I thought I'd pick up this discussion in a new thread. don't read any further if you don't want to know things about the second film.

Elves at Helm's Deep? Faramir the Boromir clone?
Jackson misses the point about this book being about the potential of men, and the passing of the Elves. I just didn't see the reasons and the need for this to happen. let the Huorns do their job(I also thought he made Treebeard seem a bit of a dolt...), and Aragorn and the Men do theirs. Elrond also comes across as a jerk, too, I felt.

Faramir: there was no need for Faramir to go through some transformation. Faramir's wisdom at Ithilien, and his relationship with Gandalf are a beautiful part of the book. instead we get a headstrong, un-listening soldier. just disappointing.

there are others, too, but I'd rather not dwell on it...

that being said, I found new depth in my thoughts about Gollum/Smeagol. really well done. and the destruction of Isengard was fantastic.

in the first movie, I accepted the changes made, the condensation of characters, the leaving out of favorite sections; but this went too far in it's alterations of character motivations, and theme.

I expect I'll add more later, as I've had more time to digest my thoughts.

I should add that I am a long-time lover of these books, having read them first at age 14, and since then, read them another 30 times... or so...

Well, eta, I finally saw the film last night, and thought it an excellent movie. I was more-than-pleased with Gollum, who is one of my favorite all-time creature-characters, so I'm glad they did him justice. although I did lose some of his early dialogue until my ears adjusted to his cadence. My ear's eye envisioned his speech a bit heavier on the "S's", perhaps, but I was drawn to him onscreen with the same touching bathos I felt in the reading.

It's been ahwile since I read the trilogy, and while a lover of the work, I haven't absorbed the story and history in memory as photgraphically as many folks, but I still felt there was something missing, some hook of poigancy that got lost somehow, and I think your observations eta, point to the reason. That being said, it is a film of sweeping and epic proportions, and I'm eager and ready to follow Gollum, Sam, and Frodo for the rest of the quest! (but a whole year, dammit! ) And if the actor who did Gollum (Anthony Skerkis I believe) doesn't at least get an Academy Award nomination for supporting actor out of this, then the modern Academy is confirmed as the political hack-job we always knew it was.

yes, Serkis was amazing, and does deserve an Oscar. and it opens up a new category-Best Actor who Played a Computer Generated Character!

I am looking forward to seeing the movie again, and this time seeing it on it's own merits, which are plentiful; I've had my rant, though I am worried about what the next film will bring... hehe.

Some of the departures from Tolkein’s tale could be understood. For example, Aragorn’s fall into the river and the dream sequence not only gave more screen time to Liv Tyler as Arwen but it reminded the audience of her existence (some of the audience may well have forgotten her after a year; not LotR addicts of course) and explained his lack of interest in Eowyn. Frodo’s dream of Gandalf and the Balrog, like the visit to Osgiliath, gave information and background quickly saving a lot of dialogue and footage. Other changes seemed inexplicable. I won’t list them, but was Arwen Evenstar shown leaving for the Grey Havens already? I assume she will change her mind and come back? Or was I mistaken and she was riding off somewhere else entirely?

Despite all that, I thoroughly enjoyed the film and can't believe the story will ever be better presented filmically.

Has anyone seen the new StarTrek film? Apparently it's a bit of a turkey, but I guess I'll see it anyway since I'm wedded to a Trekkie.

YES! My husband took me Saturday for our anniversary. He's not a Star Trek fan, but he said, "It's a good movie". And it is. The villain isn't visually portrayed as evil--you have to note his words and behavior. And this is appropriate, considering who he's based on. His sidekick, though--you know immediately that he's a bad 'un. Excellent special effects--won't say where 'cause that would give something away! I would have liked to have seen more involvement from ALL the main regulars, but I guess TV is better for that.

Well, I got some tickets for Star Trek for Sunday evening. Didn't get allocated seats and all the big screens are still showing LotR, so it can't be that popular over here.

In reply to:

---

was Arwen Evenstar shown leaving for the Grey Havens already

---

She was. I didn't get that either. I must confess I was disappointed by the Ents, but otherwise, great. Even my other half, who just doesn't get fantasy films at all, was caught up in the battle for Helm's Deep.

Bingley

After my previous post on it I feel I should say that *we thought StarTrek: Nemesis was pretty good. Reckon the critics were just being...critics. Bless them.

As far as films from books go, TLOR films have exceeded the generally expectations that previous experience has given me. Lets us be thankful it hasn't been the huge let-down of, say, A Prayer For Owen Meany/Simon Birch.

I really liked Gollum too. I liked the fact that he is actually made to be a little more three-dimensional in character (even if he is about 90% computer generated). Oddly, New Yorker film critic Anthony Lane criticized the characterization of Gollum, saying that an epic story doesn't need to explore motivations and emotions of characters.

One change that did disappoint me was the Ents. It has been quite a while since I read the books, but I pictured them as much bigger, especially in girth (more like Sequoia trees). Secondly, in the film they destroy Sauramon's factory/castle while in the book (if I recall correctly) they intervene in another battle and turn the tide. (Correct me here if I am wrong.) I think the director made a pretty heavy-handed choice to have the trees destroy the industrial baddies. I guess this is what passes for subtlty nowadays. In reading the books I had enjoyed the odd violence of the tree-like Ents crushing the hoards of orcs.

> Secondly, in the film they destroy Sauramon's factory/castle while in the book (if I recall correctly) they intervene in another battle and turn the tide. (Correct me here if I am wrong.) I think the director made a pretty heavy-handed choice to have the trees destroy the industrial baddies. I guess this is what passes for subtlty nowadays.




I guess that's what passed for subtlety 60 years ago, when Tolkien wrote it that way, too. In the chapter "Flotsam and jetsam", Merry and Pippin give an excited description of watching the Ents and Huorns destroying the complex surrounding Orthanc, since the tower itself was impervious to their efforts. Here's a snippet:

I thought that they had been really roused before; but I was wrong. I saw what it was like at last. It was staggering. They roared and boomed and trumpeted, until stones began to crack and fall at the mere noise of them. Merry and I lay on the ground and stuffed our cloaks into our ears. Round and round the rock of Orthanc the Ents went striding and storming like a howling gale, breaking pillars, hurling avalanches of boulders down the shafts, tossing up huge slabs of stone into the air like leaves. The tower was in the middle of a spinning whirlwind. I saw iron posts and blocks of masonry go rocketing up hundreds of feet, and smash against the windows of Orthanc.

yes, in the book, they do both. the Huorns take care of the orcs at Helm's Deep, and the Ents(and some extra Huorns) take care of Isengard. in the movie, Jackson substitutes elves for Huorns which I feel adds(or detracts) something from the Man/Elven relationship. I'm not saying that well; I feel that it was wrong for the story to have the Elves there. it should be more about Aragorn and Men, and Gandalf's negotiations with Treebeard. mostly, I just don't understand why Jackson felt it necessary to make that change.

ok, I just want to see the movie again...

Looks like I had it half right.

In reply to:

---

I guess that's what passed for subtlety 60 years ago

---

Touche'

But only by throwing them into the fire in the fireplace. Remember, Huom is where the hearth is.

hehe. except it's HOURN.

now don't blow it again.

ARGH! I'm just not in the hobbit!

It is Huorn, not Hourn

Yrch!

(I supppose it would be in really bad taste to correct my spelling error... )
I was really thinking about the m...

>Yrch!


Now, there's the mark of a true believer!
Like you, I use that delightfully expressive Sindarin word as an expression of distaste.

In my defense, my tiredold eyes actually did run the r and n together to make an m. Even when i went back and looked at it after you pointed it out I still had to squint. Part of it's the louse monitor I have too.

This will probably be seen as a well-Huorn excuse, too.

excused and accepted.

though maybe you can get some nit remover for that monitor...

Part of it's the louse monitor I have too.

maybe you can get some nit remover for that monitor...

...but, but then Faldage and his acolytes wouldn't have anything to do!!

>``The Lord of the Rings'' franchise, whose first installment, ``The Fellowship of the Ring,'' grabbed a leading 13 nominations last year, this time received just six. Other than best picture, the nominations for ``Two Towers'' all were in technical categories such as film editing and visual effects while director Peter Jackson, a nominee last year, was shut out this time.<

Ah, well...(sigh)

And Anthony Serkis's unigue voice-over for Gollum still deserves a special Oscar in my book.

Gollum was smashing! I loved his autodialog(ue)s

Six, mainly technical, nominations, seems about right to me. Maybe after the R.o.t.K. the package will garner a special nomination for outstanding achievement in cashflow generation.