|
|
Post by Erkendorn on Oct 5, 2004 20:52:53 GMT 10
Tell me if I left anyone out!
|
|
|
|
Post by Steorrlith on Nov 11, 2004 14:53:15 GMT 10
Lol! I believe you've missed out Tom Bombadil. But he wasn't in the RoTK so I guess that's okay.... Hmmm... I can't decide really... I wanted all to appear, but we all know PJ can't do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caewýn Alquasilme on Nov 16, 2004 16:37:45 GMT 10
gosh, as one who saw the movie before the book, there was no way in my mind that there could have been anyone else! I was confused enough as it was, and reading the book was a maze for me, PJ did a great job working out who was definitely needed. SOme characters are best left to the imagination I think, that is the beauty of books.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aisil Alquasilme on Dec 4, 2004 19:50:36 GMT 10
I don`t think the movie needed more people in it. It would be nice to see one of those characters in it but it wasn`t nessecary
|
|
|
|
Post by Tenacious on Dec 7, 2004 22:58:33 GMT 10
Seems like I am the only anti-movieist on the Palace. Hey look, I just invented a new word ;D. Don't get me wrong, the movies have great battle scenes, special effects computer gi etc, but they should not bear the name of Lord of the Rings, because that is one thing it isn't. The beauty of LotR is the magnitude and depth of it, something no movie can replicate. It would be better if no movie of LotR were made for they served no purpose other than to make a small amount of people very rich.
For those who saw the movies before seeing the book: I saw FotR before reading it, although this did not happen with the other two. One way or another I would have read the books - my dad is a huge fan and lent me his copy to read. Moral of the story? The movies are not the only way to attract people to the books. It is the most popular book of the 20th century, excluding the bible, so in one way or another many of the LotR addicts would have found their way to the books.
The movies only rate a little higher than the public works of David Day, and that's saying something. gets out sword* and ready to slice anyone who doesn't agree into little pieces
*Pleas note, this is a metophorical sword, not a real, sharp, souble bladed sword that is able to slice people up. Threat should only be taken mildly seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by Critu Dunra on Mar 25, 2005 22:22:18 GMT 10
There are a lot of aspects in the movie that differ from the world that Tolkien wrote about and in truth, just as you said Tenacious it doesn't depict to the dot the world and epic story created by "da Mastah"  But the thing that does make the movie much more than any Star Wars or Gladiator or Alexander could ever be is the story behind it. It is infact one mans dream of bringing his vision of it to life and even you must admit a great one at that. Now grant it, I might not have agreed on the vivid visualisation of Deagols death in the movie nor would I have cast the pretty boy Bloom as the woodland elf. And a lot of time I feel the goory makings of Bad Taste sort of shone through in the movie a lot more than I would have cared. But I am forever greatful for Jackson for doing it. The way I see it, any movie or book or script written by anyone but Tolkien himself could never come even close to what he meant. It remains but a mear homage to the masterpiece. And as a homage it is but a surface of something more deep. Like a trailer. Now, you either want to see the whole movie based on it, or you don't. In my case, I did. And got caught in the world that was completly made up in Tolkiens mind and is now lived by thousands of fans to him. Like us here. Sorry to go so off topic here. Now that I've rambled on enough, I'd like to say I would have like Prince Imrahil to have been depicted, but do agree he was a person of lesser importance to the story. But he is then again a part of my favorite story to continue. |
|
RunyadStouty
Child of Middle Earth
Minion of Mordor
Raving Prolet
Posts: 57
|
Post by RunyadStouty on Apr 24, 2005 15:05:01 GMT 10
Many characters were missed, but I believe PJ was only focussing on the main plot of the books-the destruction of the Ring and to avoid any conflict with time, and holding his audience he had to make neccessary changes, and unfortunaly leave things out still I would have loved to see Prince Imrahil, Beregond, or TB on screen
|
|
|
|
Post by EstelUnderhill on May 1, 2005 2:51:07 GMT 10
You know, I would have loved to have seen Ghan-buri-Ghan and the rest of his people. They interest me greatly. But I find it kinda hard all the same to settle on what exactly they look like in my little head. Ideally no one would have been left out, but I guess PJ did his best.
|
|
But the thing that does make the movie much more than any Star Wars or Gladiator or Alexander could ever be is the story behind it. It is infact one mans dream of bringing his vision of it to life and even you must admit a great one at that. Now grant it, I might not have agreed on the vivid visualisation of Deagols death in the movie nor would I have cast the pretty boy Bloom as the woodland elf. And a lot of time I feel the goory makings of Bad Taste sort of shone through in the movie a lot more than I would have cared. But I am forever greatful for Jackson for doing it. The way I see it, any movie or book or script written by anyone but Tolkien himself could never come even close to what he meant. It remains but a mear homage to the masterpiece. And as a homage it is but a surface of something more deep. Like a trailer. Now, you either want to see the whole movie based on it, or you don't. In my case, I did. And got caught in the world that was completly made up in Tolkiens mind and is now lived by thousands of fans to him. Like us here.
