People who thought the movie stunk!

[peregrine]

Rhudladion - people with a greater knowledge of film and the books than me have had plenty to say already, as you noted. My gripes are all to do with the way in which, I think, they have felt the need to jazz it up, or make it more melodramatic. Is that for modern audiences with supposedly shallow sensory perceptions and a short concentration span? Is not the action, suspense and majestic sweep of epic grandeur already found in the books not enough? Who are they to try and enhance it?<P>Lush - it's good to see an open and frank exchange of views (that's what we're here for) but people should play nice, I agree. It is often hard to get your point across in this medium, and get the right tone so as not to appear blunt or rude.

[Lush]

Got'cha!<BR>Oh wait...Did I appear blunt and rude? I think I'm only that way when telemarketers call too early in the morning!<BR>As for the movie...Well, we all know that I liked it a lot. Makes me wonder why I became so vocal on this thread in the first place-perhaps it has something to do with Rhud's magnetism!

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

sorry I didn't get to post this earlier but it's about Arwen...she's a descendent of Melian (Maiar) Thingol (Elf) and Beren (Man) if I remember correctly...and at one point in the Appendices to LOTR Elrond states that her blood is higher than Aragorn's...so she's not a Princess as such but she's verrrry highly born...n Lush I like your posts even if I don't agree with all of them...lol

[Elrian]

Arwen is from Royal blood on both sides, King Thingol= her Great,Great,Great Grandfather, King Turgon= Great,Great Grandfather, High King Olwe= her Great,Great Grandfather, and High King Finarfin= her Great Grandfather, as well as Melian the Maia. Aragorn is too far descended down that line, and much of it has been bred out.

[HerenIstarion]

who thought the movie stunk? I did

[Tirinor]

here is an interesting article that relates to an argument from page one of this thread. thought y'all might be interested.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.marquette.edu/library/information/news/ShippeyQ&A.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.marquette.edu/library/information/news/ShippeyQ&A.html</A>

I think the movie did a fairly decent job, although it didn't AND couldn't be as complex as the book.<P>I read Tolkien a long time ago when I was still a kid, and I really hated it because it was too slow, (Hey! I was a kid....twelve or thirteen, so being shallow was part of my prerogative! It's a different story now.)<P>After watching the movie, my interest "rekindled". I think that's good enough for the movie - to bring to the attention of the uneducated public of the wonderful world which Tolkien had created.<P>Lush, I had the impression that you were pretty old. Don't worry, you're not. I'm sure there are some of you out there who would like to join my Old Geezers Club.<P>Just my twp cent's worth.

[Telgaladiel]

hoo boy...<BR>All right, after reading every entry made, I would like to make one teeny observation as the "somewhat initiated prior to her movie experience and is currently reading the books and loving them all while loving the movie, too."<P>It seems to me that those who have read the books by Tolkien for as many years as you all have said you have will have problems nomatterwhat discerning their interpertation from PJ's and his actors. What you may think is a debate about the movie itself can come across as book to movie. And I really don't appreciate worries like "uneducated bandwagon" being aired publically. It could be a real turnoff to someone just out looking for info and discussion while they are introducing themselves to what is obviously well loved and read.<P>There was a bit in the movie that irked me, the biggest being in Rivendell when Frodo took up the burden of the Ring. Gandalf is standing there, shouting his hat off to Boromir in the scene shot where Frodo says for the second time he will take it up. A split second later we are cut to a close up of Gandalf's face all solemn and forlorn. I cannot cannot believe that he could recover so quickly and the shot completely ruined that section for me. It was too jumpy, too cut.<P><BR><I>In film acting, subtlety is key. It is all in the eyes and small movements of the face and body - that's how film reveals what stage acting cannot.</I><P>All right, touchy subject for me. But I'm good for a debate, if I can find the quoter again. I'm training for stage acting right now, and if subtlety isn't a key there, I don't know what is. Comparing the impact of stage acting to film acting is like comparing Feist to Eddings, apples to oranges. The setting is entirely different, the staging, the entire style. Anyways, I don't want to rant too much off topic here, but if the person can remember their quote, I'll talk with you, definitely.<P>*goes off to find quoter*

I know everyone is sick of seeing this thread pop up at the top the list, but I thought I'd list a few things I actually liked about the movie, if for no other reason than to improve my seemingly "negativist" status among some of you.<P>So here they are: Rhudladion's Positive Comments<P>1) Like everyone else, but of course not jumping on the bandwagon (just kidding, Telgaladiel), I loved the scenery! Middle Earth sure is a beautiful place-I'm thinking about a second honeymoon there.<P>2) I thought Boromir did a geat job acting. I thought PJ did a great job forming his part(of course he had some help from JRRT).<P>3) A small thing, but I loved the way the trees were swaying and moaning in that arial shot of Orthanc when Saruman was beginning his dirty work. Great attention to detail here, and a pleaser for the read viewer.<P>4) Bilbo was great! He was the best hobbit in my opinion. I got some of the same melancholy feelings during his scenes in the movie that I get while reading the Hobbit and the LOTR. What a great little guy!<P>5) Sam was pretty cool; and he and Frodo's last scene in the movie = the best scene in the movie.<P>6) Balrog was pretty dang awesome!<P>7) Gollum was cool!<P><BR>Well, it's not much, but it's a list.<P>Rhud

[Telgaladiel]

heehee... S'okay, Rhu. It was a bit late when I wrote that... it _is_ nice to know you liked it though. I have issues with some of the way the screen shots went together, but other than that... <P>Yes, Bilbo was great. Did you see Ian Holm in the Fifth Element? In case you wanted to see him in some other roles..

[Lush]

Telagaladiel-Hmm hmm. We have another actor here. Are you more partial to the stage? I, for one, wish that I could do more work in front of the camera; while on the stage, I just get exhausted trying to set the right pace. <BR>FYI, I actually enjoyed the look on Gandalf's face (good job Ian McKellen!). Elrond's over-the-top delivery at the end of that scene is what irked me. Or maybe it was the music. Ah, what am I doing? It's too late to be going over little details.<BR>Starsong- I am so young that I can barely take myself seriously, much less ask anyone to do the same.

Rhudladion, try watching it again in about 15 or 20 years. You might be surprised how much the acting improves.

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

*this is a genuine query* is that coz standards deteriorate???

[Telgaladiel]

Lush- Yep yep.. definitely partial to stage, Shakespeare even if I could get it. Will do commercial work (if allowed by my profs and the theatre department) for money (tuition!) and if a career presents itself, I'll do film, but theatre is just...more intimate than film, far more intimate to me. <P>I loved the look on Gandalf's face, but its the technical way the shots were put together that irritated me. I think they cut a shot and that made it seem so jumpy.

[lomion]

Hey mom!! Look, I'm a jaded malcontent!!! What's the problem? We all know that everything made into a film must be "dummied down" to appeal to the mass-markets!! I jest. I left the theater stunned. Aside from having my eardrums broken, I thought I may have wandered into the wrong movie. I must admit it had amazing visuals (mainly landscapes) But still the film was a mere shadow of the actual tale. I was very dissapointed to say the least. Action/adventure. I think Peter Jackson cut the soul out of it. Knife in the Dark was very good in the book!! The key word being "dark". It happend at night. The black riders coming out of the darkness...very dramatic. He puts on the ring...the riders are seen as great kings, in armour, full of malice! The hatred in their eyes as this person dares to possess their masters ring!!! Come on!! It was bright daylight in the movie!! Did Jackson have to change things like that? No. He disregarded it. It would'nt have taken any longer, would'nt have been logistically inconvenent. Maybe they did'nt want to run the horses at night. Arwen was bad. The wizards battle scene was cheezy. Jaded? I had'nt thought so. Malcontent? hmmmm....

Well, I thought this forum was dead.<BR>I'm glad you were kidding...I thought I was going to have to defend myself all over again.<P>I'm glad to see someone else out there thought it could have been better, although I am softening my view a little. I don't know whether it is because of all the comments in this thread or because it's been a month since I saw it and I have forgotten how bad it really was.

[Mister Underhill]

Just to set the record straight: the Nazgûl do attack at night on Weathertop (drawn, in the movie, by the Hobbits' ill-conceived cooking fire). If it seems a bit bright, there is justification in the book -- the battle takes place under a "waxing moon" that casts a "pale light" and reveals the Wraiths' approach. In the book, the race to the ford takes place "in the late afternoon", not at night. <P>On the other hand, I would have preferred Nazgûl that "sprang forward and bore down on Frodo" rather than ones that moved with the alarming torpidity they displayed at Weathertop in the movie, but that's just a quibble.

I agree with Mr. Underhill in full.

[Fenrir]

I agree with Mister Underhill and Lomion. It says that the Nazgul became suddenly clear and ommited to mention that they looked as if they had been busy decomposing for the past few months. In other words I've always thought of them as being more human-like.

[Lush]

*raises her eyebrows at everyone*<BR>Joy, my favorite thread has been revived! If only I was willful, or stupid enough to go off on another rant here...

[MenRWeak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Eol:<BR><STRONG><BR>LOTR books were better off left alone and not turned into a cinema , commerical draw. Tolkien's stuff is way too detailed to make a goood movie.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Thank God your opinion means jack. Go back to your hole with your books, little purist. The rest of us will enjoy the current film and the other two on the way.

[MenRWeak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tirinor:<BR><STRONG><BR>And, why am I being "stooopid" if I claim to be able to do a better job than Peter Jackson? For all you know I MAY be Steven Speilberg. But that is beside the point. My ability to do a better job, or not do a better job is as unknown to you as my place of birth, therefore, you have no grounds to denounce my claim as being stooopid.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Stooopid...stupid...however you spell the word, you've earned the title.<P>I could do a better job than Peter Jackson...**snore**<p>[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: MenRWeak ]

[MenRWeak]

Rhudladion, Beryl, Eol, et al...<P>At what point did you folks run out of your pipeweed and begin your withdrawals? Right before the movie came out, I guess...<P>You should probably sit out the next two "bad movies" and sulk at home clutching your books. I'll come up with a list of all the story deviations, producer self-gratification bits, inane character potrayals, etc...etc...and post them under a thread entitled, "We didn't like it yawners." Then you all can bellyache and moan about another atrocity without actually having to suffer through another PJ blunder.<P>As for me, 11 months and counting until the next masterpiece conquers the big screen.<P>[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: MenRWeak ]<p>[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: MenRWeak ]

[Fenrir]

Please try and be a bit more polite, MenRWeak, remember everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

bloody ell i just wanted to see tom bombadil, is that too much to ask?<P>and those wargs

[Sharkû]

Fenrir is right. There is no need for this to get out of hand, be it because of movie fights, or language (Style).

[MenRWeak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Fenrir:<BR><STRONG>Please try and be a bit more polite, MenRWeak, remember everyone is entitled to their own opinion.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Of course that entitlement is universal. My opinion is blatant and wide open. Always will be. No doubt this deviation from the "let's not ruffle feathers" routine will earn me some detractors. Good. Typically I find their responses to be of some interest.<P>This thread was started by the statement, "I just want to know if anyone out there thinks it stinks as bad as I do. If so, voice it here!"<P>Polite was thrown out of the picture at this thread's inception.

MenRWeak:<P>You seem upset. You know, the sentiment that you operate with as well as your "anti-purist" remarks have already been aired.<P>Have you read the entire forum? My remarks as well as other's that you would call "purist" have never implied that a "word-for -word" replica of the LOTR should have been made. In fact, many of our comments were directed at actor's abilities, and improper characterizations in the film itself, not discrepancies with the book. <P>It is the mark of an unwise person who takes many statements from many people and attributes every statment to each individual.<P>If this has not been as forthcoming as I had hoped, here is what I mean to say:<P>I am not a purist, and I live in an apartment, not a hole.

[Tirinor]

MenRWeak, your comments about posts that make you yawn, make me yawn.

[Eol]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Thank God your opinion means jack. Go back to your hole with your books, little purist. The rest of us will enjoy the current film and the other two on the way.-MenRweak<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have no problem if you like the movie...I give you a hand that you liked it! I have stated in other threads that there were designated for the cool things about the movie, but I would not place them under the thread " who all thought the movie stunk". The praising would be placed in a more *appropriate*thread. <P>I find it in poor taste when someone takes a generalized statement and pins it on everyone, especially a statement that is not even true.<P>Yes you have a right to your own opinion, true that this thread does have statements that *could* be contray to your own, but that is was a discussion forum is all about.<P>It would be more respected if you kept your snide comments of other people and their comments *out* of the forum and leave in the comments of what the forum asks of here.You would be more respected in return, and you would get more out of the discussion.<P>I respect someone who is willing to state what is on their mind in a blant manner. You can prove your point without being immature and a snit.<P>ps: I do not live in a hole, I reside in a civilized place with a view of a beautiful tree.<p>[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Eol ]

[Enkanowen]

if someone didn't like the movie, get over it and do it better is what i say. Find the actors and resources and crew to do it better. I DARE YOU!<BR>i mean seriously, as much as everyone is entitled to their own opinion... fact of the matter is, they could not be able to do it any better. Peter Jackson's dreamcut is just under 5 hours long. 99.9% of the time, movies over 3 hours long aren't even let into the theatres. So, really you should understand that principle, that some things are impossible to do, and get over with it. <P>This discussion isn't worth discussing because no one can make it better. Sure we can all argue, whine and what not but it is NOT going to change anything.<P>So get over with it and be done!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Enkanowen:<BR><STRONG>if someone didn't like the movie, get over it and do it better is what i say. i mean seriously, as much as everyone is entitled to their own opinion... fact of the matter is, they could not be able to do it any better. This discussion isn't worth discussing because no one can make it better. Sure we can all argue, whine and what not but it is NOT going to change anything. So get over with it and be done! </STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So what you're saying is that because events in the past are unchangeable, there is no since in discussing them.<P>hmmmmm... so I guess we shouldn't praise the movie either, because that certainly would not change anyting. I guess I also should not complain about the September 11th bombing because that is in the past also, and all of my wishing that it had never happened is in vain. Should I ever engage in a discussion about what would have made our economy better in 2000? I guess not.<P>The fact is, it is doesn't only make sense for us to talk about things we can't change, but we <I>should</I> talk about things we can't change, espescially if it is in the context of art, music, movies, policies, principle, etc. This is the only way we could ever do things better the next time. It also forces us to think, and not be complacent.

[Tirinor]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Enkanowen:<BR><STRONG>if someone didn't like the movie, get over it and do it better is what i say. Find the actors and resources and crew to do it better. I DARE YOU!<BR>i mean seriously, as much as everyone is entitled to their own opinion... fact of the matter is, they could not be able to do it any better. Peter Jackson's dreamcut is just under 5 hours long. 99.9% of the time, movies over 3 hours long aren't even let into the theatres. So, really you should understand that principle, that some things are impossible to do, and get over with it. <P>This discussion isn't worth discussing because no one can make it better. Sure we can all argue, whine and what not but it is NOT going to change anything.<P>So get over with it and be done! </STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Interesting theory. Thanks for visiting "people who thought the movie stunk" and contributing.

[bryniana]

wow, i've really enjoyed reading all the comments from so many people who are so passionate and learned in the tolkien world. here-here.<P>I have to admit, I loved the film. I had never read any of tolkien's work previously (i had tried, i have just always had a difficult time reading fantasy-literature, i just can't picture it). After reading the trilogy since watching FOTR I still love it. Granted it does have it's problems, but this is a only one-third of a finished product.<P>As someone who had not read the books before seeing the film, I thought it was seamless. There was nothing I would have changed (except Gimli--Peter Jackson's answear to Jar Jar Binks--bad lines, no depth, all the acting at one level the entire time). I was completely immersed the whole time. I experienced terror, joy, grief, and love. I was never left questioning why something happened in the film. <P>After seeing it I immediently started reading the LOTR the next day (so in a month i have read those, plus being half-way through book of lost tales). It inspired me to read somehting that i had never read before. <P>After reading FOTR I went back to see it again. I was amazed at just how much more I got out of the film from having read the novels. I understood why Gandalf hit his head on the chandelier (besides the fact that he was tall). At one point in LOTR (novel, not movie) Aaragorn talks to the hobbits about the fact that Gandalf is a great and powerful and fearful man, not just a magacian who makes fireworks. Showing this side of Gandalf puts the viewer in the hobbits shoes. We don't see him as this great and powerful man, we see him as a kind man to be loved...only later is the awesome scope of his power revealled. <P>This is one tiny, tiny example of the depth that Peter Jackson and the writers went into in creating this film. No, it does not go verbratum with the novel...but my god does it have depth.<P>What would have change now that I have read the novels and seen the movie multiple times? Well, Gimli's characterization for one. Yeah, that's the main thing. Ilsidur's sword is the second. The gifts that Galadriel gives the fellowship (i'm simply thinking about the importance of all the gifts later on). And i would not have sent the Horn of Gondor over the falls with Boromir. It plays too large of a role later on to do that--but then again in the movies it might not, we will have to see.<P>Again, thank you all for providing such wonderful conversation on this board. Much more intersing that "wasn't Stryder hot".

[Lush]

Well, he was quite hot, actually. <BR>As for the everything else that's been posted on this thread: Blimey! And I thought my defense of the movie was passionate! I've been thoroughly outdone.

[Enkanowen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rhudladion:<BR><STRONG><P>So what you're saying is that because events in the past are unchangeable, there is no since in discussing them.<P>hmmmmm... so I guess we shouldn't praise the movie either, because that certainly would not change anyting. I guess I also should not complain about the September 11th bombing because that is in the past also, and all of my wishing that it had never happened is in vain. Should I ever engage in a discussion about what would have made our economy better in 2000? I guess not.<P>The fact is, it is doesn't only make sense for us to talk about things we can't change, but we <I>should</I> talk about things we can't change, espescially if it is in the context of art, music, movies, policies, principle, etc. This is the only way we could ever do things better the next time. It also forces us to think, and not be complacent.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>I suppose you could do a better job with the movie then. There is discussing things and then there is beating the dead horse. This discussion is beating the dead horse. If you don't like it, fine, get on with it, don't watch the movies. If you like it just as fine. It doesn't matter because it is a waste of everyone's energy to have a tug-o-war over something that is opinion based. And I am not even going to comment on american political issues that really have nothing to do with the Lord of the Rings movie. Like I said get over it. Leave the dead horse be, its soul has gone to a better place. <BR>

[MenRWeak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Eol:<BR><STRONG><BR>You can prove your point without being immature and a snit.<BR></STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>My favorite line. I've never been called a snit before.<P>As none of the FOTR detractors responded to my statement regarding the opportunity to boycott the two follow on movies, I assume you'll all be in the seats just like everyone else. So after all the countless points made regarding the failures of the first installment, you will still stand in line and shell out your money for rounds two and three, and come up with a whole new series of complaints. Think of the possibilites: Treebeard, Gollum, Eomer(especially with his reported expanded role), Theoden...I can hear PJ and associates laughing all the way to the bank!<p>[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: MenRWeak ]

Wow! So we've stooped to name-calling eh? This should get interesting.<P>I for one, back MenRWeak. After reading 3 pages of opinions, I got the impression that most of the anti-movie people are purists who have no respect for the "uneducated" and "shallow" majority. <P>Rhud, don't compare the movie with the Sep 11th attack. Two different issues. One is a work of literature, no one DIES unnecessarily because of it. Sep 11th is a work of terror. It should be treated with more sensitivity.<P>Just my two cent's worth.

[Rhudladion]

You guys are hilarious!<P>Listen, this thread (in fact, this entire forum) exists that we might have discussions based on the movie. Enkanowen, the only reason this forum is "beating a dead horse" is because people that can't stand the fact that myself and others here didn't care for it keep posting comments about how we are "silly purists". I mean <I>I'm</I> not bringing the forum back to life-it'd be fine with me if it went away forever. But as long as people keep suggesting that I am a whining purist, or telling me that I am an idiot for thinking this wasn't the best movie of all time, I am going to defend my critique. Is this ok with you?<BR> <BR>Starsong, my intention was not disrespect. It was an example that was perfectly legitimate, given the reason that Enkanowen gave for stopping the discussion.<P>MenRWeak, you are the funniest of all! I love how you paint a false picture of every detractor's intent and then try to tear down the intent you created as if you are accomplishing something. HeHe...the more you write the more I laugh!<P>Now folks...if you would like to discuss the movie further, meaning to talk about what was good and bad and why, let's do. But as I have said before, I am not a purist/mean person/cranky fan. I have given reasons to support my theories and complaints. <P>This forum is ending the way I thought it would begin: we're digressing not progressing.<p>[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

[MenRWeak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rhudladion:<BR><STRONG>You guys are hilarious!<BR>MenRWeak, you are the funniest of all! I love how you paint a false picture of every detractor's intent and then try to tear down the intent you created as if you are accomplishing something. HeHe...the more you write the more I laugh!<BR></STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Excellent! My jokes never evoke that kind of response.<P>Right...so in the spirit of not generalizing all the FOTR detractors, I'll put my attention on your argument. Here is an example:<P>"In fact, many of our comments were directed at actor's abilities, and improper characterizations in the film itself, not discrepancies with the book."<P>Sounds reasonable, fair, objective and completely in keeping with defending ones' position.<P>And then there is this beauty:<BR>"People who thought the movie stunk!"<P>Nice thread opener. Doesn't even sound like the same person wrote them, but alas, same author. Now you take the morale high ground when your words have drawn a response reflective in tone to the thread title. Always nice to have that option. You're not such a bad painter yourself, Rhudladion. Here's to a good chuckle.