GameBanshee Forums

Movie coming out around Dec.18 in US.
It looks awesome. !!
I've seen the theatrical trailer and one on Tv. They've shown Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo and Legolas so far.
Frodo looks a it different than i tought. He's a bit too childish.
Gandalf has too big of a beard.
Legolas looks totally different than i thought he would. But then again Tolkein elves are different from TSR elves.
Aragorn looks something like i thought.

I've seen the tv ad twice. Waiting to see more.

Anyway this movie, is the movie of the year. I can tell.

Gandalf has too big of a beard.
Legolas looks totally different than i thought he would.

That's because the film doesn't portray the way they look, but the way the director wanted them to look. Tolkien wisely left off a lot of detailed description about the appearance of his major characters, and focused more on their surroundings. It's also why I probably won't see the film--that, and the fact that a book which is so musical in its writing can't really make a magical film.

Just my POV.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
<STRONG>
Gandalf has too big of a beard.
Legolas looks totally different than i thought he would. But then again Tolkein elves are different from TSR elves.
Aragorn looks something like i thought.
</STRONG>

Gandalf is supposed to have a fairly large beard in the books and absolutely massive eyebrows, from what I've seen of the trailer I think they have got gandalf about right.

On the other hand I'm not too keen on their choice of Aragorn, in the story aragorn is about 90 years old but then again he comes from a very long lived line of kings (he lives to 250 years old) I would have still thought it would have been better for an older actor to have played him, someone in their 40s who looks very weather beaten.

I just wanted to point out that Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn) is 43 and has never done anything to look any younger than he is.

-Sylvanerian

Originally posted by Fable:

That's because the film doesn't portray the way they look, but the way the director wanted them to look. Tolkien wisely left off a lot of detailed description about the appearance of his major characters, and focused more on their surroundings. It's also why I probably won't see the film--that, and the fact that a book which is so musical in its writing can't really make a magical film.

Just my POV.

I agree that most great books do not necessarily translate to great movies. But IMO fans of Tolkien should go see this film, if for no other reason than to show "Hollywood" that sci-fi fantasy films can make money and should be made.

It has to be better than the Dungeons and Dragons film, right??

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG>Originally posted by Fable:
I agree that most great books do not necessarily translate to great movies. But IMO fans of Tolkien should go see this film, if for no other reason than to show "Hollywood" that sci-fi fantasy films can make money and should be made.
</STRONG>

Actually, that's already happened: Star Wars, and the Star Trek films. Hollywood isn't adverse to making sci-fi/fantasy films. It just thinks that the only way to make them successfully is to concentrate upon endlessly expensive visual effects, to the complete absence of character and plot. Joan Vinge had a run-in years ago with Hollywood over one of her books, and Ursula LeGuin, with another. Asimov continually ranted in his half-humorous way about Hollywood's inability to see that special effects (even back in the 60s) were icing on the cake, and no substitute for good direction and a strong tale.

Oh yeah, if you thought Harry Potter was big, then LotR is going to be massive...

Now, I have just started reading LotR, because I want to be able to form my own visions of it rather than reading it after I see the movie and imposing that conception of the movie on my reading. Imagine my horror when my housemate tells me she's planning to just see the movie, so she doesn't need to bother reading it I'm appalled.

On the subject of the movie itself, I've heard Peter Jackson (director) quoted as saying that he has made the movie he wanted to make, which is being interpreted as a sign that it's pretty damn good...

BTW, check out [url="http://www.lordoftherings.net"]the official website[/url] for lots of cool interviews and trailers and info and stuff

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG>It has to be better than the Dungeons and Dragons film, right??</STRONG>

Given that it has to operate within the realms of physical possibility... I'd say so

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG>It has to be better than the Dungeons and Dragons film, right?? </STRONG>

Never saw it.

But from what i've heard about that movie, and what i've seen for LotR, including the trailer, i'd answer with a definite yes.

I know one person who thought the DnD Movie was good... and if Vehemence was here, I'm sure he'd argue his case

However, the other 99.999999999% of the population seem to agree that it was pretty dire

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG>It has to be better than the Dungeons and Dragons film, right??</STRONG>

C'mon now! Why don't bash D&D because it was bad; it wasn't. It was horrible.

Having said that, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The key to enjoying a movie like Dungeons & Dragons is to go in with low expectations. It's the kind of movie you won't admit to your friends that you paid money to see, but like a "Godzilla vs." movie was fun for its sheer badness.

D&D fanatics hated it because it didn't have any of their favourite characters/plots (ie-Drizzt Do'Urden, Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Gord the Rogue, etc.), but given its budget, what did you expect?

Lord of the Rings is light-years ahead of the D&D movie for a couple of reasons: 1) It has a real movie budget and the backing of a major studio. 2) It has an existing story which on its own is compelling and time-tested. 3) Its producers are dedicated to staying true to the LOTR books and have taken to heart the responsibility of putting it on the big screen.

Dungeons & Dragons used recycled Dragonheart animation, second and third-rate actors, and F/X that were often just plain bad. It had the feel of a poor independent film with a couple of dragon shots slipped in for good measure. Everything about the LOTR movie looks first-rate, from the costumes to the CGI animation. That extra $100 million sure helped out.

For the D&D movie, the writers chose not to pick up an existing story and make a movie out of it, but instead wrote their own mythology going in. That was a mistake. They should have picked up a Dragonlance, Greyhawk, or Forgotten Realms story and made a movie out of it. The LOTR movies have the backing and existing fan base of tens of thousands of folks who will happily dress up as Gandalf, Bilbo or Frodo for the movie.

A guy downstairs has told me that he is putting his Bilbo costume together to go to the premiere and he says from what he has seen in the trailers, the LOTR producers incorporated minor touches that no one but die-hard fans will notice (I can't cite specific examples; it's been some time since I've read the books myself). It's that level of detail that the producers have committed themselves to.

The D&D filmmakers were on a shoe-string budget and simply could not do some of the things D&D fans wanted them to do. For instance, they teased us with beholders, but did you see anyone get the anti-magic ray, the finger of death ray, or the disentigration ray? No. And what were beholders doing serving humans? That's simply absurd.

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to bash Dungeons & Dragons. But there are also a few (but not many!) reasons to like it as well. Besides, who didn't like seeing Richard O'Brien getting work in a part other than Riff-Raff ("It's just a jump to the left . . .")?

The LOTR movies look simply fantastic, but with high expectations come the chance for big disappointments.

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
<STRONG>It's the kind of movie you won't admit to your friends that you paid money to see</STRONG>

And fortunately, I didn't actually have to pay money to see it I was, however, forced to sign up as projectionist when we showed it at our uni film society, because I had by default to show the movies nobody else wanted to.

IMO it doesn't quite make the "so bad it's good" category though. It's just bad. Justin Whalin's "acting" in certain scenes was greeted by sarcastic cheering and applause (at the most supposedly touching moments) in the audience. That's what kind of movie it is.

<STRONG>D&D fanatics hated it because it didn't have any of their favourite characters/plots</STRONG>

I thought D&D fanatics hated it because it didn't seem to pay much attention to D&D at all. I mean, I am certainly no hardcore D&D-er (just a CRPG or two), and I was sitting there wondering why the mage girl cast about two spells in the entire movie, and why the thief was winning in hand-to-hand combat...

I'll never be able to look at Jeremy Irons in quite the same light again... I can only assume he lowered the level of his acting to the ridiculously melodramatic in order not to show up the rest of the cast...

Oh, and the Empress was ripped straight out of the Neverending Story.

<STRONG>Besides, who didn't like seeing Richard O'Brien getting work in a part other than Riff-Raff ("It's just a jump to the left . . .")?</STRONG>

Ok, admittedly he was a highlight. What you may not know is that for quite a few years Richard O'Brien hosted a TV show called The Crystal Maze, in which teams of players had to take on various challenges (mental and physical) in order to win crystals, which would get them more time in the final challenge. So it's difficult not to snicker when he sends Ridley into the thieves' maze in order to win a crystal...

Personally I don't have a problem with the way the director chooses to interpret and portray Tolkien's words. I am confident that I will still get to keep my vision after I see the movie. The movie "Dungeons and Dragons", although really bad, did not ruin my vision of the D&D world. But there's always the possibility that LOTR the movie might be so good that its vision of Tolkien will be better than mine. But then, I can't really judge whose vision is better because we all see things from a different perspective. Therefore I will go see the movie. If it is good, I'll applaud and wait eagerly for the next two. If it's bad, I'll still see the next two hoping that they will be better.

I'm pretty pleased that they cast Ian McKellan to play Gandalf, since he's a phenomenal actor.

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
<STRONG>That extra $100 million sure helped out.</STRONG>

I'll say. It would certainly help me out.

I saw the previews and i think the movie will be good. Gimli looks really cool. i'm sure there will be some problems, but I hope the movies do well and I think there'll probably be a lot to like.

The best thing about the movie for me is that I got out the books and started re-reading. I read The Hobbit first, then I've just sort of been dipping into the trilogy at random, since I know the story from reading it several times as a kid. The rhythym and music of the writing is just astonishing me this time! I think I'm enjoying it 10 times as much as an adult. The movies will lack Tolkien's narrative, but as long as they stick to his dialogue they will certainly have a shot.

Lrd of rings is a great story. Does anyone know the history to this?

Originally posted by pict:
<STRONG>Lrd of rings is a great story. Does anyone know the history to this?</STRONG>

Tolkien was a Professor in an area historical theory and research which is now discredited. (I'd have to get out some books to tell you its name and reasons; but if you'd like, I'll find 'em.) It was at a time during the first third of the 20th century when a lot of the more conservative Brits went for a "pastoral" form of isolationism, an idea that everything would be perfect in a kind of mythic Britannia of some legendary past. Tolkien subscribed to this, too. He never even used a typewriter: he always wrote everything by longhand.

He wrote The Hobbit for his kids; as they grew, he started writing the LOTR. He threw into it a lot of the personal and place names he'd read in ancient European literature, kind of as a bow from one craftsman to others of times distant. He really wanted it to be very popular, and he'd hoped he could outdo his friend CS Lewis in this. He initially failed; the book was a dud. It wasn't until the late 60s, when the young college liberals discovered it in the US, that the book became wildly successful--and that was about 15 years after its initial publication. His friends pointed out that Tolkien's inability to deal with reality and retreat into pastoralism was mirrored in that of the American students, but he was too pleased to care. And CS Lewis was chagrined.

Tolkien's kids kept a tight rein on the estate after their father's death. The oldest is a Professor--I think in Semantics--and they were *very* displeased at the animated version of the Hobbit that was done a number of years ago. It's taken a long time to wear them down. As they've presumably approved the script, it should be very true to the spirit of the books.

I find 'em flawed and fine: the music and the rhythm is spot-on, the greatest features Tolkien has to offer. I won't go into the things I don't like, because this isn't the right topic for that.

Know-It-All...
hehe

Got my first view of the theatrical trailer today (at least the second half of it, since it was playing when I walked into the cinema), and it looked pretty damn good Roll on December 19th!

And I just discovered that tickets for it are going on sale on Monday... so that'll be opening weekend tickets for me then...

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Georgi ]