Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Well, no... nitpicking would be if I complained about the movie hobbits not having enough hair on their feet, or about the trolls looking totally different to the trolls shown in those ugly little Tolkien drawings found in some editions of The Hobbit
. I think the structure of the film and the unnecessary Saruman scene is very much a valid complaint, and that the two 'visual representation' issues (landscapes and orcs) are both significant enough not to be mere nitpicks. Of course, that's my opinion, and as far as somebody else is concerned, they might seem like totally insignificant nitpicks.
Tell that to Boromir...
There are a number of different breeds of orcs, although so far, only two have appeared. Later on, a smaller tracker will briefly turn up at one point with a nose that's capable of sniffing out the trail that its prey has taken.
The orcs that the party has run into are indeed bred for combat, but they're still only slightly stronger than a human at best. They're poorly equipped, and training is pretty low quality. In short, they're similar to a band of thugs, and probably about the same quality as average footmen in a medieval army.
The Fellowship, on the other hand, consists of a wizard, four hobbits, one member of dwarven nobility, and three princes. And they have the equipment and training to go along with that, along with lots of experience that they've picked up throughout their lives. All four of the latter have seen lots of fighting during their lives, and have the experience that comes from that.
So in short, about they only way they're going to get the Fellowship is pretty much the way they get Boromir - swarm and/or pick them off from a distance.
Some things to note about Tolkien's orcs.
The tracker only appears once, but indicates that there are some notable differences between breeds.
The average orc is probably actually slightly weaker than a human. It can see well in the dark, but sunlight is painful.
Uruk-hai, the new orcs that Saruman creates, are slightly stronger than a human, and apparently only suffer very mild discomfort under the sun.
Some of the mountain orcs are also notably smaller, and some of the goblins living under Misty Mountain that appear in The Hobbit are probably only slightly bigger than a hobbit (on the other hand, some of them in that book are much larger than a hobbit). The term goblin can be used interchangeably with the term orc, although the former is almost exclusive to The Hobbit, which never uses the term orc.
In The Fellowship of the Ring, the cave troll in Moria only appears briefly. It uses its foot to wedge the door open, and Frodo stabs it in the foot, whereupon it apparently runs off howling, and is never seen again. Instead of being slammed by the cave troll, a big orc warchief (roughly as strong as a big human, and much more skilled than most orcs) runs his spear into Frodo's side, and only the mithril shirt keeps Frodo from dying (he ends up with a big welt, iirc).
Mystery muppet
Spaceman
*Shrug* There you are, then: It was a while since I read the books. I'll have to go through them again. Just like I said in my post.
If a non-major character first ran off with him, why bother changing it? Relocating major characters matters. You're saying you wouldn't care if, say, Gimli rode off with Frodo? Boromir? It's an important event => not wise to change.
You're sure? Ugh, I REALLY have to read 'em again...
Ok, that's just out of line! I expect I made it clear that it was a while since I read the books, ok? Do you really expect me to keep track of something fictitious I read almost a decade ago? And I don't complain about a LACK of camera movement! I LOVED it, for crying out loud! Learn to read before throwing criticism!You complain about things that were changed, yet you alone made more changes to the story.
Nothing truly changed? The Nazghûls are immortal/invulnerable! So why do they catch fire? Because nothing's been changed? ... Right. You need to reread that part.
And THAT is why it's flawed. LotR became the big deal it is because of what it was back then, NOT what it was mangled into today! I have a term for that (changing an original masterpiece to appeal to the masses): aesthetic genocide. I can't bring up an example right now, but I'm sure there's something that fits the bill.
Because Glorfindel really serves no role in the story other than to take Frodo to the fords. Even when he turns up later, I don't think he gets more than a line or two. I don't like the fact that he got cut, but I don't think its all that big of a deal.
Also, I understand that Liv Tyler wasn't overly happy with the idea of a character who would get two seconds of screen time (literally) in the first movie, and not be seen again until the tail end of the third movie. That probably had something to do with it.
As long as she doesn't turn up on the Paths of the Dead, then I won't worry about it too much.
Now you're just being stupid and arrogant.
Mystery muppet
Spaceman
Junior: *Shrug* Well, it's still arrogant. And then you call ME arrogant for complaining about it? I liked the book, you know. As did many others, apparently. And the stuff in the book was fine as they were (if the books were flawed, why are they so loved?). If it ain't broken, don't fix it, as a friend of mine once said. LotR didn't become the most renowned fantasy-masterpiece for nothing - nothing ever does.
I first read The Lord of the Rings when I was 15. A couple of decades later, I bought the books and read them again. For me, Tolkiens’ mastery was that he was able to describe in sufficient detail for my own fantasy to take over, and yet not so much detail as to limit it. I went to see the movie knowing full well that it could not match “my” Lord of the Rings but rather would give a visual representation that would supplement “my version”. ( colour TV’s were NOT abundant when I was 15!).
I think that if anyone went to the movie expecting to see “their” version, then they would be disappointed.
I have to admire a man that dared to make a movie based on such a masterpiece, knowing full well the that the critics would show no mercy.
For me the best scene was the opening battle, and the movie ended long before I was ready. Time either flew or was suspended.
I think that if anyone went to the movie expecting to see “their” version, then they would be disappointed.
I have to admire a man that dared to make a movie based on such a masterpiece, knowing full well the that the critics would show no mercy.
For me the best scene was the opening battle, and the movie ended long before I was ready. Time either flew or was suspended.
MysteryMuppet: Complaining about things is generally not arrogance. Its normal critiquing, and is encountered often enough. Your choice of words, on the other hand...
"Aesthetic Genocide" is not only a nonsense term (genocide refers to the destruction of a race or nation, and aesthetic refers to art), and thus stupid, but comes across as the arrogant use of big words with which one is not entirely familiar in the attempt to make an impression of superiority upon the audience.
"Aesthetic Genocide" is not only a nonsense term (genocide refers to the destruction of a race or nation, and aesthetic refers to art), and thus stupid, but comes across as the arrogant use of big words with which one is not entirely familiar in the attempt to make an impression of superiority upon the audience.
Mystery muppet
Spaceman
Farzone: I liked the movie overall (best production I've seen for a while), but I found some little strange (to me, anyway) bits that annoyed me. And now it's all blown out of proportion... I respect Jackson for his ambition, don't get any weird ideas.
Junior: You've got a point there. But I have a tendency to... push the vocabulary-envelope a bit now and then. And no, I generally don't try to make an impression of superiority to anyone. I don't like to be subjected to it (hence the hot air vented at Kris, and then I was kinda tired), so I generally try not doing it myself. Of course, most of the time I don't need to try.
Kris: Well, considering they're called RingWRAITHS (perhaps the Nazghûls are something else? Like I said (again), it was a while since I read the books), I was under the impression they're already basically dead. Something dead won't get killed... though I suppose there could be some magic thingy or method to make them less animated. Like the destruction of the Ring, or Sauron or whatever. (No spoilers from anyone now, please. And YES I've read through those three books once, so I'm familiar with the ending. Mostly, anyway.) And ghosts/wraiths aren't known to catch fire. That's essentially my biggest gripe with the movie: The wraith caught fire.
Now, stop it with the personal attacks and let's get back to topic.
Junior: You've got a point there. But I have a tendency to... push the vocabulary-envelope a bit now and then. And no, I generally don't try to make an impression of superiority to anyone. I don't like to be subjected to it (hence the hot air vented at Kris, and then I was kinda tired), so I generally try not doing it myself. Of course, most of the time I don't need to try.
Kris: Well, considering they're called RingWRAITHS (perhaps the Nazghûls are something else? Like I said (again), it was a while since I read the books), I was under the impression they're already basically dead. Something dead won't get killed... though I suppose there could be some magic thingy or method to make them less animated. Like the destruction of the Ring, or Sauron or whatever. (No spoilers from anyone now, please. And YES I've read through those three books once, so I'm familiar with the ending. Mostly, anyway.) And ghosts/wraiths aren't known to catch fire. That's essentially my biggest gripe with the movie: The wraith caught fire.
Now, stop it with the personal attacks and let's get back to topic.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Well, perhaps you really should re-read the book, because the wraiths were wearing cloaks. And cloaks generally do catch fire. Why the Nazgul himself was bothered by his cloak burning is another question entirely, but you have to consider that fire is frequently given magical properties in mythology and fantasy. Same with water, which is why the Nazguls generally did not enjoy crossing even perfectly ordinary rivers.
Ladiesman^
Spaceman
I'm one of the few people on the planet who wasn't really impressed with it. Although, considering my tastes I liked it alot more than I thought I would. Usually medieval-type fantasy disgusts me. This movie more just bored me. I have no desire to see the rest of the series, but the first one was ok. I don't regret seeing it, aside from the fact that it was "Let's walk....and walk some more....and then walk....and then let's kick it up a notch, and continue walking....and just when you thought it was over....MORE WALKING...."
pygmypiranha
Vice Admiral
Ladiesman^ you make an interesting point. I certainly see where you are coming from. But you have to admit, even if you critisize the movie like that there was still some excellent effects and some fantastic acting.
Mystery muppet
Spaceman
Mmf, I though I'd spent every third calm sentence to say that... In any case, you didn't need to tell me that.
Ghost: *K'Ha'haf* You wouldn't, by any chance, have read Dostojevskij's 'Karamazov brothers', or whatever it's called in English? THAT's SLOW!
It took a whole year for me to finish that thing...Knitewing: You said it.
I haven't read Brothers Karamazov, but I did have to read Crime and Punishment in high school.
Ugh...
As far as the Nazguls go, I would guess that Tolkien intended them to be able to survive a torch thrust in their face, but at the same time, to suffer extreme discomfort/pain as a result of it. Remember that in the book, after Frodo gets stabbed, Aragorn charges the Nazgul using an improvised torch, and successfully drives them off.
Ergo- they really don't like fire.
Its also worth noting that traditionally, the undead don't like fire. Tolkien would have been aware of this, and appears to have included a similar vulnerability in his ringwraiths. Traditionally, the dislike of fire would extend to those undead without a physical form.
The moral, as I explained to some of my friends last month during our weekly D&D game, is ALWAYS carry a torch or two. You never know when the monster will ignore your weapons, but nearly everything burns.
Ugh...
As far as the Nazguls go, I would guess that Tolkien intended them to be able to survive a torch thrust in their face, but at the same time, to suffer extreme discomfort/pain as a result of it. Remember that in the book, after Frodo gets stabbed, Aragorn charges the Nazgul using an improvised torch, and successfully drives them off.
Ergo- they really don't like fire.
Its also worth noting that traditionally, the undead don't like fire. Tolkien would have been aware of this, and appears to have included a similar vulnerability in his ringwraiths. Traditionally, the dislike of fire would extend to those undead without a physical form.
The moral, as I explained to some of my friends last month during our weekly D&D game, is ALWAYS carry a torch or two. You never know when the monster will ignore your weapons, but nearly everything burns.