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

What did everyone think of the representation of Balrog ?

Having re-read the book after the film (last re-read was 15 years+ ago) I think it was excellent as was the entire Moria sequence. I felt a bit dizzy on the shot of them running over the bridge "filmed" from above.

Now I'm on The Two Towers I can't help thinking how it will be dealt with in the film, will the Ents attack on Isegard be shown in "real time" or as a flash back/story as it is in the book. Will sam and Frodos adventure (still to be re-read) also be shown in real time or as a second half?

Will Aragon et al meet Gandalf again in a rather tame scene in the woods or later as he rides in at the relief of Helms deep? The latter would mean a story re-adjustment (Aragon talking The old king round) but would certainly be more dramatic.

Whatever, I agree with a previous comment the fall of Isegard, Ents, Water floods, fire etc should be magnificant to watch.

CH

i thought they did the fire & shadows very well. thought it looked a bit too traditionally dark lord/demon-y, esp. with the horns.
but v v v scarey. is that was me there id either have pissed myself or run away immediatly! i was a bit annoyed that neither Legolas or Gimli recognised it tho.
soz. picking at minute straws here! it was ace!

Yeah...I'm wondering how they will show Treebeard. What will he look like. I mean...he was never the easiest thing to imagine..

i also wanna know if they'll do the two towers in 2 halves like the book is or if they'll mix scenes up. i reckon the latter as otherwise it may easily confuse some people!

The two towers will cut back and forth between Frodo and Sam and the chaps in Rohan. I read it somewhere.

Well...I think thats the best way to do it really...

*skims through the backlog*
I don't think anyone else has mentioned this yet, so...
Am I the only person who wondered why they cast David Essex as Bilbo Baggins?

Yes.

I went to see it the other day, and i thought it was much better then i had expected, but i was a bit upset at the changes to the plot, well i was looking forward to seeing Tom Bandabil, and i thought they didn´t really show how much time the book is set over, every thing happened as if Gandalf showed up to see Bilbo and a week later they were in the mines.......

however the funnest thing about the film is the tearful good by between Sam and Bill the pony..... having not said a thing about Bill for the whole film it was funny to see that they had left that in......

Yes, found that a bit odd too.

I think the script originally had a lot more included, and much of it was filmed. And poor Peter Jackson had the anguishing job of choosing what to cut and what to keep during the editing. Thus we are left with anomalies like Bill and extra scenes in the trailers.

One thing that that no-one seems to have missed much is the night they spend with the woodelves early in their journey. Sam *had* already met some elves before they got to Rivendell. Also, we know from very early on that although he is no elf, Frodo has some knowledge of their language and can get by in conversation.

I always thought it was an early indicator that all was not well, the way the elves were clearing out en masse and heading for the Western Isles, or wherever it is.

Oh yeah, and I loved the Balrog. What a challenge - to satisfy the millions of individual mental images of this fearsome demon. I think Mr Jackson acquitted himself rather well, personally.

Seeya

I'd expect they left out the first encounter with the elves because they eliminated that entire forest journey. Otherwise they probably would have included Tom Bombadil as well, since (as I recall) he shows up around the same time, in the same general area.

Wampus

They left out quite a lot, although each of the adventures and encounters were self-contained and not necessary to the overall narrative. They missed out the encounter with the woodelves whilst the hobbits were still in the Shire, they left out the visit to Farmer Maggot (although he got a mention) they left out the stay at the house in Crickhollow, where Fatty Bolger was later forced to flee the Nazgul, they left out Old Forest and Old Man Willow, they left out Tom Bombadil as has already been noted several times, and they left out the episode on the Barrow Downs.

This, I think, is a large part of why the journey to Rivendell seemed so rushed.



Although the hobbits travelled from Hobbiton to Bree in just under a week, and then took a fortnight to get from there to the Ford of Bruinen, a lot happened to them in the first part of the journey, and they had some sort of adventure or encounter every day.

In the latter part of the trip they made slow progress in the wilderness, which is difficult to convey on film. They spent two nights in Chetwood, and two in Midgewater. After the attack by the Nazgul at Weathertop, Tolkein writes in 'Flight to the Ford', 'four days passed without the ground or the scene changing much...'

I doubt that anyone could make much of a cinematic moment out of that, but it conveys to the reader a feeling of how long and arduous the journey is.



I can understand why they had to leave out so much - they could easily have made a flim out ot the journey to Bree.

Hmmm, now there's a thought, although published as a trilogy, Tolkein actually sturctured LotRas six books. Hello, Peter Jackson - are you reading this?

I still think it's great, though.

That should have read,

I am no great fan of the book, as some will know already, but on balance, I did enjoy the film.
**SPOILER**



The good bits? Gandalf, Saruman, Bilbo, Sam. (English actors are still the best in the world, natch). The brief glimpse of Gollum. Moria (simply magnificent). The Nine. The architecture. The fact that we didn't have to sit through Tom Bombadil's bl**dy nonsense (tho' we don't get the Barrow Downs ).
The Bad bits? Sam and Merry's metamorphosis into Irish comic relief. Saruman's rather "flattened" motives. Jackson's reluctance to let his characters tell the story, rather than flash-back mania. This particularly applies to the opening, which reduced Sauron from the "lidless eye" to a large man in Skeletor's cast off armour, and Elrond's bitterness about Isuldur's behaviour. Galadriel's appearance as a self-important bint of no consequence to the plot. Boromir's vastly reduced part (tho' the boy Bean did good...).



**END OF SPOILER**


All, in all, a bit like the curate's egg. But part two will likely get my money. Certainly more likely to get my money than what appeared to be "Annakin Skywalker's Mandolin" from the trailer I saw...

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was named best picture of the year as the American Film Institute on Saturday night chose its first batch of winners in a new Hollywood awards stop on the road to the Oscars next March.

"Sam. (English actors are still the best in the world, natch)."

Sean Astin's English? Crikey. I'll never watch the Goonies in quite the same way again.

And I reckon 'Attack of the Goons' is going to be more like 'Anakin's Creek'

Well, after 'Pantom Menace' it won't be any good...
And Sean Astin may not be English, but he was added as an afterthought. I liked Hugo Weaving as Elrond, and he's an Aussie