OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.

[Instar]

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

[dogscoff]

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]

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]

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]

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

[wr8th]

GT,

"You're a better man 'n me!"

[ 24 April 2002: Message edited by: wr8th ]

[Growltigga]

No I am not Wr8th, just one with stronger plumbing