posted
Not since I was five years old and say Star Wars in the theatre has anything come close to this movie experience.
I never read the trilogy of LOTR books but as a movie fan I'd saw this one was as good as the first two films combined. I read about the scene with sauroman in the Shire that was not filmed for this movie and how some Toliken fans are pissed, but I dont think it would have worked well in the movie at all: there was probably 45 minutes of movie AFTER the battle was won already. Tomorrow I have to watch the expanded Two Towers so I can see ROTK again on Thursday!
It was that good.
.....not for anachrophobics though.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
I have read the series several times and there is little that was deleted that would have made any real impact to the story. I haven't seen ROTK yet, but if Sean Aston's portrayal of Samwise is as good as the first two, he should win an Oscar and be enshrined forever in the lores of Hero-dom.
-------------------- I am the Anti-Abaddon. I build models at a scale of 2500/1
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
The only thing about the movie that kind of irked me was that it could have ended about five times. After Aragorn's coronation, right when everyone bows, it could have ended. When they got back to the Shire and were in the pub, it could have ended there. Anyways, I guess its good that it ended the way it did. I suppose if it had ended after the coronation, we wouldn't have the nifty scene of departing for the Grey Havens. All in all, it was a very, very good movie. I heartily enjoyed it. I intend to watch the extended versions of FotR and TTT over the Christmas break and go see it again.
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Jason: "It was that good...not for anachrophobics though."
Well, I guess there could be a phobia against movies with a non-chronological scene order...maybe like in "Usual Suspects"?
Oh, and the people you're talking about should stay the HELL away from Tarantino, that's for sure! Pulp Fiction would be bloody murder!
As for anachronisms in general, I guess the "LOTR"-movies could have lots of words that slipped through, like "Hell!" or other out-of-place expressions. I know writers writing fantasy novels have to be very careful not to use words that are specific, even esoteric, if you will, to our history as such.
Yep...*leans back in chair*, lotta things that can go wrong in moviemaking. Though I haven't actually seen any anachrophobe scream and run panicked towards the exit just 'cause some Gondorians and rangers are speaking american, I mean some things you just have to let slide, right? Am I right?
Hell, if we're going to be really "chronologically" accurate we'd have to graft thicker facial bones and added hairgrowth to actors if we're doing any film taking place in biblical times or earlier, 'cause our genes were totally different back then, sheesh!
No Jason, there is a thing called "suspend all disbelief", it sounds like your friends would do well to learn that before going off half-cocked in the cinemas. Maybe in a Twelve-step program or something.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"The only thing about the movie that kind of irked me was that it could have ended about five times."
Yeah, there was a slight Tel-Sellish "But wait! There's more! Stay tuned!" undercurrent flowing through it. Kudos to Jackson for not shooting a REALLY scopic infomercial. B)
So now that the LotR trilogy is complete, how do you guys think people will come to regard the films in twenty years? Will they ever become as ingrained in popular culture as, say, the classic Star Wars movies are now? Lucas has had his share of detractors over the years, but he also had the advantage that he couldn't be censured for not sticking to a work of literature word for word...
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Nim: Hell, if we're going to be really "chronologically" accurate we'd have to graft thicker facial bones and added hairgrowth to actors if we're doing any film taking place in biblical times or earlier, 'cause our genes were totally different back then, sheesh!
Not to interupt the delicious comedy, but, are you sure?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I thought The Hobbit was the "prequel" and The Silmarillion was the continuation? Or am I being fooled again?
This reminds me, I still haven't fulfilled my 1999 New Year's Resolution of reading The Lord of the Rings. Although, I did try to check out The Fellowship of the Ring from the library a couple months ago. No student ID equals no checkouts.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't think The Lord of the Rings will have the cultural weight, as a set of films, that Star Wars does, because it is not, so far as I am aware, being embraced by an entire generation of children, for any number of reasons. (What was the market for huge kid-friendly films in 1977?) It's those children who make Star Wars what it is. LotR isn't selling a million action figures of That One Orc Over In The Corner. I also suspect that Star Wars as a phenomenon is going to die when we do, and scarcely be remembered apart from the effects it had on Hollywood marketing, which were large, and which again The Lord of the Rings is not having. (The blockbuster is already invented.)
Though I am skeptical that films are going to have lifespans much beyond their audience in general. One can, with some small effort, enjoy a novel written in the very late 19th century, and with some good repackaging and a media push you can even make it sell well. But good luck getting people into theaters to watch Train Moving Down Tracks. Film is too of the moment, I think, maybe. I don't know. Anyway, my point is that LotR is three good sf/f movies in a landscape piled high with them. (Well, with sf/f movies in general, of which I suggest not all are absolutely without value.) Star Wars was three, um...well, movies I thought were the greatest things ever when I was a kid, which hit a scene almost totally devoid of their like. In other words, if I filmed the greatest epic film ever tomorrow, it still wouldn't be the first epic film ever, and people's default reaction, before seeing it, would be "Hey, another one of those epic films," instead of "My mind is blown by the very idea!"
But that's all completely apart from actual questions of quality. I submit that it is better, in the long run, to be good rather than to be an icon, as iconic status is more culturally dependant than quality. Maybe. Or maybe not.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The question of "dating" in general is a tricky one. As far as I can tell, people are more aware of things that will date a piece of work, and will try and avoid them. Did songs from the 50s sound as dated in the 70s as an 80s song does today? Does early TNG look as dated as TOS did back in 1984? And to run with that later comment, why does season 1 and 2 of TNG look so much more outdated than season 3, despite there only being a season difference.
As for Star Wars, I'm not sure it will die when we die. I lived in a house with 3 guys who were 3 years younger than me, and none of them had really seen Star Wars outside of Christmas repeats when they were young, and they hadn't seen the SE in the cinema either. Once, they decided that they were finally going to watch them, and we watched the trilogy over a week or two. And then, when episode II came out, they were as excited as I was. My 8 year old nephew was excited when he saw it too, and loves Yoda.
I hate people forcing their likes onto younger generations, but there are a lot of children who are quite happy to embrace Star Wars.
But, er, anyway, to go back to the topic, Return of the King was very good. Yes.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Saw it today. Funny thing happened though: Halfway through the battle at Minos Tirith, the movie started getting warped, and cut out altogether at one point for ten minutes. Nonetheless, everyone was pretty pissed off at this, so we all ended up getting free movie vouchers, which are also refundable too, so I can get my money back (couldn't do it on that day, they have some sort of policy for same day refunds on vouchers.....)
As for the movie itself, it was good. The only two complaints that I have is 1) the story arc regarding Saruman I consider to be incomplete even though he was "defeated" in TTT, and 2) goshdarnit the ending is just too long!!!!
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Nim: Hell, if we're going to be really "chronologically" accurate we'd have to graft thicker facial bones and added hairgrowth to actors if we're doing any film taking place in biblical times or earlier, 'cause our genes were totally different back then, sheesh!
Methinks you're confusing modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens of a few millennia ago with say, Neandertals or other extinct members of our family tree. And there's no real evidence that Neanertals were any more or less hairy than modern humans (and there are modern male humans who are hairier than most cinematic cavemen are portrayed).
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
