gamegrene.com

While this movie is long, I personally wanted it longer. It felt too rushed, that too much was condensed into too short a time. At the same time it was too much too all take in at once.

Maybe it needed to be two 2 hour movies, but that would have made the ending points more blurry. At any rate, I will have to watch it again, just to decide if I real like it. I know it's cool, and I know I liked the book, but I still don't know if I liked the movie, but I very much look forward to the DVD directors cut, which I hope weighs in at a hefty four hours.

I also can't wait till next year, when two Towers comes out. More than anything, I can't wait until 3 or 4 years time, when I'll hopefully be able to watch all 3, 4 hour directors cut movies back to back for the biggest, coolest, most amazing cult marathon movie experience in history. THAT'S what this Trilogy of movies is going to be about.

Well I can't wait to see the movie tonight.

On of my 2 D&D tables is on thursdays, we put it on pause and are going to the movie instead.

Aeon and Caliban give me hope that I'll be thrilled by it.

And I too cannot wait for the LotR movie marathons in... 2005?

Well I'll be back with my comments on friday.

C ya all at the movies

Wow, could you *be* a bigger geek?

J/K :)

Well Aeon, it is good to see a review from you for LotR.
Of course, I have been planning on seeing this movie since
I found out WETA effects had begun making the props. After the
dismal, soul-melting, across the board failure of Dungeons & Dragons, the movie, I
was sort of ambivalent about even watching another new fantasy movie...
Just in case there were other ways of royally screwing up a film just waiting
to present themselves. Yes, I honestly feared that LotR was going to be next on the
big bust list. So it is good to see yet another positive review from someone
with similar tastes and attitudes.

I'll probably go to a midday showing, in about a week or so. I will try and time
it with inclement weather, so it's only me and three diehard, rabid fanboys in the
theater when the lights dim...

excellent writeup!

I saw the movie last night, and I must say that I'm sooo disapointed! Peter Jackson, what in heavens name have You done? I'm not gonna see the other two films, that's for sure. When I red the for the fist time (13 years old), I fell in love with Galadriel. The Peter Jackson version of the Elven Queen is just sad. So sad.

I have heard many comments on Galadriel, and I'd just like to say in my opinion Galadriel was done fine. Firstly, how exactly does ANYONE personify the perfection some people seem to believe Galadriel represents (like the above poster)?
Secondly, Galadriel was meant to turn both 'terrible and beautiful' at the moment when Frodo offered her the ring. This representation in the film seems correct according to the words written in the Book.

The problem seems to occur when we don't get enough screen time afterwards to see the gentler side. This is a problem with the time constraints imposed on the movie. I am sure that in the directors cut she will get the screen time she needs to show both sides. But the core aim of the film appears to be the evilness of the ring, and it's affect on Frodo and everyone around him, and how he and they must overcome it.

Obviously if you were dissapointed with the movie though, Galadriel can't have been your only problem. But I think many people might walk into the movie with too high expectations. It's not going to be the Lord of the Rings that you choose to remember, it's the Lord of the Rings Peter Jackson chose too, and was capable of, envisioning on the screen. As such people should be careful about examining them as too seperate things. Afterall, fans have discussed and argued over how each views Tolkiens writings since the book was released, and Jackson just happens to be another fan with the guts and talent (no matter what you dislike, you have to admire the work, effort and sheer determination required to get the film made) to try and do a live action version of HIS vision of the world Tolkien created.

I guess I am lucky, his vision comes pretty close to mine, so I am happy.

And damn proud of it.

Sorry, but I didnt like it as much as you did, obviously.

"Was it a good film? Absolutely. One of the best of the year. One of the best I've ever seen."

Not really. I don't know what it was, but it really didn't flow as well as any other movie I've seen. It's like he had to do the movie all in one night, and so he crammed in as much of the book as he thought suitable, and then added his own series of action-filled events. The action was great, and he did manage to sum up most of the story, but he just didn't do it all that well.

And I do think the whole series of events with Galadriel was just poorly put together. It didn't really seem as mystical as when I read it in the book.

Sorry, but definitely not the best movie I've seen. Go watch Gladiator. Or the Star wars trilogy (not including Episode 1). Or The Matrix.

David-
I respect and fully understand your criticism, hey, we're Americans.. Just 'cause 95% of the planet likes something dosen't mean the other 5% have to go in like sheep. (Basically saying that you're ok 'cause unlike Magnus, you gave an intelligent reason for your dislike)

And gotta agree with Aeon .. Episode One should never have been made; at least not THAT way anyway.... My fav thoery as to what happened can be read in the December issue of Inquest- that Gene Roddenberry (yay!) posessed George Lucas to drive Star Wars into the ground to Star Trek could be the #1 franchise again.

IMO, LotR was VERY well done. Peter Jackson's vision certainly won't be the same as that of anyone else, but I think he did a darn good job with it. Here's why...

My father (now nearly 60) is a bigger LotR freak than I am, and I think he made an excellent point when he commented to me after the movie, "some of the deviations from the book actually improved on the story - that is the sign of a good movie." Yet at the same time, some of the classic lines that everyone expects remain ("Fool of a Took! Throw yourself in next time!").

MINOR SPOILER WARNING: For a specific (short) example, take a look at the introduction of Merry and Pippin into the story (playing with Gandalf's fireworks - or even that particular firework itself). It quickly establishes the character of Merry and Pippin and brings them into the action in a very harmless way - but it sets up nicely their antics through the remainder of the film. I won't bring up other examples for fear of spoiling.

When everyone knows a story and you can still inject new elements into it that do not detract from the story, IMO, it is a successful venture. Of course parts were cut out. Of course some characters had their roles expanded. But for all the talk I heard about "Arwen's role was greatly expanded," I might point out that she got a whole, what, 8 minutes of screen time? Merging her character with Glorfindel for the movie in the interest of saving time (and giving the audience fewer characters to keep track of) was, I think, a good idea given the medium (movies), where you have less time to develop a character.

Definitely much better than the Bakshi version (and I liked the Bakshi version's storytelling, though the quality of art/rotoscoping left much to be desired).

Was it perfect? Goodness no (the depiction of Sauron in physical form was, I felt, disappointing, though the Eye of Sauron was terrific).

IMO, for those who are knowledgeable Tolkien fans, given the creative strictures of the movie medium (including movie length), this movie was superb. For those who are not Tolkien fans or are unwilling to accept compromise to the story in order to make it fit the medium, it was merely great.

***But*** I temper this reaction by saying the same thing I said of Star Wars Episode I (which was mediocre at best) - it will be impossible to properly judge the movie in its full context until the remainder of the trilogy is out (who knows, once Episodes II and III are out, Episode I may not look so bad after all - some of the things we didn't like may have been necessary to include later plot twists in II and III, for example). Fellowship is a little easier (because unlike SW, we KNOW the rest of the story) to judge immediately, but I will reserve my ultimate judgement of "success or failure" in adapting Tolkien's work until after I have seen Return of the King. It's really the only way to fairly do it.

Anyone who has seen the BBC version of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will know what I'm talking about - the thing seems quite disjointed and sometimes stupid for ten episodes - then the last episode miraculously pulls every single stupid, disjointed thing together and makes you go, "oh, now I see why that's in there" and you have to watch it again to get the full effect. Perhaps LotR and SW both will be like that. I'm not holding my breath, but since I have seen it done before, I know it CAN be done.

--The Sigil

The Uruk-Hai are definitely associated with Saruman in some way in the book, but the movie goes into much, much more vivid detail about the fact that he was actively creating the things.

I was very disapointed in the LOTR the movie. I had read rumors that there were some minor character changes, and I told myself to be prepared for it, so I could enjoy the rest of the movie. But it seemed like every 2-4 mins they had a "modification" to the book.
Making Arwen into a femeherogirlelvpower chick was a joke. It was completely unneccessary. It hurt the movie. And the telekenetic wizard fighting scene. Funny. Sad. It defeated the purpose, and was just confusing. Nothing like the book whatsoever. And they cut out Sauramon declaring that he is no longer the white wizard but now "Sauromon of many colors" (were they afraid that it would come off as racist or something?" And why did they make him be the one that caused the snowstorm?
And what were they thinking with Aragorn? He was always full of dignity, and wasn't afraid of the kingship, he was just modest, and humble, and heroic. Not afraid of it.
And then there's the dialogue. They left out some of the best parts, and added in new conversatitions that weren't even in the book. How could they possibly leave out the disscussion between the hobbits, where Sam is questioning Stryders inegrity, and Frodo repsonds with the idea that if Stryder was the enemy he would look better but seem fouler. Stryder replies to them, "Whereas I seem fair but look foul?" The movie just sluffed it off with the hobbits saying I don't know if we can trust him. (not to mention that they said this when they were going through a swampy area on the way to riven dell, and in the book, the hobbits were already developing a strong rapport with Stryder by this point.
And when they were entering Moria, and Gandalf was trying to open the doors, Frodo had nothing to do with it. Indeed that was supposed to be a humerous scene but it just turned into a confusing one.
Major things they cut:
1. Frodo selling Bag end and buying a House in Buckland
2. The old Forrest, and Tom Bombadil
3. Sauramon becoming of Many colors (a major plot point, defining the comprising of virtue a major theme of the book.)
4. Bill ferny, and the pony Bill.
5. The gifts of Galadriel.
6. Frodo fleeing the black riders by himself.
7. Meaningful diaglogue, and Tolkien humor.
Things that they added to the movie:
1. XenArwen
2. The telkraptic fight between wizards
3. Innacurately overdeveloping Sauraman's character, i.e. him causing the the storm on the mountain
4. The fight scene in Moria. Nothing like that. They spoiled the essence of that part of the book.
5. The shards of narsil in Rivendell, and the scenes of Stryder being afraid of Kingship.

They should have stayed true to the book and left out all the shite that they added in. What a waste of 90 million. Ralph Bakshi's cartoon was a thousand times better.

Well, I'm freshly back from seeing the movie, and rather invigorated. The movie has restored my faith in the potential for quality fantasy genre cinema. I am also happy I stayed away from the books for the last five years. (I didn't walk into the theatre expecting anything.) This movie is too good to be hacked on by hardcore fans. Why not sit back, breathe slowly and calm yourself.

Aeon: I agree, the Moria combat scene is just the most neatest bestest combat sequence I've seen in any fantasy film.

Good writeup.
The very idea that I liked FOTR as much as I do is a testament to it's superior craft. Disjoint in points? Absolutely, but at the very least it should scare some people into reading the amazing story.

In light of the huge pressures associated with this particular production, not the least of which being Jackson's own fanatical devotion to TLOTR, I have to call it the greatest adaption of story to celluloid I've seen: I've read and seen an irresponsible number of things.

Just a few points:

A book can fully develop characters, past histories, etc through tools such as internal dialogue, etc. A film can't. David Lynch's "Dune" tried to aproximate this using voice overs... and it didn't fly too well.

2. No movie's special effects or director's vision can compare to your very own, extra special personal :-) imagination.

The best a movie can do is to tell the story in its, unique way, even if it meant detractring from the book in some points. Case in point: David Lynch's "Dune" were faithful to the book, while "Blade Runner" took a few... well, okay, a lot of, liberties with the book. Yet "Blade Runner" is widely considered to be a better film than "Dune."

I may flame with you on other forums, Tas, but I'm 100% with you on this one. ;-)

Again, the major gripe I see coming from the Tolkien super-die-hards is that the movie deviated at all from the book. I would again remind them that the media are VASTLY different and it would be impossible to create a movie which precisely follows the book unless you were prepared to create a 15-hour movie.

Again, look at the medium - a 500+ page book condensed to a 3-hour movie. That's roughly 3 pages per minute. Even the most optimistic among you couldn't hope to cram three pages' worth of dialogue into one minute of screen time. :-)

I also agree with aeon's point that some amalgomating of characters is necessary. While a reader can go back over a text and figure out who fits where when there are a lot of characters, a movie-goer has no such luxury. You have to economize slightly and cut down the sheer number of characters or everything gets lost.

For a perfect example, look at the Rankin-Bass version of the Hobbit. The person who sees the film once will be able to recognize who Bilbo is, who Gollum is, who Gandalf is, and who Thorin is. Probably they will be able to tell Bombur and Balin from the rest of the dwarves (the fat one and the one that talked almost as much as Thorin). But will they ge able to tell you about Bifur and Bofor, Oin and Gloin, Fili and Kili? No. Why not? Because only three of the dwarves (Thorin, Balin, and Bombur) get enough development.

Heck, Bakshi amalgomated Glorfindel and Legolas for the same reason. In making a movie, you have to recognize that time constraints give you the ability to develop only a limited number of characters. The amalgomations are, for the most part, consistent (i.e., you didn't see Gimli's character take the place of Celeborn but you did see Arwen take the place of Glorfindel, otherwise known as Stock Elf 3).

This is the thing that a movie director must decide - which characters are "cardboard cutouts" as far as telling the story goes?

Obviously, the nine members of the Fellowship are not, because the latter half of the story is all about their interaction. Elrond isn't because you need to establish him as respected and powerful enough to call a conference and commission the Fellowship in the first place (and so featuring him in command of the elves during the initial fight vs. Sauron is a nice touch that immediately establishes his importance).

Galadriel, as a Ring-Bearer and as the one who spurs Frodo on and gives him some of the tools he needs later, must be developed somewhat, and IMO, her part, though slightly changed and diminished, was well done - I loved the way she seemed to be learning something about herself (and was relieved) when struggles with accepting the One Ring, finally declines, then she whispers, "I passed the test." This is a moment of self-discovery for her. Much better than the pretentious Galadriel in Bakshi's version, even if Samwise looking in the mirror is removed. What Sam sees, ultimately, is not that important. What Frodo sees is.

We need an arch-enemy, and Sauron, as the Lidless Eye Wreathed in Flame, is very well established. Unfortunately, there's only so much expression a flaming eye can give us, so much of the "expression" of the arch-enemy is of necessity shunted onto Sauruman. And why not? At this point in the story, he is, after all, Sauron's number one henchman (because others haven't been introduced yet). Already, we see that Sauruman's role must be expanded.

And finally, of course, you must have Gollum and Bilbo - Bilbo establishes continuity from the Hobbit and of course Gollum still "has a part to play for good or evil." I won't spoil it for anyone who doesn't know what Gollum's eventual destiny is (though I expect everyone here already knows).

We're already at 15 characters that have to be developed (some more than others). That's no easy task.

Now, are there any other characters whose parts are absolutely crucial to telling the story that they must be preserved intact? The answer is no - they are not really characters, but tools and plot devices that move the story from point to point. This means that all other characters are basically expendable and can be swapped, changed, combined, and otherwise mixed in the interest of the story.

Is the Lord of the Eagles' role developed? No. For all the casual movie-goer knows, that was just a bird Gandalf summoned. Arwen/Glorfindel combined? Doesn't really matter. Glorfindel was simply a bridge to get the hobbits and Aragorn into Rivendell. You get the idea.

Stop complaining that this wasn't "your" idea of what FotR should be. It followed the original pretty well, and the deviations are in large part forced by the change in medium from paper to celluloid. I think Jackson did a marvelous job, given the constraints of both the medium and the die-hard Tolkien fans. My complaints are mostly stylistic (I think Sauron in the opening looks like a bad Power Rangers enemy and the hobbits are not fat enough). But these did not really detract much from the movie for me (especially not the hobbits). Was this precisely the movie I would have made if I were the director? Probably not. Was it faithful to the themes, general plot line, and story arc of the original book? Very much so. Minor deviations are expected for reasons already explained.

And I agree with the rebuttals presented - Sauruman changing from "the White" to "the Multicolored" was not the point - the point was he gave himself to evil. The label he used was not the important thing (and I don't think it was done out of political correctness, either - Gandalf, the epitome of Good Wizard, is called "Gandalf the Grey" so the color heirarchy scheme of the Wizardly Order does show up a bit).

I hear complaints that Arwen's role was expanded. Again, she gets maybe 8 minutes of screen time, most of it shared with Aragorn and Frodo anyway - she helps develop their characters as much as her own character is developed.

I don't hear people mourning the loss of Celeborn (who doesn't even appear in the movie - at least he got a token reference in Bakshi's). So I gather the only reason people are upset that Tom Bombadil is that people liked his character more than Celeborn's and NOT out of any particular desire to "keep the story pure." In other words, it's hypocrisy and goes back to "you didn't do it the way *I* wanted it done" instead of you "you didn't do it the way it ought to have been done."

There are many ways a movie "ought to be done" and this movie DID use one of those ways. That it didn't pick the one "I wanted to be done" is immaterial.

--The Sigil

On December 22, 2001 8:42 PM, daegedda said:
"Ralph Bakshi's cartoon was a thousand times better."

Let me compare Peter Jackson's version to Bakshi's version on each of your points....

Major things they cut:
1. Frodo selling Bag end and buying a House in Buckland

Cut in both the Bakshi and Jackson version. And, as a previous poster has suggested, who wants to watch a haggling scene? No significant differences between the versions here.

2. The old Forrest, and Tom Bombadil

Cut in both the Bakshi and Jackson versions. An interesting detour perhaps, but NOT necessary in any way to the central storyline. No significant differences here.

3. Sauramon becoming of Many colors (a major plot point, defining the comprising of virtue a major theme of the book.)

Compromising of virtue is certainly symbolized by "changing colors." However, the point is the virtue compromise. Bakshi has the "changing colors" portion but does not develop the "compromising virtue" to the same degree Jackson does. I think both did it in a different manner - and I found Jackson's depiction of Saurumon's compromise much better because it shows more of his depredations.

4. Bill ferny, and the pony Bill.

Bill the pony shows up in both versions, though in both cases without Bill Ferny. Difference? In Bakshi's Bill is eaten by the tentacled monster in the lake, in Jackson's he is not. Big deal. No real differences here between the two.

5. The gifts of Galadriel.

Very minor in both Bakshi and Jackson's, though Jackson's giving seems a little clearer. No significant differences between the versions here.

6. Frodo fleeing the black riders by himself.

I presume you mean after his wound and on the way to Rivendell - the difference is that in the Jackson version, Arwen is with him. This is different but not does not make for a truly significant difference in the story.

7. Meaningful diaglogue, and Tolkien humor.

Please define "meaningful dialogue and Tolkien humor." Both picked different parts to keep and to cut. I can't really give you this one, either - the dialogue in both was mostly calculated to tell the story and/or develop the characters.

Things that they added to the movie:

1. XenArwen

Difference is that Jackson replaced Glorfindel with Arwen while Bakshi replaced Glorfindel with Legolas. Big deal. Glorfindel was obviously a "bridge character" who served no purpose other than to get the group to Rivendell quicker - a role that could be taken by ANY elf.

2. The telkraptic fight between wizards

You prefer Bakshi's version, where Sauruman waves his hand and Gandalf is surrounded by psychedelic lights? I would have preferred to see a Fin Razel/Bavmorda (Willow) type of fight (fire, ice, stone, lightning, polymorphing, and telekinetcs) but this did the job. Neither movie scored big on this one for me, so I can't give Bakshi or Jackson the edge here. The edge goes instead to Willow. ;-)

3. Innacurately overdeveloping Sauraman's character, i.e. him causing the the storm on the mountain

Again, this goes back to "putting a face on evil." The presence of Sauruman is needed in FotR while he seems almost an accessory character in Bakshi. No points either way - it's merely a difference in goals for the character development.

4. The fight scene in Moria. Nothing like that. They spoiled the essence of that part of the book.

WTF? Jackson's portrayal makes more sense spatially and I think does a better job. This is completely a matter of taste. No points here.

5. The shards of narsil in Rivendell, and the scenes of Stryder being afraid of Kingship.

Humility? Methinks you have read more into Aragorn than there was in the books.

IOW, if these are your complaint points and you are trying to convince me that Bakshi's version was better, you picked appallingly poor examples.

--The Sigil

The movie, itself was great. Yeah there were a boat load of things done differently in the film versus the novel, however it was still a good movie. It was still good to see nazgul, the fellowship, and the balrog on film.

I eagerly look forward to the next few installments of the series. The Ents are gonna rock, etc.

Its also somewhat 'boosted' my interest in roleplaying. As of late I felt its become a bit stagnant, but after watching it, I'm damn anxious to play the next gaming session in our campaign. I'm even ready to write some more on the campaign I was running that I was about to let end.

Peter Jackson is the man...just look at dead alive ;)

OH MY GOD TAS AND SIGIL AGREED ON SOMETHING!!!

Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? ;)

Anyway, this should be many little posts but it won't.

I waited to see the movie 3 times (once in french for my girlfriend's benefit) and then I let it sink in before I made comments.

WOW! I'm sorry if I sound like I'm a sheep, after all I did like D&D 3E, right Tas ;)

I read some of the criticism for the movie and I think it comes from the fact that the books and the movie were writen with two different aims.

A) The books started out as stories (more than one) that were linked together. Say like the episodes of babylon 5 or some other tv series. Back then, before the invention of the brain numbing image box, stories like those of Ulyses (Odiseus) were big epics made of many little stories that told a bigger story (say trying to get back to Greece or destroying a ring).

Then came american movies, tv and video games and our attention span grew shorter.

so

B) The movie was made so it could fit into less than 3 hours. It had to appeal to people that aren't die-hard fans of the father of fantasy literature. The same thing would happen if they did a movie about Jordan's novels. Even then, many people came out of the movie puzzled because there was too much to take in at once and there was no real closure.

The first contact I had with LOTR and the Hobbit was as bed time stories my Aunt read me when she babysat. This is where I make my point, believe it or not. Every little thing that got cut out of the movie are little side treks that are very good stories (or bed time stories) yes, but they don't add to the main plot (the hardships necessary to destroy evil and the resolve it takes to overcome temptation). I too was disapointed to miss out on Tom Bombadil, but he doesn't add much to the story (much to my chagrin).

The things that got changed? So what. I like most of the changes.

Reaction to some specific criticism:

1) The magic fight scene… I personally prefered the cartoon version, it seemed more… mystical. But the Bavmorda-Razel fight would have also worked better for me. Although I could have been soooo much worst (remember the D&D movie?)

2) The Uruk Haï are made by Sarouman… so what if they used to be half orcs in the books. They fill the same role, the tireless, evil horde of grunts in his employ.

3) The fight scenes were bad? WTF are you on man? The choreography was amazing, the rythm was perfect. You could even see the difference between the Uruk Haï and the Moria Orcs, both in terms of fighting style, equipment and discipline.

4) Sauron was dissapointing? I don't know. At first it surprised me how they made him (or is it an IT). But then, Sauron only becomes scarry once he loses his physical form (even in the books). I must admit though that when he was blasting away with his mace, the theme song of the Asterix Cartoons popped up in my mind. But when I remember the Silmarilion… it does look like the fight I saw in the movie.

5) No movie can be as good as your own imagination. I'm in total agreement except for two things in this movie:
a) Legolas: man was he a gazillion times more amazing than what I imagined.
b) The Balrog of Moria: What they did with the smoke and shadows around him was bloody amazing. It was scarier than what I imagined.
c) Aragorn was exactly like I imagined him both physically and in termes of psychology (so far).

6) Elrond vs Agent Smith. It was nice, actually to see this actor do Elrond. Although it kind of ruins agent Smith for me, he'll seem likable and horourable now… oh well.

Some of my own criticism:

1) Damn I didn't get to see Tom Bombadil! Oh well. I'll have to read the book again…

2) The halflings trust Aragorn way too fast and they left out the "he would look nicer but seem fouler" part which was great in the book. Although I must admit that I got the feeling of it in the bar. Had I not read the books I would have been surprised to find out Aragorn was a good guy (like Tolkien tricked me in his book). But, if they had put that in, they would have had to cut something else… the birds scene perhaps?

3) The temptation of Galadriel was way better in my mind. Although a great casting (even if I was surprised by the choice) the "Terrible goddess of beauty" effect didn't do it for me.

4) I too found that they didn't spend enough time on the gifts of Galadriel, although they spent time on the only "real" important gift, the Star of the Elves.

5) Damn it, I can't watch alien without thinking the android is a hobbit! Damn! Damn! Damn!

6) The making of the Fellowship of the ring at the end of Elrond's Council reminded me too much of a Star Wars movie ending. I half expected to see Yoda glowing in the corner of the creen. But at least the council of Elrond didn't take half an hour.

Well that's it.

Still Tas and Sigil are agreeing on something, it scares me…

Cthulhu Matata!

I think I just figured it out...

I think I just figured out why a lot of people have problems with the movie... they are having difficulty in distinguishing between those characters who are important people in Middle Earth (e.g., Bombadil, Glorfindel, etc.) and those characters who are important in the telling of the Lord of the Rings.

Tom Bombadil and Glorfindel and Radagast the Brown are all very important characters in the world of Middle Earth... but they are NOT central to the STORY within the Lord of the Rings. That's why they got the axe.

Let me give you another example (and sorry if it's a little USA-centric)... George W. Bush is a very important person in the USA c. 2002. But if someone was telling a story about how my wife and I met, you would definitely want to cut him out of the story.

I think people are upset because they are having a hard time figuring out who is important to the STORY as opposed to who is important to the WORLD of Middle Earth.

And I agree that Tom Bombadil ran a horrible risk of turning into the next Jar-Jar Binks... *shudders*

And the nether vision effect was definitely cool.

--The Sigil

I enjoyed the book so much i read it twice, already watched the film twice, need i say more about how i felt towards it. It was better written than the book - strange that. Glad they got rid of the songs and that annoyning character after the Old forest. However i didnt get the same feeling about how hard all the travelling was reaching there destinations, the struggle to keep moving wasnt there, still, 2 to go :)

Hobbits rule! LOtR is like, the best movie/book of all time(save The Dark Crystal, of course).

Less than 24 hours to go... can't wait.

Well I've seen Two Towers.

It is an amazing fantasy movie. I'm not sure if I like it as much as the Fellowship of the Ring, I'm still a bit groggy, I've been lining up kilocafs after kilocafs since I've had a 3 hours night sleep. Short coffee break, so not much time to write.

One thing bugged me very very much. The stereotypical dorky gamers who got out the movie all foaming at the mouth because Jackson didn't stick to the book. And man did he ever not follow the book. Still, it tells almost the same story, and quite nicely at that.

What bugs me is the folks who don't realise that movie making is an art form, and comes much more from the artist than from the original subject. For crying out loud, it was 3 hours long! It started at 25 past midnight, lasted close to 3 hours. Most of us had had long days and had waited hours in line to get into a movie for which we had bought tickets months in advance. The dorky whiners were speechless during the entire movie (3 hours did I tell ya?), they laughed, jumped, ooed and aaaaed at the same time as me. We were all mesmerized by the movie, which told a different story than the books we had read. For 3 hours!

Then the movie ended (quite abruptly at that), the lights came on and the credits rolled. Then the dorks started quoting scrypture from the holy tome of the Two Towers.

So what if Frodo gets dragged back to Gondor, so what if elves come to Helmgorge Keep, so what if the interest of Eowin for Arargorn seems less one way, so what if the characters make more jokes among themselves, so what if Pipin and Merry play a much more active role in getting the orcs involved, soooo frigin what!

Golum/Smeagol was amazing, both in terms of CGI as in terms of acting!

Legolas was done as one with godly agility should have and still is a maniac with a bow.

Aragorn is a very convincing reluctant hero, who doesn't want the burdens life have thrown at him.

Grima Wormtongue was amazingly repulsive and slimy (just as he should).

Gimli was great, although he was too much of a comic relief for my taste. Still I liked him and now the dwarves of my game will get the respect they deserve for being the crazy maniacs that they are on the battle field.

Coffee break way over, ciao.

Yes but it will have been a nice ride won't it?

Re: the changes vs the rendition of other scenes. I share your opinion. Many things were done exactly like I envisioned them (or even better in some cases).

Did many of you think worgs should look more like wolves and less like bears?

The wargs were not bears, Sam, they were based on hyenas, which, to my knowledge, are mostly considered to be wolves +1. Jaws that can bite through metal and crack bones like candy canes are usually considered cool, in my book.

Also, I've got to argue with all the people out there saying that the movies are shit because (insert whiny voice here) 'They're not true to the books'.

I'm as big a fan as the books as anyone, but even I think that the movies are far superior. If you want to get bogged down in unneccesary, pointlessly long descriptions, constant changes in pace, tons upon tons of footnotes, pointless characters who are here one minute, gone the next, and a beginning that takes forever to get into, be my guest. But for me, the movies take the best moments from the books, cut out all the unnecessary stuff, add in bits that might have been, all the while with exciting battle scene in between. It's all very well to say that the books are exciting, but who seriously felt exhilarated reading about the troll attack in Balin's Tomb, and the flight to the Bridge Of Khazad-dum in the book, as opposed to seeing it, up on screen in all it's glory.

It's the movies that make the Lord Of The Rings phenomenon what it is.