|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aruman
Rivendell
Oct 15 2012, 3:24pm
Post #51 of 57
(1779 views)
Shortcut
|
as the saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt. Well, maybe not contempt, but some cringing and eye-rolling.
I think this is true not only for you, but for myself and many other viewers. When the films first came out, I felt like there were mainly two groups of viewers, from what I read online:
1. Those that didn't like the films
2. Those that loved the films and thought they were perfect in every way (a bit of an exaggeration perhaps, but not much)
As time has passed and the excitement has cooled down somewhat, many of us can now take an honest look at the films and what we really think of them. Are the films great? Well, I believe that's up to each individual viewer, but I feel they are great in their own ways. I have to constantly remind myself not to compare them to the books.
When watching them with my wife I find myself pausing the DVD every 30 seconds and explaining how this part is different from the book. "OK so here's what really happened..." "Here's the feeling that I got from reading the books that you don't really get at all with these movies..." "Frodo never spoke to Aragorn after Boromir tried to take the ring..."
The nice thing about it now is we can actually have intelligent discussions. 10 years ago I saw someone post that they thought movie Elrond was a jerk (which he is, a colossal one) and tons of people jumped all over him/her. Nowadays more people are saying the Elrond (and Denethor) are much different than in the books.
In the movies Elrond, Denethor, Haldir, Galadriel, and Celeborn stink.
|
|
|
weaver
Half-elven
Oct 16 2012, 12:28am
Post #52 of 57
(1846 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hmmm...I'm more lactose tolerant, I guess!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When you stop and think about it, the entire premise of the film could have been labeled cheese -- evil Rings? Talking trees? Giant eagles? -- but instead, they somehow pulled off the challenge of making the Tale work on screen.
More and more, I think what we got was a "film opera" -- when you look at the scenes or plot elements individually, they can seem over-the-top, or cheesy or whatever you want to call it, but together, it all works to create the right kind of stage for this story on screen. At least from the non-fan and critic perspective, for the most part, who ended up having a lot of respect for Tolkien and fantasy as a result of these films. (Same goes for many fans -- I don't see a lot of cheese or scribbles on Jackson's Mona Lisa, sorry. She looks very nice to me! )
Weaver
|
|
|
aruman
Rivendell
Oct 16 2012, 12:59am
Post #53 of 57
(1848 views)
Shortcut
|
Not really sure why they decided to butcher the characters of Elrond and Denethor. And I agree the actor did an amazing job considering what he had to work with.
In the movies Elrond, Denethor, Haldir, Galadriel, and Celeborn stink.
|
|
|
Ring-Bearer
Rivendell
Oct 20 2012, 4:13pm
Post #54 of 57
(1807 views)
Shortcut
|
Also I'm not into the bumping into the ceiling stuff Gandalf does at bag end. Okay, so he once ran into the chandelier that's about okay and somewhat funny. But really I got the point alright. No need to do it again only a few seconds later. 
In reality, this was not originally planned. Ian mistakenly bumped his head but went along and worked it into his acting, so PJ kept it.
And as far as Éowyn's song, yes it is painful, but it reflects the pain that she was going through.
'What are we holding on to, Sam?'
'There's good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for!'
'I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you!'
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Oct 20 2012, 5:04pm
Post #55 of 57
(1748 views)
Shortcut
|
The millions and millions of people that have made the Lord of the Rings books one of the best-selling books of all time (just behind the Bible), likely don't think that the story is "cheesy."
Yes, if you describe it as being about "evil rings," and "talking eagles" it may sound cheesy. But what if one describes it as a story about "dehumanization" and "death." Does it sound cheesy now?
Great stories are about execution, and Tolkien's tale is executed brilliantly. If anything, PJ, was working at a massive advantage to other directors, not a disadvantage. He was working with a story that millions of people already loved and cherished, as opposed to a blank slate.
I always feel that many greatly overstate how much of a "gamble" this was for PJ. Anyone who was minimally competent, IMO, would have made successful LOTR films.
|
|
|
kzer_za
Lorien
Oct 20 2012, 6:14pm
Post #56 of 57
(1762 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Good director + good source material doesn't necessarily mean a good movie.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Look at David Lynch's Dune, which is sometimes considered the LotR of sci-fi (I personally wouldn't put the books anywhere near that level of quality, but that's not the point). Shakespeare movies also tend to be pretty uneven, and some of the best ones are basically filmed plays.
I don't think PJ was the only one who could have made a successful LotR, but I don't think it could have been given to just any talented director either.
(This post was edited by kzer_za on Oct 20 2012, 6:16pm)
|
|
|
Longbottom Leaf
Lorien
Oct 21 2012, 8:39pm
Post #57 of 57
(2057 views)
Shortcut
|
a little out of character...When Aragorn says "In one way you haven't changed,you still speak in riddles." And Gandalf kinda chuckles playfully Hehehe!. Just seemed weird,like it should've been an outtake or blooper or something.
The best weed in the southfarthing!
|
|
|
|
|
