FOTR - sh*te - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

12-25-2001, 11:21 AM

I am rather bemused at reading this forum. Shocked actually that so many people think it's so good. Why? Critical analysis time:1. Visualisation.The one place that the film hits spot on. Perhaps this is why so many people are confused; the eye candy's nice. The Balrog and the Ringwraiths I will single out for special praise.2. Does the film address the key themes of the book?Largely, no. *It entirely misses the point of the Ring. It gets across that it is powerful, but it does not get across the /desire/ the ring induces at all well. We do not hear Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond say that they will not take the ring, it's corrupting power is not stressed as it was in the book. Saruman is played as the servant of Sauron, but it was the desire of the ring that led him to darkness too. [before anyone starts ranting at me about plantIr go read his speech to Gandalf, and then have some extended reading. There is no doubt where his intention lay]*Boromir I hear you cry! Well, no. Boromir was signposted from the start as being a bad guy. It was over-laboured, in that clumsy Hollywood way. Reread the book. Boromir is a noble man, and the Tradegy of the Fellowship of the Ring is in his corruption, the power the ring exerts over even the strongest of men. In the film his eventual redemption makes no sense, because of the skewed nature of his interpretation.*Bravery even in the smallest. Nope. Beyond the basics the heart of Frodo's character was ripped out. Where was Frodo facing the Ringwraiths all alone: 'You shall have neither the ring nor me'?*Sense of scope? Entirely lost. We flick from Cadhras to Moria to Lorien so quickly you might think it happened in hours. Cineam is wonderful at compressing things but there are still ways of getting across the passing of time.*Visulaising Sauron was a mistake. In the LoTR (nb this is NOT the Silmarrillion), Sauron is not visualised: we here of him only by report or by the terror he induces in others. He is a dark menace across the pages of the book, not some silly X-men esque baddie. 3. Where the chracters authentic?Mixed bag*Aragorn. Denying his line? Yes, quite. Not all who wandera re lost, people.*Boromir, see above.*Elrond. In the all the books (+the Hobbit)Elrond represents lore and wisdom. Of Islidurs taking of the ring, he seem like a Father watching a foolish son: sad because he can see further. Not, like the film, as an angst ridden teenager. *Gandalf. Is not Obi Wan Kenobi, though this seemed lost on Jackson and co. The bit with the Balrog made me want to scream so loudly. Gandalf did not go down that pit intentionally. Plus he came across as quite clueless when in reality he's the one pulling all the strings.*Frodo. See above. Also didn't get across his age in comparsion to Sam. *Merry and Pippin. The less said the better.*Arwen. Let away with because it's Liv Tyler .*Saruman. Not a Hollywood baddie.Most of the others were laright. Wait - have I covered all the major parts. Oh man!4. MiscStupid mage fight, stupid little things like the Ringwraiths during the day, the incredible tweeness, Aragorn would NEVER have let Frodo go alone, the bit at the end with Aragorn's pep talk nearly made me retch. Unnecessary changes. Silly little things just made the film almost unwatchable.There has been much talk of the fact that this is a film and that changes were necessary tec tec. I fully agree. There was a lot in the film I was prepared to accept. No Tom Bombadil, okay, a little compression here and there, fine. But this does not excuse the film being sh*te, or the often total missing of the point of things.Sadly this is now two book-to-film adaptations recently I have been diappointed with (the other being Hannibal -- now if you want a rant...). And the trailer was so good too. It's like Episode 1 all over again.

12-25-2001, 11:21 AM	#1
kensei Guest Posts: n/a	*FOTR - shte** I am rather bemused at reading this forum. Shocked actually that so many people think it's so good. Why? Critical analysis time:<P>1. Visualisation.<P>The one place that the film hits spot on. Perhaps this is why so many people are confused; the eye candy's nice. The Balrog and the Ringwraiths I will single out for special praise.<P>2. Does the film address the key themes of the book?<P>Largely, no.<BR>It entirely misses the point of the Ring. It gets across that it is powerful, but it does not get across the /desire/ the ring induces at all well. We do not hear Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond say that they will not take the ring, it's corrupting power is not stressed as it was in the book.<BR>Saruman is played as the servant of Sauron, but it was the desire of the ring that led him to darkness too. [before anyone starts ranting at me about plantIr go read his speech to Gandalf, and then have some extended reading. There is no doubt where his intention lay]<P>Boromir I hear you cry! Well, no. Boromir was signposted from the start as being a bad guy. It was over-laboured, in that clumsy Hollywood way. Reread the book. Boromir is a noble man, and the Tradegy of the Fellowship of the Ring is in his corruption, the power the ring exerts over even the strongest of men. In the film his eventual redemption makes no sense, because of the skewed nature of his interpretation.<P>Bravery even in the smallest. Nope. Beyond the basics the heart of Frodo's character was ripped out. Where was Frodo facing the Ringwraiths all alone: 'You shall have neither the ring nor me'?<P>Sense of scope? Entirely lost. We flick from Cadhras to Moria to Lorien so quickly you might think it happened in hours. Cineam is wonderful at compressing things but there are still ways of getting across the passing of time.<P>Visulaising Sauron was a mistake. In the LoTR (nb this is NOT the Silmarrillion), Sauron is not visualised: we here of him only by report or by the terror he induces in others. He is a dark menace across the pages of the book, not some silly X-men esque baddie. <P>3. Where the chracters authentic?<P>Mixed bag<P>Aragorn. Denying his line? Yes, quite. Not all who wandera re lost, people.<P>Boromir, see above.<P>Elrond. In the all the books (+the Hobbit)Elrond represents lore and wisdom. Of Islidurs taking of the ring, he seem like a Father watching a foolish son: sad because he can see further. Not, like the film, as an angst ridden teenager. <P>Gandalf. Is not Obi Wan Kenobi, though this seemed lost on Jackson and co. The bit with the Balrog made me want to scream so loudly. Gandalf did not go down that pit intentionally. Plus he came across as quite clueless when in reality he's the one pulling all the strings.<P>Frodo. See above. <BR>Also didn't get across his age in comparsion to Sam. <P>Merry and Pippin. The less said the better.<P>Arwen. Let away with because it's Liv Tyler .<P>Saruman. Not a Hollywood baddie.<P>Most of the others were laright. Wait - have I covered all the major parts. Oh man!<P>4. Misc<P>Stupid mage fight, stupid little things like the Ringwraiths during the day, the incredible tweeness, Aragorn would NEVER have let Frodo go alone, the bit at the end with Aragorn's pep talk nearly made me retch. Unnecessary changes. Silly little things just made the film almost unwatchable.<P>There has been much talk of the fact that this is a film and that changes were necessary tec tec. I fully agree. There was a lot in the film I was prepared to accept. No Tom Bombadil, okay, a little compression here and there, fine. But this does not excuse the film being shte, or the often total missing of the point of things.<P>Sadly this is now two book-to-film adaptations recently I have been diappointed with (the other being Hannibal -- now if you want a rant...). And the trailer was so good too. It's like Episode 1 all over again.