Thanks for the day-of/day-after reviews, BiPB. Interesting to see your thinking on it.
I would have appreciated it if they'd supplied a catheter though.....I peed for 10 minutes after I walked out.......
I have not seen the third picture yet. But judging from the first two, they suffer from the same problems the novels had. Tolkien needed an editor. He had the bad habit of explaining everything, tieing up all lose ends and was not willing to let go of his characters once he had created them. Several who die in the course of the story should have remained dead. The film trilogy is definitely a classic and may well represent a turning point in the manner in which studio's think about and produce sweeping dramatic pictures. But it would not have hurt these films if someone had judiciously edited Tolkien's "classic" for a cleaner plot line.
Totally disagree with that Tolkien didn't have an editor (in fact, he did) and that the books are not easily read and sprint along quite nicely even if they are long. The characterizations are drawn over the course of the first two books and their place in the story culminates in the final book. I would criticize writing for not tying up loose ends and not concentrating on the character's places in the action. I wouldn't expect any deep psychological probing into the characters in a book like this but in fact that's introduced with Aragorn, more so with Boromir than in the film, Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Gimli et al. I can't figure out what is meant by "let go of his characters."
Hey, Bi-Polar, with the first two movies I dehydrated that day after drinking a lot of water in the morning. This time a made a studio preview and they did have an intermission. Economic considerations these days don't allow for the fifteen or so minute intermissions anymore. One of the downsides of the multi-plex concept.
The last two films I attended with intermissions were the remastered cut of Lawrence of Arabia, and Branagh's Hamlet. With Hamlet, it made no difference, as it was apparently weak bladders and kiddie night.
Nice to see a variety of opinions expressed here. Acquiunk, I can definitely appreciate your thinking on this.
The one thing I have always agreed on is that the poetry and songs were a bit too much like jingles and his publisher did edit them down in the final published volumes. I really saw Tolkien's desire to create folk song accompanyment to his created mythology but I found myself skimming through them each time I've read the books. "The Hobbit" went to press virtually unedited but as each new edition of LOTR was published there were changes made.
As far as how Jackson had the plotline rewritten, I'm not sure Tolkien would be all that happy if he were alive but as cinema it was a good use of artistic license. He has accomplished the almost impossible -- please the majority of Tolkien buffs and a general audience who have not read the books (but considering the reprinting and sales of the volumes, that's certainly changed).
I am stunned !! I saw it over the weekend and I am still goggle eyed !!
Now I am planning to see all 3 back to back - if I can find a theatre near me showing them !!
And yeah, I had tears in my eyes during the ending ...
Some of the more stoic movie critics said Jackson was trying for tears but anyone who let themselves get involved with the characters and their world wouldn't be able to put on their callous persona. It's built into the story -- when I first read the books I could barely get through what is essentially an epilogue of what happens to Middle Earth and its inhabitants without tearing up. It's sad to see the story end.
I saw this film yesterday and I was incredibly disappointed. I have read the trilogy countless times and was hoping to see Jackson take the same care with the last film as he had the first. He did not.
The battle scenes were incredible. I wish I had it on DVD so I could avoid the sniveling lovefest between Frodo and Sam. I wanted to give them a box of Kleenex and towards the end I thought there might be a love-making scene. If this movie was done correctly, the nature of these characters and the others would bring emotion from the audience without the Hallmark card add-ins.
Jackson had the time, the actors, the scenery, and turned the darkest part of the book into a mushy half-hearted attempt instead of the true epic it could have been. Instead of showing tearful pity parties he could have used the hour and a half wasted on them to bring depth to the other characters that he felt compelled to treat 'secondary' and almost unneccessary.
At least the movie won't ruin the book for anyone who hasn't read it. The Boy has read it, but doesn't have the same passion for it as I do. When we left the theater he said "I can't believe that made it through screening." It did, and it's a shame.
I can't wait for Sugars review on the Jesus movie coming out.
Hopefully all that snivelling lovey dovey stuff will hit the cutting room floor and we can just go straight to the cool part where they beat the **** out of him and nail him up.
It's got nothing to do with skipping parts. It's has everything to do with changing the story to pull tears and skipping the rest because you've used up your 3 1/2 hours trying to get the audience to tear up.
describe where and how specifically the story was changed.
I saw it last night and the story, or at least the plot line, was changed in a number of ways, mostly in my estimation for the better. There were a number of disappointments not the least of which was that it went on too long. I would have ended it with Frodo and Sam being saved from the lava flow. The audience I saw it with (mostly undergraduate age)began to clap at least twice when they thought the movie had ended and groaned the third time. I also see Sugar's point but I did not think those scenes were as intrusive as she did. Some of the characters were also card board cut outs. For all that I think Bear is right, this is a spectacular movie and in MHO has changed the way movies will be produced. It is the first movie that I have seen that lives up to the promos and posters. It truly is sweeping in its presentation. The designers ransacked the western artistic traditions of the last 1500 years and did a fantastic job of weaving it into a seamless visual tapestry. The movie was rich both in detail and in it broad panoramic scope. Like Gautam I too want to see all three movies back to back, on a wide screen if possible.
These are some things, in my opinion, that didn't need to be left out.
Denethor - why did they not introduce the idea that he had palantÃr and was being swayed by Sauron? When he burned to death (in the book) he had it in his hands. This would have taken 2 minutes to include and explained his character better.
Faramir - no House of Healing? It is where Faramir falls in love with Eowyn and where he is cured by Aragorn (instead of just suddenly recovering). He shot the scenes and they all hit the editing room floor. Jackson specifially cut it because he felt it took away from Frodo's story - See? I'm not again mush, just bad cloying mush. (Disclaimer: I'm very biased here. Faramir is magically babelicious.)
They all go back to a nice sunshiny Shire - untouched by Sauron. Totally false. I also think that anyone who doesn't know about the Undying Lands isn't going to get any closer to understanding it from the 3 minutes of time they give it. Sauron's power was growing far and wide - no one remained untouched. But a nice grassy happy Shire gives a tidy little homecoming.
And could someone please tell me why Elrond doesn't give Aragorn doesn't get until he's at the camp?
Perhaps I'll be satisfied with an extended DVD version of the film but I think if Jackson spent less time on Frodo staring into space and weeping and more time on the film as a whole work with more than just 2 characters to worry about (Aragorn and Frodo) it would have been a lot smoother and included a lot more.
Again, I do think that most of the acting was done quite well and his vision of scenery was pulled of wonderfully. His battle scenes never lose their flair and I think the Gollum character did better than I thought he would (wasn't sure how the computer work would turn out). However, save for a few characters, it seems he gleamed the book for quotes, stuck them in there to cover his bases, and then let his characters fade away.
Everyone's going to have a different opinion - and it's just a movie. I just wish he had done a better job. Ah well - I'll rent it and fast-forward through Frodo and Sam slobbering all over the place.
Sugar, you got me on the Shire part....it would have been another hour long if they'd have come back to a ransacked Shire.......I'd have sat through a four hour movie to see it....and to see them meet Saraman and wormtongue on the way home...as someone else mentioned already.......
Jackson is damned if he did and damned if he didn't as far as those who read the books. The ransacking of the Shire would have tested the most diligent moviergoer's patience. As it is, some are not used to having the story go on after a climax to its finality of this world Tolkien created fading away into the arcane and distant past. I didn't see any slobbering, however, and I suppose there are those who could sit through the ending with stoic dry eyes.
This film is quite simply a cinematic masterpiece and anything with this much artistic integrity and craftsmanship will always have its detractors. It was as good a movie as the book was as good a book. The two will never the the same.
Saruman and Wormtongue are supposedly going to show up in the Extended Version. I can see why Jackson left them out of the theatrical version. The Extended Versions are better than the movie as this undertaking is essentially like a mini-series.
