Good Fellowship, gift conundrum
Dec. 6th, 2003 10:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
robotech_masterToday the parents came up, and we attended a weekend show of the Fellowship of the Rings extended edition at the theater. It was every bit as good as it was in the theaters in the edited version, and as it was on the DVD uncut, all rolled into one. I'll confess I never expected to see things like Bilbo's "Concerning Hobbits" prologue, or the gifting of Galadriel, on the wide screen. I'm tempted to go and see it again tomorrow, just because that will be my last opportunity to do so. Probably won't, though.
I know there are a lot of people who don't like the movie for what it cut or changed from the Tolkien books. There are some small or large changes, some instances of dialogue or actions being given to different characters or put somewhere entirely different from where it originally took place, and even some outright contradictions to the book—not to mention differing characterizations. I can sort of see where the complaints are coming from, but I think that Jackson's way was about the only way you really could handle a project of this magnitude in movie form. Either there wasn't time to show everything from the books on the screen, or what was in the books wouldn't work on the screen for some reason (usually constraints of time and budget). I imagine if someone does a TV series somewhere down the line, there would be more time to spread everything out to fit in more of what happened in the books.
For the time Peter Jackson had, I think he did a fantastic job of being true to the spirit of the books if not their letter. What we see on the screen really feels like Middle Earth, like Hobbiton and Bag End, like Isengard and Barad-Dur, like Minas Tirith and Moria. The characters feel like the characters we meet in the books—especially Gandalf. The bit at Balin's Tomb, and on the bridge of Khazad-Dum...I just get goosebumps. I think that the Jackson movies did one heck of a job reproducing the atmosphere of the books, and will stand as the definitive version for the screen even if someone gets to do a remake somewhere down the line.
Anyway, I was happy to get to see it again on the big screen, with the extended footage in place. And I bet Jackson himself must be tickled pink that he was able to get his complete vision screened one more time. The only down side was that, with the popcorn and soft drinks I got for redeeming a "frequent moviegoer" card, I had to use the restroom twice (and get a popcorn refill once). I tried to do that during the more boring parts of the movie, what few there were.of them. I could do that since I've seen the movie plenty of times. The problem is going to come in the next two movies. The Two Towers I've seen less of, the extended version not at all, and I won't know if I'm missing something new while I'm using the can...and, of course, Return of the King I haven't seen at all. I wish these movie tickets came with a catheter...
Seeing the movie again reminded me that I never had managed to work my way through all of the commentary tracks that came on the Fellowship DVD set. I watched the first one (Director/Scriptwriter), and got a little bit of the way through the second one (Design Team), then never got around to watching more. I really do need to get through Design Team so I can watch Production/Post-Production team and Actors. And given that each one of those is three and a half hours...man, these DVDs really do put demands on your time, don't they?
In other news, I had been beating myself up over what kind of a present I could get tiny baby Guinevere, my new niece who is still too young for the proper appreciation of presents. I had settled on a pacifier, since, hey, babies use pacifiers, right? And the one I'd settled upon was, in fact, rather distinctive: the "Lil' Vampire," middle top row on this page. One of those pacifiers that, on first glance, makes it look like the baby has an enormous, oddly-shaped mouth. I was mentioning this to my parents as we all came out of the movie theater...and they told me that this might not be the best gift, as Gwen's mother would be weaning Gwen—who just recently turned one—off the pacifier soon. Which is news to me, since I thought they were used for at least the first couple years of the kid's life, but I guess that's up to them. Now don't I feel stupid? Not only am I out the money for the pacifier (though it might make a good gift for the new baby that's due in a couple months), but now I'm back to square one on what I can get a one-year-old for Christmas. (I've already gotten her two-and-a-half-year-old big sister something nice.)
I know there are a lot of people who don't like the movie for what it cut or changed from the Tolkien books. There are some small or large changes, some instances of dialogue or actions being given to different characters or put somewhere entirely different from where it originally took place, and even some outright contradictions to the book—not to mention differing characterizations. I can sort of see where the complaints are coming from, but I think that Jackson's way was about the only way you really could handle a project of this magnitude in movie form. Either there wasn't time to show everything from the books on the screen, or what was in the books wouldn't work on the screen for some reason (usually constraints of time and budget). I imagine if someone does a TV series somewhere down the line, there would be more time to spread everything out to fit in more of what happened in the books.
For the time Peter Jackson had, I think he did a fantastic job of being true to the spirit of the books if not their letter. What we see on the screen really feels like Middle Earth, like Hobbiton and Bag End, like Isengard and Barad-Dur, like Minas Tirith and Moria. The characters feel like the characters we meet in the books—especially Gandalf. The bit at Balin's Tomb, and on the bridge of Khazad-Dum...I just get goosebumps. I think that the Jackson movies did one heck of a job reproducing the atmosphere of the books, and will stand as the definitive version for the screen even if someone gets to do a remake somewhere down the line.
Anyway, I was happy to get to see it again on the big screen, with the extended footage in place. And I bet Jackson himself must be tickled pink that he was able to get his complete vision screened one more time. The only down side was that, with the popcorn and soft drinks I got for redeeming a "frequent moviegoer" card, I had to use the restroom twice (and get a popcorn refill once). I tried to do that during the more boring parts of the movie, what few there were.of them. I could do that since I've seen the movie plenty of times. The problem is going to come in the next two movies. The Two Towers I've seen less of, the extended version not at all, and I won't know if I'm missing something new while I'm using the can...and, of course, Return of the King I haven't seen at all. I wish these movie tickets came with a catheter...
Seeing the movie again reminded me that I never had managed to work my way through all of the commentary tracks that came on the Fellowship DVD set. I watched the first one (Director/Scriptwriter), and got a little bit of the way through the second one (Design Team), then never got around to watching more. I really do need to get through Design Team so I can watch Production/Post-Production team and Actors. And given that each one of those is three and a half hours...man, these DVDs really do put demands on your time, don't they?
In other news, I had been beating myself up over what kind of a present I could get tiny baby Guinevere, my new niece who is still too young for the proper appreciation of presents. I had settled on a pacifier, since, hey, babies use pacifiers, right? And the one I'd settled upon was, in fact, rather distinctive: the "Lil' Vampire," middle top row on this page. One of those pacifiers that, on first glance, makes it look like the baby has an enormous, oddly-shaped mouth. I was mentioning this to my parents as we all came out of the movie theater...and they told me that this might not be the best gift, as Gwen's mother would be weaning Gwen—who just recently turned one—off the pacifier soon. Which is news to me, since I thought they were used for at least the first couple years of the kid's life, but I guess that's up to them. Now don't I feel stupid? Not only am I out the money for the pacifier (though it might make a good gift for the new baby that's due in a couple months), but now I'm back to square one on what I can get a one-year-old for Christmas. (I've already gotten her two-and-a-half-year-old big sister something nice.)
