The Lord of the Rings

[Shivermetimbers]

SO ok its morning. I'm am very tired having gotten five while hours of sleep after going to see the Return of the King. I personally thought it was fantastic.

 

 

So what was everyone else's opinion on it?

[Alien426]

My opinion is that it sucks that I wasn't able to watch the premiere at 0:01. I can't watch the movie before Saturday and will have to work late for the rest of the week.

 

 

 

Oh great, now I'm depressed. Thankyouverymuch, Shiver.

[Alia]

My opinion is that not everybody got to see it at midnight. And may not see it for weeks.

 

Other than that, I think it's awesome!

[Ray Jones]

i think i dont like it. i dont like the hole thing.

 

*shrugs*

 

but..

 

 

this says nothing about my character.. right?

 

 

[scabb]

I saw it today too, the cinema was surprisingly empty.

 

They're okay films, but really not as great as everyone makes out them to be. Not on the same level as the Indy, Godfather & Star Wars trilogies, because they just try too hard to be completely true to the tale. Fellowship worked, but the others were just three-hour long battles with homo-erotica intermissions.

 

It may deserve the "Special Effects" and "Best Director" oscars, but no "Best Film". Although "A Beautiful Mind" was infinitely worse, but I'll stop talking now.

[ptdc]

Was it better than TTT? That was... meh.

[Shivermetimbers]

I loved TTT. I did think this one was better though.

[Skinkie]

Haven't seen it yet, just wanna say the other ones were way too long. The first one is like a real-time trek across New Zealand, and I don't really remember the second one, I was really tired when I went and saw it.

[Ernil]

they just try too hard to be completely true to the tale. Fellowship worked, but the others were just three-hour long battles with homo-erotica intermissions.

 

 

 

terrible, TERRIBLE logic.

 

The first one is like a real-time trek across New Zealand, and I don't really remember the second one, I was really tired when I went and saw it.

 

 

Ridiculous compaints. Ridiculous complaints.

 

 

 

This movie was Awe Inspiring. Amazing. Flawless. Tremendous.

 

 

 

Perfect

 

 

 

 

Perfect

 

 

 

 

A true tear jerker. Successfully.

[Alia]

Originally Posted be scabb

they just try too hard to be completely true to the tale.

Well, yeah. What do you suppose would make them Lord of the Rings movies? They're not flawless...I'm not quite as gone as Prince of the Halflings there, but I like them a lot. A whole lot. An AWFUL lot.

 

*clunk splat CRACK*

 

Did you hear that? That was the sound of me banging my head on the desk and splitting them both wide open. Miserable wench that I am. God, the sad face smiley they have looks so whiny.

[scabb]

My point is, the tale itself isn't all that great to begin with. A film should focus more on characters interacting, and a story unravelling. This just felt like watching people spout off battle tactics and warnings of impending evil whilst waiting for Frodo to toss the ring in the mountain. Maybe this is more of a flaw with the books themselves, though, which aren't exactly easy to translate to film.

 

Don't get me wrong, Tolkein was great. He brought a lot of new ideas into the world, threw in some older ones and created a whole mythology of his own. His writing was incredibly descriptive, although this often made it incredibly dull as well. He didn't get everything right, though - for example, Lord of the Rings ends terribly, with everyone sailing off to the undying lands.

 

Jackson did an excellent job of sticking the tale on the screen, but that doesn't necessarily mean it works on the screen.

 

Anyway, flame away. ;-

[Jedi-Monkey]

I saw it yesterday too. I thought it was good, but I prefered TTT. This one seemed to have things dragging on for too long.

They were either trying to create tension and emotion in parts but when it lasted to long it just became annoying and I was saying 'just die already'. Like that bit on the battlefield under the horse

(trying not to spoil the movie for people who havnt seen it yet)

and the fight with the characters on Mt Doom.

[SamNMax]

I just watched Two Towers today. It was okay.

[Shivermetimbers]

Originally posted by scabb

My point is, the tale itself isn't all that great to begin with..

 

To quote Mr. Garrison..."You go to hell! You go to hell and you die!"

 

I can't put it more bluntly than that.

 

A film should focus more on characters interacting, and a story unravelling.

 

Not when its based on a book thats not about that. That's called bad Hollywoodization of good books.

[Alia]

Originally posted by scabb

Anyway, flame away. ;-

Nah, you're too sweet in general to burn you up over one little point.

[Jedi-Monkey]

Yeah. Why make a film of a book if you change the story? I hate business people.

[Ernil]

My point is, the tale itself isn't all that great to begin with

 

 

This just felt like watching people spout off battle tactics and warnings of impending evil whilst waiting for Frodo to toss the ring in the mountain. Maybe this is more of a flaw with the books themselves, though, which aren't exactly easy to translate to film.

 

His writing was incredibly descriptive, although this often made it incredibly dull as well

 

for example, Lord of the Rings ends terribly, with everyone sailing off to the undying lands.

 

I saw it yesterday too. I thought it was good, but I prefered TTT. This one seemed to have things dragging on for too long.

 

 

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHRGH!

[Skinkie]

Someones a bit opinionated...... Indy would so kick Fordos butt.

[Joshi]

Who the hell is Fordo?

 

Anyway, just went to see it. On some level, I do agree with Scabb, the books weren't as great as everyone says they are. The reason they are so long is because he fills each page with paragraph after paragraph of description and narrative without actually getting into the actual story. There are referance books and so one created by Tolkien about Middle earth, but most of it gets covered in these six books which is really unessecary. I say, the Lord of the Rings should have been about the story of the Lord of the Rings and anyone who's really interested should basically go and buy a seperate book about middle earth and so on.

 

Saying that, the story was simply a lot of battles. Tolkien spent about 15 years of his life writing a book that whilst great, had no connection or hidden value to the everyday Joe like you or me. At the end of TTT, Sam says his nice speech and then sums up the entire trillogy in the words 'that there is some good in the world, and it's worth fighting for.' This is great for politicians and world leaders and so on, and may even strike a cord in the everyday person as to be a little more optomistic in life, but in the end, it doesn't quite hit home and teach us much.

 

Now for the praise, it was a great film as it was and it was brilliantly adapted. Pity about the lack of Sarauman (sp?) but it wasn't about him, so I think jackson has a liscense to take him out. Also, the ending was a little drawn out, but i think Jackson basically wanted to get Sams last words in in the end and that unfortunately involved about five epilogues. Even still, it was great to hear him say it. The battles were brilliant if not slightly excessive and the music (which I am listening to now) was awe inspiring.

 

TBC

[Mr.Burger]

the most intelligent conversation ever. spawned by an intelligent idea. branching into intelligent provocation.

 

so far we've deduced:

 

1.

2. Good is a word.

3. Cat.

M. The Lord of the Rings books are lame.

 

 

 

keep it coming, folks. i promise i won't look.

[Gabez]

FFS >:

 

I couldn't agree more with Ernil here - the movies were perfect.

 

His writing was incredibly descriptive, although this often made it incredibly dull as well

You say that like it's "a fact" - it's not, it's just your opinion. For me the narrative style is far from boring - perhaps it's because you're from a newer generation to Tolkein and if you look at other books from that time they all share a simmilar "boring" style. I suggest you go back to Harry Potter. >:

 

The Lord of the Rings books are lame.

Have you ever even read the books? No? Thought not. Next!

 

(Okay so they're not everyone's cup of tea but you can't just call them "lame")

The reason they are so long is because he fills each page with paragraph after paragraph of description and narrative without actually getting into the actual story

That's the magic of Tolkein. ; It's the realism that makes the books - and the films - so amazing.

 

Tolkien spent about 15 years of his life writing a book that whilst great, had no connection or hidden value to the everyday Joe like you or me.

Whilst Tolkein did write the books as peices of escapism, it certainly does not mean that it has no connection "with the everyday Joe" (as opposed to what, I wonder?). Try reading the books again, but this time actually think about what you're reading. >:

 

for example, Lord of the Rings ends terribly, with everyone sailing off to the undying lands.

I'd like to see you do better. >:

 

My point is, the tale itself isn't all that great to begin with..

That's not a point, it's an opinion.

 

 

I saw it yesterday too. I thought it was good, but I prefered TTT.

You, sir, are an idiot. No doubt you just like the big battles, eh?

 

A film should focus more on characters interacting, and a story unravelling

Are you blind or just stupid? How else do you describe the way the films were done?

 

Jackson did an excellent job of sticking the tale on the screen, but that doesn't necessarily mean it works on the screen.

Have YOU read the books? How else do you justify all the cuts and changes if not because they made the film work on the screen? Wassat? Don't belive me? Read a review.

 

Not on the same level as the Indy, Godfather & Star Wars trilogies

Great films, but they're just entertaining. They don't make you laugh, cry, jubilate, be horrified, or be awed as much as Lord Of The Rings. They don't make me think as much.

 

I say, the Lord of the Rings should have been about the story of the Lord of the Rings and anyone who's really interested should basically go and buy a seperate book about middle earth and so on.

It's called the Silmarllian. If Tolkein left out all the extra details then it wouldn't have felt as "real" as it does, and cogito ergo sum it would have just been another Harry Potter or something. Entertaining, but very very flat.

 

The first one is like a real-time trek across New Zealand, and I don't really remember the second one, I was really tired when I went and saw it.

Maybe you should actually watch the films properly before dishing out unfounded criticisms. >:

 

Haven't seen it yet, just wanna say the other ones were way too long.

That's not a criticism, it just says that you have the patience of a five year old.

 

i think i dont like it. i dont like the hole thing.

I'm not going to bash this comment because it's perfectly understandable. It's not for everyone. There's a difference between saying "I didn't like it - I just don't enjoy that sort of thing" and saying "omg books 2 long + boring = tolkein is a gay???? star wars was much better omg". >:

 

Why make a film of a book if you change the story?

Because books are a different medium. Would you use exactly the same script for a TV series if you wanted it on the radio? No, because it wouldn't work. Ditto with LOTR.

 

Shivermetimbers, Ernil, Alia and anyone else who loved the films *(don't forget it's all one big film really) as much as they deserve to be loved, you rule.

 

On edit: "A true tear jerker." - if you don't agree with this then you have a heart of stone. ¬

[Remi]

I couldn't agree more with Ernil here - the movies were perfect.

 

No, they were actually full of errors - Newsweek had a great article about it with Peter Jackson addressing some of them. ;-*

[Gabez]

Okay Remzo, we have to get into what the word "pefect" means now.

 

Since perfection is technically, universabley impossible I'm using it as "perfect for me". AKA even though the geeks at "news night" can say that there's all these mistakes, for me it don't matter diddily ****, and thus I see them as perfect. For me.

 

Also:

 

"the story was simply a lot of battles"

The battles are like 5% or the actual book. Of course they're an important part of the story, but they're definitely definitely definitely not the whole thing. ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ The books downplay the battles even more than the films.

 

 

(On edit:) I pressume you mean http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540652/ - please. That's hardly going to spoil perfection.

[Shivermetimbers]

Honestly, I'd like to see anyone else do a better job.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah. Thats what I thought.

[scabb]

Originally posted by Gabez

You say that like it's "a fact" - it's not, it's just your opinion. For me the narrative style is far from boring - perhaps it's because you're from a newer generation to Tolkein and if you look at other books from that time they all share a simmilar "boring" style.

Not particularly true. There are a lot of other authors from the same era with much different styles of writing - C.S. Lewis is the obvious one, and I was a big fan of Narnia. Besides, I have read and enjoyed the books, but some chapters were a little less motivating than others.

 

Originally posted by Gabez

Are you blind or just stupid? How else do you describe the way the films were done?

To put it in a brief and no doubt irritating manner, Fellowship set the scene, told the story of the ring and how the fellowship was formed. Then, the mission was made - "throw ring in hole". Other two films? Mission Accomplished! (With bonus war!)

 

Originally posted by Gabez

Have YOU read the books? How else do you justify all the cuts and changes if not because they made the film work on the screen? Wassat? Don't belive me? Read a review.

The cuts and changes were only "huge" to the most ardous Tolkien fanboys. Of course they changed some things, but it was definitely the book on the screen.

 

Originally posted by Gabez

Great films, but they're just entertaining. They don't make you laugh, cry, jubilate, be horrified, or be awed as much as Lord Of The Rings. They don't make me think as much.

Now you're stating your opinion as if it's fact. Not that I would ever call you on that, that would be childish. Anyway, yes, Star Wars is just entertaining, but Lord of the Rings is too, only in a pretentious kind of way. You can derive just as much thoughtful discussion from one film as you can the other. Besides, the main reason for going to the cinema in the first place is to be entertained - particularly to see a film like Lord of the Rings.

 

Originally posted by Gabez

There's a difference between saying "I didn't like it - I just don't enjoy that sort of thing" and saying "omg books 2 long + boring = tolkein is a gay???? star wars was much better omg". >:

There's also a difference between liking a movie, and complete insanity. Yes, I have my criticisms, and yes, I'm glad that they annoy you, and Tolkein geeks in general >: Let's just leave it at "not my cup of tea".