[Bender]Bite my shiny metal ass![/Bender] 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
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.
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.
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.
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. . .
Eh, I don’t know. Aragorn’s explanation lasts 34 seconds. Here it is in its entirety:
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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).
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… 
More his apathy towards power/ambition.
Will he be corrupted by the ring? That’s an important part of the story as well.
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.
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. 
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.
Uh, I think that it contradicts what you said earlier
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.