Speculation about the new Tolkien movie...

[Lufbery]

All,

In about nine days, "The Fellowship of the Ring" will open in theaters (at least in the U.S., I'm not sure about international distribution). I'm wondering, how many of you are Tolkien fans? How many are looking forward to the movies, and how many are worried that the movies won't live up to the books?

Personally, I'm really looking forward to the movie, but with a little trepidation. From looking at the trailer, I can tell already that they've changed the story a bit, and I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'm prepared to see the film on its own terms and not expect religious adherence to the books, but it'll be tough -- mostly because I've read the series four or five times since I was in sixth grade.

Overall, though, from what I've seen and read so far, the movie will be really good.

-Drew

P.S. As an aside, I saw the Harry Potter movie this weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it. The movie has gotten mixed reviews, with general praise for the actors, but general dissatisfaction regarding the film's ability to involve the audience emotionally. I was simply enthralled. The movie seemed to drag just a bit about halfway through, but it rapidly picked up all the way to the end. I consider myself a pretty sophisticated movie watcher, but I guess I don't have the rarified taste of some professional reviewers. Either that, or I'm more disposed toward fantasy than they are.

I'm a huge Prof.Tolkien fan.

My fav book ever is the Simillarion.

Oddly, all those writings are just a medium for Tolkien to exercise his own "developed" languages and mythology, which became "Elven" in the books. I love works that are "masterpieces" and not just book 5 of 10(collect them all-the publisher needs MONEY-stretch a story over 10 volumns-PUKE)...the money train rolls on. This IS the masterpiece of fantasy fiction, nothing will ever touch it, I don't think. Eddings, Jordan, even Terry Brooks(whom i like most) are nothing more than easy mindless reading. Tolkien makes you think, think like when your reading classics of other genre's.

I lament the loss of Tom Bombandil in the movie..really was one of my fav parts of the book, but alas not necessary for the story, I do understand cutting it. As for Liv Tyler(Arwen-elf-princess) role getting expanded...total bullshit and could be a movie "ruiner" for me. Tolkien had the female warrior role filled before Xena's ideamaker's father was swimming in someone's left testicle. The Eowen charcter fills out that role just FINE.

Yeah it's a sore spot, well if Peter Jackson screws up the story...may the Balrog find him tasty.

[Lufbery]

I'm a huge Prof.Tolkien fan.

My fav book ever is the Simillarion.

I'm a huge fan, but I've yet to make it through the Simillarion. However, the last time I tried it, I was about 12. Maybe now, 16 years later, I'll have a better time of it.

I lament the loss of Tom Bombandil in the movie..really was one of my fav parts of the book, but alas not necessary for the story, I do understand cutting it. As for Liv Tyler(Arwen-elf-princess) role getting expanded...total bullshit and could be a movie "ruiner" for me. Tolkien had the female warrior role filled before Xena's ideamaker's father was swimming in someone's left testicle. The Eowen charcter fills out that role just FINE.

Yeah it's a sore spot, well if Peter Jackson screws up the story...may the Balrog find him tasty.

Losing Tom Bombadil will be a bit of a disappointment, but I can see why it would be confusing for moviegoers -- after all, that part of the story is confusing for many who read the books. Check out this essay if you're interested: "Who is Tom Bombadil" http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html

The Arwen part has me a bit nervous, but I'm willing to give it a try with an open mind.

[Kirby]

They deleted Tom Bombadil! BLASPHEMY!!! >

Dont tell me about any more revision or deletion. I've been looking forward to this movie for three years. Don't do or say anything more to discourage me. That piece of animated *crap they put out twenty or so years ago was such a major disappointment I don't think I could handle another. *:'(

[mike_baram]

And they're not showing their concept of Gollum/Smeagol on the promos.....this should be interesting when it's released.
"My Preciousssssssss!!"

Hmm Tom =Aule, interesting and it does make sense...thou it sure goes against the Valar commandment of them pulling back to the West after laying waste to all lands west of grey havens.

Drew take another look at the Simillarion and read it as if you are reading a book on norse, greek or whatever Mythology. *It's good for more than 1 reading because you see more (absorb) with each reading..also it's written in such a way you can fill in the "blanks" very easily with your own imagination.

If you can't get through the dry creation parts, just read all the stuff on Feanor, the chapters "Beren and Luthien", and my personal fav "of Turin Turambar".

[Mark_Miller]

I lament the loss of Tom Bombandil in the movie..really was one of my fav parts of the book, but alas not necessary for the story, I do understand cutting it. *As for Liv Tyler(Arwen-elf-princess) role getting expanded...total bullshit and could be a movie "ruiner" for me. *Tolkien had the female warrior role filled before Xena's ideamaker's father was swimming in someone's left testicle. *The Eowen charcter fills out that role just FINE.

Yeah it's a sore spot, well if Peter Jackson screws up the story...may the Balrog find him tasty.

So They deleted Tom Bombadil?
I am disapointed , the whole old forest sequence is one of my favorite parts. But I'm not terribly surprised. It's not exactly centeral to the story. And they can't do everything, or the movie would be WAY to long
However, Goldberry is one the very few female charachters in the book and *for that reason alone I thought it might be saved.

Fact is, there are NOT lot of female charactors in the books.
I can see how they would be tempted to grow the Arwen character to try and reach a broader audience.
But if they do - it WILL TICK ME OFF
As it will many Tolkien fans.

But I've seen some interviews with Jackson, and he knows he better watch his step - so I am hopeful *:

Mark

[WFS]

I just watched the SciFi channel's special on the making of "The Lord of The Rings". Peter Jackson seems to have captured the look of Middle Earth. Not everything was as I had pictured it in my imagination. It was, however, close enough that it was like seeing a real place that I had only read about previously. I hope that the entire movie is as good as what was shown. I also hope that the screenplay is as true to the original as the set and costume design are.

In the brief scene that was shown of Kate Blanchett as Galadriel her delivery seemed a bit stilted. However, the guy playing Elrond Halfelven seemed dead-on.

BTW I don't mean to be picky guys but it's "The Silmarillion".

Regards,
Wayne

BTW I don't mean to be picky guys but it's "The Silmarillion". *

Regards,
Wayne

Ops...my bad :-/

As a rule I think that novels make lousy source material for movies. It's impossible not to have to cut out huge amounts, unless the novel itself is very short (for example, "The Maltese Falcon"). The best I can hope for is that a movie is what I'd call faithful to a novel; in other words, it catches the spirit and enough of the story and characters to suggest that the writer(s) and director actually read the book. Expecting a movie to be a true reflection of a novel is a mug's game.

Having said that, I'm looking forward to TLOTR just because I think Jackson's got game, as it were. (And I rather liked "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," perhaps because I hadn't read the book first. When I saw it a second time with some Potter fans, they claimed the movie lacked some of the magic of the book.)