From: wrob Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:45:55 -0500 Lines: 37 Message-ID: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbYoH53AvWVJwaKZ4KJ8hBqzUmyjaaVvGW9cSjuIzD+lBYZs1LguJxu X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Dec 2001 08:42:07 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64323 [Re: LotR] Joy-killer? OK, maybe I'm just subconsciously kicking myself for not being able to see it Tuesday night before all the really hard-core Tolkien fans see it? Oh well, read on, and I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from repeat viewings of LotR, indeed, rather, I have this nagging question. I've noticed that the only people who seem to be hyped up about the Lord of the Rings movie are the critics, action buffs, and other mildly-interested fans who've read the book once or twice. If none of the critics' reviews had been posted until tomorrow, the overall impression I have gotten from the people at the ends of the spectrum -- literate people who love, or haven't read, the book -- and especially from first hand reports on the tolkien newsgroups -- is distinctly under-whelming. By what standard are we supposed to assume these movies are as great as the critics say they are when not a single Tolkien fan has yet to match their enthusiasm on these forums (despite the numerous preview showings?) The WWW bulletin boards seem similarly dry. The impression from most of the fan reviews (and most of the critical reviews from those who HAVEN'T read the books) is that "...yes, it's a good movie. Possibly the best fantasy treatment yet. Not saying much but you can say more. Sure there are a lot of small faults but overall it's visually stunning and fast paced." In other words, as good as _Gladiator_ ...? Or are people so stunned that they can't formulate their thoughts till they see it again? -Ber ###### From: wrob Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 04:12:06 -0500 Lines: 46 Message-ID: <3C2059DE.37C2B3B9@erols.com> References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> <9vpki4$h09ju$1@ID-61461.news.dfncis.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVb0kfSTeB1gbqS+QfRdiMljaKzbXSomZRYKU24bcaUn40fMsDDFMhCA X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Dec 2001 09:08:17 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64123 "Simon Lüthi" wrote: > > Ok nice post. Let me trie to answer this one. > > firstly Gladiator has some good scenes but IMHO it gets boring very fast. I > mean there isn't much of a Story. > > As for the reactions. Iam on the board of elbenwald.de which is a big german > retailer selling Lotr stuff. And everyone there loves the movie and is > totally hyped! Also I read some Reviews on Kino.ch which is the biggest site > for Swiss (I live in Switzerland) cinemas. And also everyone there just > loves the movie. > > So the situation i got to see up to now is this. Every one loves or at least > likes to movie except for a few hardcore fans which just think that > everything in the movie has to be 100% the book. > > So apart from these purists everyone likes it. The people who didn't read > the book don't seem all that enthusiastic as readers that read the book 1-3 > times. But that again might be because it's not a happy end and they dont > have a clue how it will go on. > > Well we will see but I can't wait for next december .. argh ... I'm still on tenterhooks waiting for the first "bowled-over" review from regular newsgroup types -- simply to counter my growing sense of dread that I've been sold down the river reading all this hype, that I could have easily avoided... Aaargh! Just give me a bit of point-counterpoint and I will at least know that it's a question of taste... But not this eerie mantra that we're hearing from fans of the book... "Don't worry. It was good." I don't want to see a movie based on THAT! Maybe Tolkien-fandom isn't the best place to go for movie appreciation. I'll try and reassure myself with that... Although critics can be even more dishonest when it comes to movie-hype bandwagons... I'd just like to be able to appreciate the movie fer crying out loud! -Ber the not-so-easily bowled over, into a bundle of neuroses? PS-- Anyone see Last of the Mohicans? Now there was a movie at least as good as the original book! I hope LotR is as good as LotM -- no better, no worse. That way I can appreciate it for what it is, and discount this distracting hype and argument. ###### From: James Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Message-ID: <00n02uoio5g1s5r82e3rvvi4a5mte8j898@4ax.com> References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> <9vpki4$h09ju$1@ID-61461.news.dfncis.de> <3C2059DE.37C2B3B9@erols.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 7 NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.80.135.42 X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 1008753734 210.80.135.42 (Wed, 19 Dec 2001 20:22:14 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 20:22:14 EST Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia Distribution: world Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 20:21:25 +1100 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!deine.net!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nnrp.telstra.net!snewsf0.syd.ops.aspac.uu.net!newsfeed.ozemail.com.au!ozemail.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64261 wrob : >I'm still on tenterhooks waiting for the first "bowled-over" review >from regular newsgroup types Try Bryan Slick's. He just posted it. James ###### From: "G. M. Watson " Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 02:56:33 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Mime-version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 54 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64209 ---------- In article <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com>, wrob wrote: > [Re: LotR] > > Joy-killer? OK, maybe I'm just subconsciously kicking myself > for not being able to see it Tuesday night before all the > really hard-core Tolkien fans see it? Oh well, read on, and > I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from repeat viewings > of LotR, indeed, rather, I have this nagging question. > > I've noticed that the only people who seem to be hyped up > about the Lord of the Rings movie are the critics, action buffs, > and other mildly-interested fans who've read the book once or twice. > > If none of the critics' reviews had been posted until tomorrow, > the overall impression I have gotten from the people at the ends > of the spectrum -- literate people who love, or haven't read, the > book -- and especially from first hand reports on the tolkien > newsgroups -- is distinctly under-whelming. > > By what standard are we supposed to assume these movies > are as great as the critics say they are when not a single > Tolkien fan has yet to match their enthusiasm on these > forums (despite the numerous preview showings?) The > WWW bulletin boards seem similarly dry. > (snip) Not being an action-movie buff and having read the book considerably more than twice, I appreciate your post. The hosannas coming from the critics are quite understandable, given the abysmal mass-market crap that they are usually forced to review. Compared to 90% of American film product, a reportedly intelligent (more or less) and beautifully-shot film like LOTR must seem like manna from heaven. For almost any critic, the issue of the film's fidelity to the novel is completely irrelevant, as most of the reviews tend to indicate. However, I think the serious Tolkien buffs praising the film are generally taking the stance that, even if there are perceived flaws in the film's rendering of the novel, this is the only movie of it that's ever gonna be made and therefore "ignore the flaws and make the most of it" has to be the operative phrase. This is disappointing, but understandable. Then, of course, there's the tiny minority of nutbar purists like me, who don't need the film to make the novel seem more real and never will. Unlike everyone else in this NG, the film event I'm most excited about this week is the ongoing Amos Gitai retrospective at my local cinematheque. A lot less crowded but a lot more interesting (and relevant to the current political situation, something I follow with rather more avidity than things Tolkienian, I'm afraid). ###### From: "G. M. Watson " Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:00:59 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> <9vpki4$h09ju$1@ID-61461.news.dfncis.de> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Mime-version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 17 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64232 ---------- In article <9vpki4$h09ju$1@ID-61461.news.dfncis.de>, "Simon Lüthi" wrote: (snip) > As for the reactions. Iam on the board of elbenwald.de which is a big german > retailer selling Lotr stuff. And everyone there loves the movie and is > totally hyped! (snip) Gee, that sure is surprising, considering their livelihoods depend in part on its success. So, uh... would it not be fair to say that you suffer from a massive lack of credibility re your role as an independent commentator on the film? ###### From: Steve_T / Mr.Sunshine Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Organization: take out trash to reply Reply-To: Mr.Sunshine Message-ID: References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 10 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:24:29 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.3.185.35 X-Complaints-To: Abuse Role , We Care X-Trace: newshog.newsread.com 1008764669 208.3.185.35 (Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:24:29 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:24:29 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!yellow.newsread.com!bad-news.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!POSTED.newshog.newsread.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64254 On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:45:55 -0500, wrob wrote: >In other words, as good as _Gladiator_ ...? > >Or are people so stunned that they can't formulate their >thoughts till they see it again? I just saw it and already know that I will be seeing it again this weekend, and probably a few more times after that.. it's an ABSOLUTELY AWESOME MOVIE!!!!!! ###### From: "Raymond Chuang" Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 06:31:39 -0800 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 17 Message-ID: <9vq8co$3ah$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net> References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.b3.c6.6b X-Server-Date: 19 Dec 2001 14:31:52 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mindspring.com!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64237 "wrob" wrote in message news:3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com... > In other words, as good as _Gladiator_ ...? > > Or are people so stunned that they can't formulate their > thoughts till they see it again? Let's say this though: we may have surprisingly LITTLE competition for the first LORD OF THE RINGS movie at Oscar time. The only serious competition might be A BEAUTIFUL MIND, ALI, and possibly THE ROYAL TANNENBAUMS (I think that's the title of the movie). -- Raymond Chuang Mountain View, CA USA ###### From: Wumpus Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Message-ID: <4qb12u8qt5cs1q1kts1k9uophd8rsjvvi6@4ax.com> References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 51 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:28:50 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.112.59.121 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news4.rdc1.on.home.com 1008775730 24.112.59.121 (Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:28:50 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:28:50 PST Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news4.rdc1.on.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64305 The movie's out now, so why agonize over what the reviews and previews do or do not mean? You can watch it and decide for yourself. BTW, LOTR had very *few* preview showings for a major Hollywood release. And preview showings don't necessarily lead to Usenet threads. For example, The Majestic had a nation-wide sneak peek last Saturday, but it hasn't lead to any threads on rec.arts.movies.current-films yet. On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:45:55 -0500, wrob wrote: >[Re: LotR] > >Joy-killer? OK, maybe I'm just subconsciously kicking myself >for not being able to see it Tuesday night before all the >really hard-core Tolkien fans see it? Oh well, read on, and >I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from repeat viewings >of LotR, indeed, rather, I have this nagging question. > >I've noticed that the only people who seem to be hyped up >about the Lord of the Rings movie are the critics, action buffs, >and other mildly-interested fans who've read the book once or twice. > >If none of the critics' reviews had been posted until tomorrow, >the overall impression I have gotten from the people at the ends >of the spectrum -- literate people who love, or haven't read, the >book -- and especially from first hand reports on the tolkien >newsgroups -- is distinctly under-whelming. > >By what standard are we supposed to assume these movies >are as great as the critics say they are when not a single >Tolkien fan has yet to match their enthusiasm on these >forums (despite the numerous preview showings?) The >WWW bulletin boards seem similarly dry. > >The impression from most of the fan reviews (and most of >the critical reviews from those who HAVEN'T read the books) >is that "...yes, it's a good movie. Possibly the best >fantasy treatment yet. Not saying much but you can say more. >Sure there are a lot of small faults but overall it's >visually stunning and fast paced." > >In other words, as good as _Gladiator_ ...? > >Or are people so stunned that they can't formulate their >thoughts till they see it again? > >-Ber ###### From: dawnetta@pacifier.com (Dawn Taylor) Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:15:11 GMT Message-ID: <3c22bb1c.67983181@news.pacifier.com> References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: ip244.pdx4.pacifier.com X-Trace: 19 Dec 2001 08:17:17 -0800, ip244.pdx4.pacifier.com Organization: Northwest Link Lines: 40 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!logbridge.uoregon.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!nntp4.savvis.net!newsfeed.nwlink.com!209.20.130.44.MISMATCH!news.nwlink.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64200 On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:45:55 -0500, wrob wrote: >By what standard are we supposed to assume these movies >are as great as the critics say they are when not a single >Tolkien fan has yet to match their enthusiasm on these >forums (despite the numerous preview showings?) The >WWW bulletin boards seem similarly dry. Well, if your observation is accurate -- and I'm not saying that is -- one conclusion you could reach is that, perhaps, the movie is very good but Tolkien fans are going to be extremely difficult to win over no matter what. >The impression from most of the fan reviews (and most of >the critical reviews from those who HAVEN'T read the books) >is that "...yes, it's a good movie. Possibly the best >fantasy treatment yet. Not saying much but you can say more. >Sure there are a lot of small faults but overall it's >visually stunning and fast paced." Okay. >In other words, as good as _Gladiator_ ...? Well, since Gladiator isn't a very good movie once you look past the dazzling CGI work, that's not exactly a high bar to measure it against. How about comparing it to, say, Star Wars or 1981's Dragonslayer -- keeping in mind how far technology has come in the intervening years. Does it tell a good story AND is it well acted and directed AND use modern FX techniques to their best advantage? There's your high-water mark. Dawn ------------ Dawn Taylor DVD Journal/Portland Tribune dtaylor@commnewspapers.com ###### From: Tom Royer Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:38:42 -0500 Organization: The MITRE Corporation Lines: 26 Message-ID: <3C20D0A2.CE7773C8@mitre.org> References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> <9vq8co$3ah$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net> Reply-To: troyer@mitre.org NNTP-Posting-Host: mm108041-2k.mitre.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: top.mitre.org 1008783522 11033 129.83.61.142 (19 Dec 2001 17:38:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.mitre.org NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Dec 2001 17:38:42 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-20010724M (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newstransit.mitre.org!news.mitre.org!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64124 Raymond Chuang wrote: > "wrob" wrote in message news:3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com... > > > In other words, as good as _Gladiator_ ...? > > > > Or are people so stunned that they can't formulate their > > thoughts till they see it again? > > Let's say this though: we may have surprisingly LITTLE competition for the > first LORD OF THE RINGS movie at Oscar time. The only serious competition > might be A BEAUTIFUL MIND, ALI, and possibly THE ROYAL TANNENBAUMS (I think > that's the title of the movie). > > -- > Raymond Chuang > Mountain View, CA USA Call me a cynic, but given the way the Academy avoids SF and Fantasy and goes for, as another poster put it, "films," I predict a ton of special effects and other "secondary awards" for LOTR, but the biggies will go to Ali. Just a prediction. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: 19 Dec 2001 23:31:22 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 30 Message-ID: <6ud71a3kqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> <4qb12u8qt5cs1q1kts1k9uophd8rsjvvi6@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1008801085 815 10.0.3.2 (19 Dec 2001 22:31:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Dec 2001 22:31:25 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64328 Wumpus writes: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:45:55 -0500, wrob wrote: > > >If none of the critics' reviews had been posted until tomorrow, > >the overall impression I have gotten from the people at the ends > >of the spectrum -- literate people who love, or haven't read, the > >book -- and especially from first hand reports on the tolkien > >newsgroups -- is distinctly under-whelming. Well that would be an wrong conclusion. The film is good. It has some jarring unneccessary changes. But it is still an damn good film. > BTW, LOTR had very *few* preview showings for a major Hollywood > release. And preview showings don't necessarily lead to Usenet > threads. Well, I was at an preview (wednesday one week ago) and did write a review. But only posted in r.a.b.t (which I read), not a.f.t (which I only get crosspost) or r.a.m.c-f (which I do not get at all). Here is the web archive of it: http://neil.franklin.ch/Usenet/rec.arts.books.tolkien/20011213_Film_review_my_own_not_link_to_journalists_massive_spoiler_long -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery ###### From: ex_ottoyuhr@hotmail.com (Ex_Ottoyuhr) Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: 19 Dec 2001 10:55:49 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.201.172.124 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1008788149 6261 127.0.0.1 (19 Dec 2001 18:55:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Dec 2001 18:55:49 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeeder.edisontel.com!newsfeed4.cidera.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!peer1-sjc1.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!easynews!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64982 wrob wrote in message news:<3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com>... > [Re: LotR] > > Joy-killer? OK, maybe I'm just subconsciously kicking myself > for not being able to see it Tuesday night before all the > really hard-core Tolkien fans see it? Oh well, read on, and > I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from repeat viewings > of LotR, indeed, rather, I have this nagging question. > > I've noticed that the only people who seem to be hyped up > about the Lord of the Rings movie are the critics, action buffs, > and other mildly-interested fans who've read the book once or twice. See, people? See? I told you so! ;) Sorry. I couldn't resist. ###### From: wrob Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:20:28 -0500 Lines: 65 Message-ID: <3C21049B.140382D4@erols.com> References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVaFEGmgTbQ+t0Gf85EIL7+X6wcwykmQ+fy8d0RtcxXdHcX1TyHq9Mgk X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Dec 2001 21:16:45 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:65177 "G. M. Watson" wrote: > > ---------- > In article <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com>, wrob wrote: > > > [Re: LotR] > > > > Joy-killer? OK, maybe I'm just subconsciously kicking myself > > for not being able to see it Tuesday night before all the > > really hard-core Tolkien fans see it? Oh well, read on, and > > I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from repeat viewings > > of LotR, indeed, rather, I have this nagging question. > > > > I've noticed that the only people who seem to be hyped up > > about the Lord of the Rings movie are the critics, action buffs, > > and other mildly-interested fans who've read the book once or twice. > > > > If none of the critics' reviews had been posted until tomorrow, > > the overall impression I have gotten from the people at the ends > > of the spectrum -- literate people who love, or haven't read, the > > book -- and especially from first hand reports on the tolkien > > newsgroups -- is distinctly under-whelming. > > > > By what standard are we supposed to assume these movies > > are as great as the critics say they are when not a single > > Tolkien fan has yet to match their enthusiasm on these > > forums (despite the numerous preview showings?) The > > WWW bulletin boards seem similarly dry. > > > (snip) > > Not being an action-movie buff and having read the book considerably more > than twice, I appreciate your post. The hosannas coming from the critics are > quite understandable, given the abysmal mass-market crap that they are > usually forced to review. Compared to 90% of American film product, a > reportedly intelligent (more or less) and beautifully-shot film like LOTR > must seem like manna from heaven. For almost any critic, the issue of the > film's fidelity to the novel is completely irrelevant, as most of the > reviews tend to indicate. > > However, I think the serious Tolkien buffs praising the film are generally > taking the stance that, even if there are perceived flaws in the film's > rendering of the novel, this is the only movie of it that's ever gonna be > made and therefore "ignore the flaws and make the most of it" has to be the > operative phrase. This is disappointing, but understandable. > > Then, of course, there's the tiny minority of nutbar purists like me, who > don't need the film to make the novel seem more real and never will. Unlike > everyone else in this NG, the film event I'm most excited about this week is > the ongoing Amos Gitai retrospective at my local cinematheque. A lot less > crowded but a lot more interesting (and relevant to the current political > situation, something I follow with rather more avidity than things > Tolkienian, I'm afraid). Well said, Mr. Watson. I'm not as concerned about the movie being made myself, nor surprised if it turns out to be a better movie than adaptation (even most literate people take such situations for granted at the movies, and alot of great, great films have been made that way -- shouldn't look on Apocalypse Now as a travesty of Conrad, ferinstance). Maybe I'm equanimical because I'm one of those cranky people who think most people misinterpret modern literature anyway. The whole postmodern sensibility and all that rot. Oh well. -Ber ###### From: "Apteryx" Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> <9vpki4$h09ju$1@ID-61461.news.dfncis.de> <3C2059DE.37C2B3B9@erols.com> Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Lines: 28 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:36:28 +1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.54.76.50 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1008797780 210.54.76.50 (Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:36:20 NZDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:36:20 NZDT Organization: Xtra Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp1.phx1.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64625 wrob wrote in message news:3C2059DE.37C2B3B9@erols.com... > > PS-- Anyone see Last of the Mohicans? Now there was a movie at least > as good as the original book! I hope LotR is as good as LotM -- no > better, no worse. That way I can appreciate it for what it is, and > discount this distracting hype and argument. I like Last of the Mohicans. I have it in my video collection, and watch it every couple of years. But I would only rate it 5/10 (I am a tough marker. 5/10 means I am happy to keep it in my collection - either recorded from a TV broadcast or mistakenly bought, but if I didn't have it I wouldn't go out and buy it). I would have to see FOTR again at least once (I have tickets for Sunday) before deciding to rate it 9 or 10 out of 10. I only allow myself to rate 10 movies 10/10 at any one time, and if I gave that rating to FOTR, I would have to drop out one of my existing top 10 - probably either Dr Strangelove or The Trouble With Harry. 9/10 would mean it was only in the range of the 11th to 25th best movies I have ever seen, and there is no limit to the number of movies I would rate that high (there merely happens to be 14 of them at the moment - such as Brazil, The Third Man, Grand otel - that kind of movie) And yes, I would have to collect my thoughts and probably see it again before writing a detailed review of FOTR. -- Apteryx ###### From: wrob Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:40:21 -0500 Lines: 58 Message-ID: <3C210942.29D0043E@erols.com> References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> <3c22bb1c.67983181@news.pacifier.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVblCrF57ZrQigvOA9lV87uTb87ozDVpzkPSeGMBCpLG0wb3YUxLQtwT X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Dec 2001 21:36:37 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:65179 Dawn Taylor wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:45:55 -0500, wrob wrote: > > >By what standard are we supposed to assume these movies > >are as great as the critics say they are when not a single > >Tolkien fan has yet to match their enthusiasm on these > >forums (despite the numerous preview showings?) The > >WWW bulletin boards seem similarly dry. > > Well, if your observation is accurate -- and I'm not saying that is -- > one conclusion you could reach is that, perhaps, the movie is very > good but Tolkien fans are going to be extremely difficult to win over > no matter what. > > >The impression from most of the fan reviews (and most of > >the critical reviews from those who HAVEN'T read the books) > >is that "...yes, it's a good movie. Possibly the best > >fantasy treatment yet. Not saying much but you can say more. > >Sure there are a lot of small faults but overall it's > >visually stunning and fast paced." > > Okay. > > >In other words, as good as _Gladiator_ ...? > > Well, since Gladiator isn't a very good movie once you look past the > dazzling CGI work, that's not exactly a high bar to measure it > against. > > How about comparing it to, say, Star Wars or 1981's Dragonslayer -- > keeping in mind how far technology has come in the intervening years. > Does it tell a good story AND is it well acted and directed AND use > modern FX techniques to their best advantage? There's your high-water > mark. Yeah, but what if we're looking at Phantom Menace syndrome? I wish I never heard that these were supposed to be gret SFX/Action movies. I wish I never heard PJ was kowtowing to the "slavish devotion to the book" crowd. I could have been spoilted just knowing they got made! ALL he has to do to make a great movie is get the SPIRIT of the book right, for God's sake. He could have made it as spare as some Akira Kurosawa movies. Instead, I'm seeing increasing pressure on him to edit the next two as battle-royale Cecil B. DeMille style blockbusters which may tank TPM-style. I hope not. I personally think I may be disappointed just because the lavishness and "Merchant Ivory" ness of the production style does not jibe with Tolkien's idea of myth, period. Can't they make a REMOTELY arty film any more? Is it too much to ask of a movie adapted from LITERATURE? This is NOT some adventure story, and if that's the final verdict -- Star Wars -- then maybe the movies have failed even if they are considered the best popcorn flicks ever made. -Ber, still getting himself worked up to go see the movie. Enough about the damn pan pipes! ###### From: leifmk@pvv.ntnu.no (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 22:11:57 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Norwegian University of Science and Technology Lines: 33 Message-ID: <9vr3bd$4db$1@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no> References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> <3c22bb1c.67983181@news.pacifier.com> <3C210942.29D0043E@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: proto.pvv.ntnu.no X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1008799917 4523 129.241.210.168 (19 Dec 2001 22:11:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 22:11:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test75 (Feb 13, 2001) Originator: leifmk@pvv.ntnu.no (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeeder.inwind.it!inwind.it!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!uio.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64629 In article <3C210942.29D0043E@erols.com>, wrob wrote: > >Yeah, but what if we're looking at Phantom Menace syndrome? This is no Phantom Menace. That was a letdown; it was OK as a see-once entertainment but otherwise forgettable. I've seen FOTR once and will go again at least a couple of times while it's still showing on the biggest screens. >This is NOT some adventure story, and if that's the final verdict -- >Star Wars -- then maybe the movies have failed even if they are >considered the best popcorn flicks ever made. It does have elements of adventure, but so does the book. There are several action scenes, and yes, the special effects are pretty spectacular in some spots. Nothing wrong with that, as long as the spirit of the book is there, and IMHO (speaking as one who's read the thing about fifteen times) that certainly seems to be the case. The movie has great beauty as well as a strong sense of loss and sadness. The acting is rock-solid, the story is basically the familiar one from the book (a few changes in the particulars), and the backdrops! The scenery is to die for. It *looks* like Middle Earth, and it looks real. One or two minor things I might have liked to see done differently, but nothing show-stopping. -- Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea, GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll) ###### From: Boris Badenov Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:40:13 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> <3c22bb1c.67983181@news.pacifier.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-115.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:65066 On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:15:11 GMT, dawnetta@pacifier.com (Dawn Taylor) wrote: | |Well, if your observation is accurate -- and I'm not saying that is -- |one conclusion you could reach is that, perhaps, the movie is very |good but Tolkien fans are going to be extremely difficult to win over |no matter what. I think this is a right-on conclusion. The Tolkien fans wanted to see Tolkien's story. For the most part, we got that, but not altogether, and some of the changes were very hard to understand and harder to accept. ###### From: Boris Badenov Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:41:17 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 8 Message-ID: References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> <3c22bb1c.67983181@news.pacifier.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-132.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:65129 On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:15:11 GMT, dawnetta@pacifier.com (Dawn Taylor) wrote: |Does it tell a good story AND is it well acted and directed AND use |modern FX techniques to their best advantage? There's your high-water |mark. Yes, yes, yes, and yes. I plan to see it again, perhaps several times. ###### From: Bob Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 05:45:44 -0800 Organization: Rainbow Designs-Home of the "Chill Out" scarf Lines: 36 Message-ID: <3C21EB87.248E4830@ix.netcom.com> References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> <4qb12u8qt5cs1q1kts1k9uophd8rsjvvi6@4ax.com> <6ud71a3kqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: d8.e0.a0.bb Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 20 Dec 2001 13:44:30 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64443 Neil Franklin wrote: > Wumpus writes: > > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 03:45:55 -0500, wrob wrote: > > > > >If none of the critics' reviews had been posted until tomorrow, > > >the overall impression I have gotten from the people at the ends > > >of the spectrum -- literate people who love, or haven't read, the > > >book -- and especially from first hand reports on the tolkien > > >newsgroups -- is distinctly under-whelming. > > Well that would be an wrong conclusion. The film is good. It has some > jarring unneccessary changes. But it is still an damn good film. > > > BTW, LOTR had very *few* preview showings for a major Hollywood > > release. And preview showings don't necessarily lead to Usenet > > threads. > > Well, I was at an preview (wednesday one week ago) and did write a > review. But only posted in r.a.b.t (which I read), not a.f.t (which I > only get crosspost) or r.a.m.c-f (which I do not get at all). Here > is the web archive of it: > > http://neil.franklin.ch/Usenet/rec.arts.books.tolkien/20011213_Film_review_my_own_not_link_to_journalists_massive_spoiler_long > > -- > Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ > Uh. If you do not "get at all" r.a.m.c-f, why/how am I reading your post on that ng? Bob ###### From: Bob Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 05:47:34 -0800 Organization: Rainbow Designs-Home of the "Chill Out" scarf Lines: 21 Message-ID: <3C21EBF6.D424A9E5@ix.netcom.com> References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> <3c22bb1c.67983181@news.pacifier.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d8.e0.a0.bb Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 20 Dec 2001 13:46:20 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64453 Boris Badenov wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:15:11 GMT, dawnetta@pacifier.com (Dawn Taylor) wrote: > > | > |Well, if your observation is accurate -- and I'm not saying that is -- > |one conclusion you could reach is that, perhaps, the movie is very > |good but Tolkien fans are going to be extremely difficult to win over > |no matter what. > > I think this is a right-on conclusion. The Tolkien fans wanted to see > Tolkien's story. For the most part, we got that, but not altogether, and > some of the changes were very hard to understand and harder to > accept. Sort of like the Heinlein fans and Starship Troopers, except that we got only about 15% of the Heinlien story in the film? Bob ###### From: Consul de Designers Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien,rec.arts.movies.current-films Subject: Re: Conspicuous absence of enthusiasm? Good enough to see again? Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:46:01 -0800 Organization: University of Southern California Lines: 12 Sender: jamesony@jeponlinejameson.usc.edu Message-ID: <3C2231E9.19D5F17B@dolphins-cove.com> References: <3C2053BC.7605AB14@erols.com> <3c22bb1c.67983181@news.pacifier.com> <3C210942.29D0043E@erols.com> <9vr3bd$4db$1@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: jeponlinejameson.usc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: usc.edu 1008874004 12532 128.125.204.48 (20 Dec 2001 18:46:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@usc.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Dec 2001 18:46:44 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!howland.erols.net!usc.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:64598 Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y wrote: > that certainly seems to be the case. The movie has great beauty as > well as a strong sense of loss and sadness. The acting is rock-solid, I cried 2 times, when Bilbo goes ballistic at Frodo in Rivendell, and when Boromir is calling for Frodo (thought I think they could have even done it more ... frantic, but nonetheless, I loved it.. -- I have built a 'so far' contact list to those friends of my family, your prayers and thoughts would be appreciated. Jameson Stalanthas Yu, 'mutatis mutandis, strive to be humane, not human' Link at: http://www.dolphins-cove.com