Lord of the Rings

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by Technoid
Reading all of this makes me confused....
I'll just have to read the d*** books myself
I'll put it in the pipeline....
Should have time to start early 2006

And I thought my old Mac was slow!

[BuddMan]

Originally posted by Gurm
If you were disappointed by the movie in the cinema, then either you haven't read the books as carefully as you might have liked, or you're a COMPLETE stickler for detail. It was amazing.

- Gurm

Well, I can see where he is coming from. I mean, the movie kind of makes Middle Earth seem smaller in a lot of respects. It didn't take the hobbits long to get to Bree, didn't seem to take them long to reach the forest or even get into the center of the forest (the Elf city, extended version does a better job of that though). But then again, how can you address their long travels and all the details in the movie, unless you want to sit in a theater for 5 hours, which I think everyone would agree here would be ridiculous (and even 5 hours wouldn't be able to address every detail). There is a fine line between books and film, and I think Jackson drew it very well for this movie. So considering how hard it is to get the books on screen, I think the movie was done very well and I was amazed by it too.

[Jon P. Inghram]

They could have solved the probem: beween every cut in the movie add a "Several months later...".

[Gurm]

Yeah, and that would have been really ****ing stupid.

Honestly, without extended-version-of-"Dune" style voiceovers between scenes (which would have been STUPID) there was no way to convey this.

- Gurm

[bibble]

wombat - i know it wasnt happily ever after but the story of the end of the third age and the ending of the rings of power was wrapped up after the destructionof the one ring. exra details e.g. saruman, merry pippin could just be called an epilogue - albeit a long one. I really like it overall but dont have the extended version yet to compare with some of the current comments.

[BuddMan]

Originally posted by bibble
wombat - i know it wasnt happily ever after but the story of the end of the third age and the ending of the rings of power was wrapped up after the destructionof the one ring. exra details e.g. saruman, merry pippin could just be called an epilogue - albeit a long one. I really like it overall but dont have the extended version yet to compare with some of the current comments.

The death of Saruman is an important part to the story. I don't think Jackson can get away with leaving that out. It isn't an "extra" detail by any means. And I also think it's important to show that Frodo goes into the West with the elves and Gandalf. Without those events, it would change the story. It will be interesting to see how he ends it....

[bibble]

you must admit - dropping the ring into mount doom is similar to blowing up the death star type point in the film. It sort of ends the film there - in return of the jedi all the celebration parts I thought were superfluous (spell) and tacking on 20-30 mins after that to 'wrap up' i think would be hard - but i dont make films.

[Technoid]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn

Originally posted by Technoid
Reading all of this makes me confused....
I'll just have to read the d*** books myself
I'll put it in the pipeline....
Should have time to start early 2006

And I thought my old Mac was slow!

duh....

I should have known by now that subtle jokes don't work on murc

Explanation :
It's has so low priority that it won't come up untill then

[BuddMan]

I disagree. The story doesn't end with the destruction of the ring. If you read the book you'd know this. I won't go into all the details, but there is much that would be left untold if the film just ended with the destruction of the ring.

[Gurm]

Yeah no shit.

I _will_ go into detail. Anyone who doesn't want spoilers... can get the hell out now.

You've been warned.

Let's see...

Ring blows up, and then:

1. Army of Mordor defeated.
2. Spirit of Sauron dissipated.
3. Aragorn crowned.
4. Aragorn and Arwen wed.
5. Eomer crowned.
6. Merry err... "knighted" (sorta).
7. Pippin err... "knighted" (sorta).
8. Faramir/Eowyn wed.
9. Minas Morgul rebuilt/repaired/etc.
10. Hobbits return to the shire.
11. Hobbits RECLAIM the shire.
12. Saruman killed by Wormtongue.
13. Sam restores Shire (fairly single-handedly).
14. Sam/Rosie wed.
15. Elanor born (after several other kids, mind you).
16. Merry elected Thain of Shire.
17. Pippin becomes emissary to ... erm ... north lands or some such.
18. Elves bail out of middle earth (except for Elrond's sons and Arwen of course).
19. Frodo leaves to go to the Grey Havens.
20. Sam leaves to go to the Grey Havens.
21. Legolas/Gimli travel middle earth, Gimli sees Mirkwood and Fangorn, Legolas sees Lonely Mountain and caves of wonder.
22. Legolas/Gimli leave middle earth, sail the open sea, and eventually come to the eternal realm together.

That's a LOT of shit. Now, there are things we KNOW are in the movie...

Elanor is in the movie.
Sam & Rosie's wedding is in the movie.
(All the weddings are in the movie.)

So they HAVE to go back to the shire.

It's just in debate whether or not they'll show the scouring or not.

- Gurm

[moreau]

Originally posted by Gurm
Yeah no shit.

I _will_ go into detail. Anyone who doesn't want spoilers... can get the hell out now.


10. Hobbits return to the shire.
11. Hobbits RECLAIM the shire.
12. Saruman killed by Wormtongue.

add 11b: Saruman forgiven by Frodo (important, imo) Saruman chooses not to accept forgiveness, which secures his banishment from the West.

It's just in debate whether or not they'll show the scouring or not.

- Gurm

From all accounts that I've read, scouring is out. So the real question might be, "how will Saruman die?". One rumor is he is killed at Orthanc following Helm's Deep/battle with Ents. I even read speculation that he is thrown out by Wormtongue. Wonder if they will get the Orthanc Stone (Palantir) in the movie version (in the book, it was unkown to Gandalf and co. prior to this scene.

[moreau]

Oh, and perhaps this will throw fuel on the fire, though I hope not: Tom Bombadil was not entirely irrelevant, and Tolkien did not, imo, completely feel so.

Later in life, Tolkien decided that having an enigmatic character was good. Also in my opinion Tolkien knew who or what Bombadil was.

"As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists); ... And even in a mythical Age there amust be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one intentionally)."

(see: http://www.thelordoftherings.com/mul...olkien-faq.txt)

At several points, Frodo/hobbits ask Tom/Goldberry "who is Tom", and the answers, while unclear, are quite interesting.

Respectfully,
CEM

[moreau]

To be clear, even though I feel Tom to be interesting, I was comfortable with his being left out of the movie.

Some concession must be made when turning a book into a movie.

On a positive side: the elven cities were, I thought, handled in a most excellent way.

Cheers

[BuddMan]

Originally posted by moreau
Wonder if they will get the Orthanc Stone (Palantir) in the movie version (in the book, it was unkown to Gandalf and co. prior to this scene.

Well, in the book it isn't discovered until it is thrown out, but in the movie Saruman actually shows it to Gandalf. Heh, something else that was changed from the book...

[Dogbert]

Just to add fuel to the flame, I've been in very long movies before. It wasn't that bad (the length, not always the movie).

Example: Lars von Trier's "The Kingdom" - 280 minutes.

I'd love the LOTR to be that long for each 'book'.