> Behalf Of William T Goodall > I got around to seeing LOTR on Thursday. I had quite high > expectations, and > it exceeded them.
Agree thoroughly with this: as one of the reviews in Rottentomatoes.com starts off "You thought Harry Potter had expectations?" Right at the start when the (small) Frodo leaps onto > the (large) > Gandalf's wagon and it was pretty much flawless, I felt I didn't need to > worry... There were a couple of snippets later where the hobbits seemed to be using children as standins, but otherwise it was handled really well throughout. The film has streamlined some of the clunkier parts of the book - intercutting Gandalf/Saruman into the film narrative instead of it being dealt with in hindsight was a big step forward for the film. Unlike Harry Potter, the film is structured differently, as a film, and is much much better for it. Sorry Alberto, but I still can't see much use for Tom Bombadil. Of the 3 or 4 times I've read LOTR, I've skimmed that section at best every reading after that first time. > > SPOILERS below \|/ > > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + > + One major change I really like is Xenarwen. (Jo Anne, how does your Arwen feel about having Liv Tyler portray her? Have you made her her sword yet?) Anyway, by combining Glorfindel and Arwen a much stronger character is created, one that helps drive the film onwards. Tolkien has far too many characters in far too many similar situations, and the film has been brave enough to tidy some of them up. Besides, she looks bloody fantastic on the horse. And the romance between Aragorn and Arwen is far better treated as in the film: Tolkien didn't really write any proper female roles - apart maybe from Eowyn, and she was pretty much an hysterical schoolgirl - and the book's Aragorn/Arwen romance is treated as a barest afterthought after all the bloke stuff has been done. It's never felt right for me. At a guess, I hope Xenarwen replaces the two sons of Elrond who rated the occasional mention in vols II and III. If so, it should be interesting come Eowyn's pining for Aragorn. Saruman's uruk-hai were pretty damn impressive, although the squad leader who knew about the ring (Ugluk?) seems already to have been knocked off. Still, I was really surprised at how the uruk-hai carried the white hand mark of Saruman; as a painted hand on their head or body. Thought that was a really good touch, even if it brought back memories of the cannibal tribes in the "serial" that was part of the Banana Splits ( Oh, oh, Bongo??). Another change, one I think the Brin would appreciate, is how the elves are shown. Elrond and, particularly, Galadriel are clearly not all sweetness and light. I pretty much agree with the Brin's take on how the elves take themselves as a superior race and do not pass on the knowledge they have to the lower classes. After all, there was practically zero progress evident from the first Last Battle where Isildur took the ring to the time of Frodo and the Fellowship. Tolkien's elves are patrician Imperialists, written by a son of the Empire (Tolkien was born in what became Rhodesia, nowadays Zimbabwe), Peter Jackson's are altogether darker. The Kiwis are not nearly as Brit-sceptical as Australians, but to this little digger, some of the Empire's flaws can be glimpsed in their film portrayal. Possibly helped a bit by having Aussies portray the two elf leaders - Elrond and Galadriel - and an American for Arwen. > My other biggest pain was the death of Boromir - very close to > Monty Python that was. There were a couple of snorts from the group behind me directed at Boromir's demise. I agree it skirted Python territory, but Tolkien had Boromir become a pin cushion while defending Pippin and Merry. And don't forget, on Weathertop Aragorn had largely defeated 5 ringwraiths single-handed (book and film) and had again taken on and beaten a platoon of orcs to let Frodo head for the canoe (film). Obviously the (Bruce) Willis effect works with swords as well as it does with Uzis - the hero can kill many, while the forces of darkness couldn't skewer a barn door between them. Anyway, none of the arrows seemed to hit an instantly fatal part of the body. Bob Zim can probably give us a considered medical opinion, but one arrow high on the left shoulder and two more pretty low down (below diaphragm?) seem about equivalently fatal as, say, bayonet wounds - which frequently left a soldier screaming for hours before dying. Sometimes I think we are too conditioned to expect instant and painfree death in battle, whereas it is the bleeding and infection that have always been the real killers. And many, many men have been killed by an enemy that has not yet died from their sword/bayonet/bullet wounds. And did you see how one of the orcs moves as Aragorn goes to aid the dying Boromir? >He gets up and fights on after taking a fatal arrow. And then > after a second fatal arrow. And *then* a third! Like that knight > in MP and > the Holy Grail after being cut to bits! Just die! > > But it still utterly demolishes all of Star Wars etc. > I hope they make their squillions pretty quickly - already it seems that LOTR has made nearly half the production cost of the COMBINED 3 films, so maybe they'll take pity on us all and release the Two Towers around June/July. I gather, from a couple of interviews with Peter Jackson, that the second film is basically complete already. Cheers, Brett
