|
Post by Krieghund on Jan 19, 2005 19:34:08 GMT 1
Yeah, Cheup, I agree. There was a whole weird dynamic there of Legolas being "superelf" and Gimli being little more than comic relief. I was a bit irritated by that. I also thought the "Dead Men" were overdone.
I actually thought that Aragorn was the most miscast role in the movie. I think they could have used someone a little more grizzled-looking and with a stronger "presence".
|
|
|
Post by cheup on Jan 21, 2005 11:31:05 GMT 1
I actually thought that Aragorn was the most miscast role in the movie. I think they could have used someone a little more grizzled-looking and with a stronger "presence". I completely disagree to this statement. I think, Viggo Mortensen did an excellent job and Aragorn, as he interprets him, is one of my favorite characters in the movie.
|
|
steveowen
Ranger of Ithilien
PlayTester
Posts: 70
|
Post by steveowen on Jan 21, 2005 17:07:24 GMT 1
I think JRRT would have been rather bemused by it all!
|
|
|
Post by Smash62 on Jan 28, 2005 19:19:50 GMT 1
Things I didn't mind being left out: Tom Bombadil (always thought he didn't fit in the story). The scouring of the shire (past the denouement).
New things I liked: The elves in Helms Deep. Arwin's increased role. The increased size of the Cave Trolls--cool! The increased size of the oliophants (although I think they went a little overboard on their size).
New things I didn't like: Faramir's character. (My major beef with the movies.) Super-Legolas. (Although, they made the monsters, especially the Wargs and Cave Trolls and Oliophants super-beasts, so the characters probably had to be supermen to counter them. I think they should have toned all of that down a notch.) The dead men were a bit too strong also. (I don't think they should have been invulnerable--it takes all of the suspense out of it.) Frodo spending the last two movies gasping for air and looking like he was dying all of the time. Audio: I thought they could have done _way_ better with the Nazgul screams. And Boromir's horn, although the sound might have been "authentic", was horrible in my opinion. Oh yeah, and the "Huggits" as we nicknamed them. In the first movie, it seemed every other moment the Huggits were hugging someone. Come on, already!
Things I missed: The specialness of Merry's sword.
Best Moments: The Balrog! (And Gandalf's falling fight with it.) The special effects in general.
Characters exceptionally well cast: Aragorn. Gandalf. Boromir. Sam. Legolas--when the red "S" on his chest wasn't visible. Arwin. Eowyn. Pippin and Merry. (With Elrond, I kept seeing Agent Smith!)
My thoughts...
|
|
|
Post by altricaj on Feb 8, 2005 19:19:21 GMT 1
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinions (of course), but I have to say that considering how fantasy stories are normally perceived by the public (as silly, stupid, and nerdy), we should all thank the heavens that a filmmaker like Peter Jackson took on this project. Come on, what else do we have? Willow? Legend?
I do agree that many of the changes find their way under the skin, but overall while the plot has changed, the far more important theme of the story has not. From Hollywood (of all places) – what more can we ask?
BTW, great site and great game.
|
|
|
Post by Gormonghast on Feb 9, 2005 17:16:45 GMT 1
Was everyone else happy with Ian McKellern? I thought he was too much of the kindly old uncle type. In the books Gandalf is much harsher and unwilling to suffer fools. When I read the books I had Peter O'Toole in mind. By the way, I think Tolkein wanted Christopher Lee to play the role!
|
|
|
Post by The Cat on Feb 10, 2005 3:24:36 GMT 1
You're forgetting a few Altricaj, Conan (x2), Ladyhawk, Krull, The Dark Crystal, Willow, Neverending Story. Not that they were all great or up to the LOTR standard.
|
|
|
Post by altricaj on Feb 14, 2005 20:02:49 GMT 1
Cat, You bring up some interesting movies (most of which I have on DVD), but I still think these films don’t really hold up well compared to LOTR (in terms of scope and depth). I was going to push this argument a bit further, but I don’t really want to put these films down as much as I want to lift LOTRs up!
Looking at your list does remind me of two things though…
I use to really like Ladyhawk, but the 80’s keyboard music sort of kills it now. I showed the movie to my girlfriend a few months ago and she practically burst out laughing at some the more swelling moments.
As saw Conan as a kid and enjoyed it like any one else would. After many years past, I saw it again and was surprised how political it really was. It’s almost a "welcome to the Reagan Years" propaganda film. d**n those satanic environmental hippies! It’s kind of silly now, but I still like it for it’s pure entertainment quality.
|
|
|
Post by AussieLurker on Mar 21, 2005 4:15:49 GMT 1
Now, the funny thing for me was that I actually ENJOYED the first film-once I got used to the omissions-largely because they kept MOST of the characters true to the book. What I REALLY disliked, though, was the Aragorn 'I don't WANT to be King' whinge. That got on my nerves SOOOO much-especially because, in so many other respects, Viggo was such a BRILLIANT Aragorn/Strider. OK, what REALLY bothered me, though, was TT and RotK, both because of all the stuff they took out AND because of all the rubbish they put in-like the overdone romantic sub-plot with Aragorn and Arwen (they love each other-it was established in the first movie, you DON'T need to spend 30 minutes of the 2nd movie dwelling on it too), and the Elves at Helms Deep. I was also bothered by the uneccessary character changes to both Faramir AND Treebeard and the Ents (what a ridiculous notion having Pippin 'tricking' the Ents into war!!!) The greatest tragedy, though, was RotK. First, no Great Darkness-in the book, this helps establish the main cause of the defeat of Saurons first assault on Minas Tirith. Also, it would have looked VERY COOL!!!! Also, the focus on this Orc General, instead of the Witch King and Gothmog. Also, though, the change to Denethor was UNFORGIVABLE. Like him or hate him, Denethor was not some 2-D carboard cut-out villian. He was a VERY complex man who tried to defend Gondor to the last, but was ultimately destroyed by despair. Yet in the movie he was simply played as a petty-and quite mad tyrant-who gave no consideration at all to Gondors defense-just because his eldest son was dead. I felt TRULY betrayed. I also got VERY BORED by this last film and, to date, have only watched up to the Rings Destruction (and even that was difficult!!) Anyway, sorry about the rant, but this is something I feel VERY passionate about. Yes it was visually spectacular, but the corruption of the story by PJ simply made it a pointless excercise!!
Yours, Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
|
Post by kwojtasz on Mar 26, 2005 21:07:30 GMT 1
Overall I felt the films were good. There are some issues with Faramir and a few other plot changes, but overall, I look at it as the movie version of the book. Books typically don't translate perfectly into movies so, some liberties have to be taken to make it more movie like and to bring in a bigger audience.
Loved the Moria/Balrog though. Hopefully for a "collector set" they re-organize those prequel bits, as #3 starting with the finding of the ring was kinda out of place...
|
|