Lord of the Rings Q & A

[John_Anderson 0]

OMG I just read this off of theonering.net and thought it was so hilarious. I think many of us Ringers and/or movie buffs will get a kick out of. Here it is for your reading pleasure. Trust me it's funny. B)

 

It would have been a towering inferno at the box office if these Tolkienites had gotten the green light

 

By Martin Zimmerman

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

 

December 11, 2003

 

Lord J.R.R.'s "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" is set to steamroll through theaters across the land Wednesday.

 

The third part of the trilogy is a nice enough movie, as far as '60s hippie fantasy faves go. But just think what might have been ...

 

 

"Leonard Maltin's 2004 Movie & Video Guide"

 

"Lord of the Rings: The Titanic Towers" C-186m. PG-13. A Warner Bros. release of a James Cameron film. Directed by Cameron. Magic didn't strike again in this reteaming of the team that powered mega-bucks-er "Titanic." Leonardo DiCaprio as Frodo Baggins is forced to stretch his sensitive artiste chops when confronted by Rupert Murdoch – the media magnate in a surprisingly strong film debut – as the Dark Lord Sauron. Cameron's $672 million set for Middle Earth (now a theme park in Baja California) grabs most of the attention and pushes fine cameos by Chris Rock as Pippin the hobbit and Jenna Elfman as mega-cute elf-babe Arwen into the background.

 

"Deconstructing Frodo" C-86m. R. A Universal Studios release of a Rollins/Joffre production of a Woody Allen film. Directed by Allen. Frodo, played by Allen, looks back on his life as a simple hobbit schlemiel and how he has used his friends and lovers as grist for his spellbinding party patter. Huge cast of supporting players is superlative, with standout work from Keira Knightley as bewitching elfin queen Galadriel and Julie Kavner as the ghost of Frodo's mom, who floats around Orodruin doing ephemeral Borscht Belt shtick. Despite low indie budget, Allen uses P.S. 132 to solid effect as Middle Earth.

 

"Frodo Baggins, GoodFella" C-148m. NC-17. A TriStar release of a Martin Scorsese film. Directed by Scorsese. Robert De Niro as Bilbo Baggins shows Frodo, played by Matt Damon, how to "make his bones" and fulfill his destiny on the mean streets of Mordor. Based on real events, this is a gritty, violent inside look at fantasy's underbelly. Joe Pesci is triumphant as Gimli the Dwarf, a Fellowship of the Ring street soldier who wound up in the Federal Witness Protection Program.

 

"The Wizard King" C-74m. PG. A Disney release of a Disney film. Directed by an animatronic Walt Disney. Young Frodo (an animatronic Jackie Coogan) goes into exile to find his place in the circle of life after the evil Saruman (an animatronic Dean Jones) drives him out of Middle Earth. Formulaic outing but spritely songs (by an animatronic Elton John) and a surprise guest shot by a Mouseketeer (an animatronic Darlene Fraschilla as the fair Eowyn) proved a big draw for the baby boomer crowd.

 

"Frodo Baggins: Fists of Fury" C-103m. R. An Independent Artists release of a John Woo film. Directed by Woo. Frodo's pluck and luck desert him and he has to resort to martial arts to fight his way to the Ring. Frodo, played by Vin Diesel, kicks up a storm in this actioner from a master of mayhem. Woo's trademark over-the-top pyrotechnics are a perfect match for Diesel's over-the-top stunts – particularly the duel between Saruman (Jon Claude Van Damme) and Frodo atop the flying dragon smuggling anthrax-tipped warheads into the dwarf mine during a stormy, foggy night.

 

"Frodo Baggins and the Attack of the 50-Foot Sorority Girl" C-78m. R. A Paramount Classics release of a Roger Corman film. Directed by Corman. When Frodo (Frankie Muniz) spurns the charms of a wealthy but warped Orc, played by Sharon Stone, all heck breaks loose. Cheesy script, cheesy effects make this a fine addition to the Corman oeuvre.

Edited December 13, 2003 by John_Anderson

[ens_tino 0]

Frankie Muniz playing Frodo. I dont think they even got the originaly Frodo for the second movie.

[Nemesis 0]

Actually I was a little ticked to hear that they were making the LOTR movie trilogy because it takes away from the great writings of the books that you can only get from a read and also there was a lot left out in the movies that I thought were very interested like a lot about the old woods and how Merry and Pippin really got involved and it made me mad that they left that out and so many people who call themselves Tolkien fans just because they saw the movies don't know that.

 

I have watched the first 2 movies and plan on viewing the 3rd but will probably just rent it as I did with the second one because I believe the movies in no way meet up to the true quality of the books and are there for a CG show and fight scenes just like the Matrix another trilogy I was not as overly impressed with as other people.

 

I can completely agree with Tolkien's son because it all does take greatly from the series and takes away a lot of your own imagination you get from the books. I think everyone should at least read the books before the watch the movies so that they can use at least some of their own imagination because what I originally thought of what golem looked like was nothing like that in the rendition of the movies who to me looks to much like he is there for comic relief other then the twisted disturbed creature he is. Those are just my views and I'm sure most of you will disagree

[Kavik Evleagh 0]

I agree that they left stuff out, added stuff, and detracted from the books. But they are still excellent movies and well worth seeing. I have tuesday tickets for the trilogy here in Boise (God those were hard to get!). I hope it's as good as the first two and maybe it will pick up some of the stuff left off and messed up.

[ASCI Nelson Stron 0]

I Read the books

I think the moives while having to take stuff out are awsome.

THe fact is though if they didn't they would have 5, 6 hour long movies to make, and that would kinda stink to waste that much time in a dark movie theatre.

So really, the only thing that annoyed me was how they totally left out the part with that guy the lived in the woods and how mary and pippin stayed there with him for a bit before continuing.

But thats just my opinion. :)

[John_Anderson 0]

Actually I was a little ticked to hear that they were making the LOTR movie trilogy because it takes away from the great writings of the books that you can only get from a read and also there was a lot left out in the movies that I thought were very interested like a lot about the old woods and how Merry and Pippin really got involved and it made me mad that they left that out and so many people who call themselves Tolkien fans just because they saw the movies don't know that.

 

I have watched the first 2 movies and plan on viewing the 3rd but will probably just rent it as I did with the second one because I believe the movies in no way meet up to the true quality of the books and are there for a CG show and fight scenes just like the Matrix another trilogy I was not as overly impressed with as other people.

 

I can completely agree with Tolkien's son because it all does take greatly from the series and takes away a lot of your own imagination you get from the books. I think everyone should at least read the books before the watch the movies so that they can use at least some of their own imagination because what I originally thought of what golem looked like was nothing like that in the rendition of the movies who to me looks to much like he is there for comic relief other then the twisted disturbed creature he is. Those are just my views and I'm sure most of you will disagree

Well a rebuff to all those wonderful comments made by Mr. Nemesis. I agree with you on the first couple of points. Like I said in the beginning I was annoyed by some of Peter Jackson calls in some parts in FOTR and was even more annoyed with a heck of a lot of his calls in TTT. But I understood that they had a lot of constriants and some of the things they just could not accomplish. It was all for the sake of cinema. I would have just loved to see the movies recreated verbatium from the books but I knew that would not happen. I am happy though that PJ has remained somewhat faithful to the books. Meaning his hasn't really done major changes in the movies that weren't in the books (i.e. The Return of King cartoon back in the 70's helps me to prove that point) just small ones to kind of shorten the movie. So I completely understand that there were time constrants in the fimiling of movies and also the editing of them. New Line did not want all the movies to be 4 hours long because people would start to complain that the movies were too long and wordy (As many have said about the books). Critics that have reviewed the film, ROTK, so far they loved it and there only major complaint has been the ending. After all is said and done and Frodo makes it Mt. Doom (I'm not letting any spoilers out). And all is finished, there are about 7 different endings at the end of film over 20 mins, and it was PJ's way of remaining faithful to all Tolkienites and it just annoyed the critics because the action was over and they wanted it to be done and over with. One point supporting PJ in kinding of making the movies his own.

 

I would recommend that you see ROTK in the theaters since I simply believe that if you see it at the cinema it kinda of adds onto the power of the movie that you really wouldn't get at watching at home. I personally did not like the Matrix Revolutions (too boring, loved Reloaded though, made ya think :)) but I would in no way compare the Matrix to the LOTR movies just on the whole CG thing. PJ actually is very fincky when it comes to CG. At a major shot at some of those CGI loving directors (*Cough*Star Wars*Cough*) he has said that if something is too CGI and you can tell it's fake it needs to be done over again until it has that real look. I applauded him on that one and knew that was a shot to several film franchises. Now with Gollum I understand he was tweaked a little in TTT but I think Andy Serkis did a pretty good job. They were just establishing his character. In ROTK we don't need that conflict going on with Gollum about the ring. We now know all he cares about is getting his ring back and killing Frodo and Sam to get it. We finally get the tricky gollum that we have grown to love and hate in ROTK. Who I also heard did a good job. But those are just some of my rebuffs.

 

Anything against me? :)

[Captain Huff 0]

Love the thread, so here are some thoughts from The Donut!

 

I don't agree that one need read the books before seeing the movie. I do think that following the immense history and story of the movies might be difficult in the first sitting without having read the book, but quite frankly, seeing these movies about one billion times is not a bad thing! You'll pick up the history as time goes on. Although I've been reading LOTR since I was a kid, there have been many times that I have read good literature *after* I've seen the movie of it, and it has never taken away from the quality of the book, and in fact, it has often enhanced it with specific visual memories of the characters and locations. One example I can think of offhand would be The Cider House Rules, in which the screen play and book vary tremendously. I enjoyed the book no less having loved the movie previously.

 

That said... Go buy the LOTR trilogy and read it! The epic depth that can never be reached in a movie is well worth it. And know that Jackson couldn't have been truer to the visual descriptions of Tolkien. When I saw The Fellowship, it was as if Jackson had reached directly into my brain and pulled the imagery right from my imagination, down to the last location and hobbit. (And even so, when I pulled out the book again after the movies started, I found that Jackson's images blasted forth in glorious combination with Tolkien's words.)

 

THAT said, here's another thought... Without taking away too much from the greatness of these works, I don't put Tolkien as far up on a pedestal as others do for his writing. I think the depth of his imagination and attention to detail of history and language are rarely (if ever) matched, but his writing itself has plenty of faults, imo. I find inconsistancies in the characters throughout the book, long ramblings that do nothing for the story, but rather seem only to satisfy Tolkien's need to express some little thingy he dreamed up and had no other place to stick it... And my strongest dislike is that in general I find his writing style to be far, far too explicit - leaving nothing for the brain of the reader to contrive. It's a kind of soap opera story telling where every single thought is explained over and over again until you have no need for a brain. In THIS aspect, I find the movies more intriguing, because they don't have a million book pages to explain every thought, and they DO make the viewers figure things out for themselves. For example, we *see* the weight of the ring heavily playing on Frodo long before Sam tells us this is happening. We *see* the seduction of the ring on Men long before we're beaten over the head with it. We see Eowyn's frustration over her role in life. And most glorious of all we see ALL of Gollum's duality and turmoil without it being explained to us step by step. ::shivers:: Oh it's a beautiful thing!

 

I have never anticipated a movie as I have each of these... I can not die before the extended ROTK hits my DVD player!

[Travis Kroells 0]

here are some thoughts from The Donut!

 

If you run to fast, your custard filling slooshes around, and tends to make you sick...

 

 

Sorry Huff, I just couldint resist! :)

[John_Anderson 0]

Love the thread, so here are some thoughts from The Donut!

 

I don't agree that one need read the books before seeing the movie. I do think that following the immense history and story of the movies might be difficult in the first sitting without having read the book, but quite frankly, seeing these movies about one billion times is not a bad thing! You'll pick up the history as time goes on. Although I've been reading LOTR since I was a kid, there have been many times that I have read good literature *after* I've seen the movie of it, and it has never taken away from the quality of the book, and in fact, it has often enhanced it with specific visual memories of the characters and locations. One example I can think of offhand would be The Cider House Rules, in which the screen play and book vary tremendously. I enjoyed the book no less having loved the movie previously.

 

That said... Go buy the LOTR trilogy and read it! The epic depth that can never be reached in a movie is well worth it. And know that Jackson couldn't have been truer to the visual descriptions of Tolkien. When I saw The Fellowship, it was as if Jackson had reached directly into my brain and pulled the imagery right from my imagination, down to the last location and hobbit. (And even so, when I pulled out the book again after the movies started, I found that Jackson's images blasted forth in glorious combination with Tolkien's words.)

 

THAT said, here's another thought... Without taking away too much from the greatness of these works, I don't put Tolkien as far up on a pedestal as others do for his writing. I think the depth of his imagination and attention to detail of history and language are rarely (if ever) matched, but his writing itself has plenty of faults, imo. I find inconsistancies in the characters throughout the book, long ramblings that do nothing for the story, but rather seem only to satisfy Tolkien's need to express some little thingy he dreamed up and had no other place to stick it... And my strongest dislike is that in general I find his writing style to be far, far too explicit - leaving nothing for the brain of the reader to contrive. It's a kind of soap opera story telling where every single thought is explained over and over again until you have no need for a brain. In THIS aspect, I find the movies more intriguing, because they don't have a million book pages to explain every thought, and they DO make the viewers figure things out for themselves. For example, we *see* the weight of the ring heavily playing on Frodo long before Sam tells us this is happening. We *see* the seduction of the ring on Men long before we're beaten over the head with it. We see Eowyn's frustration over her role in life. And most glorious of all we see ALL of Gollum's duality and turmoil without it being explained to us step by step. ::shivers:: Oh it's a beautiful thing!

 

I have never anticipated a movie as I have each of these... I can not die before the extended ROTK hits my DVD player!

Wow Huff.......you've left me speechless.....It's like you went into my head and pulled every single thing I've thought of the movies out. That was just an awesome post. I don't know what to say. I agree completely and totally with ya. :)

 

Praise it!!! :)

[Dumbass 0]

Haven't read it either.

[ens_tino 0]

But they do cut parts out from the movies. But most of those parts arent important to oh well.

[John_Anderson 0]

But they do cut parts out from the movies. But most of those parts arent important to oh well.

Well that was under presure from New Line. Like I said they didn't want the movies to be too long. So PJ was doing a cut of FOTR and noticed that they cut about 45 mins worth of footage so that's how the Extended Edition came about. It the same thing with ROTK, except New Line made him cut over an hours worth of footage. So the Extended Edition of ROTK is probably going to clock in at a solid 4 hrs. and 30 min. Since it's already 3 hrs 20 mins long. So the movies aren't completely judged till the extended editions come out. But that's just what I think. :)

[ens_tino 0]

Now I know it was a good thing to wait until they came out on video for me to watch them. I couldnt sit in the theater that long.

[STSF_BluRox 0]

Love the thread, so here are some thoughts from The Donut!

 

I don't agree that one need read the books before seeing the movie. I do think that following the immense history and story of the movies might be difficult in the first sitting without having read the book, but quite frankly, seeing these movies about one billion times is not a bad thing! You'll pick up the history as time goes on. Although I've been reading LOTR since I was a kid, there have been many times that I have read good literature *after* I've seen the movie of it, and it has never taken away from the quality of the book, and in fact, it has often enhanced it with specific visual memories of the characters and locations. One example I can think of offhand would be The Cider House Rules, in which the screen play and book vary tremendously. I enjoyed the book no less having loved the movie previously.

 

That said... Go buy the LOTR trilogy and read it! The epic depth that can never be reached in a movie is well worth it. And know that Jackson couldn't have been truer to the visual descriptions of Tolkien. When I saw The Fellowship, it was as if Jackson had reached directly into my brain and pulled the imagery right from my imagination, down to the last location and hobbit. (And even so, when I pulled out the book again after the movies started, I found that Jackson's images blasted forth in glorious combination with Tolkien's words.)

 

THAT said, here's another thought... Without taking away too much from the greatness of these works, I don't put Tolkien as far up on a pedestal as others do for his writing. I think the depth of his imagination and attention to detail of history and language are rarely (if ever) matched, but his writing itself has plenty of faults, imo. I find inconsistancies in the characters throughout the book, long ramblings that do nothing for the story, but rather seem only to satisfy Tolkien's need to express some little thingy he dreamed up and had no other place to stick it... And my strongest dislike is that in general I find his writing style to be far, far too explicit - leaving nothing for the brain of the reader to contrive. It's a kind of soap opera story telling where every single thought is explained over and over again until you have no need for a brain. In THIS aspect, I find the movies more intriguing, because they don't have a million book pages to explain every thought, and they DO make the viewers figure things out for themselves. For example, we *see* the weight of the ring heavily playing on Frodo long before Sam tells us this is happening. We *see* the seduction of the ring on Men long before we're beaten over the head with it. We see Eowyn's frustration over her role in life. And most glorious of all we see ALL of Gollum's duality and turmoil without it being explained to us step by step. ::shivers:: Oh it's a beautiful thing!

 

I have never anticipated a movie as I have each of these... I can not die before the extended ROTK hits my DVD player!

Well said Oh mighty Donut-girl. And Mr Anderson, great string btw!!

 

On another interesting note...

 

About 22 years ago, the BBC radio show did 13 1-hour episodes of the LOTR trilogy, done in a dramtic reading by several actors and actresses. I had gotten a copy of these years ago on cassette tapes, which I listened to so much, that I virtually wore them out, and had to re-dub them a few times. (Made for good driving on long trips). Anyway, I saw recently, they put them out again on CD's, but my sister who bought them, said some of the voices have been changed to other actors and actresses, as it's a re-reading from the original script.

 

What I thought was most interesting in having listened to it for so many years, that I was so used to Ian Holm being the voice of Frodo Baggins. I had to do a bit of a double take and getting used to him now playing Bilbo in the FOTR!!

 

But...what great continuity. I also had read that when they were getting ready for filming the FOTR, that they had given the actors that had not read the books, the 13 hour long tapes to listen to.

 

Now...as for the Similrilion...that's a difficult read. I suggest reading it while a captive audience (i.e. - stuck at physical therapy in a whirlpool, where there's nothign else to do for 20 minutes at a shot). LOL. Like Huff was noting above about rambling...this may be the king of all ramblers for Tolkien. I did recently go ahead and get this on CD as well, and plan on listening to it over the holidays as a refresher.

 

And to get my daughter ticked off, I explain that when the elves go into the west, they end up at Vulcan. They do have pointed ears. They wear robes. Elrond is still around. They do have longer lives.....enough said...lol.

 

Oh....btw....less thatn 24 hours to Trilogy Tuesday!!

[Atragon9 0]

About 22 years ago, the BBC radio show did 13 1-hour episodes of the LOTR trilogy, done in a dramtic reading by several actors and actresses.

I graduated from college with a Radio/TV degree, and what got me thinking in that direction to begin with was when I answered a flyer looking for voice actors for the college station's version of FOTR. I ended up playing Merriadoc and there was this guy with the most amazing voice, and even the right look, playing Aragorn. I'm still shocked seeing Viggo Mortenson because, in the back of my mind, I expect the character to be played by this college senior.

[ens_tino 0]

Audio tapes for books are awsome. I used the Harry Potter ones for a book report one time and its a lot easier than having to read the book.

[Nemesis 0]

And its moments its like these that I feel sane geeze there is a point where you should seek proffesional help guys, and no I'm not talking about Ebay experts. :)

[John_Anderson 0]

And Mr Anderson, great string btw!!

 

Thanks! I'm just that devoted to LOTR.:)

 

And to get my daughter ticked off, I explain that when the elves go into the west, they end up at Vulcan.  They do have pointed ears. They wear robes. Elrond is still around. They do have longer lives.....enough said...lol.

 

LOLOL!!! Blu!! You have no idea how many times people have asked me questions about the 'Vulcan looking dudes' in LOTR. OMG. Too funny.

 

 

Oh....btw....less thatn 24 hours to Trilogy Tuesday!!

 

I'm still so jealous of you!! :). I know I can't wait either! I hope some people get a kick out of my temporary avatar. I'll put the Gandalf one back up Wednesday night. :)

[ens_tino 0]

And its moments its like these that I feel sane geeze there is a point where you should seek proffesional help guys, and no I'm not talking about Ebay experts. :)

Ebay's awsome. There commercials are just dumb and annoying though.

[Captain Huff 0]

Wow Huff...

In the words of Pippin to Merry when they met old Fangorn... "Don't encourage it!" :)

 

I agree that some stuff left out should have been, but I do miss other stuff. (I would sit through 85 hours of these movies if it were possible to make them of this quality). For example, I miss the hobbit-sucking willow, but not Bombadil. I miss the four hobbits' journey through the Buckland forest, but not the entire lineage of Merry's second cousin's third dog... But alas, there has to be limits!

 

One other point I forgot in my earlier post was that Jackson, thank God, gave women a more "normal" role in the story. He expanded some roles and brought them back down into the realm of the living, rather than pedestal queens to be viewed in awe at a distance never to be part of the everyday struggle - something to worship or to come home to marry when the Journey is done. I know Eowyn was Tolkien's one exception, but the treatment of the rest was just downright... scary.

[Dumbass 0]

Ebay's awsome. There commercials are just dumb and annoying though.

OK, this is off-topic, but I'll post it for the benefit of those who have a high opinion of Ebay. You may change your mind after listening to my story.

 

A little over a year ago I noticed over $1,200 in suspicious charges appearing on my bank statement. It took a bit of research to find out what they were, but eventually I learned the charges were PayPal transactions. Someone had obtained my ATM card number and my home address. Because my ATM card has a Visa logo on it someone was able to use it to create an account in my name on both PayPal and Ebay (PayPal's owner), and placed bids using my money!

 

It gets better. When my identity thiever's bids won the sellers looked up my phone number from somewhere they all told me the same story. Someone using my name placed bids for computer equipment with instructions to UPS the equipment to an address in Russia.

 

It gets even better. I had to open investigations with my bank (who graciously refunded my money), PayPal, EBay, the three major credit reporting agencies (Since this was an ATM card transaction my credit history was unaffected, but better to be safe and check it anyway.), and the High Tech Crime Unit of the San Jose Police Department. The SJPD eventually turned it over to the FBI.

 

The morale of the story is if you are selling something on Ebay you have no idea the buyer is who they say they are. About a month after my incident President Bush declared identity thieft and computer fraud to be acts of terrorism. I'm sure the majority of PayPal and Ebay users are honest people, but let it be known if you give them your business you may just be helping someone commit an act of terrorism.

[ens_tino 0]

Thats a scary thought. Then you could even be accused of it because they have your identity.

[John_Anderson 0]

OK, this is off-topic, but I'll post it for the benefit of those who have a high opinion of Ebay.

Yea I think it is a little off topic. But I think we'll let is slide even though it wasn't about hobbits and wizards :).

 

Very scary to think about though. :)

Edited December 17, 2003 by John_Anderson

[ens_tino 0]

Ive found out something. There are different types of short people. Midgets,dwarfs,hobbits,gnomes, and elves. So the next time you see a short person they might not just be a midget.

[John_Anderson 0]

Ive found out something. There are different types of short people. Midgets,dwarfs,hobbits,gnomes, and elves. So the next time you see a short person they might not just be a midget.

Sorry Tino, but I have never seen short elves before. They are mostly tall and mystic. Maybe your thinking about Santa's Elfs....

 

That would make more sense :).

Edited December 16, 2003 by John_Anderson