posted
First of all I have to second St. Yogi in saying that you can't talk about Legolas wthout talking about Gimli. That has to be tomorrow's character.
Now, since I haevn't posted here before I'll start from the beginning.
Bilbo: Ian Holmes was perfect for that part. He gave the role that perfect balance of being slightly odd but good-hearted. Just what it needed.
Frodo: I was pretty skeptical when I heard Elijah Wood was playing Frodo, but after I saw FOTR I couldn't see anyone else in that part. I like how as the story progresses you can really tell that the ring is gradually wearing him down little by little.
Gandalf: Ian McKellan is Gandalf. That's all there is to it. Powerful, wise, and has a temper, but also compassionate. He's awesome.
Gollum: I don't know how to do this. There are no words to describe what an incredible accomplishment the character of Gollum is. From Andy Serkis' 150% performance of a character that wasn't even going to be him onscreen, to the writing of a wonderfully conflicted being, to the animators' landmark creation of the most visually believable CG character ever (due in grand part to actually putting Serkis' face and expressions into the CG), Gollum is just amazing. In the books Gollum seemed to me to be just a villain, but in the movie, he's an incredibly sympathetic character. You not only understand why Bilbo pitied him, you couldn't see it being any other way. I sure hope he gets an Oscar for ROTK.
Faramir: As far as the actor, David Wendham was a great choice because he really does look like Sean Bean's brother. I think he did a fine job with what he had. Now, when I first saw the movie in the theatre I was upset that they had changed his part so much to make him almost into a villain. However, to anyone who still thinks that about him: go watch the extended edition of Two Towers. It does so much better in explaining things, especially when dealing with Faramir. After seeing the Flashback scene in Osgiliath, I actually think the changes make Faramir more believable. Here he was, the unwanted son, and along comes the opportunity to do some good in his father's eyes that even the beloved Boromir couldn't do. Who wouldn't be tempted? Not to mention that the whole time they've been telling us how evil and seductive the ring is, it would defeat the whole point if he was able to reject it without a moment's thought. And in the end his true nature does come through and he defeats the temptation. I'm really excited to see his performance in ROTK.
Sam: Sam was my favorite character in the books, and Sean Astin has done a great job in bringing his optimism and courage and good old perseverance to life. "I want to hear more about Sam. Frodo wouldn't have gotten far without him."
Aragorn: Viggo Mortensen wasn't really how I pictured Aragorn in my mind, appearance-wise, but by the end of FOTR I couldn't see anyone else playing him. Another solid performance.
Legolas: Well, a lot of people have complained that Orlando Bloom doesn't give Legolas a whole lot of personality, and I agree... but I don't really mind. Because, quite frankly, he didn't have a whole lot of personality in the books, either. He was loyal, and fearless, and could see and hear more than anyone else, and that's pretty much it. I don't think he needs to be anything more than a really cool elf. As far as Orlando Bloom being the worst actor ever, I wouldn't go that far. I certainly don't think he's the best actor in the world, but he really hasn't been given any roles yet in which he actually needed to act. I mean, really, how much can you do when the script says "look around intently and say 'Orcs!'" every ten minutes or so? Give the guy a bit more time and then we can pass judgement on him.
Merry and Pippin: These guys are hilarious! And watching all the extras on the EE, Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd are just as funny in real life. Really, they didn't have to act at all. They just did all the same things on camera that they did off, only they were in costume. They really capture the true fun-loving, optimistic nature of hobbits.
Whew, that was a mouthful. Wait til tomorrow for the next character. (Gim-li, Gim-li, Gim-li!)
quote: Gandalf: Ian McKellan is Gandalf. That's all there is to it. Powerful, wise, and has a temper, but also compassionate. He's awesome.
I completely agree.
My vote for best "I'm really the character in the book" performance would go to Sean Astin. He's truly exactly perfectly how I imagine Samwise to be...and he's also my favorite character in the whole shabang.
I can't wait for this movie!!
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
I wasn't really thinking when i skipped Gimli. In my mind he most definately belongs next to Legalos in all things.
I enjoyed John Rhys-Davies. I just don't remember Gimli being quite so humurous. But I thought the humur was fun and well done. He definately protrays the stout and dangerous fighter well also.
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I didn't like was in the book dwarves were extremely strong and had a lot of stamina, and he's displayed as being quite silly in the movie at certain points in time, as though he's inferior to all the others. I guess I'm just bitching and moaning because I really liked the dwarves in the book... Whatever...
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I missed talking about Pippin and that other guy while I had computer troubles.
I'd pick Billy Boyd over Orlando Bloom, too, even though that's really off topic.
I found Gimli utterly convincing. Of course, he's played by one of the best character actors around, so why wouldn't he be?
Rent the dungeons and Dragons movie-- it will remind you just how great LotR really is. The dwarf in that was everything Gimli is not (and I don't mean that in a good way).
You get the sense that Gimli is a real guy, with some hang ups and prejudices, to be sure. I just love 'im.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
John Rhys-Davies has been doing an excellent job with the role of Gimli, but with the man's credentials how could one expect less?
Jackson did well in making Gimli the comic relief for the heroes trio because it was definitely needed between the ever-brooding Aragorn and "Is my hair perfect" Legolas of the endless quiver.
He did make some mistakes, though, mainly in continuity. For some reason, Gimli seems to have this magical ability to pull axes out of nowhere. One moment he has a long-hafted single-headed axe, the next a medium lengthed dual headed one, sometimes a shorter hatchet-like one. They never change during a scene, but between them, even though you never get a good look that he is carrying all three at any one time. Also, I wonder why he doesn't jingle, jangle and clang when he runs or is thrown, what with all of the axes and the armor he wears...
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recall him throwing an axe at the cave troll... I simply assumed that he got that off of a dead dwarf in the mines. But I have noticed his axe variations, yes, I thought that was kind've neat.
Also, did anyone notice that many or some of the riders had axes? Just to be a huge dork, I thought Tolkein said that an axe was no weapon for a rider, and by Tolkein, I actually mean Gimli said it, but you know what I'm getting at, here.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Gollum was wonderful. Any Serkis could not have done a better job. But he always struck me as the most complicated (and pitiful) creature in the series. There's a passage in "The Stairs of Cirith Ungol" that really makes me sad every time I read it. It's where he looks like nothing more than "an old, tired hobbit," and then Sam wakes up and spoils it, permanently. It always struck me as a turning point in Gollum's character, and if Sam hadn't reacted the way he did, maybe Smeagol wouldn't have tried to give them to Shelob.
And Sam is still, I think, my favourite character. Even more than Smeagol, and that's saying something. Sean Astin is so perfect as him. And his characterization is spot on. I just hope they don't ruin him in the third movie the way they did with Faramir. That is my single biggest fear, that they will not let Sam give up the ring of his own free will. I think I might boycott if they mess this one up. But I loved it in TTT when Faramir asked him if he was Frodo's bodyguard and he come back with "His gardener." Just perfect, and totally Sam.
As for Gimli, he's a cool character, but I disliked the way PJ made him the comic relief in TTT. John Rhys-Davies did a wonderful job, and I won't forget my excitememnt three years ago when I saw the first spy-pictures and Gimli was in them.
posted
You are correct - Gimli was quite clear in the books that axes were not meant to be used in cavalry.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
To finish out the fellowship we have boromir. I really liked the character in the movie. He was everything daddy wanted him to be. A strong leader, Courageous, torn at by the ring. I think he did a great job of dying as well. His death scene in FOTR was my favorite scene in the entire movie. His redemption from his atack on Frodo, it was just awsome!
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a lot of affection for Boromir's character because I think I would have acted the same way if I were in his position. Using the ring should be the last option, but to send it into Mordor, from a logical point of view, is pure madness.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great character and well cast for the movie. Strong, powerful, a defender (only guy carrying a shield) and uniquely human. His battle and death scene in the movie moved me just as much as it did in the book.
posted
I love the extra scenes in TTT that show how close he is to his brother. Even he sees that his father is too hard on Faramir.
If things had been different I can see Boromir as the Steward with Faramir his strong right hand. Boromir, at least in the movies, knows where he is stronger and where his brother is stronger. They would have been one heck of a pair.
posted
Sean Bean was the bright, shining star in the performances of FotR, in my opinion. His portrayal of Boromir was the most layered, complex performance of the entire film. Ian McKellen was great, but I've never found the character of Gandalf as interesting, he's seemed flatter than some of the others, to me. Ian Holme was also great, and Bilbo (especially in LotR) is a much more complex character, but Jackson took a lot away from the character with that one scene where he turns into a little Gollum-looking monster. Bean was the only one that had both a truly complex character and a truly layered performance.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Viggo and Elijah both did well as far as layers go, too. Just can't get more angst-filled than that. Sometimes I wonder if Bean would have made a better Aragorn, though, since that was what he originally tried out for.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love Boromir, he's like the ultimate well intentioned man. Sean Bean did a beautiful job, he caught all of Boromir's passion for his home and his people. He was amazing in the TTT extended, both in his resentment towards Dethenor, and his love for Faramir.
I agree that Viggo's performance has been as layered as Sean Bean's, but Eliija's has been perhaps TOO angst filled. Frodo is at least a little decisive, and he can stand up for himself, too, instead of falling over everytime something scary happens. I know a lot of that's PJ's directing, but still. A hero can't fall down EVERY time.
posted
Elijah's just clumsy. He falls down in all his movies.
Um, I never liked Boromir, in the books (at least not until the end). I never saw the depth in the character until I saw Bean's performance. He made what was essentially a paste-board baddie waiting to happen and made a man of him. A likeable, understandable and beautifully flawwed one, at that.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never been a fan of Elijah Wood as Frodo. Wood tends to play up the uncertain, young, vulnerable aspect of Frodo (which he does in all of his films), whereas I would prefer him to be more balanced. Frodo in the novels is uncertain, young and vulnerable, but he is also the eldest of the hobbits, deeply strong and dedicated at the core, and has something of a noble spirit. I don't see any of that in Wood's performance.
Viggo Mortensen was good as far as that goes, but Aragorn as a character has many of the same problems as Gandalf. He's not very complex, not very subtle. He's certainly not an accessible character; the very qualities that make him regal are what keeps us from getting close to him. Add that to the fact that Jackson decided to change the character and it makes for a movie experience that I just can't get excited about.
In general I think Jackson's weakness is the way in which he changed the story. Obviously, it is necessary to make cuts to a story the size of LotR in order to fit it into even 12 hours of film, but cuts and changes are very different. When you cut, you remove things that you can't fit in. It's lamentable, but inevitable. When you change the story, you are saying that you can do it better than the original author, that his story was weak and needs to be different.
You see this in his explanations for what he did with Aragorn, Arwen and Faramir. He made Aragorn less noble, less confident, less of a king in order to make him more accessible to the audience. That's the same reason he made Arwen into a fighting woman, and expanded the presence of her romance with Aragorn (which is relegated to an appendix in the book). And changing Aragorn meant that he had to also change Faramir, since it is crucial that Faramir not seem more noble and fair than Aragorn.
To me, changes like that show a profound disrespect to both the author and the audience. On the one hand, he claims that the author was not a good enough writer to create characters that people will care about. And on the other hand he doesn't think the audience will be patient enough to believe in or want to watch the characters as written. I firmly believe that if he had been more true to the characters, people would have been just as interested and involved, if not more so.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
again I really enjoyed his role. I think i like the fact that he is such a huge fan of the novel and is able to live out a dream by playing a roile in the movies. He definately gives his all in the role. Although this has been ranted about in other threads I am definately bummed his scenes were cut from RotK.
Edit: for brain fart (put down sauron instead of saruman)
posted
I was disappointed by the changes in the character of Saruman. In the books, Saruman (apparently rather egomaniacal) believes he can rival Sauron himself. He creates his orcs to be his own army, not the Dark Lord's. He is trying to forge his own One Ring. Though not a good guy, he is by no means on Sauron's side.
But in the movie, Saruman becomes just another lackey cowed by Sauron's power. Though Lee played his role well, the role itself could have been better.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm - as I recall from the books, Saruman (according to Gandalf) thought he was acting on his own, but in actuality had given over to despair at the lies Sauron was telling. So, perhaps unwittingly, he really did work for Sauron - plus, as was pointed out in the books (and I thin the extended version at one brief point) - anything dividing the defenders in their attempts to thwart Sauron was a plus for Sauron.
Saruman? Does that jive with your recollection, baby?
Boromir - sigh. Nummy. What else has he been in? (Stop gasping with shock ) And he definitely brought depth to the character that simply wasn't made plain in the books although much could be inferred.
I, too, was a wee distressed at the re-making of Arwen - and finally passed it off as a filmmaking ploy/necessity.
As far as some of the "unfamiliar" parts that might be considered a remake, read both The Silmarrilion and the ROTK Appendixes. I remember reading somewhere that both Jackson and cast really steeped themselves in the overall picture.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hmmm - as I recall from the books, Saruman (according to Gandalf) thought he was acting on his own, but in actuality had given over to despair at the lies Sauron was telling. So, perhaps unwittingly, he really did work for Sauron - plus, as was pointed out in the books (and I thin the extended version at one brief point) - anything dividing the defenders in their attempts to thwart Sauron was a plus for Sauron.
My point is that the character of Saruman in the books is far more complex than the character in the films, and I think that the fact that Jackson "dumbed down" yet another important character is just another example of how little trust he has in either Tolkien or the audience.
quote:As far as some of the "unfamiliar" parts that might be considered a remake, read both The Silmarrilion and the ROTK Appendixes. I remember reading somewhere that both Jackson and cast really steeped themselves in the overall picture.
I've read both multiple times. Are you talking about the Arwen/Aragorn thing? See, to me it seems quite telling that Tolkien did not include that story as part of the main body of LotR, but rather, as an appendix. The Silmarillion was never meant to be published, and in fact was only published after J.R.R. had died. Many Tolkien scholars(?) don't even consider it to be canon, though that's really neither here nor there. The story did exist, insofar as Tolkien had thought it up, but he apparently did not think it, along with quite a lot of backstory, was important enough to include in his published work. I think that's an important point.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Sean Bean (the actor who plays Boromir) has also been in Goldeneye, the first James Bond movie with Pierce Brosnan. I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
Posts: 651 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to Aragorn, Sci Fi Channel just anounced the actor who plays Aragorn is up for a main part in the next Batman movie--as the villian.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly agree with you saxon, on the "dumbing down" of Saruman's role in the movie - and yes, I know the The Sil was published posthumously (along with numerous other works), but my point on that was that the director/actors were relying heavily on those items to fill in spots for moviegoers not familiar with the written works - whether we take it as gospel truth or not, THEY did and I think you need to take it into account when you critically review (critically meant in the analytical sense, not the negative sense) the movie and the cast/director presentation of various roles! Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I know there are a lot of ent lovers out there and I certainly enjoyed them in the books but... the scenes with treebeard are my least favorite, visually, in the entire movie. I though the voice work done by John Rhys-Davies was good. It was very much as I had imagined it should be but the actually Ents themselves just looked way different then I had thought. The first time I watched TTT and every time since I have thought the Ents just don't flow very well. To me it just looks like blue screene work. I mean you can tell and it bugged me. Plus I was unhappy about the way they moved. I know it would have been very difficult to show the way Tolkien described them, with their legs unbending and stiff but because they don't look that way in the movies they have always just looked wrong. I know I'm kind of nit-picking here but this was one of the very few elements of the movies I didn't like very much.
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think each of us had in our own mind the way we personally thought Tree-ents "looked" when we read the book. I doubt the movie represented any of our imaginations very well. The book allowed us the freedom to really create that picture in our mind uniquely.
I know my oldest son is especially fond of the Ents part of the story, and although he liked them okay in the movie, he too said they "moved" differently than he had pictured it, etc.
But BEFORE the movie, if you tried to get him to explain him vision of how Tree-Ents should be portrayed, he couldn't put it into words. I think it would be very difficult. We went into the movie having already discussed the fact that as a director, that would be one of the most difficult parts of the book to portray.
I think John Rys Davies did a good job with the voice, but whatever effect they did to it later makes it hard to understand. I would have rather heard it with out a bunch of interference. I always thought Treebeard's voice was like the bass at a concert, so deep you could feel it in your chest. This just didn't do it for me.
Billy and Dom did a great job acting with it, though.
quote:I think you need to take it into account when you critically review . . . the movie and the cast/director presentation of various roles!
I disagree. The problem here is that there are two very different ways to view Tolkien's work, resulting in two very different ideas of what is important in the work.
On the one hand, the sheer volume of detail Tolkien created for his fantasy world is awe-inspiring. As you may know, Tolkien was a linguist, and LotR grew out of a linguistic experiment. This prompted him to create a whole history and pre-history for Middle-Earth. A lot of people see all of this and think, "Wow, this world is the most fascinating thing I've ever seen." And this is quite clearly how Jackson approached the project. You may not be able to tell from my responses in this thread, but I think that Jackson has done a masterful job at giving us Middle-Earth. I simply cannot imagine the world being brought to the screen in a better way.
On the other hand, the story that Tolkien wrote is moving, exciting, wise, and complex. He created a wide variety of characters, each with a distinct role and personality, giving pretty much everyone someone to be interested in or to identify with. Moreover, he was deeply familiar with the relationships between these characters, and understood how important that was for telling the story. A lot of people see all of this and say, "Wow, this is a well-constructed and important story." And this is much more how I approach the texts. I am very fascinated with the world as a phenomenon of its own, as an object of study. That's why I have bothered to read the Silmarillion and the appendices and several of the History of Middle-Earth books. But what really moves me, what really makes the novels important to me, what keeps bringing me back for more is the story.
Peter Jackson is a world-builder, not a story-teller. He looks at LotR and sees Middle-Earth, and is passionate about showing it to us. But he is so wrapped up in the technical details of the world that he never bothered to really understand the story or the characters in it. That's why he feels justified in making many of the changes he made; as long as we are getting a good sense of Middle-Earth and the sweeping scope of its history, the individual characters or events are not as important.
I strongly disagree with this approach to Tolkien's work. Tolkien knew what he was doing when he wrote LotR; he was writing a story. If all he had wanted to do was give us the world, he would have written an encyclopedia, or a history textbook, or a language reference, or maybe even a series of biographies. He wouldn't have written a novel.
So, I disagree that I need to take into consideration that Jackson and the cast consider the Silmarillion to be primary, because I disagree with the entire viewpoint from which the films were constructed.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember watching something on the LotR website about the making of Fanghorn and ents, and the SFX guys said it was incredibly difficult to create ents because in essence, they are trees. Fantasy creatures like Balrogs or Fell Beasts are easy because it's basically the interpretation of the artists, but EVERYONE knows what a tree looks like, so in order to convince the audience, it HAS to look like a tree. They are already limited in what they can do with it.
That said, I thought the ents were pretty well done. They're not my favorite characters visually, but I thought the voice was well done. I didn't think the actual character development was done enough in the theatrical release, but I started tearing up when Treebeard talked about entlings and enwives in the EE. I thought some parts of it just made the ents look rediculous, but there were some golden moments.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no single hero of LotR. The closest there is is Sam and Frodo, together.
Frodo was the once-in-an-Age hero, who by nature of the time he's in and the sacrifice required, loses the most. He gains the most too, incidentally-essentially gets to visit the Land of the Gods. While he'll never be totally whole and happy, that's not a bad perk, is it?
Sam is the everyday hero, the go-to guy like Olivet mentioned. He's the one we all can or could be, while only one in a million of us could be Frodo. Sam is also the one many of us want to be...while only a fool would *want* to be Frodo.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think John Rys Davies did a good job with the voice, but whatever effect they did to it later makes it hard to understand. I would have rather heard it with out a bunch of interference. I always thought Treebeard's voice was like the bass at a concert, so deep you could feel it in your chest. This just didn't do it for me.
ITA.
And I didn't like the way they looked, either. The faces were okay, but the legs were way too long.
I'm too excited for Wednesday to think about anyone person or group of people. Or at least too excited to think of one to review so...
Lets review everyone, or anyone, or anything. If I've left out your favorite or you're least favorite, tells us about it. There are far too many characters left and far too few days in which to review them all. I'll just be patiently waiting for Wednesday! Thanks for everyone who wrote in and reiewed these awsome characters with me. In a small way it has helped pass the time for me so my goal was accomplished.
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to put my vote for best choreography in TTT on the scene in which Faramir and his second spend a ton of time tapping the map. Tap the map!!!!
posted
Thursday - with a group of Beautiful People from church. Fun (cute guys), nerve-wracking (harsh girls), and irritating (one extraordinarily snobby long-timer), BUT it should be wonderful.
Friday - with a group of wonderful and geeky friends from work. Yay!
January - with the wenches. SuperYay!
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
