Tell Me Why You Liked The LOTR Movies

thegooddoctor wrote:

Norc wrote:just watch the whole movie focusing on legolas, not because he's deadly handsome (which he is) but because it's super fun  i probably have a better and more thoughtful response but this was the first thing that popped into my head.

I might try that, but I find much of his banter with Gimli tiresome, plus that means I have to watch him jump onto a running horse by grabbing its reins and going under its torso and up the other side. And let's not forget him surfing down the stairs.

Plus he's in this scene: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1203

Norc wrote:
well, he doesn't go under his torso, but ok. valid point.

Mrs Figg wrote:the mere blink of an Eye   

thegooddoctor wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:the mere blink of an Eye   

okay, i think i'm beginning to better understand where you're coming from.

i think a good question has been raised though about your perception of the movie versus the film.

so i have a few questions i'd love for you to answer:

1. do you believe there is any significant difference between book frodo and movie frodo?

No not really. His journey and struggles are the same, his love of his friends are the same. (the turning away of Sam was a moment of madness demonstrating the seeping corruption of the Ring, and I understand why they did it) book Frodo is more assertive, and defends himself physically more, but making Frodo less like the Other Hobbits, less feisty and more fey, makes him stand out, makes him otherworldly, more Elven in a way (part my imagination and part Elijahs presence onscreen), it diferentiates him from all the other characters (on screen), e is neither a warrior like Aragorn, or a Hobbit who learns through necessity to become a fighter, like Sam does. Its unique and fresh to have a major character in a fantasy Blockbuster film that doesnt go around stabbing things or enjoying violence (ie Bilbo).

2. do you enjoy one more than the other?

I enjoy them both, one fills in the lacunae of the other, but really I have already explained this before.

3. when i asked you why you liked the LOTR trilogy so much, while you hated TH movies, you said "TH just bored me and it seemed derivatory stale and it ruins Bilbos character arc, there isnt one. Its bloated full of ridiculous Azog, Necromancer rubbish, laws of physics are suspended, no one gets hurt, the Dwarves are vulgar idiots (apart from Balin), its just cheesy, cheap and utterly tedious." i think what really bothers a lot of the people here is that these are very close to the same arguments we are using when we criticize the LOTR trilogy. the storytelling is bad, it ruins _________'s character (fill in the blank with frodo, faramir, aragorn, eowyn, merry and pippin, tree beard, gimli, elrond, galadrial, etc, etc, etc), they are bloated with lots of extra material taken from outside of the actual novels, laws of physics are suspended, gimli, merry and pippin are just comic relief, etc.

do you understand why everyone is struggling to understand where you're coming from?

No, because I genuinely do not believe the same criteria exists, I dont believe LOTR is bloated or ruins the story in any shape or form, so no, I dont understand it

i think i better understand now. you feel like the first trilogy has heart, which makes all of those problems and departures from the book not matter. whereas the hobbit trilogy doesn't have that heart. when you make the bilbo character largely unlikable, then you've really really blown it.
Exactly, the Hobbit films lack heart. They may look fair but feel foul.

Ringdrotten wrote:I don't know Italian, Mrs Figg, but I know enough French to understand the title of this most beautiful song means "With you I will leave"



Let us leave to wonderful lands beyond and care little about this crabbit lot :DWhile I had my issues with how Frodo was portrayed, I couldn't agree more about the trilogy as a whole - I'll love it until the day I die :)Three times :cheers:for you, Figg, I've said it before but I'll say it again: It is nice to have someone around here who almost 100% share my views on both trilogies

halfwise wrote:Blimey, I go off for dinner a few hours and you people have filled up pages.

Am I the only one [edit: except for RingRotten] who instantly understood where Mrs Figg was coming from?  I think she put it very clearly - and Petty understood but it's not in his nature to back away from a strictly logical argument.

Book Frodo may have been a more heroic, but he was also, well....boring.  His character never really congealed the way the other characters did - never did something that made you think 'oh, that's Frodo all over.  Good ole Frodo.'   I think the movie stumbled into a Frodo which, though equally boring, is a rather better defined personality than in the book.  Figgs read him as a rather pure innocent character (which I think was in Elijah's performance rather than the script).  I honestly have a hard time understanding why people are so attached to Frodo, he just wasn't that interesting in the book.  It's changes in other characters that set my teeth on edge.

Anyway, I can see this interpretation and I suspect many who like the movie were able to step back from the book and accept whatever was in the performances.