My understanding from the time when the original trailers were released, was that there would be three movies...each following a year after the other basically. I seem to remember the announcer saying "Christmas 2001, Fellowship of the Ring, Christmas 2002....etc"
Is this correct? That would make sense given the fact there are three volumes, one presumably covered by each movie.
On a side-note, can someone clear something up for me...
The 9 Wraiths (sp?) who rode the black horses in the movie...those were originally the 9 men who, like the elves and the wizards, had been given their own rings during the time that preceeded the ring of power...and when they turned sides and vowed to find the ring of power, that is when they became the beings we saw on the horses...right?
My recollection is that all 9 of them were involved in that "white water" scene, but I can't remember for sure. Trying not to spoil any part of the movie for those who haven't seen it...can anyone tell me if I am understanding the background correctly?
<strong>this movie is the second book in a trilogy, but the first book is entirely self-contained. it probives some background for the second and third books, but that is easily covered.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's based on the first volume of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring, not the second volume. We'll get to see The Two Towers in December 2002.
You're probably thinking of The Hobbit ("There and Back Again"), which is something of an introduction to Middle Earth. It chronicles Bilbo Baggins' adventures some 50 years before the events in the Lord of the Rings books, and how he came to possess the One Ring. It's good background material, but the movie fills in everything someone who hasn't read it needs to know.
[Whoops, missed the posts that already cleared this up.]
I just got back from watching FotR and I could not be more pleased with the film. I read the books back in Middle School so I don't remember a whole lot, and I think that's a good thing since I didn't walk into it with many expectations.
He made a movie out of the book, and this is a feat. Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone was basically a walkthrough of the book on film and that is its largest downfall as a film. Peter Jackson had some balls, ostensibly, and made a movie out of the book instead of a live-action reading.
You DO NOT need to (or even want to) read the books before you watch the movie. It is a wonderful 3 hours, worth every penny it costs to get in.
*WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD*
*NO, SERIOUSLY, SPOILERS, DON'T LOOK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THINGS*
----------------------------------
Boromir doesn't touch the ring, only the chain.
The Balrog was uber-cool.
My favorite character, Gollum, will have a bigger role later on, but I think he was done marvellously in the film. I absolutely cannot wait for his bigger role in future.
--------------------------------
*END SPOILERS*
Liv Tyler was actually good, an absolute shock. Cate Blanchett was great. Hell, Elijah Wood was pretty good and Rudy rocked!
All 3 films are done, so it doesn't matter if FotR only makes $50 million, they're all coming out. w00t!
Titanic is the highest grossing film of all time, I'm not sweating it's non-record breaking status.
p.s. I liked the film quite a bit. It's been years since I read the books too. That "worked" for me. I wasn't constantly comparing the movie to the book. I am going to reread The Hobbit and FotR before the next part comes out. You think the hype is huge now? It will be over two years before this dies down.
Okay I saw the movie. It does end at the end of Fellowship. It only goes into the others enough to know where everyone is headed.
I read the books and liked the movie. I got rather wrapped up in it. My wife had not read them and didn't understand a lot of what was going on. I think you don't get an idea of how long the journey was. They were four days underground and in the elven woods all winter. Also Sam looked into the water too. I could go on....
They rewrote some parts of it. Made other things a little too obvious. It may be too much story to get into even three hours.
So, no one knows what I'm talking about regarding the nine who rode horses in the movie? As far as how they got to be how they are I mean?
I recall there was a brief description in the movie, but I was not absorbing everything that was said, as it was said, because I was trying to piece everything together while not missing any of the effects, etc. I'm a lousy multitasker, I guess!
Moogs, to answer your question about the "Ringwraiths",
This is Gandalf explaining things to Frodo: [quote]
"'The Enemy still lacks on thing to give him strength and knowledge to beat down all resistance, break the last defences and cover all the lands in a second darkness. He lacks the One Ring.'
'The Three, fairest of all, the Elf-lords hid from him, and his hand never touched them or sullied them. Seven the Dwarf-kings possessed, but three he has recovered, and the others the dragons have consumed. Nine he gave to Mortal Men, proud and great, and so ensnared them. Long ago they fell under the dominion of the One, and they became Ringwraiths, shadows under his great Shadow, his most terrible servants. Long ago. It is many a year since the Nine walked abroad. Yet who knows? As the Shadow grows once more, they too may walk again. But come! We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.'" <hr></blockquote>
The fascinating thing about LOTR and the 'mythology' from which it grew in the transition from Celtic/ Norse legend to a more Bible-compatible story. Tolkien spent several decades originating and defining his stories and the work from which LOTR came (published as The Silmatillion plus other volumes) changes over the years.
The hierarchy of good and evil runs thus:
Overall there is God (Eru) who creates the angelic orders. Those involved in The Silmarillion and LOTR being the Valar (most powerful) and the Maiar (helpers of the Valar). One vala rebelled and became Morgoth. Sauron - his principal servant - was a very powerful Maia, as were the balrogs, (although from different sub-groups). The wizards were also Maiar, but incarnated as men to suit the purposes of the war against Sauron.
The Valar are the Classic Greek/ Roman/ Norse Gods, more or less, explained as angelic powers with distinct roles to play in the governance of Earth.
These angelic orders are quite distinct from the races created to inhabit the Earth; namely Elves and Men. Other races such as Dwarves, Ents and possibly Hobbits are additions to the primary two races. Orcs were almost certainly bred from elves.
By the time of LOTR Sauron is the principal force of evil in the world and has rebuilt his kingdom and ambitions along Morgoth's lines. He has created the One Ring to subdue and control the others and thus those who wear them (3 for the Elves, 7 for Dwarves and 9 for Men): Hence the 9 Ring - Wraiths. Incidentally it might seem (taken from other sources including Tolkien's replies to letters) that Sauron sees hinmself as Morgoth by this time and that the 9 ringwraiths are his equivalent to Morgoth's 7 balrogs. The power in the ring is a large part of Sauron's native power and by regaining it he would not only be able to subdue Middle Earth completely, but also (again derived from Tolkien's letters I believe) attack the Valar too, in a suicidal bid to hasten Morgoth's return.
Unfortunately, it was an extremely frustrating experience because the sound system in the theater sucked big time. The surround sound wasn't working at all and it sound like only the right front speaker was working most of the time. Two complaints to the management didn't help at all even though one of the guys said, "yeah, it does sound a little off".
It was horrible. When rocks were crashing there wasn't even so much as a thud. The horse's screeches weren't loud. None of the sound effects came through at all.
You know that part in the trailer where, in the Mines of Moria, Pippin knocks the skeleton into the well and the drums go dum, Dum, DUM DUM DUM DM DUM. That part didn't come through at all.
I was more pissed because I wanted the people around me to enjoy it and I just didn't think they could without the sound.
I'm never going back to that theater again. I think I'll go to the Ziegfield in Manhattan and watch it - one more time.
After working in customer service positions I have no problems at all with getting funds back.
On Topic:
I'm re-reading the trilogy now (I first read them in middle school) and the movie has omitted some things (Tom Bombadil, anyone? ), fudged parts to make for a better movie (Frodo figuring out the "password" instead of Gandalf, being surrounded by Orcs when the Balrog coms instead of separated from them by fire, etc...).
I'm glad Peter Jackson did take a bit of artistic latitude because the movie is fantastic, and with the condensed account reaching 3 hours I think a true interpretation of the first book would easily take 7-8 hours.
I think in the books that it is Gandalf that guesses the password based on a suggestion given by one of the hobbits< I think other than Frodo.
SUPER BIG SPOILER COMING UP++
Also, in the books, Sam takes possession of the ring at the end of the twoo towers... so, obviously, he seems to touch it
END SPOILER
Someone mentioned Gandalf seeing the eye, that is when he grazes the Palantir (crystal ball) of Saruman, not when he touches the ring.
GOOD POINTS:
good movie, didn't wollow in fantasy smuckiness and was tough and dark so that it seemed serious
It really gave a sense of need for speed which sometimes was lost in the books and all its wandering and stopping
Maintained the most important part of the books and that was an epic feel: the feeling of a world at stake.
BAD POINTS:
action was way too fast, there was very little breathing space, and in the books their travelling was done over a long grueling time.
He could have stressed the wear and tear of travell and slowed the film down abit and made an intermission (I had to pee from minute one and waited for all three hours---I couldn't stand straight at the end of the movie)
ALSO, (SPOILER FOLLOWING) and very importantly, in the books the wraiths are not beaten off by Aragorn. I think that this significantly reduces their sense of intimidation and fear. How will they carry the FEAR that they need to induce in the rest of the epic if they can, all of them, be beaten off by one man a sword and some torches????!!!!
ALSO: The Orcs are not wearing the hand of Saruman, which means that the distinction between the Mordor Orcs and the Isengard orcs will not play a role in the movies, though I think that it is minor, it is the kind of enhancement that makes the epic that much deeper and should be kept.
It is very good as a film though, and I was heard to utter, on the way out "AWESOME"
I hope that the ents are done well, because they sure could look damn foolish (if they look too much like trees).... if he keeps them at all in the movie.
Aah ... but mainly it made me reread the books again (must easily be the third time) and I do love them.... even if lembas gets alittle old.
<strong>ALSO: The Orcs are not wearing the hand of Saruman, which means that the distinction between the Mordor Orcs and the Isengard orcs will not play a role in the movies, though I think that it is minor, it is the kind of enhancement that makes the epic that much deeper and should be kept.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They do wear the White Hand, or at least the Uruk-Hai do ... they wear it in face-paint on their foreheads, rather than on their shields as in the book. Also, remember that when Saruman asks Lurtz "to whom do you owe your allegiance" Lurtz says "Saruman."
So the Isengard/Mordor rivalry may play a part yet ... we'll have to see when the Two Towers comes out.
I re-read book one before I saw the movie, so it was fairly fresh in my mind.
The following are not really spoilers, but I do mention a couple of scenes from the movie. So reader beware ...
A lot was left out - had to, if we didn't want a 10 hour movie. There are a few things included that were not in the book. The party scene could have been better. I kept thinking "Irish Hobbits?" The continuity problem with the "horse chase scene" was annoying, but I got over it.
---
All the acting was excellent. Couldn't really fault the characterisations, given the limitations of a 3 hour movie.
I think one problem is that those who have not read the books may be confused about what the hell it all means. After all, book one pretty much sets things up. The action is in books two and three.
In Australia this movie is rated M. Yet there were young children in the audience, who not only would not understand the story, but probably got nightmares from some of the images.
Will see it again in a few weeks, and will buy the dvd when it comes out - rumour has it that around 30 minutes will be added to the dvd version.
[quote]Will see it again in a few weeks, and will buy the dvd when it comes out - rumour has it that around 30 minutes will be added to the dvd version <hr></blockquote>
<strong>I think one problem is that those who have not read the books may be confused about what the hell it all means. After all, book one pretty much sets things up. The action is in books two and three.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I took my girlfriend to see it; she has not read the books. She liked it a lot, and wasn't confused by it at all. I only had to "help her out" once during the movie. When the Fellowship was approaching the Falls of Rauros she gripped my forearm in fear; I had to tell her "don't worry; they know the waterfall is there."
Also, after the movie she said she was confused about Merry and Pippin's names. She didn't get that "Pippin" was a nickname for "Peregrin," etc.
Comments
LOTR is six books published in three volumes to make one big book. The three volumes are Fellowship...Two Towers and Return of the Kings.
You could almost cut them anywhere so it doesn't bother me at all that the movie cuts into Two Towers or anything like that.
Is this correct? That would make sense given the fact there are three volumes, one presumably covered by each movie.
On a side-note, can someone clear something up for me...
The 9 Wraiths (sp?) who rode the black horses in the movie...those were originally the 9 men who, like the elves and the wizards, had been given their own rings during the time that preceeded the ring of power...and when they turned sides and vowed to find the ring of power, that is when they became the beings we saw on the horses...right?
My recollection is that all 9 of them were involved in that "white water" scene, but I can't remember for sure. Trying not to spoil any part of the movie for those who haven't seen it...can anyone tell me if I am understanding the background correctly?
<strong>this movie is the second book in a trilogy, but the first book is entirely self-contained. it probives some background for the second and third books, but that is easily covered.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's based on the first volume of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring, not the second volume. We'll get to see The Two Towers in December 2002.
You're probably thinking of The Hobbit ("There and Back Again"), which is something of an introduction to Middle Earth. It chronicles Bilbo Baggins' adventures some 50 years before the events in the Lord of the Rings books, and how he came to possess the One Ring. It's good background material, but the movie fills in everything someone who hasn't read it needs to know.
[Whoops, missed the posts that already cleared this up.]
[ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: Daver ]</p>
He made a movie out of the book, and this is a feat. Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone was basically a walkthrough of the book on film and that is its largest downfall as a film. Peter Jackson had some balls, ostensibly, and made a movie out of the book instead of a live-action reading.
You DO NOT need to (or even want to) read the books before you watch the movie. It is a wonderful 3 hours, worth every penny it costs to get in.
*WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD*
*NO, SERIOUSLY, SPOILERS, DON'T LOOK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THINGS*
----------------------------------
Boromir doesn't touch the ring, only the chain.
The Balrog was uber-cool.
My favorite character, Gollum, will have a bigger role later on, but I think he was done marvellously in the film. I absolutely cannot wait for his bigger role in future.
--------------------------------
*END SPOILERS*
Liv Tyler was actually good, an absolute shock. Cate Blanchett was great. Hell, Elijah Wood was pretty good and Rudy rocked!
All 3 films are done, so it doesn't matter if FotR only makes $50 million, they're all coming out. w00t!
Titanic is the highest grossing film of all time, I'm not sweating it's non-record breaking status.
<a href="http://www.lordoftherings.net/legend/downloads/downloads.html"; target="_blank">http://www.lordoftherings.net/legend/downloads/downloads.html</a>;
p.s. I liked the film quite a bit. It's been years since I read the books too. That "worked" for me. I wasn't constantly comparing the movie to the book. I am going to reread The Hobbit and FotR before the next part comes out. You think the hype is huge now? It will be over two years before this dies down.
I read the books and liked the movie. I got rather wrapped up in it. My wife had not read them and didn't understand a lot of what was going on. I think you don't get an idea of how long the journey was. They were four days underground and in the elven woods all winter. Also Sam looked into the water too. I could go on....
They rewrote some parts of it. Made other things a little too obvious. It may be too much story to get into even three hours.
It was funny as hell.
So, no one knows what I'm talking about regarding the nine who rode horses in the movie? As far as how they got to be how they are I mean?
I recall there was a brief description in the movie, but I was not absorbing everything that was said, as it was said, because I was trying to piece everything together while not missing any of the effects, etc. I'm a lousy multitasker, I guess!
This is Gandalf explaining things to Frodo: [quote]
"'The Enemy still lacks on thing to give him strength and knowledge to beat down all resistance, break the last defences and cover all the lands in a second darkness. He lacks the One Ring.'
'The Three, fairest of all, the Elf-lords hid from him, and his hand never touched them or sullied them. Seven the Dwarf-kings possessed, but three he has recovered, and the others the dragons have consumed. Nine he gave to Mortal Men, proud and great, and so ensnared them. Long ago they fell under the dominion of the One, and they became Ringwraiths, shadows under his great Shadow, his most terrible servants. Long ago. It is many a year since the Nine walked abroad. Yet who knows? As the Shadow grows once more, they too may walk again. But come! We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.'" <hr></blockquote>
[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: kaboom ]</p>
The hierarchy of good and evil runs thus:
Overall there is God (Eru) who creates the angelic orders. Those involved in The Silmarillion and LOTR being the Valar (most powerful) and the Maiar (helpers of the Valar). One vala rebelled and became Morgoth. Sauron - his principal servant - was a very powerful Maia, as were the balrogs, (although from different sub-groups). The wizards were also Maiar, but incarnated as men to suit the purposes of the war against Sauron.
The Valar are the Classic Greek/ Roman/ Norse Gods, more or less, explained as angelic powers with distinct roles to play in the governance of Earth.
These angelic orders are quite distinct from the races created to inhabit the Earth; namely Elves and Men. Other races such as Dwarves, Ents and possibly Hobbits are additions to the primary two races. Orcs were almost certainly bred from elves.
By the time of LOTR Sauron is the principal force of evil in the world and has rebuilt his kingdom and ambitions along Morgoth's lines. He has created the One Ring to subdue and control the others and thus those who wear them (3 for the Elves, 7 for Dwarves and 9 for Men): Hence the 9 Ring - Wraiths. Incidentally it might seem (taken from other sources including Tolkien's replies to letters) that Sauron sees hinmself as Morgoth by this time and that the 9 ringwraiths are his equivalent to Morgoth's 7 balrogs. The power in the ring is a large part of Sauron's native power and by regaining it he would not only be able to subdue Middle Earth completely, but also (again derived from Tolkien's letters I believe) attack the Valar too, in a suicidal bid to hasten Morgoth's return.
Anyway...I saw the movie for the second time yesterday, and I must say it is a great movie. Sure, it's not perfect, but what is?
It's still rated #1 movie at <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Title?0120737"; target="_blank">http://us.imdb.com/Title?0120737</a>;
How do you feel about that?
Personally, when compared to the up-runners (eg. Star Wars), I think it is ok!
However, you can't really compare movies of different genres. In my opinion, it is the best "fantasy" movie ever, absolutely.
[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Power Apple ]</p>
I saw it again, yesterday, myself.
Unfortunately, it was an extremely frustrating experience because the sound system in the theater sucked big time. The surround sound wasn't working at all and it sound like only the right front speaker was working most of the time. Two complaints to the management didn't help at all even though one of the guys said, "yeah, it does sound a little off".
It was horrible. When rocks were crashing there wasn't even so much as a thud. The horse's screeches weren't loud. None of the sound effects came through at all.
You know that part in the trailer where, in the Mines of Moria, Pippin knocks the skeleton into the well and the drums go dum, Dum, DUM DUM DUM DM DUM. That part didn't come through at all.
I was more pissed because I wanted the people around me to enjoy it and I just didn't think they could without the sound.
I'm never going back to that theater again. I think I'll go to the Ziegfield in Manhattan and watch it - one more time.
<a href="http://www.afi.com/tv/afi2001.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.afi.com/tv/afi2001.asp</A>;
Refund?
After working in customer service positions I have no problems at all with getting funds back.
On Topic:
I'm re-reading the trilogy now (I first read them in middle school) and the movie has omitted some things (Tom Bombadil, anyone?
I'm glad Peter Jackson did take a bit of artistic latitude because the movie is fantastic, and with the condensed account reaching 3 hours I think a true interpretation of the first book would easily take 7-8 hours.
SUPER BIG SPOILER COMING UP++
Also, in the books, Sam takes possession of the ring at the end of the twoo towers... so, obviously, he seems to touch it
END SPOILER
Someone mentioned Gandalf seeing the eye, that is when he grazes the Palantir (crystal ball) of Saruman, not when he touches the ring.
GOOD POINTS:
good movie, didn't wollow in fantasy smuckiness and was tough and dark so that it seemed serious
It really gave a sense of need for speed which sometimes was lost in the books and all its wandering and stopping
Maintained the most important part of the books and that was an epic feel: the feeling of a world at stake.
BAD POINTS:
action was way too fast, there was very little breathing space, and in the books their travelling was done over a long grueling time.
He could have stressed the wear and tear of travell and slowed the film down abit and made an intermission (I had to pee from minute one and waited for all three hours---I couldn't stand straight at the end of the movie)
ALSO, (SPOILER FOLLOWING) and very importantly, in the books the wraiths are not beaten off by Aragorn. I think that this significantly reduces their sense of intimidation and fear. How will they carry the FEAR that they need to induce in the rest of the epic if they can, all of them, be beaten off by one man a sword and some torches????!!!!
ALSO: The Orcs are not wearing the hand of Saruman, which means that the distinction between the Mordor Orcs and the Isengard orcs will not play a role in the movies, though I think that it is minor, it is the kind of enhancement that makes the epic that much deeper and should be kept.
It is very good as a film though, and I was heard to utter, on the way out "AWESOME"
I hope that the ents are done well, because they sure could look damn foolish (if they look too much like trees).... if he keeps them at all in the movie.
Aah ... but mainly it made me reread the books again (must easily be the third time) and I do love them.... even if lembas gets alittle old.
About to start the Return of the King tonight.
<strong>ALSO: The Orcs are not wearing the hand of Saruman, which means that the distinction between the Mordor Orcs and the Isengard orcs will not play a role in the movies, though I think that it is minor, it is the kind of enhancement that makes the epic that much deeper and should be kept.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They do wear the White Hand, or at least the Uruk-Hai do ... they wear it in face-paint on their foreheads, rather than on their shields as in the book. Also, remember that when Saruman asks Lurtz "to whom do you owe your allegiance" Lurtz says "Saruman."
So the Isengard/Mordor rivalry may play a part yet ... we'll have to see when the Two Towers comes out.
[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: CaseCom ]</p>
I re-read book one before I saw the movie, so it was fairly fresh in my mind.
The following are not really spoilers, but I do mention a couple of scenes from the movie. So reader beware ...
A lot was left out - had to, if we didn't want a 10 hour movie. There are a few things included that were not in the book. The party scene could have been better. I kept thinking "Irish Hobbits?" The continuity problem with the "horse chase scene" was annoying, but I got over it.
---
All the acting was excellent. Couldn't really fault the characterisations, given the limitations of a 3 hour movie.
I think one problem is that those who have not read the books may be confused about what the hell it all means. After all, book one pretty much sets things up. The action is in books two and three.
In Australia this movie is rated M. Yet there were young children in the audience, who not only would not understand the story, but probably got nightmares from some of the images.
Will see it again in a few weeks, and will buy the dvd when it comes out - rumour has it that around 30 minutes will be added to the dvd version.
[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: xenu ]</p>
That's good to hear.
I can just see it..
"The 4 1/2 Hr movie you never saw!"
I also want to see all 3 back-to-back on the big screen after they are all out!
<strong>I think one problem is that those who have not read the books may be confused about what the hell it all means. After all, book one pretty much sets things up. The action is in books two and three.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I took my girlfriend to see it; she has not read the books. She liked it a lot, and wasn't confused by it at all. I only had to "help her out" once during the movie. When the Fellowship was approaching the Falls of Rauros she gripped my forearm in fear; I had to tell her "don't worry; they know the waterfall is there."
Also, after the movie she said she was confused about Merry and Pippin's names. She didn't get that "Pippin" was a nickname for "Peregrin," etc.