Lord of the Rings

[Pika]

How do the hobbits get the weapons of the Weternese without Tom?

[Budokan]

I know this is going to come as a shock but they can't film every f*cking line out of the book. And who gives a rat's a$$ about Tom Bombadil anyway?-- That little pink flame dancing and prancing around was one of the more sillier sequences in the trilogy.

Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges by comparing the book to the film. They are different media and must needs be different because they impact different senses of the reader/viewer.

[Xebsball]

I'll be watching it...

I about MORE than A ****ING MONTH!!!!!

WTF? WTF?
Kiss of Dragon just started playing in my country. Why the **** do i have to ****ing always butt****ing wait for the ass humping **** movies so long?

[Mr Nunchaku]

lol, that sucks man.

Anyway, I just saw the movie. I give it two thumbs up and I am usually a harsh critic. I won't spoil a single thing by the way. I thought the special effects were great. The ring wraiths were so cool as well as Balrog and the ogres. The music was ok but the sound effects were amazing especially in the theater. The fighting was very nice. As for the story, they did the book justice. But as always, the book was better. Still, they did a heck of a job. I only had one complaint. Some of the acting was way too dramatic. There were several very cheesey parts in the movie. Still though, this is a must see wether you have read the book or not.

[Drone]

I saw the movie... I think I will have to see it again. It felt rushed but I was expecting alot worse (I have seen some of the directors other Movies). My little sister loved it and is now reading the books. All in all the movie was worth seeing.

[Drone]

fa_jing

Yeah I'm at Northwestern.

[jimmy23]

just saw it, great movie, dont get all anal about 100% accuracy

[kungfu cowboy]

Ok, but what about all accurate for 100% anal?!?!

[Starchaser107]

Thought it was cool. I think they did a god job. The audience seemed into it as well.
Well Im off back to Jamaica in a few hours , Colorado was fun, see y'all when I get back home
laters

[SanHeChuan]

if you look at it like a book then it was cool,
if you look at it like a movie it sucked ass!!!
and since it was a movie....

too much plot devolpment, too little action, the troll fight sucked, the orc fight was good, the ending sucked ass.

the sets were awsome and a little fake. the demon kicked ass, but the secene was a let down.

and their wasn't enough of liv tyler, i went to see the movie cause i thougt i would get to see her kick some ass but noooo.

maybe if you showed all three together it wouldn't suck so much, but we'll have to wait and see.

[Crimson Phoenix]

Come on, how can I ruin it, since the book has been out for decades? The whole **** theater exactly knew what would happen in the movie...Even during promo interviews the guys let out clues that are not known until late, like Galadriel is a ring bearer, which in the book appears like a marvel and sheds a new light on her part, in the interview K. Blanchett just says it, even if you have no mention of it in the movie...It's not like I had seen "the sixth sense" before anyone and told you all that B. Willis is dead from the beginning, there cannot be any suspense when you already know the whole story...only the acting and filming can generate thrills, but you always know what the outcome will be though.
OK, I'm not anal about details, here is how I see the book: for me the beauty of this book is not about the quest, I can find dangerous quests in 1000s of books and movies (Willow?? I'm sorry, but I think Willow was a better movie than LotR).
For me the beauty of LotR and the whole universe Tolkien has created is the magic of it, the melancholy of the elves on their declines, the remembrance of past days when Gods still lived in middle earth, and the terrible nostalgia and melancholy of the departure from either middle earth for the elves or from life for humans, all these deep themes of power, treachery, wisdom, unknown fates, all this development of incredible nations and cities. Tolkien bothered creating a whole pantheon, a whole mythological history of incredible depth and cohesion, filled with incredible stories, incredible things...you can do a movie with a character that has lived like 8000 years, that has seen the Gods when they where still here, whose family fought the God of Evil himself one on one (Sauron is a wussie compared to Morgoth) and I pass all the other facts and what do the movie serve?? Just special effects, nice landscapes, and a story that has nothing special when you rob it off all its magical and mystical foundations...I'm sorry, but without founding themes like the oath of the Noldors, the corrupting forces of Morgoth, the sinking of Numenor, and near philosophical themes like elve's immortality and their separate fates from humans, their decline and withering during the LotR and humans and their fear of death which was once a present to them, all you get is just another heroic fantasy movie...Jackson just told the story like a robot, which can make a good movie, but not a good adaptation of LotR...I will see the movie again, it is a great spectacle and I haven't felt time passing by, but I'm sorry, as an adaptation of LotR, it fell miserably.
But by doing so, he robbed of the LotR from its magic, just turning it into a great quest.
Another thing: if you only read LotR, then you'll think the adaptation is quite good...but if you bothered reading the Silmarillion, and the other books, you'll understand that LotR is NOTHING without all the themes developped in them, like a flower is nothing without the roots.
The magic of Tolkien in LotR was to be able to tell a great story to people reading it for the first time, making them dream at the evocation of legends, while at the same time managing to give it an added complexity for the peeps who knew the Silmarillion and therefore knew these legends.
For example Arwen's love for Aragorn was nice and poetic (dang, I wish some girl would love me enough to give up her immortality...or maybe just swear not to use my CC again hahhaha) in LotR, but for peeps who knew the legends of the only two couples of Elves and Humans (Beren and Luthien, and Tuor and Idril), and especially the consequences of these couples (the recovery of one Silmarils, Earendil and his pleading for elves and humans), then it became even better in LotR.
What Jackson didn't manage to do is make it mysterious for novice to Tolkien world in a way that makes them want to go deeper like the book does, while at the same time giving an added complexity and richness for those who knew the deal.
As I said, he just did a killer heroic fantasy movie, but a poor reflection of Tolkien's masterpiece.
Arrrrrggggghhhhh, the Lorien scene was so flat and tasteless, cut to the bone, even Jet Li would have filmed it with more emotion and thrill...

[Radhnoti]

Crimson Phoenix, I think it's cool that you're so passionate about Tolkien's work. But, it's people like you that make directors afraid to even attempt translations of REALLY great books to the big screen. I suspect that NO translation would have satisfied you. The guy that took on this directing job was a HUGE fan from all I've heard, but it's impossible to fit the book into a film that must end in ...what...3 hours or less? You should take solace in the fact that this film insures that kids all over the world will now crack open dad's old books of Middle Earth. That's the real bonus of these films, the interest they will generate for the books. But also, these films draw interest for the whole GENRE, bettering the chances of a really good and original fantasy film coming to light. It's nothing but positive for the fantasy genre, in my opinion.

[Crimson Phoenix]

OK, these opinions are all mine and I am far from having any authority on film making and even on any other topic as well (unfortunately!!). But...
Why would you mandatorily try to put great books on the screen?? I mean, if you enjoy reading, a good book is well worth a movie, and even more it can become a companion for life.
I'm just believing that there are some things you can't touch without denaturing them, so why touch them at all?? Did anyone need a movie version of the LotR?? The book has been acclaimed for years as a monument of litterature, did you really need a movie version?? Just reading it is enough, and it has the great advantage that you'll like the things you read in it because it leaves your own imagination to do the job...
If you have a traditionnal art, and want for some reason to adapt it to competition, but in the end it becomes watered down, will you be happy?? Why don't you just keep it trad.?? I just think that when you do things either you do them perfectly or you don't...Directors afraid?? Afraid of what, this movie was a straight up blockbuster, even if it was bad...the hype was so huge, everybody would go see it just for the sake of seeing it...the only danger with this movie was that if it was real bad, nobody would go see the next two, but that we all know won't happen...
So die hard fans need to shut up because the poor little directors are afraid the benefit would be hard to make if people would not compensate the CGI budget??
I do not care if it generates interest in the book, because the 1) book doesn't need this interest (it's been around 40 years) and 2) without LotR, there would be no fantasy at all, this movie will bring nothing more to the genre because the original book created it.
I'm sorry but Willow was already good and original, and deeply inspired by LotR (why is Willow from a small people too, yet he defeats the magic power?, the scene in moutains, in taverns, the quest, the army besiegeing the evil fortress, all of these are better tributes to Tolkien than most things in Jackson's movie).
It's like discovering the Bible on a video: you cannot accurately judge the DARN MOVIE before reading the book first, and then you'll judge and you'll see what I mean...
I say to everyone take the time to read the book, then you'll see if you still think the movie rules that much. Chances are it will taste blank after the book, even for non die-hard fans (my girlfriend is not a fan of Tolkien, but I made her read the book and she admitted that indeed the movie was not a second paying tribute to it).
I'm not criticizing the movie itself, I'm criticizing the ADAPTATION.

[diego]

but its like you cant be mad at ron howard for remaking say romeo&julliet and not directing it aswell as sshakespeare
when ralph and potts fonz maybe but this happy bunch just doesnt have the genius.

[Pika]

What kind of fool would suggest Tom Bombadil play a part that lacks importance in the trilogy?

Are we all reading the same book?