i would have, had i gone they're costumes were basically mideval, but my one friend had elf ears and a cloak, the other a full "hobbit" costume (boddice, multiple skirts, blouse...) i don't know what the others did, but it was probably something similar.
I know I am late but I only recently had opportunity to see all three movies. First off the first one was slow paced, the second was an improvement, but too much was hanging and the third was a vast improvement on the other two. I enjoyed the last in the Trilogy the best. Acting was good, costumes, etc but believe it or not I thought it was way over rated for what it offered. Too much exaggeration of characters living through battles without a scratch, etc. The wizard used more of his sword than magic which I thought was strange, but you know.. they wanted to base it on the book. I guess I have been a GM for too long? I would give more credibility to a movie like Braveheart than this.
Real late JB
But that's not important.
The films cannot compare to the books, as is always said, but this story is to me "real" fantasy. I am not a lover of many fantasy books as many are missing the purpose of it.
I would not compare books or films with RPGs or any games. I think games are played for a different purpose than the purpose of a film or book.
I liked all the films, but probably agree with you in terms of each film. I think it is a good that Tolkien subdued the magic elements and emphasized character and universal principles.
Gandalf was a great example, to me, of duty (he was the only Wizard out of five to remain on the straight and narrow path) but though he acted dutifully and diligently he was compelled by a higher power not to violate the free will of those he had come to serve.
Dubhdara.
A point about Gandalf. In the books, you would find that he used the sword more than his power. This would be consistent with Tolkien's worldview, which is based on Catholicism. LotR is filled with elements drawn from Christianity, as well as Norse and Celtic mythology. I always felt that the magical power as portrayed in LotR was not particularly useful for combat, except against the more magical creatures (Balrog and Ringwraiths). There is more of a feeling of inherent magic, that is, the dwarves sense minerals and have abilities underground, the incredible archery of the elves, along with their nature sense, the feel that the hobbits have for the very earth, etc.
As for the main characters making it through the battles relatively unscathed, that is also true to the books. Those characters are truly heroic. For matters of time, the story of Faramir's recovery and his relationshiop with Eowyn is left out. The magnificent reclaiming of the Shire is gone. As is Tom Bombadil. But none of these were really central to the story, either.
We own the extended versions of the Fellowship of the Ring and the Two Towers. Can't wait for the exteneded version of the Return of the King.
I didn't find any of it really drawn out, but then I know the books so well that I look forward eagerly to each event!
Yes,
(here's a confession) I've read the books several times, and a few biographies, and his personal letters, and..well, quite a bit. Even had an article published in Meridian Magazine comparing the symbolism with the gospel - looking back, it could have been improved a bit ;(
Gee, I even studied Celtic (mainly Irish) mythology and love Anglo-Saxon/Norse legends too.
I'm one of those people who likes stories told in the amount of time (or pages) that it takes. Drawn-out would only be a description I would use if the film was not interesting to me. I've read Robert Jordan as well, and there are no end to characters and pages in his story! (currently extending to 11 fat books).
I, too, cannot wait for the extended version! When's it out?
Dubhdara.
QUOTE |
I would not compare books or films with RPGs or any games. |