Very well done. With the exception of the facial hair on Isuldur ( or is it Anarion? ), I think it is nearly a flawless rendition of the Anduin and the mighty Argonath.
Comment by Celebrimbor32 - August 29, 2001 @ 6:48 PM - Rated a 4
Very well done. With the exception of the facial hair on Isuldur ( or is it Anarion? ), I think it is nearly a flawless rendition of the Anduin and the mighty Argonath.
Comment by Celebrimbor32 - August 29, 2001 @ 6:48 PM - Rated a 4
I maybe wrong but as my son pointed out aren't they suppose to be wielding axes? Another Peter Jackson original...idea. As for the imaging it does look great.
Comment by Inquisitor_Thrax - August 30, 2001 @ 10:15 AM
I maybe wrong but as my son pointed out aren't they suppose to be wielding axes? Another Peter Jackson original...idea. As for the imaging it does look great.
Comment by Inquisitor_Thrax - August 30, 2001 @ 10:15 AM
This is a great image and nearly how I imagined it. I have to agree the beard doesn't fit. Makes him look to old. As for the obvious liberties taken with weapon choice, some may find this sacrilege, but I have always questioned why JRR choose axes and not swords in his description. In my mind swords look better.
Comment by Borgilgeuse - August 30, 2001 @ 11:13 AM - Rated a 5
This is a great image and nearly how I imagined it. I have to agree the beard doesn't fit. Makes him look to old. As for the obvious liberties taken with weapon choice, some may find this sacrilege, but I have always questioned why JRR choose axes and not swords in his description. In my mind swords look better.
Comment by Borgilgeuse - August 30, 2001 @ 11:13 AM - Rated a 5
Love it. Very nice =)
Comment by BlynkTook - August 30, 2001 @ 2:13 PM - Rated a 5
Love it. Very nice =)
Comment by BlynkTook - August 30, 2001 @ 2:13 PM - Rated a 5
WONDERFUL !
Comment by RWeiss - August 31, 2001 @ 3:06 PM - Rated a 5
WONDERFUL !
Comment by RWeiss - August 31, 2001 @ 3:06 PM - Rated a 5
this is great. well i guess that's one more thing I'll have to spend money on. the poster looks wonderful!
Comment by ancalagona - August 31, 2001 @ 4:04 PM - Rated a 5
this is great. well i guess that's one more thing I'll have to spend money on. the poster looks wonderful!
Comment by ancalagona - August 31, 2001 @ 4:04 PM - Rated a 5
Comment by LeonieAllana - August 31, 2001 @ 6:58 PM - Rated a 3
Comment by LeonieAllana - August 31, 2001 @ 6:58 PM - Rated a 3
I like this better than the Frodo picture on the teaser. I think this will get the message across to people that they're trying to bring this fantasy world to life and it's going to be BIG. And a good feeling of danger and mystery and inspiration the company felt at the Argonath is represented here, and that really kind of represents how middle earth as a whole makes me feel. Good choice.
Comment by Dor-randil - August 31, 2001 @ 7:13 PM - Rated a 4
I like this better than the Frodo picture on the teaser. I think this will get the message across to people that they're trying to bring this fantasy world to life and it's going to be BIG. And a good feeling of danger and mystery and inspiration the company felt at the Argonath is represented here, and that really kind of represents how middle earth as a whole makes me feel. Good choice.
Comment by Dor-randil - August 31, 2001 @ 7:13 PM - Rated a 4
Although I might be considered a *purist* in some respects, I don't think the axes would have looked right. This poster will go a long way in convincing "the average Joe" that the movie is worth seeing (whether it is or not). I got shivers because the poster's just what I was wanting...a more thrilling glimpse of the dangers the FotR faces.
Comment by Syrinx_2001 - September 2, 2001 @ 9:27 PM - Rated a 5
Although I might be considered a *purist* in some respects, I don't think the axes would have looked right. This poster will go a long way in convincing "the average Joe" that the movie is worth seeing (whether it is or not). I got shivers because the poster's just what I was wanting...a more thrilling glimpse of the dangers the FotR faces.
Comment by Syrinx_2001 - September 2, 2001 @ 9:27 PM - Rated a 5
Not muchta to say about it. Realy nice poster, must buy...when it comes to Finland. Of Course that Frodo poster is allso great.
Comment by Highlander84 - September 5, 2001 @ 10:37 AM - Rated a 4
Not muchta to say about it. Realy nice poster, must buy...when it comes to Finland. Of Course that Frodo poster is allso great.
Comment by Highlander84 - September 5, 2001 @ 10:37 AM - Rated a 4
I think that this poster shows so much about the movie and even more important the book. It shows what an imaginative great work of art it is.
Comment by asinine - September 5, 2001 @ 4:05 PM - Rated a 5
I think that this poster shows so much about the movie and even more important the book. It shows what an imaginative great work of art it is.
Comment by asinine - September 5, 2001 @ 4:05 PM - Rated a 5
This is good!! Can I have one of those?
Comment by thindwen - September 9, 2001 @ 5:02 AM - Rated a 4
This is good!! Can I have one of those?
Comment by thindwen - September 9, 2001 @ 5:02 AM - Rated a 4
Comment by arcturus55 - September 15, 2001 @ 10:27 AM - Rated a 5
Comment by arcturus55 - September 15, 2001 @ 10:27 AM - Rated a 5
Sorry if I sound picky or too "by the book" but here I quote:
"Upon great pedestals founded in the deep waters stood two great kings of stone: still with blurred eyes and crannied brows they frowned upon the North. The left hand of each was raised palm outwards in gesture of warning; in each right hand there was an axe; upon each head there was a crumbling helm and crown. Great power and majesty they still wore, the silent wardens of a long-vanished kingdom"
It does look a bit impressive but frankly it was as simple as copying the picture from John Howe. If they wanted to impress people with swords, I guess something with Aragorn would have done well. I guess it's just their way to say "see how NLC has screwed up your favorite book, you just have to look at the poster for it..."
Comment by Ulf - September 18, 2001 @ 4:29 PM - Rated a 1
Sorry if I sound picky or too "by the book" but here I quote:
"Upon great pedestals founded in the deep waters stood two great kings of stone: still with blurred eyes and crannied brows they frowned upon the North. The left hand of each was raised palm outwards in gesture of warning; in each right hand there was an axe; upon each head there was a crumbling helm and crown. Great power and majesty they still wore, the silent wardens of a long-vanished kingdom"
It does look a bit impressive but frankly it was as simple as copying the picture from John Howe. If they wanted to impress people with swords, I guess something with Aragorn would have done well. I guess it's just their way to say "see how NLC has screwed up your favorite book, you just have to look at the poster for it..."
Comment by Ulf - September 18, 2001 @ 4:29 PM - Rated a 1
It looks very nice (isn't it just adapted from Howe's work?)
As far as axes go, I don't care that much, but axes are more symbolic of authority than swords. ie. especially in Rome the axes were a symbol for magistrates etc., so I can see why JRRT used them.
Comment by Lysandros - December 5, 2001 @ 12:22 PM - Rated a 5
It looks very nice (isn't it just adapted from Howe's work?)
As far as axes go, I don't care that much, but axes are more symbolic of authority than swords. ie. especially in Rome the axes were a symbol for magistrates etc., so I can see why JRRT used them.
Comment by Lysandros - December 5, 2001 @ 12:22 PM - Rated a 5
i don?t know, how much the director wants to hold by the book model, but if the people of the movie team want to do the film in absoloutely accordance with the book, this is great mistake from them. it looks to me, that the creator of this poster couldn?t do the figures holding axes in position,in which they will look dangerous and warning, so he gave them the swords
Comment by bzooka - December 5, 2001 @ 1:01 PM
i don?t know, how much the director wants to hold by the book model, but if the people of the movie team want to do the film in absoloutely accordance with the book, this is great mistake from them. it looks to me, that the creator of this poster couldn?t do the figures holding axes in position,in which they will look dangerous and warning, so he gave them the swords
Comment by bzooka - December 5, 2001 @ 1:01 PM
What is with that stupid maxim, 'The Legend Comes to Life' ?? I think it's a ludicrous maxim to use for Tolkien's books. Just my opinion.. it just doesn't fit in with the trilogy if you know what I mean. It just doesn't feel right. The picture is ok, though. I give it an average rating, meaning it's not a nightmare but it isn't a blast either.
Now, with accuracy, it just chafes me that Jackson screwed up the poster again. I don't believe he had swords there by accident but on purpose. I like Lysandros' comment about why Tolkien used axes instead of swords. If I wrote a book and I spent years on writing it (as tolkien did) I would be very upset when a movie director changed many things in my book while manufacturing the movie. Jackson has no respect at all for what Tolkien wrote. Guys, don't go to the theater, please. It is not worth it.
Comment by mithril - December 5, 2001 @ 1:28 PM - Rated a 2
What is with that stupid maxim, 'The Legend Comes to Life' ?? I think it's a ludicrous maxim to use for Tolkien's books. Just my opinion.. it just doesn't fit in with the trilogy if you know what I mean. It just doesn't feel right. The picture is ok, though. I give it an average rating, meaning it's not a nightmare but it isn't a blast either.
Now, with accuracy, it just chafes me that Jackson screwed up the poster again. I don't believe he had swords there by accident but on purpose. I like Lysandros' comment about why Tolkien used axes instead of swords. If I wrote a book and I spent years on writing it (as tolkien did) I would be very upset when a movie director changed many things in my book while manufacturing the movie. Jackson has no respect at all for what Tolkien wrote. Guys, don't go to the theater, please. It is not worth it.
Comment by mithril - December 5, 2001 @ 1:28 PM - Rated a 2
Unlike most of the art we view here, this was not painted by any mortal hand, but by machines. Minus one. The maxim is depressingly commercialistic. Minus one. The accuracy is not terribly lacking, and as a whole, the picture is rather impressive. Four (minus two).
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 5, 2001 @ 4:02 PM - Rated a 2
Unlike most of the art we view here, this was not painted by any mortal hand, but by machines. Minus one. The maxim is depressingly commercialistic. Minus one. The accuracy is not terribly lacking, and as a whole, the picture is rather impressive. Four (minus two).
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 5, 2001 @ 4:02 PM - Rated a 2
Comment by Pascal - December 5, 2001 @ 5:26 PM - Rated a 5
Comment by Pascal - December 5, 2001 @ 5:26 PM - Rated a 5
Peter S. Beagle wrote in a 1973 preface to FOTR:
"It's been fifteen years at this writiing since I first came across THE LORD OF THE RINGS in the stacks at the Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh. I'd been looking for the book for four years, ever since reading W.H. Auden's review in the New York Times. I think of that time now -- and the years after, when the trilogy continued to be hard to find and hard to explain to most friends -- with an undeniable nostalgia. It was a barren era for fantasy, among other things, but a good time for cherishing slighted treasures and mysterious passwords. Long before 'Frodo Lives' began to appear in New York subways, JRR Tolkien was the magus of my secret knowledge."
To all the purists who want to cherish "slighted treasures and mysterious passwords," remember that this has happened before. In the late '50s, before Tolkien's works exploded into the mainstream consciousness, only a few people were "in the know" so to speak, and like Mr. Beagle, rather preferred it that way.
Now, of course, we have D&D and a whole genre of fantasy books. And now there are these three films, pretty much guaranteed to root out the last few people in the country who've never heard of Tolkien.
But, as Mr. Beagle pointed out, "the world he charts was there long before him . . . . He is a great enough magician to tap our most common nightmares, daydreams and twilight fancies, but he never invented them either: he found them a place to live, a green alternative to each day's madness here in a poisoned world."
I'd really like to see these movies go down in the history books as among the greatest of all time. It's not very often that an artist (Tolkien, I mean) gets a chance to lay claim to being responsible for (arguably) the best book of one century and (possibly) the best film of another.
I can sympathize with the purists who hate to see any aspect of the film altered or "interpreted" in any way. But, like the Tolkien calendars that I browse through every year, I'm always amazed at how different my conception of Middle-Earth and all its peoples is from that of others. There really is no such thing as the "real" Middle Earth. And frankly, after sitting through Harry Potter, in which every little scene was faithfully recreated (or so it is said), I've become convinced that editing a book for film is not such a bad thing after all.
The Middle-Earth that I know and love will always be mine, no matter what kind of vision a cartoon, film, toy, board game, calendar, or Burger King goblet may present.
So, I'm all for the movies. I'm eagerly awaiting them. And I encourage everyone -- even the purists -- to see the films and be willing to SHARE the world they know so well.
Comment by TheGaffer - December 5, 2001 @ 7:45 PM - Rated a 5
Peter S. Beagle wrote in a 1973 preface to FOTR:
"It's been fifteen years at this writiing since I first came across THE LORD OF THE RINGS in the stacks at the Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh. I'd been looking for the book for four years, ever since reading W.H. Auden's review in the New York Times. I think of that time now -- and the years after, when the trilogy continued to be hard to find and hard to explain to most friends -- with an undeniable nostalgia. It was a barren era for fantasy, among other things, but a good time for cherishing slighted treasures and mysterious passwords. Long before 'Frodo Lives' began to appear in New York subways, JRR Tolkien was the magus of my secret knowledge."
To all the purists who want to cherish "slighted treasures and mysterious passwords," remember that this has happened before. In the late '50s, before Tolkien's works exploded into the mainstream consciousness, only a few people were "in the know" so to speak, and like Mr. Beagle, rather preferred it that way.
Now, of course, we have D&D and a whole genre of fantasy books. And now there are these three films, pretty much guaranteed to root out the last few people in the country who've never heard of Tolkien.
But, as Mr. Beagle pointed out, "the world he charts was there long before him . . . . He is a great enough magician to tap our most common nightmares, daydreams and twilight fancies, but he never invented them either: he found them a place to live, a green alternative to each day's madness here in a poisoned world."
I'd really like to see these movies go down in the history books as among the greatest of all time. It's not very often that an artist (Tolkien, I mean) gets a chance to lay claim to being responsible for (arguably) the best book of one century and (possibly) the best film of another.
I can sympathize with the purists who hate to see any aspect of the film altered or "interpreted" in any way. But, like the Tolkien calendars that I browse through every year, I'm always amazed at how different my conception of Middle-Earth and all its peoples is from that of others. There really is no such thing as the "real" Middle Earth. And frankly, after sitting through Harry Potter, in which every little scene was faithfully recreated (or so it is said), I've become convinced that editing a book for film is not such a bad thing after all.
The Middle-Earth that I know and love will always be mine, no matter what kind of vision a cartoon, film, toy, board game, calendar, or Burger King goblet may present.
So, I'm all for the movies. I'm eagerly awaiting them. And I encourage everyone -- even the purists -- to see the films and be willing to SHARE the world they know so well.
Comment by TheGaffer - December 5, 2001 @ 7:45 PM - Rated a 5
First, let me not confuse my impression of your words, Gaffer – were they not directed at a person other than me? So, it is with disinterest towards my own public image (though that shall shortly change hereafter!) that I say: Purism may not be what you have painted it. Firstly, your well-typed quote does not apply (though perhaps you did not mean it to) directly to purists – although purists may, in cases, attempt to isolate a thing to keep it pure, isolationism is a separate thing from purism, and the two should not be confused. Isolationism is selfishness for ones own sake. Purism is concern for that which one is devoted to (that is, selfishness for a separate things sake, which is altruism really and not selfishness in its strictest meaning).
To be fair, there is much to be said in defence of Purism (as it applies to Tolkien's work here). No clear thinking purist will deem any of Tolkien's work perfect – that kind of devotion is foolishness and madness, and better called Worship than Purism. Recall that Tolkien himself would never have had arrogance enough to call anything of his own perfect! However, it is quite possible (and even likely) that nobody on this earth now that Tolkien is gone, nor anyone in the future, could ever make a change (and here lets not nit-pick with idle sentence structure and phraseology) to Middle Earth that would "improve it." For what is Middle Earth? It is the world that existed in Tolkien's mind. As such, I argue that no one has the understanding necessary to change the Lord of the Rings in any manner that would make their own version of it more true to Tolkien's Middle Earth, that is, the Real Middle Earth. So, since Tolkien rests, let the Lord of the Rings remain as it is, unmodified and unsullied by vain attempts to improve a vast work we know too little about. That is what the Purists stand for.
Gaffer, you said that the Real Middle Earth was a fallacy. Except that Tolkien is no longer with us, you are not even partly correct; what Tolkien Invented was Middle Earth – and so, his work, at the time of its creation and up until Tolkien's own revision either on paper or in mind, was the Real Middle Earth. And since none of us can occupy Tolkien's mind, our best way to reach into the Real Middle Earth is to study that work which is his own, not anybody else's. In each of us we carry in our minds and hearts our own Middle-Earths, and each of these versions is just as real as the next; but none of them, unless by Divine Influence, can be exactly what Tolkien had Invented; none of them are the Real Middle-Earth. Alas! that time passes and all things fade!
And now, I digress. What has become of fantasy since Tolkien's day? Fantasy is still fantasy, there is no denying that; but that something like D&D and the works of most modern fantasy authors should be understood to be "Tolkien-inspired" (and I believe a very great deal of it truly is) galls me. What could be less like Tolkien than D&D? His writing was centered about – even the very germ of his writing! was languages, and through them culture! Wars, magic, and strange races were no more central to Middle-Earth than they are to our Earth! And what is D&D? Truly role-playing, or just dice-rolling? Even in the former case, which at least has some artistic respectability (and you were right when you named Tolkien an artist!) the focus is on 'levels' and 'hit points' and getting bigger and badder magical weapons. What could be less like the Lord of the Rings? Acquisition of power was to be shunned; killing and battle were last resorts. Magic is commonplace in D&D and has been made almost scientific in its approach; never so in Middle-Earth. I do not begrudge you your entertainment, those of you who can derive it from such. But whereas experiencing Middle-Earth can enrich one's life – at least, I have found so – D&D, and many present-day fantasy novels simply drain it.
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 5, 2001 @ 9:36 PM
First, let me not confuse my impression of your words, Gaffer – were they not directed at a person other than me? So, it is with disinterest towards my own public image (though that shall shortly change hereafter!) that I say: Purism may not be what you have painted it. Firstly, your well-typed quote does not apply (though perhaps you did not mean it to) directly to purists – although purists may, in cases, attempt to isolate a thing to keep it pure, isolationism is a separate thing from purism, and the two should not be confused. Isolationism is selfishness for ones own sake. Purism is concern for that which one is devoted to (that is, selfishness for a separate things sake, which is altruism really and not selfishness in its strictest meaning).
To be fair, there is much to be said in defence of Purism (as it applies to Tolkien's work here). No clear thinking purist will deem any of Tolkien's work perfect – that kind of devotion is foolishness and madness, and better called Worship than Purism. Recall that Tolkien himself would never have had arrogance enough to call anything of his own perfect! However, it is quite possible (and even likely) that nobody on this earth now that Tolkien is gone, nor anyone in the future, could ever make a change (and here lets not nit-pick with idle sentence structure and phraseology) to Middle Earth that would "improve it." For what is Middle Earth? It is the world that existed in Tolkien's mind. As such, I argue that no one has the understanding necessary to change the Lord of the Rings in any manner that would make their own version of it more true to Tolkien's Middle Earth, that is, the Real Middle Earth. So, since Tolkien rests, let the Lord of the Rings remain as it is, unmodified and unsullied by vain attempts to improve a vast work we know too little about. That is what the Purists stand for.
Gaffer, you said that the Real Middle Earth was a fallacy. Except that Tolkien is no longer with us, you are not even partly correct; what Tolkien Invented was Middle Earth – and so, his work, at the time of its creation and up until Tolkien's own revision either on paper or in mind, was the Real Middle Earth. And since none of us can occupy Tolkien's mind, our best way to reach into the Real Middle Earth is to study that work which is his own, not anybody else's. In each of us we carry in our minds and hearts our own Middle-Earths, and each of these versions is just as real as the next; but none of them, unless by Divine Influence, can be exactly what Tolkien had Invented; none of them are the Real Middle-Earth. Alas! that time passes and all things fade!
And now, I digress. What has become of fantasy since Tolkien's day? Fantasy is still fantasy, there is no denying that; but that something like D&D and the works of most modern fantasy authors should be understood to be "Tolkien-inspired" (and I believe a very great deal of it truly is) galls me. What could be less like Tolkien than D&D? His writing was centered about – even the very germ of his writing! was languages, and through them culture! Wars, magic, and strange races were no more central to Middle-Earth than they are to our Earth! And what is D&D? Truly role-playing, or just dice-rolling? Even in the former case, which at least has some artistic respectability (and you were right when you named Tolkien an artist!) the focus is on 'levels' and 'hit points' and getting bigger and badder magical weapons. What could be less like the Lord of the Rings? Acquisition of power was to be shunned; killing and battle were last resorts. Magic is commonplace in D&D and has been made almost scientific in its approach; never so in Middle-Earth. I do not begrudge you your entertainment, those of you who can derive it from such. But whereas experiencing Middle-Earth can enrich one's life – at least, I have found so – D&D, and many present-day fantasy novels simply drain it.
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 5, 2001 @ 9:36 PM
I love this image. In my opinion this poster is the best ever issued because it shows the grand scale of the movie.
I think the swords look great, better than what axes would look like. Granted axes were in the book but this isn't the book. I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Jackson saying, "Once you try to cater to "Lord of the Rings" fans you're in trouble, because there are millions and every one has a different opinion." This quote was referring to the casting of Liv Tyler but it applies in this sense as well. And just as in the books the Gaffer was very wise in his own way, and I feel our own TheGaffer is very wise as well. So leave the books at home and enjoy the movie in two weeks!
In regards to this featured piece, it may have been done by machines but it is still a great piece of art. Just because something isn't painted or drawn by hand does not mean it is not art, just a different medium. Therefore I will not deduct any points due to the medium. A true five.
Comment by Gwindor - December 5, 2001 @ 9:51 PM - Rated a 5
I love this image. In my opinion this poster is the best ever issued because it shows the grand scale of the movie.
I think the swords look great, better than what axes would look like. Granted axes were in the book but this isn't the book. I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Jackson saying, "Once you try to cater to "Lord of the Rings" fans you're in trouble, because there are millions and every one has a different opinion." This quote was referring to the casting of Liv Tyler but it applies in this sense as well. And just as in the books the Gaffer was very wise in his own way, and I feel our own TheGaffer is very wise as well. So leave the books at home and enjoy the movie in two weeks!
In regards to this featured piece, it may have been done by machines but it is still a great piece of art. Just because something isn't painted or drawn by hand does not mean it is not art, just a different medium. Therefore I will not deduct any points due to the medium. A true five.
Comment by Gwindor - December 5, 2001 @ 9:51 PM - Rated a 5
To express a feeling or a sensation in prose is something quite different that expressing it in light and colour.
I respect the film makers' need for changing some details in order to create the right atmosphere. Thank God that this movie will not be a detailed rendering of the story as it goes in the book. The danger of it ending up as a boring list of happenings that would please the purists is rather frightening to me.
I am impressed that they have been able to stay as true to the original as they have.
Good picture. The best one I have seen of the Argonath! I sense the awe. Aragorn must have been very proud.
Comment by hrimfakse - December 6, 2001 @ 1:11 AM - Rated a 5
To express a feeling or a sensation in prose is something quite different that expressing it in light and colour.
I respect the film makers' need for changing some details in order to create the right atmosphere. Thank God that this movie will not be a detailed rendering of the story as it goes in the book. The danger of it ending up as a boring list of happenings that would please the purists is rather frightening to me.
I am impressed that they have been able to stay as true to the original as they have.
Good picture. The best one I have seen of the Argonath! I sense the awe. Aragorn must have been very proud.
Comment by hrimfakse - December 6, 2001 @ 1:11 AM - Rated a 5
No matter what anyone does to recreate their own vision, nothing can take away from the undeniable greatness that was, is, and always shall be, Tolkien's image of middle earth. He is the creator and it is unchangable... forever. Oh sure, people will show us what they percieve how a certain scene should look, like replacing axes with swords. And in some rare cases some will try a retelling of the story as a whole. One, a miserable attempt and we all know it, the other, being judged in forums such as this with a plethora of diffent opinions over vast intricasies of something which we have only had a taste. Pesonally, I think judging a film on an early teaser poster is like judging 'The Lord of the Rings' based on the affore mentioned obscene animated attempt. That being said... I give this poster a "4 minus 2" (if I may quote someone who's comments I always look forward to reading) and I will say I am more than eagerly awaiting the 19th.
Comment by articusmaximus - December 6, 2001 @ 6:51 AM - Rated a 2
No matter what anyone does to recreate their own vision, nothing can take away from the undeniable greatness that was, is, and always shall be, Tolkien's image of middle earth. He is the creator and it is unchangable... forever. Oh sure, people will show us what they percieve how a certain scene should look, like replacing axes with swords. And in some rare cases some will try a retelling of the story as a whole. One, a miserable attempt and we all know it, the other, being judged in forums such as this with a plethora of diffent opinions over vast intricasies of something which we have only had a taste. Pesonally, I think judging a film on an early teaser poster is like judging 'The Lord of the Rings' based on the affore mentioned obscene animated attempt. That being said... I give this poster a "4 minus 2" (if I may quote someone who's comments I always look forward to reading) and I will say I am more than eagerly awaiting the 19th.
Comment by articusmaximus - December 6, 2001 @ 6:51 AM - Rated a 2
I'm not sure I should venture an opinion in what feels to be such an august company. Nonetheless, I shall. My spouse read LOTR to me, several chapters a night, each night, until we finished it. I was entranced and in wonder. An embarrassment of an English Lit. undergrad that did not leave me with a reading of LOTR, I had never sought it out, thinking it would be dry and dreary. I couldn't have been more wrong.
I have now engaged in a close reading of the books, reading also the appendices for pronounciation and language, and looking forward to reading the rest of Tolkien's body of work, hoping that it will fill out some of the places where answers are needed.. at least by me. Clarification is a better word, and I've been told I'll find a great deal of that in his other words and in the third of the last volume of LOTR which comprises several long and detailed appendices.
With regard to the poster.. yes, it does evoke majesty and a sense of wonder, but again, yes, it is not as it was described. I don't know where to come down on this. It distrurbs me, but in truth I am FAR more disturbed by the idea that Liv Tyler as Arwen could take the place of Glorfindel, the Elf Lord revealed in his wrath, shining white in his awesome glory. That was powerful writing. Arwen to the rescue just doesn't do it for me.. and losing Glorfindel bothers me. So does losing Tom Bombadil, although I understand why it was felt by the director that "the general public" would not "get it" -- it's a big cut nonetheless. Most frightening for me is something I read in, yes, Entertainment Weekly (don't all stone me, it's a useful publication if you're busy and want to know what's coming up) where Sean Astin, the actor playing Sam, stated that he had continual arguments with the director who wanted to cast Sam more as comic relief, along the lines of that horrendous cartoon. Astin kept fighting Jackson's interpretation in this respect, and I hope to god that he managed because in my view Sam is a true hero, sometimes (and I know that this view may not be popular) even more so a hero for me than was Frodo. Yes, Frodo may have been smarter and had depths to him, but when it came to it, it was Sam's devotion and unwillingness to give up. He would CARRY Frodo on his back, give him the last morsels of food and drink, see the thing through though it meant (as he believed) his death.. not to mention saving Frodo from the Orcs. Sam, comic relief? Um, no. Merry and Pippin are far more comic relief if indeed one wishes to use that term (I dislike it) than is Sam. I have never understood why Sam is not perceived as a greater hero.. perhaps someone can enlighten me, since to my reading it would very clearly appear that Sam saved the day at least as many times as did Frodo, and far more than did Merry and Pippin.
I apologize for the length of this posting, and hope I haven't offended anyone. Again, as for the poster, given that it will and does inspire the awe that we want it to inspire in order to bring the masses into the theatre and make the movie one to which more and more people come, I give it a 4 -- the one point removed for the fact that it is indeed a copy, nor original work, and the changes made, well, I haven't seen what it would look like with axes, so I can't say comfortably that the change was necessary and loathe am I to blithely okay a change that Tolkien did not make himself. I don't know what camp that places me in, but labels are something I typically eschew.
Comment by Lissla - December 6, 2001 @ 9:42 AM - Rated a 4
I'm not sure I should venture an opinion in what feels to be such an august company. Nonetheless, I shall. My spouse read LOTR to me, several chapters a night, each night, until we finished it. I was entranced and in wonder. An embarrassment of an English Lit. undergrad that did not leave me with a reading of LOTR, I had never sought it out, thinking it would be dry and dreary. I couldn't have been more wrong.
I have now engaged in a close reading of the books, reading also the appendices for pronounciation and language, and looking forward to reading the rest of Tolkien's body of work, hoping that it will fill out some of the places where answers are needed.. at least by me. Clarification is a better word, and I've been told I'll find a great deal of that in his other words and in the third of the last volume of LOTR which comprises several long and detailed appendices.
With regard to the poster.. yes, it does evoke majesty and a sense of wonder, but again, yes, it is not as it was described. I don't know where to come down on this. It distrurbs me, but in truth I am FAR more disturbed by the idea that Liv Tyler as Arwen could take the place of Glorfindel, the Elf Lord revealed in his wrath, shining white in his awesome glory. That was powerful writing. Arwen to the rescue just doesn't do it for me.. and losing Glorfindel bothers me. So does losing Tom Bombadil, although I understand why it was felt by the director that "the general public" would not "get it" -- it's a big cut nonetheless. Most frightening for me is something I read in, yes, Entertainment Weekly (don't all stone me, it's a useful publication if you're busy and want to know what's coming up) where Sean Astin, the actor playing Sam, stated that he had continual arguments with the director who wanted to cast Sam more as comic relief, along the lines of that horrendous cartoon. Astin kept fighting Jackson's interpretation in this respect, and I hope to god that he managed because in my view Sam is a true hero, sometimes (and I know that this view may not be popular) even more so a hero for me than was Frodo. Yes, Frodo may have been smarter and had depths to him, but when it came to it, it was Sam's devotion and unwillingness to give up. He would CARRY Frodo on his back, give him the last morsels of food and drink, see the thing through though it meant (as he believed) his death.. not to mention saving Frodo from the Orcs. Sam, comic relief? Um, no. Merry and Pippin are far more comic relief if indeed one wishes to use that term (I dislike it) than is Sam. I have never understood why Sam is not perceived as a greater hero.. perhaps someone can enlighten me, since to my reading it would very clearly appear that Sam saved the day at least as many times as did Frodo, and far more than did Merry and Pippin.
I apologize for the length of this posting, and hope I haven't offended anyone. Again, as for the poster, given that it will and does inspire the awe that we want it to inspire in order to bring the masses into the theatre and make the movie one to which more and more people come, I give it a 4 -- the one point removed for the fact that it is indeed a copy, nor original work, and the changes made, well, I haven't seen what it would look like with axes, so I can't say comfortably that the change was necessary and loathe am I to blithely okay a change that Tolkien did not make himself. I don't know what camp that places me in, but labels are something I typically eschew.
Comment by Lissla - December 6, 2001 @ 9:42 AM - Rated a 4
Ppl despices computer generated artwork. FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! machines don't work by themselves! it requires a very creative and tallented operator to do something like this, no matter how *** good the software is... Cause even if you have the best of the best machinery, you will NEVER create something half as visualy impressive as this poster if you don't have the ability, the knowledge and most important, the creativity. Do you think it is just siting down and pushing buttons? now that's ignorance, for I've tasted both "real" and digital media for the creation of art. And I know the media doesn't make the artist. You can use the roughest of charcoals or the latest technology to create your work, but if you suck, you just suck, and everyone will notice it. Not even the best software in the world can make your work look good in that case. If the reason of my comment is not clear enough, that goes for saying the machines created the poster... THAT'S NOT TRUE. As for my comments on the poster itself, I just can wonder how hard could have it been to stick to the description in the book. I would have liked the look of axes better, but in general it's very well made. I agree with articusmaximus that we cannot judge the whole movie based on a poster. I'll go see the movie and then I will be able to say if Peter Jackson screwed it or not...
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 6, 2001 @ 9:56 AM - Rated a 4
Ppl despices computer generated artwork. FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! machines don't work by themselves! it requires a very creative and tallented operator to do something like this, no matter how *** good the software is... Cause even if you have the best of the best machinery, you will NEVER create something half as visualy impressive as this poster if you don't have the ability, the knowledge and most important, the creativity. Do you think it is just siting down and pushing buttons? now that's ignorance, for I've tasted both "real" and digital media for the creation of art. And I know the media doesn't make the artist. You can use the roughest of charcoals or the latest technology to create your work, but if you suck, you just suck, and everyone will notice it. Not even the best software in the world can make your work look good in that case. If the reason of my comment is not clear enough, that goes for saying the machines created the poster... THAT'S NOT TRUE. As for my comments on the poster itself, I just can wonder how hard could have it been to stick to the description in the book. I would have liked the look of axes better, but in general it's very well made. I agree with articusmaximus that we cannot judge the whole movie based on a poster. I'll go see the movie and then I will be able to say if Peter Jackson screwed it or not...
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 6, 2001 @ 9:56 AM - Rated a 4
I think that this movie will be the best, and l can't wait to see it. I am reading the one volume edition for the 5th time and l still find things that amaze me. I think that the movie will portray some of the sences from the book, but movies cannot compare to the imagination.
Comment by elvish_girl - December 6, 2001 @ 5:37 PM - Rated a 4
I think that this movie will be the best, and l can't wait to see it. I am reading the one volume edition for the 5th time and l still find things that amaze me. I think that the movie will portray some of the sences from the book, but movies cannot compare to the imagination.
Comment by elvish_girl - December 6, 2001 @ 5:37 PM - Rated a 4
I've read LOTR quite a few times, and it is one of my favourite books. I've just booked 10 tickets for the film on Dec 19th and am going mad with the anticipation (obviously mad enough to read the inane bickering above). I also couldn't give a rat's ass (and can't remember) whether these statues have axes or swords. Who cares?!?
This poster is excellent, it's been up at my local cinama for about a month, taunting me. Certainly gives a sense of the scale Mr Jackson has gone for. A 5 by anyone's standards.
PS. Tom Bombadil is the worst character in LOTR. Good riddance!
Comment by AlanF - December 7, 2001 @ 1:55 AM - Rated a 5
I've read LOTR quite a few times, and it is one of my favourite books. I've just booked 10 tickets for the film on Dec 19th and am going mad with the anticipation (obviously mad enough to read the inane bickering above). I also couldn't give a rat's ass (and can't remember) whether these statues have axes or swords. Who cares?!?
This poster is excellent, it's been up at my local cinama for about a month, taunting me. Certainly gives a sense of the scale Mr Jackson has gone for. A 5 by anyone's standards.
PS. Tom Bombadil is the worst character in LOTR. Good riddance!
Comment by AlanF - December 7, 2001 @ 1:55 AM - Rated a 5
Articus Maximus and Golden Smaug, your advice regarding the movie is sound; I shall take it. You, Articus, have said in a few brief sentences what I have attempted to convey at length, and a certain Elvish girl speaks with wisdom in even greater brevity! Most of all, though, I have been delighted to read the words of Lissla – you have reminded me of much I have forgotten that I once too placed a high value on. Also, I entirely agree with you regarding Glorfindel's role, and the whole "comic relief" bit. I recall myself laughing rather often at Pippin, but never at Sam... As for computer generate art, I do not misappreciate the effort involved in creating decent pictures (having tried it myself with dismal results...) However, the amount of realism possible by computer generated art far surpasses hand drawn art done in the same amount of time; and computers are getting better. While it does take skill to make decent drawings with a computer, that skill is augmented by the advanced technology available... if I were rate computer generated art and hand drawn art with a blind eye to the medium used the result would be much the same as if I were to rate oil paints to water colors: one category would average much higher than the other, not because the painter is any better, but because of the difference in the amount of facility, and thus maximum realism, between the two. AlanF, you obviously don't care what anyone else here has to say (though I'm sure you would phrase that more vulgarly) as you have said as much yourself, or you would realize that this picture is NOT a 5 by anyone's standards, but by maybe half of everyone's. Do you also not care what Tolkien had to say? Again, I must guess no; he specifically said Axes, not Swords, and Tom Bombadil was hardly the least of his characters (though not all grasp his importance). So, and this is just a question, if you don't care what Tolkien said, why such a dividing interest in LotR?
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 7, 2001 @ 2:05 PM
Articus Maximus and Golden Smaug, your advice regarding the movie is sound; I shall take it. You, Articus, have said in a few brief sentences what I have attempted to convey at length, and a certain Elvish girl speaks with wisdom in even greater brevity! Most of all, though, I have been delighted to read the words of Lissla – you have reminded me of much I have forgotten that I once too placed a high value on. Also, I entirely agree with you regarding Glorfindel's role, and the whole "comic relief" bit. I recall myself laughing rather often at Pippin, but never at Sam... As for computer generate art, I do not misappreciate the effort involved in creating decent pictures (having tried it myself with dismal results...) However, the amount of realism possible by computer generated art far surpasses hand drawn art done in the same amount of time; and computers are getting better. While it does take skill to make decent drawings with a computer, that skill is augmented by the advanced technology available... if I were rate computer generated art and hand drawn art with a blind eye to the medium used the result would be much the same as if I were to rate oil paints to water colors: one category would average much higher than the other, not because the painter is any better, but because of the difference in the amount of facility, and thus maximum realism, between the two. AlanF, you obviously don't care what anyone else here has to say (though I'm sure you would phrase that more vulgarly) as you have said as much yourself, or you would realize that this picture is NOT a 5 by anyone's standards, but by maybe half of everyone's. Do you also not care what Tolkien had to say? Again, I must guess no; he specifically said Axes, not Swords, and Tom Bombadil was hardly the least of his characters (though not all grasp his importance). So, and this is just a question, if you don't care what Tolkien said, why such a dividing interest in LotR?
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 7, 2001 @ 2:05 PM
we shall all be the more enlightened. Hehe...
Comment by Aignatius - December 7, 2001 @ 2:43 PM - Rated a 4
we shall all be the more enlightened. Hehe...
Comment by Aignatius - December 7, 2001 @ 2:43 PM - Rated a 4
I like the sword, as they are the traditional weapon of men, while axes are the traditional weapons of the dwarfs. When I first read the chapter of The Great River, I always thought it odd that the sentinels wielded axes instead of swords. I rather imagined them with swords from the famous weapon, Anduril, Flame of the West. In the poster, I think the sword is Anduril. No offense to fans of J.R.R. Tolkien, but I do not think that my imagination is better than J.R.R. Tolkien himself, but this is how imagined the Pillars of the Kings. Great Poster!
Comment by Mungo - December 7, 2001 @ 3:22 PM - Rated a 5
I like the sword, as they are the traditional weapon of men, while axes are the traditional weapons of the dwarfs. When I first read the chapter of The Great River, I always thought it odd that the sentinels wielded axes instead of swords. I rather imagined them with swords from the famous weapon, Anduril, Flame of the West. In the poster, I think the sword is Anduril. No offense to fans of J.R.R. Tolkien, but I do not think that my imagination is better than J.R.R. Tolkien himself, but this is how imagined the Pillars of the Kings. Great Poster!
Comment by Mungo - December 7, 2001 @ 3:22 PM - Rated a 5
The Lord of the Rings movie shall indeed be grand and I can hardly wait for the 19th!
Comment by HalloweenTCM13 - December 7, 2001 @ 3:44 PM - Rated a 4
The Lord of the Rings movie shall indeed be grand and I can hardly wait for the 19th!
Comment by HalloweenTCM13 - December 7, 2001 @ 3:44 PM - Rated a 4
"When I first read the chapter of The Great River, I always thought it odd that the sentinels wielded axes instead of swords. I rather imagined them with swords from the famous weapon, Anduril, Flame of the West."
I've wondered this a few times myself, Mungo, and the best I can come up with is that swords were the weapons of Elves, and axes were more for Men as well as Dwarves. In the Silmarillion, for those of you who read it and the 2 others out there besides me who actually liked it :), Many of the Edain carried swords. Indeed, in the Fall of Gondolin in the Lost tales, I do believe that Tuor son of Huor was described as carrying an axe into battle...........
Anyway, about the picture. On the whole, pretty good. I would have prefered axes better, because I'm loosely classified as (avert your eyes) a purist. However, It still does look good. And if this is Mr. Jackson's idea of it, so be it. After all, we are all going to see Jackson's version of it on the 19th, not wholely Tolkien's.........
Comment by Tar-Eltherion - December 7, 2001 @ 7:30 PM - Rated a 4
"When I first read the chapter of The Great River, I always thought it odd that the sentinels wielded axes instead of swords. I rather imagined them with swords from the famous weapon, Anduril, Flame of the West."
I've wondered this a few times myself, Mungo, and the best I can come up with is that swords were the weapons of Elves, and axes were more for Men as well as Dwarves. In the Silmarillion, for those of you who read it and the 2 others out there besides me who actually liked it :), Many of the Edain carried swords. Indeed, in the Fall of Gondolin in the Lost tales, I do believe that Tuor son of Huor was described as carrying an axe into battle...........
Anyway, about the picture. On the whole, pretty good. I would have prefered axes better, because I'm loosely classified as (avert your eyes) a purist. However, It still does look good. And if this is Mr. Jackson's idea of it, so be it. After all, we are all going to see Jackson's version of it on the 19th, not wholely Tolkien's.........
Comment by Tar-Eltherion - December 7, 2001 @ 7:30 PM - Rated a 4
*from my previous post*
"Many of the Edain carried swords. "
I meant axes there. sorry.
Comment by Tar-Eltherion - December 7, 2001 @ 7:40 PM
*from my previous post*
"Many of the Edain carried swords. "
I meant axes there. sorry.
Comment by Tar-Eltherion - December 7, 2001 @ 7:40 PM
"...It still does look good. And if this is Mr. Jackson's idea of it, so be it. After all, we are all going to see Jackson's version of it on the 19th, not wholely Tolkien's......... "
This is Mr. Jackson's movie, not Tolkien's.
Comment by Gwindor - December 7, 2001 @ 8:02 PM
"...It still does look good. And if this is Mr. Jackson's idea of it, so be it. After all, we are all going to see Jackson's version of it on the 19th, not wholely Tolkien's......... "
This is Mr. Jackson's movie, not Tolkien's.
Comment by Gwindor - December 7, 2001 @ 8:02 PM
I'm seeing the Movie in London the 23rd and have had two FoTR posters in my room to remind me every day that, yes it will happen. Unfortunately this poster is not one of them. Because this one is AWESOME!
Swords, Axes, Pikes. PJ's movie will be PJ's movie, and it will be BASED on Tolkiens work, it won't BE Toliens work. Go PJ, i can't wait for the 23rd to come (im in Australia and freakin Aussies have the premiere the 26th... WAY TOO LAIDBACK!!!)
Well Said Tar-Eltherion, and a solid 5 in rating from me.
Comment by Gandalf_Greyhame - December 8, 2001 @ 10:02 AM - Rated a 5
I'm seeing the Movie in London the 23rd and have had two FoTR posters in my room to remind me every day that, yes it will happen. Unfortunately this poster is not one of them. Because this one is AWESOME!
Swords, Axes, Pikes. PJ's movie will be PJ's movie, and it will be BASED on Tolkiens work, it won't BE Toliens work. Go PJ, i can't wait for the 23rd to come (im in Australia and freakin Aussies have the premiere the 26th... WAY TOO LAIDBACK!!!)
Well Said Tar-Eltherion, and a solid 5 in rating from me.
Comment by Gandalf_Greyhame - December 8, 2001 @ 10:02 AM - Rated a 5
Great poster. A nice scene to express to ambiance of lotr. Yeah!
Comment by Davolas - December 8, 2001 @ 12:56 PM - Rated a 5
Great poster. A nice scene to express to ambiance of lotr. Yeah!
Comment by Davolas - December 8, 2001 @ 12:56 PM - Rated a 5
me gustaría estar ahí!
Comment by orc_kill - December 8, 2001 @ 1:05 PM - Rated a 5
me gustaría estar ahí!
Comment by orc_kill - December 8, 2001 @ 1:05 PM - Rated a 5
Didn't Turin carry a black sword which made him famous? The one which was made by Eol and was given to Thingol. The Mormegil of Nargothrond.
Comment by Davolas - December 8, 2001 @ 1:07 PM
Didn't Turin carry a black sword which made him famous? The one which was made by Eol and was given to Thingol. The Mormegil of Nargothrond.
Comment by Davolas - December 8, 2001 @ 1:07 PM
I'm sorry I "sounded" a bit offended in my previous posting. I'm a defender of computer artwork cause I work with computers all day, and most of my work is utterly done with them. However, my favorite media for sketching and drawing will be forever graphite pencils. In my bedroom you can see a print of Gustav Klimt's "Expectation" hanging on one wall, and on the opposite one there's a Luis Royo painting. Concerning art, I've experienced both sides and appreciate them both. I'm glad that technology has been a great aid for Peter Jackson and I just hope he's able to use it in a proper way, cause I pasionately hate those movies where even a small child can see when and where they used computer generated stuff (independence day, for an example). The real mastery rests in beeing able to keep the effects subtle and clean, when they go unnoticed or they blend perfectly with reality. That's what I expect from TLOTR. And though I'm far from being a purist there are many things that I think should be respected (I really don't think putting axes instead of swords was that hard) Anyway, I don't think any of us has ever directed a movie and we don't rightly know what does it mean, or what people would think of our own works if any of us ever did. Let's just hope PJ didn't go too much astray with LOTR. PS. I would belive much of what Entertainment Weekly sez, they could have missinterpreted anyone's words, or even manipulated them, as often happens. PS2. AlanF, are you sure LOTR is your favorite book?
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 8, 2001 @ 2:27 PM
I'm sorry I "sounded" a bit offended in my previous posting. I'm a defender of computer artwork cause I work with computers all day, and most of my work is utterly done with them. However, my favorite media for sketching and drawing will be forever graphite pencils. In my bedroom you can see a print of Gustav Klimt's "Expectation" hanging on one wall, and on the opposite one there's a Luis Royo painting. Concerning art, I've experienced both sides and appreciate them both. I'm glad that technology has been a great aid for Peter Jackson and I just hope he's able to use it in a proper way, cause I pasionately hate those movies where even a small child can see when and where they used computer generated stuff (independence day, for an example). The real mastery rests in beeing able to keep the effects subtle and clean, when they go unnoticed or they blend perfectly with reality. That's what I expect from TLOTR. And though I'm far from being a purist there are many things that I think should be respected (I really don't think putting axes instead of swords was that hard) Anyway, I don't think any of us has ever directed a movie and we don't rightly know what does it mean, or what people would think of our own works if any of us ever did. Let's just hope PJ didn't go too much astray with LOTR. PS. I would belive much of what Entertainment Weekly sez, they could have missinterpreted anyone's words, or even manipulated them, as often happens. PS2. AlanF, are you sure LOTR is your favorite book?
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 8, 2001 @ 2:27 PM
Goldensmaug,this a painting by John Howe,the ability of the graphic designer disconcerns me,(but im sure its difficult work).Peter Jackson,ought to be the most grateful filmaker ever,to have such a story to make a screenplay by.I've never been impressed with P. Jackson,but im sure this is going to be a good movie,but I will cringe everytime I see a change from the book,and I already realize that it can never compare in a general sense,but should be entertaining.And also,I have always been critical of Lanklamenyn in the past for his lambasting of comments left by people who were just giving there opinion about the art,everyone thinks different.But after reading his comment under the header"The real Middle- Earth"I'd have to say,I view him under a different light.
Comment by livin_lizard - December 8, 2001 @ 3:13 PM
Goldensmaug,this a painting by John Howe,the ability of the graphic designer disconcerns me,(but im sure its difficult work).Peter Jackson,ought to be the most grateful filmaker ever,to have such a story to make a screenplay by.I've never been impressed with P. Jackson,but im sure this is going to be a good movie,but I will cringe everytime I see a change from the book,and I already realize that it can never compare in a general sense,but should be entertaining.And also,I have always been critical of Lanklamenyn in the past for his lambasting of comments left by people who were just giving there opinion about the art,everyone thinks different.But after reading his comment under the header"The real Middle- Earth"I'd have to say,I view him under a different light.
Comment by livin_lizard - December 8, 2001 @ 3:13 PM
Probably at home, because tickets for the 19th are all sold out. But I NEED to see this movie. Can`t wait...
The picture by the way looks SMASHING. Whether the kings carry swords or axes, it doesn`t matter. People who see the movie and haven`t read the book (yet) will not notice anything about this. Doesn`t it give a good feeling when YOU know how it is written by Tolkien, and all the others don`t?
Tom Bombadil, by the way, is one of the most important characters in Middle Earth. Maybe AlanF should study him a bit more...
A 5
Comment by Master_of_Arda - December 9, 2001 @ 4:43 AM - Rated a 5
Probably at home, because tickets for the 19th are all sold out. But I NEED to see this movie. Can`t wait...
The picture by the way looks SMASHING. Whether the kings carry swords or axes, it doesn`t matter. People who see the movie and haven`t read the book (yet) will not notice anything about this. Doesn`t it give a good feeling when YOU know how it is written by Tolkien, and all the others don`t?
Tom Bombadil, by the way, is one of the most important characters in Middle Earth. Maybe AlanF should study him a bit more...
A 5
Comment by Master_of_Arda - December 9, 2001 @ 4:43 AM - Rated a 5
...this exact pic was among the first published concept art. Funny it made it so far, really.
Comment by kipper - December 10, 2001 @ 7:11 AM - Rated a 3
...this exact pic was among the first published concept art. Funny it made it so far, really.
Comment by kipper - December 10, 2001 @ 7:11 AM - Rated a 3
And I too think I have been not entirely fair to computer art: there are cases, of course, where I would feel inclinced to give a computer generated piece of art a 5, even if the bare for realism was higher. But again, there is another thing about this piece of work that I dislike and failed to mention earlier: the fact that it is a movie poster and carries with it the entirely unartistic blurb at the bottom. So my rating stands. Livin lizard, a certain phrase from LotR came to mind: "That's uncommonly kind of you!" I'm sure you understand the context. I do hope it is understood (and by your latest, I believe it is, perfectly) that while I am passionate about Middle Earth, I rarely mean to be personally critical with my comments (such comments as Halloween's on the last picture, if you recall, make for the exception). As I said before, Tom's importance is not grasped by all. In fact, I would venture to say that the vast majority of people don't even have a beginning of an appreciation for Tom Bombadil! I myself do not claim to understand him except for in a vague, abstract manner that might be entirely misconcieved. Does anyone have any deep insight into Tom Bombadil?
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 10, 2001 @ 7:34 AM
And I too think I have been not entirely fair to computer art: there are cases, of course, where I would feel inclinced to give a computer generated piece of art a 5, even if the bare for realism was higher. But again, there is another thing about this piece of work that I dislike and failed to mention earlier: the fact that it is a movie poster and carries with it the entirely unartistic blurb at the bottom. So my rating stands. Livin lizard, a certain phrase from LotR came to mind: "That's uncommonly kind of you!" I'm sure you understand the context. I do hope it is understood (and by your latest, I believe it is, perfectly) that while I am passionate about Middle Earth, I rarely mean to be personally critical with my comments (such comments as Halloween's on the last picture, if you recall, make for the exception). As I said before, Tom's importance is not grasped by all. In fact, I would venture to say that the vast majority of people don't even have a beginning of an appreciation for Tom Bombadil! I myself do not claim to understand him except for in a vague, abstract manner that might be entirely misconcieved. Does anyone have any deep insight into Tom Bombadil?
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 10, 2001 @ 7:34 AM
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very nice
Comment by theringbearer - December 10, 2001 @ 8:37 AM - Rated a 5
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very nice
Comment by theringbearer - December 10, 2001 @ 8:37 AM - Rated a 5
For Lanklamenyn: Many people have tried to answer the question "Who is Tom Bombadil?". The theory that makes the most sense to me (chuckle) is that he is Aule, the smith of the Vala. There are all sorts of things in the story that might lead this way, but it's still vague. Ultimately, I suppose, he would be a representation of things not concerned with the ring, hence not concerned with control or dominion. He is called and calls himself "the master", but does not seek mastery of anything. Of course I could be totally wrong :)
I'm pretty shure I already rated this pic
Comment by Tar-Eltherion - December 10, 2001 @ 10:09 AM
For Lanklamenyn: Many people have tried to answer the question "Who is Tom Bombadil?". The theory that makes the most sense to me (chuckle) is that he is Aule, the smith of the Vala. There are all sorts of things in the story that might lead this way, but it's still vague. Ultimately, I suppose, he would be a representation of things not concerned with the ring, hence not concerned with control or dominion. He is called and calls himself "the master", but does not seek mastery of anything. Of course I could be totally wrong :)
I'm pretty shure I already rated this pic
Comment by Tar-Eltherion - December 10, 2001 @ 10:09 AM
This message board is getting interesting (and the poster getting boring). Maybe Peter Jackson didn't use Tom Bombadil cause he was too complex for anyone to completely understand. And we've read the books, but imagine everyone who hasn't (a good deal of my friends and family), how would Tom fit in the story for them who don't know the lord of the rings books? At least we, who have read the books, can imagine and cast theories bout Tom's origin and all (like Tal-Eltherion's above, which I find interesting), but I think for everything I've read and heard bout the movies that they are not aimed only to atract fans, but also people who hasn't read the books. Unfair for all devoted fans, but quite understandable. For at least in my country, I know just bout two peoples that would go to the theaters apart from me, if this was a movie only fans would like and understand (fair for fans but bad for Peter Jackson's and New Line's economy) Although it would have been nice to see Bombadil in the movies, it would have also been a challenge to chose the right actor to play the part, and that would probably be another long debate for these message boards. Still bout the poster, and as a graphic designer, I'd say that as a movie poster, it works, it serves it's purpose... but then again... WHY A SWORD? my rating also stands (I cannot change it anyway)
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 10, 2001 @ 5:42 PM
This message board is getting interesting (and the poster getting boring). Maybe Peter Jackson didn't use Tom Bombadil cause he was too complex for anyone to completely understand. And we've read the books, but imagine everyone who hasn't (a good deal of my friends and family), how would Tom fit in the story for them who don't know the lord of the rings books? At least we, who have read the books, can imagine and cast theories bout Tom's origin and all (like Tal-Eltherion's above, which I find interesting), but I think for everything I've read and heard bout the movies that they are not aimed only to atract fans, but also people who hasn't read the books. Unfair for all devoted fans, but quite understandable. For at least in my country, I know just bout two peoples that would go to the theaters apart from me, if this was a movie only fans would like and understand (fair for fans but bad for Peter Jackson's and New Line's economy) Although it would have been nice to see Bombadil in the movies, it would have also been a challenge to chose the right actor to play the part, and that would probably be another long debate for these message boards. Still bout the poster, and as a graphic designer, I'd say that as a movie poster, it works, it serves it's purpose... but then again... WHY A SWORD? my rating also stands (I cannot change it anyway)
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 10, 2001 @ 5:42 PM
I too was disappointed to hear about the removal of Tom, but he would be a hard character to successfully portray. Where'd he come from anyway? Anyone know?
The poster: I think this poster looks great, despite the minor detail changes (I myself think swords fit this scene better than axes).
Comment by watcherinthewater - December 10, 2001 @ 9:52 PM
I too was disappointed to hear about the removal of Tom, but he would be a hard character to successfully portray. Where'd he come from anyway? Anyone know?
The poster: I think this poster looks great, despite the minor detail changes (I myself think swords fit this scene better than axes).
Comment by watcherinthewater - December 10, 2001 @ 9:52 PM
"Alas! that time passes and all things fade!" When Lanklamenyn wrote this it suddenly reminded me of what Tolkien said about Elves. He said, and I paraphrase, the trap for Elves was that they tried to keep everything the same, unchanged or sustained. They tried to keep their own little world intact while everything changed around them. They faded and eventually left Middle-Earth. It seems to me that the really hard-line purist have fallen into the same trap. They seem to be saying that since the movie can't be the same as the book, then the movie shouldn't be made. And yet, the movie is being made anyway and they're being left behind.
I have to admit, I have a little purist in me, too. I agree that the movies shouldn't have changes just for changes sake, but neither should the books be considered so sacred that artists have no room for interpretation. In this poster, for instance, I could see the uninitiated misinterpreting statues of men with axes as being Dwarves. I could also see the director not wanting the audience to be confused about whose land is being entered. I give the poster a 5. It is gorgeous, regardless of medium, and the caption doesn't bother me. Somehow, it seems fitting that LOTR be called a Legend.
I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. I mean, I'm sure there are worse things to which the purist could be compared than Elves.
As for Tom, my immediate reaction to hearing he wasn't in the movie was mix. On the one hand, I lamented the loss of several important chapters from the book. On the other, I was relieved that I wouldn't have to watch a silly portrayal of a admittedly strange character.
I had to think about Tom just a few days ago. I have been listening to the audio-book version of LOTR read by Rob Inglis. After hearing Mr. Inglis' dramatic reading of Tom, the character didn't seem as silly to me as he had on previous readings. He seemed somehow less cheesy and more wry wit or even tongue-in-cheek. I think having heard Mr. Inglis' preformance will make me miss Tom from the movie a little more. I recommend the audio-book to everyone. Mr Inglis' isn't the best singer, but his dramatic reading and character voice are great.
Comment by James_The_Red - December 12, 2001 @ 7:31 AM - Rated a 5
"Alas! that time passes and all things fade!" When Lanklamenyn wrote this it suddenly reminded me of what Tolkien said about Elves. He said, and I paraphrase, the trap for Elves was that they tried to keep everything the same, unchanged or sustained. They tried to keep their own little world intact while everything changed around them. They faded and eventually left Middle-Earth. It seems to me that the really hard-line purist have fallen into the same trap. They seem to be saying that since the movie can't be the same as the book, then the movie shouldn't be made. And yet, the movie is being made anyway and they're being left behind.
I have to admit, I have a little purist in me, too. I agree that the movies shouldn't have changes just for changes sake, but neither should the books be considered so sacred that artists have no room for interpretation. In this poster, for instance, I could see the uninitiated misinterpreting statues of men with axes as being Dwarves. I could also see the director not wanting the audience to be confused about whose land is being entered. I give the poster a 5. It is gorgeous, regardless of medium, and the caption doesn't bother me. Somehow, it seems fitting that LOTR be called a Legend.
I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. I mean, I'm sure there are worse things to which the purist could be compared than Elves.
As for Tom, my immediate reaction to hearing he wasn't in the movie was mix. On the one hand, I lamented the loss of several important chapters from the book. On the other, I was relieved that I wouldn't have to watch a silly portrayal of a admittedly strange character.
I had to think about Tom just a few days ago. I have been listening to the audio-book version of LOTR read by Rob Inglis. After hearing Mr. Inglis' dramatic reading of Tom, the character didn't seem as silly to me as he had on previous readings. He seemed somehow less cheesy and more wry wit or even tongue-in-cheek. I think having heard Mr. Inglis' preformance will make me miss Tom from the movie a little more. I recommend the audio-book to everyone. Mr Inglis' isn't the best singer, but his dramatic reading and character voice are great.
Comment by James_The_Red - December 12, 2001 @ 7:31 AM - Rated a 5
I hadn't thought bout it, but yes, people who hasn't read the trilogy or the Silmarillion would easily mistake the Kings at the Argonath with dwarves, having no references of men bearing axes, and seeing Gimli carrying one. You have a good point. I was checking out some of the christmas gifts from last year and i found a Tolkien diary a friend gave me, illustrated by John Howe. Most of the art is beautiful, but I found a picture of the Argonath and to tell the truth, I didn't like Howe's version of it (even when both statues were carrying axes). Just a few things (if any) have been taken from that painting. This image has a better use of perspective and color choice. But as far as i know, Alan Lee was the background designer for the movies, a great choice, in my opinion.
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 12, 2001 @ 10:57 AM
I hadn't thought bout it, but yes, people who hasn't read the trilogy or the Silmarillion would easily mistake the Kings at the Argonath with dwarves, having no references of men bearing axes, and seeing Gimli carrying one. You have a good point. I was checking out some of the christmas gifts from last year and i found a Tolkien diary a friend gave me, illustrated by John Howe. Most of the art is beautiful, but I found a picture of the Argonath and to tell the truth, I didn't like Howe's version of it (even when both statues were carrying axes). Just a few things (if any) have been taken from that painting. This image has a better use of perspective and color choice. But as far as i know, Alan Lee was the background designer for the movies, a great choice, in my opinion.
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 12, 2001 @ 10:57 AM
I think it s bit boring. The other poster(the one with Frodo) is alot better.
Comment by hallas - December 13, 2001 @ 8:07 AM
I think it s bit boring. The other poster(the one with Frodo) is alot better.
Comment by hallas - December 13, 2001 @ 8:07 AM
It's a great pic, even IF the swords aren't axes, the swords look awesome, probably better then axes. BY THE WAY TOM BOMBADIL IS COOL.
Comment by SkyeC. - January 12, 2002 @ 2:30 PM - Rated a 5
It's a great pic, even IF the swords aren't axes, the swords look awesome, probably better then axes. BY THE WAY TOM BOMBADIL IS COOL.
Comment by SkyeC. - January 12, 2002 @ 2:30 PM - Rated a 5
cool
Comment by elves_r_cool - January 23, 2002 @ 3:26 PM - Rated a 4
cool
Comment by elves_r_cool - January 23, 2002 @ 3:26 PM - Rated a 4
why is they stiking them hands out???
Comment by druidknight - January 28, 2002 @ 2:33 PM - Rated a 3
why is they stiking them hands out???
Comment by druidknight - January 28, 2002 @ 2:33 PM - Rated a 3
very cool!
Comment by sarumane - February 19, 2002 @ 6:41 AM - Rated a 5
very cool!
Comment by sarumane - February 19, 2002 @ 6:41 AM - Rated a 5
The poster is so cool. I want it! (Aragorn is simply the best)
Comment by sarumane - February 19, 2002 @ 6:44 AM
The poster is so cool. I want it! (Aragorn is simply the best)
Comment by sarumane - February 19, 2002 @ 6:44 AM
I REALLY WOULD HAVE LIKED THE AXES BETTER BECAUSE THEY SEEM BIGGER AND MORE THREATENING (MORE LIKE THE BOOK). THE SWORDS LOOK REALLY SMALL ON THE BIG STATUES. PJ PORTRAID IT WELL IN THE MOVIE SO I THINK IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD. THEY COULD HAVE DONE BETTER.
Comment by LOTRfreak - February 20, 2002 @ 7:11 AM - Rated a 4
I REALLY WOULD HAVE LIKED THE AXES BETTER BECAUSE THEY SEEM BIGGER AND MORE THREATENING (MORE LIKE THE BOOK). THE SWORDS LOOK REALLY SMALL ON THE BIG STATUES. PJ PORTRAID IT WELL IN THE MOVIE SO I THINK IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD. THEY COULD HAVE DONE BETTER.
Comment by LOTRfreak - February 20, 2002 @ 7:11 AM - Rated a 4
Do some of you people really think that people are actually going to stop and read some of the essays you've posted on here? Didnt think so.
I love this poster... it gives you a sense of majesty and power.. really great
And Anarion has a beard cuz he's OLD, duh
i loved the movie so dont ANY of you dare dis it.
Comment by LeGoLasIsMYman - February 23, 2002 @ 7:01 PM - Rated a 5
Do some of you people really think that people are actually going to stop and read some of the essays you've posted on here? Didnt think so.
I love this poster... it gives you a sense of majesty and power.. really great
And Anarion has a beard cuz he's OLD, duh
i loved the movie so dont ANY of you dare dis it.
Comment by LeGoLasIsMYman - February 23, 2002 @ 7:01 PM - Rated a 5
Got this framed in a forest-green metallic frame and it's AMAZING! It now graces a place of honor in my home theater. I can't tell you how often my eye wanders to it and marvels at its beauty. This poster is very well made and because it's opaque and printed through on both sides on opaline stock, should be in a lightbox to illuminate it from the rear. While I don't have the funds to do that now, I hope to at some point in the future. It's magnificent and unmistakable. The detail is outstanding.
Comment by jason_els - March 3, 2002 @ 2:09 PM - Rated a 5
Got this framed in a forest-green metallic frame and it's AMAZING! It now graces a place of honor in my home theater. I can't tell you how often my eye wanders to it and marvels at its beauty. This poster is very well made and because it's opaque and printed through on both sides on opaline stock, should be in a lightbox to illuminate it from the rear. While I don't have the funds to do that now, I hope to at some point in the future. It's magnificent and unmistakable. The detail is outstanding.
Comment by jason_els - March 3, 2002 @ 2:09 PM - Rated a 5
I desire to see Argonath and I loved it in the film, but I don't think this is the best poster that has been made....I like posters that have all the members of the Fellowship on them. Also, at least where I live, practically every store would only sell this one, and I had to go all over the place to find a better one. Anyways, it is good as art though.
Comment by Valene_Greenleaf - March 9, 2002 @ 2:50 PM - Rated a 3
I desire to see Argonath and I loved it in the film, but I don't think this is the best poster that has been made....I like posters that have all the members of the Fellowship on them. Also, at least where I live, practically every store would only sell this one, and I had to go all over the place to find a better one. Anyways, it is good as art though.
Comment by Valene_Greenleaf - March 9, 2002 @ 2:50 PM - Rated a 3
Where everyone can see it; as it welcomes all into a strange and cluttered mess called the alternate universe..... MY ROOM!
Comment by Sandy_Gamgee - March 26, 2002 @ 9:40 AM - Rated a 5
Where everyone can see it; as it welcomes all into a strange and cluttered mess called the alternate universe..... MY ROOM!
Comment by Sandy_Gamgee - March 26, 2002 @ 9:40 AM - Rated a 5
Comment by Anariel - May 6, 2002 @ 9:35 AM - Rated a 3
Comment by Anariel - May 6, 2002 @ 9:35 AM - Rated a 3
what a beautiful pic. i really lets the imagination go wild and make you wonder so much. that movie was really the best and i can't wait for the second one. beautiful settig and landscape for the movie, and this shot.
Comment by elven.girl - August 31, 2002 @ 8:44 AM - Rated a 5
what a beautiful pic. i really lets the imagination go wild and make you wonder so much. that movie was really the best and i can't wait for the second one. beautiful settig and landscape for the movie, and this shot.
Comment by elven.girl - August 31, 2002 @ 8:44 AM - Rated a 5
This shot highlights the grandeur of the Numenorean age in Middle Earth. What an amazing place!
Comment by Tinuviel2 - March 19, 2003 @ 10:14 PM - Rated a 5
This shot highlights the grandeur of the Numenorean age in Middle Earth. What an amazing place!
Comment by Tinuviel2 - March 19, 2003 @ 10:14 PM - Rated a 5
Comment by kcamericanangel1 - March 20, 2003 @ 9:18 PM - Rated a 5
Comment by kcamericanangel1 - March 20, 2003 @ 9:18 PM - Rated a 5
Waaaah so beautiful!!!It's the best LOTR poster...
Comment by nimirwyn - April 9, 2003 @ 4:37 AM - Rated a 5
Waaaah so beautiful!!!It's the best LOTR poster...
Comment by nimirwyn - April 9, 2003 @ 4:37 AM - Rated a 5
This poster totally captures my imagination on how the argonath would look like. Brilliant!
Comment by DiamondD - June 6, 2003 @ 8:40 AM - Rated a 5
This poster totally captures my imagination on how the argonath would look like. Brilliant!
Comment by DiamondD - June 6, 2003 @ 8:40 AM - Rated a 5
Very well done. With the exception of the facial hair on Isuldur ( or is it Anarion? ), I think it is nearly a flawless rendition of the Anduin and the mighty Argonath.
Comment by Celebrimbor32 - August 29, 2001 @ 6:48 PM - Rated a 4
Very well done. With the exception of the facial hair on Isuldur ( or is it Anarion? ), I think it is nearly a flawless rendition of the Anduin and the mighty Argonath.
Comment by Celebrimbor32 - August 29, 2001 @ 6:48 PM - Rated a 4
I maybe wrong but as my son pointed out aren't they suppose to be wielding axes? Another Peter Jackson original...idea. As for the imaging it does look great.
Comment by Inquisitor_Thrax - August 30, 2001 @ 10:15 AM
I maybe wrong but as my son pointed out aren't they suppose to be wielding axes? Another Peter Jackson original...idea. As for the imaging it does look great.
Comment by Inquisitor_Thrax - August 30, 2001 @ 10:15 AM
This is a great image and nearly how I imagined it. I have to agree the beard doesn't fit. Makes him look to old. As for the obvious liberties taken with weapon choice, some may find this sacrilege, but I have always questioned why JRR choose axes and not swords in his description. In my mind swords look better.
Comment by Borgilgeuse - August 30, 2001 @ 11:13 AM - Rated a 5
This is a great image and nearly how I imagined it. I have to agree the beard doesn't fit. Makes him look to old. As for the obvious liberties taken with weapon choice, some may find this sacrilege, but I have always questioned why JRR choose axes and not swords in his description. In my mind swords look better.
Comment by Borgilgeuse - August 30, 2001 @ 11:13 AM - Rated a 5
Love it. Very nice =)
Comment by BlynkTook - August 30, 2001 @ 2:13 PM - Rated a 5
Love it. Very nice =)
Comment by BlynkTook - August 30, 2001 @ 2:13 PM - Rated a 5
WONDERFUL !
Comment by RWeiss - August 31, 2001 @ 3:06 PM - Rated a 5
WONDERFUL !
Comment by RWeiss - August 31, 2001 @ 3:06 PM - Rated a 5
this is great. well i guess that's one more thing I'll have to spend money on. the poster looks wonderful!
Comment by ancalagona - August 31, 2001 @ 4:04 PM - Rated a 5
this is great. well i guess that's one more thing I'll have to spend money on. the poster looks wonderful!
Comment by ancalagona - August 31, 2001 @ 4:04 PM - Rated a 5
Comment by LeonieAllana - August 31, 2001 @ 6:58 PM - Rated a 3
Comment by LeonieAllana - August 31, 2001 @ 6:58 PM - Rated a 3
I like this better than the Frodo picture on the teaser. I think this will get the message across to people that they're trying to bring this fantasy world to life and it's going to be BIG. And a good feeling of danger and mystery and inspiration the company felt at the Argonath is represented here, and that really kind of represents how middle earth as a whole makes me feel. Good choice.
Comment by Dor-randil - August 31, 2001 @ 7:13 PM - Rated a 4
I like this better than the Frodo picture on the teaser. I think this will get the message across to people that they're trying to bring this fantasy world to life and it's going to be BIG. And a good feeling of danger and mystery and inspiration the company felt at the Argonath is represented here, and that really kind of represents how middle earth as a whole makes me feel. Good choice.
Comment by Dor-randil - August 31, 2001 @ 7:13 PM - Rated a 4
Although I might be considered a *purist* in some respects, I don't think the axes would have looked right. This poster will go a long way in convincing "the average Joe" that the movie is worth seeing (whether it is or not). I got shivers because the poster's just what I was wanting...a more thrilling glimpse of the dangers the FotR faces.
Comment by Syrinx_2001 - September 2, 2001 @ 9:27 PM - Rated a 5
Although I might be considered a *purist* in some respects, I don't think the axes would have looked right. This poster will go a long way in convincing "the average Joe" that the movie is worth seeing (whether it is or not). I got shivers because the poster's just what I was wanting...a more thrilling glimpse of the dangers the FotR faces.
Comment by Syrinx_2001 - September 2, 2001 @ 9:27 PM - Rated a 5
Not muchta to say about it. Realy nice poster, must buy...when it comes to Finland. Of Course that Frodo poster is allso great.
Comment by Highlander84 - September 5, 2001 @ 10:37 AM - Rated a 4
Not muchta to say about it. Realy nice poster, must buy...when it comes to Finland. Of Course that Frodo poster is allso great.
Comment by Highlander84 - September 5, 2001 @ 10:37 AM - Rated a 4
I think that this poster shows so much about the movie and even more important the book. It shows what an imaginative great work of art it is.
Comment by asinine - September 5, 2001 @ 4:05 PM - Rated a 5
I think that this poster shows so much about the movie and even more important the book. It shows what an imaginative great work of art it is.
Comment by asinine - September 5, 2001 @ 4:05 PM - Rated a 5
This is good!! Can I have one of those?
Comment by thindwen - September 9, 2001 @ 5:02 AM - Rated a 4
This is good!! Can I have one of those?
Comment by thindwen - September 9, 2001 @ 5:02 AM - Rated a 4
Comment by arcturus55 - September 15, 2001 @ 10:27 AM - Rated a 5
Comment by arcturus55 - September 15, 2001 @ 10:27 AM - Rated a 5
Sorry if I sound picky or too "by the book" but here I quote:
"Upon great pedestals founded in the deep waters stood two great kings of stone: still with blurred eyes and crannied brows they frowned upon the North. The left hand of each was raised palm outwards in gesture of warning; in each right hand there was an axe; upon each head there was a crumbling helm and crown. Great power and majesty they still wore, the silent wardens of a long-vanished kingdom"
It does look a bit impressive but frankly it was as simple as copying the picture from John Howe. If they wanted to impress people with swords, I guess something with Aragorn would have done well. I guess it's just their way to say "see how NLC has screwed up your favorite book, you just have to look at the poster for it..."
Comment by Ulf - September 18, 2001 @ 4:29 PM - Rated a 1
Sorry if I sound picky or too "by the book" but here I quote:
"Upon great pedestals founded in the deep waters stood two great kings of stone: still with blurred eyes and crannied brows they frowned upon the North. The left hand of each was raised palm outwards in gesture of warning; in each right hand there was an axe; upon each head there was a crumbling helm and crown. Great power and majesty they still wore, the silent wardens of a long-vanished kingdom"
It does look a bit impressive but frankly it was as simple as copying the picture from John Howe. If they wanted to impress people with swords, I guess something with Aragorn would have done well. I guess it's just their way to say "see how NLC has screwed up your favorite book, you just have to look at the poster for it..."
Comment by Ulf - September 18, 2001 @ 4:29 PM - Rated a 1
It looks very nice (isn't it just adapted from Howe's work?)
As far as axes go, I don't care that much, but axes are more symbolic of authority than swords. ie. especially in Rome the axes were a symbol for magistrates etc., so I can see why JRRT used them.
Comment by Lysandros - December 5, 2001 @ 12:22 PM - Rated a 5
It looks very nice (isn't it just adapted from Howe's work?)
As far as axes go, I don't care that much, but axes are more symbolic of authority than swords. ie. especially in Rome the axes were a symbol for magistrates etc., so I can see why JRRT used them.
Comment by Lysandros - December 5, 2001 @ 12:22 PM - Rated a 5
i don?t know, how much the director wants to hold by the book model, but if the people of the movie team want to do the film in absoloutely accordance with the book, this is great mistake from them. it looks to me, that the creator of this poster couldn?t do the figures holding axes in position,in which they will look dangerous and warning, so he gave them the swords
Comment by bzooka - December 5, 2001 @ 1:01 PM
i don?t know, how much the director wants to hold by the book model, but if the people of the movie team want to do the film in absoloutely accordance with the book, this is great mistake from them. it looks to me, that the creator of this poster couldn?t do the figures holding axes in position,in which they will look dangerous and warning, so he gave them the swords
Comment by bzooka - December 5, 2001 @ 1:01 PM
What is with that stupid maxim, 'The Legend Comes to Life' ?? I think it's a ludicrous maxim to use for Tolkien's books. Just my opinion.. it just doesn't fit in with the trilogy if you know what I mean. It just doesn't feel right. The picture is ok, though. I give it an average rating, meaning it's not a nightmare but it isn't a blast either.
Now, with accuracy, it just chafes me that Jackson screwed up the poster again. I don't believe he had swords there by accident but on purpose. I like Lysandros' comment about why Tolkien used axes instead of swords. If I wrote a book and I spent years on writing it (as tolkien did) I would be very upset when a movie director changed many things in my book while manufacturing the movie. Jackson has no respect at all for what Tolkien wrote. Guys, don't go to the theater, please. It is not worth it.
Comment by mithril - December 5, 2001 @ 1:28 PM - Rated a 2
What is with that stupid maxim, 'The Legend Comes to Life' ?? I think it's a ludicrous maxim to use for Tolkien's books. Just my opinion.. it just doesn't fit in with the trilogy if you know what I mean. It just doesn't feel right. The picture is ok, though. I give it an average rating, meaning it's not a nightmare but it isn't a blast either.
Now, with accuracy, it just chafes me that Jackson screwed up the poster again. I don't believe he had swords there by accident but on purpose. I like Lysandros' comment about why Tolkien used axes instead of swords. If I wrote a book and I spent years on writing it (as tolkien did) I would be very upset when a movie director changed many things in my book while manufacturing the movie. Jackson has no respect at all for what Tolkien wrote. Guys, don't go to the theater, please. It is not worth it.
Comment by mithril - December 5, 2001 @ 1:28 PM - Rated a 2
Unlike most of the art we view here, this was not painted by any mortal hand, but by machines. Minus one. The maxim is depressingly commercialistic. Minus one. The accuracy is not terribly lacking, and as a whole, the picture is rather impressive. Four (minus two).
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 5, 2001 @ 4:02 PM - Rated a 2
Unlike most of the art we view here, this was not painted by any mortal hand, but by machines. Minus one. The maxim is depressingly commercialistic. Minus one. The accuracy is not terribly lacking, and as a whole, the picture is rather impressive. Four (minus two).
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 5, 2001 @ 4:02 PM - Rated a 2
Comment by Pascal - December 5, 2001 @ 5:26 PM - Rated a 5
Comment by Pascal - December 5, 2001 @ 5:26 PM - Rated a 5
Peter S. Beagle wrote in a 1973 preface to FOTR:
"It's been fifteen years at this writiing since I first came across THE LORD OF THE RINGS in the stacks at the Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh. I'd been looking for the book for four years, ever since reading W.H. Auden's review in the New York Times. I think of that time now -- and the years after, when the trilogy continued to be hard to find and hard to explain to most friends -- with an undeniable nostalgia. It was a barren era for fantasy, among other things, but a good time for cherishing slighted treasures and mysterious passwords. Long before 'Frodo Lives' began to appear in New York subways, JRR Tolkien was the magus of my secret knowledge."
To all the purists who want to cherish "slighted treasures and mysterious passwords," remember that this has happened before. In the late '50s, before Tolkien's works exploded into the mainstream consciousness, only a few people were "in the know" so to speak, and like Mr. Beagle, rather preferred it that way.
Now, of course, we have D&D and a whole genre of fantasy books. And now there are these three films, pretty much guaranteed to root out the last few people in the country who've never heard of Tolkien.
But, as Mr. Beagle pointed out, "the world he charts was there long before him . . . . He is a great enough magician to tap our most common nightmares, daydreams and twilight fancies, but he never invented them either: he found them a place to live, a green alternative to each day's madness here in a poisoned world."
I'd really like to see these movies go down in the history books as among the greatest of all time. It's not very often that an artist (Tolkien, I mean) gets a chance to lay claim to being responsible for (arguably) the best book of one century and (possibly) the best film of another.
I can sympathize with the purists who hate to see any aspect of the film altered or "interpreted" in any way. But, like the Tolkien calendars that I browse through every year, I'm always amazed at how different my conception of Middle-Earth and all its peoples is from that of others. There really is no such thing as the "real" Middle Earth. And frankly, after sitting through Harry Potter, in which every little scene was faithfully recreated (or so it is said), I've become convinced that editing a book for film is not such a bad thing after all.
The Middle-Earth that I know and love will always be mine, no matter what kind of vision a cartoon, film, toy, board game, calendar, or Burger King goblet may present.
So, I'm all for the movies. I'm eagerly awaiting them. And I encourage everyone -- even the purists -- to see the films and be willing to SHARE the world they know so well.
Comment by TheGaffer - December 5, 2001 @ 7:45 PM - Rated a 5
Peter S. Beagle wrote in a 1973 preface to FOTR:
"It's been fifteen years at this writiing since I first came across THE LORD OF THE RINGS in the stacks at the Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh. I'd been looking for the book for four years, ever since reading W.H. Auden's review in the New York Times. I think of that time now -- and the years after, when the trilogy continued to be hard to find and hard to explain to most friends -- with an undeniable nostalgia. It was a barren era for fantasy, among other things, but a good time for cherishing slighted treasures and mysterious passwords. Long before 'Frodo Lives' began to appear in New York subways, JRR Tolkien was the magus of my secret knowledge."
To all the purists who want to cherish "slighted treasures and mysterious passwords," remember that this has happened before. In the late '50s, before Tolkien's works exploded into the mainstream consciousness, only a few people were "in the know" so to speak, and like Mr. Beagle, rather preferred it that way.
Now, of course, we have D&D and a whole genre of fantasy books. And now there are these three films, pretty much guaranteed to root out the last few people in the country who've never heard of Tolkien.
But, as Mr. Beagle pointed out, "the world he charts was there long before him . . . . He is a great enough magician to tap our most common nightmares, daydreams and twilight fancies, but he never invented them either: he found them a place to live, a green alternative to each day's madness here in a poisoned world."
I'd really like to see these movies go down in the history books as among the greatest of all time. It's not very often that an artist (Tolkien, I mean) gets a chance to lay claim to being responsible for (arguably) the best book of one century and (possibly) the best film of another.
I can sympathize with the purists who hate to see any aspect of the film altered or "interpreted" in any way. But, like the Tolkien calendars that I browse through every year, I'm always amazed at how different my conception of Middle-Earth and all its peoples is from that of others. There really is no such thing as the "real" Middle Earth. And frankly, after sitting through Harry Potter, in which every little scene was faithfully recreated (or so it is said), I've become convinced that editing a book for film is not such a bad thing after all.
The Middle-Earth that I know and love will always be mine, no matter what kind of vision a cartoon, film, toy, board game, calendar, or Burger King goblet may present.
So, I'm all for the movies. I'm eagerly awaiting them. And I encourage everyone -- even the purists -- to see the films and be willing to SHARE the world they know so well.
Comment by TheGaffer - December 5, 2001 @ 7:45 PM - Rated a 5
First, let me not confuse my impression of your words, Gaffer – were they not directed at a person other than me? So, it is with disinterest towards my own public image (though that shall shortly change hereafter!) that I say: Purism may not be what you have painted it. Firstly, your well-typed quote does not apply (though perhaps you did not mean it to) directly to purists – although purists may, in cases, attempt to isolate a thing to keep it pure, isolationism is a separate thing from purism, and the two should not be confused. Isolationism is selfishness for ones own sake. Purism is concern for that which one is devoted to (that is, selfishness for a separate things sake, which is altruism really and not selfishness in its strictest meaning).
To be fair, there is much to be said in defence of Purism (as it applies to Tolkien's work here). No clear thinking purist will deem any of Tolkien's work perfect – that kind of devotion is foolishness and madness, and better called Worship than Purism. Recall that Tolkien himself would never have had arrogance enough to call anything of his own perfect! However, it is quite possible (and even likely) that nobody on this earth now that Tolkien is gone, nor anyone in the future, could ever make a change (and here lets not nit-pick with idle sentence structure and phraseology) to Middle Earth that would "improve it." For what is Middle Earth? It is the world that existed in Tolkien's mind. As such, I argue that no one has the understanding necessary to change the Lord of the Rings in any manner that would make their own version of it more true to Tolkien's Middle Earth, that is, the Real Middle Earth. So, since Tolkien rests, let the Lord of the Rings remain as it is, unmodified and unsullied by vain attempts to improve a vast work we know too little about. That is what the Purists stand for.
Gaffer, you said that the Real Middle Earth was a fallacy. Except that Tolkien is no longer with us, you are not even partly correct; what Tolkien Invented was Middle Earth – and so, his work, at the time of its creation and up until Tolkien's own revision either on paper or in mind, was the Real Middle Earth. And since none of us can occupy Tolkien's mind, our best way to reach into the Real Middle Earth is to study that work which is his own, not anybody else's. In each of us we carry in our minds and hearts our own Middle-Earths, and each of these versions is just as real as the next; but none of them, unless by Divine Influence, can be exactly what Tolkien had Invented; none of them are the Real Middle-Earth. Alas! that time passes and all things fade!
And now, I digress. What has become of fantasy since Tolkien's day? Fantasy is still fantasy, there is no denying that; but that something like D&D and the works of most modern fantasy authors should be understood to be "Tolkien-inspired" (and I believe a very great deal of it truly is) galls me. What could be less like Tolkien than D&D? His writing was centered about – even the very germ of his writing! was languages, and through them culture! Wars, magic, and strange races were no more central to Middle-Earth than they are to our Earth! And what is D&D? Truly role-playing, or just dice-rolling? Even in the former case, which at least has some artistic respectability (and you were right when you named Tolkien an artist!) the focus is on 'levels' and 'hit points' and getting bigger and badder magical weapons. What could be less like the Lord of the Rings? Acquisition of power was to be shunned; killing and battle were last resorts. Magic is commonplace in D&D and has been made almost scientific in its approach; never so in Middle-Earth. I do not begrudge you your entertainment, those of you who can derive it from such. But whereas experiencing Middle-Earth can enrich one's life – at least, I have found so – D&D, and many present-day fantasy novels simply drain it.
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 5, 2001 @ 9:36 PM
First, let me not confuse my impression of your words, Gaffer – were they not directed at a person other than me? So, it is with disinterest towards my own public image (though that shall shortly change hereafter!) that I say: Purism may not be what you have painted it. Firstly, your well-typed quote does not apply (though perhaps you did not mean it to) directly to purists – although purists may, in cases, attempt to isolate a thing to keep it pure, isolationism is a separate thing from purism, and the two should not be confused. Isolationism is selfishness for ones own sake. Purism is concern for that which one is devoted to (that is, selfishness for a separate things sake, which is altruism really and not selfishness in its strictest meaning).
To be fair, there is much to be said in defence of Purism (as it applies to Tolkien's work here). No clear thinking purist will deem any of Tolkien's work perfect – that kind of devotion is foolishness and madness, and better called Worship than Purism. Recall that Tolkien himself would never have had arrogance enough to call anything of his own perfect! However, it is quite possible (and even likely) that nobody on this earth now that Tolkien is gone, nor anyone in the future, could ever make a change (and here lets not nit-pick with idle sentence structure and phraseology) to Middle Earth that would "improve it." For what is Middle Earth? It is the world that existed in Tolkien's mind. As such, I argue that no one has the understanding necessary to change the Lord of the Rings in any manner that would make their own version of it more true to Tolkien's Middle Earth, that is, the Real Middle Earth. So, since Tolkien rests, let the Lord of the Rings remain as it is, unmodified and unsullied by vain attempts to improve a vast work we know too little about. That is what the Purists stand for.
Gaffer, you said that the Real Middle Earth was a fallacy. Except that Tolkien is no longer with us, you are not even partly correct; what Tolkien Invented was Middle Earth – and so, his work, at the time of its creation and up until Tolkien's own revision either on paper or in mind, was the Real Middle Earth. And since none of us can occupy Tolkien's mind, our best way to reach into the Real Middle Earth is to study that work which is his own, not anybody else's. In each of us we carry in our minds and hearts our own Middle-Earths, and each of these versions is just as real as the next; but none of them, unless by Divine Influence, can be exactly what Tolkien had Invented; none of them are the Real Middle-Earth. Alas! that time passes and all things fade!
And now, I digress. What has become of fantasy since Tolkien's day? Fantasy is still fantasy, there is no denying that; but that something like D&D and the works of most modern fantasy authors should be understood to be "Tolkien-inspired" (and I believe a very great deal of it truly is) galls me. What could be less like Tolkien than D&D? His writing was centered about – even the very germ of his writing! was languages, and through them culture! Wars, magic, and strange races were no more central to Middle-Earth than they are to our Earth! And what is D&D? Truly role-playing, or just dice-rolling? Even in the former case, which at least has some artistic respectability (and you were right when you named Tolkien an artist!) the focus is on 'levels' and 'hit points' and getting bigger and badder magical weapons. What could be less like the Lord of the Rings? Acquisition of power was to be shunned; killing and battle were last resorts. Magic is commonplace in D&D and has been made almost scientific in its approach; never so in Middle-Earth. I do not begrudge you your entertainment, those of you who can derive it from such. But whereas experiencing Middle-Earth can enrich one's life – at least, I have found so – D&D, and many present-day fantasy novels simply drain it.
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 5, 2001 @ 9:36 PM
I love this image. In my opinion this poster is the best ever issued because it shows the grand scale of the movie.
I think the swords look great, better than what axes would look like. Granted axes were in the book but this isn't the book. I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Jackson saying, "Once you try to cater to "Lord of the Rings" fans you're in trouble, because there are millions and every one has a different opinion." This quote was referring to the casting of Liv Tyler but it applies in this sense as well. And just as in the books the Gaffer was very wise in his own way, and I feel our own TheGaffer is very wise as well. So leave the books at home and enjoy the movie in two weeks!
In regards to this featured piece, it may have been done by machines but it is still a great piece of art. Just because something isn't painted or drawn by hand does not mean it is not art, just a different medium. Therefore I will not deduct any points due to the medium. A true five.
Comment by Gwindor - December 5, 2001 @ 9:51 PM - Rated a 5
I love this image. In my opinion this poster is the best ever issued because it shows the grand scale of the movie.
I think the swords look great, better than what axes would look like. Granted axes were in the book but this isn't the book. I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Jackson saying, "Once you try to cater to "Lord of the Rings" fans you're in trouble, because there are millions and every one has a different opinion." This quote was referring to the casting of Liv Tyler but it applies in this sense as well. And just as in the books the Gaffer was very wise in his own way, and I feel our own TheGaffer is very wise as well. So leave the books at home and enjoy the movie in two weeks!
In regards to this featured piece, it may have been done by machines but it is still a great piece of art. Just because something isn't painted or drawn by hand does not mean it is not art, just a different medium. Therefore I will not deduct any points due to the medium. A true five.
Comment by Gwindor - December 5, 2001 @ 9:51 PM - Rated a 5
To express a feeling or a sensation in prose is something quite different that expressing it in light and colour.
I respect the film makers' need for changing some details in order to create the right atmosphere. Thank God that this movie will not be a detailed rendering of the story as it goes in the book. The danger of it ending up as a boring list of happenings that would please the purists is rather frightening to me.
I am impressed that they have been able to stay as true to the original as they have.
Good picture. The best one I have seen of the Argonath! I sense the awe. Aragorn must have been very proud.
Comment by hrimfakse - December 6, 2001 @ 1:11 AM - Rated a 5
To express a feeling or a sensation in prose is something quite different that expressing it in light and colour.
I respect the film makers' need for changing some details in order to create the right atmosphere. Thank God that this movie will not be a detailed rendering of the story as it goes in the book. The danger of it ending up as a boring list of happenings that would please the purists is rather frightening to me.
I am impressed that they have been able to stay as true to the original as they have.
Good picture. The best one I have seen of the Argonath! I sense the awe. Aragorn must have been very proud.
Comment by hrimfakse - December 6, 2001 @ 1:11 AM - Rated a 5
No matter what anyone does to recreate their own vision, nothing can take away from the undeniable greatness that was, is, and always shall be, Tolkien's image of middle earth. He is the creator and it is unchangable... forever. Oh sure, people will show us what they percieve how a certain scene should look, like replacing axes with swords. And in some rare cases some will try a retelling of the story as a whole. One, a miserable attempt and we all know it, the other, being judged in forums such as this with a plethora of diffent opinions over vast intricasies of something which we have only had a taste. Pesonally, I think judging a film on an early teaser poster is like judging 'The Lord of the Rings' based on the affore mentioned obscene animated attempt. That being said... I give this poster a "4 minus 2" (if I may quote someone who's comments I always look forward to reading) and I will say I am more than eagerly awaiting the 19th.
Comment by articusmaximus - December 6, 2001 @ 6:51 AM - Rated a 2
No matter what anyone does to recreate their own vision, nothing can take away from the undeniable greatness that was, is, and always shall be, Tolkien's image of middle earth. He is the creator and it is unchangable... forever. Oh sure, people will show us what they percieve how a certain scene should look, like replacing axes with swords. And in some rare cases some will try a retelling of the story as a whole. One, a miserable attempt and we all know it, the other, being judged in forums such as this with a plethora of diffent opinions over vast intricasies of something which we have only had a taste. Pesonally, I think judging a film on an early teaser poster is like judging 'The Lord of the Rings' based on the affore mentioned obscene animated attempt. That being said... I give this poster a "4 minus 2" (if I may quote someone who's comments I always look forward to reading) and I will say I am more than eagerly awaiting the 19th.
Comment by articusmaximus - December 6, 2001 @ 6:51 AM - Rated a 2
I'm not sure I should venture an opinion in what feels to be such an august company. Nonetheless, I shall. My spouse read LOTR to me, several chapters a night, each night, until we finished it. I was entranced and in wonder. An embarrassment of an English Lit. undergrad that did not leave me with a reading of LOTR, I had never sought it out, thinking it would be dry and dreary. I couldn't have been more wrong.
I have now engaged in a close reading of the books, reading also the appendices for pronounciation and language, and looking forward to reading the rest of Tolkien's body of work, hoping that it will fill out some of the places where answers are needed.. at least by me. Clarification is a better word, and I've been told I'll find a great deal of that in his other words and in the third of the last volume of LOTR which comprises several long and detailed appendices.
With regard to the poster.. yes, it does evoke majesty and a sense of wonder, but again, yes, it is not as it was described. I don't know where to come down on this. It distrurbs me, but in truth I am FAR more disturbed by the idea that Liv Tyler as Arwen could take the place of Glorfindel, the Elf Lord revealed in his wrath, shining white in his awesome glory. That was powerful writing. Arwen to the rescue just doesn't do it for me.. and losing Glorfindel bothers me. So does losing Tom Bombadil, although I understand why it was felt by the director that "the general public" would not "get it" -- it's a big cut nonetheless. Most frightening for me is something I read in, yes, Entertainment Weekly (don't all stone me, it's a useful publication if you're busy and want to know what's coming up) where Sean Astin, the actor playing Sam, stated that he had continual arguments with the director who wanted to cast Sam more as comic relief, along the lines of that horrendous cartoon. Astin kept fighting Jackson's interpretation in this respect, and I hope to god that he managed because in my view Sam is a true hero, sometimes (and I know that this view may not be popular) even more so a hero for me than was Frodo. Yes, Frodo may have been smarter and had depths to him, but when it came to it, it was Sam's devotion and unwillingness to give up. He would CARRY Frodo on his back, give him the last morsels of food and drink, see the thing through though it meant (as he believed) his death.. not to mention saving Frodo from the Orcs. Sam, comic relief? Um, no. Merry and Pippin are far more comic relief if indeed one wishes to use that term (I dislike it) than is Sam. I have never understood why Sam is not perceived as a greater hero.. perhaps someone can enlighten me, since to my reading it would very clearly appear that Sam saved the day at least as many times as did Frodo, and far more than did Merry and Pippin.
I apologize for the length of this posting, and hope I haven't offended anyone. Again, as for the poster, given that it will and does inspire the awe that we want it to inspire in order to bring the masses into the theatre and make the movie one to which more and more people come, I give it a 4 -- the one point removed for the fact that it is indeed a copy, nor original work, and the changes made, well, I haven't seen what it would look like with axes, so I can't say comfortably that the change was necessary and loathe am I to blithely okay a change that Tolkien did not make himself. I don't know what camp that places me in, but labels are something I typically eschew.
Comment by Lissla - December 6, 2001 @ 9:42 AM - Rated a 4
I'm not sure I should venture an opinion in what feels to be such an august company. Nonetheless, I shall. My spouse read LOTR to me, several chapters a night, each night, until we finished it. I was entranced and in wonder. An embarrassment of an English Lit. undergrad that did not leave me with a reading of LOTR, I had never sought it out, thinking it would be dry and dreary. I couldn't have been more wrong.
I have now engaged in a close reading of the books, reading also the appendices for pronounciation and language, and looking forward to reading the rest of Tolkien's body of work, hoping that it will fill out some of the places where answers are needed.. at least by me. Clarification is a better word, and I've been told I'll find a great deal of that in his other words and in the third of the last volume of LOTR which comprises several long and detailed appendices.
With regard to the poster.. yes, it does evoke majesty and a sense of wonder, but again, yes, it is not as it was described. I don't know where to come down on this. It distrurbs me, but in truth I am FAR more disturbed by the idea that Liv Tyler as Arwen could take the place of Glorfindel, the Elf Lord revealed in his wrath, shining white in his awesome glory. That was powerful writing. Arwen to the rescue just doesn't do it for me.. and losing Glorfindel bothers me. So does losing Tom Bombadil, although I understand why it was felt by the director that "the general public" would not "get it" -- it's a big cut nonetheless. Most frightening for me is something I read in, yes, Entertainment Weekly (don't all stone me, it's a useful publication if you're busy and want to know what's coming up) where Sean Astin, the actor playing Sam, stated that he had continual arguments with the director who wanted to cast Sam more as comic relief, along the lines of that horrendous cartoon. Astin kept fighting Jackson's interpretation in this respect, and I hope to god that he managed because in my view Sam is a true hero, sometimes (and I know that this view may not be popular) even more so a hero for me than was Frodo. Yes, Frodo may have been smarter and had depths to him, but when it came to it, it was Sam's devotion and unwillingness to give up. He would CARRY Frodo on his back, give him the last morsels of food and drink, see the thing through though it meant (as he believed) his death.. not to mention saving Frodo from the Orcs. Sam, comic relief? Um, no. Merry and Pippin are far more comic relief if indeed one wishes to use that term (I dislike it) than is Sam. I have never understood why Sam is not perceived as a greater hero.. perhaps someone can enlighten me, since to my reading it would very clearly appear that Sam saved the day at least as many times as did Frodo, and far more than did Merry and Pippin.
I apologize for the length of this posting, and hope I haven't offended anyone. Again, as for the poster, given that it will and does inspire the awe that we want it to inspire in order to bring the masses into the theatre and make the movie one to which more and more people come, I give it a 4 -- the one point removed for the fact that it is indeed a copy, nor original work, and the changes made, well, I haven't seen what it would look like with axes, so I can't say comfortably that the change was necessary and loathe am I to blithely okay a change that Tolkien did not make himself. I don't know what camp that places me in, but labels are something I typically eschew.
Comment by Lissla - December 6, 2001 @ 9:42 AM - Rated a 4
Ppl despices computer generated artwork. FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! machines don't work by themselves! it requires a very creative and tallented operator to do something like this, no matter how *** good the software is... Cause even if you have the best of the best machinery, you will NEVER create something half as visualy impressive as this poster if you don't have the ability, the knowledge and most important, the creativity. Do you think it is just siting down and pushing buttons? now that's ignorance, for I've tasted both "real" and digital media for the creation of art. And I know the media doesn't make the artist. You can use the roughest of charcoals or the latest technology to create your work, but if you suck, you just suck, and everyone will notice it. Not even the best software in the world can make your work look good in that case.
If the reason of my comment is not clear enough, that goes for saying the machines created the poster... THAT'S NOT TRUE.
As for my comments on the poster itself, I just can wonder how hard could have it been to stick to the description in the book. I would have liked the look of axes better, but in general it's very well made. I agree with articusmaximus that we cannot judge the whole movie based on a poster. I'll go see the movie and then I will be able to say if Peter Jackson screwed it or not...
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 6, 2001 @ 9:56 AM - Rated a 4
Ppl despices computer generated artwork. FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! machines don't work by themselves! it requires a very creative and tallented operator to do something like this, no matter how *** good the software is... Cause even if you have the best of the best machinery, you will NEVER create something half as visualy impressive as this poster if you don't have the ability, the knowledge and most important, the creativity. Do you think it is just siting down and pushing buttons? now that's ignorance, for I've tasted both "real" and digital media for the creation of art. And I know the media doesn't make the artist. You can use the roughest of charcoals or the latest technology to create your work, but if you suck, you just suck, and everyone will notice it. Not even the best software in the world can make your work look good in that case.
If the reason of my comment is not clear enough, that goes for saying the machines created the poster... THAT'S NOT TRUE.
As for my comments on the poster itself, I just can wonder how hard could have it been to stick to the description in the book. I would have liked the look of axes better, but in general it's very well made. I agree with articusmaximus that we cannot judge the whole movie based on a poster. I'll go see the movie and then I will be able to say if Peter Jackson screwed it or not...
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 6, 2001 @ 9:56 AM - Rated a 4
I think that this movie will be the best, and l can't wait to see it. I am reading the one volume edition for the 5th time and l still find things that amaze me. I think that the movie will portray some of the sences from the book, but movies cannot compare to the imagination.
Comment by elvish_girl - December 6, 2001 @ 5:37 PM - Rated a 4
I think that this movie will be the best, and l can't wait to see it. I am reading the one volume edition for the 5th time and l still find things that amaze me. I think that the movie will portray some of the sences from the book, but movies cannot compare to the imagination.
Comment by elvish_girl - December 6, 2001 @ 5:37 PM - Rated a 4
I've read LOTR quite a few times, and it is one of my favourite books. I've just booked 10 tickets for the film on Dec 19th and am going mad with the anticipation (obviously mad enough to read the inane bickering above). I also couldn't give a rat's ass (and can't remember) whether these statues have axes or swords. Who cares?!?
This poster is excellent, it's been up at my local cinama for about a month, taunting me. Certainly gives a sense of the scale Mr Jackson has gone for. A 5 by anyone's standards.
PS. Tom Bombadil is the worst character in LOTR. Good riddance!
Comment by AlanF - December 7, 2001 @ 1:55 AM - Rated a 5
I've read LOTR quite a few times, and it is one of my favourite books. I've just booked 10 tickets for the film on Dec 19th and am going mad with the anticipation (obviously mad enough to read the inane bickering above). I also couldn't give a rat's ass (and can't remember) whether these statues have axes or swords. Who cares?!?
This poster is excellent, it's been up at my local cinama for about a month, taunting me. Certainly gives a sense of the scale Mr Jackson has gone for. A 5 by anyone's standards.
PS. Tom Bombadil is the worst character in LOTR. Good riddance!
Comment by AlanF - December 7, 2001 @ 1:55 AM - Rated a 5
Articus Maximus and Golden Smaug, your advice regarding the movie is sound; I shall take it. You, Articus, have said in a few brief sentences what I have attempted to convey at length, and a certain Elvish girl speaks with wisdom in even greater brevity! Most of all, though, I have been delighted to read the words of Lissla – you have reminded me of much I have forgotten that I once too placed a high value on. Also, I entirely agree with you regarding Glorfindel's role, and the whole "comic relief" bit. I recall myself laughing rather often at Pippin, but never at Sam...
As for computer generate art, I do not misappreciate the effort involved in creating decent pictures (having tried it myself with dismal results...) However, the amount of realism possible by computer generated art far surpasses hand drawn art done in the same amount of time; and computers are getting better. While it does take skill to make decent drawings with a computer, that skill is augmented by the advanced technology available... if I were rate computer generated art and hand drawn art with a blind eye to the medium used the result would be much the same as if I were to rate oil paints to water colors: one category would average much higher than the other, not because the painter is any better, but because of the difference in the amount of facility, and thus maximum realism, between the two.
AlanF, you obviously don't care what anyone else here has to say (though I'm sure you would phrase that more vulgarly) as you have said as much yourself, or you would realize that this picture is NOT a 5 by anyone's standards, but by maybe half of everyone's. Do you also not care what Tolkien had to say? Again, I must guess no; he specifically said Axes, not Swords, and Tom Bombadil was hardly the least of his characters (though not all grasp his importance). So, and this is just a question, if you don't care what Tolkien said, why such a dividing interest in LotR?
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 7, 2001 @ 2:05 PM
Articus Maximus and Golden Smaug, your advice regarding the movie is sound; I shall take it. You, Articus, have said in a few brief sentences what I have attempted to convey at length, and a certain Elvish girl speaks with wisdom in even greater brevity! Most of all, though, I have been delighted to read the words of Lissla – you have reminded me of much I have forgotten that I once too placed a high value on. Also, I entirely agree with you regarding Glorfindel's role, and the whole "comic relief" bit. I recall myself laughing rather often at Pippin, but never at Sam...
As for computer generate art, I do not misappreciate the effort involved in creating decent pictures (having tried it myself with dismal results...) However, the amount of realism possible by computer generated art far surpasses hand drawn art done in the same amount of time; and computers are getting better. While it does take skill to make decent drawings with a computer, that skill is augmented by the advanced technology available... if I were rate computer generated art and hand drawn art with a blind eye to the medium used the result would be much the same as if I were to rate oil paints to water colors: one category would average much higher than the other, not because the painter is any better, but because of the difference in the amount of facility, and thus maximum realism, between the two.
AlanF, you obviously don't care what anyone else here has to say (though I'm sure you would phrase that more vulgarly) as you have said as much yourself, or you would realize that this picture is NOT a 5 by anyone's standards, but by maybe half of everyone's. Do you also not care what Tolkien had to say? Again, I must guess no; he specifically said Axes, not Swords, and Tom Bombadil was hardly the least of his characters (though not all grasp his importance). So, and this is just a question, if you don't care what Tolkien said, why such a dividing interest in LotR?
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 7, 2001 @ 2:05 PM
we shall all be the more enlightened.
Hehe...
Comment by Aignatius - December 7, 2001 @ 2:43 PM - Rated a 4
we shall all be the more enlightened.
Hehe...
Comment by Aignatius - December 7, 2001 @ 2:43 PM - Rated a 4
I like the sword, as they are the traditional weapon of men, while axes are the traditional weapons of the dwarfs. When I first read the chapter of The Great River, I always thought it odd that the sentinels wielded axes instead of swords. I rather imagined them with swords from the famous weapon, Anduril, Flame of the West. In the poster, I think the sword is Anduril. No offense to fans of J.R.R. Tolkien, but I do not think that my imagination is better than J.R.R. Tolkien himself, but this is how imagined the Pillars of the Kings. Great Poster!
Comment by Mungo - December 7, 2001 @ 3:22 PM - Rated a 5
I like the sword, as they are the traditional weapon of men, while axes are the traditional weapons of the dwarfs. When I first read the chapter of The Great River, I always thought it odd that the sentinels wielded axes instead of swords. I rather imagined them with swords from the famous weapon, Anduril, Flame of the West. In the poster, I think the sword is Anduril. No offense to fans of J.R.R. Tolkien, but I do not think that my imagination is better than J.R.R. Tolkien himself, but this is how imagined the Pillars of the Kings. Great Poster!
Comment by Mungo - December 7, 2001 @ 3:22 PM - Rated a 5
The Lord of the Rings movie shall indeed be grand and I can hardly wait for the 19th!
Comment by HalloweenTCM13 - December 7, 2001 @ 3:44 PM - Rated a 4
The Lord of the Rings movie shall indeed be grand and I can hardly wait for the 19th!
Comment by HalloweenTCM13 - December 7, 2001 @ 3:44 PM - Rated a 4
"When I first read the chapter of The Great River, I always thought it odd that the sentinels wielded axes instead of swords. I rather imagined them with swords from the famous weapon, Anduril, Flame of the West."
I've wondered this a few times myself, Mungo, and the best I can come up with is that swords were the weapons of Elves, and axes were more for Men as well as Dwarves. In the Silmarillion, for those of you who read it and the 2 others out there besides me who actually liked it :), Many of the Edain carried swords. Indeed, in the Fall of Gondolin in the Lost tales, I do believe that Tuor son of Huor was described as carrying an axe into battle...........
Anyway, about the picture. On the whole, pretty good. I would have prefered axes better, because I'm loosely classified as (avert your eyes) a purist. However, It still does look good. And if this is Mr. Jackson's idea of it, so be it. After all, we are all going to see Jackson's version of it on the 19th, not wholely Tolkien's.........
Comment by Tar-Eltherion - December 7, 2001 @ 7:30 PM - Rated a 4
"When I first read the chapter of The Great River, I always thought it odd that the sentinels wielded axes instead of swords. I rather imagined them with swords from the famous weapon, Anduril, Flame of the West."
I've wondered this a few times myself, Mungo, and the best I can come up with is that swords were the weapons of Elves, and axes were more for Men as well as Dwarves. In the Silmarillion, for those of you who read it and the 2 others out there besides me who actually liked it :), Many of the Edain carried swords. Indeed, in the Fall of Gondolin in the Lost tales, I do believe that Tuor son of Huor was described as carrying an axe into battle...........
Anyway, about the picture. On the whole, pretty good. I would have prefered axes better, because I'm loosely classified as (avert your eyes) a purist. However, It still does look good. And if this is Mr. Jackson's idea of it, so be it. After all, we are all going to see Jackson's version of it on the 19th, not wholely Tolkien's.........
Comment by Tar-Eltherion - December 7, 2001 @ 7:30 PM - Rated a 4
*from my previous post*
"Many of the Edain carried swords. "
I meant axes there. sorry.
Comment by Tar-Eltherion - December 7, 2001 @ 7:40 PM
*from my previous post*
"Many of the Edain carried swords. "
I meant axes there. sorry.
Comment by Tar-Eltherion - December 7, 2001 @ 7:40 PM
"...It still does look good. And if this is Mr. Jackson's idea of it, so be it. After all, we are all going to see Jackson's version of it on the 19th, not wholely Tolkien's......... "
This is Mr. Jackson's movie, not Tolkien's.
Comment by Gwindor - December 7, 2001 @ 8:02 PM
"...It still does look good. And if this is Mr. Jackson's idea of it, so be it. After all, we are all going to see Jackson's version of it on the 19th, not wholely Tolkien's......... "
This is Mr. Jackson's movie, not Tolkien's.
Comment by Gwindor - December 7, 2001 @ 8:02 PM
I'm seeing the Movie in London the 23rd and have had two FoTR posters in my room to remind me every day that, yes it will happen. Unfortunately this poster is not one of them. Because this one is AWESOME!
Swords, Axes, Pikes. PJ's movie will be PJ's movie, and it will be BASED on Tolkiens work, it won't BE Toliens work. Go PJ, i can't wait for the 23rd to come (im in Australia and freakin Aussies have the premiere the 26th... WAY TOO LAIDBACK!!!)
Well Said Tar-Eltherion, and a solid 5 in rating from me.
Comment by Gandalf_Greyhame - December 8, 2001 @ 10:02 AM - Rated a 5
I'm seeing the Movie in London the 23rd and have had two FoTR posters in my room to remind me every day that, yes it will happen. Unfortunately this poster is not one of them. Because this one is AWESOME!
Swords, Axes, Pikes. PJ's movie will be PJ's movie, and it will be BASED on Tolkiens work, it won't BE Toliens work. Go PJ, i can't wait for the 23rd to come (im in Australia and freakin Aussies have the premiere the 26th... WAY TOO LAIDBACK!!!)
Well Said Tar-Eltherion, and a solid 5 in rating from me.
Comment by Gandalf_Greyhame - December 8, 2001 @ 10:02 AM - Rated a 5
Great poster. A nice scene to express to ambiance of lotr.
Yeah!
Comment by Davolas - December 8, 2001 @ 12:56 PM - Rated a 5
Great poster. A nice scene to express to ambiance of lotr.
Yeah!
Comment by Davolas - December 8, 2001 @ 12:56 PM - Rated a 5
me gustaría estar ahí!
Comment by orc_kill - December 8, 2001 @ 1:05 PM - Rated a 5
me gustaría estar ahí!
Comment by orc_kill - December 8, 2001 @ 1:05 PM - Rated a 5
Didn't Turin carry a black sword which made him famous?
The one which was made by Eol and was given to Thingol.
The Mormegil of Nargothrond.
Comment by Davolas - December 8, 2001 @ 1:07 PM
Didn't Turin carry a black sword which made him famous?
The one which was made by Eol and was given to Thingol.
The Mormegil of Nargothrond.
Comment by Davolas - December 8, 2001 @ 1:07 PM
I'm sorry I "sounded" a bit offended in my previous posting. I'm a defender of computer artwork cause I work with computers all day, and most of my work is utterly done with them. However, my favorite media for sketching and drawing will be forever graphite pencils. In my bedroom you can see a print of Gustav Klimt's "Expectation" hanging on one wall, and on the opposite one there's a Luis Royo painting. Concerning art, I've experienced both sides and appreciate them both. I'm glad that technology has been a great aid for Peter Jackson and I just hope he's able to use it in a proper way, cause I pasionately hate those movies where even a small child can see when and where they used computer generated stuff (independence day, for an example). The real mastery rests in beeing able to keep the effects subtle and clean, when they go unnoticed or they blend perfectly with reality. That's what I expect from TLOTR. And though I'm far from being a purist there are many things that I think should be respected (I really don't think putting axes instead of swords was that hard) Anyway, I don't think any of us has ever directed a movie and we don't rightly know what does it mean, or what people would think of our own works if any of us ever did. Let's just hope PJ didn't go too much astray with LOTR.
PS. I would belive much of what Entertainment Weekly sez, they could have missinterpreted anyone's words, or even manipulated them, as often happens.
PS2. AlanF, are you sure LOTR is your favorite book?
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 8, 2001 @ 2:27 PM
I'm sorry I "sounded" a bit offended in my previous posting. I'm a defender of computer artwork cause I work with computers all day, and most of my work is utterly done with them. However, my favorite media for sketching and drawing will be forever graphite pencils. In my bedroom you can see a print of Gustav Klimt's "Expectation" hanging on one wall, and on the opposite one there's a Luis Royo painting. Concerning art, I've experienced both sides and appreciate them both. I'm glad that technology has been a great aid for Peter Jackson and I just hope he's able to use it in a proper way, cause I pasionately hate those movies where even a small child can see when and where they used computer generated stuff (independence day, for an example). The real mastery rests in beeing able to keep the effects subtle and clean, when they go unnoticed or they blend perfectly with reality. That's what I expect from TLOTR. And though I'm far from being a purist there are many things that I think should be respected (I really don't think putting axes instead of swords was that hard) Anyway, I don't think any of us has ever directed a movie and we don't rightly know what does it mean, or what people would think of our own works if any of us ever did. Let's just hope PJ didn't go too much astray with LOTR.
PS. I would belive much of what Entertainment Weekly sez, they could have missinterpreted anyone's words, or even manipulated them, as often happens.
PS2. AlanF, are you sure LOTR is your favorite book?
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 8, 2001 @ 2:27 PM
Goldensmaug,this a painting by John Howe,the ability of the graphic designer disconcerns me,(but im sure its difficult work).Peter Jackson,ought to be the most grateful filmaker ever,to have such a story to make a screenplay by.I've never been impressed with P. Jackson,but im sure this is going to be a good movie,but I will cringe everytime I see a change from the book,and I already realize that it can never compare in a general sense,but should be entertaining.And also,I have always been critical of Lanklamenyn in the past for his lambasting of comments left by people who were just giving there opinion about the art,everyone thinks different.But after reading his comment under the header"The real Middle- Earth"I'd have to say,I view him under a different light.
Comment by livin_lizard - December 8, 2001 @ 3:13 PM
Goldensmaug,this a painting by John Howe,the ability of the graphic designer disconcerns me,(but im sure its difficult work).Peter Jackson,ought to be the most grateful filmaker ever,to have such a story to make a screenplay by.I've never been impressed with P. Jackson,but im sure this is going to be a good movie,but I will cringe everytime I see a change from the book,and I already realize that it can never compare in a general sense,but should be entertaining.And also,I have always been critical of Lanklamenyn in the past for his lambasting of comments left by people who were just giving there opinion about the art,everyone thinks different.But after reading his comment under the header"The real Middle- Earth"I'd have to say,I view him under a different light.
Comment by livin_lizard - December 8, 2001 @ 3:13 PM
Probably at home, because tickets for the 19th are all sold out. But I NEED to see this movie. Can`t wait...
The picture by the way looks SMASHING. Whether the kings carry swords or axes, it doesn`t matter. People who see the movie and haven`t read the book (yet) will not notice anything about this. Doesn`t it give a good feeling when YOU know how it is written by Tolkien, and all the others don`t?
Tom Bombadil, by the way, is one of the most important characters in Middle Earth. Maybe AlanF should study him a bit more...
A 5
Comment by Master_of_Arda - December 9, 2001 @ 4:43 AM - Rated a 5
Probably at home, because tickets for the 19th are all sold out. But I NEED to see this movie. Can`t wait...
The picture by the way looks SMASHING. Whether the kings carry swords or axes, it doesn`t matter. People who see the movie and haven`t read the book (yet) will not notice anything about this. Doesn`t it give a good feeling when YOU know how it is written by Tolkien, and all the others don`t?
Tom Bombadil, by the way, is one of the most important characters in Middle Earth. Maybe AlanF should study him a bit more...
A 5
Comment by Master_of_Arda - December 9, 2001 @ 4:43 AM - Rated a 5
...this exact pic was among the first published concept art. Funny it made it so far, really.
Comment by kipper - December 10, 2001 @ 7:11 AM - Rated a 3
...this exact pic was among the first published concept art. Funny it made it so far, really.
Comment by kipper - December 10, 2001 @ 7:11 AM - Rated a 3
And I too think I have been not entirely fair to computer art: there are cases, of course, where I would feel inclinced to give a computer generated piece of art a 5, even if the bare for realism was higher. But again, there is another thing about this piece of work that I dislike and failed to mention earlier: the fact that it is a movie poster and carries with it the entirely unartistic blurb at the bottom. So my rating stands.
Livin lizard, a certain phrase from LotR came to mind: "That's uncommonly kind of you!" I'm sure you understand the context. I do hope it is understood (and by your latest, I believe it is, perfectly) that while I am passionate about Middle Earth, I rarely mean to be personally critical with my comments (such comments as Halloween's on the last picture, if you recall, make for the exception).
As I said before, Tom's importance is not grasped by all. In fact, I would venture to say that the vast majority of people don't even have a beginning of an appreciation for Tom Bombadil! I myself do not claim to understand him except for in a vague, abstract manner that might be entirely misconcieved. Does anyone have any deep insight into Tom Bombadil?
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 10, 2001 @ 7:34 AM
And I too think I have been not entirely fair to computer art: there are cases, of course, where I would feel inclinced to give a computer generated piece of art a 5, even if the bare for realism was higher. But again, there is another thing about this piece of work that I dislike and failed to mention earlier: the fact that it is a movie poster and carries with it the entirely unartistic blurb at the bottom. So my rating stands.
Livin lizard, a certain phrase from LotR came to mind: "That's uncommonly kind of you!" I'm sure you understand the context. I do hope it is understood (and by your latest, I believe it is, perfectly) that while I am passionate about Middle Earth, I rarely mean to be personally critical with my comments (such comments as Halloween's on the last picture, if you recall, make for the exception).
As I said before, Tom's importance is not grasped by all. In fact, I would venture to say that the vast majority of people don't even have a beginning of an appreciation for Tom Bombadil! I myself do not claim to understand him except for in a vague, abstract manner that might be entirely misconcieved. Does anyone have any deep insight into Tom Bombadil?
Comment by Lanklamenyn - December 10, 2001 @ 7:34 AM
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very nice
Comment by theringbearer - December 10, 2001 @ 8:37 AM - Rated a 5
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very nice
Comment by theringbearer - December 10, 2001 @ 8:37 AM - Rated a 5
For Lanklamenyn:
Many people have tried to answer the question "Who is Tom Bombadil?". The theory that makes the most sense to me (chuckle) is that he is Aule, the smith of the Vala. There are all sorts of things in the story that might lead this way, but it's still vague. Ultimately, I suppose, he would be a representation of things not concerned with the ring, hence not concerned with control or dominion. He is called and calls himself "the master", but does not seek mastery of anything.
Of course I could be totally wrong :)
I'm pretty shure I already rated this pic
Comment by Tar-Eltherion - December 10, 2001 @ 10:09 AM
For Lanklamenyn:
Many people have tried to answer the question "Who is Tom Bombadil?". The theory that makes the most sense to me (chuckle) is that he is Aule, the smith of the Vala. There are all sorts of things in the story that might lead this way, but it's still vague. Ultimately, I suppose, he would be a representation of things not concerned with the ring, hence not concerned with control or dominion. He is called and calls himself "the master", but does not seek mastery of anything.
Of course I could be totally wrong :)
I'm pretty shure I already rated this pic
Comment by Tar-Eltherion - December 10, 2001 @ 10:09 AM
This message board is getting interesting (and the poster getting boring). Maybe Peter Jackson didn't use Tom Bombadil cause he was too complex for anyone to completely understand. And we've read the books, but imagine everyone who hasn't (a good deal of my friends and family), how would Tom fit in the story for them who don't know the lord of the rings books? At least we, who have read the books, can imagine and cast theories bout Tom's origin and all (like Tal-Eltherion's above, which I find interesting), but I think for everything I've read and heard bout the movies that they are not aimed only to atract fans, but also people who hasn't read the books. Unfair for all devoted fans, but quite understandable. For at least in my country, I know just bout two peoples that would go to the theaters apart from me, if this was a movie only fans would like and understand (fair for fans but bad for Peter Jackson's and New Line's economy)
Although it would have been nice to see Bombadil in the movies, it would have also been a challenge to chose the right actor to play the part, and that would probably be another long debate for these message boards.
Still bout the poster, and as a graphic designer, I'd say that as a movie poster, it works, it serves it's purpose... but then again... WHY A SWORD? my rating also stands (I cannot change it anyway)
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 10, 2001 @ 5:42 PM
This message board is getting interesting (and the poster getting boring). Maybe Peter Jackson didn't use Tom Bombadil cause he was too complex for anyone to completely understand. And we've read the books, but imagine everyone who hasn't (a good deal of my friends and family), how would Tom fit in the story for them who don't know the lord of the rings books? At least we, who have read the books, can imagine and cast theories bout Tom's origin and all (like Tal-Eltherion's above, which I find interesting), but I think for everything I've read and heard bout the movies that they are not aimed only to atract fans, but also people who hasn't read the books. Unfair for all devoted fans, but quite understandable. For at least in my country, I know just bout two peoples that would go to the theaters apart from me, if this was a movie only fans would like and understand (fair for fans but bad for Peter Jackson's and New Line's economy)
Although it would have been nice to see Bombadil in the movies, it would have also been a challenge to chose the right actor to play the part, and that would probably be another long debate for these message boards.
Still bout the poster, and as a graphic designer, I'd say that as a movie poster, it works, it serves it's purpose... but then again... WHY A SWORD? my rating also stands (I cannot change it anyway)
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 10, 2001 @ 5:42 PM
I too was disappointed to hear about the removal of Tom, but he would be a hard character to successfully portray. Where'd he come from anyway? Anyone know?
The poster: I think this poster looks great, despite the minor detail changes (I myself think swords fit this scene better than axes).
Comment by watcherinthewater - December 10, 2001 @ 9:52 PM
I too was disappointed to hear about the removal of Tom, but he would be a hard character to successfully portray. Where'd he come from anyway? Anyone know?
The poster: I think this poster looks great, despite the minor detail changes (I myself think swords fit this scene better than axes).
Comment by watcherinthewater - December 10, 2001 @ 9:52 PM
"Alas! that time passes and all things fade!" When Lanklamenyn wrote this it suddenly reminded me of what Tolkien said about Elves. He said, and I paraphrase, the trap for Elves was that they tried to keep everything the same, unchanged or sustained. They tried to keep their own little world intact while everything changed around them. They faded and eventually left Middle-Earth. It seems to me that the really hard-line purist have fallen into the same trap. They seem to be saying that since the movie can't be the same as the book, then the movie shouldn't be made. And yet, the movie is being made anyway and they're being left behind.
I have to admit, I have a little purist in me, too. I agree that the movies shouldn't have changes just for changes sake, but neither should the books be considered so sacred that artists have no room for interpretation. In this poster, for instance, I could see the uninitiated misinterpreting statues of men with axes as being Dwarves. I could also see the director not wanting the audience to be confused about whose land is being entered. I give the poster a 5. It is gorgeous, regardless of medium, and the caption doesn't bother me. Somehow, it seems fitting that LOTR be called a Legend.
I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. I mean, I'm sure there are worse things to which the purist could be compared than Elves.
As for Tom, my immediate reaction to hearing he wasn't in the movie was mix. On the one hand, I lamented the loss of several important chapters from the book. On the other, I was relieved that I wouldn't have to watch a silly portrayal of a admittedly strange character.
I had to think about Tom just a few days ago. I have been listening to the audio-book version of LOTR read by Rob Inglis. After hearing Mr. Inglis' dramatic reading of Tom, the character didn't seem as silly to me as he had on previous readings. He seemed somehow less cheesy and more wry wit or even tongue-in-cheek. I think having heard Mr. Inglis' preformance will make me miss Tom from the movie a little more. I recommend the audio-book to everyone. Mr Inglis' isn't the best singer, but his dramatic reading and character voice are great.
Comment by James_The_Red - December 12, 2001 @ 7:31 AM - Rated a 5
"Alas! that time passes and all things fade!" When Lanklamenyn wrote this it suddenly reminded me of what Tolkien said about Elves. He said, and I paraphrase, the trap for Elves was that they tried to keep everything the same, unchanged or sustained. They tried to keep their own little world intact while everything changed around them. They faded and eventually left Middle-Earth. It seems to me that the really hard-line purist have fallen into the same trap. They seem to be saying that since the movie can't be the same as the book, then the movie shouldn't be made. And yet, the movie is being made anyway and they're being left behind.
I have to admit, I have a little purist in me, too. I agree that the movies shouldn't have changes just for changes sake, but neither should the books be considered so sacred that artists have no room for interpretation. In this poster, for instance, I could see the uninitiated misinterpreting statues of men with axes as being Dwarves. I could also see the director not wanting the audience to be confused about whose land is being entered. I give the poster a 5. It is gorgeous, regardless of medium, and the caption doesn't bother me. Somehow, it seems fitting that LOTR be called a Legend.
I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. I mean, I'm sure there are worse things to which the purist could be compared than Elves.
As for Tom, my immediate reaction to hearing he wasn't in the movie was mix. On the one hand, I lamented the loss of several important chapters from the book. On the other, I was relieved that I wouldn't have to watch a silly portrayal of a admittedly strange character.
I had to think about Tom just a few days ago. I have been listening to the audio-book version of LOTR read by Rob Inglis. After hearing Mr. Inglis' dramatic reading of Tom, the character didn't seem as silly to me as he had on previous readings. He seemed somehow less cheesy and more wry wit or even tongue-in-cheek. I think having heard Mr. Inglis' preformance will make me miss Tom from the movie a little more. I recommend the audio-book to everyone. Mr Inglis' isn't the best singer, but his dramatic reading and character voice are great.
Comment by James_The_Red - December 12, 2001 @ 7:31 AM - Rated a 5
I hadn't thought bout it, but yes, people who hasn't read the trilogy or the Silmarillion would easily mistake the Kings at the Argonath with dwarves, having no references of men bearing axes, and seeing Gimli carrying one. You have a good point.
I was checking out some of the christmas gifts from last year and i found a Tolkien diary a friend gave me, illustrated by John Howe. Most of the art is beautiful, but I found a picture of the Argonath and to tell the truth, I didn't like Howe's version of it (even when both statues were carrying axes). Just a few things (if any) have been taken from that painting. This image has a better use of perspective and color choice. But as far as i know, Alan Lee was the background designer for the movies, a great choice, in my opinion.
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 12, 2001 @ 10:57 AM
I hadn't thought bout it, but yes, people who hasn't read the trilogy or the Silmarillion would easily mistake the Kings at the Argonath with dwarves, having no references of men bearing axes, and seeing Gimli carrying one. You have a good point.
I was checking out some of the christmas gifts from last year and i found a Tolkien diary a friend gave me, illustrated by John Howe. Most of the art is beautiful, but I found a picture of the Argonath and to tell the truth, I didn't like Howe's version of it (even when both statues were carrying axes). Just a few things (if any) have been taken from that painting. This image has a better use of perspective and color choice. But as far as i know, Alan Lee was the background designer for the movies, a great choice, in my opinion.
Comment by GoldenSmaug - December 12, 2001 @ 10:57 AM
I think it s bit boring. The other poster(the one with Frodo) is alot better.
Comment by hallas - December 13, 2001 @ 8:07 AM
I think it s bit boring. The other poster(the one with Frodo) is alot better.
Comment by hallas - December 13, 2001 @ 8:07 AM
It's a great pic, even IF the swords aren't axes, the swords look awesome, probably better then axes. BY THE WAY TOM BOMBADIL IS COOL.
Comment by SkyeC. - January 12, 2002 @ 2:30 PM - Rated a 5
It's a great pic, even IF the swords aren't axes, the swords look awesome, probably better then axes. BY THE WAY TOM BOMBADIL IS COOL.
Comment by SkyeC. - January 12, 2002 @ 2:30 PM - Rated a 5
cool
Comment by elves_r_cool - January 23, 2002 @ 3:26 PM - Rated a 4
cool
Comment by elves_r_cool - January 23, 2002 @ 3:26 PM - Rated a 4
why is they stiking them hands out???
Comment by druidknight - January 28, 2002 @ 2:33 PM - Rated a 3
why is they stiking them hands out???
Comment by druidknight - January 28, 2002 @ 2:33 PM - Rated a 3
very cool!
Comment by sarumane - February 19, 2002 @ 6:41 AM - Rated a 5
very cool!
Comment by sarumane - February 19, 2002 @ 6:41 AM - Rated a 5
The poster is so cool. I want it!
(Aragorn is simply the best)
Comment by sarumane - February 19, 2002 @ 6:44 AM
The poster is so cool. I want it!
(Aragorn is simply the best)
Comment by sarumane - February 19, 2002 @ 6:44 AM
I REALLY WOULD HAVE LIKED THE AXES BETTER BECAUSE THEY SEEM BIGGER AND MORE THREATENING (MORE LIKE THE BOOK). THE SWORDS LOOK REALLY SMALL ON THE BIG STATUES. PJ PORTRAID IT WELL IN THE MOVIE SO I THINK IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD. THEY COULD HAVE DONE BETTER.
Comment by LOTRfreak - February 20, 2002 @ 7:11 AM - Rated a 4
I REALLY WOULD HAVE LIKED THE AXES BETTER BECAUSE THEY SEEM BIGGER AND MORE THREATENING (MORE LIKE THE BOOK). THE SWORDS LOOK REALLY SMALL ON THE BIG STATUES. PJ PORTRAID IT WELL IN THE MOVIE SO I THINK IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD. THEY COULD HAVE DONE BETTER.
Comment by LOTRfreak - February 20, 2002 @ 7:11 AM - Rated a 4
Do some of you people really think that people are actually going to stop and read some of the essays you've posted on here? Didnt think so.
I love this poster... it gives you a sense of majesty and power.. really great
And Anarion has a beard cuz he's OLD, duh
i loved the movie so dont ANY of you dare dis it.
Comment by LeGoLasIsMYman - February 23, 2002 @ 7:01 PM - Rated a 5
Do some of you people really think that people are actually going to stop and read some of the essays you've posted on here? Didnt think so.
I love this poster... it gives you a sense of majesty and power.. really great
And Anarion has a beard cuz he's OLD, duh
i loved the movie so dont ANY of you dare dis it.
Comment by LeGoLasIsMYman - February 23, 2002 @ 7:01 PM - Rated a 5
Got this framed in a forest-green metallic frame and it's AMAZING! It now graces a place of honor in my home theater. I can't tell you how often my eye wanders to it and marvels at its beauty. This poster is very well made and because it's opaque and printed through on both sides on opaline stock, should be in a lightbox to illuminate it from the rear. While I don't have the funds to do that now, I hope to at some point in the future. It's magnificent and unmistakable. The detail is outstanding.
Comment by jason_els - March 3, 2002 @ 2:09 PM - Rated a 5
Got this framed in a forest-green metallic frame and it's AMAZING! It now graces a place of honor in my home theater. I can't tell you how often my eye wanders to it and marvels at its beauty. This poster is very well made and because it's opaque and printed through on both sides on opaline stock, should be in a lightbox to illuminate it from the rear. While I don't have the funds to do that now, I hope to at some point in the future. It's magnificent and unmistakable. The detail is outstanding.
Comment by jason_els - March 3, 2002 @ 2:09 PM - Rated a 5
I desire to see Argonath and I loved it in the film, but I don't think this is the best poster that has been made....I like posters that have all the members of the Fellowship on them. Also, at least where I live, practically every store would only sell this one, and I had to go all over the place to find a better one. Anyways, it is good as art though.
Comment by Valene_Greenleaf - March 9, 2002 @ 2:50 PM - Rated a 3
I desire to see Argonath and I loved it in the film, but I don't think this is the best poster that has been made....I like posters that have all the members of the Fellowship on them. Also, at least where I live, practically every store would only sell this one, and I had to go all over the place to find a better one. Anyways, it is good as art though.
Comment by Valene_Greenleaf - March 9, 2002 @ 2:50 PM - Rated a 3
Where everyone can see it; as it welcomes all into a strange and cluttered mess called the alternate universe..... MY ROOM!
Comment by Sandy_Gamgee - March 26, 2002 @ 9:40 AM - Rated a 5
Where everyone can see it; as it welcomes all into a strange and cluttered mess called the alternate universe..... MY ROOM!
Comment by Sandy_Gamgee - March 26, 2002 @ 9:40 AM - Rated a 5
Comment by Anariel - May 6, 2002 @ 9:35 AM - Rated a 3
Comment by Anariel - May 6, 2002 @ 9:35 AM - Rated a 3
what a beautiful pic. i really lets the imagination go wild and make you wonder so much. that movie was really the best and i can't wait for the second one. beautiful settig and landscape for the movie, and this shot.
Comment by elven.girl - August 31, 2002 @ 8:44 AM - Rated a 5
what a beautiful pic. i really lets the imagination go wild and make you wonder so much. that movie was really the best and i can't wait for the second one. beautiful settig and landscape for the movie, and this shot.
Comment by elven.girl - August 31, 2002 @ 8:44 AM - Rated a 5
This shot highlights the grandeur of the Numenorean age in Middle Earth. What an amazing place!
Comment by Tinuviel2 - March 19, 2003 @ 10:14 PM - Rated a 5
This shot highlights the grandeur of the Numenorean age in Middle Earth. What an amazing place!
Comment by Tinuviel2 - March 19, 2003 @ 10:14 PM - Rated a 5
Comment by kcamericanangel1 - March 20, 2003 @ 9:18 PM - Rated a 5
Comment by kcamericanangel1 - March 20, 2003 @ 9:18 PM - Rated a 5
Waaaah so beautiful!!!It's the best LOTR poster...
Comment by nimirwyn - April 9, 2003 @ 4:37 AM - Rated a 5
Waaaah so beautiful!!!It's the best LOTR poster...
Comment by nimirwyn - April 9, 2003 @ 4:37 AM - Rated a 5
This poster totally captures my imagination on how the argonath would look like. Brilliant!
Comment by DiamondD - June 6, 2003 @ 8:40 AM - Rated a 5
This poster totally captures my imagination on how the argonath would look like. Brilliant!
Comment by DiamondD - June 6, 2003 @ 8:40 AM - Rated a 5