HeroesWorld

Posts from The Lord of the Rings

Books
No ratings yet — be the first to rate!
User Avatar
Offline Nightly Edelweiss
Registered:
Posts: 290
#16
Auto-translated
Just say it outright – blondes! Although, compared to the old man, this girl is quite the firecracker...
Im Herzen der Stille
Im Herzen der Nacht
Wie oft hab ich mich schon gefragt
Wo Du gerade bist
Wie oft hab ich mich schon gefragt
Ob Dir gerade Liebe widerfahrt...
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Silvanis
Registered:
Posts: 583
#17
Auto-translated
And Yovine turned out somewhat unsuccessful. She should have been very beautiful and proud, but instead, she just came out a little cute and very kind and warm-hearted... it's not right...
С Пути сбивают мелкие достижения, а изощрённые суждения скрывают смысл слов. И вот уже возникают "правильное" и "неправильное"...
- Чжуан-цзы
Сильванис
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Nightly Edelweiss
Registered:
Posts: 290
#18
Auto-translated
By the way, didn't she ask Aragorn about Arwen in the book? (I read it when I was 12 - I just don't have time to reread it - I don't remember anymore...)

And in general, I was shocked that she allowed Wormtongue to touch her face, and even tolerated it without showing any disgust... :smile06:
Im Herzen der Stille
Im Herzen der Nacht
Wie oft hab ich mich schon gefragt
Wo Du gerade bist
Wie oft hab ich mich schon gefragt
Ob Dir gerade Liebe widerfahrt...
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Fireball
Registered:
Posts: 863
#19
Auto-translated
The poor adaptation doesn't necessarily mean it's bad; Jackson needed to recoup his investment and convey the atmosphere. He managed to convey the atmosphere, at least 50%, especially in the first film, less so in the third. But it's understandable, as the third film has more large-scale scenes.
As someone who has read almost everything by Tolkien (sometimes even in the original, but only individual chapters, as it can be a bit challenging, and the Russian text keeps popping into my head), I'd like to share my opinion. The books are amazing and have no equal in the world, except perhaps Dune, but that's already science fiction. The incredible coherence and thoughtfulness of the world, which combines various mythologies and the personal ideas of the author, a perfectionist.
The film is a complete disaster; neither the idea, nor the spirit, nor the characters are preserved (the role of the valiant Boromir is played by the lover of Lady Chatterley, and he should be punished for that). Everything that could be ruined has been ruined, perhaps with the exception of Gollum. Personally, I put Peter Jackson in the same category as George Bush and Bill Gates, and this is definitely not a list of Christmas greetings. He simply took the saga and turned it into an ordinary Hollywood blockbuster. But it is possible to adapt works properly. For example, Dune has already been ruined twice, but Children of Dune turned out quite well, although not without flaws. And the most striking example is the Ring of the Nibelungs (from which the One Ring was taken). With a meager budget, we get a magnificent film in which ordinary models act much more convincingly than movie stars, and Kristanna Loken is simply perfect in the role of Brunhilda. (Those familiar with the German epic will understand.)
By the way, didn't she ask Aragorn about Arwen in the book? (I read it when I was 12 - I don't have time to reread it now - I don't remember anymore...)
Arwen appears specifically (and not indirectly, through hints) only in the third book, and there are no romantic scenes from the first film in the book.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Saruman
Registered:
Posts: 677
#20
Auto-translated
Regarding the translation: in the second part, Middle-earth is sometimes referred to as Earth. In the book, this is only in the third part, but in the appendices, it is very well developed, and in the film, the appearance of Arwen is justified. Furthermore, I'm tired of defending Jackson on various forums; he didn't make a perfect film, and purely Hollywood moments occasionally appear. But! He managed to: more or less select the actors. convey the main plot of the book. convey the main atmosphere of the book (albeit sometimes clumsily, but still). make money (he is, after all, not an altruist). I also enjoyed the Nibelungenlied; it's an excellent adaptation. I would like to hear your opinion on the adaptation of "The Master and Margarita
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Fireball
Registered:
Posts: 863
#21
Auto-translated
He managed to:
more or less find suitable actors.
Yeah, right???
Hobbits – well, okay, where are you going to find good-looking actors who are 90cm tall? I already wrote about Boromir; Aragorn is too small and doesn't look like a Ranger; they should have taken the actor who played Van Helsing. Galadriel – the Morning Star of Middle-earth??? If you happen to dream about her, you'll wake up in a cold sweat. Agent Smith – no comment. Gandalf, with his periodically appearing idiotic gaze, and so on.
convey the main plot of the book.
The plot, yes. But not the meaning.
convey the main atmosphere of the book (albeit clumsily in places, but still).
I didn't notice. Although there were some creative ideas: if it's a Balrog, then it should be big and horned.
make money (he's not an altruist, after all).
This cannot be considered one of the film's merits. However, Jackson clearly learned the saying, "We live well as long as there are many fools."
Furthermore, I'm already tired of defending Jackson on various forums.
And you shouldn't, because it's an ungrateful and, moreover, unjust task.
I would like to hear your opinion about the adaptation of "The Master and Margarita."
I'd give it a passing grade, between 3+ and 4-. Woland is debatable, but not bad; Behemoth and Koroviev are a 5. Margarita and Yeshua are good, as are many others, except for the Master, who doesn't even deserve a 0. The procurator didn't impress me much. The atmosphere is well-maintained, but the film doesn't look as dynamic as the book reads. It's a difficult work to adapt, and we could have expected much worse.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Fireball
User Avatar
Offline Silvanis
Registered:
Posts: 583
#22
Auto-translated
Fireball;78401
Arwen appears specifically (not indirectly, through hints) only in the third book, and there are no romantic scenes from the first film in the book either.
But that's not true! Frodo first saw her in the first part – that's where she appears specifically for the first time:p

Jackson's film is brilliant, in my opinion.
But "The Master and Margarita" is a complete failure; I haven't seen anything worse in a long time. An old, wheezing Woland, a crude doll instead of a cat... it's disgusting!:mad::mad:
С Пути сбивают мелкие достижения, а изощрённые суждения скрывают смысл слов. И вот уже возникают "правильное" и "неправильное"...
- Чжуан-цзы
Сильванис
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Fireball
Registered:
Posts: 863
#23
Auto-translated
That's not true! Frodo saw her for the first time in the first part – that's where she actually appears for the first time.
But you shouldn't take words out of context. The point was that the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen wasn't specifically described until the third book. There were no conversations about a dog named Kashtanka and forcibly bathing the Nazgûl under the spell of "Long live fragrant soap and fluffy towels," that's what was meant. And Frodo, of course, saw her in Rivendell, but that's all.

Jackson's film is brilliant, IMHO.
Jackson's marketing is brilliant, and everything else is [censored].
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline AlexeyPank
Registered:
Posts: 2,416
#24
Auto-translated
Yeah, the movie turned out to be terrible. And Arwen replaced the elf-guard. And Aragorn is either Tom Bombadil or some kind of undead. And the stone archers (Isildur and Anarion). And many other things.
Мы спасемся? Я не знаю. Верьте...
Геройский Интернационал
Клан Homo homini - основатель клана
Член РКСМ с 07.07.07.
ФЛУДОВСКИЕ ССЫЛКИ!- сообщить о бесполезной теме/сообщении.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Fireball
User Avatar
Offline Silvanis
Registered:
Posts: 583
#25
Auto-translated
Fireball;78534
until the third book, the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen was not specifically described. There were no conversations about same-sex partners or forced bathing of Nazgûls to the spell "Long live fragrant soap and fluffy towels," that's what was meant. Frodo, of course, saw her in Rivendell, but nothing more.
Yes, that is all correct. Arwen in the role of Glorfindel really was very unsuccessful; and when she was also credited with the merit of Elrond-Gandalf, I felt quite uneasy during my first viewing

P.S. No one is taking words out of context, you just need to explain exactly what you mean if you don't want to be misinterpreted. And if you write that Arwen did not specifically appear until the third book, that is not the same as saying that their relationship with Aragorn was not specifically manifested until the third book
С Пути сбивают мелкие достижения, а изощрённые суждения скрывают смысл слов. И вот уже возникают "правильное" и "неправильное"...
- Чжуан-цзы
Сильванис
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Saruman
Registered:
Posts: 677
#26
Auto-translated
"Long live fragrant soap and fluffy towels!"
- I certainly love the Goblin translation, but we're not discussing it right now, and there's nothing like that in the movie. About Arwen - I already wrote that the apps contain a description of their romantic relationship. She appears briefly in the book, but if you read it with the apps, you can highlight this storyline. Thus, Arwen's appearance is quite justified. Galadriel - yes, that's a clear miss. Agent Smith - this is a problem with the role, not the actor. The fact that Bezrukov is perceived only as Sasha Bely is also not normal. Aragorn - that's your IMHO. The actor quite successfully conveyed the transformation of the Ranger into King Elessar. Van Helsing is just a one-dimensional hero who doesn't change throughout the film (and he doesn't need to). Gandalf with the gaze of an idiot - where?
I didn't notice. Although there were creative ideas: if it's a Balrog, then it should be big and horned.
Funny. So what if he looks like Diablo? And the Nazgûl? And Saruman? And the architecture of Rivendell and the Grey Havens? And the bagpipes in the Rohan soundtrack? And that's considering I watched this movie a long time ago and am now remembering some moments. The Master and Margarita - well, I'd give it a 4-4+. The Master - I agree, Pontius Pilate - I really liked him.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Fireball
Registered:
Posts: 863
#27
Auto-translated
- I certainly love the Goblin translation, but we're not discussing it right now; there's nothing like that in the movie.
The movie doesn't have those lines, but Arwen is present in those moments, even though she shouldn't be (see Silvanis's previous post).
Regarding Arwen, I've already written that the apps contain a description of their romantic relationship. She appears briefly in the book, but if you read it with the apps, you can highlight this storyline. Thus, Arwen's appearance is quite justified.
Yeah, but the app describes the time before the main events with the Ring and after them. Although Arwen's appearance in the movie is indeed justified; there has to be at least one beautiful elf (oh, I love such brunettes).
Agent Smith is a problem of the role, not the actor. The fact that people only perceive Bezrukov as Sasha Bely is also abnormal.
And looking at him, do you believe that he is a wise and beautiful descendant of Beren and Lúthien (the most beautiful of those born in Arda), whose veins flow with the blood of the Maia Melian, etc.?
Aragorn is your IMHO. The actor quite successfully conveyed the transformation of the Ranger into King Elessar. Van Helsing is just a hero who doesn't change throughout the film (and he doesn't need to).
One can (?) argue about how he played the role and what he conveyed, but the fact is that he doesn't look much like Tolkien's Aragorn, at least according to such banal parameters as height and build.
Gandalf with the gaze of an oligophrenic - where?
In many places. For example, rewatch the scene where Gandalf appears before the group in the Forest of Fangorn (2nd film); I was crying.
And the Nazgûl? And Saruman?
Mediocre, nothing special, exactly as one could expect in a blockbuster.
And the architecture of Rivendell and the Grey Havens?
Big budget.
And the bagpipes in the soundtrack of Rohan?
A cliché that they shove everywhere after BreveHeart. Although the music is still one of the few positive aspects.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Saruman
Registered:
Posts: 677
#28
Auto-translated
Yeah, but the application describes the time leading up to the main confrontation with the Ring and after it. Although Arwen's appearance in the film is indeed justified; there has to be at least one beautiful elf (oh, I love such brunettes).
Well, Glorfindel isn't a character who drives the plot, but Arwen could have been included as a way to introduce her to the audience. I also felt uneasy during my first viewing, but then I thought about it and came to the conclusion that it's justified. Her washing away of the Nazgûl – let's think about how this could have been done differently. The Nazgûl are simply washed away – it's unclear. The Nazgûl are washed away, and at the same time, Gandalf is shown reciting spells – it's cheesy. Arwen washes away the Nazgûl – it's not canon, but it's acceptable (Tolkien has many female mages or warriors: Éowyn, Lúthien, Galadriel, and nothing is said about Arwen being a homebody).
And looking at him, do you believe that he is the wise and beautiful descendant of Beren and Lúthien (the most beautiful of those born in Arda), in whose veins flows the blood of the Maia Melian, etc.?
If we abstract from the actor, yes. During my first viewing, I didn't notice the connection between him and Smith, and he didn't cause me any dislike.
One can (?) argue about how he played the role and what he conveyed, but the fact is that he doesn't look very much like Tolkien's Aragorn, at least according to such banal parameters as height and build.
Show me the data on the height and build of the Ranger!
In many places. For example, rewatch the scene where Gandalf appears before the group in the Fangorn Forest (2nd film); I cried.
- I'll rewatch it and tell you.
A three, nothing special, exactly what you could expect in a blockbuster.
- normal doesn't mean bad.
Big budget.
- and where does it say that this is bad?
A cliché that they shove in everywhere after Braveheart. Although the music is still one of the few positive aspects.
- that's it!
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Fireball
Registered:
Posts: 863
#29
Auto-translated
Let's see some data on the Wanderer's height and build.
Of course, the Professor didn't describe him in feet and inches, but there is some indirect data. The book clearly states that he was the tallest of the guardians, i.e., taller than the elf, the Maia, and the warrior Boromir. In general, in all sagas, Tolkien included, positive warriors are described as tall and well-built. If Aragorn, at 180 cm, was the tallest, then what about the others?:smile32:
It's harder to say about his build; he wasn't as broad as Boromir, but he had enough strength to clear snow up to his chest in front of him so that others could pass. Draw your own
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Saruman
Registered:
Posts: 677
#30
Auto-translated
Well, the fact that he isn't the tallest in the movie isn't a significant issue; you can't follow the book so closely. But compared to Boromir and Gandalf, he looks quite tall. And it's not a problem that some of the Fellowship were slightly taller than him; it doesn't ruin the image.
0
⚖️
0