Uh oh!

Post by **theDespiser** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 4:39 pm

that was killer...would have been nice if they mentioned the prophecy of the 'sword that was once broken ' and whatever else it said...

Post by **Furls Fire** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 4:54 pm

Actually, one of the things that bothered me about FOTR was the fact that they didn't reforge it in Rivendell like it is done in the books. The movie had it on display in the Hall, which is wrong. At the Council of Elrond, Aragorn pulls it out, in pieces and Bilbo (who they left out of the council in the movie), stands and sings..

All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows's shall spring,
Renewed will be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.

I would have liked to have seen it done like that. But, I may be pleasantly surprised at how PJ does it in ROTK.

Post by **CovenantJr** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 6:08 pm

I don't want to whinge, so I'll "try" not to

but I disapproved of many aspects of the films, and the casting is a big part of that. Bloom as Legolas was perfect, Lee as Saruman was fine, McKellen as Gandalf was tolerable, but most of the others were badly miscast IMHO.

Frodo - too young
Gollum - too blatant and just...wrong. Don't get me started on his name...
Aragorn - oh dear God no. Aragorn is described (in the scene at the Prancing Pony) as basically an ugly git
All the hobbits - not chubby enough. A definitive feature of hobbits is chubbiness

*sigh* Sorry, I must be hungry...

Post by **theDespiser** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 9:39 pm

what about gollums name

and i like the way they did him

and i think Ian McKellan as Gandalf was great, as was Christopher Lee as Saruman

and all the others...

Post by **Variol Farseer** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 10:07 pm

Skyweir wrote:he just seemed way to young to play middle aged Frodo

Well, to do PJ justice, the Ring kept Frodo from aging just as it did Bilbo:

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote:As time went on, people began to notice that Frodo also showed signs of good 'preservation': outwardly he retained the appearance of a robust and energetic hobbit just out of his tweens.

Since he had just 'come of age' at Bilbo's birthday party, he should have looked like a (very short) man in his early twenties. Elijah Wood still does look too young, but not hugely so.

Post by **Furls Fire** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 10:25 pm

The thing about that tho, is in the books, twenty years pass between the birthday party and when Frodo and Sam leave Bag End with the Ring. Frodo was by that time 50 years old.

The movie has them leaving only a short time after Bilbo. AND with Gandalf...which didn't happen in the books, by that time, Gandalf was already Saruman's prisoner in Orthanc.

But, like I said in other posts...even tho there were these little changes made to the story, I think the movies on the whole are very well done. Kudos to Peter Jackson for having the drive and vision to take this on and do it in the grandeur that it deserved.

Post by **CovenantJr** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:14 am

theDespiser wrote:what about gollums name

Smeagol. The 'e' has an acute accent (though I can't work out how to type that

)...I have always been of the opinion that it's "smay-a-gol" rather than "smee-gol". Just my opinion, but I stand by it. The accent must be there for a reason... (I know griping about the pronunciation of a name seems petty, but it just reeks of sloppiness)

theDespiser wrote:and i think Ian McKellan as Gandalf was great

I have no quarrel with Ian McKellan himself - he's an excellent actor. I just don't think the character of Gandalf in the films corresponds very well with the one in the books. But, as ever, this is all subjective; we all have our own interpretations of literary characters. All in all, I think the LOTR films are about as good a screen interpretation as anyone could reasonably expect from Hollywood, and taken as films in their own right, they're excellent. However, as adaptations of the books I find them disappointing. When watching, I have to try and imagine it's a completely different Lord of the Rings - with so many alterations, it almost is.

Post by **Variol Farseer** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:51 pm

CovenantJr wrote:Smeagol. The 'e' has an acute accent (though I can't work out how to type that )...I have always been of the opinion that it's "smay-a-gol" rather than "smee-gol". Just my opinion, but I stand by it. The accent must be there for a reason...

It's there because the diphthong éa in the Anglo-Saxon word from which it's derived is a long vowel. Actually éa isn't pronounced 'ay-a', but something like a very high short A with a glide at the end: a bit like the vowel in 'bear', and a bit like someone with a heavy Brooklyn accent saying 'bad'. But Tolkien felt no compulsion to pronounce names in a way that was perfectly consistent with their origin. He often modernized them.

I have a recording of JRRT reading from The Two Towers (the scene where Sam stews the rabbits), and he quite distinctly says 'Smee-gol'. Straight from the horse's mouth.

Post by **CovenantJr** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:31 pm

I stand corrected *bows to Farseer's superior knowledge* Still don't like it though

Tolkien and the Anglo-Saxons were wrong

Post by **theDespiser** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 10:50 pm

remind me never to get in an arguement with this guy

ever

about anything

Post by **Furls Fire** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:14 am

havin trouble with your "enter" key there?? hehe

Post by **theDespiser** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:21 pm

nah, i do that for effect

Post by **Furls Fire** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:36 am

I knew that, just pickin on ya

Post by **Landwaster** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:37 pm

don't forget not to get into an argument with that guy

Post by **Landwaster** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:38 pm

ooh ... "don't forget not" ... triple-negative?

Post by **theDespiser** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 3:27 am

d'oh!

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Uh oh!