Au contraire, my friend. Explain these trolls please.
There is no magic in real life.
They're sinators, aren't they? How did that happen?
Posted on 12/10/2001 2:57:51 AM PST by maquiladora
Friday night here in Toronto, I had the privilege of watching Peter Jackson's "The Fellowship of the Ring." Alliance Atlantis, the film's distributor in Canada, kindly invited me to the press preview screening. Given the enormous challenge Peter Jackson and his team faced, we should commend them for a wonderful piece of film-making.
To convey the vast and mythic scope of Tolkien's masterpiece in a three-hour film would have made most directors (and studios) recoil in dread. Yet Jackson and the other talented individuals have set out to present the greatness of "The Lord of the Rings". The film is magnificent visually. For instance, the opening draws on the history of the One Ring from various parts of the book and, with grandeur, dramatizes the essential information and establishes the serious epic tone. Throughout the entire film, we see key aspects of Tolkien's "sub-creation," his invented history and world. There are the necessary points, such as the wretched background of Gollum, and the more obscure, such as the origin of the different races of orcs.
The flim also portrays effectively the idyllic pastoral life of the hobbits. Jackson seems equally at home in the deep, dark dungoens of Isengard or in the light, lovely land of Lothlorien. (If the film doesn't win the awards for art direction and cinematography, a fix must be in.) There is a vivid blend of actual landscape, animation, and computer generated graphics. Readers will always have their own unique visions of the Middle-earth realms. Jackson and his great crew of artists, artisans, and crafts people created a spectacle that does reflect the essence of Tolkien's masterpiece.
Another strong feature is the sound. The score never seems to dominate the action or dialogue, but rather nicely augments the scenes. When the music is silent, the breathing, grunts, and clash of weapons heighten the tension. The ballads by Enya sound lovely. Many of us in the cinema stayed throughout the closing credits mainly to enjoy the music.
The acting, overall, was polished and genuine. Elijah Wood's Frodo appeared vulnerable and frightened, while still displaying inner fortitude. Sir Ian McKellen's Gandalf was indeed majestic. Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Bean, and Cate Blanchett also performed well. All the actors appeared committed to their roles and endeavoured to bring out the best in them.
The pace of the film is brisk. As a Tolkien scholar, I would have preferred more reflective and poignant moments. When Gandalf convinces Bilbo to give up the Ring is in the film, and it's very moving. Other scenes, such as those with Gandalf and Frodo, or Aragorn and the hobbits, or Gimli and Legolas are quite abbreviated, which may impinge on character development. I'm sure it was agonizingly difficult for the screenwriters to cut and condense so much of Tolkien's great text. Perhaps some of the action sequences could have been trimmed and more time given for calm reflection. A number of key moments do appear, such as Gandalf's words to Frodo about having pity for Gollum. The Saruman subplot receives significant screen time, with some added spectacular scenes, yet the time in Rivendell and Lothlorien was briefer than I would have wished.
Further, many Tolkien fans and scholars might object to the alterations and additions to the author's text. They would understand that screenwriters must edit and paraphrase the book's dialogue and scenes, especially with a work as rich and extensive as Tolkien's. Perhaps the writers were concerned that some of Tolkien's wordings might seem too archaic or formal to a general movie audience, one that hasn't read the books and doesn't know (or appreciate) the august nature of works like the Anglo-Saxon "Beowulf" or the Old Norse "Poetic Edda".
For many Tolkien enthuasists, "The Lord of the Rings is like a sacred text: you modify it at your peril. It remains to be seen if some changed scenes, such as the attack of the Ringwraiths at the edge of Rivendell or the Gandalf and Saruman confrontation, will upset Tolkien fans. When Tolkien's own wordings essentially remain, such as in the Gandalf and Balrog battle or in the Aragorn and Boromir scene near the end, they come across exceedingly well.
In the final analysis, anyone can find flaws and quibbles with any film, great or otherwise. Given the monumental task of bringing to the screen Tolkien's vast epic masterpiece, New Line Cinema and Peter Jackson have done an amazing and admirable feat. The film does display the lofty and serious tone of the books of "The Lord of the Rings" and honours its subject matter. Some people may quarrel with certain scene changes and dialogue choices. Still, the look, the feel, the overall impression is Tolkienian. And for that, this Tolkien admirer is grateful. Daniel Timmons, Ph.D.
Its about good vs. evil, and not the cheesy Hollywood version of good vs. evil either. The setting is almost besides the point.
Ah, but the setting is precisely the point to MarkWar...unless it could happen in the real world, it should be held in contempt by real "adults".
RE: Starship Troopers, have you actually read it or are you giving us your opinion of the movie?
What are some authors that you do like?
[grins] [winks]
Babylon Sisters
Shake it
Mark W.
Au contraire, my friend. Explain these trolls please.
There is no magic in real life.
They're sinators, aren't they? How did that happen?
Ms. HairOfTheDog
Now I'm positive you haven't read it. The main theme throughout the trilogy is the protagonist's struggle with the seduction of power and it's corrupting influence on the soul.
Might be a good idea to read it before you trash it.
Hey - I like Willow! All right, it's cheesy and derivative and completely predicatable - but it's funny, too, and the little French pixies were hilarious.
But no, LOTR has nothing in common with Willow except some bits that Willow (and every other fantasy book/movie/game) has stolen from Rings.
Not just the protagonist, and not just power. There are a great number of LOTR characters tempted by things they greatly desire. Some resist temptation and remain good. Some fail and turn to evil. Some fail and then attempt to redeem themselves. Even Sauron himself is evil by choice rather than nature (although this is not made clear in LOTR, it's very clear in the Silmarilion).
Precisely - he was a Vala corrupted by Morgoth, who tempted him with power. This theme, and its extension through the spectrum of character clear down to poor Gollum, is one of the main points of Tolkien's moral conflict.
For me this is as much "made-up stuff" as, say, Paradise Lost, and for many of the same reasons. Deep waters here...
And while we're on Robert Heinlein, try "The Tale of the Adopted Daughter," in Time Enough for Love (1973), which is one of the most moving stories I've read. The Cat Who Walks Through Walls (1985) is also one of my favorites, but it's more of an action/adventure story. He was truly "The Master" of science fiction.
In fact when I spoke with Wife this morning after I was home from work, she queryed my as to why I had such a chip on my shoulder regarding women.
My Wife (age 40+) probably has a better grasp on LOTR than I do. She was a HUGE fan on "Sword of Shannara" which I thought at first reading a good challange to LOTR.
It was only after my experience with it, and "The Silmarillion" and the "degradation" (IMO) of Shannara that I appricated what JRRT had accomplished.
Interestingly enough I eek out a living writing and producing. Tolkein had an incredible influence on me, and it continues thru the present. And no matter the money, I am happy in what I do and what I have accomplished.
TLOTR enevitably will be one of the landmark films of all time. Perhaps not apprcated in some circles as much as say "Casablanca" or "The African Queen", or (my favorite movie of all time "The Magnificent Seven") , but a landmark nonetheless.
Being a man I tend to trivialise women's accomplishments. However I alos realize and acknoledge tha twithout women, there would be NO civilization.
Not the Pig I sounded like in my rant, prisoner6
You're obviously far too smart to work in the company of such dolts.
I can only apologize again and ask where were the gals like you when I was looking?
Seriously I am AMAZED at the intellectual cesspool I refer to as home.
Wife, God bless her, is one of the few aspects of my life that keeps my feet on the ground. I don't deserve her, and she reminds me of that fact at every opportunity!
prisoner6
I don't mind saying that I haven't read the books all the way through. I've tried numerous times over the years, but I just get bored out. I have read big chunks of them and I have endured the entire Ralph Bakshi cartoon... So, although we may disagree about the content, I'm not just rambling (well, I am, but I have a little data behind me).
[sighs] Well, before I get to the *sigh* let me make another "full disclosure" type comment. I'm not putting down "kid's stuff." I LOVE many kid's books. Heck, the book "Harriet the Spy," by Louise Fitzhugh is not only one of my favorite books of all time, but went a long way to shaping my life and who I am. But kid's stuff is different from adult's stuff.
[sighs again] Now to the meat of the sigh. I'm going to repeat your quote because -- to my eyes! -- you make my point for me!
The evil creatures in LotR are simply physical manifestations of evil in the heart. JRRT utilized the ages-old power of myth to tap into some human truths that lie very deep, to bring them up to the surface and make them vividly unforgettable by projecting them onto a complete world of his own creation. ... this is not a kid's story.
No, in fact, NO! those aren't deep human truths. They are childish, one dimensional views of reality. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT FOR KIDS BUT FOR ADULTS IT'S STUNTED. People are not evil OR good. It's a tug of war in everyone. And it never ends! We don't become monsters with one or two or three bad decisions! The fact that LoTR presents characters who've "made a choice" and some have become monsters while others have stayed human is childish. It's a way of presenting reality FOR KIDS that brings up important topics, but it's important that people GROW OUT OF that simplistic approach to people and life.
Ultimately, this may be my chief complaint about LoTR and similar genre things. They take an ultimately childish one dimensional view of life and thinking, and present it as adult fare.
This was the thrust of my post that got this started when I said a person would be crazy to market a film like FULL METAL JACKET as kid's fare. And I think something similar goes on, in reverse, with LoTR when basically simplistic, one dimensional characters and reality are dressed up with "adult" language and sold to people as "deep" thinking.
Maybe it is. Maybe I'm totally at sea here, mis-interpreting everything. That certainly could be.
But I don't think I am.
Mark W.
prisoner6
The only non-magic explanation I can come up with is something like:
Mark W.
Ultimately, this may be my chief complaint about LoTR and similar genre things. They take an ultimately childish one dimensional view of life and thinking, and present it as adult fare.Saying the LoTR takes a childish, one-dimensional view of life is about as far off the mark as saying that George Bush is dumb. I myself started reading LoTR with the view that it must be childish albeit enjoyable, after seeing and hearing my college roommate go on and on about Tom Bombadil. Then I read the books for myself and discovered there is far more to them, as millions before and after me have discovered. If it isn't your cup of tea, fine. "De gustibus non disputantem."
Which just proves once again that if you are going to critique a book, it's best to have read it first. While the Hobbit is most definitely a child's book, with a simplification of good and evil (there are no real "in betweens" for that book), LOTR is written on an adult level. Much like Tolkien's The Simarillion, the characters all have weaknesses and must wrestle with moral choices. Would you term Beowulf or the Iliad a child's book, because it deals with mythological worlds and beings? I think not.
For example, Frodo, when finally confronted with Mount Doom and the fulfillment of his quest, does not throw the ring in. Instead, he decides to keep it for himself. The only reason it is destroyed is that Smeagol bites it from his finger and falls to his death.
Boromir also attempts to take the ring, hoping to use it for good. He ends up regretting his decision and dies a hero's death while defending the Fellowship from orcs.
Saruman is the most powerful wizard in Middle-earth, a great and good wizard. But he begins to lust for the ring, hoping to use it against the enemy in Mordor. He ends up dying a pitiful death after ransacking the lands of the Shire.
The Simarillion is even more complex, with characters that have many-faceted personalities. Hardly children's literature.
ReaganGirl Moving on now....
But that's exactly what LOTR is saying! None of the characters are completely good, and few are completely evil. Those who are evil became that way, over time, from a great many conscious actions. Other characters who made bad choices repented and did their best to redeem themselves. Look at Saruman; originally one of the greatest of the good side, but his pride and lust for power led him to evil. Read the Silmarillion. It's all about choices and power and good and evil.
And people who continually make choices for evil do become monsters. How much more real can you get? LOTR deals with very adult themes, but since it doesn't have sex or bad language, perhaps people are eager to classify it as children's literature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
