OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.

wr8th · #1 April 23rd, 2002, 04:57 PM

You might be right in your general estimatation of the JRRT aficionados, but this film was meant to appeal to a wider audience. It's not just the miniature's paintin', tabletop gamin' geeks

that it means to appeal to, but to a generation weaned and raised on Pokemon and Power Rangers...

I previewed the movie with friends because of it's PG-13 rating. After being enthralled by it, I figured it was okay for my 6 year-olds to see. They had seen more gore and violence in "Last of the Mohicans" and "Gettysburg" (or in the 9/11 news coverage of where their Mommy worked for that matter). The compelling story of the quest and shared dangers of the Fellowship, of loss and determination and of devotion to kith and kin overshadowed any politically correct interpretation of the "evils of sorcery" and the "undermining influence" of violence.

My kids (like myself) will probably watch it over and over and over again....

travislp · #2 April 23rd, 2002, 11:57 PM

I too love the movie and found that it did for the most part do a good job translating to the big screen. There are a couple of things that bothered me in that they completly changed the nature of the plot. They are:
1:In the book the hobbits Sam,Merry and Pippin plan for years to go with Frodo on his trip. They are all very close friends with Frodo being almost a father like figure. He is much older than the other three. In the Movie however, They are brought together in what can only be called an accident. What purpose did it serve to cahnge the plot so. Their relationship is so central to the story that to make it appear as an accident made no sense.
2:In the book it was Gandalf who insisted on going to Moria and it was Strider who did not want to go. But in the Movie Gandalf didn't want anything to do with Moria and insisted that they take another route. Again made no sense and changed the plot dramaticlly.

There are a few other issues but enough ranting. I loved the Movie all the same. Have seen it 3 times and can't wait to see the next one. Saw the trailer for two towers and it looks positively incredible.

Instar · #3 April 24th, 2002, 02:19 AM

Wr8th: Its Bill the pony, not a horse
Hobbits can't ride horses all that well

dogscoff · #4 April 24th, 2002, 09:25 AM

quote:

but this film was meant to appeal to a wider audience.

Yeah, but do you really think it acheived this? Sure it had some cool effects and some top fighty-fighty bits, but plot-wise the film was utterly inaccessible to anyone who doesn't already know the story.

The first time I went to see it there were about 10 of us, and only 4 or 5 of us had actually read the book. We all loved it although we had reservations about the changes.

The others came out grumbling about the length of it and saying things like "yeah, very pretty, but what was all that crap about the sword of this and the horn of that and the mountains of something or other, and what was the deal with those two beardy blokes and the girl in the floaty dress speaking Welsh, and..." etc etc etc.

My girlfriend actually fell asleep.

What I'm saying is, even though they shaved about a quarter of the plot off there was still far too much to be digested raw in 3 hours. Because of the depth of the story you have to go for either utter bastardisation to make it universally accessible, or painstaking pedantry to delight the Scary Tolkien Fanatics. I can't see the point in compromise, since it will lose appeal at both ends of the spectrum.

wr8th · #5 April 24th, 2002, 03:47 PM

quote:
Originally posted by dogscoff:

...but plot-wise the film was utterly inaccessible to anyone who doesn't already know the story.

My wife never read the story and was put off by how it was written (primarily the songs), but yet understood the premise of the story and how it unfolded in the film. Then again, she likes fantasy and horror and is more open to flights of the imagination.

I understand what you mean though... IMHO nowadays many folks are "imagination-challenged" a situation reinforced by being fed eye candy since birth without the need to conjure up their own imagery.

quote:
Originally posted by dogscoff:

I can't see the point in compromise, since it will lose appeal at both ends of the spectrum.

There are differing levels of compromise. Taken to the extreme, a compromise can water down the original article to the point that it is pleasing to no one. That apparently didn't happen here since it was appealing enough to the center of the spectrum to be able to amass millions in box-office revenues.

Personally, I wouldn't have minded if it were twice as long (although I would've needed to bring more food and a cushion or two) which is why I'll wait for the director's cut or anything that has added footage.

kalthalior · #6 April 24th, 2002, 05:20 PM

Here's what I did; went to see the movie, reread the book, and then went to see the movie again, to get a better idea of where the changes were made. Personally, I liked the movie a lot, the changes were (relatively) minor with the exception of the "Arwen to the rescue" part before the hobbits got to Rivendell. Eagerly await the next one.

Growltigga · #7 April 24th, 2002, 05:47 PM

Personally, I wouldn't have minded if it were twice as long (although I would've needed to bring more food and a cushion or two)

Wr8th, Xmas Eve 2001, myself, Mrs GT and a chum went and sat through LOTR 3 times. started on the morning matinee at 10 and left at about 20 Christmas Eve

My backside was tender as sin after that session, a 11 hour diet of popcorn, diet pepsi and 1 hotdog was enough to upset my gastric plumbing for quite a few days I can tell you