|
|
Post by CoralSkywalker on May 10, 2006 16:47:04 GMT
What score /10 do you guys give PJ for the film adaptations of LotR?? Personally I give him an 8/10: Right, there are certain bits he left out or changed.. but he had to make three movies you know.. If he'd made a series (hell yeah, that would've been some idea!  ) that would've been unforgivable, but now.. to fit all this in just 9 hours, he's done really well! And if you watch the extended editions, almost everything is in it.. Real thumbs up for the casting in particular! I just love all the actors in their roles, they totally fit in! |
|
|
|
Post by Silhouette on May 11, 2006 13:06:35 GMT
I'll give him 7/10.
The audio and visual effects of these movies are state-of-the-art, but I think the story is lacking some parts here and there.
Of course, he can't include everything in the book, but he has removed my favourite character in the book (actually they've removed the whole journey through the forest out of Shire), my favourite character in the movie (HaldÃr) dies (though the elves aren't even supposed to be at Helm's deep, according to the book) and I don't like the way Elijah Wood plays Frodo.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoralSkywalker on May 11, 2006 17:04:39 GMT
but he has removed my favourite character in the book (actually they've removed the whole journey through the forest out of Shire. Ah you don't mean that guy with the jellow boots, right? Forgot his name.. he lives in that woods with his daughter.. Hey, dammit, what's he called again? |
|
|
|
Post by Silhouette on May 11, 2006 18:56:07 GMT
His name is Tom Bombadil (I wasn't sure it was the same in english, since the Swedish translations are really screwed, but I've checked it now), and he is for sure the coolest guy in those books!
|
|
krazor
Full Member
The Resident Canuck
Posts: 250
|
Post by krazor on May 11, 2006 21:02:19 GMT
I agree that they could have picked a better actor for Frodo. He's the worst character in the movies imo. And i was disapointed with the ending, they needed to show the return to the ravaged shire and the murder of saruman. They left him as a loose end in the origional version, they show how he dies in the extended versions, but I would rather have had the film stay true to the origional, seeing that it was one of my favorite parts in the book and they totally removed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silhouette on May 11, 2006 21:22:49 GMT
I definitely agree on that. The ending of the movie is weird, since those parts are missing.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoralSkywalker on May 12, 2006 15:32:16 GMT
Yeah, I agree on the ending.. The death of Saruman is somewhat weak and sudden now..
Although, the "end" of RotK takes up an almost terribly long time already.. so maybe it's not that bad to have left it out after all..
|
|
|
|
Post by Sneltrekker on May 21, 2006 11:34:35 GMT
I agree with everything Silhouette posted really.
The ravage of the Shire. The travel out of the Shire. Those were some of my favorite parts.
About the Elves and Helm's Deep I don't know that much though. I can vaguely remember reading that part, but I guess I didn't pay that much attention to that chapter in specific.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silhouette on May 21, 2006 21:11:22 GMT
I re-read it after watching the movie just to make sure, there were no elves except Legolas in the battle of Helm's deep.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoralSkywalker on May 22, 2006 14:07:07 GMT
I re-read it after watching the movie just to make sure, there were no elves except Legolas in the battle of Helm's deep. No indeed.. And the battle at Helmsdeep was overall not such a big part in the book I guess.. Much more important in the film |
|
|
|
Post by Silhouette on May 22, 2006 19:01:31 GMT
Yeah, since it's an action part, they had to make it super big. -.-
|
|
|
|
Post by metal_leper on May 22, 2006 23:30:53 GMT
It always amuses me when a film says "based on the book(s) by..." (or similar - something other than "a scene for scene translation of the book onto the big screen" ), and then people go on about how rubbish it was because of all the things that differ from the book version. It's often difficult to enjoy the films when things have been changed, and you think it should've been done differently, but I think it's important to take a step back, and just judge the film on its own merits rather than comparing it to the book(s). Then again, I also really wish Tom Bombadil had been the the LotR films... |
|
|
|
Post by Silhouette on May 23, 2006 15:36:04 GMT
I see Your point. But what is Lord of the rings without Tom Bombadil?
|
|
) that would've been unforgivable, but now.. to fit all this in just 9 hours, he's done really well! And if you watch the extended editions, almost everything is in it..
