Anybody else bothered by the commercialization of LofR?

[mammawlin]

LOL [img]graemlins/evillaughter2.gif[/img] Interesting posts!
Lots of "hype" these days about many things (LOR, Harry Potter, Christmas) tends to be aggravating if you let it. . . try not to let it.

The only thing that really bothers me is the movies fall so so so short of the books, always! I think I would be a good editor or director because I tend to see what is "wrong" with the movies and change them in my head so easily that I end up thinking "Why didn't they do *THAT*" It seems so easy to me to improve them, but they don't.

[Dreamer128]

Its a simply 1,2,3
If they don't (1) sell alot of LOTR junk then they wont(2) make alot of money wich means that(3) the budget for the other LOTR movies will be smaller.

[Ezekial]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dreamer128:
Its a simply 1,2,3
If they don't (1) sell alot of LOTR junk then they wont(2) make alot of money wich means that(3) the budget for the other LOTR movies will be smaller.<hr></blockquote>

That doesn't matter, they've already made all three!!!

[Sir Taliesin]

I thought the Goblets were a greast bargin, though I hate Burger King food. I'd much rather eat Wendy's or Mickey D's. I have three now and need the Arwen glass. I also have all the Action figures but Strider. Been buying them for two months. The kids love to play with them! I just like to look at them. You all should check out the reviews in some of the London papers from yesterdays premiere. They are for the most part VERY positive. I can't wait.

BTW I read these books at least twenty or twenty five times. Best fantasy out there!

[Tancred]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ezekial:

Personnaly I think Gandalf looks fine, but what about Arwen taking the place of other characters from the book? I think thta's so wrong, but that's the only complaint I have about the film....<hr></blockquote>

Maybe you think it's wrong, but from a film director's point of view, it makes a lot of sense, because it fixes 2 major problems -

1) Arwen is not a character in the book; merely a mention. But to understand what sends Aragorn to claim the throne of Gondor, we have to understand he loves her, and vice versa. So, somehow Arwen has to appear more.

2) Lord of the Rings is infused with Tolkien's lore of Middle-Earth. Anyone who knows the lore - or even someone who reads the appendices -would, for example, be able to point out Glorfindel as the mighty Glorfindel himself, slayer of Balrogs. In a movie, it makes little or no sense to have an elf turn up, rescue Frodo, and then disappear for the rest of the trilogy. Who was he? Everyone will ask. Those in the know will know, but for those who are being introduced to Lord of the Rings through the film it'll come as a bit of a puzzler.

I'm all for little changes like this. I always thought Arwen was a little hard-done-by for dialogue anyway.

Tancred

[dominions]

Another (obvious) reason is there isn't any main female roles in LotR. Putting atleast one in will allow more of the audience to identify with/get into the film a little more.

[Lifetime]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tancred:


Maybe you think it's wrong, but from a film director's point of view, it makes a lot of sense, because it fixes 2 major problems -

1) Arwen is not a character in the book; merely a mention. But to understand what sends Aragorn to claim the throne of Gondor, we have to understand he loves her, and vice versa. So, somehow Arwen has to appear more.

2) Lord of the Rings is infused with Tolkien's lore of Middle-Earth. Anyone who knows the lore - or even someone who reads the appendices -would, for example, be able to point out Glorfindel as the mighty Glorfindel himself, slayer of Balrogs. In a movie, it makes little or no sense to have an elf turn up, rescue Frodo, and then disappear for the rest of the trilogy. Who was he? Everyone will ask. Those in the know will know, but for those who are being introduced to Lord of the Rings through the film it'll come as a bit of a puzzler.

I'm all for little changes like this. I always thought Arwen was a little hard-done-by for dialogue anyway.

Tancred<hr></blockquote>

Hey that was.. rather interesting. A new view on things..
And in Singapore I'm rather annoyed at the LACK of LOTR commercialisation. People here just dont appreciate it. I think maybe its because most of the target audience here dont really appreciate English Literature..

[Legolas]

NOOOOOoooo!!!
Despite a relative lack of hyping I just found out most cinemas are completely booked for at least the first three days after the Lord of the Rings gets there. I knew I shouldn't have left the waiting line to post on IW [img]tongue.gif[/img] .

Arwen is there for several reasons, some of which the Duc de Quenelles mentioned (that'd be Tancred). I think Arwen's there because every director knows romance works in movies. And indeed to prepare us for the happenings in the Return of the King. The first time I read the Lord of the Rings I was completely confused when she showed up to (well, you know. I won't spoil that) Her character was not as deep as the others because Arwen was near absent. I'm glad the director's going to fix that [img]smile.gif[/img]

And ents? I think you'll have to wait until the Two Towers, unless I'm very mistaken. Another year, was it? Too long.

[Melusine]

Bwahahahahahaha
I have tickets for the 19th!
*makes a face at Legolas*
[img]graemlins/moon.gif[/img]

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Legolas]

Aw, you get to go on the 19th?
I phoned and found out I have to wait until Wednesday!