|
LOTR Coverage Index here
E-mail Greg Wright here
TOLKIEN
CHRISTIAN?
Subject: JRR
Tolkien is Right Newsletter 31
Date:
Wed, 2 Jan 2002
From: "Tyler Steingard"
I
know for a fact that C.S. Lewis was a well known Bibal scholar, but
I didn't think that JRR Tolkien had much to do with Christianity or
the Bible... does he have any biblically based books (like Lewis'
Mere Christianity)?
Thanks, Tyler Steingard
Response: Tolkien introduced Lewis to Jesus. So the answer to
your question is: yes, Tolkien was a Christian. And, no, he did not
write a book like Mere Christianity. -David
Response from Tom Orr: In response
to whether Tolkien wrote any explicit commentaries on Christian
faith, you're right that he didn't pen anything quite like Lewis's
Mere Christianity, but he did write a very interesting essay called
"On Fairy Stories," in which he argues that all stories of
imagination anticipate, and are moving toward, the One Great Story
of Jesus Christ and the redemption of the world. It's included in a
delightful little book called The Tolkien Reader (may not be in
print these days but probably available at a good library). Peace.
--Tom Orr
MISSING THE JOY IN LIVING
Subject: Newsletter
31 -Tolkien and Lewis
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002
Hi
David, All this talk about the good and evil of current movies is
wearing me out, as I'm sure it is many people. I feel like
Christians try so hard to figure out if something is right or wrong
that they often miss most of the joy in just living. I saw Harry
Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. I have no connection to the occult
world and to me it was a breath-taking movie that was entertaining
from beginning to end. I also saw Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of
the Ring (twice already). I was absolutely engrossed with
this movie and enjoyed every second of it. With both movies I felt
like my deepest worship of God was in enjoying the gifts and talents
of those who had the ingenuity to create such imaginative stories
and bring them to life for the rest of us. I felt no sinister force
or pull towards Satan. My heart thrilled with the emotional highs
and lows of both movies and I left the theater feeling like I had
been on tremendous adventures.
I
believe that there are times in life when we should just find joy in
living and breathing and spending time with those we love. That too
is pure worship of God. I cannot believe that our loving, merciful,
gracious Abba finds fault in fairytales and imagination. He created
us to use our gifts and talents to the best of our abilities. The
people who created these stories and made the movies have tremendous
talent and imagination. I was completely swept away by the movies
and enjoyed the experiences immensely.
Thank you for all you do. I look to your website constantly
for positive aspects to find in current movies and you never let me
down.
Kimberly Wenger
Response: You are welcome. And thanks for your Right-On
words. -David
DRUTHERS
AND BILL'S MONEY
Subject:
LOTR: FOTR
Date:
Tue, 01 Jan 2002
From: Gil
It is always a
difficult and treacherous undertaking when a director or/and those
involved decide to approach and tackle a project all ready set in
people's minds in the form of a novel. I first read The Hobbit
and LOTR about 20 years ago. Obviously I was completely captivated
and transformed to another realm of time and place and happy to say
I have as yet to recover.
When I first heard that LOTR was to
be turned into a film, I like others were slightly dismayed and a
bit concerned due to the possibility of something so precious (no
pun intended) being "ruined." Following the release of
trailers and sneak previews on the internet greatly alleviated my
fears of someone doing a semi poor job. Peter Jackson has done
a masterful work in realizing to cinema The Lord Of The Rings:
Fellowship Of The Rings.
If I had my druthers and Bill
Gate's money I would film EVERYTHING in the LOTR and follow it up
with The Hobbit. I am not Mr. Gates and I doubt that this will
ever happen. Therefore It has to be said that everyone involved with
LOTR:FOTR have given us a great film for decades to come. The
DVD should be at least 4 1/2 - 5 hours long. Anything less
would be orcish.
I'm a Gen X'er and somewhat disagree with
the tone of your review. Don't critique the film through the
filter of hype. Nothing ever lives up to hype, but I will say
that FOTR has been the one that has gotten closer than any other
film. Please critique it on face value.
God
Bless
Gil
Response:
Thanks for your input, Gil! -Greg
JACKSON'S
TREATMENT OF THE GANDALF/CHRIST PARALLEL
Subject: Gandalf's Death Scene
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002
From: Doug
Hello Greg.
That was a thought provoking essay.
I very much enjoyed the film, knowing full well that a 3-hour film
treatment, or even a 6-hour one, could never do the book justice,
so I think I went into it fairly open-minded.
I see you have had a lot of feedback from folks who know more about
the subject than me, so I will focus solely on one visual from the
film...
I have understood for several years that Gandalf's death scene on
the bridge was supposed to be symbolic of the crucifixion.
That said, Gandalf's fall into the abyss in the cruciform
posture sent chills up my spine. I was very pleased that this
spiritual element survived the Hollywood treatment. I can't
wait for Gandalf's return (in spirit-form!) in the sequels!
It's ironic to me that Gandalf is played by (from what I remember
from another web site) and agnostic, and that the evil wizard is
played by Christopher Lee, who I believe is a Christian in real
life. I might be wrong here, but
I hope not. I used to have a large book titled: The Films
of Christopher Lee. I learned from this book that Mr. Lee
appeared on a British Christian tv program ("Stars on Sunday")
where he talked about the forces of good (usually represented by
the church) defeating evil in most of his Hammer horror films.
He then went on to read several Psalms using that deep, rich voice
of his. I wish I still had the book. It felt good to
see him get such a good part in such a huge movie like LOTR.
God Bless America,
Doug
Response: Glad you enjoyed your visit. I am unaware of
either actor's religious beliefs. -Greg
A
CIVIL EXCHANGE OF IDEAS
Subject: LOTR Essay
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002
From: T. Quinn
I thought it was a thought-provoking and informative essay.
I enjoyed reading
it. I appreciate the exchange of thoughts and ideas, and the
challenge to
explore literary themes. It is does not bother me if I find
I have a different
view -- my mind is educated by the exchange. I appreciate
your thoughtful
essay, and the time you spent in preparing it.
--T. Quinn
Response: You are very welcome.
And thank you for taking the time! -Greg
CHRISTIAN
STORY HARD TO FIND
Subject: "Lord Of The Rings"
Date: Mon 31 Dec, 2001
From: Lori
Thank
you for your comments on the story. I went to see the movie with
my son and have read The Hobbit and I have come out this
believing that Tolkien was not writing a Christian story. It is
his imagination and that is all it is. After reading about his life,
I would have to say I don't see any signs of Christianity in it.
I see he was raised by a priest and in the Catholic church.
He worship in the Catholic church, but that does not make a person
a Christian. And even if he was a Christian, that does not make
the story Christian. It is just a imaginary story that probably
came about when he was so sick from Trench fever.
I came out of the movie not sensing any Christianity from it. Thought
it focused to much on the evil instead of good. And it made good
look whimpy.
Thank you.
Lori
.
Response: Funny how that could be the case,
given that Tolkien thought he was writing a Christian story...
Remember, though, that a lot gets lost in translation to the
screen; and this is only part one of three, too.
Good may turn out much less "whimpy" in the end...
Thanks for visiting! -Greg
ABOUT
THAT TECHNOLOGY THING...
Subject: Tolkien and Middle Earth
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001
From: Pete
Hi
Greg,
I read through your essay and all the responses. Man, don't people
have anything better to do than argue about worlds that don't exist?-)
Thanks for all the time and effort, everyone! I learned a tonne
tonight sitting and reading through all of this.
I just have a couple of comments to add that I haven't seen anyone
else offer to the discussion.
Firstly, much has been said about the various Christ-like attributes
seen in several of the characters in LOTR, but that no one character
is Christ in an allegorical sense. It struck me that this is similar
to the Old Testament. Many of the OT characters (Moses, the
judges, Samuel, David, etc.) had attributes of Christ and in this
way looked forward to or prophecied about him in an incarnational
sense. Perhaps this was what Tolkien was trying to do with his "history"
of Middle Earth.
Secondly, you've made several comments about the amount of technology
available at the end of the Third Age, as if this was proof that
it's not meant to be a prehistory of our age. I don't agree with
those who think that Tolkien wrote a prehistory for our world, since
it's quite clear from his writing that it was a story for story's
sake. However, I think it's a bit of cultural arrogance to assume
that we are at the height of technology in all areas and that any
other period of history is technologically backward compared to
us. There is evidence that all the great cultures (Roman, Egyptian,
Sumerian, Chinese, etc.) were ahead of us in some way or another,
having found ingenious ways to solve problems that we have yet to
solve, or solve in a much less sophisticated manner. The amount
of technology available is not a strong argument against Tolkien's
writing a prehistory of our Age.
Again, thanks to everyone (and especially you, Greg) for all the
work. Much appreciated.
In Christ,
Pete
Response: Thanks for you
abundant kindness, Pete! You're right that we tend to be a bit
ethnocentric about technology. What nags me about the
technology present in LotR, though, is how closely it resembles all the technologies emerging in the period
which was the Professor's own philological specialty. That makes the
technology uniquely Medieval Western European, not Egyptian, Sumerian, Roman
or Chinese. -Greg
MORE
NOTES FROM THE AUTHOR
Subject: I am immensely pleased...
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001
From: The Fish
...with your site. Thank you for inviting responses to
your interesting essay on Tolkien's mythology.
I wonder if you have yet read Tolkien's Letters?
It has been out of print but recently returned due to the movie,
& I was delighted to get a copy for Christmas. I haven't
finished reading it yet, but there is much material in the book
pertinent to questions you raise in your essay.
The spiritual imagery was certainly by design, in fact he
called it a Christian work, "unconsciously at first, consciously
in the revision."
The T-mythology posits, in fact a pre-Christian world. Tolkien specifically
states of LotR:
The Fall
of Man is in the past and off stage; the Redemption of Man is
in the far future. We are in a time when the One God, Eru,
is known to exist by the wise, but is not approachable save by
or through the Valar, though he is still remembered in (unspoken)
prayer by those of Numenorean descent. (Letters, no. 297)
Eru has not "condescended to walk the earth" because
He has not done so yet. Think of Middle-Earth along
the lines of C.S. Lewis' question, "If there were a world with
talking animals, how would God manifest himself there?" (a
paraphrase, I'm afraid.) Read instead, "If God had created
the world with multiple sentient races, and given angelic beings
charge over it for a time, how would they have fared?"
You state, "The T-mythology is not only the story of how...supernatural
forces...shaped our world, it is the tale of how those magical forces
have left our world." These magical forces progressively
leaving the world; the Valar, the land of Numinor, the Elves, the
Istari, are not leaving man to work out his destiny alone.
Yes, now comes the time for the Dominion of Man. Now comes
the time, in fact for the dominion of the Son of Man.
The supernatural powers of the first three ages have not left man
alone, they have gotten out from between him and the One.
All through the long ages Eru Illutuvar (sp?) has never abandoned
Middle-Earth, and will not--though all his "supernatural"
servants may throw in the towel. When Gandalf spoke to Frodo
about his having been meant to have the ring, it was not Manwe he
was speaking of, but the One. Manwe had no such control.
Eru alone can reach in and order the fate of individuals so directly.
As to his motives in creation, you state, "in conceiving
the T-mythology, Tolkien must have seen a need to create a new mythology
for the modern world. That is, he must have perceived that
the existing western mythologies, including the Judeo-Christian
tradition, failed to account for the world as we know it."
You must know that Tolkien considered "sub-creation" an
activity that honored Creator God--akin to a child imitating his
father. That alone is sufficient justification for T-mythology,
however, you come very close in understanding his dissatisfaction
with western mythology. Tolkien was attempting, among
other things, to create a mythology for England on a level
with the Norse sagas and other "northern" mythos.
He rejected the Arthurian legends for the purpose on the basis of
their large French influence and post-Christian status.
As for the Judeo-Christian tradition, Tolkien would never have classified
it as western and probably not mythology. I
think he would be more likely to call it history. Eastern,
if it needed to be clarified. Middle-Earth is a pre-christological
pagan worldview, if you must, one that would be eminently
convertible to Christ. Harumph. There is no question
of Middle-Earth replacing Sacred Scripture, or making up for anything
God's own Story lacks.
As for a pragmatic Christianity with no place for grace, the
Holy Spirit or forgiveness--Let Tolkien speak for himself.
This is from Letters, no. 246, on Frodo's supposed failure at the
Cracks of Doom.
Frodo was
given 'grace':...in his resistance to the temptation of the ring...and
in his endurance of fear and suffering. But grace is
not infinite, and seems in the Divine economy limited to
what is sufficient for the accomplishment of the task appointed
to one....
Frodo had
done what he could and spent himself completely ( as an instrument
of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object
of his quest could be achieved. His humility...and his sufferings
were justly rewarded...and his exercise of patience and mercy
towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.
So for his imaginary
world. In the real world? Can contemporary religious
service only pay lip service to the supernatural? No, his
was a faith that was sure the things of God were even more real
and vital than those of everyday life. His letters speak as
freely of the spiritual realm and the forces of good and evil conflicting
in the world as they do of his friends and daily activities.
I apologize for
not providing "quotes" at this time to support the above
paragraph but find I am running out of alertness and need to go
to bed. If you request, I'll dig you up more quotes
another day. But please avail yourself of a copy of
Letters, and you will find quotes on not just LotR, but communion,
faith, marriage, WW1, WW2, the Simarillion, the Valar, grace, C.S.
Lewis, the works of C.S. Lewis, the motorcar and the local fishmonger.
RE: movie
Casting:
A+++
Acting:
A+
Scenery: A+++
Screenplay:
B- some legitimate cinematic alterations, others that
made no sense.
Thank you for you patience, I hope I haven't
gone over too much previously traveled ground. I apologize
for any late-night lapses or failure to make sense. Your essays
truly intrigued me and resonated with my recent joy of
discovery of a deeper faith than I had seen before in Tolkien's
work.
the Fish
><>
Response: I'm glad you are
able to convey kind thoughts about my thoughts, without necessarily agreeing. Your view
is consistent with the Salvation History view, which has merits. Again,
though, I have trouble with this view. In the Scouring of the Shire, where is
the grace in God's divine economy? Though Tolkien
longs for a day when the Divine Economy has more
than enough to go around, I think he sees the
Fourth Age (which I read as our own age) as one in which
the Economy is depressed. -Greg
BELIEVE
IN SOMETHING
Subject: The Fellowship of the Ring
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001
From: Richmond
I have watched the movie 4 times now and could watch it 4 more.
I absolutely loved the landscape and language was so beautiful.
I think this movie is a movie is a must see for all family.
It is so different from most hollywood movie and I believe it tells
us to believe in ourselves no matter how small we may feel compared
to the world. and Most important of all, believe in your friends
and your heart.
Response: I think
you have read the movie very well. Do you think that's Jackson's influence, or Tolkien's theme?
-Greg
ROME
SWEET HOME
Subject: The Essay
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001
From: Rebecca
"And of course, Catholics are
Christians."
Thank you for stating this.
It did my heart good. So many of our Christian brothers
and sisters have told us that we have walked away from Christ, and
are now going to hell since our conversion to Catholisism. Catholics
believe that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ's redemptive
work on the cross. By this definition both Catholics and Protestants
are Christians. So thank you, thank you, thank you!
In Christ,
Rebecca
Response: Glad to have been a friendly voice. Jesus' teaching about the Kingdom
of God should lead us all to have a little humility about defining
who's "in" and who's "out," don't you think?
-Greg
A
THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE MOVIE
Subject: Fellowship of the Ring
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001
From: Thingol
Dear HJ,
I
found your review of the Fellowship of the Ring to be quite accurate.
As a Gen-Xer, I agree that the movie was much too dark and dirty
compared to what Tolkien wrote in the books.
The
following is an early version of my own forth-coming review (after
seeing it three times):
As
a movie (disregarding the books completely), I give it 3 1/2 stars
(out of 5). While it was well done, there were some serious flaws.
For one, the character development (and other related elements)
was very poor for some of the fellowship. Leaving the movie, the
non-Tolkien-purist movie-goer asks himself a few questions:
- Who
the heck is Gimli, and why was he even in the movie?
- Why did Merry and Pippin stay with Frodo, Sam, and Strider after
helping them get to Bree?
- What was the deal with Elrond's line, "You will be THE
FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING"? It had absolutely no meaning. I
thought, "So what?" They built it up like it was the
most important line of the scene, but it was empty.
- What was the point of having Farmer
Maggot in the movie? It was extra stuff that was totally
unnecessary.
The
actors:
- Gandalf -- awesome. There is a reason he has a "Sir"
at the beginning of his name.
- Bilbo -- same as Gandalf.
- Frodo -- very well done. Most of what I didn't like about him
had to do with the direction, not his acting.
- Sam, Merry, and Pippin -- great job. Although the exposition
was a bit weak, the actors did a good job with what they were
given.
- Legolas -- great job with capturing the essence of Elves.
- Gimli -- pretty crappy. "If I growl a lot and speak with
a Scottish accent, I'll be a believable Dwarf."
- Aragorn -- fairly well done. I had a hard time believing that
an Elven princess would ever fall in love with him.
- Boromir -- one of the best. There were a couple parts where
I felt like he was really acting (that's a bad thing), but overall
he was great.
- Celeborn -- he was a bad actor. He was speaking extra slow for
some reason that I couldn't figure out.
- Galadriel -- again, the slow speaking thing was weird. It was
like they were trying to make it all really mystical. Other than
the slow speech, her acting was excellent.
- Arwen -- more slow speech. What's the deal with that?
- Saruman -- very well acted with what he was given.
- Lurtz -- for a half-human, he sure growls a lot like a monster.
As
a purist, I give the movie 2 stars. Now I'll list a few questions
from the perspective of a Tolkien purist (remember, the previous
questions and statements were from the viewpoint of a regular movie-goer):
- Why did Gandalf have Frodo hide the Ring in an envelope? In
the book, Frodo keeps it on a chain from the time he gets it to
the time Gandalf tells him what it really is.
- Why was Bree such a dark place? It was nothing like the book.
In the book, it describes it as a pleasant place to live with
Hobbits and Big People coexisting quite well, but the Hobbits
seem to be the only ones in the whole town...
- Why was Aragorn such a pansy? Why did they decide to give him
a character flaw -- in the book, Aragorn is never tempted by the
Ring. They make it seem like he sends Frodo across the river (which
he doesn't do in the book) because he is afraid that he will try
to take the Ring like Boromir did. They also tell you that Aragorn
chose NOT to be King and that he had pretty much given up his
birthright. Aragorn is perhaps the one character in the books
that has perfect integrity. They took that away from him.
- Elrond is a bad guy? He hates the race of Men? He thinks that
Aragorn is a loser? I thought Aragorn was engaged to his daughter...
- Why did Arwen steal the show from Frodo, Elrond, and Gandalf
(not to mention Glorfindel) at the Ford of Bruinen? The Ford is
one of the biggest exposition scenes for Frodo. It shows how he
has a strong will by standing alone against the Nine. Elrond causes
the river to crash down on the Nine (he uses the Ring of Power
that he possesses). Gandalf makes the water look like horses.
- What happened to the Golden Wood of Lothlorien? It was more
like the Blue and Grey Wood.
- Why did Aragorn say at the end of the movie, "Let's hunt
some Orc"? At that point, their focus was not at all on killing
orcs, but on rescuing the Hobbits.
- Why did they put in a big wizards' duel between Saruman and
Gandalf? That was totally outside of the realm of what Tolkien
created. Tolkien is subtle. It was like Spinal Tap turning things
up to 11 when it should be at a 3 or 4.
- Why did Bilbo turn into Gollum for a second? That's not how
it plays out in the book. Again -- SUBTLETY is needed. I don't
need it rammed down my throat.
- Why did Aragorn fight the Uruk-Hai? Just so we could have more
action in the movie? In the books, it is part of Boromir's redemption
to fend off the Uruk-Hai virtually alone.
- Why did Lurtz (who shouldn't have been in the movie anyway)
just stand in front of Boromir with his bow? It was so Hollywood
it made me sick.
- Cocoons? Nothing more needs to be said on that one...
- Why did Arwen give Aragorn her necklace? In the book, she gives
it to Frodo, symbolizing her giving up her immortality and her
right to go over the sea to Valinor to Frodo. In giving the necklace
to Aragorn, was she giving him passage to the West?
In
parting, I want to say that I have enjoyed the movie more each time
I've seen it. The things that were done well in the movie (like
the entire Shire scene and others) were done exceptionally well.
Peter Jackson deserves a lot of credit for attempting such a large
task. I fault him only for claiming in the beginning that he was
a purist and that he was going to stick very closely to the books
-- he did not live up to his word.
Perhaps
the books were not meant to be on the silver screen in a condensed
form.
"Thingol"
Orem, UT
Response: Your observations are very welcome. Thanks for your
feedback! -Greg
MESSAGE
FROM A WISE MAN
Subject: My Opinion
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001
From: Khazaddum
You are a long-winded fool.
Response: There is certainly that possibility. Thanks for expressing
the thought so efficiently; others have needed many more words...
-Greg
A WASTE OF THREE HOURS
Subject: The Fellowship of the Ring
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001
From: Dale
Wow, reading all of these insightful
people who have actually read the "Lord of the Rings"
books makes me think perhaps I should not write my comments, but
I can't pass this up if it will save someone three hours of their
lives. I just went to see what I hoped was a good movie.
I was disappointed. It was a bad movie. It was too
loud, too gory and too violent. My daughter had a sick headache
after watching it (and she read the book) and my head was throbbing
too. The special effects were very well done - too well
done. If those good guys had killed one more evil guy of
some kind, I think I would have croaked. And sorry, but
somehow I can't identify with hobbits and elves. I'm a Baptist
preacher and if the author of this book was trying to explain
the Christian message, there is a whole lot simpler way to say
it. Ask the Apostle Paul. When the Philippian
jailer asked him, "What must I do to be saved?"
Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will
be saved." That is a simple message, yet it out-shines
every human-created expression ever uttered or portrayed, even
with today's special effects. I think we could make movies a lot
more entertaining if they didn't try to overly impress us with
so much man-made gobble-di-guk. Jesus Christ is my life and Jesus
in me said this movie was a waste of three hours of my life.
I recommend you not waste three hours of your life seeing it either.
Dale Larison
Fayette, Missouri
Response: Where you
are at with your own spirituality is certainly going to affect your
response to the movie, so I think, for you, your reaction is very
legitimate. For some, this movie may be what the earthquake
was for the Philippian jailer. -Greg
PACKED THEATER
Subject: LOTR
Review
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001
From: "Linda Miku
Tucson AZ
I
just saw the film this afternoon in a packed theater...a little
eerie to have an audience STILL for nearly three hours, focused on
the screen, little if any jostling, coughing, fidgeting, climbing
over knees, and the like. I'm also still letting the visuals sink
in, and the whole movie, as a result, so I'm not quite ready to come
up with my "review." I do take issue with two of your comments. One
is the darkness/dirtiness of Middle Earth. I think that there is
great symbolism in autumn in Rivendell--it's October, so naturally
the leaves are falling. The Powers That Be also know that danger is
growing by leaps and bounds, and things are going to get darker
before they get light (and if Frodo's mission fails, there will
never be light again). Considering the number of dangerous and
violent encounters the characters have, in addition to having to
"make due," living on a treacherous road, it is little wonder that
there isn't dirt and grime. I was a little surprised, and pleased,
that even Legolas comes out worse for wear after nasty encounters
with Orcs; he may be an elf, but that doesn't necessarily ensure
sparkling clean clothes all the time.
The other comment concerns the potential "flabbiness" of the
trilogy, and whether it has the legs to keep an audience's interest
for two more films. Considering how Jackson has directed the
project, with all films already made, I don't think that the
dynamics will falter; I think that there's a good chance they will
improve. Like Episode I of Star Wars, FOTR was somewhat hobbled by
having to set the stage and provide background for the main story.
Unlike Episode I, Jackson *know* the entire story that Tolkien set
forth--there are times when I wonder if Lucas knows where his
storyline is going.
I
was a little sad to find your review disappointing, or rather, to
find you disappointed in the film. I think you are right, that this
will not make a boatload of money, will not be in the Top 10 of
Anything in the long run. I don't think that's what Jackson really
intended for it. I think he wanted to try and do right by the
literary work, and heaven knows this has been attempted before, with
failure more the outcome than success. I did my best not to read too
much about the project, not to get my hopes up and buy into the
hype--no amount of hype can ever satisfy one's hopes and
imagination. I was very pleasantly surprised by Jackson's product. I
wish it had been longer, I wish the pacing in some points had been
less frenetic, I wish Tom Bombadil had been included. To want these
things to have happend probably would've required a mini-series (and
in retrospect, the full trilogy is likely to be comparable to a
mini-series in length), but one that producers would've been almost
guaranteed to have balked at. Jackson did what he could with what he
had, and he did very well.
Linda Miku Tucson AZ
Response: Thanks for your comments,
Linda! After seeing the film a second time, I agree with your
assessment of the dirt and grime, and in particular the issue of
fall in Rivendell. It's both consistent with the setting, and
the novel. I am also more hopeful for the next installments,
as you are. I would guess that my first impression was colored
a bit by the more romantic visualization of the Hildebrandts.
One thing I didn't notice the first time: how many times
Jackson felt it necessary to work chapter titles into the
dialog! Did anyone else find that irritating?
-Greg
Continue to Comments Page 7
|
Have you seen The Fellowship of the Ring? 
