fansince62 Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 i was bored so i stopped off at a theatre on my way back to dc from norfolk last night. it's been lo 20 years since i read the trilogy, but i thought the film kept to what i could remember pretty well. anyone aware of sequels in the works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 The Sequels are already filmed. They are just working on the special effects and waiting so they can generate all new hyp around the same time next year when they release the second one. I htought it was a fairly good movie. It's wierd because the first book in the series was my favorite, but I think the second will make the best movie. At one point in this movie, you are a third of the way through the movie and 2 thirds of the way through the book. There's alot less of the character development stuff that is in the book. For example, we see alot less of Sam. Also, I'm not sure why some of the changes were made. Why did Frodo stop to tell Strider he was leaving? In the books, I don't think Strider, Legolas, and GImli know for certain who they are chasing in the second book (could be wrong it's been a long time since I saw it too). There were alot of scenes from the book cut, but there had to be. The only thing I really missed was running inot the trolls that Bilbo nad the Drawfs ran into in the hobit. All in all, a good movie. All of my grypes are nit picky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennesseeCarl Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 I've seen both the Potter movie and Lord of the Rings twice (for some reason, I've been needing a fantasy fix). The Lord of the Rings is probably the better movie (although I didn't think that the first time). It's problem is that the trilogy is so rich in history and character development that it's very difficult to understand the story if you've not read the book. When the character of Strider is introduced in the movie, they explain him as 'a Ranger' without explaining what the heck a Ranger is. They don't really explain how Saruman is captured by Sauron through the looking glass device. The Eagle, Gwahir, appears without explanation. It's amazing...even with 9 hours of movie (all three have already been shot) it's not enough to capture the book. But it's excellent. The acting is good..the effects are spectacular...the scenery is gorgeous. Heck...if they can just throw in some purely gratuitous full frontal nudity it's a classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 I saw the Rings one. Very cool, the story followed the book very well and the special effects were $$$. Most of the movie IS film as said earlier. It's all edit room stuff now and tech. catching up with some things they want to do later. ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.nba.com/media/wizards/kwame_bobble90.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1d/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I44993-2001Sep05" border=0> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 TC knows movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 I want to move into the Shire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 2, 2002 Author Share Posted January 2, 2002 TC knows his literature!!!! and his movie audience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 I saw it, and I can honestly say, I've never read one of the books (OK, shoot me). But I thought the movie was phenomenal. I more or less grasped the plot, but not the specifics. If somebody was to come up to me on the street and say "who was Strider," I wouldn't know. I still found it very powerful and entertaining though. I'm surprised it didn't garner an R rating...lots of violence and whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 Let me say that I was only half-way through The Hobbit when I watched the film. Yet, it was more than enough to follow the plot seamlessly. I'd like to preface my post by saying I am not a fan of fiction by any means. However, I thought the film was phenomenal. I've designated it my favorite flick of all time. TCarl - You want background on the Eagles? Even Tolkien only devoted 2 pages about them in The Hobbit. They were a blip on the radar like so many other brief encounters throughout. I'm about half-way through The Fellowship at stone hedge where Frodo gets stabbed by the ringwraiths. And I can tell you there's been no additional information provided on Rangers thus far than what the movie described. Though I must say I would've appreciated a little more background on Saruman's capture... that's what the book is for ------------------ Accept that some days you're the pigeon and some days the statue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyskinsfan Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 Still haven't seen the the movie released last year yet! Only the animation years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 I heard the movie is a battle every 15 minutes .. does it get boring and predictable? Does it work the hobbit in at all or does it start on the first book of the trilogy? ------------------ The Redskins HQ Forum RedskinsHQ.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 A battle every 15 minutes would be an extreme exaggeration. The battles don't even begin until halfway through the film. In fact, that is one of the criticisms of the film... that it doesn't really get going until halfway through. Personally, I think that's bogus. Of course those are the same people complaining the lack of character development as well. Predictable? I guess in the same way everyone knew Luke Skywalker was going to survive each battle in the Star Wars trilogy. Yet people were still able to appreciate those films The film uses a few references from The Hobbit as was necessary to understand the story. But The Hobbit concerned the life of Bilbo Baggins while The Fellowship of the Rings concerns the life of Frodo Baggins. Reading The Hobbit just gives you a better understanding and appreciation of the rest of the story. As would reading any of the other 8 books associated with the story. ------------------ Accept that some days you're the pigeon and some days the statue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebelYell Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 I saw the movie and loved it. I remember loving the books as a kid too. Departures from the book (from memory): The way Frodo left the shire. This was a bit abbreviated: The wraiths show up at the same time as Gandalf identifies the ring - the ring is identified much earlier in the book and Frodo has time to prepare his departure. He hooks up with Merry and Pippin because they work out that he is planning to leave and refuse to let him go without them. Farmer Maggot encounter is abbreviated. The whole trip through the Old Forest / Tom Bombadil / barrow wight escapade is left out. In the book the elf who shows up to help heal Frodo before they get to Rivendell is not Arwen (Strider's chick), but a guy - Glorifindel. Arwen doesn't really enter the book at all except for the occasional passing mention. No mention of Bilbo's trolls. The council of Elrond is vastly abbreviated, and this is where a lot of the background gets filled in in the book. Saruman is credited with stopping the fellowship getting through the mountains. In the book, as far as I remember, the mountain itself was credited with that feat. The Lothlorien episode is much cut down. There's a big character development piece about Legolas and Gimli making friends in a who shall we blindfold before we lead them into the forest subplot. In the book everybody gets a special gift from Galadriel upon departure (Gimli, in a surprising volte-face, opts for a lock of Galadriel's hair - Sam gets some super powerful elf fertilizer to help with his gardening), not just Frodo. They also get some other good stuff like elf cloaks and ropes which aid the storyline later. The ending where Frodo and Strider chat about why to separate is definitely wrong too. It's completely out of character for Strider to agree to give up on a sworn oath - and nor does the book version of Frodo have the slightest concern about Strider becoming corrupted by the ring. In the book, after the escapade with Boromir, Frodo leaves because he is worried about leading his friends into danger. He puts holes in all the boats except the one he takes so nobody can follow. Strider works all this out from a footprint, because of his excellent tracking skills which he picked up as a ranger. In the end they opt to follow Merry and Pippin and try to rescue them because there is just no way to follow Frodo and Sam. RebelYell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryman of the North Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 great movie i cant wait until martins a game of thrones is made i read its in pre production. ------------------ HAIL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 Rebel Yell got most everything. I have just a few additions ... SPOILER WARNING!!! First of all, Sarumann was never under Sauron's direct control in the book. He was corrupted by the Ring itself. His plan was to get the Ring and overthrow Sauron with it. In The Two Towers it is supposed to really be a three way war between Rohan/Gondor, Isnegard and Mordor. A minor difference, but it bugged me. Also, the movie really didn't explain just how profoundly the visit to Lothlorien changed every single member of The Fellowship. Rebel Yell touched on the affect it had on Gimli, and it's too bad they left that out. Gimli and Legolas constantly bickered throughout the first book until they got to Lothlorien and afterwards they became best friends, which is important later. I don't think the movie made that very clear. Still, it was a VERY good movie. Peter Jackson hit the mark on several scenes. The passage therought the Mines of Moria was absolutely amazing. I've seen it twice already, and anyone with a nine-month pregnant wife and a two year old at home knows that's no small feat. I can't wait til the next one comes out. ------------------ "Men, there's nothing to get excited about. The situation is normal; we are surrounded." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennesseeCarl Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 They did miss out by not portraying the friendship/rivalry between Gimli and Legolas. And while there was some explanation of how the Ring came into being (the Isildur story line), they need to establish why Aragorn abandoned Gondor to his rangerin'. And the female elves really don't need to wear so much. Somebody in costume screwed that up. While the book never really says so, if you read between the lines, it's pretty clear that the elvish women are well-built and wear very diaphanous gowns. The trained eye can spot flaws like those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 I have read the books 5 times. There are quite a few differences, but none of them matter in the least. Most of the descrepencies described are correct, but Frodo did not hole the other boats, Boromir was, in fact, sent over the waterfall in one, as depicted in the movie, In the third book his brother, Faramir actually sees him as he sails down the Anduin into the sea. I believe that they will develop the relationship between Legolas and Gimli in the second movie, as opposed to doing so during the first. Clearly they established their animosity to one another during the first movie. Arwen's love for Aragorn is an untold tail of the books. referred to only in background until the end. To really get the story, you have to read one of the appendix's to the books. My wife, who is not a real fan of fantasy, loved the movie, but she wished that Borimor's demise could have been a little less graphic. Interesting enough, this was precisely as Tolkien described it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebelYell Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 joe You're absolutely right - he didn't hole the boats. I always assumed he did just because of the passage right at the end of the first book where Sam says he will hole all the boats and Frodo says "OK but leave one for us". I never picked up on the fact that the boats are then used at the beginning of the second book :-) RebelYell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 Haven't seen it yet is there any sexy elf girls like in Dungeons and dragons ------------------ Take A Sip of the Marty KoolAid and Believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.