The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

01-03-2002, 04:27 PM

Thanks Eol, although I don't think Maedhros meant to speak offensively.Maedhros: Well written! I welcome a good challenge. You are correct-I have been ferocious. But, if passion and ferocity about a subject cause me to be unbecoming, then so be it. I will get to the examples, although this task will be tedious; but first let me agree with you on a few matters: 1) "no movie will ever live up to the images and sensations created by our own imaginations." This is all too true, and I agree! 2) "I don't think that one can adequately judge the quality of this film until the others have been seen…" I agree with you in part. 3) "Jackson was put in the somewhat undesirable task of developing a multitude of personalities…" I agree that this is a difficult task, but I think it has been done before and better.I'll just start writing and see if some examples pop out of my head. Nazgul - I'll refer you to my post in "The Nazgul: Do you think they were weak?" thread. Arwen - No huge beef here; but why, in the name of thickening Arwen's role so she won't be so random later, does PJ need to have her face The Nine? Why not have her talk with Aragorn later in Rivendell to explain how important she is, or have Aragorn and the Hobbits (or anyone) have a short conversation explaining her importance and her role? Arwen, facing the Nine?!?!? You mean to tell me that all of the unread viewers out there thought this was realistic? Again, it was ok, but could have been done better. Including Glorfindel, Elrond, and Gandalf here would not only have been more believable (especially after you find out who Elrond is later), but it would not have been any more random (Glorfindel) than the role played by Galadriel IN THE MOVIE. Aragorn - Half his lines were unconvincing. They gave not nearly enough time at Bree to develop his relationship with the Hobbits. If I had not read the books, I believe it would have seemed like the Hobbits were stupid Heroes who got lucky on Aragorn. Again, not something that needs comparison to the book for correction. Boromir - Best acting of the whole cast! Not much to say here. Gandalf - He was decent. But man was he portrayed as an idiot in some spots. The bumping of the head thing…I've heard some justify this as a way to show Gandalf's non-invincibility or humanity. But it was unnecessary! Tolkien showed Gandalf's humanity by having him tell the Hobbits he could not make fire out of nothing, or saying his strength would wane against the balrog's, or expressing his uncertainties about the journey ahead. All of these could have been done in movie form very easily, but we get a Gandalf, the unread public gets a Gandalf, who bumps his head on the beam of a room that the THE MOVIE has already implied gandalf has been in several several times. STUPID. Frodo - Weak but sufferable. Acting was pretty good. But would it have hurt to have him show a little more courage? Would it have taken away from the implication that the ring was wearing him down? Sam - Good job, just not given enough time to act! Scene at the end teared me up (that's what I was waiting for for 2.9 hours). * Merry and Pippin - nuf said about them on other threads. But in short: made to look stupid (only Pippin was stupid, & could it not have been that way in the movie?); not given enough time to develop the whole friendship thing with Frodo. * Legolas - Pretty cool. Didn't say much, and should not have. PJ got this right. Gimli - He was alright too; although his reaction to Galadriel as a catalyst for the friendship of he and Legolas could easily have been done. * Elrond - Where do I begin?! Who would like that guy? Contrary to popular belief, he WAS mean-spirited, and acted like he wanted to force Frodo to take the ring. This attitude was prevalent among all the elves of ME in the movie, and that's plain backwards! My opinion is shared by others on this site; and while that may not make my claim factual, at least I'm not alone. Galadriel - Who would like her?! She, along with Lothlorien, came across as a dark, angry, witch. And while many in ME may have described her in that way, she was certainly DID NOT appear that way to the council. But, as I'm sure you've noted, this is more of a complaint about not sticking to the story. As for critiquing the movie itself with respect to Galadriel, what was the point of going there? We saw more bad Elves, and a mean witch who's only purpose for inclusion seemed to be to give Frodo his gift. How about a re-write here?….Throw out Lothlorien (since the latter is all the unread viewer seemed to gain from it). Have Elrond give Frodo his gift in Rivendell, and use the extra time on the Council (which, for the sake of the movie's plot and continuity, is far more important).* The mirror…who needs it (in the movie)? Gollum - Excellently done so far! Great image. Out of the picture. Good voice. Great sense of what the ring has done to him. Sauron - why did we need to see him? Anybody knows that the villain most feared is the one not seen! How's this?…they keep the beginning battle seen; we judge from the fear on the faces of those near him how terrible he is, but we do not see him (this is done in hundreds of other scary movies); we are made to think that Isildur is fighting with him (also easily accomplished by any good actor/director); Isildur swings his broken sword and a giant finger falls to the ground as it did in the movie, giving us the impression of how GREAT Sauron is. We never see THE enemy, which makes it all the more suspenseful as we near Mordor (movies 2 & 3), but we still have a sense of the might and terror of THE enemy. What do we have as it stands??? A large transformer! Orcs (Uruk-hai & Northerners) - No major problems here. A little WWF-ish though (personal complaint). Other comments: Places that you see a "*" denote scenes, characters, relationships, or plot that could have been developed further, adding to the story and the richness of the movie, had PJ cut some time from ridiculously long battle scenes: The battle in the Tomb in Moria could have been shorter; the silly crumbling staircase thing was a waste of precious time; Lothlorien as they did it was a waste of time (as I have said).Small, personal complaints: 1) Could Gandalf have said, "Oh, that's just Gollum." In Moria any more matter-of-factly? Don't you think the unread audience was thinking, "why isn't he more concerned? Why aren't any of them more concerned? Isn't that a big deal?" 2) "Demon-Bilbo"…not sure what to say about that?!? 3) The stairwell in Moria that Gandalf chose…contrary to the book, he went down instead of up. Why was this changed? No, it doesn't really matter, but why change something so trivial that could have been easily kept true to the story by a prop!?!So anyway, I've written enough, and I'm sure many will disagree with me. But hey, I love talking to you people about it![ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ][ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

01-03-2002, 04:27 PM	#53
rhudladion Guest Posts: n/a	Thanks Eol, although I don't think Maedhros meant to speak offensively.<P>Maedhros:<BR> Well written! I welcome a good challenge. You are correct-I have been ferocious. But, if passion and ferocity about a subject cause me to be unbecoming, then so be it. <BR> I will get to the examples, although this task will be tedious; but first let me agree with you on a few matters:<BR>1) "no movie will ever live up to the images and sensations created by our own <BR> imaginations." This is all too true, and I agree!<BR>2) "I don't think that one can adequately judge the quality of this film until the others<BR> have been seen…" I agree with you in part.<BR>3) "Jackson was put in the somewhat undesirable task of developing a multitude of<BR> personalities…" I agree that this is a difficult task, but I think it has been done <BR> before and better.<P>I'll just start writing and see if some examples pop out of my head.<P> Nazgul - I'll refer you to my post in "The Nazgul: Do you think they were weak?" thread. <P> Arwen - No huge beef here; but why, in the name of thickening Arwen's role so she won't be so random later, does PJ need to have her face The Nine? Why not have her talk with Aragorn later in Rivendell to explain how important she is, or have Aragorn and the Hobbits (or anyone) have a short conversation explaining her importance and her role? Arwen, facing the Nine?!?!? You mean to tell me that all of the unread viewers out there thought this was realistic? Again, it was ok, but could have been done better. Including Glorfindel, Elrond, and Gandalf here would not only have been more believable (especially after you find out who Elrond is later), but it would not have been any more random (Glorfindel) than the role played by Galadriel IN THE MOVIE.<BR> Aragorn - Half his lines were unconvincing. They gave not nearly enough time at Bree to develop his relationship with the Hobbits. If I had not read the books, I believe it would have seemed like the Hobbits were stupid Heroes who got lucky on Aragorn. Again, not something that needs comparison to the book for correction.<BR> Boromir - Best acting of the whole cast! Not much to say here.<BR> Gandalf - He was decent. But man was he portrayed as an idiot in some spots. The bumping of the head thing…I've heard some justify this as a way to show Gandalf's non-invincibility or humanity. But it was unnecessary! Tolkien showed Gandalf's humanity by having him tell the Hobbits he could not make fire out of nothing, or saying his strength would wane against the balrog's, or expressing his uncertainties about the journey ahead. All of these could have been done in movie form very easily, but we get a Gandalf, the unread public gets a Gandalf, who bumps his head on the beam of a room that the THE MOVIE has already implied gandalf has been in several several times. STUPID.<BR> Frodo - Weak but sufferable. Acting was pretty good. But would it have hurt to have him show a little more courage? Would it have taken away from the implication that the ring was wearing him down? <BR> Sam - Good job, just not given enough time to act! Scene at the end teared me up (that's what I was waiting for for 2.9 hours). <BR> Merry and Pippin - nuf said about them on other threads. But in short: made to look stupid (only Pippin was stupid, & could it not have been that way in the movie?); not given enough time to develop the whole friendship thing with Frodo. <BR> Legolas - Pretty cool. Didn't say much, and should not have. PJ got this right.<BR> Gimli - He was alright too; although his reaction to Galadriel as a catalyst for the friendship of he and Legolas could easily have been done. <BR> Elrond - Where do I begin?! Who would like that guy? Contrary to popular belief, he WAS mean-spirited, and acted like he wanted to force Frodo to take the ring. This attitude was prevalent among all the elves of ME in the movie, and that's plain backwards! My opinion is shared by others on this site; and while that may not make my claim factual, at least I'm not alone.<BR> Galadriel - Who would like her?! She, along with Lothlorien, came across as a dark, angry, witch. And while many in ME may have described her in that way, she was certainly DID NOT appear that way to the council. But, as I'm sure you've noted, this is more of a complaint about not sticking to the story. As for critiquing the movie itself with respect to Galadriel, what was the point of going there? We saw more bad Elves, and a mean witch who's only purpose for inclusion seemed to be to give Frodo his gift. How about a re-write here?….Throw out Lothlorien (since the latter is all the unread viewer seemed to gain from it). Have Elrond give Frodo his gift in Rivendell, and use the extra time on the Council (which, for the sake of the movie's plot and continuity, is far more important). The mirror…who needs it (in the movie)?<BR> Gollum - Excellently done so far! Great image. Out of the picture. Good voice. Great sense of what the ring has done to him.<BR> Sauron - why did we need to see him? Anybody knows that the villain most feared is the one not seen! How's this?…they keep the beginning battle seen; we judge from the fear on the faces of those near him how terrible he is, but we do not see him (this is done in hundreds of other scary movies); we are made to think that Isildur is fighting with him (also easily accomplished by any good actor/director); Isildur swings his broken sword and a giant finger falls to the ground as it did in the movie, giving us the impression of how GREAT Sauron is. We never see THE enemy, which makes it all the more suspenseful as we near Mordor (movies 2 & 3), but we still have a sense of the might and terror of THE enemy. What do we have as it stands??? A large transformer!<BR> Orcs (Uruk-hai & Northerners) - No major problems here. A little WWF-ish though (personal complaint).<BR> <BR>Other comments: Places that you see a "*" denote scenes, characters, relationships, or plot that could have been developed further, adding to the story and the richness of the movie, had PJ cut some time from ridiculously long battle scenes: The battle in the Tomb in Moria could have been shorter; the silly crumbling staircase thing was a waste of precious time; Lothlorien as they did it was a waste of time (as I have said).<P>Small, personal complaints: 1) Could Gandalf have said, "Oh, that's just Gollum." In Moria any more matter-of-factly? Don't you think the unread audience was thinking, "why isn't he more concerned? Why aren't any of them more concerned? Isn't that a big deal?" 2) "Demon-Bilbo"…not sure what to say about that?!? 3) The stairwell in Moria that Gandalf chose…contrary to the book, he went down instead of up. Why was this changed? No, it doesn't really matter, but why change something so trivial that could have been easily kept true to the story by a prop!?!<P>So anyway, I've written enough, and I'm sure many will disagree with me. But hey, I love talking to you people about it!<P>[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]<p>[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]