really that good?

You know, I've really been thinking, and as much as it was a good movie, I was quite disappointed with it. It really failed to capture so much of Tolkien. Furthermore, I am horrified at the fact that so many people here at Barrow indicated on that poll that they thought that J.R.R Tolkien would have loved the movie. I would suggest that those who did so read Humphrey Carpenter's biography of Tolkien. Lastly, one of the largest things that Tolkien did so well and that the movie failed in producing was simply this: subtlty.

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I don't necessarily think that Tolkien would've LOVED the movie, I mean, who's to say if he'd actually even LIKE it. I, personally, really enjoyed the movie and was pleased with it. So, I am not disappointed, though I know many were. Although, I started with the movie so... The Two Towers will be different because I will have read the book first. So, I may become more of a critic.

[Orodhromeus]

I believe Tolkien, if he were alive, would have fought so actively against a movie that it would have ended in the studios' development dustbin.

This film appears good at least because it draws attention of many people to Tolkien's works. The popularity of Tolkien increases. More people become aware of the wonderful world of his writing. Isn't it good?<BR>As for the subtlety of the film, this is a highly judgemental area. How, do you think, the film would have to be rearranged to get more subtle?

I didn't like the movie that much. I mean i did, but they left a lot out. Like Anduril. I think Tolkien would have allowed a movie if he had his say-so in it...

[Gorothlammothiel]

I agree.....I don't think that Tolkien would have cared much for the Movie unless he had part in it. But it was a good film

[Birdland]

Let's see...I'm trying to think of other wonderful fantasy novels that turned into crappy movies. Right now all I can think of is Once and Future King became - ACK! - Camelot! And of course, we won't go into the Disneyfication of "Alice In Wonderland", "The Jungle Book", etc. <P>Jackson approached the filming of the book with as much respect and dignity as he could, considering the very real problems of bringing such a richly worded book to the visual arena, and working in the time constraints. <P>Do you realize how incredible fortunate he was to find a major studio who was willing to pay to produce the movie as three films at three hours each? That's unheard of in this day and age. It was an incredible gamble, and has succeeded beyond anyone's expectations.<P>You can quibble all you want about what was left out, or what stray pieces of dialog did or didn't fit your standards, but Peter Jackson has created a masterpiece of fantasy film making, and hopefully has inspired others to leave all he old clitches behind, and look at the genres in a whole, new light. <P>Frankly, I think even Spielberg and Lucas could take some lessons from Mr. Jackson.

In response to how Peter Jackson failed to produce such subtlty as Tolkien did-<BR>1. The struggle between Saruman and Gandalf had way to much of Star Wars feel to it. Neither Gandalf nor Saruman were as subtle as they should have been, as Tolkien wrote.(see quote below)<BR>2. The power of the elves was also much to apparent. They were not at all merry as Tolkien describes them. He gives us glimpses of their power and awe, but it was too much in the movie.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Oro, I tried to respond earlier but I had a tech problem with my computer at work.<P>I disagree. Tolkien would not have lobbied against the making of the movie. <P>He was an honorable man, sold the movie rights, and would have felt honor-bound to let them make the movie they paid for. Of course.<P>He would have hated the extra notoriety.<BR>Friends would have insisted he see it, and I think curiousity would have drawn him. (He and Christopher Tolkien are two very different personalities.)<P>He would respectfully not have made any public for or against. Out of sheer politeness. <P>But given his perfectionistic tendencies, he would have had a mental list of how he thought things should have been done.<P>I think he would have been pleased with the scenery in New Zealand, the care taken with the sets and costumes. I think he would have found the actors satisfactory (Frodo was perhaps a bit young, though he was to look like a hobbit just out of his tweens). <P>But wherever dialogue was added or changed.. well, no writer likes to be edited, no matter what they may say.<P> Maril

[Airetalathwen]

But Tolkien hated technology. He's all about reading books and telling stories by the fire over a glass of mead. I really don't think that he'd want anything to do with making a movie. <P>And yes, I do think the movie was too blunt; not subtle at all. But that was the ONLY way it could be. Everything was really dumbed down for the non-readers, so that they could still enjoy it and never read the books. No one would want to go and see the actual lord of the rings trilogy, except for us diehard fans.<P>I personally would have loved to see a more subtle movie, but I guess you can't get everything you want... <P>~Airetalathwen

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I don't understand why everyone has such a loathing for the movie. I think that Peter Jackson did a great job with it. It's hard to please the greater human race AND the Tolkien fans equally. I can imagine that he was really scared when making it because it has so many followers. I heard in some interviews that the actors were really worried about how die-hard fans would critique their performances. Making movies is a hard business and a lot of work goes into them, so I don't see why they could get shot down. I don't think that anyone could've done a better job.<BR>Yes, Tolkien may have disagreed with some things in the film, but if he were still alive he would probably feel honored to have his work recognized by so many & I am sure that it would have not been made unless he was right there on the set.<BR>Cut the movie makers some slack. It's not their fault that they couldn't get everything exact.<BR>I am not trying to offend anyone, I am just expressing my opinion because I am an actress and understand the work and process involved in making films. Sorry if I did offend anyone.

[Orodhromeus]

I don't loathe the movie. On the contrary I appreciate it much. But the books are on one side and the movie on the other. They are completely different worlds. The movie was Hollywood, the books were subtle nobility. Oe can appreciate the movie and the book in 2 completely different manners (like me). Nobody could ever make a perfect adaptation of LotR into film, not because there are too many fans with too many different opinions out there, but because it's plainly impossible. There have been some 20 Odysseys & Iliads in film out there, but seeing them can't be close as to reading the book itself.<P>Peace, movie-goers & book-readers!

Most of us came to the world of Middle-Earth through the books. We fell in love with that world and the elegant prose of Professor Tolkien. We thought it so superb that we returned to the pages again and again and found more each time to love and appreciate. It is only human to then not feel comfortable with another incarnation of something we became so enamored with.<BR>Very few films have surpassed the books which originally spawned them. Exceptions may be the 1939 WIZARD OF OZ (although I imagine the Oz fans might take exception), CUCKO"S NEST, and FOREST GUMP. If you want to read a really bad, offensive book waste a day or two with that one. But all three made excellent films.<BR>Jackson should be congratulated for his respect and aproach in making these films. Do people realize just how much they have of the books? In the end, we will have at least eleven hours of first rate film at a cost of over $300 million dollars. That is mind boggling!<BR>The casting ws superb - the characters of Gandalf, Frodo, Sam and Aragorn were almost too good to be true. Like many, I was convinced that only Sean Connery could play Gandalf and now I am glad my wish was not granted. Who every even heard of Viggo Mortensen before this but now we have the personification of the King returned. Someone made the point that these films will inspire many to read the books for the first time. That in itself is an incredible good thing. The fanatics - and I proudly count myself as one - now have a huge variety of high quality toys, statues, games, and other items to constantly help bring the world of Middle-Earth to life for us.<BR>Quit griping about the glass being only 80% full and you did not get a full pour. You have far more than a reasonable person could ever have hoped for two years ago.<BR>Like many, I grew up on the films of Steven Spielberg and have always felt he was the best of his generation. That torch was passed to Jackson with FELLOWSHIP. If he is able to pull of his promise of each film surpassing the previous one, he will have accomplished a feat unequaled in cinema history. Sit back and enjoy this people. It may not happen again until your grandkids come over for a visit and you show them the 22 volume DVD set for the fifth time.<BR>PEACE.

[Lady Galadriel]

The movie was good, but could have been far better. I have heard roumors of the other 2 movies which really depress me!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Exceptions may be the 1939 WIZARD OF OZ (although I imagine the Oz fans might take exception) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And it's all the people who read the Lord of the Rings before going to see this movie that are finding problems with it, I've noticed. If you ask someone who read the books only after they saw the movie, or who hasn't read them at all, they'll tell you it was great. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

[Arwen Imladris]

I personally liked the movie a lot. I know they made all sorts of changes but really, could you have done better? I don't think that I could. If tolkien were here I don't know what he would do.

[Genandra of Mirkwood]

I've been a Tolkien fan for awhile so I was very skeptical before seeing the movie, but then liked it a lot (though there were disappointments). I had told myself going in: a movie is a movie and a book is a book. I don't know what Tolkien would have thought, but he might have realized this too, that the movie world is an art form of its own with its own rules. (ie Tolkien might have agreed with ME ) The fact that the film stayed as closely to the book as it did is a great thing and not always to be hoped for from big-production movies.<P>Then when I read "purists'" opinions of the film I wonder, am I not loyal enough to Tolkien's vision?? I saw the movie again last night (#5 ) and realized- I love the movie because I love Middle Earth, period. I'm moved by one person's- or rather, a team of talented people's- vision of some aspects of Middle Earth. And I don't need that vision to be encyclopedic, as long as the spirit of things stay true. In my opinion they got very close to the real vision in most of the things they attempted to show.<P>[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Genandra of Mirkwood ]<p>[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Genandra of Mirkwood ]

Airetalathwen-thank you so much, we seem to see eye to eye

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

If Tolkien hated technology so much he would never want to see a film made of his book, why did he sell the rights to Hollywood? Surely if he was that strongly against it, he would not prostitute himself so.<P>My impression was that Tolkien abjured technology in his own life, but did not begrudge it to others. That would explain his actions in selling the movie rights.<P>He was a subtle man, so please don't reduce him to such a black and white persona.

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

Let's just all be greatful that the movie was not sold to the Beatles (not that I don't like them, but imagine what wouldn've happened, have you seen any of their movies!).<BR>Also, be happy that it was made in a time where technology is good enough to make it real - otherwise it could've ended up looking like the original Godzilla or something! AHH!

[Kalimac]

I can't picture Tolkien out-and-out loving the movie, but you have to remember that there were very few artistic works out there (and in his mind movies probably weren't considered the highest of the arts) which he did express great enthusiasm for. This isn't a knock on him, it was his personality insofar as I can tell from his letters - reserved, honorable, holding himself and others to very high artistic standards. He did sell the film rights, and having done that I sincerely doubt that he would have tried to stop a production post hoc - that's reneging on a contract, among other things.<P>In a way I can see why people might be disappointed - there was quite a bit that was left out, and probably very few of us could point to any one scene in the book and say "Yeah, that should definitely go. Doesn't add a thing." (though personally I think cutting Tom Bombadil was a no-brainer decision, ring-a-ding-dillo). But books and movies are very different things. The subtlety question came up - the thing is, in movies and books subtlety is done in different ways. I think there was a great deal of subtlety in the movies, but it was done a very, well, movie-like style, that is visually. Little things like the runes on the walls of Moria, the elven-brooches, the smoke ship that Gandalf blew in the beginning (possibly shades of the Grey Havens?), the look on Frodo's face when he hears Boromir saying "It might have been mine, it should be mine!" All these things, some of them very fleeting, gave an impression of depth, that there was a real history in this world, not just some halfhearted scenery thrown together to look "fantasy-like." <P>In the book the subtlety is quite different, but to use one example, think about translating the scene where Frodo first sees Aragorn and Arwen into film. In the book, he sees them standing close to each other, sees the way Arwen looks at Aragorn, and sense that there is something there deeper than he had suspected. That's all. It's a wonderful scene to read, and tells us a lot about all three characters involved, but imagine trying to film it! Aragorn and Arwen standing close to each other, Arwen looking at Aragorn. That's it, unless you want to resort to having Arwen wink, or having Frodo do a voice-over. "Hmmm...I sense there's something going on here." Not going to work. Basically what I'm trying to say is that to keep the subtlety and flavor of the books, they had to change some stuff; if they'd done a literal word-for-word, event-for-event translation it would have been very, very hard to understand and probably painfully dull in stetches.

[Lush]

Dear Doderic, I am sorry if I am appear too blunt, but I have waded through far too many threads akin to yours on this esteemed forum, and have long since abandoned subtlety when dealing with this particular topic. I have two words for you: <B>Bah humbug</B>.<P>wainrider-Great post, but I was lusting after Viggo long before he took up Narsil! <P>Kalimac-Awesome points. Also, remember the stone trolls in the background! And the chapter titles that appeared in Gandalf's lines ("long-expected party", "riddles in the dark"...)

[Kalla]

Hmmm...well, personally I liked the movie a lot, but there are two reasons for that. One, I loved the book, so anything about it I love, even the stupid cartoon which is HORRIBLE!! Second, I think the actors, for the MOST part, really portrayed how they were in the book, except perhaps Sam and Frodo. The great thing about the book was it was just that, a book, so each person can imagine and take from it what they will and what has meaning to their soul. Movies put a picture to those words, and especially if we have preconceived ideas of how it should be, they can let us down or astonish us. I think Jackson did a good job especially if you look at other attempts to create such an epic movie. Even though it's one person's interpretation of the book, what WAS preserved from the story in making it a movie was that you can still take from the it what you will and imagine even greater things in your heart. But that is just my opinion.

[Orodhromeus]

I thought subtlety in the book was more related to the way everyone spoke. Their kind, humble & noble manners, the old english they used, the poetic way even the most tense moments were handled with (see the discussions between Éomer & Gimli concerning Galadriel). That <I>can</I> be filmed, but who would watch it nowadays? (ok, we, but that's not what I meant ) Such a style corresponds to theatre plays, not hollywood super-productions!

[Gorothlammothiel]

Theatre plays Orodhromeus? Now theres a new approach. <P>We have the books (always the best), a multi-million film, a cartoon, why not a theatre production? I know there is a play of the Hobbit in one of the London theatres (must go and see) but perhaps someone could make LOTR a play? <P>I imagine it would be very enjoyable!