Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

[Darren]

I thought I'd start this discussion up again. It was getting interesting over on our old forum.

Now that it's been out for a while, and the DVD is coming soon, what do people think of it? Have you seen it again?

I really enjoyed it. Re-kindled my interest in Tolkien (still haven't re-read LOTR yet!)

 

[lies]

I thought it was disappointing... But that might have had something to do with the fact that I prefer some books to some films, and this time, the book won...

 

[Ell]

I really enjoyed the movie - saw it twice.

I read the book quite some time (over 20 years) ago, so the details of the book aren't fresh in my mind for comparison

Maybe that's why I wasn't disappointed in the movie. I felt it did a good job of capturing the overall epic nature of the quest and the close relationship between Frodo and Sam.

If I were to re-read the book, I might have a different opinon.

 

[Tobytook]

Yeah, I think Peter Jackson managed to stick to a strong line right down the middle, so that there may be areas in which the film disappoints individuals but satisfies the majority - whether they've read the book or not.

Personally, I love the Tom Bombadil episode - be it ever so tra-la-la - but it is incongruous with the overall tone and direction of the book, and would certainly have been out of place in the film.

The fine acting of Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Orlando Bloom and pretty much the whole cast notwithstanding, maybe the most significant improvement of the film over the book is its treatment of Aragorn. From an under-developed, vaguely stereotypical character, the screenwriters (and Viggo Mortensen) extrapolated motivation and personal history to build a realistic, emotionally and psychologically complex hero for contemporary audiences to identify with and cheer for at the same time.

And how they got that Balrog to sign up for it is anyone's guess!

Tobytook

 

[Darren]

There's a "special edition" DVD about to be released on 12 November 2002, which will contain 30 minutes of extra footage not shown in the cinema release, or original DVD release. It's released at the same time in Europe and N America, and I presume australasia too.

DVD Features:

DISCS 1-2: The Feature

Unique version of the epic adventure with over 30 minutes of never-before-seen footage incorporated into the film and new music scored by Howard Shore

Four feature-length audio commentaries by director and writers, the design team, the production team, and the cast featuring more than 30 participants

DISCS 3-4: The Appendices

Two discs with hours of original content including multiple documentaries and design/photo galleries with thousands of images to give viewers an in-depth behind-the-scenes look at The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

DISC 3: "From Book to Vision":

Adapting the book into a screenplay & planning the film

Designing and building Middle-earth

Storyboards to pre-visualization

Weta Workshop visit: An up-close look at the weapons, armor, creatures, and miniatures from the film

An interactive map of Middle-earth tracing the journey of the Fellowship

An interactive map of New Zealand highlighting the location scouting process

Galleries of art and slideshows with commentaries by the artists

Guided tour of the wardrobe department

Footage from early meetings, moving storyboards, and pre-visualization reels

DISC 4: "From Vision to Reality":

Bringing the characters to life

A day in the life of a hobbit

Principal photography: Stories from the set

Scale: Creating the illusion of size

Galleries of behind-the-scenes photographs and personal cast photos

Editorial and visual effects multi-angle progressions

Sound design demonstration

Widescreen anamorphic format

Number of discs: 4

 

[HBinjection]

Special Features

How does everyone feel about special effects documentaries on DVD's.

For some movies they can be fun, but for the most part I get annoyed when the special features are dominated by discussions of the techincal aspects of filmmaking, especially the commentary.

I prefer to hear about the themes of the film, or different ideas for scenes that weren't filmed.

I also tend to dislike actor interviews. I have nothing against actors, but I suppose I value the ideas and visions of the director's and writers' ideas a little more than those of the actors.

I've held out on buying the current LOTR DVD waiting for the special release. The commentaries sound like fun.

 

[HBinjection]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe the most significant improvement of the film over the book is its treatment of Aragorn. From an under-developed, vaguely stereotypical character, the screenwriters (and Viggo Mortensen) extrapolated motivation and personal history to build a realistic, emotionally and psychologically complex hero for contemporary audiences to identify with and cheer for at the same time.

-Tobytook
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instead of 'stereotypical' maybe you should think of Aragorn as 'archetypal.' Think "Beowulf"

As for 'underdeveloped'....

try mysterious.


I do like the film version of Aragorn. I don't know about the love interest, though. And Arwin (right name?), his elf girlfriend, seems a little untrue to the tone of the books. She's a populist addition, I think. A strong female character makes the film more accessible for some. I'm not annoyed that there is a strong female character in the film, its just that her presence feels so 21st century, and not very Middle Earth at all.

Comments?

Please, Ladies, don't be upset with me.

 

[Marie]

I don't know about the love interest, though. And Arwin (right name?), his elf girlfriend, seems a little untrue to the tone of the books. She's a populist addition, I think. A strong female character makes the film more accessible for some. I'm not annoyed that there is a strong female character in the film, its just that her presence feels so 21st century, and not very Middle Earth at all.

I didn't know that this character (Arwen) was an addition made for the film. I haven't read LOTR yet. I am not very much surprised though. I've just read "The Hobbit" and there are not any significant (or even non-significant) female character mentioned (except Bilbo's grandmother, briefly). In the film (The fellowship of the ring", there is the queen Galadriel, though, as a more significant female character. Tolkien's writings are very much influenced by Arthurian legends: the quest is a masculine matter but there is here and there a strong female character...

 

[Dawn]

Arwin (or Arwen) is in the books. She doesn't play a major part in the Fellowship of the Ring, however, but she is mentioned in it. The love story is told, I believe, in an appendix. I remember reading that her father was not happy with her relationship with Aragorn.

The few female characters in the books are all strong, if I remember correctly.

I liked what they did with the character of Aragorn in the film. He was more fleshed out and his emotions were more apparent. A classic hero . . . fighting his own demons while fighting for Right.

 

[HBinjection]

Arwen

It's been about a year since I last read FOTR. LOTR is one of my favorite sagas.

I don't remember so clearly, but could the love story have been mentioned in a song? Maybe Aragorn told a love story about a man and an elf to his hobbit companions. (Somewhere near Weathertop?) And perhaps I didn't notice at the time that Aragorn was the man in the story.

What about elfs, (that's JRRT's spelling, correct?) becoming mortal if they marry a human? Is that part of the original mythos?
I'm no purist, but some of these things just distracted me a bit.

It could be that Liv Tyler is so well known that she took me out of the fantasy.

However, her character's role was probably beefed up to reach a wider audience. Perhaps to appeal to women a little more. Two great posters, who happen to be women, seemed to enjoy Arwen's presence.

 

[Dawn]

Perhaps someone who has LOR on hand can answer the question - where is the love story chronicled?

I don't want to give away too much since LOR is a discussion for next month and some of us haven't read - or re-read the trilogy.

 

[Prolixic]

It's not really chronicled at all, not in one place. If you're paying attention you pick up on it though in FOTR. You really get the point in the Return of the King. Its sort of a subplot. Don't read the spoiler unless you've gotten to Lothlorien in the FOTR.

Spoiler

Aragorn is Elendil's heir. Elendil was the King of men, but was killed helping Gil-galad and his Elf host destroy Sauron, who made the One Ring. Isildur was Elendil's son, but never took the throne because of that Ring. Aragorn goes on the quest with Frodo and the others to try to clean up a mess that his great grandcestor started by taking the Ring in the first place instead of destroying it. Thats why Elendil's sword (The Sword that was broken) is reforged in Rivendell before Aragorn goes on the quest. It's a sign that Elendil's heir is going to take up his own again...Arwen (Elrond's Daughter), as Aragorn's fiancee is part of that package. At Rivendell you get an inkling that they're in love. You get another tiny look at it at the end of chapter six, but wait 'till you get there, it fits in with the love story that all comes together at the end of Return of the King.

Strider/Aragorn tells the story of Tinuviel at Weathertop. Luthien Tinuviel is one of Arwen's ancestress'.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't really comment on Arwen the movie character.

 

[Prolixic]

Its been out a year, but I've finally seen it...

OK, now I've seen the movie. Pardon me while I rant...

I have to say that overall I really appreciate the great lengths to which the director went in order to stay true to the story. However, watchers are deprived of a good deal of action between Gandalf's visit where he tests the Ring with fire and Frodo's arrival at the gate of Bree and their subsequent and nearly instantaneous transportation to Weathertop. In short the story presented in the movie is a rather anemic version of the book--at the very least--until they arrive at Moria which is a really fine reproduction. And the scenes at Rauos where Boromir is killed was well done too. I fear that they did the best they could with Lothlorien and Rivendell and it looked really good on the screen. But how do you reproduce the peace and joy of thousands of years of Elvish influence on a magical forest in a five minute segment?

Aragorn was IMHO was the most tragically slighted character. They reduced him to an exiled bum who wanted no part in the throne and wasn't even allowed to carry the Sword that was Broken because it had a shrine in Elrond's house--which was far from what Tolkein wrote (The Elves didn't think that highly of Narsil considering what was done with it.) He was, instead, a man of learning, wisdom, healing and great inner strength who was striving to right the wrong done by one of his forefathers--Isildur. He was nearly as prostrated with grief as the rest of them with the passing of Gandalf for they were great friends. Also, Frodo in no way went to Mordor with only Sam because Aragorn thought it was a good idea, he had to sneak away from him. Aragorn agonized over this and eventually went after Merry and Pippin becasue it was about all he could do.

I did enjoy Arwen as a sword carrying counterpart to Aragorn. Liv Tyler did a great job...especially at the Ford of Bruinen (sp?). Anywho, Glorfindel the Elf Lord , whom she replaced, would have been especially difficult to portray so it was probably a good move on their part. The love story was wonderfully done as well and brought out of the shadow, so to speak, for it was very subtle in the books.

Outside of those very minor story shifts I think that the main plot was still there and they did an absolutely fantastic job of reproducing the scenery and the weaponry and every little detail. Makes you want to go to New Zealand and try to find some Hobbits, eat six meals a day,take 'tater' growing lessons from the Gaffer, and fill your pipe with Old Toby after you've had a pint or two down at the Green Dragon.

(I heard a rumor that it took months of deliberation with the Fire Demon Actors Guild before the Balrog would agree to sign up and then they still had to agree to provide him with Anthracite and Kerosene for the duration of filming. Which would have been fine but the fire insurance was too much for the production budget so they ended up just using special effects.)

 

[Deerskin]

Wow, Prolixic, you took a long time to see the film! It's kind of refreshing to hear this kind of rant because it's exactly how I felt after seeing Fellowship for the first time (over the year it's grown on me and I've managed to find justifications for most of the changes and begin to really enjoy it!). Did you see the extended version? It really fleshed out the character development that was left out of the cinema release.
Strangely enough, my biggest rant on first seeing this film was Gandalf's fall. One of the most moving scenes of the book was ruined for me simply because I had pictured it differently!
I know it's late to be asking this but what did those of you who had previously read the books think of the casting? I found that, with the exception of Sam and Gimli, none of the characters came even close to my own mental pictures of them (though all the actors were wonderful and I soon grew to accept the 'alternate' characters presented in the film). I'm curious for other opinions on this because I find that many people thought the casting was almost perfect.

Seriously, about the Balrog, I heard somewhere that Ian McKellan acted this scene faced with a tennis ball on a piece of string! Now that's acting! This image made me giggle the next time I saw that scene!

 

[Dawn]

I think the extended version was much better than the theatrical release. There are things that are introduced in it that are later shown in the Two Towers film.

Spoiler

for instance, the elven cloaks and lambes bread.

On one of the documentary additions on the DVD, it mentions that the first cut as 4 1/2 hours long. I really wish I could see THAT version! I wonder what they cut?

As far as the casting, of course the Hobbits and Aragorn are supposed to be older. But after viewing the film (many, many times), I can't image who they would have cast for those roles. I thought they were all great. I thought Bible was perfect, if you're going by the book. If you want to talk about artistic vision, as it relates to the different specis . . . the elves looked like elves, orcs looked like orcs, etc. And the artistic vision in general really worked for me. I was amazed at the thought and time that went into the film. I mean, really . . . hand made chain mail? Would we have been able to tell the difference? That's what I call attention to detail!

 

[Prolixic]

I'll tell you what Deerskin, I fumed and ranted about Fellowship for a full six months after it came out in the theaters because I could tell just from the few bits in pieces I'd seen in previews that it was going to be different that the book. Then I read the books again for the Book of the Month here and ranted some more because they were hyping the Two Towers right about then and I could tell it was different too. Then I saw the movies and admit that the concessions to the medium were minor, for the most part, and I should simply be grateful that Hollywood didn't run all three books together as a summer cookie cutter action adventure movie.

As far as casting goes I think it was pretty well amazing that they were able to find anyone that even remotely resembled the non-human characters in the book. My mental image of Legolas and the other elves is probably forever changed. I think they improved Aragorn a bit because Tolkein's description is a bit rugged. With the help of some special effects they nailed Arwen too. As for the rest? Well, its hard for us to see dwarves as graceful but in my mind they always were. John Rys-Davies (sp?)wasn't, but I don't really think he's four feet tall either.

Ian McClellan in my mind nailed Gandalf too. I was pretty happy about that. But Christopher Lee really, IMHO, had Saruman down pat. He seems to be really good at that oozing-with-evil kind of character. (I.e., Count Dookoo)

 

[Deerskin]

I agree that they changed Aragorn quite a bit - he was supposed to be older and a lot more 'rugged'. I spent so long hating the changes to the character that I failed to notice how gorgeous Viggo Mortenson really is!

As for Ian McKellan as Gandalf - I can't think how anyone could have played the role better. But, strangely enough, my mental picture of Gandalf had always been a lot closer (in looks) to Christopher Lee (I think it's the dark eyes and hooked nose that I had always pictured!)

'I should simply be grateful that Hollywood didn't run all three books together'

I totally agree with you Prolixic - despite all my nitpicking I think that Peter Jackson did a wonderful job of bringing Middle Earth to life. It could certainly have been worse (have you seen the cartoon version?!)

Out of curiosity, are any of you familier with the BBC Radio version of Lord of the Rings with Ian Holm as Frodo and Michael Hordern as Gandalf. Well worth listening to - even though they also cut Tom!

 

[Prolixic]

Poor Tom never got his due. I think its fair to say, though, that he would rather go without recognition...if he were real that is.

 

[Hollis]

I just finished reading Fellowship of the Ring and I found that the movies had what was happening overall, but did things a bit different than the books - from how Pippen & Merry joined Sam and Frodo to the whole Arwen bit (I was shocked that she was barely mentioned in FotR when she appeared to be some Elven Warrior in the movie) to the visit with Galadriel, the whole blindfolding bit. It was easy to visualize things that were happening and for the most part, I think they stayed pretty true, but it was really interesting picking out the parts that were different.

I'm not a purist, I guess, though. Yeah, after reading the book, I wish I could have seen certain things in the movie, but I really really enjoyed the movie. Two castings I really liked were Hugo Weaving as Elrond (he does look pretty Elvish) and Sean Bean as Boromir.