Things you did NOT like about Fellowship of the Ring.
- Thread starter BronzeDragon
- Start date
Tsyr
Explorer
"criticism of criticism" is fine...
But it shoud be kept on sorta the same level.
Most of the comments here have been fairly rational and well discussed, and generaly with at least the implied feeling of "But ya know, PJ really did ok, this is minor stuff, the movie was good overall".
Telling people to grow up, get a life, that they have no rite to be critical, etc etc etc (paraphrasing) isn't criticism, it's just flaming. If you want to debate the individual points, that's one thing... that wasn't what was happening in most cases, though.
But it shoud be kept on sorta the same level.
Most of the comments here have been fairly rational and well discussed, and generaly with at least the implied feeling of "But ya know, PJ really did ok, this is minor stuff, the movie was good overall".
Telling people to grow up, get a life, that they have no rite to be critical, etc etc etc (paraphrasing) isn't criticism, it's just flaming. If you want to debate the individual points, that's one thing... that wasn't what was happening in most cases, though.
hellbender
First Post
Tsyr said:
Sorry you see it that way, I see it as being realistic. It is trollish to come into a thread without reading thoroughly and telling people that they are basically being blasphemous for criticizing a movie. What does one expect from a thread of this nature?
Some people do need to grow up and get a grip. Reading the various posts tells a person that the movie was enjoyed with a few minor gripes here and there. When people rise up over that, I at least, get the impression that there is too much free time out there.
If you see it as 'just flaming', I am sorry, I am not here to flame people, but if someone is acting dumbly, then they are acting dumbly, and that is the bottom line. Seems like now if you call them as you see them, you are flaming.
hellbender
madriel
First Post
I have the feeling that some people are misinterpreting the tone of my posts. I love this movie. It still takes my breath away after seeing it five times.
As for my reply to hong, my mother and her friend didn't think Sam was going to drown. In *my* experience the scene wasn't suspenseful for anybody whether they were avid Tolkien readers or had never read anything but the Hobbit. If it was suspenseful for you and whomever you saw it with, that's fine. I have no problem with that.
If I've offended anyone I am deeply sorry. I was only speaking from my personal experience of viewing the movie and what the people I saw the movie with said to me after the film. We all view the film in a different light and we need to be respectful of each other's experiences.
So again, I am sorry if my remarks have been misinterpreted or viewed as disrespectful to anyone.
As for my reply to hong, my mother and her friend didn't think Sam was going to drown. In *my* experience the scene wasn't suspenseful for anybody whether they were avid Tolkien readers or had never read anything but the Hobbit. If it was suspenseful for you and whomever you saw it with, that's fine. I have no problem with that.
If I've offended anyone I am deeply sorry. I was only speaking from my personal experience of viewing the movie and what the people I saw the movie with said to me after the film. We all view the film in a different light and we need to be respectful of each other's experiences.
So again, I am sorry if my remarks have been misinterpreted or viewed as disrespectful to anyone.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
For the most part, I thought the changes Jackson made in the transition to film were superb.
--Splicing in Arwen is a definite improvement, at least for a film. Tightens up the storyline by adding in an important character earlier rather than later. Arguably the book would have been better if Tolkien had done so...
--As for Arwen commanding the river, she is a 2000 year-old elvish princess for chrissakes, and presumably an enchantress in her own right.
--Time was indeed compressed in the first part of the movie. This helps keep the pacing. Good move, Jackson.
--I honestly cannot say whether Galadriel's temptation was overdone or underdone. She is one of the most powerful entities in all of Middle Earth. Who is to say there should not have been an earthqquake as well.
--Gandalf holding onto the ledge for so long not only adds drama but has a purposeful thematic reason.
--Splicing in Arwen is a definite improvement, at least for a film. Tightens up the storyline by adding in an important character earlier rather than later. Arguably the book would have been better if Tolkien had done so...
--As for Arwen commanding the river, she is a 2000 year-old elvish princess for chrissakes, and presumably an enchantress in her own right.
--Time was indeed compressed in the first part of the movie. This helps keep the pacing. Good move, Jackson.
--I honestly cannot say whether Galadriel's temptation was overdone or underdone. She is one of the most powerful entities in all of Middle Earth. Who is to say there should not have been an earthqquake as well.
--Gandalf holding onto the ledge for so long not only adds drama but has a purposeful thematic reason.
Sulimo
First Post
Oh boy...
My main problems had to do with Jacksons adaption of all the non action scenes (the Shire stuff excepted). Those being the Bree, Rivendell & Lorien scenes.
Frankly I would have prefered them to be a more literal adaption. Even the so-called 'cursed Bakshi film' had more literal versions of those scenes.
Secondly, some of the characterisation really bugged me. Of note would be Elrond, Gimli and Aragorn to a degree.
The Elrond complaint is fairly self explanatory, he's depicted nothing like that in LOTR. Especially annoying is the Gandalf/Elrond scene where Elrond rants on about 'men'.
Gimli...well, he's depicted as a caricature of Dwarves, not the more thoughtful Gimli of the book.
Aragorn...part of my problem with Aragorn is the gutting of his backstory and motivations...Aragorn choosing exile...oodles of self-doubt... Nothing like Aragorn of the book who has been working towards becoming King and thru that being allowed to marry Arwen.
Arwen...the only thing that bugged me eher was that this prevented Frodo from standing up to the Nazgul at the ford.
Beyond these adaption issues, the other problem I had was that the passage of time doesnt really get across very well.
Perhaps some of my issues will be lessened once I see the 4hr directors cut.
My main problems had to do with Jacksons adaption of all the non action scenes (the Shire stuff excepted). Those being the Bree, Rivendell & Lorien scenes.
Frankly I would have prefered them to be a more literal adaption. Even the so-called 'cursed Bakshi film' had more literal versions of those scenes.
Secondly, some of the characterisation really bugged me. Of note would be Elrond, Gimli and Aragorn to a degree.
The Elrond complaint is fairly self explanatory, he's depicted nothing like that in LOTR. Especially annoying is the Gandalf/Elrond scene where Elrond rants on about 'men'.
Gimli...well, he's depicted as a caricature of Dwarves, not the more thoughtful Gimli of the book.
Aragorn...part of my problem with Aragorn is the gutting of his backstory and motivations...Aragorn choosing exile...oodles of self-doubt... Nothing like Aragorn of the book who has been working towards becoming King and thru that being allowed to marry Arwen.
Arwen...the only thing that bugged me eher was that this prevented Frodo from standing up to the Nazgul at the ford.
Beyond these adaption issues, the other problem I had was that the passage of time doesnt really get across very well.
Perhaps some of my issues will be lessened once I see the 4hr directors cut.
Harlequin
First Post
Oh Boy
Its okay to critisize and nitpick over silly things over a movie
but when someone critisizes thier opinion about such critisism
then thats not okay?
If the people here dont like thier critisism critisized maybe they should not post and 'get a life' as they have stated
(smiley - joke)
What somebody likes others will think lame whats unapealing to some others will love
its called taste
I loved the movie and am over all the things they did, didnt, remove or added in...
Here is a quaote that Replicant wrote in the what you DID like in the movie that sums up pretty much my feeling:
The movie as a movie is fantastic
Its the best Fantasy movie ever made and people here should appreaciate that they have a great movie to watch that finally puts on the big screen what we have only dreamed of in our minds for years
I know i do
Well done PJ!
Harlequin
Its okay to critisize and nitpick over silly things over a movie
but when someone critisizes thier opinion about such critisism
then thats not okay?
If the people here dont like thier critisism critisized maybe they should not post and 'get a life' as they have stated
(smiley - joke)What somebody likes others will think lame whats unapealing to some others will love
its called taste
I loved the movie and am over all the things they did, didnt, remove or added in...
Here is a quaote that Replicant wrote in the what you DID like in the movie that sums up pretty much my feeling:
Replicant said:
The movie as a movie is fantastic
Its the best Fantasy movie ever made and people here should appreaciate that they have a great movie to watch that finally puts on the big screen what we have only dreamed of in our minds for years
I know i do
Well done PJ!
Harlequin
On the topic of Galadriel's temptation, and the CGI effects. Remember at the ford when Glorfindel stood against the nazgul, and the "fury of an elf-lord revealed" gave even them pause? Arwen didn't really do anything like that, and I'm of the opinion that Galadriel was doing the same thing. It gives the impression that elves are impressive, but they are also holding back even more immense power. Doubly so for Galadriel.
As for gripes with the film, let me outline some that nobody really mentioned yet:
1. Frodo knew elvish in the book, and was recognized as an elf-friend in Mirkwood due to this. He obviously knew no elvish in the movie, and that played a part in the opening of the doors to Moria.
2. Frodo stood around with the ring in his open palm a little too often. He knows how grave a matter the ring is, and how powerful an artifact it is, yet feels the need to hold it in front of him while pondering its burden.
3. Someone said this, but I also thought the "Lord of the Rings" logo at the beginning was cheesy and crappy. The rest of the movie was polished, but that looked like a sloppy aftethought.
-nameless
As for gripes with the film, let me outline some that nobody really mentioned yet:
1. Frodo knew elvish in the book, and was recognized as an elf-friend in Mirkwood due to this. He obviously knew no elvish in the movie, and that played a part in the opening of the doors to Moria.
2. Frodo stood around with the ring in his open palm a little too often. He knows how grave a matter the ring is, and how powerful an artifact it is, yet feels the need to hold it in front of him while pondering its burden.
3. Someone said this, but I also thought the "Lord of the Rings" logo at the beginning was cheesy and crappy. The rest of the movie was polished, but that looked like a sloppy aftethought.
-nameless
Tsyr
Explorer
Good points Harlequin.
For myself, I look at it like this.
PJ and Tolkien are both humans, as am I. If we agreed on everything, there would be problems
. I don't consider either Lord of the Rings as a book or movie "holy writ" per say... it's a book, or it's a movie, but there is nothing "sacred" about it... There are parts of the BOOK(s) I don't like very much. For me it's enough to say "Ya know, that was a darn good movie.". It's not a _perfect_ movie. I've yet to _see_ a perfect movie... because, quite frankly, each person would have to make the movie themselves for it to be "perfect", and even then it would only be perfect to them. And this was, at least untill the flames started raging, a decent discussion of how individuals took the varios adaptations of a good book into a good movie, and what they would have done different had they been in charge. It's a harmless discussion - we weren't in charge, so what's it really matter?
Nothing, in the long run, but some people aparently feel so rabidly about the movie that they take any criticism as a near-personal insult.
Criticism doesn't mean we think the movie sucked. It's not a repeat of the Dork Tower comic. Most of us have acknowledged that the movie was very good. But we realize that there are always going to be things that people disagree with, and decide to talk about them. I don't see why that offends so many people on a near-personal level, but for some reason, it does.
*shrug*
*goes back to watching Hellsing and lets the flames rage*
For myself, I look at it like this.
PJ and Tolkien are both humans, as am I. If we agreed on everything, there would be problems
. I don't consider either Lord of the Rings as a book or movie "holy writ" per say... it's a book, or it's a movie, but there is nothing "sacred" about it... There are parts of the BOOK(s) I don't like very much. For me it's enough to say "Ya know, that was a darn good movie.". It's not a _perfect_ movie. I've yet to _see_ a perfect movie... because, quite frankly, each person would have to make the movie themselves for it to be "perfect", and even then it would only be perfect to them. And this was, at least untill the flames started raging, a decent discussion of how individuals took the varios adaptations of a good book into a good movie, and what they would have done different had they been in charge. It's a harmless discussion - we weren't in charge, so what's it really matter? Nothing, in the long run, but some people aparently feel so rabidly about the movie that they take any criticism as a near-personal insult.
Criticism doesn't mean we think the movie sucked. It's not a repeat of the Dork Tower comic. Most of us have acknowledged that the movie was very good. But we realize that there are always going to be things that people disagree with, and decide to talk about them. I don't see why that offends so many people on a near-personal level, but for some reason, it does.
*shrug*
*goes back to watching Hellsing and lets the flames rage*
Similar Threads
