[Pete-D]

$18.2 million is quite high, and bodes well for the opening weekend. I hope all the Tolkien freaks see it again this weekend. Rememeber this is opening on weekday in the fall/winter, not in the summer.

But I'm not sure how high repeat viewership will be. It may prove to be an exhausting viewing exeperience for those not famailar with the books.

I'm expecting to top of around $200-$250 million, which is quite good. It's box office take overseas should also be quite high, so New Line execs can rest easy, this is not going to be a financial let down by any means.

[RobertR]

The discussion of the film is unusual, because an unusually high number of people seeing the film (at least initially) have read the books, and are intimately familiar with the story. Thus the scrutiny in comparing the two art forms.

This is VERY different from almost ANY other film adaptation (HP is the only recent exception that comes to mind). I don't think there were comparisons to the book on this level for other adaptions of best sellers (Gone with the Wind, The Godfather, etc). People just accepted that it was a cinematic adaption of the story. It may be impossible for those of us who have read the books to stand outside that perspective and view it as a film.

Therefore, maybe the "best" perspective on LOTR as a FILM comes from film lovers who haven't read the books. Does it succeed for them? Do they like the characters, pacing, passage of time etc. as presented?

[MickeS]

Quote:

"The major problem comes with its weak story and one-dimensional characters. The paper thin plot essentially boils down to 'Hey, I have to go see someone about getting rid of this ring.' His pals respond in kind by saying, 'Ok, lets go.' Everyone walks for a few minutes, then fights, then walks some more, fight some more, walk some more, then when they finally reach their destination they find out that they can’t be helped so we get some more walking and fighting. This goes on for three hours. Once you get past the beautiful eye-candy you realize how tedious and monotonous this all becomes.

That is EXACTLY how I felt about this movie!

Quote:

Therefore, maybe the "best" perspective on LOTR as a FILM comes from film lovers who haven't read the books. Does it succeed for them? Do they like the characters, pacing, passage of time etc. as presented?

That would be me, and the answer is "no".

The characters were barely presented. I never really understood what motivations Frodo had to go on the trek with the ring in the first place. Couldn't that Aragorn guy just have come to the Shire and taken the ring? The hobbits mostly seemed to be in the way anyway.

/Mike

[Chuck Mayer]

As for character development, I feel the actors must be relied upon in such a huge epic. Their actions define their motivations. I thought the actors did an unbelieveable job.

Quick, what was Princess Leia's motivation to join/fight with/lead the rebellion? Where was that presented in SW?

Not knocking Carrie Fisher or SW at all. Just trying to back up my opinion

Take care,
Chuck

P.S. Once my wife got past her anger at being awake at 3:30 AM and having to work in a few hours, she admitted to enjoying the movie. My brother-in-law said it was OK, but too long. He was pretty beat as well. I know she wants to see it again. I admit taking for granted to knowing the characters and situations...

[Rob Gillespie]

Quote:

I never really understood what motivations Frodo had to go on the trek with the ring in the first place.

Frodo's motivation was very clearly defined: Take the ring away from The Shire or risk death at the hands of Sauron's forces.

Quote:

Couldn't that Aragorn guy just have come to the Shire and taken the ring?

As is also explained clearly, men (as in the race of men) are very susceptible to the powers of the ring. The temptation proved to be too much for the nine kings who eventually became the Nazgul, proved too much for Boromir. Aragorn, as heir to the throne of Gondor, would not have been a candidate as ring-bearer. Gandalf knows that the hobbits (especially Frodo) are really the most sure way of getting the ring to Rivendell where Elrond would have to make a decision about it's future.

What really struck me in the scenes from The Shire, was the interplay between Frodo, Gandalf and Bilbo. I really got a feel for the fact that these characters had known each other for many years, especially Gandalf and Bilbo. Quite exquisite acting.

[RobertR]

Quote:

That would be me, and the answer is "no".

Ok, that's one vote. I'm looking for a broader consensus, though.

Quote:

Couldn't that Aragorn guy just have come to the Shire and taken the ring?

I thought the film made it clear: Everyone fears the power of the Ring, and its corrupting influence. We're shown what befell kings (of which Aragorn is one) who were corrupted by it. They died, or became Nazgul. In fact, the more powerful the character, the worse the Ring is for him. Gandalf doesn't even want to TOUCH the damn thing.

That's part of the beauty of the story. This small, innocent, humble person, someone who never thinks about power or glory, has the courage, the incredible sense of responsibility, to take on this incredible task. It makes it a much more interesting story to have "humble person become hero" than "hero is always hero".

[BrianShort]

Just FYI, that review that was just posted above from Coming Attractions is the same one by Michelle Alexandria that was ripped apart earlier, for calling Peter Jackson Peter Jenkins from Australia instead. She also called Legolas "The Bow Guy" in the initial impressions. This one was just polished up quite a bit and I thought it was well written, even though I disagreed with 99% of it

Brian

[Kenneth]

Another element which is not so obvious in the movie, but clearer in the books, is that the Hobbits have a particular resistance to the rings. Gollum possessed the ring for hundreds of years and was not consumed (in the Nazgul sense). In the book, it notes that Frodo is becoming like a bottle of light as he resists the effects of the Morgul blade that strikes him at Weathertop. They note that any other creature would have succumbed long before.

Kenneth

[Geoffrey_A]

I went into FOTR the same way I went into Harry Potter. I had read the books, but just over 2 years ago. As such, while I was familiar with the characters and the basics of the plot, much had faded in my memory. This is the way I wanted to see the film. I wanted to rediscover things through the movie, and be able to say "That's just how I pictured it" or "They really nailed that". I did that very seldom in Harry Potter. I spent the entire movie doing that in Fellowship of the ring.

The movie was simply remarkable. A brilliant adaption of what is arguably the dullest of the three books. Every change made has a reason and purpose, and not a single one bothered me. Some histories are left untold, some background plot threads are abandoned, but all to the benefit of the movie. While not a literal adaption in the vein Harry Potter is, this movie successfully captured the feel of the book, which HP didn't. There was soul and feeling in this movie.

I'll take issue with those who say the characters were one dimensional, as I never got that sense at all. The depth of emotion conveyed through the characters eyes alone was astounding. These were real characters, thinking about what was happening to them, moved by the events around them. Their motivations were not layed bare verbally, but there was a definite sense of them conveyed through the actions and body languagee of the characters. If you didn't pick up on that, more's the pity. I was amazed at how often I'd look around the theater to see people dabbing their eyes after an emotional scene (of which there is an abundance).

The film totally succeeded for me. I saw it twice, and the second viewing was just as good as the first. It lost none of its impact, as many films do upon repeated viewings **cough cough titanic cough cough**.

[Seth Paxton]

Quote:

Seth, JP3 was a Wednesday opening. Here's the daily takes from bofofficemojo.com:

Thanks for the info, Joe. I stand corrected.

btw, that calender format is great.