"The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" Talkback (Spoilers)

[HellCat]

One Ring To Rule Them All.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/102/040_FP0993.jpg
"Nine companions, so be it. You shall be the Fellowship of the Ring." - Elrond


Release Date: December 19, 2001
Studio: New Line Cinema
Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Sir Ian McKellen, Sir Ian Holm, Cate Blanchett, Sean Astin, Sean Bean, Billy Boyd, Orlando Bloom, Kevin Conway, Hugo Weaving, Brad Dourif, Martin Csoka, Christopher Lee, Dominic Monaghan, Viggo Mortensen, John Rhys-Davies, John Noble, Liv Tyler

Plot Summary: The Lord of the Rings trilogy collectively re-tells the story of Frodo Baggins (Wood), who battles against the Dark Lord, Sauron to save Middle-earth from the grip of evil. In the films, Frodo and The Fellowship embark on a desperate journey to rid the earth of the source of Sauron’s greatest strength, the One Ring, a ring of such power that it cannot be destroyed. His extraordinary adventures across the treacherous landscape of Middle-earth reveal how the power of friendship and courage can hold the forces of darkness at bay.

Visit the official movie site here (http://www.lordoftherings.net/).

Buy the movie! (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00003CWT6/qid%3D1052891782/toonzone03/102-6722942-7223315) or Buy the expanded edition! (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000067DNF/toonzone03/102-6722942-7223315)

Comments?


I just saw it.It was pretty good, but I couldn't help but noticed what was changed.Tom Bomadil is completly gone and Merry and Pippin come with Frodo just for the heck of it. One of the changes I really didn't like was Bilbo- when he is giving Frodo his sword, he asks to hold the Ring. Frodo wisely refuses. Bilbo, aided by CGI, then leers at his nephew and tries to grab it. I much prefer the book version where Bilbo understands the danger of the Ring and doesn't flip like that.
It's a great film and if you've got 3 hours spare I'd really recommend you see it

[James]

Just seen it.

Excellent movie. I must confess to not having read the book since I was 12 (some 14 years ago :( ) but as a film it stands up very well and does the book justice.

The visuals and sound were stunning - the use of colour and filter gave it an etherial quality. Frodo was perfect and Mr McKellen did a better job that I expected. Elrond reminded me too much of Mr Smith..... :)

The only problem I could see (and for the purists - as Blight Man pointed out, there are some changes - so watch out!), was on of the final lines - 'Let go hunt some orcs' (or a line to that effect) which was the only hint of Hollywood I felt break through.

Great stuff. You'll all love it. The score was a bit of a let down - felt as if it was going to break into a some hybrid monster cross of Titanic and Harry Potter. That's a quibbling point. It did it's job!


ENJOY, chums! ENJOY!

[HellCat]

Originally posted by SJJ
Just seen it.

Excellent movie. I must confess to not having read the book since I was 12 (some 14 years ago :( ) but as a film it stands up very well and does the book justice.

The visuals and sound were stunning - the use of colour and filter gave it an etherial quality. Frodo was perfect and Mr McKellen did a better job that I expected. Elrond reminded me too much of Mr Smith..... :)

The only problem I could see (and for the purists - as Blight Man pointed out, there are some changes - so watch out!), was on of the final lines - 'Let go hunt some orcs' (or a line to that effect) which was the only hint of Hollywood I felt break through.

Great stuff. You'll all love it. The score was a bit of a let down - felt as if it was going to break into a some hybrid monster cross of Titanic and Harry Potter. That's a quibbling point. It did it's job!


ENJOY, chums! ENJOY!

The one thing I would have liked is a more peaceful ending. The final battle felt rushed. I'd have rather it ended with Saruman's forces leaving his fortress. That would have been a great cliffhanger. Also, Merry and Pippin changed a great deal. In the book, they are dedicated friends of Frodo who will stick by him on his dangerous quest. In the movie, they are bumblers who end up following Frodo out of curiosity and come off as idiots. The best example of this is after declaring they will be part of the fellowship, one of them says "So, where are we going?".

[HellCat]

Thanks to whichever mod made this a seperate topic and for adding a spoiler warning :)

[Maxie Zeus]

--just before going off and seeing the movie. Just got back.

So I'm doing a real "Comic Book Guy" thing here: Rushing back from the theater so I can get on the Internet and register my dissatisfaction within minutes. Really, this isn't hyperbole: This is one of the most excruciatingly bad movies I have ever suffered through.

Yes, the visuals are stunning (there are some things money can buy). The actors are well cast (in the case of Bilbo, Strider and Saruman, they are brilliantly cast). Those sequences that are cut from the movie (the Old Forest, Bombadil and the Barrow Downs most prominently) are exactly the right ones to go missing.

Where the movie fails--abysmally--is in its construction and pacing. The story starts at a run and never lets up. It's just one damn thing after another with no room for development, for subtlety, for surprise, or for wit. Even those places where the movement slackens (in Rivendell, or Lorien) it's just to cram in more plot exposition, not to give us a chance to catch our breath.

There's a reason why in FotR Tolkien put in lots of nature description; why the Riders are more mysterious then terrifying; why there's lots of "hobbit cuteness." It's because if you're going to build to a crescendo of violence and terror you've got to start off slow and quiet. The movie starts with the volume on 10, and since it can't go up from there it just sits there shouting and beating itself for 3+ hours without moving an inch.

I haven't seen any of Peter Jackson's other movies, but here he tosses the camera around like it's a softball and edits like he has delirium tremens. Boys suffering from video game withdrawl may find their thumbs flicking like they're holding the console of a Gameboy; I merely reflected that the cinema will never be mistaken for a rollercoaster, and irritately wondered why Hollywood is so fixated on proving otherwise.

Oh, and someone please shoot Zamfir. Pan flutes on the score are supposed to sound mournful and elegaic, I suppose. Me they remind of tampon commercials, or those ads for prescriptive ointments that ease the suffering of STDs.

This is a movie for MSTing: bloated, pretentious, ill-constructed; ponderous when it should be eloquent and inscrutable when it should be profound. I can hardly see straight for the anger I feel. Not at a botched adaptation--let's face it, the novel is probably unfilmable anyway--but for the stupid, stupid mediocrity of it as a movie. It would take a dissertation to lay bare all the idiocies and inanities on display.

I loathed "The Phantom Menace" -- Clayface can attest to that. But compared to LotR, TPM is "Citizen Kane."

[Calhoun07]

I too just came back from the movie, but I had no idea what the entire Lord of the Rings mythos was about save for the Bilbo Baggins song that gets played on Dr. Demento! So I didn't go into this with any expectations or to look for things changed, but to be thoroughly entertained. And I was. I think this movie delivered, and I can't wait for the DVD. I just hope when they add the cut scenes in to the DVD, it's as a directors cut and not a separate bonus feature.

[Ruffian]

Just came back from it and I had a fabulous time. :) This is the best novel adaptation to the screen I think I have seen yet. Some things have been changed, and not as much development as in the novels of course, but the scope and imagination wasn't loss in this movie. I personally think the pacing of the movie was done rather well and they used what they needed. Unlike Harry Potter where they tried to add everything, yet it wasn't everything and felt too rushed like they were just trying to get to the next scene. I think Harry Potter had the mistake of sticking to the book too much because film and books are two totally different ways of storytelling. So watching the movie of Harry Potter went about like one would read the book, except instead of reading, it's a moving picture. Lord of the Rings felt like they took into account the differences of film and books and the transition from one type of media to the other was done rather well. The movie didn't feel terribly long and dragging and it didn't lose any of the imagination of how I could have pictured the story.

[Failure]

Worse than Phantom Menace Maxie? Geez, and you were really psyched for the movie.

Personally, I thought this movie was great. To say the least, it met my very high expectations for it (and to think I almost passed up the movie for a girl :p ).

First of all, the visuals are absolutely breathtaking. Just the scenery itself, it's like you're watching a video of natural wonders of the world. And some of the characters like the cave troll, very menacing. Personally, I liked the way the Ringwraiths were portrayed. They are mysterious, but more than anything I thought they were supposed to be menacing, and I thought they were portrayed very well.

I gotta agree with Maxie in that the movie is mostly action. But I disagree, in that I thought the pacing of the story was well done. Maybe a little rushed, but nothing I found too much fault with. It also stays pretty true to the book, there are some omissions, but nothing big. I'm not sure how well the subtle nuances like "hobbit cuteness" could have been portrayed on the big screen. I guess it depends what you value most from the books. As it was, the movie took 3 hours to cover all of the major parts, and the major parts, for the most part, are the more action-oriented ones.

Eh, my thoughts are all scattered right now. But basically, I thought it was a great movie and highly recommend it. Much better than Phantom Menace. :)

[The Guard]

You can all stop holding it in, afraid to be the one to say this:

THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST TRILOGY OF MOVIES EVER.

BETTER THAN STAR WARS.

BETTER THAN THE GODFATHER

It is the most STUNNING piece of work I've ever seen. The actors were INCREDIBLE, even the bit parts. This film was embraced by people who shun this sort of thing here....and afterwards...all I heard was

"Gotta read this"

"Gonna buy those books"

"WOW"

WOW indeed.

[Samhaine]

LotR was great. I loved it. My friend was commenting every 5 minutes about something that was changed. But I didn't care; I'm a comic reader, and I understand that film and print medias are two totally different things, so changes had to be made.

I think Maxie's being a bit harsh. I mean, yeah there were a bunch of changes, but did you ever see the D&D movie? Probably one of the worst films I've ever seen, as it completely decimates everything that had been established by rulesbooks, stories, etc. Dragons mindless beasts? A 5' and some change tall dwarf? Absolutely terrifying.

[Calhoun07]

Best Trilogy ever? Well, time will tell, but I think you're gonna be right about that. I cannot wait to see the next movie. I wish we didn't have to wait a year. I want them to do it like the old serials in the past, where you can go to the theater next week and see the next movie in the series!

[Failure]

Man that's what I was thinking, a new LOTR each week would be awesome. Well, at least it's not once every 3 years like one certain trilogy.

[Calhoun07]

Considering all the filming is done, I wish they could at least do a new movie every six months. You have a kick ass Christmas release, then the second one is going head to head with Spider Man, then for the third movie you would have the final movie for the Christmas season. I know they have to put in all the special effects and CGI and stuff, but still, more than once a year would be real nice!

[Stupendous Man]

I just saw the LORD OF THE RINGS .

Let me say first off , so you know of where I speak, I love Tolkein.
Ive read LOTR atleast 3 or four times. Im also an avid movie buff.

I was really suprised , pleased and satisfied with LORD OF THE RINGS :TFOTR.

It was a good movie .. I recommend it highly.


I have to comment on Maxie Zues's statements though .

I want to make it clear though that Im not attacking Maxie
Zuess. The reason to debate Maxie at all is cause hes
among the best on this forum for thought provoking and
interesting posts.

Though I usually thoroughly enjoy Max's viewpoints and look forward to them ... I think he may have gone overboard on
LOTR.


Originally posted by Max Z
This is one of the most excruciatingly bad movies I have ever suffered through.


Thats a bold statement .
If he had just said it was bad ...or disapointing perhaps.

I disagree obviously, and question Max's mindset when he
went to see this movie. Perhaps your expectations were so
high as to be unattainable. Perhaps like me you love these
books so much that nothing would ever do.

I think that the movie did the book justice.. but I can understand
if Max would disagree and entertain discussion on this front.

But he loses all credibility with me when he objectively looks at
this as a feature film and says its "the most excrutiatingly bad movie he has ever seen"

really Max?
Worse than "Freddy Got Fingered"?
Worse than "Steel" starring Shaquielle Oniel?
really?

In Max's defense maybe hes only seen two movies in his
entire life ..."Casablanca" and "Vertigo" in which case his
statement that LOTR was the worst movie "he has ever suffered " through would make sense.

* * *


Originally posted by Maxie Z
Where the movie fails--abysmally--is in its construction and pacing.
, for subtlety, for surprise, or for wit.


Ok .
This is an opinion I can respect.

I respectfully disagree however.

In fact ... I was totally impressed with the directors and
screen writers restraint in both story telling and pacing.

fails--abysmally--is in its construction

Well Max considering that the movie is almost totally
faithfull to the novel ...(minus a few necessary trims) ..
I guess youd have to blame Tolkein on that score.

[i] The story starts at a run and never lets up. It's just one damn thing after another with no room for development

Really ?

The 8 minutes of voice over explaining the premise of the trilogy .

The 12 or so minutes in the Shire ... the birthday party ...
Gandalf having tea (twice) ... Gandalf sitting by Frodos sickbed...
The councilmembers sitting around discussing the ring ...
Strider sitting reading a book ... the fellowship having breakfast ..

This was all to brisk a pace for you Max?
Really?

Do you consider "Driving Mrs Daisy" an action packed
extravaganza?

Even those places where the movement slackens (in Rivendell, or Lorien) it's just to cram in more plot exposition, not to give us a chance to catch our breath.

I disagree .
Consider that "fellowship" is really all set up for the meat
of the story.
The fact that this movie was made at all is a marvel.

And the fact that you considered this an action packed movie Max ... considering any of us who have read Fellowship of the Ring
know theres hardly any action in the book ... is probably
a testament to how well constructed and paced this movie actually is.

Also ... who needs a chance to catch their breath?

I realize that by that you mean that no movie should be a series
of constant action scenes without an interplay of scenes which develop character and give a reason for the action.

But is this an accurate statement for LOTR?

I dont think so .
We know why the action scenes exist.... there Frodos quest
to destroy the one true ring. They arent pointless.

And as for characterization .. considering how many main characters you have on screen simultaneously ..Its really amazing how well handled they are.

Perhaps the numerous scenes of the Fellowship walking in meadows and climbing mountains ...or walking through empty mines ...or reading books aloud ...would be good places for people to "catch their breath".



[i]Originally posted by Maxie Z
Peter Jackson ....edits like he has delirium tremens


LOL ... is this fair? The movie is 3 hours and 15 minutes
long. Let us instead praise Peter Jackson for giving us
our moneys worth and giving us as much of the novel
we all know and love on screen.

You know the movie studios wanted him to trim the movie down
to 90 minutes.

Can you imagine cutting out a single scene from this movie after youve seen it? I cant.

In fact I only wonder what film he did have to cut ..what we're missing. I pray for quick release to dvd with deleted scenes.


Originally posted by Maxie Z
Oh, and someone please shoot Zamfir. Pan flutes on the score are supposed to sound mournful and elegaic, I suppose. Me they remind of tampon commercials, or those ads for prescriptive ointments that ease the suffering of STDs.


OK.

While I rarely advocate calls for public assasignation ..
I cant really argue this point.

I didnt think the score was all that distracting ...
But this movie begged for Greatness not mediocrity when
it came to a soundtrack.

What John Williams was too busy for this flick?


Originally Posted by Maxie Z
I can hardly see straight for the anger I feel. Not at a botched adaptation--let's face it, the novel is probably unfilmable anyway--but for the stupid, stupid mediocrity of it as a movie.


See here is what is at the heart of Max's review perhaps.

I can Imagine bieng disapointed by LOTR ...but Angry?

I think perhaps Max's sentiment is that LOTR is just too
classic .. too powerfull a work to be translated properly to
the silver screen.

What I think is truly "unfilmable" is the power of Tolkeins narrative
and for those of us like myself ...and I have to assume Max ..
who LOTR changed our lives and opened our minds -
NOTHING WILL EVER BE GOOD ENOUGH.

But I have to tell you ... I think this is as good as it could ever get.

Shame on anyone who see this movie without reading the novels.

But for those of us who have read and loved LOTR.. this is a
wonderfull treat.

A chance to visit a world we all love ... and see it all again (mostly as we imagined it).


Originally posted by Maxie Zues
I loathed "The Phantom Menace" -- Clayface can attest to that. But compared to LotR, TPM is "Citizen Kane."


LOL .

Come on . See this is another bold, (i hope exaggerated in the heat of the moment ) statement.

Quite to the contrary ...what I enjoyed most about LOTR was that it didnt try to pander to children like Phantom Menace.

This was a movie truly made for the fans.
An adult movie.

No characters made to appeal to children or for action figure revenue.
No Jar Jar Binks. No annoying five year old.
No toned down violence.
No simplistic Plot .
No CGI for the sake of CGI.

Not only is this movie a million time better than Phantom Menace ..
It avoided all of Phantom Menaces Pitfalls and mistakes.

I challange anyone to argue with me that Phantom Menace is a better , more thoughtfull film than Lord of the Rings.

~~

My recommendation ...Max see this movie again without the
hang ups and a clear mind.

Hell Max - Ill go with you and well debate it after over
a couple of beers.

[Karkull]

Originally posted by bloodone
...but did you ever see the D&D movie? Probably one of the worst films I've ever seen, as it completely decimates everything that had been established by rulesbooks, stories, etc. Dragons mindless beasts? A 5' and some change tall dwarf? Absolutely terrifying.

"TIME TO DIE!"

:o

I hated Dungeons and Dragons, but The Fellowship of the Ring was pretty good. True, I haven't read the books (though now I'll have to), but the film struck me as well crafted--and not a Wayans brother was to be seen.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by The Spirit
Hell Max - Ill go with you and well debate it after over a couple of beers.

That would be great! Wish we could. :D

Alas, I am very busy this afternoon. I have to turn in grades and do some food shopping all before a projected snowfall starts. I don't know when (or if) I will be back up at the office to give the reply Spirit excellent post deserves. Briefly, though:

I am thankful for his patient and generous reaction. I don't know when I have ever been so totally alone in a reaction to a movie.

I am both a Tolkien fan and a movie fan, which means (I think) that I know that a good film adaptation of LotR will have to be completely unsentimental about making changes to the book. My favorite chapters in FotR are those set in the Old Forest, Bombadil's cottage, and on the Barrow Downs. And when I first heard of the film adaptation I thought, "Those chapters MUST be eliminated from the film version; there's no way you can do a good adaptation and leave them in." In fact, there are no major plot changes that annoyed me--most of them I understand and accept without reservation.

My judgement that it is "one of the most excruciatingly bad movies I have ever suffered through" is a subjective reaction, which I hoped was signalled by the rider "I have ever suffered through." I am sure there are worse movies out there which I have not seen, and I've seen my share of bad films ("Pearl Harbor," "The Mummy Returns," "Phantom Menace," "The Talented Mr. Ripley," are just some of the recent ones). But I was not overstating my visceral reaction: The last time I was so overwhelmed with raw, unmitigated revulsion was about 10 years ago, while watching an Albert Finney vehicle called "The Playboys." You'll just have to trust me when I saw that, yes, my stomach turned over several times during FotR.

Was my head in the wrong place? Well, I was very much looking forward to it, and all the indications were that it would be a great movie. But I also knew it would be a very difficult movie to pull off, and mostly felt only a sense of curiousity: How would Jackson try to pull it off? So I don't think this was a case of soured enthusiasm.

It would take a much longer post than I have time to compose right now to make clear the nature and extent of my problems with the film. I hope to back later with just such a response.

[James]

I must say i'm surprised you hated the movie so much Maxie. Dislike, I could understand, but that movie seems to have really ticked you off!

Well, perhaps having read the book (again?) so near to the film may give you a different perspective. I was tempted, but I decided I would re-read after the film - I think my viewing of Harry Potter suffered from reading the book too close to the film.

Pacing.... hmm, I did feel the final half hour seemed a little more rushed than the general pace of the rest of the film - and did appear to lose much of it's ethereal quality - but I'm never to sure if thats a personal thing. After watching a product for over 2 hours you do begin to take much of what you see for granted, the intial spell does begin to wear off.

As for the alterations - I can't say too much on this as I haven't read the books (or seen the cartoon :D ) in years. My pal, whom I went to see the film with, had read the book earlier in the year and only noticed certain alterations - the early motivations of the hobbits (especially Frodo) and trek from the shire being the biggest differences. I'm sure there were many others. However, I didn't feel there was anything that struck me that went against the ethos of the book.

As for the direction and editing, I loved it! The battle was fast and indecypherable which just added to the menace of the fights. I thought the visuals gave the film a epical feeling - indeed there was a lot of swooping shots and lengthy pans, but it worked for me.

Well Maxie, I'm sorry it caused you so much discontent - it seems I got the better deal when I went to see it - I enjoyed it! :D I had very low expectations of the movie after the rushed and frankly bland adaptation of Harry Potter. I can only guess you had higher expectations than I.

Will it be the best trilogy? Time will tell. I always enjoyed FOTR more than the other two books, so I'm expecting things to decline... hopefully not too much... ;)

[Lodoss War Fan]

Saw LOTR last night and I was pleased. :) Overall it was well done and stayed pretty true to the book. I even liked that Peter Jackson extended the part of Arwen. Great acting, Amazing Fx and excellent and excellent costumes.

Bring on The two towers! :bosko:

[The Mad Hatter]

Me, I was very pleased with what I saw. The actors were well cast, and they stayed remarkably true to the book.

As far as the pacing... I admit, it felt a bit rushed. But that's the problem you run into when you want to adapt Tolkein... he just wrote so much that it's nearly impossible to make a movie that doesn't feel rushed in places. Think of it this way... what could they have possibly cut out that wouldn't have adversely affected the spirit of the book? Not much. Though I do agree that, at times, the swooping cameras were a bit much... I think that made some of the scenes (such as the river crossing by the huge statues) seem a lot more hectic than they should have been.

This was a very intense movie that did an INCREDIBLE job of creating a sense of peril. Even though I've read the books (long ago), with nearly every action scene I found myself thinking, "oh my God, they're going to die!" There are few movies that managed to create such a strong atmosphere to keep me on the edge of my seat like that.

And the detail... wow. I'm glad that there were less CGI characters and more CGI backgrounds... the lush detail of the elf towns, the menace of Sauron's encampment... wow.

Perfect? Maybe not, but I'm a happy camper...

[Flying Grayson]

I thought it was a good movie, but The book was better.

they make it seem like Frodo is still 33. he's suppose to be about 50. there were some big jumps(complelely skipping Tom's place) but it was a good movie all in all. I highly recomend it to those who haven't taken the time to watch it.

[Colin]

I just came back from my viewing of LotR...

I must say, I rather enjoyed it, even if it has been years since I read the book... =)

I honestly can not in any commentary that hasn't already been discussed in the conversation (hell, I'm 3 days late in seeing it as it is, it would appear)...

...instead, I'll leave you with this, my favorite quote... not from the movie... but instead from one of the Movie Goers as everyone left the theatre...

"I wish they would have resolved it. I'm definitely not going to see Lord of the Rings 2. There was to much action and violence for me."

I started laughing hysterically when I heard that... hehehe =)

However, I Can not wait for "The Two Towers" to make its bow in the theatres next year =)

[DarkAngel]

Hey, I haven't been on the boards for a while, so I've missed a lot of the LOTR discussion. I've gone back and read some of the discussion on the film, but I've still been wondering how everybody regarded the film in general.

I saw it yesterday with my parents and brothers, which was probably the biggest mistake I've ever made. My parents hated it. My dad, in particular, thought it was nonsense and completely boring. My brother also criticised the movie, but from an entirely different perspective. He's read the books (I haven't), and felt they left out too many things, didn't have any development, that the movie was choppy, and that it was much too fast and superficial. I honestly don't see where that's coming from.

Personally, I thought it was very well done. I thought it had the best balance it could given that the audience would be made of either those that hadn't read the book or those that had. And it seemed as though the movie had been well received overall, so I've been more than surprised at my brother's reaction. I can at least understand my dad's opinion since he's not a fantasy fan. But do others share they're thoughts?

[Naraht]

I liked it...
I just re-read the 1st book...yeah, they left some out, added some in, and changed the order of a couple of things....but over all, it was a good movie imo.

It was 3 hours long, how much longer did your brother want to sit there?

BTW..READ THE BOOK(s)

Seriously...the books are betterer.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by naraht

It was 3 hours long, how much longer did your brother want to sit there?


He felt they should have divided "Fellowship" into two movies. To me that's ridiculous, but he felt that would have allowed for greater characterization. I guess he thought there was too much action and not enough story.

In my opinion, there's always going to be something lost in translating to a movie. To me, Jackson and the rest did as good a job as they could have in bringing FOTR to life. My brother thinks they didn't. I think he's being to rigid.

[Failure]

I thought it was a great movie. I saw it once the day it came out and thought it was very good, it might my expectations, but it didnt exceed them, so I was (silently) disappointed slightly. But then I saw it a 2nd time on I thought it was even better the 2nd time around. There's so much you have to absorb that I think it's hard to get a solid feel for the movie the 1st time around.

That said, the movie was long, I wouldnt hav eminded if they'd have put a 5 minute intermission in between it. Dividing Fellowship into 2 movies would have been ridiculous. Would it have been able to include nearly everything from the book? Could it have given better characterization that way? Probably, but it was well done as it was. The parts that were left out werent that significant for the most part, and the parts they changed I didnt have too much of a problem with. And even if they added everything, look at the raactions for Harry Potter. People are complaining that it stuck to the book too much. You just cant satisfy everyone.

Like you said, there's always going to be something lost in the translation, and of all books, LOTR is prolly one of the most difficult books to translate onto film. But I thought Jackson did a great job and I really enjoyed the movie.

[Stardust]

Originally posted by DarkAngel
My brother also criticised the movie, but from an entirely different perspective. He's read the books (I haven't), and felt they left out too many things, didn't have any development, that the movie was choppy, and that it was much too fast and superficial.

I also thought it was choppy. But how much longer could they get, in my opinion i would've sat as long as possible (ok, maybe 4 or 5 hours the most, people actually booed when the movie ended, me - i was like, "nooooooooooooooo! it can't end!!!" :yawn: *sigh*). In a 3-hour movie i thought it was well done, compressing the novel into that time space. there could be some improvement, but every movie could use improvement. i really loved it because of the scenery and the way they portrayed the types of characters involved so wonderfully (like hobbits, elves, man...well they didn't dwell on the elves-dwarves relationship all that much, but that's ok). i can't wait for two towers to come out. two parts would've been too much, and a whole lot of film. The only change that irked me was the ride to rivendale.

for the ladies: legolas or aragorn? (that seems to be the question when i tell girls that i watched LOTR :p ) i like legolas, he's cute, but aragorn really swept me away with the "let's go hunt orcs" line. :D

[Joe Tully]

This is odd, Dark Angel, because I went to see this movie with my family yesterday--Mom, Dad & younger brother--and they all liked it a lot. I've read the books and, yeah, they changed stuff around a bit, but it's forgivable. And after looking over the books last night, I realized that there's absolutely no way that they could've put everything from them into the movies. There's just way too much info in them. No offense, but your brother is probably taking the changes a little too seriously. I think that splitting FotR into 2 movies would just make the story too long. I mean, if you did that for FotR, you'd probably wind up doing the same for Two Towers and maybe RotK, which I don't think that people would stand for. We're already having to see 3 movies over the course of 3 years, which seems reasonable, but doing more than that is going to drive audiences away. My dad usually has problems following things, and I was afraid that he wouldn't follow the story, but he missed only a couple of minor points and liked it. Including more info from the books, or splitting up FotR, would've maybe made LotR fans like your brother happier, but would've made the movie more confusing for the uninitiated.

And Stardust--Legolas or Aragorn? You seem more like a Gimli kinda gal. :p

[Ruffian]

Fellowship of the Ring was awesome in my opinion. I've read the books too and I think the film makers did an excellent job translating the novel into a film. I wasn't disappointed anywhere because they surpassed my expectations of what could be done. I think the layout of the story was done very well too. The Lord of the Rings is just tremendous in detail and story. For a film it would have been way TOO long to add everything in. It's already 3 hours long and it's only 1/3 of the entire story! I saw the movie with my mom and my sisters. My sisters haven't read the books, but they thought the movie already had a lot of characters and places to keep track of. My mom cried at the end too, so I wouldn't say there was no character development. I guess it all depends how one perceives it.

After watching this movie, I was more critical about the way Harry Potter was made. Harry Potter was wonderful to see visually, but the way the film makers told the story on the screen wasn't a very good job. The movie was a literal translation from book to film and I think that's where Harry Potter went wrong. For 2 1/2 hours, I felt like Harry Potter was longer than LOTR, and that the movie kept rushing to the next scene. It was a strange feeling, like it was very abridged from the book, yet it was so damn long for a movie.

So overall, I liked the movie and enjoyed it very much that I even saw it a second time that first weekend after it opened. :)

To Stardust: They're both hot, in different ways, but I prefer Legolas. :p

[Ro 2026]

I thought it was choppy too. They'd just skip from one thing to another. But that's what they had to do to be faitfull to the book and keep the movie under 6 hours.

It was great I think.

[Barb Gordon]

I thought that they had done a fine job in staying true to the book. And yes, in some places they seemed to speed through things...but the movie was already 2 hours and 58 minutes long! I loved it, seen it twice and can't wait to see it again. My sis's finace didn't like it because he wanted it to have an ending,lol. That's why he watched movies instead of reading the books, he's such a dork. I've read Hobbit and Lord of The Ring and you certainly get a lot more outta it if you have read the books. Like minor things they talked about that you'd get if you'd read The Hobbit. I never understand why people don't read the books, how can they get the same thrill out of the movie? Well, they don't, people who have read the books get to enjoy a higher level of enjoyment. But that's just me, and I'm a bookworm.

Barb^-^

[Failure]

Originally posted by Barb Gordon
I thought that they had done a fine job in staying true to the book. And yes, in some places they seemed to speed through things...but the movie was already 2 hours and 58 minutes long! I loved it, seen it twice and can't wait to see it again. My sis's finace didn't like it because he wanted it to have an ending,lol. That's why he watched movies instead of reading the books, he's such a dork. I've read Hobbit and Lord of The Ring and you certainly get a lot more outta it if you have read the books. Like minor things they talked about that you'd get if you'd read The Hobbit. I never understand why people don't read the books, how can they get the same thrill out of the movie? Well, they don't, people who have read the books get to enjoy a higher level of enjoyment. But that's just me, and I'm a bookworm.

Barb^-^

BG, you just reminded me that I have a little rant to rant about :bosko:. The complaint that annoys me the most is the "I didnt like how it ended on a cliffhanger" or "they didnt destroy the ring? What kind of ending is that?" Basically ignorant comments on disliking the ending because it didnt wrap up the movie in a tidy package. Dont these people understand that this is a trilogy? If the first movie showed them destroying the ring, what's the next 2 going to have? Everyone crowded around a coffeetable going about their war stories? Sheesh, some of these complaints are absolutely moronic! The end.

*gets off soapbox, smacks a complainer in the face and walks away*

[Barb Gordon]

lol, yeah Failure, those kinda questions really bug me too. But obviously those are from the people who don't read *sigh*, dorks. What annoys me is that they've got all the three movies done, but that they'll release one each winter...how jacked up is that?! What executive thought up that brilliant marketing idea? I'm dying here, I want those other two movies!!!

Barb^-^

[Failure]

Same here! 1 year is a very long wait. On the one hand I'm glad it's not like Star Wars. On the other hand, I wish they did what the Matrix is doing releasing 2 movies wihtin 6 mojnths of each other. Actually, if it was up to me, I'd just spend a whole day watching through! Well, at least we have something to look forward to every XMas for the next 2 years.

[Stardust]

Originally posted by Joe Tully
And Stardust--Legolas or Aragorn? You seem more like a Gimli kinda gal. :p

ooooooooh dwarves. short, hairy, rough men. ^_^ gotta love 'em :p


Originally posted by Barb Gordon
lol, yeah Failure, those kinda questions really bug me too. But obviously those are from the people who don't read *sigh*, dorks. What annoys me is that they've got all the three movies done, but that they'll release one each winter...how jacked up is that?! What executive thought up that brilliant marketing idea? I'm dying here, I want those other two movies!!!

Barb^-^

when i heard that it was gonna be released each winter, i was incredibly disappointed. my sister told me there was one lined up for february, so i was getting my hopes up for watching two towers with my friends at school. arrrrr next christmas......well at least it gives me a little time to refresh my memory on two towers and return of the king before watching the movies. :D

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Failure
The complaint that annoys me the most is the "I didnt like how it ended on a cliffhanger" or "they didnt destroy the ring? What kind of ending is that?"

Yeah, that's true. That's the reaction my dad had. He said afterward, that he was waiting for the movie to end, but when it did, if felt so abrupt. He didn't care for that, but then he doesn't really know anything about the books.

My brother felt the opposite. He wanted the ending to be more abrupt, more like a cliffhanger. I admit they did kind of soften the blow of what occurred at the end by not ending the movie immediately and allowing the events to sink in a little.

To me, it didn't feel abrupt at all. I could sense the end was coming and, despite not having read the novels, I was more than aware of the FOTR being just one part of one large story.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Barb Gordon
I never understand why people don't read the books, how can they get the same thrill out of the movie? Well, they don't, people who have read the books get to enjoy a higher level of enjoyment. But that's just me, and I'm a bookworm.

I actually love to read, but just never got around to reading the trilogy. I read the Hobbit a long time back and intended to read LOTR, but then high school started getting busy, and then it was off to college and the time just hasn't been there.

But as soon as I get a chance, I intend to read FOTR. I'm thinking I'll wait on Two Towers and Return of the King until I've seen the movies. I'd like to be able to judge the films on their own merits, rather than making an unfair comparison to my expectations based on the novel. My brother's reaction has kind of scared me. I don't want to go into the films feeling overprotective of the material.

I enjoyed FOTR tremendously without having any deep knowledge of the story. I expect now moving on to the novel will be a thrilling experience since I'll get a much more expanded look at the world and story.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Failure
On the other hand, I wish they did what the Matrix is doing releasing 2 movies wihtin 6 mojnths of each other.

Is that really how it's going to happen? That's really great. When's the first expected to arrive in theaters?

[Failure]

Originally posted by DarkAngel


Is that really how it's going to happen? That's really great. When's the first expected to arrive in theaters?

I was under the impression that one will be out in winter and the other would follow in the summer, or vice versa. Is this correct? I'm not sure what the release dates are planned to be though.

[Barb Gordon]

So far in interviews and such, the actors have said that all three movies are done, and each one when be released at X-mas time. We've already had the first. I could sense the ending coming too, that was a slight bummer. It was like, uh oh, here it comes, here it comes! And then it came,lol. But nonetheless I loved it! A good thing about there being a year till the next movie, it'll give people a chance to read The Hobbit and LotR!

Barb^-^

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Failure
I was under the impression that one will be out in winter and the other would follow in the summer, or vice versa. Is this correct? I'm not sure what the release dates are planned to be though.

That'll rock. I've really been looking forward to Matrix Reloaded, but didn't realize we'd see the conclusion soon after. That's perfect. So then Matrix 3 must already have a title, since it'll be released soon after Reloaded. Do you know what it's going to be called?

[Elven Moon]

Originally posted by Stardust


for the ladies: legolas or aragorn? (that seems to be the question when i tell girls that i watched LOTR :p ) i like legolas, he's cute, but aragorn really swept me away with the "let's go hunt orcs" line. :D

I can answer this without even thinking... Legolas! Sigh... I think I'm in love ;) Why, oh why did he have to be so nobel, so skilled, so... cool?

As for the movie... although I've read the books, I really enjoyed the movie. The imagery took my breath away. It did feel very long the first time I watched it, but earlier this week I went again, and this time it felt shorter, plus, I did a lot of crying *blushes* I am so sensitive sometimes... I mean, the music, the Shire, Rivendell, it was all so beautiful. I loved it, even if it was "choppy."

I can't wait to see the next movie! At least I won't be in my late 20s before the movie's done coming out, unlike Harry Potter.

[Sango]

I guess I'd have to pick Legolas. I have a thing for elves! :p I think I've been watching too much Record of Lodoss War...hehe ^_^;;

I actually really liked the movie. I even bought the books so I could find out the whole story. I'm about half-way through "The Hobbit" right now and I like it very much. I really like Gandalf and Bilbo. :) After I finish that book, I'll start on "Lord of the Rings."

[Barb Gordon]

Aragorn is my fav, though Legolas is a close second. There is just so much behind Aragorn though. So full of mysterious and stuff, it rocks! He's dark, mysterious, kingly...what's not to like! Oh and looks...yes, he definetly has looks,lol. Legolas is cool because he's fond of Aragorn, shoots a mean arrow and has this big innocence, fight for what is right aura about him. I want them both!

Barb^-^

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Barb Gordon
Legolas is cool because he's fond of Aragorn, shoots a mean arrow and has this big innocence, fight for what is right aura about him.

What about Boromir? He fought well and his last words before he died indicated great loyalty and respect for Aragorn.

[Barb Gordon]

Boromir is incredible too. When reading the book, I really disliked him 'cause he seemed really snobby and stuff, especially at Aragorn. And then he goes and gets under the power of the Ring and scares Frodo to death and Frodo hightails it. But, when thinking it over again and seeing the movie and stuff, I got to like him. He redeemed himself ten fold in the battle he ended up dying in. Geesh, three arrows was it? and they were huge! And he still fought, trying to save Pippin and Merry. And falling under the power of the Ring was bound to happen, he is a man. And men fall for power a lot more than an elf or dwarf would. Geesh, look at Saruman! *sobs* and it was so sad when Boromir dies and there's a tear coming down Aragorn cheek. That scene desrved a huge "awwwwww!" from like a hundred girls or something.

Barb^-^

[Failure]

I really liked Boromir's final scenes. It was so sad seeing him struggle after getting hit with each arrow. I loved how they shot that scene. He's fighting and you see the Uruk-hai, and you know what he's going to do, but Boromir's too busy fighting the hordes, and then the bow & arrow goes up slowly... Great scene! I actually choked up a couple of times during the movie. Like when the cave troll speared Frodo, I knew Frodo was ok, because i read the book, but everyone's reactions were so well acted.

[zero zero nine]

i caught it today... wow... Aragorn's the Man... you know why... cuz he's a STRIDER!.... (woo hoo! yeah Strider Hiryu!) *gets smacked for posting such nonsense*

[Jowy Blight]

(woo hoo! yeah Strider Hiryu!)

Heh, you need to lay of the video games, dude. :D

[The Penguin]

It began with the forging of the Great Rings. Three were given to the Elves, immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings. Seven to the Dwarf lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the race of men, who, above all else, desire power. But they were, all of them, deceived, for another Ring was made. In the land of Mordor, in the fires of Mount Doom, the Dark Lord Sauron forged in secret a master Ring, to control all others. And into this Ring he poured his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all life. One Ring to rule them all.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/120/002_3520.jpg

Tonight at 8 p.m. EST The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring makes its network television premiere on The WB. The film will be presented in High Definition where available. Tune in tonight to see the beginning of the adventure.

[Failure]

I have to say that regardless of how many times I've seen this movie, I always feel the same sense of wonder and amazement I felt the first time I watched it.

[silverwings]

Tonight's the first half of the film, right? When will they air the second half?

[DarkAngel]

Tonight's the first half of the film, right? When will they air the second half?Monday night.

[Oh look I'm...]

I'm not sure if this had the same effect on people who didn't read the book, but I absolutely loved The Fellowship of the Ring. In my opinion, it's the best of the three, especially because I fell in love with the music/soundtrack and think that it complements the story's characters perfectly.