So much positivity? Weird, isn't this the internet?

You just love to complain don't you? I thought it was a very good effort, especially since it had a ridiculously low budget. There's a lot of love put into creating it and most can tell.

I was cynical, but it's quite well-made for a low budget feature. I would actually say I enjoyed it more than the three-hour Jackson films. Bored of the Rings, innit.

W.W.G.D.
What Would Gibson Do?

I'm with you... I really don't understand the reaction to this film. I bleed Tolkien and was extremely interested when I first heard of this. I made it about half way through and turned it off. It was horrible. There wasn't an original idea in the movie, and I've got a feeling that on the message boards for other movies in the same vein (the remake of Psycho comes to mind) people are ranting about how the director was lazy for making a carbon copy of another movie. Since when does not having a budget become an excuse for crappy storytelling, wooden acting and stealing another director's costumes, scenery and music?

'The first big issue I have is that they chose to recast beloved and respected actors in major roles. Of course they couldn't get the real deals but keener minds would have worked around the issues."

How exactly would that work? The only way I can imagine that is if they tell one of the stories from Tolkien's mythology that has nothing to do with Lord of the Rings, and that would probably draw a lot less fan interest. Though I'd love to see somebody try.

"There is so much untapped Tolkien instead of using Gandalf, get him some 'Just For Men' and call him Radagast. There are other wizards and they didn't have time to explore them in the trilogy. What's more there are other Rangers, they are referred to as Rangers after all so why not have a few of them."

It's weird you're talking about untapped Tolkien, when it seems like you must not have read the Appendices. Most of what I saw in the film was accurate to Tolkien, who wrote all about the hunt for Gollum in the appendices. So it seems like you're suggesting that rather than film part of the story that wasn't done in the Peter Jackson film (which makes sense, since it's just an appendix so Tolkien himself didn't think it belonged in the main story), that they should instead invent some new story about Radagast the Brown and a bunch of people who have nothing to do with LotR. I mean, that might be interesting too, but that's obviously not what they had in mind at all.

This movie was at least as close to Tolkien as Jackson's. Radagast the Brown barely appears in Tolkien's novel. So what aspect of Radagast is "untapped"? The only thing he does is carry a message from Saruman to Gandalf. If anything Tolkien himself could have told us more about Radagast, but since he didn't there's no basis to make a film about him without totally departing from the actual Tolkien canon.

"You get the idea. It's just a taste thing. I guess good taste is the real thing that separates the big boys from the fans."

What, the fans who haven't read the appendices? Oh, you meant that you're a big boy and not a fan. And actually, I don't get the idea. What good taste have you shown? First you say that they should have stayed closer to "canon" and then contradicting yourself you imply they should have just invented some other story about Radagast the Brown. So presumably you meant the "canon" of Jackson's film separate from Tolkien's work, which in that case I think you're standing on some shaky ground. Then you say "keener minds" could have worked around the issue, but you don't give us any implication of what said keen mind could have done to solve the issues.

So basically you've said nothing, and then you somehow believe that your list of non-statements and empty assumptions add up to "good taste." I would attempt to explain how inadequate this all is, if I suspected that you would even care.

"Oh and they should have used female narration as in the films."

Because Tolkien's book was narrated by a female, right? lol. That's more of your Peter Jackson "canon" I assume. Galadriel isn't even in this movie, so wouldn't it be a touch odd to have her narrate the story?

"Oh and the amount of epic scenery shots just looked like parody. Oh and they over-egged Gollum at the end. And Aragorn is more handsome and less bug-eyed from what I remember."

I thought the scenery was gorgeous. I have no idea what "over-egged" means. As far as Aragorn, this guy is not Viggo Mortensen. So naturally he looks different. Aragorn doesn't look like Viggo Mortensen either. He looks like Aragorn. If this guy had played Aragorn in the original movies and then Viggo had played him in this fan film, you'd be making the same complaint about Viggo not looking like Aragorn. Unless you can say that Aragorn in this film does not match up to Tolkien's descriptions, I think you have no ground to stand on.

"Ok I've got more than a few moans but I'm trying my best not to be a troll. I just can't think of much nice stuff to say. I guess my expectations were too high. I suppose considering the typical quality of fan films it was pretty bearable. Nice effort though."

that's how I feel, I mean I expected it to be pretty much garbage even though the trailer looked neat. I'm not saying it's incredibly good, but it's worth watching.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

"Weird, isn't this the internet?"

And your sarcastic commentary on the negativity of the internet is then proven in your own post. How ironic.

"You get the idea. It's just a taste thing. I guess good taste is the real thing that separates the big boys from the fans. "

Proof that you're a tool, troll or not. Your taste is not necessarily good taste.

WALLEForum.com

I disagree mostly... I think the idea that inspired fans who work their asses off and have talent can make something not bad looking is breeding positivity. The main actors, although not McKellen and Mortensen for obvious reasons are doing very well I thought, compared with other fan films or even some indie. The direction and editing are sensible to the fact that there are some things they just weren't able to do but both are very professional-looking. The worst fault of the fan movies are they are trying to be too big... this one was very subtle and preferred showing nothing than showing too much and screwing the effect.

However I will ask this... (and again no trolling here... just a question)
What is the point of the movie?
It's visually very good and production-wise very successful but what does it show us? What do we learn about either Aragorn or GOllum? Why choose this particular part of the annex when so much was left out of the PJ movies?

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco