Can. Not. Wait!!
Don't like LOTR or The Hobbit?I can.
Don't like LOTR or The Hobbit?
Loved the books too, reading them over 10 times. But you're a true aficionado if you've read the bolded, unlike a plebian lover of LOTR like myself!Loved the books, despite their flaws. I own pretty much anything Tolkien wrote, including the 10-12 books of notes his son edited tracking the evolution of his world and the story.
I can handle watching most of The Fellowship, the others I can't even bear to load into the DVD player. I was not thrilled to see Jackson finally attached to The Hobbit. I only tolerate it because I felt like at least it popularized Tolkien's works and maybe invited new people to read them.
Loved the books too, reading them over 10 times. But you're a true aficionado if you've read the bolded, unlike a plebian lover of LOTR like myself! Loved books and movies, although there appeared to a bit of miscasting, like Aragorn.
Aragorn as depicted by Viggo was too soft, especially his voice and mannerisms if you take into account his initial Strider role.I actually don't mind Aragorn, because the original character was merely a plot device and not personalized much at all. And I thought Boromir was finally done some justice, rather rather than being a total oaf. But some other characters (like Faramir) did not fare very well, there was a lot of video-game and AD&D trappings inserted into the action and visuals of the world (so that the balrog became merely a monster from a 3D shooter game, magic became a cheap tool rather than intrinsic to race/personage), there was a large focus on horror schlock in ways that seemed B-rate, subtle acting/character fell way to large-scale histrionics (re: The death of Denethor), and a lot of Tolkien's underlying essence of the character and race was lost.
I actually really liked Jackson's version of King Kong because the source material was thin, so he could add to it without losing anything positive.
Anyway, I'm hoping things improve for the Hobbit, but Jackson seems to be too surface-oriented. I think he'll nail Hobbiton and the spirit of the hobbits, but lose the rest, and Beorn will likely just slip into some crazy werebear schlock like out of UnderWorld.
I do think it'll be interesting to see what happens since The Hobbit precedes LOTR, but the movie is post-LOTR in terms of production quality.
Aragorn as depicted by Viggo was too soft, especially his voice and mannerisms if you take into account his initial Strider role.
Agreed that Sean Bean did an amazing job of Boromir and that Faramir was miscast hence appeared insipid.
That's the part of Western culture I can't embrace. The new age sensitive guy hence my attraction to stoic men in general.Yes, the character was redesigned to appeal to modern Western culture. We like our heroes more a blend of gender (the "sensitive male") and with doubt/angst. The Aragorn of the books actually had no personality, he was just the "future king" and didn't seem to be much bothered by anything, nor in doubt of his eventual success... AKA a plot device.
Did you see Wenham in 300? Weak.Not agreed, completely. I didn't think Faramir was necessarily miscast, I merely thought the writer of the script effectively raped his character by downgrading his moral caliber unnecessarily to make a point that did not have to be made. The same thing happened with Frodo, who lost some of his purity given to him by Tolkien. A big premise of the Ring was that no matter how pure Frodo was (the angel in white at whose breast revolved the wheel of fire), in the very end he was still mortal and couldn't do what was required... and Jackson broke him too early, unnecessarily. At least Sam fared well.
I actually don't mind Aragorn, because the original character was merely a plot device and not personalized much at all. And I thought Boromir was finally done some justice, rather rather than being a total oaf. But some other characters (like Faramir) did not fare very well, there was a lot of video-game and AD&D trappings inserted into the action and visuals of the world (so that the balrog became merely a monster from a 3D shooter game, magic became a cheap tool rather than intrinsic to race/personage), there was a large focus on horror schlock in ways that seemed B-rate, subtle acting/character fell way to large-scale histrionics (re: The death of Denethor), and a lot of Tolkien's underlying essence of the character and race was lost.
I actually really liked Jackson's version of King Kong because the source material was thin, so he could add to it without losing anything positive.
Anyway, I'm hoping things improve for the Hobbit, but Jackson seems to be too surface-oriented. I think he'll nail Hobbiton and the spirit of the hobbits, but lose the rest, and Beorn will likely just slip into some crazy werebear schlock like out of UnderWorld.
I do think it'll be interesting to see what happens since The Hobbit precedes LOTR, but the movie is post-LOTR in terms of production quality.