|
 mushymuncher
journeyman
Registered: 06/30/01
Posts: 93
Loc: u.k
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
 lord of the rings/the fellowship 
#497146 - 12/20/01 04:55 PM (21 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
seen the film last night ,though it was pretty the normal big money film,my girl is a good reader ,and read all the story.although she was exstastic about seening the film
she was disopointed in some ways.for example the lack of
important parts of the story,
my view.is if you spend that much on a movie why pay a load of high paid actors,when there are better actors on the street,liv tyler for eg.she is hot but she looked like shit
and as for the other actors,in a classic film why cant they see it would be a hit if just a good set of actor's played the parts,and be given a chance to show there abilities
|
flaw
enthusiast
Registered: 01/29/99
Posts: 169
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
|
 Re: lord of the rings/the fellowship [Re: mushymuncher]
#502182 - 12/27/01 06:45 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I saw it yesterday.
I'm not sure where you're coming from saying Liv Tyler looked like shit, I mean thats a rather individual thing - as to whether you like her looks. I personally thought she looked as good as she normally does, which is very good. But, each to their own.
Having read the books I can attest to the concept that there were missing parts but that is the nature of condensing the story into 3 hours. I like to focus on the things they did well because its far too easy to pick holes in a book->movie conversion.
Most of the actors are reasonably unknown so I don't really get where you are coming from there either.
My gripe with the film was the unnecessarily long periods of time spent dedicated to emotions of the characters, sometimes it just dragged a little too long. The ending is fairly lowkey, like the book and dragging that out was a bit irritating.
The CGI was fantastic, the action great. The characters were portrayed reasonably well. There was a little less power shown in gandalf but he really shines in the second and third installments so I expect he will probably come off a lot better in the next two movies.
Nothing will of course rival reading the books for yourself. But I have to commend the attempt to take the book and turn it into a big movie. Still, if you haven't read the books you're at such a disadvantage watching that movie, you miss out on so much that is rather subtle and unfortunately looked over.
For me, the biggest missing part was Tom Bombadil, oh what a joy that movie would have been if there was a good portrayal of him.
Elrond was also portrayed a little less kind than he is in the book.
Unfortunately this forum is not strongly frequented so i'm going to put this in off the topic discussion.
|
Roger_irrelevant
War's boring,change thechannel!
Registered: 11/22/01
Posts: 668
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: lord of the rings/the fellowship *DELETED* [Re: flaw]
#502191 - 12/27/01 07:07 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by Roger_irrelevantReason for deletion: archive
--------------------
We are the music makers, We are the dreamers of dreams...
|
Timeleech
addict
Registered: 10/04/01
Posts: 590
Loc: Norway
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
|
|
Saw the film yesterday, and I must say I was pleasantly surprised. And very much so too. I was quite skeptical, you know, making a movie from a book seldom goes very well, but this time I think it went as well as it could. Great movie.
--------------------
--
Eternally boggled, flummoxed, bewildered and surprised.
theophagy.org
|
 Jenny
part of thewhole
 
Registered: 06/02/00
Posts: 5,614
Loc: Columbus, OHIO
|
Re: lord of the rings/the fellowship [Re: mushymuncher]
#506628 - 01/01/02 02:02 PM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah i saw it yesterday and have read the books.
I was also pleasantly surprised, thought they did
a wonderful job on the movie.
--------------------
Mindfulness is the aware, balanced acceptance of the present experience.
It isn't more complicated than that.
It is opening to or recieving the present moment, pleasant or unpleasant, just as it is,
without either clinging to it or rejecting it.
|
Ulysees
Power of Lard
Registered: 10/06/01
Posts: 5,060
|
Re: lord of the rings/the fellowship [Re: Jenny]
#508645 - 01/03/02 02:59 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I pity the people who see it without reading the books first, simply because they're missing soooo much. I loved the movie, and though I was dissapointed with the lack of many things, I thought they did a fairly good job in getting it to 3 hours... Still, knowing all the things you know from reading the books (at least The Fellowship if not the others) fills in all the gaps quite nicely.
I was also dissapointed with the total lack of Tom Bombadil, those were some of my favorite parts in the book. The elves in the movie were really nothing compared to the ones I pictured. Same goes for most of the creatures, including the Balroc. And the Hobbits themselves... that was pretty cool, how they did it and all, but they didn't seem very "hobbit like" to me. I'm glad they payed some attention to the hands and feet, that went a fair way to making them better in my opinion, but they were still definately not the characters I imagined.
Saruman was great, but the fight scene with him and Gandalf was a little... lame.
God, I should go now before I start rambling about all the things that were missing... So many things...
--------------------
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder
Edit 
Reply 
lukeboots
badjessejames
KthxBye
BatFly
thedudenj
TinMan