h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Has anybody else been to see it yet? What do you think?

I just got back from the cinema - blown away by the effects and the cinematography and the performances - really very impressed. It was visually stunning, and I found it utterly gripping - the best part of three hours flew by.

And yet, and yet, being a LotR can I live with the way they played so fast and loose with the plot? The general thrust of Tolkein's narrative was there, but they changed so much of the detail, altering the motivation of central characters.

I won't go into detail, and I suggest that if anybody does they make sure to head it up with a 'spoiler' warning.

I loved it, and yet at the same time I found it frustrating.

I'm going to have to see it again before I really know what to think.

I saw it too. Enjoyed it immensely although I didn't expect too. It is not the book and never can be. It just can't be as rich in detail. Enjoy it for what it is. A great, simplified retelling of the tale in a different language.

I personally loved it.

*spoilier warning*












Arwen did not have as much of an expanded role as I'd been led to believe. I like the broadening of Saruman's part as it adds to the film - someone who is not familiar with the plot might get a little bored with the film if they simply wandered around in a linear fashion so I thought the cutting into grand scenes of Saruman's machinations during such periods helped grip you into the story, reminding you that there's some heavy dark s**t happening too.

Wasn't sure about Gandalf simply telling him where the ring was though. Personally I thought they could have done more with the coundil of Elrond too (some of that was a little wooden. What was Elrond doing saying "Men are Weak". He's half man himself isn't he. He didn't come across as much of the good guy as he's supposed to be. I was slightly disappointed that they didn't mention Galadriel's ring also as that is pretty core stuff really.

Why is it that in every dramatised version of the book they miss out Fog on the Barrow downs? What's so wrong with that bit?











*END OF SPOILER*


Anyhow, I saw it with two Tolkien newbies (my GF and her daughter) and both are now gagging to read the book. That is a triumph in itself as far as I'm concerned.

As with all films the book is better but that makes the film merely *brilliant* rather than *genius* for me

As you said the film is visually stunning. Moria particularly was *awesome*. Can't wait to see the next instalment.

Orcus

I thought the 'men are weak' bit was inspired - I thought it linked in Isildur and all the mythic backstory to the 'present' action really well, plus gave more of a reason why the human characters are liable to be tempted, and made Frodo seem all the more heroic - not because he's doing in orcs left right and centre, but because he has the strength of character to be the Ringbearer.

Thoroughly enjoyed it; it's not the best film ever or anything, but it does a wonderful job of making a coherent, flowing and thoroughly watchable cinematic treatment of the first part of the trilogy.

The locations were stunning, the special effects and trickery to scale the hobbit actors etc down to size were amazing and the balrog... Well, jaw-dropping.

Can't wait for the next one... my preciousssssss.

It had the potential to be spectacular. Much of the movie was spectacular. There were some pretty disappointing parts. They changed far more than was necessary.

I really like the bits in Moria. I don't know why Pippin pushed the body into the well instead of a rock. Still, all the Moria stuff was great.

I didn't much care for how they repeated dialogue in flashbacks. It was kind of silly.

I didn't like any of the Lothlorien stuff. The acting was bad. They cut many of the best bits. I thought the sets looked like they were straight out of Home Depot rather than anything elvish.

They cut the relationship building between Legolas and Gimli. I suspect they'll work on that more in the next movie. It would have only taken two or three lines in the movie to establish. Leglolas could have complimented Moria. Gimli could have complimented Galadriel and that would have laid the foundation.

The changes when the fellowship was breaking up changed a lot of the meaning.

Most of the movie was good, but there were too many changes.

*Tolkien *
*All of this is a spoiler*

























And yet... The plot changes didn't bother me. The only two things that left me at all dissapointed were the way the played up the Aragorn Arwen thing (gag) and the way they didn't play up Legolas and Gimli's relationship. Although yes, they did play the plot "fast and loose," they did the best they could under the time restraints, and all the added converstaions/scenes seemed to work. I love that they included the felling of the trees of Orthanc. I thought that the acting was excellent, the casting was excellent, and Boromir (who never appealed to me that much in the books) was absolutely fantastic. He brilliantly portrayed human nature, and the desire to do good over the temptation for evil in all of us.

-Strider

I think the movie did best what movies do best. So much of what was left out was dependent on the long passages of description in the book that could hardly be translated directly to film. It did seem a bit rushed to me, and some of the character changes were a bit galling, but I enjoyed what was good about it far more than I was disappointed by what was bad.
The battle between the Last Alliance and the forces of Sauron was incredible, with the Elves spinning their swords in unison, as were all the battle scenes, such as the one that made your eyes zip back and forth acros the screen as Legolas shot down Uruk-hai 1, 2, 3, 4 and the slaying of the cave troll, and Boromir fighting on with arrows sticking out of his chest, and Gandalf vs. the Balrog, and on and on...
The visuals were brilliant!

I utterly adored it!

No, it's not in the "greatest ever film" league with things like The Godfather, or Lawrence of Arabia
but it's well up there in action/adventure films. And it puts a lot of the things I've seen this year to shame - notably Harry Potter, even though I did enjoy that.

SPOILERS















I thought all the characters came accross really really well - Gimli not quite as much as the others, I felt we didn't get to see too much of his change of opinion about the elves. Viggo Mortensen, in particular, was amazing everything Aragorn should be. And I loved the two Istari - Christopher Lee should, if things were fair, be at least nominated for best supporting actor. I loved the way Saruman's part was beefed up so you see what goes on at Isenguard "behind the scenes of the book" as it were, and gives a really meaty villain. I also loved how the "character" of the One Ring was done.

I think the plot changes worked perfectly - I didn't feel any grating at all - it felt as if it was the way Tolkein would have done it if he was less focused on creating Middle Earth in such detail.
As for the scenery. Well now I need to go to New Zealand - it looks sooo incredibly beautiful. And the main sets - Hobbiton, Isengard, Barad-Dur, Rivendell and Moria looked exactly like they had in my head!

I think the balance between character and action was very neatly done - and the effects fitted incredibly.
My only vague quibble was Lothlorien - in that we didn't see as much of Galadriel as good and kind as I felt in the book, it focused on her potential for power if she took the ring - and boy was she scary. Though Cate Blanchett's very concentrated "not focused on this world" look got to me a bit, you definitely could see that she was the oldest elf in Middle Earth.

The best thing for me was how, although I knew what was going to happen, I still got sucked into the emotions of the film. Especially the Mines of Moria - I was howling away like crazy after the Bridge of Kazad-Dum. And also at the Breaking of the Fellowship.
The Black Riders are the scariest thing I've seen on film this year.

And I loved that you could see the bonds between the fellowship - even though they weren't overstated. It made me feel that Middle Earth was real - not just a fantasy.



END OF SPOILERS

Now that you mention it, none of the elves were really presented as as good and kind as in the books. Oh well.

*Still absolutely loves it*

Oh yes. I'm also kind of dissapointed that they didn't recite my poem.

*Still Still absolutely loves it!*

It's fascinating reading these perspectives. I almost felt as though I shouldn't like it (I didn't expect to) because of the changes that were made, which is stupid of me - some changes had to be made. It's true that it isn't the book - but it was never intended to be.
















I agree with Orcus about Elrond - I also had always viewed him as an all-round good guy, and he didn't come across that way in the film. I take NexusSeven's point about the way he sets up the later scenes with Galadriel's warnings and the breaking of the Fellowship - I just wish they'd found another way.

That said, I quite liked the expansion of Galadriel's role. I've never really been happy that, although she is one of the central female characters, she doesn't seen to really do anything very positive to help in the book, other than show the hobbits some scary pictures and provide some useful equipment.

And Boromir *was* a revelation, wasn't he? I thought Sean Bean played him superbly - I was worried we might get a reprise of the bluff Yorkshire man that he specialises in, but I underestimated him.

I wasn't sure if I liked it when I got in last night - now that I've had time to reflect I DO like it - a lot.

I hope when we see the next film (we have to wait a year ) that Gimli and Legolas's characters will be expanded on. But wasn't Ian Holm a great Gandalf? Crusty and caring in just the right amounts.

The more I think about it, the more I think - it was bloody good, wasn't it!

Can we just say that if you haven't seen the movie you can very well leave? We're going to be spoiling and spoiling and spoiling because otherwise we won't really be able to talk about the movie, will we?

That said, yes Gandalf was wonderful! I was worried that he would be fake, and a little too Father Christmassy, but he wasn't at all.

Seems like fair comment. I'll wait until I've seen in and read the backlog.

I'm seeing it on Friday (a date - so wish me luck! ).

I'll catch up on the thread after then...

Congrats Frankie! I hope you like it!

The date or the film?

I loved the movie...and yes things were changed but I don't think it took anything away from the story as a whole.....they left out charactors and parts but the movie didn't suffer...you want to see a movie suffer from parts being taken out go see Batelfield Earth...then you will have that much more love for this movie....that was my biggest fear that I would sit down and they would of made so many changes and changed things the wrong way that the story would be perverted into something it never was.....but they didn't....oh and about the elves...I think showing them as not all the way in the good made them a more belivable charactor on screen..something about when they try to portray a pure person on the tv or on the movie screen (in a book it works) doesn't seem to work for me



()

This comes from a press release issued by Jackson. Moderators, please note the words "press release".

The Lord of the Rings' director Peter Jackson confirmed yesterday that "one or two" liberties would be taken with J R R Tolkien's script in the second movie of the trilogy, The Two Towers.

Under intensive scrutiny from Tolkien purists in the build-up to The Fellowship of the Ring, Wednesday's premiere revealed several changes from the book in the first movie, not all of them expected.

Yesterday, Jackson revealed "one or two" more departures from J R R Tolkien's script for the remaining two movies, starting with The Two Towers, due to be released next Christmas.

These included expanded roles for Rohan King Theoden (played by Bernard Hill), his nephew Eomer (played by New Zealander Karl Urban) and some other characters.

"Some (parts) are slightly bigger in some instances," Jackson said.

In The Fellowship of the Ring, the biggest change was the Jackson-invention of a Uruk-hai called Lurtz - but this had been known and anticipated for a long time.

The screening indicated Jackson's reasoning: he had brought forward the pivotal Boromir warrior death scene from the start of the second book to the end of the first movie to create a logical climax.

But doing so had created a "villain vacuum" for the closing stages, which Lurtz filled.

Other, more minor changes, included the testing of ranger Strider or Aragorn, by having him confront Frodo, also at the first movie's end.

And few would have expected to see a physical presence of the evil lord Sauron, though this was only to show the character's earlier form.

Jackson said that rough cuts had been made of all three films, though some pick-up shooting and "refining" would be required over the two years of production to go.

"It's just a case of polishing and all the special effects."

There were "a couple of hundred" effects shots to come.

Swiv, I'll get the maid to tidy up the spare room

Both

Hokey dokey, I won't read any more until I've seen it too. If we all do that you guys can talk in peace and spoil as much as you like. I'll be back here on Saturday.

Aaaaaargh. How can wait 'till Saturday?