Subject:
|
Re: Lord of the Rings movie
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Dec 2001 16:57:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
357 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Erik Olson writes:
> > After seeing it the second time, I'm starting to glow. I better give it a
> > third chance.
>
> My random thoughts on it below:
>
> I just saw this film tonight and I have no significant experience with the
> material before this, although I may have seen those cartoons from the 80s
> which did not make that much sense to me then. Offhand, I think they may
> have trouble with word of mouth with this one inasmuch as there was a very
> audible sound of disappointment when the movie ended without much REALLY
> having happened in the story. The story is clearly NOT very self-contained
> and many viewers are not going to have the background information on either
> Northern European mythology or the novels themselves to fill in the holes
> for them.
Despite it being a "trilogy" Tolkien wrote it as one long book and this has
always been the chief hurdle in turning it into a movie. But there was no
audible sound of disappointment at the showing I saw (or audible snickers in
the wrong places, for that matter).
>
> [BTW, the thing weighs in at 3 hrs! I had no idea of that fact when I sat
> down to watch it in the theater. And just to get it out there quickly, some
> people might find the violence too much for younger viewers -- which is too
> bad because I feel sure that this film must be a 1000 times better than HP.
> But whatever...]
Three hours, but I could have sat there another hour. My ten year old
didn't seem to have a problem with the violence (it was not of a lingering
nature). Both he and I gave this the big thumbs up over Harry Potter.
>
> Because I have a rather extensive knowledge of Northern European mythology,
> I found the film fairly delightful for a number of reasons. If nothing else,
> it's like a moving painting of a very high order -- it's quite amazing if
> you watch it just as a series of very carefully rendered pictures.
More so than the common person will realize. I would not have thought it
possible for Peter Jackson to light and shoot a moving Alan Lee
illustration, but he did (and sneak in an actual Lee painting in Rivendell).
Visually, the movie is stunning - I felt like they captured Middle-earth,
with perhaps the caveat that they indulged too much in Lee's limited
earth-tone palette. Non-Tolkienites probably will not appreciate that they
actually got the Balrog spot on, though.
>
> The one visuals complaint I have is that whenever they pulled back from a
> closeup to a large group scene with a panning motion, there was this
> noticeable perspective problem wherein some people appeared to be squashing
> down and others growing large. The problem arises from trying to make
> actors of an approximately similar height seem like they were of strikingly
> different sizes as the characters are depicted in the books -- that is, you
> see characters that correspond approx. to trolls, fairies, gnomes, regular
> humans, giants, etc. That was pretty weird. I don't know what they could
> have done instead, but it's still a jarring thing to watch.
I didn't have a problem with it - I knew they were pulling lots of camera
tricks rather than digital manipulation in many of the scenes, but I thought
they worked fairly well.
>
> I can see where people would like LOTR, as books or a series of films -- it
> is quite original and imaginative despite its heavy leanings on Northern
> European mythology. Still, I couldn't help but feel that the tellings of
> these stories was still a work in progress for Tolkien as the story
> structure is predicated on all kinds of apparently dense histories that
> precede the tale depicted in the LOTR itself. In fact, there is a REALLY
> LONG prologue sequence that is in some ways better than the whole rest of
> the film itself.
I liked it, but I didn't feel it overshadowed the rest of the film.
>
> ::spoiler alert::
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ::you have been warned, just skip the next paragraph if you don't want to
> read it::
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> BTW, as a plot flaw I'd just like to assert that the death of Gandolf was
> surprising and disappointing at the same time -- I had barely begun to care
> about any of these characters as of that moment in the film. In fact, most
> of the deaths in the film seemed quite premature. I want to actually care
> about a character before they do all of this manipulative stuff in the movie
> to cue me that I am supposed to feel sad now. When I don't actually care
> about the characters, it just falls flat. I suppose if you had already read
> the books, including The Hobbit, etc. it's probably more effecting...
I can't answer this without an even bigger spoiler if you aren't familiar
with the series. So I'll answer this obliquely (stop reading if you are
clever): Careful reading of the end credits and noting the difference in
billing of the Fellowship members should give a clue. :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> :: end spoiler warning::
>
> I'd probably give the movie high marks if I had more previous knowledge of
> the events in the movie from having read the books -- but I don't, so I have
> to go on what I saw tonight alone. And I guess I have mixed feelings about
> the story, although none about the visuals. Even given my mixed feelings
> about the storyline, I'd say that this work was many times better than
> almost anything in the fantasy, sci-fi, sword and sorcery vein that is
> anything like it. And sorry Erik, but Star Wars doesn't even come close to
> resonating with the same ancient symbols that does LOTR, Star Wars is far
> too contrived for that (and in the new films just plain old too crappy). If
> for no other reason than the density of its culturally relevant symbolism,
> LOTR may succeeed very well with the masses. Tolkien was not borrowing from
> ancient mythology, he was wisely plagiarizing it outright! Smart.
No, Terry Brooks is a plagiarist (a character-for-character scene-for-scene
ripoff of Tolkien). Tolkien took ancient myths and themes and melded them
into his own very personal creation. Star Wars was in part inspired by
Tolkien, not the other way around, which is why Erik probably sees
similiarities.
A have a number of minor picks and quibbles with the film, but all in all
Peter Jackson did a good job of capuring the mood, tone, and content of the
book.
And yes Erik, I was expecting a bit more on the Gimli-Galadriel thing given
the clear set-up - I'm wondering just how much eventually will be added to
the DVD.
>
> Now, tell me more about these magical swords...?
>
> -- Hop-Frog
That would be telling.
Bruce
Anduril, Flame of the West
"Renewed shall be blade that broken,
the crownless again shall be king."
-B.Baggins
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lord of the Rings movie
|
| (...) I'm picking on that scene because I just read some of The Two Towers, where Gimli quickly become Galadriel's staunchest defender. And of course it's crucial to the theme of uniting the races despite their old grudges, which the films do try to (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lord of the Rings movie
|
| (...) My random thoughts on it below: I just saw this film tonight and I have no significant experience with the material before this, although I may have seen those cartoons from the 80s which did not make that much sense to me then. Offhand, I (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
