Movie Aesthetics

Well it only took a few days for the uruks to get to where they were in TT and the couldnt have been that far from isengard. Do we know how long it took them to get out, not exactly. How long did it take the Company to get to Amon Hen from Lorien
? At the very least 2 days, as portrayed in the film, probably more. Then elrond was also using an elf horse and probably took a more direct route then the company. The company went their way on foot and headed towards mordor in the east. They then turned back west at Amon hen. They did all this on foot.

"Then elrond was also using an elf horse and probably took a more direct route"

Don't see how. Only route he could have ridden was th esam eone Bormoir took coming north through the Gap of Rohan, only other ways are through Moria, over Caradhras or over the Mountain Pass. All of which would have been far to dangerous. And need a Lore check on exact times but I think it took Boromir at least a couple of months to get to Rivendell.

Orwell: remember that they had to make money on these films. They were appealing to all fantasy an action/adventure lovers, not just people who love the book. While we may think that doing it as closely to the book as physically possible is best, most people who haven't read the book don't. I can sympathize with PJ a lot better then you guys. Though he did make a few mistakes that can be understood by all audiences he still did an extremely good job. If the books were followed the way Many of us would like it would probably tack on a good 2-3 more hours on an already 3 hour long movie. Though that might appeal to purists and many others who loved the books, it wouldn't appeal to everyone else. A lot of LOTR's success came from people who had never read the books. Many of them are already complaining the movie is too long, imagine if they'd made it longer? They had to appeal to all types of people and critics not just the people who have read the books.

Yes petty but it didnt in the movie. In the movie we are never told, just like we are never told about several other things such as fighting in Lothlorien. For all we know it could have only taken him a few days. In the hook he lost his horse, in the movie he arrives in rivendell on one. It could have taken him much less time.

The BBC radio adaption is much, much more faithful to the book and takes 13 hours- and arguably it takes longer on radio as you require a narrator to describe rather than just showing. 13 hours is less than all 3 of PJ's special editions added together. Time is not an excuse here.

Lorient- not a huge amount of time less- still looking at about a week I'd say. And Elrond would have been passing through hostile terority close to Isengard. Plus PJ many times in the films shows the viewers maps of Middle-earth clerly indicating distances- to then ignore that in the script for the sake of convience is simply poor scripting.

We also do not know when the xchange between elrond and Arwen happened. It couldhave been earlier then when the beacons are lit.

Hey, did you guys notice that all of the elves in the movie use saddles instead of riding in the usual elf style? I was going to say something else too but I forgot it.

Well PJs version does take quite a bit out of the book and does not actually add enough to make up for it, and like you said it is already over 13 hours long all together with the EEs

What he adds is a mess. Elves at Helms Deep who mystery all die when untrained peasant Rohirrim dont. Frodo sending Sam away. Faramir marching them to Osgiliath. Not to mention cocking up Eowyn's big scene with Aragorn. Oh I could go on but its starting to set off my crabbit meter thinking of the awfulness PJ committed on that script.

None of those really add a whole lot of extra time. There is tons that is in the book and not the move and a lot of it would be pretty long sequences when displayed on scene. So your still going to add several hours to each movie easily.

I looked back and realized that......
I really need to work on my post-organizing skills.

Lorient Avandi wrote:Orwell: remember that they had to make money on these films. They were appealing to all fantasy an action/adventure lovers, not just people who love the book. While we may think that doing it as closely to the book as physically possible is best, most people who haven't read the book don't. I can sympathize with PJ a lot better then you guys. Though he did make a few mistakes that can be understood by all audiences he still did an extremely good job. If the books were followed the way Many of us would like it would probably tack on a good 2-3 more hours on an already 3 hour long movie. Though that might appeal to purists and many others who loved the books, it wouldn't appeal to everyone else. A lot of LOTR's success came from people who had never read the books. Many of them are already complaining the movie is too long, imagine if they'd made it longer? They had to appeal to all types of people and critics not just the people who have read the books.

The best parts (almost totally) were the parts that best stuck to the book, Lorient. You must read it some time and compare. Even those who actually liked the movies wanted more. Not more PJ, more Tolkien (even those who haven't read the book had they known it!)

Just to say before I go off to my barrel for the night that in my edited versions where I take out all the non Tolkien additions the films are roughly four hours shorter overall- thats four hours more Tokien we could have had. Thats the full dialogue between Gandalf and Saruman, thats Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, thats the Scouring of the Shire, or the Prince of Dol Amroth or the Grey Company. I mean four hours! Four hours of made up nonsense he added which replaces stuff Tolkien actually wrote. Inexcusable that, just inexcusable and very vain.

Ok Orwell whatever you say. I don't really care to argue right now. I think I'm going to head off to bed and resume this discussion tomorrow.

Orwell, that may be your point of view. To most of the people I have talked to have said that TT, and ROTK are the best films even though they follow the books least. A favorite part is the battle of pelennor fields and battle of helms deep. Both of those are very innacurate from a book perspective. Many people dont know and don't care about the battle of bywater. So yes from a purist point of view the parts that follow the book closest are the best. But to the people who haven't read the books, or that like the movie better, don't like those parts the best.

You must read it sometime and compare-Orwell
Oh my gosh! New discovery, there is a LOTR book! Did PJ write that too?! Cause that would be the BEST book ever!

That would be bad.

You will get used to Orwell's teasing ways Lorient. Outside of opinions expessed on the Serious Forums you are as well taking everything anyone says elsewhere with a very large pinch of salt. There is nearly always a rogueish sense of humour underlyng most things said rather than any attempt to offend.
Always worth remembering Admin's few but helpful Forum rules. In this case Rule 4 applies- 4. Don't take anything too seriously.
(I should perhaps add Admin's footnote to Rule 4 for further clarification: 'Rule #4 has been added for the benefit of new members who might not be familiar with our tongue-in-cheek posting culture. '
Here to Help as Odo says (although he never really does help you know)

Pettytyrant101 wrote:You will get used to Orwell's teasing ways Lorient. Outside of opinions expessed on the Serious Forums you are as well taking everything anyone says elsewhere with a very large pinch of salt. There is nearly always a rogueish sense of humour underlyng most things said rather than any attempt to offend.
Always worth remembering Admin's few but helpful Forum rules. In this case Rule 4 applies- 4. Don't take anything too seriously.
(I should perhaps add Admin's footnote to Rule 4 for further clarification: 'Rule #4 has been added for the benefit of new members who might not be familiar with our tongue-in-cheek posting culture. '
Here to Help as Odo says (although he never really does help you know)

I resemble that remark!

If you want to discuss the "book" Lorient, shouldn't you have at least read it first? And why the sarcasm? I was just suggesting you "might" read it.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:You will get used to Orwell's teasing ways Lorient. Outside of opinions expessed on the Serious Forums you are as well taking everything anyone says elsewhere with a very large pinch of salt. There is nearly always a rogueish sense of humour underlyng most things said rather than any attempt to offend.
Always worth remembering Admin's few but helpful Forum rules. In this case Rule 4 applies- 4. Don't take anything too seriously.
(I should perhaps add Admin's footnote to Rule 4 for further clarification: 'Rule #4 has been added for the benefit of new members who might not be familiar with our tongue-in-cheek posting culture. '
Here to Help as Odo says (although he never really does help you know)

If you are deaf to my advice, Petty, that is your problem. As to you, Lorient, I do agree with Orwell on this, I think you should try reading the book, that way you can a least comprehend what Orwell and Petty are gadding on about. No, you don't have to agree with them, I'm not saying that, just know what they're talking about. Here to help!

Lorient Avandi wrote:I hate how they made legolas. Hes just a crowd pleaser. Good looking for female Audiences then extremely overpowered for males. He never runs out of arrows and he has very little actual chararacter. The only thing I don't agree with you on is the faramir bit, don't really mindit except for how hd let's them go right after frodo tries to give it to the Nazgul, it makes no sense that he would let them go after that. The distances aren't really changed. The just shorten the screen time. It would be extremely boring if they actually showed the 20 seconds it took denethor to reach that jumping point. They just cut part of it out and skipped ahead, it's not like they turned him into Flash. Same with the uruks and elrond. They do stuff like that in movies all the time.

"Good Looking"
Understatement of the year right there!!!!

"I think you should try reading the book"
readin 4 lozers dudde.



" Don't take anything too seriously" So we shouldn't take anything too seriously, so we shouldn't take the rules too seriously thus meaning that you shouldn't take the rule about taking anything too seriously seriously? So you should take the rules seriously, ah, I've drank too much

Ally wrote:

Lorient Avandi wrote:I hate how they made legolas. Hes just a crowd pleaser. Good looking for female Audiences then extremely overpowered for males. He never runs out of arrows and he has very little actual chararacter. The only thing I don't agree with you on is the faramir bit, don't really mindit except for how hd let's them go right after frodo tries to give it to the Nazgul, it makes no sense that he would let them go after that. The distances aren't really changed. The just shorten the screen time. It would be extremely boring if they actually showed the 20 seconds it took denethor to reach that jumping point. They just cut part of it out and skipped ahead, it's not like they turned him into Flash. Same with the uruks and elrond. They do stuff like that in movies all the time.

"Good Looking"
Understatement of the year right there!!!!

"I think you should try reading the book"
readin 4 lozers dudde.



" Don't take anything too seriously" So we shouldn't take anything too seriously, so we shouldn't take the rules too seriously thus meaning that you shouldn't take the rule about taking anything too seriously seriously? So you should take the rules seriously, ah, I've drank too much

See what happens when we let young people in, Petty!

Now, now Orwell you have to be more understanding. Whilst normally I'd be the first to agree young people are just an annoying ball of unfounded certainies and mood swings young Ally did quite clearly say, "ah, I've drank too much".
Which as everyone knows is the only valid excuse in the universe. All is forgiven Ally. Bottoms up! After enough buckie they usually are- bottom up head in the gutter, good way to end a night.

Ok, I can't tell if orwell or odo are being serious. I will justsay that haveread the book.

I'm so glad we've sorted that out. Reading back through the threads I think it is clear that you have indeed read the book. Teach me for going along with Orwell. He often gets things tangled up. I also suspect he has a trouble-making gene. He's Australian, I believe, and therefore likely to be an out and out stirrrer (smartarse, that is). You know, sometimes I know when he's being silly, but I can never be sure. {{{{{Frankly I'd ban him from Forumshire if I was you, Eldo. I can now see why Dark Planet got rid of him}}}}}

I may have been a little provocative, but calling me a stirrer seems excessive. Btw if you have nothing nice to say about me, Odo, I suggest you shut up in future!

Misread that as Strider there for a second, and I was like "Hey! you're being described as a hot power-ranger (well hey he's a ranger plus he gets power!) be more grateful!)"

But back to the main issue...

"What do you all think of the way props, places, actors, etc. Looked in the movie? I think they all look very good and they stay pretty true to the way they are described in the book. Usually they only have very minor differences."

He did a good job at creating Middle Earth. The Shire looked beautiful. Minas Tirith- epic. On the whole I was transported to Middle Earth, enthralled by the beuaty and amazed at the detail!

I know a people on this forum disliked the elven locations, but I can't say I had a problem with what Alan Lee/John Howe/WETA did! A friend of mine (who is much cleverer and knowing than me) said that these locations were a complete rip off of Thomas Kinkid, but meh, I don't know who he is!

On the hole, I have much love to the movies!