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

Shark, sorry - delayed post!

In terms of *pushing the boundaries* I was referring to the sheer power of the production, rather than technicalities of filmmaking which I know very little about. If Lucas, or Spielberg, etc want to match this film for experience level, then they will have their work cut out. In my opinion the Moria scenes with the Balrog, the battle scene at the beginning of the film, the portrayal of Rivendell, the chase of the Nine, and the Gandalf / Saruman encounter at Isengard were just outstanding.

I just think the bar has been raised, that's all.

"a real bloke's film"

The Fellowship of the Ring.

*Fellowship*. Collective male pronoun.

It does exactly what it says on the tin.

hmmm I never saw fellowship as a male group just a group but it does have fellow in it hmmm interesting

()

but then again woman has a man in it a man with a wo(e)

Mrs Kebab thought it was wonderful, and she wasn't a bloke last time I looked!

Easy, you'll get in trouble for that!
I'm not convinced by the boundary pushing argument, but I can see your point, Woodpigeon.

Oh dear, if we get started on male/female roles in LotR we'll never stop

Just a few points... I've only seen it once so far (), so I'm just giving thoughts on the overall impression rather than details. As a huge fan of Tolkien, that is In terms of the feel of the film, I agree that the middle part seemed too rushed. Notwithstanding the huge chinks of story cut out before they even got to Bree, the film itself was paced nicely. The final part, after they left Lothlorien, was also nicely paced... the middle parts felt rushed though, as if Jackson felt the need to 'call in' at Weathertop, Rivendell, etc. and forgetting the travelling part of it... even a bit more of long sweeping shots of them tramping along might have helped, I don't know.

I agree about Elrond... sorry Hugo, but you just don't cut it as a half-elven Lord, even if you are an Aussie As for Tom Bombadil though, I disagree with people who missed him in the film - of all the characters in Tolkien, Bombadil would be the most impossible to do. I can't imagine him being fitted into the film in any other way than as a bumbling funny caricature... when he's actually of the same order as Gandalf, the Maiar (his elvish name is Iarwin Ben-adar). I just can't imagine his nature being portrayed satisfactorily on film within the time constraints.

Lothlorien... let's just say, the whole (entirely too brief) scene annoyed me. Galadriel was too reduced in role, but Celeborn was a joke, practically a stick figure. More needed to be made of the entirely pivotal role she played in directing the course of the fellowship, she's responsible for so much of the 'inner turmoil' that the characters all go through which shapes the things they do... which makes me think that this will be lost later on. Gimli and Legolas... 2 minutes, that's all that's required for the blindfold scene really, to show the ancient antagonism, the tension between Gimli and Legolas and the bonding of the Fellowship to the same fate, though they be sundered at the end of the first film.

Arwens 'increased' role in this film was a bit silly... Given that she has an incresed role, I'll begrudge her speeding Frodo on her horse from the Black Riders, and calling on the waters to unhorse them. But what was that scene on the log? It was a nothing, shoved incongruously in... setting up her role in the next two films I don't doubt, but it just seemed out of place.

All that said, I thought it was fantastic! And for all those cynical people talking about the DVD release... you're absolutely correct! Well, more or less, anyway Peter Jackson has said, and it's on the official lordoftherings netsite that the filming has been done, and extra scenes shot, *specifically* with the DVD release in mind... so it won't be a matter of cobbling together bits and pieces, whole swathes of footage that weren't used in the film versions have gone through the exact same post-production process (to various stages) as what is in the film... so the DVD release really *will* be the definitive version, though how much longer/how altered it will be, who can say? I doubt however that you'll be seeing Tom Bombadil in it, somehow

ok this dvd is starting to sound even better...when it comes out you all can come over and watch it

()

I think Jackson is right to keep the length down to 3 hours. Any longer would be a real trial for any but the most die hard fans.
DVD allows you to stop it and have a cuppa without incurring the wrath of other cinema goers.

Took me a moment to work out what KCofB meant by 'that scene on the log' - won't tell you what images flashed through my brain!

As a pregnant person, I just had to pay a comfort stop during the three hours - made an estimated guess and went during the 'three-ways' scene in Moria - did I miss much?

I didn't go to see the plot or even, particularly, to hear the dialogue - I can get all that from the book. I went for the visuals, and apart from the Elvish tendency to Art nouveau, I wasn't disappointed.

Sorry but the music did nothing for me - maybe because I was familiar with the Donald Swann compositions which had JRRT's own approval. Not, may I add, that I think that the author's views can be seen as sovereign in a situation like this. Yes, JRRT said that he didn't think the book should be filmed. According to the standards of the time (50's/60's) he was quite right. There was no way he could imagine shipping the whole crew to NZ, computer generated effects etc - Few of us could have envisaged it even a few years ago.

Maybe It's because I think Enya is bogging

"did I miss much?"

I assume you saw Pippin dropping the skeleton down the well, and the ensuing scrap in the Chamber of Mazarbul?

Smashing stuff, although I didn't like the fact that Pippin accidentally knocked the skeleton down the well.

(puts hat on)

This is because in the book, I believe he drops a stone down the well. This may not sound like much of a discrepancy, but it showed you that Pippin was naturally curious how deep the well was, and naive enough to think that dropping a stone down it was a good idea - he took an *active* role in it.

This adds a much greater dimension to his character than just being a bit of a clumsy clutz.

Apologies for that - the English lit. grad in me dies hard.

I keep finding new bits to H2G2 all the time. I am amazed I missed this thread. Anyway I saw the film on opening night and posted a review immediately. I appreciate that not everyone will agree and that I haven't fully addressed all of the discrepancies with the book but I hope it is fair.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A676226

On the whole I enjoyed seeing what I've been reading and re-reading for the last 20 years, and as adaptations go, this is one of the better ones. BUT as film phenomena go I seriously doubt whether this film will make the all time top ten list at the box office.

I can't wait for the DVD though, maybe I'll even buy a player to watch it!

Madent

Oh yes - I was back before they even got to Balin's tomb - I can pee quickly when the need drives!

One thing I liked was that the film wasn't too 'weird-looking' - too many attempts at Tolkien make it too eldritch/creepy/alien. Too much of the pointy-ears thing.

How does that pointy-ears thing creep in? It's Middle Earth, not Vulcan for goodness sake! Can anybody tell me of anywhere where JRRT mentions pointy ears????

The contribution of John Howe and Alan Lee cannot be over-stated. They really knew their stuff and Peter Jackson took that on board. Credit to him...

WQith regard to the stone vs desiccated corpse: I can't imagine Tolkien's Pippin being quite so ghoulish around bodies, and yes, I accept that the inquisitiveness is in character in the book (eg for the Palantir later) but: the film writ Merry and Pippin in a rather less subtle style, and the action was at least in character with the film version of the character...hmmm?

True, true.

Well, I just had a look at the latest film charts on the internet movie database. The film is rather comprehensively tonking everything else at the moment. It must be close to breaking even already (not a bad feat considering how much it cost to make)

It's only been out two weeks(ish) and is already in the top 100 (no 61) US grossing films of all time. Wonder where it will get to eventually.

Whether you consider it a cinema classic or not, I think it is more deserving of a place up there than some I could mention...

on the subject of cost I seem to remember somewhere that it cost $130Million now is that the cost of the first film or the cost of all the live action filming (all done now) and the effects, post production etc of the first one?

If the latter then the other 2 will be relatively cheap to make but will take aas much if not more than the 1st - Gosh!

CH

Well, I loved it. The Orcs and Uruk-hai were perfectly done. They were so gross the close-ups sometimes turned my stomach. The book is better, but the same thing goes as for the Harry Potter movie(not that they are in any way equivalent); they just can't do everything.

I never really realized how someone could look old and young all at once. I still don't understand it, but at least now I know sort of what it looks like. That bit was exquisitely done.

In fact, all of the visuals were excellent. The computerized effects were such that one could hardly tell they were.

Computerized, that is.

The casting and acting were excellent. I found tears in my eyes when Gandalf fell...and I, having read all the books happen to know...
SPOILER














that he isn't even dead!














END SPOILER

Aragorn was perfect, likewise with Arwen, Boromir, Gandalf, and Frodo. I thought they developed the characters of Merry and Pippin pretty well, especially with the fireworks. LOL! They reminded me more than anything else of the Weasley twins from Harry Potter; mischievous brothers. Well, not really brothers, but I would think so if I didn't know better.

The biggest disappointment for me was the long wait until the sequel.

But other than that.....

SPOILER






























He is too dead! He just comes back from being dead later on.
































END SPOILER

argh! in a short space ive time ive missed sooo much conversation here!
ok, dealing with backlog;
Woodpigeon(it was u werent it?): "too long, too dark, not enough humour, a real bloke's film, too many boring bits, too many details, names and roles"
speaking as a women i loved it! (then again i HATE girly films!)Rivendell & Lorien were not dark. i could happily have sat thru another few hrs of it (tho by then i would need a loo stop i reckon!). how cud it b boring?!? there was humour there 4 those educated people (alright s then!) & a loada details/names/roles had been cut! so to those who were complaining!
Tacsatduck: i'll hold u 2 that offer bout the DVDs!
i shall have 2 buy dvd player & large screen tv jus 4 that i think!

Did anyone else notice the "badge" of the White Hand on the Uruk-hai? Another little thing tossed in for the s.

Joy! finally, someone (Cloviscat, applause to) has mentioned Alan Lee! Notice the decoration in Rivendell done by him? Spiffing. And throughout, the sky had a watercolourish look to it. (Ps... anyone know if his Mabinogion is still around, and where from?) And the other one, name temp. forgotten, who did the board game.
(enough 'bout illustration)
Christopher Lee rules all, simple as that.
Trolls: they are mentioned, by Bilbo when entertaining kiddies at his party. So you wouldn't have to've read the book.
Paths of the Dead: reckon they'll have to keep these in since it illustrates Aragorn's sovereignty, and all that inherited-bloodline-power issue. It would perhaps have been nice to see the Barrow-downs, but that would have involved Tom somewhere. And I didn't miss him a bit... verging on the embarrassing, sometimes. Each to their own (but he was much better in BoTR!)
The last time I saw 'Wing Nut Films' (prior to this) was at the beginning of Brain Dead. Is it only a few who realise Peter Jackson is the man who brought us Bad Taste? ('You'll never guess what I just had to do!' 'Drink chuck?' etc.) Seek it out, it's certainly... unique.
'Nobody tosses a dwarf', which is of course a sport. Well, least until they banned it.
Ok so Galadriel was concentrated, but IMO they did her unfathomable-ness with the double-speak effect. And after her scary transformation, it seemed her fancy glow had dimmed a bit, making her even less threatening than beforehand.
Daft columnist (Judy, of Richard &, aargh) made out that it was not a film for women because there were few female characters in it. And since it was 'a boys' adventure', girls would not like it.
Honestly!
So it isn't the book, isn't meant to be and why on earth would you want it to be? Reading and viewing are different- seems like those who demand an exact retelling are those who don't have sufficient imagination when reading. Now we have 3 or 4 distinct versions of the story; if these were all the same you'd read/listen to/watch one and ignore the rest cos you'd already done it. That would be sad, would it not?
Hurrah for choice and that.