us look at medieval dyes, none to bright. And then let us think of camoflague when one is trying to hide and evade. As I have said I thought the art direction as a tool for setting mood and telling the tale work exceptionally well.

d) The Arwen bit - necessarily short - but also brings in the idea of the strange otherworldliness of the elves. We literally know nothing about them - except that they can be trusted.

e) I'd understand if this was a Aragorn = Strider problem (one I always had with the book as a kid). But come on, There aren't any scenes that I can think of until the very end that doesn't have both Aragorn and Boromir in them - so its easy to compare & contrast.

f) I agree Sam was a touch underwritten, but he is introduced as Frodo's gardener (cutting the grass when overhearing Gandalf). I think the love/promise made to Gandalf were good enough motivation. Pippin & Merry's motivation is less strong, but there is a reall feeling of friendship which came across from the film.

g) Tolkein's humour in LotR is pretty poor, and non-existent for much of it. Yes the film is pretty dour, but when the laughs come they are not all from the pratfalls of P&M - and as I said this simpleton start will really help them build in part two.

I'm glad the faux Deus Irae from the trailer did not raise its ugly head.

Thankfully, like most trailer music, that was something from another source just used specifically for those teasers. You won't hear it in the upcoming ones now there's actual music to use...

Am I the only person here who really, REALLY liked the score?

You're not alone. :-) Hesistated picking it up beforehand, but when I saw the movie I got it the next day. The fact that Shore also did Ed Wood makes me very happy -- two radically different scores, equally great. But I want to hear the full version of the score, dammit! A double-disc 2 1/2 hour take, not these edits!

And to the lack of surprise of anyone who knows me even slightly, I have now seen the movie for a second time. Just as good, if not better. :-)

My only bone to pick is the removal of the Tom/Barrow Downs. Though I wish the LOTR video game would have cut that part out (I could never find the 6th gem). Im too tired to be intelligent so I stop.

short form answer: best. movie. ever.

long for answer: to follow, perhaps. (long have i kept my lotr love hidden from the hordes of ilx in fear of the freaky deaky knowledge of ned and mark s. [and mark's dad!])

No, getting rid of the Barrow Downs and Mr Tom I'm-Tweer-Than-Tallulah-Gosh Bombadil was the best thing the makers could have done plotwise. The whole episode has negligible bearing on anything that happens afterwards and Bombadil sticks out like a sore thumb in the rest of the mythology.

You should indeed be fearful, Jess. (Writing from my sister's place in SF, yowsa.) Hell, I'm even namechecked in one of the manuscript collections. UBERGEEK, UBERGEEK!

I'm with Ricky T -- I actually do like the charm of the Old Forest/Barrowdowns sequence, and the Wight is genuinely frightening and strange (the depiction of the growing evening of cold and mist is amazing). But yes, it would have only slowed things down -- most adaptations of the book (Bakshi, the BBC radio version from the early eighties) have similarly torpedoed it. The American radio version from the Mind's Eye kept it in and was one of the many reasons why that version sucked -- the resulting telescoping of later sequences was d

Just saw it today so I can at last infiltrate this thread. I had the same problem with the film I had with the book- sappy women and mawkish love scenes. Aragorn and arwen? let me vomit in the corner if I see any more of that soft focus and luminous spheres surrounding the elves.

I have not read the book in ages so I can't quite remember where the major plot alterations were, I thought the uber orc touch was goining a bit far, as for the firey vagina... I was at a loss.

Parts I did enjoy- suspense and the big fighting scenes, I am a sucker for anything with axes, blades and medieval style weaponry. Swordsmanship has an elan entirely lacking with guns. I just wish Tolkein had not made the women so wet and the brotherhood quite so...um.. manly

Ironically, Jackson made the story even *more* wet from your point of view, Menelaus, given that the mush Aragorn/Arwen scene wasn't in the original (well, the appendix, yes, but anyway).

Uberorc (name = Lurtz) is not specifically in the original; however, the uruk-hai are indeed supposed to be some sort of genetic freak thanks to Saruman and are discussed as such by Treebeard and others. There was never any birth scene but I like the idea they came up with. As for the flaming vagina (Mark, you nasty man) -- the Eye does appear at various points in the book, pretty much in the contexts seen (the Mirror of Galadriel, Amon Hen near the end). The additional appearances aren't inconsistent and to my mind work very well, especially in the context of wearing the ring. I muttered elsewhere above about that -- how the experience of wearing it, in the book itself, reduces the 'real' world to vague shadows and far from conveying invisibility makes you feel 'horribly and uniquely visible,' to quote a key line. As such, the first time in the film we see Frodo wearing the ring in the inn, the combination of shadowy chaos and the stark terror of the Eye, is a great double whammy. But that's just me.

Can you tell I will happily go on about this film for a lon

...g time? That was a weird cutoff.

i agree with roger ebert. its not the book but its still a fun movie

i thought ebert's review was rather strange... he seemed to think the hobbits were slighted in the movie and wanted more emphasis on the shire stuff...even weirder that he gave it 3 stars and the majestic 4 stars... ugh.

also, was i the only one who liked the reference to that shire weed slowing gandalf's mind... "this is some fine weed, bilbo" or something like that. i'm very immature like that.

i saw it! it was ACE! i wanted to FITE Orcs all the way home! i felt like my mum told me she felt after first seeing Star Wars! WOWWOWWOWWOWWOWWOW!!!! and 5 days later i STILL want to FITE Orcs! i love it to bits and i am going to see it again and RickyT must come with me. it is the LAW.

why are there no gurls on this thread apart from myself, menelaus and nicole? it's just like Lord of the Rings!!

i am actually sitting here at work thinking about FITEing Orcs. this has to stop.

I think we should build up Katie's part as a concession to modern sensibilities.

OK, but no mushy stuff. can i have an axe?

or one of them bow and arrers will do!

You can get to FITE orcs as long as it's on the clear understanding that there's sublimated sexuality at play.

sexuality with an orc? coo blimey i don't think so! apart from anything this has a PG rating, right?

if however sublimated sexuality = i get to run around bashing up the baddies then yay!

What is the porno versh of LOTR called? I suspect it's anal, but what if you're not into that?

NB. katie - I do not want to cast you in this.

i was going to say, i'll be in anything as long as i can have an axe, but NO. no NO.

best line in LOTR: when Gimli says something like "dwarves will not be tossed" which for my money is even better than the weed thing. of course in the porno version they may be tossed left, right and centre.

Surely the porn version needs no name change? unless it's mandatory, in which case "lord of the ring piece"?

or "lord of the rims"

Like I said, does it have to be anal?

wow! my friend at work just gave me an Arwen action figgah from Burger King! it is on my desk next to Miffy and looking mighty fine!

N if you look upthread you will find lord of the dings! though er i can't really imagine calling anything a ding. a dong maybe, ho ho.

like i said this has to STOP!

I think it probably does Nick, unless you want to start getting a bit tenuous like "whored of the rings" which looks a bit crap.

oops sorry Katie, ahem, I'll be going home soon anyway, there's jack shit to do here at work.

nah you carry on! it's more interesting than work innit! only i must stop. i do have work to do that must be done CHIZ.

just found out, I'm allowed home at three, nice, gives me more time to drink Port.

Woah....... an event film of quality, this blows my theories about mainstream cinema out of the water. Yes, I know the director's independent, but the money wasn't.
Best bits - Bilbo's addiction ('that' bit, unexpected and damn effective), what they left out and the technical consistency.
Worst bit - '.....and my axe' or anything to do with the dwarf.
I'll be seeing this again.

Isn't a bit unfortunate to have the second film called Two Towers in light of, um, recent events? Is there anything reasonable they could change it to? um, Merry and Pippin's Bogus Journey?

cor yes that second volume does appear to be named unfortunately in the light of recent events. hmmm. well i guess it's up to the film's makers when it comes out i suppose.

i know i've been spending time being, like, rilly stoopid about LOTR but i truly truly loved it and thought it was a work of genius. i too am re-reading the book - the last time i read it was when i did my dissertation on LOTR back in 1998 - and just finding more and more things that i love about it. like ned, i can't begin to put my finger on why i loved it so much, but i guess i'll just have to see the film a couple more times. *sigh* it just made me mythically happy.

i like movies with jokes, where i can laugh. i only laughed twice, once at that elf guy's creepy face and once at the big tv commercial computer-generated castle and flaming eye within ('your mouth, a steamy 98.6 degrees....'). i begged my family to go see ali instead but it was sold out! tolkien is horrible horrible horrible.

You willingly wanted to go see Will Smith pretend he's Muhammad Ali? Tell me, Ethan, which one of us is the sadder fantasy fanboy? ;-)

Changing the name of 'The Two Towers' is pointless. I don't see the book itself having its title changed, for one thing. 'The Two Towers' it is and will remain. Tolkien was always adamant about the books not being directly allegorical -- there is no point trying to force an allegorical interpretation of newer vintage upon it (and indeed, my greatest gripe with many critics' reviews has been the referencing of 9/11 and after in terms of 'fighting evil' and all that -- disgusting on a variety of levels, when the evil is everywhere in the current

...world.) What the hell, twice now. I need to get back home to my computer

the most disappointing thing was that i thoght it might be okay even though it's tolkien because the frighteners makes me laugh and laugh and ian holm plays bilbo, the only tolkien character i actually like, but IT WASN'T OKAY AT ALL. the worst film i have ever seen.

*shrug* Whatever floats yer boat.

aw ned you know i wasn't trying to be mean to you, i know you love lotr and all. we can still both like ed wood, right? 'karloff? KARLOFF? that cocksucker can rot in hell for all i care!'. it makes me laugh and laugh.

I thought it was decent. A hellova lot better than the Phantom Stinkus, for sure. As some have pointed out the rushed character development was pretty noticeable. Like Elven Liv shedding a tear for the wounded Frodo after she'd known him for like 2 minutes. Much of the audience was thrown by the anti-climactic ending when I saw it which I found amusing. But all in all, it was good, and made me want to come home and play Baldur's Gate.

I loved it.

It wasn't perfect, but that didn't really matter much at all. Like Ned, perhaps (though in a rather different way), I feel quite transfigured by having seen it; it awakened a sense of wonder in me that was more dormant than I'd realized and that hadn't been that thoroughly awakened in years.

So v. homoerotic! I mean I wish, maybe ... about 2 hours through I was thinking why don't those two guys (the two 'humans' - brothers, I think) just kiss - and then towards the end they had that scene where the one brother was leaning over the other ... I was GLAD that was developed so strongly, rather than the tedious heterosexual plotline. Well, not that that was tedious to me ('I give up my mortal life for you' ... nice idea!) 'Rushed character development' - I would've liked it if the characters had been flatter and more achetypical, more Mort D'Arthur, more Sleeping Beauty, more Jean Genet, more allegorical. It ought to have been a movie of romantic ideas, of love stories that don't need to be explained because they're so typical ... and then they just look into each other's eyes without saying anything ... like those two guys were always doing!

Also, the fiery pit of Mt Doom with the black slit in the middle of it definitely looked like an intentional vagina reference to me.

What about the Aryan/racist subtext? Everyone was pretty nordic/English, while the Orcs wore facepaint and dreadlocks and basically were Maoris (I recognised some of the actors) - not all of them, obviously. The Elf queen did the Nazi salute when she said goodbye. It's true! And I saw George Harrison in the background ...

Menelaus, I just noticed you also wrote about the fiery vagina. Fran's touch? And the Elf queen being an actual older woman (in her thirties even!) and her power lust?

Well Im not the biggest Tom B. fan I do miss the barrow downs, its a wonderful piece of writing though I cant defend it being in a 9 hour movie myself other then for character development of the hobbit relationships. It would have helped make the film more homoerotic then it already is. Sam snuggling up to Frod for, um, cough, warmth. I dont doubt for a second that Sam would choose Frodo over a cutie such as Rosie. Which adds a neat little twist to the story I never considered.

Not LOTR-related, but my family went to see "Ali" yesterday and it was a fucking great movie. I take back the invective I levelled at Will Smith; the trailers do not do justice to his portrayal. They needed to show more footage of his patter in interviews. However, the shock of the film is the AMZING performance turned in by Jamie Foxx. He should be nominated for an Oscar.

:-(

I don't care about those hobbits! They're not deep. They don't despise themselves!

Like Elven Liv shedding a tear for the wounded Frodo after she'd known him for like 2 minutes

ahem *puts on Tolkien pedant hat, sorry* i think that this is because the Fair Folk are wise and they sense that poor ol' Frodo has the burden of being the Ring Bearer, and that if he does not succeed in his quest the whole world will come crashing down and the forces of EVIL will triumph. i think that in that situation i'd shed a tear or two, eh?

Or at least a gulp or two of sadness.

I take back the invective I levelled at Will Smith; the trailers do not do justice to his portrayal.

Astounding! But if he did it, well then. Right now I'm more dealing with the fact that three separate people have raved about Amelie to me in as many days as being The Greatest Film Ever, so I suspect that's next on the hit list for me.

Amelie is Quite Good (Will is gonna kill me for saying that!) i did like it a lot... but not as much as LOTR! i think you'll like it, Ned. you seem to me to be quite an Amelie-friendly person.

reasons arwen weeps:
1. what katie sed
2. if frodo *succeeds* and ring is destroyed, she arwen must choose between mortality and life w.aragorn, or sailing into the deathless west w.b.enolrond and the othah elf dudes

JRRT's horror of allegory was probably necessary for him to be able to 'do' LOTR in the first place but I don't see the need for his fans to shy away from it, particularly not rad-subjectivist ones!

jrrt also had an overview of the FULL valor- noldor whatevah mythology, which his allegory-mongers very much tended not to (as he only managed to put small slices of the whole story out into the world in his lifetime, and didn't finish eg the silmarillion — abt which i haf a terrific theory ps: more soon)

one thing i hadn't entirely twigged before: how bleak his idea of a happy ending actually is (the phrase "s/he lived happily to the end of his days", which sounds nice enuff, entails the telling of the end in question, which in arwen's case (return of the king, appendix a) = NO FUN)

OK Tom, but personally i wouldn't touch the whole "LOTR = 9/11" allegory with an extremely long bargepole. firstly as Ned said it's fairly pointless and irrelevant, and secondly i, like Tolkien i think, tend to see the book as an attempt to create a mythology rather than reflect anything that's going on in the world today. or at least i try very hard to see it like that. the other problem with the 9/11 thing is that, if you're also going to start going on about the black/white dark/light thing then you're on extremely sticky ground...

god i really must hurry up my re-reading of the thing and this time read the appendices more carefully! i hadn't realised how much of this i'd forgetten!

mark s = reread all three booXoR in four days (my dad's tatty old first edns, two towers complete w. ahem genuine vomit stains on cover courtesy small mark s w.whooping cough age 10 or 11) = xmas washing up etc neglected hurrah

ok speed reread return of king, which is a bit skippable in places anyway (backwards ran sentences until reeled the mind etc)

i am being diverted in my purpose by Murakami's Norwegian Wood, mainly because i don't want to read LOTR on the tube. katie = the Barliman Butterbur of ILE!

Look at mark s, 40-something and still boasting about what a quick reader he is!

Mark S rules, though. Acknowledge it!

how bleak his idea of a happy ending actually is

You got that goddamn right. (But though talking about the film here invites spoilers, talking about the book does not, so I refrain from further comment...)

So why was a Matrix Agent infiltrating the Elfs? I couldn't figure that part out.

oh my god the funny-looking guy was from the matrix!

Ah-yup. Hugo Weaving. First came across him in The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, which makes his work in LOTR even more amusing. :-)

I just this motion picture this very afternoon. I liked it a little. Liv Tyler was not in it for long enough. I liked the Sean Bean character. I like most films with sword fighting. I felt the beginning was a tad too long. I look forward to seeing the next 2 in this series (but not as much as I do to seeing Attack of the Clones). I do not think that Gandelf is dead. Some bits of the film were quite touching.

I look forward to seeing the next 2 in this series (but not as much as I do to seeing Attack of the Clones)

That's interesting you say that, because LOTR in many ways just killed my anticipation for Episode 2. Not quite stone dead, but Jesus H. will Lucas have a tough hill to climb with this one. Hell, I know how LOTR ends and I still want to see the next two films more than Episodes 2 and 3 now! My mind may well change a bit come May, admittedly. ;-)

whozis Lucas Ned?

hugo weaving was the only casting that rubbed me wrong. he played the part well, and his type is suited for the film's super-badass we-mean-business elves, but in the book Elrond seemed more avuncular, less tooth-clenching. his manner was such gentle refief after the harrowing shit they'd gone through to get there. i missed some of the camraderie among the hobbits at rivendell, like where they all decide that cold water is worthless since 1) beer is better for drinking and 2) hot water is better for bathing. "water hot poured down the back" !

I thought they decided that in a bath sequence at Crickhollow. ;-)

whozis Lucas Ned?

Some guy.

Next you'll be telling us about Alan Dean Foster's Earthsea trilogy :)

Hmm...you lost me, Tracer. Tell me where I made the mistake and I'll admit to it.

I have only seen it once so far, but was Peter Jackson's cameo appearance at the Prancing Pony? I thought I saw him in the inn scene.

He's either there or he's the guy burping in the town on the way to the inn.

Ned when you said Lucas had a long row to hoe I thought you "Jackson" but said "Lucas" in a (to me) understandable slip having to do with long-awaited fantasy epics.

Crickhollow - is that in the first book? If so I guess I've still a chance to see those hobbit motherfuckers pouring water in slow motion over each other's naked bodies.

First book, yes -- so you'll either have to hope for a deleted scene to crop up on the DVD or just visit that porn site. ;-)

John Wayne Hobbit stars in "Cracks of Doom": he rules yr elven ring etc etc

So what you're saying, Mark S, is that Gollum...uh, never mind.

My 2 Eurocent then. Finally did see the film and I like it, although I think it is a very basic adaptation. Also will not see it again until all three films are finished. I guess I’ll break it down into two neat sections

What did I like:

- Great overall feel of Middle Earth. Amazing to see those vistas esp. Mordor (I mean Morrrrr-dorrrrr) waiting beyond all those mountains.

- Impeccable casting. Even Elrond = Brian Eno 1972 indeed. :) Also all this talk of “ages ending” and bitter “the lack of promise of men” = great.

- First half up till Moria is utterly immersive.

- Arwen’s entrance = visually, the most sublime introduction of a female character since Uma Thurman as Venus in Baron von Münchhausen. (And thus Sir Sinker spoke: "Suckah!" ;)

- Gotta agree with Ned upthread: “They kept the 'pity stayed his hand...do not be so quick to deal out death' speech. Fantastic.” Loved it.

- What K-reg said on Bilbo’s addiction. Esp. how flawlessly his face changes in Rivendell when he sees the ring.

What I didn’t like:

- Digi-battles look like shit. Seems like they always have to be rendered in grey and with lots of camera-movements so you can’t actually focus as a viewer and spot the “seams”. I’m afraid you either do this cheaply or you do it well. Which means dressing up thousands of extra’s Kubrick/Eisenstein style (fat chance I know ;).

- Last 30-40 minutes are close to being awful. Too hurried, “we’ve got to finish up” feel.

- What’s up with Boromir’s horn fr’ christsakes!?! My daughter has a plastic car whose horn makes more noise than the horn you supposedly can hear from miles away.

- I missed the doubt of characters. It all feels to straight-ahead The Dirty Dozen of Middle Earth are going on a mission, yeah. Only Boromir’s temptation at Lothlorien is featured, whereas they agree in the book that Galadriel seems to offer them all a choice of abandoning ship. That they actually don’t, makes them far more likeable IMHO. Now: Boromir's temptation = "I'm going to retire in two days" = "you're getting wacked next" film logic.

- In the end, my biggest problem is with Lothlorien. One starts to notice Jackson’s past as a horror director, his fascination with Orcs and other monsters. Once he needs to enter Lothlorien he starts to fumble. No golden leaves, why? Why doesn’t Galadriel show her ring (or as Dan and Ned pointed out to me only at the end)? “They sing for Gandalf.” Why is the bloody soundtrack music drowning the song? Overall, the place didn’t feel magical as if they had to rush it and then rely on Cate Blanchett looking amazing (which she did, probably closest to what I imagined Galadriel would look like). Didn’t mind her own temptation although it was over the top, something which would have been far more powerful by having her whispering those words while a shadow falls over her face, or something like that.

"Like Elven Liv shedding a tear for the wounded Frodo after she'd known him for like 2 minutes"

Saw it last night at Lakeside, and I did think this momentarily too, until I realised she'd already met Bilbo, who I'm sure would have told her with great fondness all about his favourite nephew.

I've never been a fan of Tolkien as I've mentioned before, I admire his ideas not his writing skills, but this film... what a wonderful depiction of his world! Surely the best of the fantasy genre that plays it straight (with Excalibur a creditable second).

The only part that didn't run true was that bloody great squid monster that lived in a stagnant pool in the disused mine. There's no way it could have found enough protein to get that big.

ho ho, unless it fed on orrccc-flesssshhhh! am going to see it tonight for the 2nd time, with Starry and RickyT. i can't wait!

(in excalibur uther keeps his armour on to have sex! now that's what i call manly chivalry!!)

(omar, "you're getting wacked next" film logic was clearly suspended, to sidestep the gimli's-beard=marked-for-death problem)

hahaha, how true. Balrog did manage to "wack" one beardy fellow though. ;)

oh OMAR i am biting my lip so hard it nearly bleeds. must... not... spoil...

I loved it but what's up with the last ten minutes: that cheesy let's open a can of whoop-ass "We've got some orc to hunt!" line followed by the vaudevillian dash off into the underbrush? It's so out of place, they might as well give each other high fives and sing "Who let the dogs out" after that.

the ending of the film actually overlaps slightly with the beginning of Volume 2 of LOTR (THe Two Towers). though now when i see it tonight i'm gonna come out singing Who Let The Orcs Out. and now i am going to clean up the tea i just SPAT all over my monitor Fritz! :)

Yeah, I realize they went a bit into book 2. It seems like a sensible spot to finish off. It was only that one bit that really bothered me. Merry & Pippin's Wacky Misadventure with the Fireworks and the "good weed" references worried me at first, but not so much in retrospect. I really liked the tone of the whole thing.

tea has been cleaned up. yes, i think another one of the reasons it made me so happy was that i could sense a sincerity and even a good- heartedness about it, if that makes any sense at all. oh god i am even more of a hippy than i thought i was.

actually, it's funny that i'm now talking to you about this Fritz, do you remember that discussion about Irony that we had? well i think maybe LOTR might be at the forefront of the Wave Of No Irony - it was Earnest Yet Fun. what do you think?

i think SAURON = FIERY VAGINA, katie...
I think there *are* levels of irony at work here, but they come from within a (very) pro-fantasy, tolkien-derived context.

(also i think crappy LotR figurines available at McDonalds: jrrt wd have DIED ON THE SPOT!)

*sigh* like all my theories it dies on its ass. although even the fiery vagina did not stop it being a totally wuvvly film for me.

they're at Burger King BTW, but the point about jrrt remains TROO.

Y'know, I was tempted to buy one because it was so bad. But common sense prevailed.

At least there's no N'Sync involvement...

saw this on Empire today! luckily though they get shot pretty uch as soon as they appear, so no worries there then!

I have probably ranted about this too much elsewhere, but I will say this: even the tiniest glimpse of Timberlake's 'fro is too much for me.

Katie - I remember that discussion re: irony. It agree - was so nice that LOTR played it straight. I think that's why the "orc-hunting" line jumped out at me as inconsistent with the rest of the film.

I don't know the film is ushering in a new era or anything, but it did seem like a perfectly appropriate approach for this story. I think "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" had some similarities in terms of the tone.

Ha Katie, stop biting your lips already :) I know what they ommited from Galadriel's mirror. ;) ;)

CTHD? hm i think you may have a point. there was a similar lack of happy ending in that film too, for certain characters. needless to say i blubbed like a baby at that too (but pretended i didn't!)

No irony? NO IRONY?

What about the line "No one tosses a dwarf"??

only ppl with their minds in the gutter tittered at that one. like me.

It's actually a not-so-smutty reference to the antipodean sport of dwarf-tossing, n'est-ce pas?

but of course! mind in gutter = you are v small like a dwarf!

The irony of course being, dwarves are extremely well hung. It's all that iron in their diet, or something.

LOTR picks up AFI award as best picture. Weird. I'm pleased, but I'm still surprised. Oh well, Golden Globes next, I guess!

I saw it on Saturday and thought it a fine film. Was mildly distracted by snivelling brat to my left in the cinema, but I enjoyed it. Did Lucas not rip off the whole thing for Star Wars? Frodo = Luke, Gandalf = Obi-Wan, etc, etc? I still think it gets away with it as a kid's film, (sorry Katie!) because I have not read the book and I think the film as it stands is simple enough for kids to get and enjoy.

the scene in excalibur where arthur spears mordred is exactly ditto'd by aragorn's man-on-man spear action with the lurtz: obv no way did jackson not know excalibur backwards anyway

ps i had forgot how hilarious nicol williamson's post-dubbed accent as merlin is (sadly he doesn't lose it and beat fellow thesp on bum with flat of his sword as per famous psycho moment on broadway some yrs back)

Just because a kid can understand it (or see it) does not mean it is a kids film. Its all about the tonality. It made a kid cry in the cinema of Saturday, so I still maintain that it is not a kiddie flick.

Its not a particularly adult film either by the way. (Would you say Independence Day was a kids film, because that certainly has very simple narrative).

It is also too long for kiddies as evidenced by amount of running around and uncomfortable shifting in seats on Saturday. Whilst a small minority of child prodigies may like sitting still for 3 hours it seems the young hoodlums of Upper Holloway would rather be scampering about selling dodgy fags than watching goblins.

Hi Pete, a lot of people upthread remember 'bonding' with their parents to the story, so it obviously has an appeal to children. With its nostalgic other-worldly feel - and with its fairy tale, quest storyline structure (albeit a lot more complex) and setting, I do think it is a kid's film, that adults can appreciate, as opposed to an adult film that kid's can appreciate. I remember you saying 'would you call 'Casablanca' a kids' film?'. No, I wouldn't, because the main characters desire each other sexually and are torn away from that by responsibilty, within a world that is more recognisable to adults than to children. A big reason why 'LotR' is more like a kid's film than an adult film is because it takes place in a (as far as I know - please excuse my ignorance of the saga as a whole) sexless environment. The personal relationships - even the close ones between men and women (and I'm talking about the FILM here - with all the adaptions of the characters that necessarily accompanies it) are more of a fairy tale Prince/Princess affair. Even in medieval quest literature (Gawain, for example, which I think Tolkien translated?) there appears to be a more 'adult' acknowledgement of sexual desire.

What do you mean by 'tonalit

y? Apparently, also, the average age of LotR readers (according to today's Metro article) is 12 years, as opposed to 25 when the books came out. Actually, the guy who said that was from Otago University. Can this man be trusted, Menelaus?

i think the book and the film work on many levels. i think it is an adult's book though. the concepts that it embodies - indeed, was meant to embody - are all v. grown up. it's the beauty of LOTR that you can read it at pretty much any age and any level of academic understanding, that's why it's endured so long.

Question - maybe I missed something, but how did Gandalf get his staff back after making his daring escape? Did they goof?

I thought it was a goof, but they had made mention about how Gandalf can make a replacement staff or have another one lying -- McKellen's said as much in a few interviews. I'm guessing there's a cut scene where he specifically talks about getting his new one in Rivendell.

Tonality - the tone in which the film is made. Some kids films may play for high stakes - the saving of the world etc - but rarely will they deal with the ideas of trust, treachery, responsibility and death in the heavy (or if you will po-faced) way The Lord Of The Rings does. Harry Potter touches on nearly all those themes very lightly and within a safe bubble. LotR is very much about responsibility and the darkness within everyones soul. Frodo, no-one can use the ring (their superpower) because power with LotR necessarily corrupts. I think this is a very dark theme and one which is not aimed at children. Perhaps it is a childrens book which deals with some adult themes (and some more the staple of childrens fiction like loyalty and friendship).

I think actually the best solution to this is to say that LotR is a adolescent book, and hence possibly the suggestion that rabid fans are in some kind of arrested adolescence might follow.

There is the sexual undertone to Casablanca, but sexuality does not make a film adult (Beauty & The Beast - Disney - is a very sexual movie). Equally there are a lot of adult films which have no sexuality in them at all.

I like that description of it as adolescent. One of the major themes of the book is the coming of age of the entire world, with the age of immortals (ie elves, Sauron, Nazgul and Istari) and their magic being replaced by that of men and their mundanities.

Did anyone think the scene where Boromir died was a bit tame. I mean I had always imagined it as much more frantic, with far more orcs and by the time he died he was like a pin cushion there were so many arrows in him the way the book seemed to tell it. Film part didn't really cut the mustard.

It probably would have come off as too cartoonish onscreen if Boromir were to be hit by dozens of arrows.

Then he would have looked like Boromir the Hedgehog.

Does that make Aragorn an echidna?

To be fair, them orcs a rubbish at the bow & arrow thing. In the mines they bounce all over the shop but never get hit. Legolas = can't miss man.

It looked cartoon the way they slowed it down for each shot. I was like if they slowmo another arrow hitting him I'm fucking leaving. Platoon with arrows or something as opposed to valiant frantic battle scene involving Boromir killing loads of orcs and then eventually falling after being riddled with arrows. If they had him with loads of arrows in him they wouldnt have had to slow each one down. I don't want gore I just think it would have been better. I'm surprised actually that this is the only part I take issue with, maybe I should read the book again and then go to see the flick again.

If this thread ends up longer than the bras when then ILE has gone to shit.

i appear to have turned into N.

Which must mean that a real life Mulholland Drive is happening right now.

So has anyone else actually been on said drive? It's just a street.

Are you trying to turn this LOTR thread into an MD one in some kind of homage to the film? If you are, I applaud you.

Saw it today (never read any of the books). Enjoyed it BUT I wanted to know these charachters more. It's just too rushed. Never really got under thier skin which was a pity cos they were interesting esp. loved badass elf guy with arrows (whatever his name was). Found it very touching in places and a good movie about friendship which I wasnt expecting. Fav. charachter:Gandalf but I always enjoy Ian McKellen. 2 hobbit friends of Frodo=Jar jar binks....nononono..'They come in pints?' heheh. Never really felt the ph33r of the evil horsemen although they looked pretty awesome, I'll give em' that. It was the best looking (beautiful) film I have proabably ever seen and a very good reason to watch again (if I have the time)..

loved badass elf guy with arrows (whatever his name was).

Legolas, played by Orlando Bloom, who my mom has now claimed as her loveslave. The age difference matters not to her.

Ned: Heard this section of the series is weakest. True?

Well, it's not so much a series as it one novel split up in three parts, but anyway. Weakest? *searches for answer* In terms of the book, no -- if anything is 'weak' it might be the last part, but even that is packed with plenty, it just happens to be the shortest section. But in terms of the movie adaptation, we won't really know until all three are available for viewing.

Orlando Bloom, who my mom has now claimed as her loveslave. The age difference matters not to her.

*shudder* but has she seen his real-life HAIR!?!??!?!??

"The age difference matters not to her"

Isnt Legolas 250?

*shudder* but has she seen his real-life HAIR!?!??!?!??

She knows it's shorter and darker. It did seem to have a front-guy- from-Travis look about it.

Orlando just turned 25, but Legolas is thousands of years old, I gather, so maybe she can figure out a happy medium.

but mohawks are well just bad. bad bad bad. unless you are one of those '80s punks on London postcards. also, because of a v. bad uni in joke, i cannot get over this chap being ACTUALLY called Orlando. his mam must have been either a huge Virginia WOolf or Marmalade Cat fan!

Or, a la Brooklyn Beckham, he was concieved in Orlando on a rollercoaster.

Posh knocked boots on The Cyclone? THE MIND BOGGLES.

Posh knocked boots

I initially read this phrase as an adjectival description, ie 'velvet flocked wallpaper.'

Well they are the most gut-wrenching couple in Britain! Hm no.

Yeah I know about Becks' stamina ON the field, but I bet they didn't need that discounted "ride again" deal that you can...! Wait, wait I got it!

HOME OF THE EGG CREAM

Some observations:

I think Legolas in the book was sad that the leaves were not golden as well. The problem was that it was the wrong time of year for golden leaves so that wasn't Peter Jacksons fault.

"Let's hunt some orc" is almost word for word what Aragorn says to the Riders in the middle of TT. "We're wondering around hunting orcs". Aragorn also spent a lot of his time as Strider hunting orcs. So it's not out of place at all.

Bombadil didn't have anything to do with Sauramans downfall, that was the Tree dudes, not the Tree Lover dude.

(Incidentally, I think PJ's knocking off of Sauruman is better than Tolkiens one. Far less likely to be copied by stupid idiots in real life).

Best bit in movie: too many to say, but the bit where the hobbits have to do the dishes as punishment is priceless.

Funniest bit: Gimli yells "and my axe" after just destroying the axe of his dwarf mate sitting next to him. It's funny no matter how you look at it. If it's his own axe, that makes him stupid (but it's not). And you still end up saying under your breath "ahh, but is your axe any better than your mates axe?"

I think it's MEANT to be a funny line. But the context is so serious it ends up sounding like a mistake.

The first time I saw the movie the music was just right. The second there were parts that were way too loud. Probably just the different theatres.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay! So the DVD/video of LOTR: The Twin Towers is available.

UK residents who can manage to manage to spend >£30 in Tescos can get hold of the DVD for £11.99.

but remember, the expanded versions will be out mid-Nov.

Then there's me, who's going for BOTH DO YOU HEAR ME BOTH!

My order of the DVD should arrive Tuesday or Wednesday. :-)

Ned, you so crazy!

Well yes.

3 more months was too long to wait. I was going to borrow the video now & buy the extended version in November, but I am a sucker for a bargain.