Three QUICK hours in a noisy, packed cinema means it got me. I
disliked the coldness of the elves and completely empathise with
the 'humans are a disease' comment about Elrond, group hugs with
hobbits and Gandalf were very un-Tolkein, the new orcish ability to
defy gravity in Moria, the overly used and repetitive music and the
Nazgul advancing in formation on Weathertop (I kept expecting a high
kick). Gimli (and the crass, triple quilted Anorak, Dwarf throwing
reference which insults the rest of the film and the book) and Irish
Hobbits?!
Otherwise, I thought they did an excellent job keeping the spirit of
the book. The people who made it obviously loved the book and kept it
alive in the very different medium of film. I might have done some
things different but I could see the logic of their choices. It is
very hard to produce fantasy that is not ludicrous (I still remember
the spontaneous laughter in the cinema during the first Conan film
when Valeria re-appears as a goddess)and singing Elves is a direct
route to absurdity. The first part of the film skated close to whimsy
(as the book does) but by the end I could attach the film characters
to those who have resided in my imagination for the last 25 odd
years, with the exception of Gimli and Merry, without too much
contortion.
Nothing could ever be as perfect as reading the book for the first
time and there were errors beyond that but still a definite eight out
of ten, not least because they cared enough to have Aragorn wearing
the ring of Barahir.
Cheers
Chris Courtiour
Three QUICK hours in a noisy, packed cinema means it got me. I
disliked the coldness of the elves and completely empathise with
the 'humans are a disease' comment about Elrond, group hugs with
hobbits and Gandalf were very un-Tolkein, the new orcish ability to
defy gravity in Moria, the overly used and repetitive music and the
Nazgul advancing in formation on Weathertop (I kept expecting a high
kick). Gimli (and the crass, triple quilted Anorak, Dwarf throwing
reference which insults the rest of the film and the book) and Irish
Hobbits?!
RD: Agree the dwarf-throwing reference was crass. Guess the makers thought
the film needed a bit of light relief and chose the dwarf as the easy
target. It was very difficult to take the film Gimli seriously.
If Sam - who was excellent - could talk like a west-country yokel, why
shouldn't Pippin speak with an Irish brogue to try to give him some
individuality?
ยทยทยท
----- Original Message -----
From: arnheim2001 <arnheim@globalnet.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 2:38 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Off topic: THE FILM
Otherwise, I thought they did an excellent job keeping the spirit of
the book. The people who made it obviously loved the book and kept it
alive in the very different medium of film. I might have done some
things different but I could see the logic of their choices. It is
very hard to produce fantasy that is not ludicrous (I still remember
the spontaneous laughter in the cinema during the first Conan film
when Valeria re-appears as a goddess)and singing Elves is a direct
route to absurdity. The first part of the film skated close to whimsy
(as the book does) but by the end I could attach the film characters
to those who have resided in my imagination for the last 25 odd
years, with the exception of Gimli and Merry, without too much
contortion.
Nothing could ever be as perfect as reading the book for the first
time and there were errors beyond that but still a definite eight out
of ten, not least because they cared enough to have Aragorn wearing
the ring of Barahir.
Cheers
Chris Courtiour
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
