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

The guys say Cloviscat is all wrong about Eowyn, and we wanted more of her swordplay/flirting with Aragorn.

Saw the film today. There could be fighting in our house to get the first chance to re-read the book!

Simple truth, you can not expect any movie to be as good as the book. Especially if the book hit a personal note for you as an individual. Tolkien's writing is extremely detail based, leading the reader deeper into a world by creating the environment in a slow developed manor.
This does not mean I did not love the movies. I did, very much. The screen plays build not only off of the trilogy so many of us love but also dip into the history JRR has created to set up the story. Yes it does glance over drawn out sections inthe books written to submerg the reader into a highly detailed interaction with individual events and environments, but, its a movie.
The detail is in the scenery, the horizon, the costumes- all of which are finely detailed but glanced over as the story carries on at a much faster pace...because its a 3 hour movie.
I have been so very pleased with Jacksons interpretation of LotR and look forward to the next one.

Personally, I think Eowyn is a great character, in the book at least. She didn't get to do much in TTT but I think the bit with the Witch King at the Battle of the Pellenor will be great - even better than Helm's Deep!

Not that you want to give anything away at all

Thanks for spotting the typo, Cloviscat. I read the post twice before before submitting it. Of course I meant Pippin.

Merry made the journey with Dernhelm and didn't set out until Pippin and Gandalf were already within the walls of Minas Tirith.

so much for being a Tolkien

Seen it three times so far. What can I say?

*spooooge*

I'm aiming to see it nine times... On track so far.

Nononono you go on and be the Tolkien lease Madent? I'm not going to fight you for the title!

Rev Bob - I'll happily settle for the film being 'differently good'to the book, as long as it *is* good in the way that a film can be. We've all seen films of books (whether or not we liked the book) that have made us want to howl "Nooooo!" at the screen (anyone see Mansfield Park over Christmas? ) Both the LotR films fall into that very rare category when you really can *recognise* places, and that's such a great feeling

i wanna go see it again!!!!!!!!
oh, i probly am next weekend, oh good
^. .^
= ' =
Gurus
CommunityArtists

Disclaimer: I am too f**king lazy to read the backlog so forgive me is these statements have already been made.

As movies go TTT was good, free standing it was weak, no point of conclusion. It ended almost exactly like the LOTR 80's cartoon movie. As a book puritian it was nothing compared to the FOTR; the little bit of Faramir being corrupted was WAY OUT OF LINE. Just as the Bulrog was a fantastic graphic, they did a great job with gollum.

Peace

Dorian

Fortunately, we know there's a third movie coming, and it's not a dirty trick like the cartoon movie was.

I'm already looking forward to the extended dvd. Here's a list of scenes that might be in it http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1040672176.

More Gollum. If we beseige them with emails, maybe we can stop them putting more Aragorn/Arwen tripe in it. I'm surprised there was nothing about when Treebeard takes Merry and Pip to see Gandalf, as it's a part of the film that didn't make sense to me.

Yeah, how come Merry and Pippen went to see Gandalf, then when Gandalf met Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli, Gandalf took a few seconds to remember that he was called Gandalf: "That's what they used to call me, Gandalf the Grey. I am Gandalf the White". Or something. Whay would Wise ol' Gandalf forget his name in the space of an afternoon?

Ste

don't get me started on the arwen tripe. Besides the fact that she appears a whole of twice in the books. And that crap with the elves showing up out of the blue at HD it was painful to watch.

Dorian

Ste - that's what I said. I assumed there was more to the scene originally. Otherwise there seems little point in changing what was in the book.

Dorian - As for the Elves at Helm's Deep, I didn't find it painful. Mind you I hadn't read the book in a while. That said, if we were meant to think it was really cool, I didn't.

It is possible to improve on The Book, though. Tolkien was A Great Man n' all but he had his shortcomings as a storyteller; I think the Faramir thing is a better conclusion than the book's simplistic treatment.
Why so much woe over the love scenes? I *loathe* mush but saw nowt up with that, Arwen is a good character so what if Tolkien didn't write more with her in. They can put in bits which might have happened but weren't detailed in the book. Besides, at least in this love story you care about the characters, they're not just some cheap subtext in a 'romantic' ahem 'comedy'.

You can't judge the film as a stand-alone, since it's not, it is a continuing story.

Costume folk- how *did* they get Eowyn into that dress, since it has no discernible fastening?

It wasn't that big a deviation if you take into account the character compression that has been employed throughout the films e.g. Eomer subsuming Erkenbrand. Instead of Elrond's sons and some rangers, they brought in some characters the audience already know. Plus, girls like Craig Parker.

Is that Haldir?
Liberace, Liberace, riding thru the glen... etc.

"Costume folk- how *did* they get Eowyn into that dress, since it has no discernible fastening? "

I helped on that. It was a long and careful process, often fraught with pitfalls and obstacles to overcome, but a labor of love the whole way.