ChristiansUnite Forums

Well? Which is it? And why?

Live-action. Only because it took so few deviations from the books, and the ones it did take did very little to detract from the overall experience (that is, assuming you've seen the extended versions of both of the ones that are out, or at least TTT). That plus the realism of Middle-Earth really brought the movie to life. I really don't know how anyone could choose the animated version.

The Characters in the Animated where MUCH more like the personalities of the book. Also, I think the Animated did a better job of portraying middle-Earth. It also explained everything much better.  If it had the same 10-15 hours the full 3 extended version together will have, it would blow the others out of the water. I don’t see how anyone who has read the books can actually say the Live action was closer!

If it had the same 10-15 hours the full 3 extended version together will have, it would blow the others out of the water.

You know why it isn't that long, don't you? Because the producers knew the cartoon would suck, and they didn't want to waste any more money on suckiness than they had to.

Nah, I'm joking. Only slightly. I've never actually seen the cartoon, but the general concensus says that it wasn't that great. And, I don't know how a cartoon that only gives -- how long? An hour and a half, maybe (I have no idea how long it is)? -- to three huge books could possibly cover anything without cutting out a LOT of important stuff. And how, pray tell, did it explain things better?

2 1/2-3 hours, I believe. And the Animation is beautiful. And I would put it up against any one of the 3 movies as being more fatefull to the book.

HOW? Where is the cartoon faithful that the live-action movie isn't, and why does it make a difference that Peter Jackson's version is the way it is?

Watch the animated version, then read the books, then get back to me.

Or, you could just save me five bucks and three hours of my life and answer my question. I don't need to have seen the cartoon for you answer to make sense.

You're a Coldplay fan, after all, you've wasted enough money as it is ;) ;D

Mainly, I have a problem with all the stuff they changed the live action. For example, Biblo's good by speech wasn't all grave as they showed it in the movie, it was fun, just like every other part of the 3 day party. The Cartoon showed it for correct carried him to the river? It was Glorfindel. And while where are tally. And the movie makers used a little magic to give Liv Tyler a descent roll. Who do you really think picked up Froto andking about the Flight to the Ford, let's talk about the Wave that overtook the black riders. They totally messed up the wave seen. It wasn't some spell. And the Eagles, they didn't explain anything about the Eagles. There is much more to the birds and Gandalfs relationship. Is this good enough for you? Now go read the books and watch the Cartoon.

Or, you could just save me five bucks and three hours of my life and answer my question.

Maybe it's showing on the cartoon network.... ;D

*Sigh.*

Of that which I could actually understand, NONE of it makes any difference at all. If the movie followed the books to the letter, the movies would be too long and a lot more boring, and half the theater would walk out halfway through.

Bilbo's "grave" speech was that way to set a mood about the Ring, 'cause in the next few scenes you see how hard it is for Bilbo to let go. The speech, in and of itself, admittedly didn't necessarily HAVE to be so serious. But that it was helped the next few scenes, in terms of mood.

They used Arwen to pick up Frodo to help develop the love story between her and Aragorn.

I agree with the wave scene, but it was cool anyway.

For them to explain Gandalf and the Eagles, they would have had to add a couple scenes that most people probably would have found confusing and boring. Seeing them in TTT was enough for the audience to understand that Gandalf had a connection with some giant eagles, and when you look at everything else in all the movies, that's all they really needed to know. If they really, truly cared about Gandalf's relationship with the Eagles, they can read the books.

*sigh*

You asked for things that the Movie and the book differed on, and I gave them to you. Next time, just take my word for it. ::)

I also asked why it matters that the live-action movies are the way they are.

Why shouldn't it matter?

Because...

A) None of it affects the story in the long run
B) Making the movies coincide with the books to the letter isn't always the best way to do it, as some people will not follow as closely
C) Everything works fine the way it is, and most importantly...
D) IT DOESN'T DETRACT FROM THE OVERALL EXPERIENCE.

Mr. Jackson didn't make the movies just for people who weren't obsessed with the books, you know. Who CARES about Gandalf's relationship with the Eagles (besides you)? Who CARES that Arwen used magic to flood the riders (besides you)?

Anything that was changed (for the most part) was too insignificant to nitpick. This is the most complete version you'll ever see, whether you like it or not.

You're a Coldplay fan, after all, you've wasted enough money as it is

I haven't spent any money on Coldplay. I got a CD for Christmas.

The most complete version? You haven't seen any other version, Buddy. ::)

I own all Three DVDs of Lord of the Rings!

I Really Love Return of The King a lot!!!!!!!  ;D


Blessings,   \o/

KristiAnn

I think the live version did the best it was humanly possible to do.  Peter Jackson did a wonderful job, even though I was disappointed that some parts were changed or left out.  It's the movie business, after all, and they had to make a movie that would keep viewers.
 
I don't much care about the eagles--I think the relationship was shown.  For the movies' sake I thought it good that they fleshed Arwen out a little more.  

I'm personally GLAD they didn't try to take on Tom Bombadil...he is, in my opinion, something no human actor could really pull off.  

I realize also that Jackson sent Haldir and the elves to Helms Deep to add some dynamics and press home the point that this was the last big push of the elves--that they were a dying race.  I think that, cinematically, that was a good move.

But while Elijah Wood is a wonderful actor...he was too young.  Frodo is supposed to be fifty--older than the other three hobbits, and it's obvious that he's the youngest, in the movies.

I have other complaints...but overall it think that artistically and cinematically, this was one of the best movies I've ever seen.  (Strange point, but the ROTK credits were the most artistic and interesting I've seen, too.)

The live-action Lord of the Rings are the best movies ever made!!! The cartoon versions were pathetic! If I had seen them before Jackson's version, I probably wouldn't have bothered! THe animation is an insult to the story- and Tolkien!

Definitely the Live Action movies. Jackson did an amazing job.

Don't forget also that some of the other story material will be filled in in the extended version coming out very soon.

O' Brothers and Sisters, this really is a jolly good trilogy. I especially liked the Christian message contained in the 'battle of helms deep' scenes.

  pardon me, but, um....   ::)

I prefer to call it, "Lord of the Thing"


     ;D

Really? Why? ;D