Posts from The Lord of the Rings

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.

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...)

He managed to:
more or less find suitable actors.

convey the main plot of the book.

convey the main atmosphere of the book (albeit clumsily in places, but still).

make money (he's not an altruist, after all).

Furthermore, I'm already tired of defending Jackson on various forums.

I would like to hear your opinion about the adaptation of "The Master and Margarita."

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.

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.

Jackson's film is brilliant, IMHO.

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.

"Long live fragrant soap and fluffy towels!"

I didn't notice. Although there were creative ideas: if it's a Balrog, then it should be big and horned.

- I certainly love the Goblin translation, but we're not discussing it right now; there's nothing like that in the movie.

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.

Agent Smith is a problem of the role, not the actor. The fact that people only perceive Bezrukov as Sasha Bely is also abnormal.

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).

Gandalf with the gaze of an oligophrenic - where?

And the Nazgûl? And Saruman?

And the architecture of Rivendell and the Grey Havens?

And the bagpipes in the soundtrack of Rohan?

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).

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.?

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.

In many places. For example, rewatch the scene where Gandalf appears before the group in the Fangorn Forest (2nd film); I cried.

A three, nothing special, exactly what you could expect in a blockbuster.

Big budget.

A cliché that they shove in everywhere after Braveheart. Although the music is still one of the few positive aspects.

Let's see some data on the Wanderer's height and build.