There was a commercial on TV just now, in which a narrator intones:

"Before there were Hobbits... There was WILLOW! Now on Special Edition DVD!"

Good to finally know that Tolkien was a third-rate Lucas clone.

Good lord. I mean, I understand what the catch phrase is trying to say, and it makes sense for Willow's marketers to try to capitalize off the LOTR hoopla, but really, that's just such a wrong-headed statement that it's quite vexing.

That's hilarious! What a moronic commerical.

"There was WILLOW!"

What the hell is willow? Or shoud that be WILLOW!

Heh, what are the chances that three Q23 posters would all hit the send button at the exact same instant?

WILLOW! be this:

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0096446


The combination of Ron Howard direction with George Lucas writing was a hint of such future cutsey Lucas to come as Jar-Jar Binks.

Then again, I guess the Ewoks did that first.

I liked Willow. Bad tag line for a commercial though.

"Then again, I guess the Ewoks did that first."

"Before there were EWOKS...there was
TICKLE ME ELMO!"

Uh, wait. That's not right.

"Before there were EWOKS...there were
RING-TAILED LEMURS!"

"Before there were Hobbits... Before there was Willow... THERE WAS MON-CHI-CHI: THE MOVIE! Now available on bootleg VHS."

What about the Burger King kids meals with the Lord of the Rings action figures.... i really hope this movie doesnt suck... because i know Jar Jar and Star Wars 5 probably will!

etc

"What about the Burger King kids meals with the Lord of the Rings action figures.... i really hope this movie doesnt suck..."

I know what you mean. I hope they don't overuse the corny fantasy/medieval line "BEHOLD!" the way they do in that commercial.

"Burger King Kids meals"

I have an onion ring in my pocketses! It is hot!
Ow! Ow! It hurts us!

I can't wait to hear the "Have It Your Way" song
as sung by Tom Bombadil.

That is gonna ROCK.

Sadly, Bombadil is absent from the LOTR movie. Cut for content.

What? How are the hobbits supposed to escape from the forest and barrows, or did those parts get cut too? If so, how are the hobbits supposed to get their nifty Westmarch made-for-merchandising blades?

- Alan

>Sadly, Bombadil is absent from the LOTR movie. Cut for content.

It's about the only cut though -- it's a really faithful adaptation. The only other changes from the book are some tweaks to Golum's origin and an increased presence for Arawen (which actually helps to better explain the final events in the story).

Stefan

"The only other changes from the book are some tweaks to Golum's origin"

Gollum.

"and an increased presence for Arawen"

Arwen. Jeez Deslok! ;)

"(which actually helps to better explain the final events in the story)."

I'm guessing you saw a script, because I can't think how having her around would accomplish that. But don't tell me please. I'll take your word for it.

I assumed the increased presence of Arwen was there so they could have an increased presence of Liv Tyler.

-Andrew

Bombadil was cut, I read somewhere, because he's not crucial to the plot of the Fellowship (rather, he's crucial to Tolkien's overall world story and history, but not the films).

I think they're extremely smart to cut Bombadil and focus on the Aragorn/Arwen subplot. JRR didn't exactly write a "movie-friendly" novel like some novelists do these days.

The Harry Potter movie is a perfect example of slavishly following a novel to create a mediocre movie. If they took that ethic to LoTR, we'd have endless travelling with Gandalf dribbling out tiny bits of Middle-Earth history. Viewers would be bored out of their minds.

Many of the virtues of LoTR simply cannot make the leap from prose to other mediums.

>I assumed the increased presence of Arwen was there so they could have an increased presence of Liv Tyler.

I don't think so, although it probably helped induce her to accept the role. It's not as if she's hanging out with the fellowship, and thrown into the plot in major ways -- there's just a handful of additional scenes with her in them, which were almost implied in the novel(s). Tolkien always intended Lord of the Rings to be, in part, a love story, and yet he didn't highlight her presence in many scenes. The movie just does a better job at doing so, without (in my opinion) betraying Tolkien's intentions.

I'm so happy about the fact that the violence hasn't been toned down -- this is finally a high budget sci-fi/fantasy movie for adults -- yet I'm concerned that Jackson will have to tone down the violence for the remaining two movies in the series, to broaden access. Bah - everyone go see it.

Stefan

"How are the hobbits supposed to escape from the forest and barrows, or did those parts get cut too? If so, how are the hobbits supposed to get their nifty Westmarch made-for-merchandising blades?"

**********SPOILER**********************
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v

The Barrow Wights are gone as well. Evidently the trip from The Shire to Bree has been seriously compressed. The Hobbits now get their swords from Strider.


v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
*************SPOILER OVER*********************

"The Harry Potter movie is a perfect example of slavishly following a novel to create a mediocre movie."

Harry Potter fudged a fair bit to be sure, as the novels aren't exactly movie friendly either. Ah, but I digress. How about them elves? ;)

- Alan

I think the reason Arwen's role was beefed up is, simply, to have a larger female lead. There are no female characters in the LOTR books who get much time or character development, although Eowyn probably fares best. (Galadriel is really only there for awe and exposition.)

What about She-Gandalf and FrodoWoman?

Before there were dinosaurs... There was JURASSIC PARK III.

Possible SPOILER, though it may be well known


*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Arwen also takes on the role played by Glorfindel in the book. She is the one at the crossing of the river when the Nine are pursuing Frodo and trying to tempt him to cross into their world.

Chris

Arwen, annoyingly, replaces Glorfindel, from what I've been told.

Glorfindel has been completely cut

Bastards!

"I think the reason Arwen's role was beefed up is, simply, to have a larger female lead."

i think that would be the closest answer. from what i heard, peter jackson seems to have some sorta fetish for arwen, as he kinda went overboard (in my eyes, arwen's role shouldn't be expanded ANY) first by replacing glorfindel (elf lord)with arwen..then giving her a sword which averts sauron's eye(????) or something like that...then putting her in a battle scene (or two) at helm's deep (what were they thinking?!), however, i think they cut this as the fight sequences with her looked so pathetic that they had to do away ith it (thank god, they're supposed to ahve put them now in the bloopers), but i could be wrong.

someone said that there were not alot of changes from the text, but they're are, a saw a list somewhere..but i can't remember...mmm...maybe i'll look again..
i think peter jackson should've stuck tot he etext a little more..i havn't seen it, but..things don't sound too good...but i'm a bit of a purist..
the only major change tht i agree with is....

spoiler..sorta...

..

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
the inclusion of the last alliance as the opening sequence..but then again, i wouldn't sayt hat's changing the text...jsut including some froma nother book...
lol...now im rambling...
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.

From what I'm remembering after rereading this over the summer, Gollum doesn't actually appear at all in Fellowship. Am I nuts? He's alluded to constantly--people keep hearing him and *almost* seeing him as he follows the Fellowship---but he never shows himself or speaks. Am I getting this wrong? He's also referred to a lot by other characters--such as when his escape from the elves is described---but this is a past event being described at the council. Right?

Does anyone know how much Gollum is in the movie?

>Does anyone know how much Gollum is in the movie?

Your recollection is correct, but they did insert Gollum into the movie for a few cameos, just so people could follow what was going on better.

Stefan

Arwen taking Glorfindel's role won't bother me if they can do a decent job of giving her "presence," in other words making sure she comes across as a not-to-be-messed-with elf lor.., er, lady. I really do hope they can pull it off.

By my recollection, Strider and Frodo figure out that Gollum is following them down the river. I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to sneak in a fleeting cameo at that point.

In other news, Mithrandir's role has been given to Gandalf. ;)

- Alan

Gollum: "my preciousssss.... yoosa elves gonna die, dem Nazgul be da bombad!"

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooo...

"He's alluded to constantly--people keep hearing him and *almost* seeing him as he follows the Fellowship---but he never shows himself or speaks."

Actually, Samwise sees him when the fellowship is cruising down the Anduin, after leaving Lothlorien. And Galdalf recounts the the events surround the hunt for Gollum and his imprisonment in the beginning of the book. So there are a few opportunities for him to appear in the movie.

He also appears in the tree at the beginning of Lothlorien. Mainly as two baleful eyes and a spindly short shadow that the elves then give chase to. Frodo sees him then.

Ben's right, there's also Gandalf and Aragorn's recollections, which are pretty vivid, his imprisonment, and Sam sees him paddling atop a log. Aragorn almost catches him at the shore one night too.

Lastly, there's his whole Origin Tale as told by Gandalf in, what? Chapter 2?

You're losing it Green. Assuming you had it, of course.
;)

-Andrew

I just heard a comparably idiotic advertising slogan on TV last night:

"MONOPOLY TYCOON: THE WORLD'S FIRST COMPETITIVE SIM!"

Yeah, but to the audience the ad was trying to reach, "sim" doesn't mean tanks/planes/subs/etc.,

Ad Guy: But if we say that the hardcore PC geeks will think we're idiotic!
Ad Guy 2: Let 'em.

Wasn't there a multiplayer SimCity at some point though?

-Andrew

M.U.L.E., baby, M.U.L.E.!

Ya know, I just love it when I see ANY computer game advertised on TV.

"You're losing it Green. Assuming you had it, of course. "

hey, pal, I acknowledged in my post that Gollum is referred to by other characters, that he's "alluded to constantly".

But to Frodo and the other hobbits, in the first book, this is all he is...a story, a menace they've heard of. And Tolkien goes to great lengths to keep Gollum in the shadows throughout the whole book. It adds to the tension and mystery of his character that the Fellowship never actually sees him full-on or confronts him. He's always just lurking somewhere nearby. So, to me, it'd make sense for the audience in the film to experience this the same way as Frodo--by not seeing him yet. I know he'll come up in back story information from Gandalf and others, but why show him to us yet? I want my first vision of Gollum to be through Frodo's eyes.

Jeezus I can't believe I just typed all this. How did this happen to me? Why couldn't my parents have taught me sports or something?

Hehe, good comeback and good post though, and I agree.

I'm hoping he keeps it like the book then... during the flashback (origin) he's supposed to look like a dirty hobbit. If they show Riddles in the Dark (which they should) he should be 90% dark or more. We should oly see him as a shadow in that tree scene and on the log a'paddling.

How about those Niners? Garcia burning it up and against the Rams for first place? You must be stoked Green!

-Andrew

What about the Bears?

DA BEARS! 9 - 2 BABY!

Forget the cheese Rams. and Da Bears beat the Niners earlier this year.

Da Bears! (I'm a bandwagon fan!)

also, Arwen/Glorifindel is only supposed to be in about 5 minutes of FoTR. Though I dont know why people are complaining with Liv Tyler being in the movie.. i mean isn't she like... you know... the hot sexy elf girl? or is it Cate Blanchett as the hot sophisticated sexy elf woman?

etc

"Jeezus I can't believe I just typed all this. How did this happen to me? Why couldn't my parents have taught me sports or something?"

Loser. Why don't you do something a little more productive? Like eat at Burger King so you can collect those light-up Lord of the Rings goblets that look really cool when you put ginger ale or beer in them. Not that I'd know anything about that sort of thing, though. I'm way too busy playing hockey and having sex with women.

DAH Bearss (long "s" sound)

Hey, Mtkafka, if you're going to jump on the bandwagon, you might as well pronounce it right. ;)

The Bears are going to lose on Sunday. I mean, you guys are aware of that, right?

-Andrew

Hey, Bub, I'm not even a Bears fan. You want me to get into a my team/your team thing, you'll need to find me a Steelers fan. I'm just interested in proper elocution. ;)

And, FWIW, I've never seen a team have a run of luck in one season like the Bears have had this year.

Conveniently, I'm also a big Steelers fan Jason.

The Bears have indeed been very lucky this year. But a part of that luck is named Urlacher. That guy is just amazing.

Sunday is going to be my kind of game. A contest for first place in the black n' blue division, a rivalry dating back to 1919, and Lambeau in December (though sadly, nowhere near cold enough). Gotta love it.

Pass the brats.

-Andrew

"Conveniently, I'm also a big Steelers fan Jason."

A Cheesehead Steelers fan! Good Lord, Bub, how do you live with yourself? :)

Urlacher is indeed amazing, but he hasn't made any field-goal kickers miss, and Hail Mary's and onsider kicks bounce right into his teammates arms.

Agree with you about the Black 'n Blue division though. It always makes me think back to Butkus and Nitchke roaming the line of scrimmage and games with 10-6 final scores that were really GREAT games.

Gimme a Polish with that brat, will ya?

"A Cheesehead Steelers fan! Good Lord, Bub, how do you live with yourself?"

I needed someone to root for in the 70's? Hehe. I've actually just got a real affinity for all the bluecollar/industrial teams. Pack, Bears, Steelers, Browns. Artificial turf/dome teams need never apply.

Urlacher also just has one of those REAL football names. Like Nitchke, Butkus, and the best one of all, Bronko Nagurski.

"Gimme a Polish with that brat, will ya?"

Bam! Chicago/Wisconsin in a nutshell, and likely drowned in saurkraut. Just add beer.

-Andrew

"I needed someone to root for in the 70's? Hehe. I've actually just got a real affinity for all the bluecollar/industrial teams. Pack, Bears, Steelers, Browns. Artificial turf/dome teams need never apply."

I can see it. Of course, The Steelers played on a rug until this year. We Browns fans used to chide the Steelers fans for that. Now we make fun of those giant ketchup bottles (which I actually think are kind of goofy neat).

"Bam! Chicago/Wisconsin in a nutshell, and likely drowned in saurkraut. Just add beer."

Oh yeah. What made that old Superfans routine on SNL so good was how devastatingly accurate it was. I swear a heart attack wouldn't even slow down some of those guys I used to go to Bears games with.

I wondered where that reek was coming from, oh yeah it was that damn cheesehead!

BTW, PACKERS GOIN DOWN, DOWN DOWN DOWN!

etc

"PACKERS GOIN DOWN, DOWN DOWN DOWN!"

... to New Orleans!
(Actually, I don't believe that. But I also don't think they'll be surrendering to the Bears on Sunday.)

And Levine, you just totally nailed me on the Steelers turf thing. I'm going to pretend it didn't happen.

-Andrew

Okay, enough football talk.
Football talk on a Tolkein thread is freakin' blasphemy anyway.

ACTUAL CLIPS FROM FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING!!!!
at Aint It Cool. Don't watch if you want to remain spoiler free. Scroll down to the bottom of the page.

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=10976

Man, I hate to get my hopes up too high, but this movie is just looking fucking great.

The original 1943 version:

http://www.murrayandsons.com/lotr.mov

Hahah! Thanks! You saved me some money.

"Screenplay by Raymond Chandler"
Hehe

"Man, I hate to get my hopes up too high, but this movie is just looking fucking great."

So far, the early reviews (Newsweek and Entertainment Weekly, if I'm remembering correctly) have been absolutely glowing. Both come from people that have never read the books, though, so we have yet to see anything from the toughest critics (fans).

I read the LotR series back in Jr. High, so I'm hoping enough of it fell out of my head to not overanalyze it for flaws. I have a horrible time seeing a movie after reading the book. Jurassic Park and Hunt For Red October are both movies that are great on their own, but are disappointing if you read the books. There are tons of others, but I'm not going to spew them forth.

That's the same reason I hope Ender's Game is never made into a movie; no film could ever do it justice. Get the best director, best actors, and $500 million and it still wouldn't compare to the film in my head when I reread it every couple of months.

Oh, only movie that is better than the book: Last of the Mohicans.

Hardly the only movie that's better the book. Exhibit A: The Godfather

Good call.
I'd throw in The Exorcist as well. Some might argue 2001. Oh lord, lets not forget about Jaws!

-Andrew

Er, let me qualify that: only movie I've seen that is better than the book I've read.

Never read The Godfather, Exorcist, or Jaws. 2001, well, I can go either way on that one. I think in that case, reading the book actually enhanced the movie viewing pleasure. You knew a lot of the stuff that wasn't explained in the movie very well.

>Oh lord, lets not forget about Jaws!

I think that's a terrible example. I liked the book much, much, much more than the movie. I don't know which has diminished more in stature since initial release -- the movie, since the annoying Speilbergisms are now more visible since they're more prominent in subsequent films, or the book, since Benchley went on to essentially remake the story in more and more ludicrous iterations.

Last of the Mohicans is a great call, however.

Stefan

Have to disagree completely on Jaws, Stefan. I thought Spielberg took a ludicrous story and made it good, scary fun, helped not a little by John Williams' brilliant score.

Stefan,
"Someday you and I will have a serious disagreement"

I mean, your crazy Jaws theories aside (;>), did you really like "Last of the Mohicans"?

-Andrew

>I thought Spielberg took a ludicrous story and made it good, scary fun,

Yeah, the oxygen tank go boom was a nice, subtle touch.

Why does Speilberg always change who dies in his book adaptations, anyway? He honed that practice to an art with Jurassic Park, where essentially everyone who died in the movie lived in the book, and several characters that died in the book lived in the movie. Stupid.

Jaws is an excellent movie - maybe Speilberg's best (definitely in his top 2-3), but the book was great too (and more "adult", and complex, with an interesting Hooper/Brody subplot involving an affair with Brody's wife). Several of the aspects I liked most about the movie had little/nothing to do with Speilberg, like Williams' music, Robert Shaw's performance and, in particular, the "Indianapolis speech" written entirely by Shaw himself.

>did you really like "Last of the Mohicans"?

I liked it a lot. It's an interesting period in history, during the 7 years war (which I think the Americans call the French/Indian war), when the Indians weren't really the underdogs (and you get a good feel for the period from the movie), with some great performances and Mann's usual terrific use of music (nobody uses a score more effectively than Mann).

Stefan

"Mann's usual terrific use of music (nobody uses a score more effectively than Mann)."

I agree with this, but it's precisely here that you give Spielberg too little credit for Jaws. Williams' two-note theme was ingenious, but it's how perfectly it was wedded with the action that made it so effective. It's a 180-degree contrast from Harry Potter, where William's score is not only bombastic, but used in such a poor way that it's distracting.

As for changing the ending of books around, that's an interesting point, but with books as inconsequential as Jaws and Jurassic Park, who cares, really? When I found out that he had messed around Schindler's character, particularly by creating that fictional transformation of his personality at the end, I found that more upsetting, but that's because that movie dealt with far more important subject matter than a "beach book."

Horner's Last of the Mohican's soundtrack was particularly good. A definite stand out. And it was filmed beautifully, just stunning cinematography. Lots of opportunity, given all the running. But I don't know why you think the acting was bearable... and, oh man, that horrible script.

"It's an interesting period in history, during the 7 years war (which I think the Americans call the French/Indian war), when the Indians weren't really the underdogs (and you get a good feel for the period from the movie)"

Huh? The film is very inaccurate if taken as period peice. If anything it hewed too close to the equally historically inaccurate book.

Sigh... Magua did not like film. Film make Magua angry. Magua will kill film and eat film's heart.

-Andrew

You know, sometimes when I read Qt3 and people bash a movie like Last of the Mohicans, one of the most beautifully filmed, well-acted and entertaining movies of the last ten years, I have to wonder if it isn't just to look cool. I mean really...

---

Quote:

But I don't know why you think the acting was bearable... and, oh man, that horrible script.

---

Since Stefan started it (and when I'm stuck supervising the library I wind up with too much time on my hands anyway) :), this seems like as good a place as any to mention my all-time least favorite movie ending changed from the book: The Natural, where Malamud's ending was trashed in favor of a Hollywood happy ending.

Of course even that isn't as bad as completely trashing the ENTIRE book. I think the award there goes to The Sound and The Fury where Jason Compson, one of the great dispicable characters in all of American fiction, was transformed into the hero. No wonder Faulkner despised Hollywood.

The script may not be "screenplay of the year" material, but it was by no means horrible. At worst, I'd call the script minimalistic. Most of the film has no dialog at all, and those are typically the most compelling scenes; Hawkeye and his family hiding in the grass as the French and Indians creep towards them, only to turn back at the last minute due to the grave markings. The father running through Mague and his tribe, avenging the death of his son. Alice Munro just slowly turning around and falling off the cliff after seeinf Uncas killed.

Just all beautifully shot and well acted.

Oh well, movies and books are typically liked on opinion. You can't fault another person for their's.

No Dave, I'm just as surprised as you seem to be. The looking cool part is just a happy side effect. But I'm not exaggerating when I say that I laughed out loud during "Last of the Mohicans", back in 1992 and have found the film all but unbearable to watch since then. I already admitted that the film is very pretty to look at, and romantic, but I'm surprised at your reaction. I mean, it was never well regarded, critically speaking.

But I don't think I overstated how bad the script is at all. It's filled with anachronistic language, clunky dialogue, and one-liners like the one I quoted above: "Someday you and I are going to have a serious disagreement" (spoken like an action hero, to the 2 dimensional villain).

I mean, didn't you cringe with every single 3rd person referential line Magua spoke?

-Andrew

Yes, indeed. Mann is great at integrating musical scores into his films. Heat is a good example of how he gets music to fit perfectly with screen action, be it the moody background portions during the contemplative scenes or the unforgettable downtown bank robbery beat. And you gotta love "Armenia" by the Einsturzende Neubauten. I think he also used that bit in the Insider.

"Horner's Last of the Mohican's soundtrack was particularly good."

Can't help myself- the soundtrack to Last of the Mohicans was by Trevor Jones and Randy Edelman. Edelmen's score to Gettysburg is very similar and also excellent.

Oh. You're right. I must've been thinking of "Glory" there.

>The film is very inaccurate if taken as period peice. If anything it hewed too close to the equally historically inaccurate book.

It's inaccurate in the way it depicts the fortunes of certain characters (living/dying), but one of the most accurate period movies I've ever seen at recreating the setting and environment of the time. The weapon accuracy was, of course, ludicrous, but what movie with guns hasn't exaggerated that?

>Sigh... Magua did not like film. Film make Magua angry. Magua will kill film and eat film's heart

Magua was an amazing screen villain. Complex character, well acting, and some great (apparently memorable) lines.

>It's filled with anachronistic language, clunky dialogue, and one-liners like the one I quoted above: "Someday you and I are going to have a serious disagreement" (spoken like an action hero, to the 2 dimensional villain).

None of those actually made it into the "director's cut" -- they were all purged by Mann, who was against them in the first place. There's not a single one liner remaining in Mann's version. You should really rent the DVD of that version -- I think you'll like it a lot better.

Stefan

Sounds like I would like it a lot better Stefan. And since my wife is actually a big fan of the flick, more for Day-Lewis reasons than anything you guys are talking about, I'd probably score some points at home if I went out and got it.

Hey! Next time clue me into which version of a film we're arguing about. Ok? ;)

-Andrew

Moriarty, in his review of the Lord of the Rings on http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com , said it was one of the 10 best films he's ever seen. I only mention this because the review contains one of the scariest bits of fanboy commentary I've ever read:

"If I could embrace Peter Jackson tonight to say thank you, and if I could shake his hand, I would. I would commend him on having become a world-class filmmaker, a giant. Then I would jump him, wrestle him to the ground, and eat his brain in an effort to absorb his knowledge."

Mr. Jackson might want to start hiring a bodyguard...