PDA

View Full Version : LOTR was boring and banal.


shep proudfoot
04-01-2003, 09:36 PM
Maybe, I didn't get it. For the first thing, I enjoy science fiction and some fantasy movies. I thought LOTR was boring and slightly dull, except for the special effects and the stunning scenery.

I bought the DVD and took me three times to get to the end of it. I even smoked a joint watching it and I fell asleep. Boring!

Frodo is a hobbit, the tall old dude with the big hair was a wizard, the other tall old dude who was the badguy in Star Wars II was the other bad guy, something about a ring which had evil powers, and one should never put it on because you will disappear into another deminsion, or something.

There were bad guys, satanists, I guess riding black horses. I enjoyed the fight scene where Frodo gets stabbed by the big ogre, but lives. Frodo is either a fantasy Jesus or has more lives than a cat.

Steven Tyler's daughter was in it, I don't think she is all that cute. I think the actor playing the tall old dude is dead, they should put Patrick Stewart to replace him, but can he do tall, long hair, and wise?

The hobbits and trolls had ears like vulcans, not much makeup. Oh well.

My musings on this boring banal picture.

SP

Helena
04-01-2003, 09:44 PM
Dude, that was the other tall old dude who died--the one in Harry Potter. This tall dude is still alive and kicking!

(your name leads me to believe this is an April Fool's Joke) ;)

MikeG
04-01-2003, 09:45 PM
It's Proudfeet!!!


:)

Morbo
04-01-2003, 09:55 PM
I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with you, Shep, lest you beat me with your belt whilst screaming "Get the fuck out of here, ya fuckin' little weasel!!" :)

Tuckerfan
04-01-2003, 10:26 PM
To me, the film seemed to be too heavy on dialoge. It's been (mutter, mutter) twenty-odd years since I read the books, but I did not need the hour long exposition which things were given. The sequence which really drove this point home with me was when they were in the inn, hiding from the ring wraiths, and what's his name, the archer dude, says, "They are ring wraiths....." and goes on and on about them. I didn't need that. All I needed to hear was, "They are ring wraiths, they are what you would have become if you let the ring control you." That's it. The visuals effectively conveyed why being a ring wraith was a bad thing. I didn't need some wannabe Green Arrow (Yeah, I know, I know, LOTR came first, and I'm sorry they reduced your character to saying, "Worst episode ever!" Now, deal.) spending an hour of my time telling me about how evil and nasty they were. If they'd have cut a lot of the dialoge down and sped up the sequence with the fuzzy looking valium queen, it'd have been an enjoyable movie.

Mahaloth
04-01-2003, 10:41 PM
It must be an April Fool's joke.

The joint remark made me think it, plus the name.

j_kat_251
04-01-2003, 10:53 PM
Steven Tyler's daughter was in it, I don't think she is all that cute.

Anyone who would say this MUST be joking.

SolGrundy
04-01-2003, 11:14 PM
That's weird, I thought that the movie explicitly showed them killing the troll. Apparently it escaped.

Also, I thought April Fool's jokes were supposed to be funny.

gris gris
04-02-2003, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Mahaloth
It must be an April Fool's joke.

The joint remark made me think it, plus the name.

What I smoke joints and watch movies all the time, whats the big deal?

Fibber McGee
04-02-2003, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by SolGrundy
That's weird, I thought that the movie explicitly showed them killing the troll. Apparently it escaped.

Also, I thought April Fool's jokes were supposed to be funny.

They're supposed to be, but only about 1 in 1000 or so actually are.

Picking a specific day on which such jokes are supposed to be played rather defeats the purpose. Only dullards fall for practical jokes on April Fools day, unless those jokes are so calculated and mean as to lack all humor.

NYR407
04-02-2003, 10:03 AM
As Dooku pointed out but some of you may have missed the reference Shep Proudfoot is a character from Fargo.

I think the OP might have missed the part at Bilbo's Bday party where the "Proudfeet" remark comes from. Or possibly just a coincidence.

Either its an April Fools joke or an actual complaint. Either way its pretty lame.

Fingolfin
04-02-2003, 11:25 AM
RELEASE THE HOUNDS!!!!!

Lizard
04-02-2003, 12:05 PM
Hey, I didn't think it was so hot either, although I wouldn't go so far as to call it "boring." To me, virtually everything in that film had been done before, in movies that captured my interest or entertained me better. Braveheart, Highlander, both "Conan" films, Princess Mononoke, etc., had already thoroughly mined very similar material in one way or another, and did it better.
And after four of five Star Wars films ending with The Big Battle, I am getting very, very tired of them. As if the final outcome was ever in doubt, anyway.

Optihut
04-02-2003, 12:15 PM
As if the final outcome was ever in doubt, anyway.

Hey... I thought Qui-Gonn was going to live. *sob*

ftg
04-02-2003, 01:36 PM
Knocking LotR is not an April Fool's joke. Claiming that it wasn't a boring, poorly acted, overlong piece of nothing: that's the joke.

DaddyTimesTwo
04-02-2003, 01:58 PM
Smoking a jopint and not falling asleep would have been the surprising thing.

DaddyTimesTwo
04-02-2003, 02:07 PM
And I swear I'm not smoking right now. :rolleyes:

shep proudfoot
04-05-2003, 12:02 AM
This is Shep again.

I did name myself after the Indian on Fargo, which unlike LOTR, was an intellegent, excellent film.

Liv Tyler looks like her father to me, so I don't think much of her. I wouldn't do Lisa Marie Presley either because I don't want her to say after sex "Uh, Thank ya, Thank ya very much," or trying to hook me up to a e-meter and saving me to Scientology.

LOTR just was not what I thought it would be, that's all. When a movie is based on a book, I hate these people who have to read the book before they watch the movie, or they did read the book........

QUESTION-IS THERE ANY FILMS WHERE THE MOVIE WAS BETTER THAN THE BOOK?

I love Star Wars, all incarnations of Star Trek (except Voyager), Planet of the Apes, Logan's Run, plus most stories films and movies about space, time deminsions or the future. I liked Bicentinnial Man with Robin Williams for example. Brazil is another excellent film.

One movie I disliked was Dune, maybe for the same reason as LOTR. Too surreal perhaps.

The original post was to make the LOTR nerds mad at me. I failed.

SP

Mr. Mook
04-05-2003, 02:05 AM
Isn't that by definition trolling?

SPOOFE
04-05-2003, 02:12 AM
To me, the film seemed to be too heavy on dialoge.
Well, some of us graduated past picture books sometime around the age of 7 or 8. :D

Tuckerfan
04-05-2003, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by SPOOFE
Well, some of us graduated past picture books sometime around the age of 7 or 8. :D Bite my shiny metal ass! This may come as a surprise to you, SPOOFE, but I don't hate films with a lot of dialog (Brannagh's Henry V is one kick-ass film) I hate films with unnecessary exposition, which IMHO, LOTR had in droves. Hell, I paid $200 for a DVD of a film with no dialog whatsoever (Koyaanisqatsi), so unlike most LOTR yucks, I can appreciate the visual aspects of the photographic medium without having someone explain to me in tedious detail what's happening on the screen. :wally

Achernar
04-05-2003, 08:52 AM
And was Koyaanisqatsi based on a book?

Tuckerfan
04-05-2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Achernar
And was Koyaanisqatsi based on a book? Nope. But the film versions of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, The Road to Wellville, Henry and June, Blackhawk Down, Blade Runner, The Trial, Nineteen Eighty Four, and Naked Lunch all were, and are all damn fine movies that I've owned on video or DVD. (And I'd pay $200 for a copy of Naked Lunch on DVD.) Hell, I'd like to have a copy of The Tropic of Cancer on DVD even though the movie sucks, simply because it's the only one of Henry Miller's books to make it to the big screen.

Achernar
04-05-2003, 09:15 AM
I'm not saying that you can't make a good movie based on a book. I'm saying that if you're going to be telling a story as wide in scope as Lord of the Rings, you've got to have a lot of exposition.

Tuckerfan
04-05-2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Achernar
I'm not saying that you can't make a good movie based on a book. I'm saying that if you're going to be telling a story as wide in scope as Lord of the Rings, you've got to have a lot of exposition. You know, I'd buy that, but I've read LOTR (admittedly it was twenty years ago), and I don't see what all the hype is about. I frankly, don't see what was so useful about the exposition in the LOTR film. For example, there's the scene where the elf king and the one guy are in The Crack of Doom, dude has the ring, and can throw it in so that it's destroyed (and mind you, the only reason he has the ring is that he got extremely lucky in battle), but, instead, he chooses to keep it. The friggin' elf king let's him walk away! I don't remember if it's explained in the book, but in the movie, there's no explaination as to why the elf king let's him walk out. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass if the bastard's saved my life or not, if some guy's walking out of the only place that can destroy a ring that's nearly a nuclear weapon without destroying it, I'm gonna kill the f*cker! Ya know? Instead, the elf king says something like, "Whelp, I think you're making a mistake!" and let's him go!

I'm not bashing the film on a technical aspect, I think that Peter Jackson did a fantastic job in visualizing the film. Not once, when I watched the film, did I think "It's only a model." I felt that from a visual aspect, that the film certainly carried what Tolkien intended, but from the spiritual aspect, I felt that the film was lacking. After all, Blade Runner differs greatly from the book upon which it is based (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, but it certainly reflects the spirit of Philip K. Dick's novel.

I have yet to see The Two Towers, but I have heard from a buddy of mine, who's seen the film (and hasn't read any of Tolkiens work and didn't like LOTR either), that it's a vastly superior film.

Achernar, have you seen Naked Lunch or read the book? The book is this bizarre, stream of consciousness novel written by a homosexual heroin addict, whilst the film of the novel, is more about the writing of the book, than the contents of the book itself. The film of Naked Lunch lacks the "raw" edge of Burrough's novel, but it is, by no means, an insult to the book upon which it is based.

Achernar
04-05-2003, 10:03 AM
I believe that they did imply the answer to your quandry, but they didn't say it outright. If Elrond had killed Isildur and taken The Ring from him with the intention of destroying it, it would have consumed him. This is the same reason that Gandalf could not take it. At any rate, in my opinion, they did make it fairly clear that the nomen ludi was not just physically carrying out the task, but the internal struggle that you had to go through while doing it. Someone more knowledgable can correct me if I'm wrong on all this.

Naked Lunch sounds very interesting, but from the sound of it, you have to admit that that's a very different concept than what happened with Lord of the Rings. Both the book and the movie, first and foremost, are about telling the story. Not about the imagery, which is vivid indeed, or even about the characters, who are terribly important. It's a story.

Tuckerfan
04-05-2003, 10:36 AM
Achernar, there's lots of films which deal with inner struggles that manage to get their point across far better than LOTR did. I realize, for example, that if the elf king killed Isildur on the spot there wouldn't have been the need for two more books (yeah, I know, I know, Tolkien intended the thing to be one damn long novel and not three), but I felt a rage and frustration with Peter Jackson's LOTR, that I didn't feel with Bakshi's version (and I saw both versions in the theater). As I said in my first post in this thread, I didn't need the "hour" long exposition wherein what's his name (the Green Arrow-like dude) said, "They are ring wraiths. They are the nine kings. . . " I can see that being reduced to little more than a skeleton with fluttering rags is a bummer of an existance! (After all, unlike many of LOTR's fans I have had sex that didn't involve either my hand or a chat room! [Drew Carrey reference, don't get bent.]) I didn't need what came after that! In fact, I would have been much happier if the film didn't include that.

It seemed to me that that LOTR tried to match the thousand words a picture is worth, but with far less eloquence than those images represent. Of course, opinions are like assholes. . .

Achernar
04-05-2003, 12:54 PM
Eh, I don't know. Aragorn's explanation lasts 34 seconds. Here it is in its entirety:They were once Men. Great kings of Men. Then Sauron the Deceiver gave to them nine rings of power. Blinded by their greed, they took them without question. One by one, falling into Darkness. Now they are slaves to his will. They are the Nazgûl. Ringwraiths. Neither living nor dead. At all times they feel the presence of the Ring, drawn to the power of the One. They will never stop hunting you.There's a lot more to this than just "They're monsters." First, it shows how dedicated they are to their quest, making them somewhat scarier of bad guys. Second, it emphasizes the seduction of The Ring. Third, and this is somewhat subtle, it continues the theme "The hearts of Men are easily corrupted" that we saw in the introduction to the film. If you remember the introduction, it is not just Men who were given rings by Sauron, but also Elves and Dwarves. But only the Men were turned to minions of evil. Don't you think that's kind of important? When Aragorn turns down The Ring at the end of the film, he's the first human who's able to do so. This is, in my opinion, crucial for his characterization.

quasar
04-05-2003, 02:26 PM
I would be most gracious if anyone could explain what is so great about this film. Do not expose why did it do justice to the book, or Tolkien this, or Tolkien that. Disjoin the movie from the book and be so kind as to tell my perplexed soul, why is this flick, judged as an AUTONOMOUS entity, so truly memorable?

Am I been incredibly dense, or wasn't the basic gist of the movie simply that:

--There exists a Ring of Evil that must be destroyed.
--An odd bunch of characters revolving around a messiah-in hobbit's-disguise figure must get together to bring forth the ring's destruction.
--Group is assembled and embarks on a 2 hour, special-effect-filled, monster-killing journey.
--Fellowship disbands.
--Roll credits.

Having not read the books before watching the film:

--I could not bring myself to identify with the characters or their quest. That, coupled with the slowly-paced tempo = Bored of the Rings.

Besides, is it just me, or it just wasn't properly justified why on Middle Earth ( :) ) would Frodo be the chosen designee to destroy the ring? (Or, perhaps it was, but I was to sleepy to catch it). Was he the only one pure enough to resist the ring's temptation? Wouldn't a warrior like Aragorn have been a more logical choice?

Wouldn't it have been more interesting if the ring had the POTENTIAL for good, rather than being, by definition, evil? Why couldn't a sufficiently pure ring-bearer been able to overcome the ring's intrinsic evilness and used it for good?

I HONESTLY would like to know what did I miss; why can I not bring myself to appreciate what to must of you was a masterpiece?

Any takers?

Cheers,

quasar

Wumpus
04-05-2003, 03:00 PM
Strictly from within the movie: Frodo *had* to take the ring because the Ringwraiths were about to grab it and there was no one else around except for Gandalf. Gandalf could not take the ring because (as he explained) it would corrupt him: he would take it with the intention of doing good, and end up doing evil. Galadriel says the same thing later on.

Boromir, alas, never catches on, and is corrupted by the influence of the ring: he tries to take the ring for what he thinks is a good purpose and ends up attacking Frodo. Aragorn (in the movie) is clever enough to see the temptation, and lets Frodo go.

Frodo can carry the ring (for a while) because he has no interest in doing Great Deeds with it. He can carry it because he doesn't want it.

Going outside the movie: to Tolkien, the ring didn't symbolize evil so much as absolute power--as the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Anyone granted absolute power would, in Tolkien's view, eventually end up doing evil, even he started out with the very best of intentions. (In his letters, Tolkien suggests that Sauron in fact started out with the intention to do good.)

So in the world of LOTR, none of the powerful can use the ring, because the ring will end up using them instead. Only those who have no interest in power, such as the Hobbits, can use the ring without being corrupted...

...for a while, anyway.

quasar
04-05-2003, 03:24 PM
So, it's Frodo's apathy towards good (anti-heroism?) what allows him to withstand the ring's seduction?

If his lack of motivation towards an enterprise devoted to the greater good is the reason why he was better-fitted to bear the ring, wouldn't undertaking the task of destroying it provide a previously non-existing determination to accomplish great deeds and hence, a passion that would end up eventually consuming and subjugating him to the ring's will?

Laughing Lagomorph
04-05-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Tuckerfan
... As I said in my first post in this thread, I didn't need the "hour" long exposition wherein what's his name (the Green Arrow-like dude) said, "They are ring wraiths. They are the nine kings. . . " I can see that being reduced to little more than a skeleton with fluttering rags is a bummer of an existance! (After all, unlike many of LOTR's fans I have had sex that didn't involve either my hand or a chat room! [Drew Carrey reference, don't get bent.]) I didn't need what came after that! In fact, I would have been much happier if the film didn't include that.

. . .

Not intending to flatter you, Tuckerfan, but you might be quicker on the uptake than the average person who saw the film, or who P. Jackson expected to see the film. Also, even though you read the book 20-odd years ago, maybe more of it stayed with you than you realize.

I have read the book several times, and I sometimes wish I could have seen the films WITHOUT that previous exposure, just so I could experience the movies on their own terms. I am genuinely surprised that so many non-Tokeinites have enjoyed the two that have been released thus far, and that so much of this fairly detailed alternate universe made the transition to the screen in an apparently intelligible form.

Oh, and shep, the bad guys aren't Satanists, strictly speaking. Satan as we know him doesn't exist in Tolkein's universe.

Achernar
04-05-2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph
Not intending to flatter you, Tuckerfan, but you might be quicker on the uptake than the average person who saw the film, or who P. Jackson expected to see the film. Also, even though you read the book 20-odd years ago, maybe more of it stayed with you than you realize.Well I didn't want to point this out, but he did refer to Aragorn as "the archer dude". ;)

Laughing Lagomorph
04-05-2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Achernar
Well I didn't want to point this out, but he did refer to Aragorn as "the archer dude". ;)

Yes, I noticed that. But Aragorn does use a bow and arrows during the Moria sequence in the movie (unlike in the book).

shijinn
04-05-2003, 06:15 PM
i think it is nigh impossible to make the movie better than the book without plenty of creative freedom. it was a pretty good attempt, but the movie felt more like a historic documentary to me.. not entertaining but interesting nevertheless (because i liked the books) personally i wouldn't recommend anyone watch the movie without reading the book.. :(

Super Gnat
04-05-2003, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by quasar
So, it's Frodo's apathy towards good (anti-heroism?) what allows him to withstand the ring's seduction?
More his apathy towards power/ambition.

If his lack of motivation towards an enterprise devoted to the greater good is the reason why he was better-fitted to bear the ring, wouldn't undertaking the task of destroying it provide a previously non-existing determination to accomplish great deeds and hence, a passion that would end up eventually consuming and subjugating him to the ring's will?
Will he be corrupted by the ring? That's an important part of the story as well.

MusicJunkie
04-05-2003, 06:49 PM
I also didn't think the movie great or even very good. It was good and nothing more. It felt too rushed and there were way too many action sequences.

Action sequence. Bilbo goes away. Action sequence. They get into the town. Action sequence. Rivendell. Remenbered action sequence. Trip. Action sequence. Florest. Really long action sequence. The end.

And I found the visuals in some scenes a bit cheesy. Sauron was bad. Rivendell wasn't so hot though not too bad. The mines were great I admit but the florest was just too cheesy and the mad queen-elf bit was just too cheesy for words.

I liked the movie overall but thought it had only one great sequence (Gandalf and the Balrog) and lots of plain good or simply mediocre scenes. It sure was much better than TTT though. That one was boring.

Achernar
04-05-2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by MusicJunkie
It felt too rushed and there were way too many action sequences.I've always held the someone ill-conceived opinion that no movie will be universally liked, and so the mark of a good film is not one that draws little or no criticism, but one for which the criticisms sort of cancel out. MusicJunkie's complaint here is the exact opposite of complaints I've heard elsewhere, so I think that's pretty good. :D

bjohn13
04-05-2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by quasar
So, it's Frodo's apathy towards good (anti-heroism?) what allows him to withstand the ring's seduction?

If his lack of motivation towards an enterprise devoted to the greater good is the reason why he was better-fitted to bear the ring, wouldn't undertaking the task of destroying it provide a previously non-existing determination to accomplish great deeds and hence, a passion that would end up eventually consuming and subjugating him to the ring's will?


First time using a "spoiler box", so I'm going to warn ahead of time just in case it doesn't work:

CAUTION: POSSIBLE SPOILER



What you say leads me to believe that you haven't read the book, that is why I'm giving forward warning. The most convincing part about this entire story is the fact that Frodo does, indeed, become corrupted by the ring....as the previous ring-bearer Bilbo had been. In fact, I believe I have heard mentioned somewhere (I think in the movie) that even poor Gollum was once a hobbit-like creature. Unfortunately, though, Gollum is needed in the end. As Frodo states: "But for him, Sam, I could have never destroyed the Ring."

I have thought about that for hours on end.....what a hole Tolkien must have written himself into....and what a way he got out of it. However, I can't help but wonder if this was one of the basic premises with which he decided to start writing the novel.

A wonderful work indeed.



A final word....it is impossible to not equate the book with the movie. To me, the movie is a supplement of the book. Anyone who has not read the book is truly missing something.

Tuckerfan
04-05-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Achernar
If you remember the introduction, it is not just Men who were given rings by Sauron, but also Elves and Dwarves. But only the Men were turned to minions of evil. Don't you think that's kind of important? Uh, I think that it contradicts what you said earlierIf Elrond had killed Isildur and taken The Ring from him with the intention of destroying it, it would have consumed him. This is the same reason that Gandalf could not take it.All Elrond had to do is whack Isildur over the head when Isildur turned his back on him, and then chuck Isildur's body, ring and all over the edge into the Crack of Doom.

Achernar
04-05-2003, 10:17 PM
Well... it's possible I contradicted myself, but I don't see how. What did I say that I've contradicted?

Did you ever see Return of the Jedi? Remember how Luke couldn't kill the bad guy, because then he'd become the bad guy himself? That's kind of what it's like. There's probably a better analogy, but that's the first one that sprang to mind.

Qadgop the Mercotan
04-05-2003, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Tuckerfan
Uh, I think that it contradicts what you said earlierAll Elrond had to do is whack Isildur over the head when Isildur turned his back on him, and then chuck Isildur's body, ring and all over the edge into the Crack of Doom.
A little backfill from the Canon.

First, re: Elven rings.
The elven rings were not made by Sauron himself, but were made with the knowledge Sauron had provided; therefore they were not inherently corrupted, nor affected their user in an evil way. But they were subject to the ruling ring, while Sauron wore it. When Sauron wore the One ring, no elf wore any of the elven rings.

Second, re: Elrond offing Isildur.
Elrond was good enough not to try to kill his ally Isildur. Isildur was Elrond's nephew about 15 generations removed, Isildur had marched to war with Elrond from Rivendell, and Isildur's wife and youngest kid were staying at Elrond's place.

Elrond also knew that if he tried to do violence to Isildur, the most likely outcome would be that Elrond would claim the One Ring for himself, and then fail to destroy it.

Tuckerfan
04-06-2003, 09:56 AM
Qadgop, thanks but that still doesn't change my feelings on the film.

I'll start with my problems with that scene, and then enlarge on my comments about the rest of the film. First of all, the way the scene was shot, Isildur and Elrond are right freakin' there at the Crack of Doom, Isildur says, "Nah! Ain't gonna do it." and Elrond let's him walk out. Now, I'm probably a cold hearted SOB, but even with all the things that you mentioned as back fill, I, personally, would have done my damnedest to whack the SOB and ditch the ring. After all, you've just fought the most vicious and bloody war in history and won it by the barest of margins, and you know that if the ring isn't destroyed, you're going to have to go through the whole thing again, and you might not get so lucky the next time. To my mind, it would have been better instead of showing that sequence to have Elrond describing the scene, and lamenting the fact that he was unable to resist the control that the ring had over him, which prevented him from killing Isildur and chucking him over the side. Short and sweet, without the image of the two characters right there, and just walking away. (And yes, I know that I added to the dialog to the film, my point is that the dialog I'm adding does a better job of explaining key events than the visual did.)

I think that there was so much dialog in the film because Jackson and the screenwriter thought that folks would deem the film "unauthentic" if it didn't contain lots of dialog from the book. What they forgot, is that one of the techniques writers use is to have characters say things, which a person in real life wouldn't need to say. Reason being, it enables the writer to describe something, without having large paragraphs that are simply description. A character can refer to something in dialog, and then the author can expound upon what the character has said by using narrative paragraphs.

For example when Aragon is sayingThey were once Men. Great kings of Men. Then Sauron the Deceiver gave to them nine rings of power. Blinded by their greed, they took them without question. One by one, falling into Darkness. Now they are slaves to his will. They are the Nazgūl. Ringwraiths. Neither living nor dead. At all times they feel the presence of the Ring, drawn to the power of the One. They will never stop hunting you.The character is explaining the depth of depravity to which the kings have sunk, this frees up Tolkien as the narrator to describe what they are doing. In the film, we can see that they're pretty horrorific creatures, and that they are methodically ripping apart the room in the inn where they think that Frodo and the others are staying. We don't need to know they're entire history, because we can see the end results of their actions. Had Aragon saidThey are the Nazgūl. Ringwraiths. Kings corrupted by the rings, they will never stop hunting you.while the ringwraiths were ripping the room apart, you'd still have all the important information. It doesn't matter that they were once human, really, it doesn't, because the film spends a great deal of time showing us how the ring corrupts. After all, Bilbo turns into a hideous beast when talking to Frodo about the ring. Gollum becomes what he is because of the ring, they're on the quest because of how nasty the ring is! We don't need a character taking up 34 seconds of screen time to tell us that the rings are nasty, when we've got a two hour long movie dedicated to showing us how nasty the thing is. (Yes, I know, Aragon isn't describing how evil the ring is, he's relating the effects of the ring on humans, but the reason he's doing so is to dramatize how evil the ring is.)

A Shakespearean scholar once related a story about a girl who saw a Shakespearean play, loved it, and decided to read all of Shakespeare's plays. When she did, she found herself bored. The reason she was bored, he said, is because Shakespeare was written to be spoken and not read. Shakespeare used words and combinations of words that do not flow easily or seem natural when read, but when spoken seem to be perfectly natural. The same is true of Tolkien or any other decent writer, in that they create their works so that everything seems natural in the medium in which they are creating it. Once you move their work out of that medium, you must change it to match the new medium. What Jackson tried to do, IMHO, is retain too much of the original medium when he created the film. As I said, from a visual standpoint, the film is fantastic. There aren't shots where you're trying to figure out what the hell the camera's pointed at or shots where you're screaming, "My God! You can see the strings!" It's in trying to be too faithful to the source material's dialog that Jackson gets it wrong.

Achernar
04-06-2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Tuckerfan
It doesn't matter that they were once human, really, it doesn't, because the film spends a great deal of time showing us how the ring corrupts. After all, Bilbo turns into a hideous beast when talking to Frodo about the ring. Gollum becomes what he is because of the ring, they're on the quest because of how nasty the ring is! We don't need a character taking up 34 seconds of screen time to tell us that the rings are nasty, when we've got a two hour long movie dedicated to showing us how nasty the thing is.I see where you're coming from with this, but I don't think you're representative of all the people who watched this film. I have heard people say both things like, "Geez, it's just a ring. What's the big deal?" and "It's powerful! They should have used it against the bad guy like Boromir wanted to!" The people who said these things missed the point that you seem to have understood all too well - the Ring is powerfully evil and it corrupts. So, while you're saying they explained it too much, other people would appear to be of the opinion that they didn't do enough. Criticisms cancelling out and all....

And I do still think it's important that they were Men. You may not realize how important the characterization of Men as corrupt and weak is, but maybe after you've seen the other two films.

Tuckerfan
04-06-2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Achernar
I see where you're coming from with this, but I don't think you're representative of all the people who watched this film. I have heard people say both things like, "Geez, it's just a ring. What's the big deal?" and "It's powerful! They should have used it against the bad guy like Boromir wanted to!" The people who said these things missed the point that you seem to have understood all too well - the Ring is powerfully evil and it corrupts. So, while you're saying they explained it too much, other people would appear to be of the opinion that they didn't do enough. Criticisms cancelling out and all....

And I do still think it's important that they were Men. You may not realize how important the characterization of Men as corrupt and weak is, but maybe after you've seen the other two films. You know, one of the things I really hate in this world is that there's a lot of "dumbing down" of things. Caused me no end of fits when I was in school.

Perhaps my opinion of the film would be different if I hadn't read the books before I'd seen the film. (One would think that after twenty or so years my memories of the books would be faded to the point where I no longer remembered anything, but that wasn't the case. They have stuck with me on at least a subconsious level. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory also imprinted itself deeply on me when I saw it at the age of two or three.)

Lizard
04-06-2003, 01:25 PM
Lessee. . . . .very long posts filled with massive, turgid explanations. "LOTR" in the title.

*Sigh* The geeks have taken over. Even a thread about how LOTR sucks isn't safe.

Laughing Lagomorph
04-06-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Lizard
Lessee. . . . .very long posts filled with massive, turgid explanations. "LOTR" in the title.

*Sigh* The geeks have taken over. Even a thread about how LOTR sucks isn't safe.

Thanks for checking in. You know where to find us. ;)

Wumpus
04-06-2003, 11:23 PM
Geeks on the Internet? I'm shocked, positively shocked!

well he's back
04-07-2003, 12:22 AM
I am still fairly new to these boards but am still amazed - amazed - at what wildly varying opinions intelligent (or at least clever) you people can have about movies.
For my part, I loved the LOTR books & was prepared to hate the movies - but wound up loving them, mainly I think for their visuals, their spectacular aspects, the music, and the cast. I can watch them over and over.
On the other hand I saw the 1st Star Wars once, though it was ok. Saw the next 2 - hated them. Wouldn't see "Episodes I & II" if you paid me.

well he's back
04-07-2003, 12:25 AM
I am still fairly new to these boards but am still amazed - amazed - at what wildly varying opinions you intelligent (or at least clever) people can have about movies.
For my part, I loved the LOTR books & was prepared to hate the movies - but wound up loving them, mainly I think for their visuals, their spectacular aspects, the music, and the cast. I can watch them over and over.
On the other hand I saw the 1st Star Wars once, though it was ok. Saw the next 2 - hated them. Wouldn't see "Episodes I & II" if you paid me.

jack@ss
04-07-2003, 04:14 AM
Yeah, I guess Aragorn (Greasy Hair Dude, not Archer Dude) should have just said "Them Nazguls badass-undead-dudes" instead of wasting an additional 30 seconds.

I for one felt partonized & underestimated when Frodo says "Baggins? Shire? That will lead them here!" to Gandalf. Fuck's sake, we've heard Gollum say it 3 times already. You can leave a clue sitck lying across the trail; I don't need to be beaten about the head 4 times with the same 2 words. I refuse to beleive that I'm that much smarter than the average person too.

The other other reason that Frodo has to carry the ring to Mordor is that he's not tempted by it nearly as much as the other characters because he's a hobbit. Bilbo was able to give up the ring because he's a hobbit. Sauron had it all figured out except that he didn't count on these hairy-footed little midgets cropping up spontaneously. He didn't count on the gene for "ring resistance" being linked to shortness, large hairy feet or pointed ears. Or maybe it's a combination of all 3 genes that confer resistance to the lure of the One ring.

Yeah, Kate Blanchett's little scene was cheesey. Most of the movie was cheesey. It's about fairy-tale type things: Elves, dwarves, wizards. And Famke Janssen would have been good as Arwen just for the hot factor, but I think Liv Tyler brings more vulnerability to the role.

athelas
04-07-2003, 07:51 AM
I for one felt partonized & underestimated when Frodo says "Baggins? Shire? That will lead them here!" to Gandalf. Fuck's sake, we've heard Gollum say it 3 times already. You can leave a clue sitck lying across the trail; I don't need to be beaten about the head 4 times with the same 2 words. I refuse to beleive that I'm that much smarter than the average person too.

Lothlorien sucked. Period.

athelas
04-07-2003, 07:53 AM
Oops...I meant to write that some people with whom I saw it were complaining about it being too hard to follow. Takes all sorts, I guess (Lothlorien sucked. Period.)

Bjork
04-07-2003, 10:13 PM
You put this on here just to see how many people you could make angry. Im sure of it.

End thread here!

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.