 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)belb big ...and 167 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614083 Today 3 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it tells a good story. and it tells that story well. that is what people like. that is why it is such a success. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's not why i think people like it it's not that i like the book that much, havent finished it, that i think this btw, it might just be oldfashioned and anti-hollywood of me.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, why do you think they like it? why do you think they want to sit through 10 hours of it? just for the pretty pictures? I think not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's worth you money it's easy to decide to go there, because everybody likes it (because it looks the way it does), because it's a famous and good story, people seem to like trilogies and what not these days because it's easier to decide on then thinking of what picture to go to next because people like looking at pretty pictures without thinking to hard, maybe it Ãs a good basic story about good and evil, but it would be nice if it had a story and more moral to it than that, imo |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
cool nacmat, cant wait to see it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, I went and saw it at midnight as well on the 17th with a packed crowd. It was really good even though from what I've read they messed up on some things. Anyway, for having full creative control basically, Peter Jackson did a wonderful job on the trilogy. It sure did feel good to stand up after sitting for 4 hours or so! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that the WITCH KING or GOTHMOG! he was cool....and good for the CHICK getting one over on him! i will NEVER understand people who BASH this or other movies WITHOUT even seeing it......bizarre to say the least! excellent movie, never felt like it was 3 + hours except i was getting hungry at the end. i thought the end was just a lil too long and drawn out, and what happened to Legolas and Gimli? i wasn't disappointed and i think Peter Jackson is a genius.....he did a loving job on a story he obviously holds in high esteem! GO SEE IT! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I saw this today and it was definetaly the best movie I've seen since the second came out. I think the ending was the most drawn out, but I think the extended dvd will fix that. Or at least answer more. If you've never seen the extended cuts of these movies your missing out. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
le coeur: shhhhhhhhhhhhh! ixnay on the itchkingway. *looks around at pissed off members* eheh *smiles wide and starts for the door* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I will see it tomorrow |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
being anti-hollywood is surely pretty pointless in relation to lotr..? sure, the money came from an american studio - but the book was british & the director & production team were from new-zealand. not only that, but when you look at how they actually went about making the films - though newline provided the money - their approach was somewhat amateurish.. [i mean that in a good way, of course] .. because none of them had ever taken on a project this big, they seem to have been pretty enthusiastic & dedicated to the whole thing - rather than the flimsy construction-rush-job-get-box-office-returns-asap attitude which seems to mark a lot of big sfx hollywood productions. surely the fact that (for a long time) no US studios would even consider taking on a lotr project is evidence that the whole thing isnt typically hollywood-ish. miramax had it first & wanted the whole thing done as one film because they didnt want to risk the time and money it would take to execute the project properly. and even once new line had stepped in, jackson seems to have flaunted all the rules laid down for him (re. run-times, re-caps, scripts etc) i don't know, i just wouldnt box it in with the typically hollywood sfx blockbusters. that seems to me to be the gut reaction of people who've seen the trailer & automatically resent anything that becomes successful. i'm no fan of big hollywood films. i think theyre a waste of money - a case of (attempted) style over content. too much emphasis on sfx & none on casting, characterisation & script. hopefully once producers come to terms with the potential of the new technologies being developed they'll begin using them as film-making tools, rather than the selling point of the film itself. i think lotr's use of cgi in combination with traditional techniques represents the first step in this direction. let filmmaking be about stories & characters again.. enough. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, but who framed roger rabbit was pretty good too already. i dont doubt jackson's good intentions, i think he might actually have read the book, so that's good. imo the story could just have had somewhat more depth, maybe the means given to them were too much for them to work with, but maybe there is depth and i didnt see it, the way the story is telled in the book didnt appeal to me as well, with all these happenings instead of one tension building sequence of thing... miramax makes me think of fake art movies like chocolat. new line of finding nemo, which might be a bad example, but by which i mean too format-like movie making. making movies is hard because you deal with all these people, but it would be nice if the picture lit a spark in me when watching.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
forr those who ain't yet seen it: THEY ALL DIE |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, i guess if you didnt like the book - then there wasn't much hope of you liking the film.. as its more or less the same story with some of the extraneous details/events culled so that it could focus on the story. i think the problem for some people is that, because the film isn't rooted in a recognisable reality, its assumed it has no depth or relevance to everyday themes. roger rabbit wasn't THAT good. miramax didn't make lotr in the end, precisely because jackson wouldnt allow them to turn it into a "format-like" movie. and as for it not lighting a spark in you when you watched it.. you can't please everyone all the time, and you cant expect everyone to like or dislike the same things you do. its all subjective i suppose. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, of course, im still surprised by the fact i didnt like the book, since i do like science fiction and fantasy like dune, all the hobbit stuff is cute too, all i can think of is what i said :by the way it is told. maybe it's a bit unfair of me to expect the film to be to my liking then. still i stand by my point of lack of depth, i might go and see the third movie (missed the second) maybe there'll be cool battles in it.. though i heard that was the second thanks for your opinion the charactere roger rabbit was that great in any case, maybe danny devito was and miss rabbit |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
danny devito? i thought it was bob hoskins? the guy who played doc emmett brown in backtothefuture was the bad guy though, right? the guy who gets run over by the steam roller at the end..? i do know what you mean about "the way [lotr] is told".. because he wrote it as a 'history', tolkiens narrative style is a bit obnoxious in places.. not an easy read for a lot of people. kind of biblical in a way - old testament style.. lots of detail which, although interesting & good for creating a world with depth, detracts from the main stories. i can also understand your disappointment with the story having only watched the first film right through.. because its basically a 3hour setup for the next two.. essential, but not entirely strong in its own right. 2 had a decent battle in it. 3 is pretty much all war, aside from frodo & sam's quest. but if you are going to check out 3, id watch 2 first. although theyre longer, the extended dvd versions are considerably more textured & rounded as an experience than the cinematic releases.. obviously. thanks for your opinion too. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
best movie trilogy in cinema history. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I enjoyed the movie. watched it last night. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
:D ill secretly rent the dvd for two maybe and sneak in to see 3. i tried to read it again like a year ago, i'd read 400 pages the first time, but didnt get through the intro, because it was to hard to read for me :/ maybe ill give it a go in dutch again, i try the bible too once in a while actually, only story i fully read was preacher, from which i can quote 'alone is but alone' i think your right about roger rabbit, last time i zapped past it a few times i thought the steamroller bit was ripped of from fish called wanda, but that makes no sense, maybe i was drunk |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
maybe you were.. i'll have to watch both films again now to be sure.. lord of the rings will just have to wait! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
is it soromon? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
saruman isn't it? and the eye is sauron.. i think thats how you spell them.. without going to check in a dusty old copy of lord of the rings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats how you spell them |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
gimli legolas aragorn saruman gandalf sauron frodo smeagol/gollum samwise pippin merry eowyn theoden boromir faromir galadriel elrond nazgul shelob |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you can't compare "Roger Rabbit" to LotR, in terms of animated characters. Gollum has much, much more depth than the Rabbit. he's a real character in the film, part of the cast - and that was a first. I do agree on the books being written quite crappily - structurally they are pretty strange and this sometimes shows in the films too, but the films do make up for a lot in that department. but I still say the success of the books and consequently the films is that there is a good, solid story to be told there. most hollywood stuff is pure crap - badly told boring stories (the matrix reloaded, for example). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
celeborn haldir denethor hama peregrin took meriadoc brandybuck rosie cotton eomer balin grima wormtongue elessar mithrandir the gaffer elendor |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"crappily" is a bit harsh for describing the works of tolkein. unconventional deffinately, especially in structure. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
: i took the roger rabbit thing as a joke (dear god!? - i hope it was..) : OBVIOUSLY gollum has more depth that rogerrabbit.. all the other debates about lotr aside, gollum is possibly the most important example of how sfx can enhance a film. : i agree with you - inspite of tolkien's style, the story is a good one. thats why it has lasted so long. : yes, most hollywood stuff. like i said - poor scripts, poor casting, poor characterisation, poor acting.. theyre usually just star vehicles, or excuses to play with sfx. which, considering the power that cinema could/should have is a real shame. thats why i love well crafted films, whatever they might be. : matrix reloaded is a brilliant example of style over substance. i know a lot of people won't like me saying this, but i thought both sequels were unneccessary. but then, i always used to love the openended sci-fi short stories of writers like ray bradbury. i thought the first matrix's "the war is just beginning" end was a great way to close the movie..& the whole thing |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i agree with you too.. anal would have been a better word. not in an offensive way. the guy WAS a professor of languages.. but that can be a good & bad thing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, seen from a storytelling point of view - "not told very well"? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, deffinately. on a little featurette on the Two Towers extended DVD, they comment on how he wasn't a fiction writer by trade and that he did lots of writing no-no's like: telling a major event like the fall of Isengard in flashback. never letting the main antagonist (Sauron) make an appearance. often writing passages in a fictional language and not translating them. It's also interesting that the title "The Two Towers" was not necessarily in reference to any two specific towers in the book. there are a lot of towers but that is never addressed directly. also, they mention that "The Return of The King" is a title that the publishers really pushed for, Tolkein didn't like that title because it "gave away the ending" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, i saw it.. theres some pretty interesting stuff on those appendices discs |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the gaffer??? hahahahahahahahaha love that crap. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Saw it tonight. It was....just awesome. Best film ever? Not sure, certainly the best action/adventure.. not just by taste, by fact. And yes, LOTR batters all other movie trilogies. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im glad you enjoyed it xammax!!!! we should all go together!!! somehow!!! ok, ill stop yelling!!! oops, sorry. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
2 Questions though, sorry if they've been answered already but I haven't read the thread. 1. Does the entire film trilogy remain faithful to the book? Nothing changed to make it 'nicer'? and 2. Where the fuck were they going at the end? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
1. it remains as true to it as can be expected in translation from book to film. 2. not sure what you mean. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh wait... i knwo what you mean. um.... ***SPOILERS*** sorry, but some people might not have gotten the ending, and i want to clear it up for them... the place where elrond was gonna send his daughter so she could live forever. they did this because both bilbo and frodo were tainted from once being holders of the ring. ***END OF SPOILERS*** |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
On the boat.. I mean what the hell... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh! Sorry, didn't refresh |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
***SPOILERS*** last time i swears... remember frodo sayign about his wound never fully healing? and bilbo saying he wanted to hold the ring, and frodo looking all like "yeah, me too"? they were still corrupted liek gollum by the ring. ***END SPOILERS*** |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
..to the lands where the Elves came from, no? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yesh |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, to the land where the elves came from. the undying lands.. their time in middle earth was over. thats why they were leaving. the bearers of the other rings of power (galadriel & gandalf too) had to leave, as their work was done. basically everyone touched by power had to go, so that the world could move into its next phase.. there is a train of thought that the undying lands where the elves & other characters go is the 'afterlife'.. you can see why people would think this as tolkien was a devout christian. but i guess it fits in with all different kinds of religious & non-religious interpretations. its why the book has remained so popular. (feel as though the thread's coming full circle) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahahaha yeah, and theres MANY subtle references to Christ in the characters of frodo and gandalph and even aragorn from time to time. but in the sontext of the story, the idea is that if you are gonna start over, you have to start ALL over. with aragorn as their new, true king... the peoples of middle earth could finally do this. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yay |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
pff. the man who copy/pasted a list of correct spelling of names just typed "gandalph". n00b!!11!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i mispell thigns alot, get used to it. it was REALLY hard for me to TYPE those names out. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its pretty faithful i agree. there are some major changes in Two Towers, but they are more or less acceptable to carry themes to the film format. in return of the king, the changes are less obtrusive i'd say, and in some cases, i think the changes made work better than the book version could have on screen. for example: *spoilers* 1. the little twist involving gollum actively pitting the hobbits against eachother, then sam getting left behind. I thought this helped to build a bit of tension in a massively truncated scene from the book. 2. frodo "pushing" gollum off of the ledge into the fires of Mt. Doom. In the book gollum is kinda dancing around and falls in, which i think would be a bit anti-climactic and silly in the film version. frodo pushing him off then catching the ledge for sam to save him was a good dramatic addition. 3. The army of the dead assailing Minas Tirith. in the book they pretty much only help aragorn get the corsairs (the dark ships) but of course there is not time to do another battle scene aboard the boats so showing the army of the dead attacking osgiliath and the white city is a good substitution. and it leaves Aragorn ariving on the boats as a surprise for audiences, as it was kind of a surprise to the people in the books. heh sorry long winded post but i really liked this movie. hehe. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm so nicely surprised you guys didnt enjoy the way lotr, the book, was told, as well, i thought that was just me. sure roger rabbit was just the first thing that came to mind when talking about animated characters in live action movies, but it's like one of the first movies i remember and therefor maybe ahead of its time. i thought it was just pathetic the way they lobbied for the actor that played gollum in some post production should get an oscar for it. they just drew an image upon him, it's not even done with some suit he wore they used to make his movements looking real like they did in some fighting games like mortal combat, it's just utter bullshit, imo |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
