Who has watched LotR?

Mr. B · Post by **Mr. B** » 2002-08-09 01:01am

I bought it on Tuesday and have seen it several times. I still think it is an awesome movie and it was snubbed at the Oscars by Beautiful Mind(which sucked)

Who thinks The Two Towers will be even better?

Because I know I do.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-08-09 01:08am

I saw it twice in the theater, and rented it on the frist day, watching it twice. I'm holding out for the four disk set to buy though.

The two towers was a better book and will be an even better moive. TFOR has to spend to much time setting up everything, Two towers can devote alot mroe time to actions, which are also more intresting.

Somthing I never liked about TFOR was that over half the book was spent getting to Rivendell, though I think that stems from the fact that as wirrten, everything was suppost to be one long book, rather then three moderate sized ones.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-08-09 02:18am

But TFOR had Tom Bombadil!

I was muchly disappointed that he didn't show in the film.

Mr. B · Post by **Mr. B** » 2002-08-09 02:31am

Lusankya wrote: But TFOR had Tom Bombadil!

I was muchly disappointed that he didn't show in the film.

They only left him out because of the time involved. The movie couldn't run to 4 hours even if we wanted it to.

Shadowfyre · Post by **Shadowfyre** » 2002-08-09 02:53am

4 times in the theater.

Received it as a present on Tuesday.

4 more times since then.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2002-08-09 04:09am

Bombadil would have had everyone but diehard Tolkien fans shrieking with derisive laughter.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2002-08-09 06:29am

Some cultures have a tradition of deliberately putting flaws into their works of art, since only the gods could create something perfect.

Well, LOTR is no different. Its flaw? "If you want him... Come and claim him!" ::shudder:: Cliche'd action-movie parlance.

Oh well. That one flaw was necessary, for without it, LOTR would be so perfect a movie that it would have rendered us incapable of enjoying ANYTHING else ever again.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-08-09 06:41am

Never seen it, hardly know what it's about...

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2002-08-09 07:57am

Well, I'm a big fan of the book, of course, and I liked the movie. It did capture some of the scale and majesty of the world, especially Moria (thoough I never got the impression in the book that it was such a decaying pile) and when they sailed between the Argonath (the two great statues of Isildur and Anarion). I had no idea Bree was such a dump though.
Of course, they had to increase Arwens role, mostly by making her do stuff that was filled by other Elf Lords. She was pretty cliched, but then again, they had nothing in the book to go by. The scene in the book was Frodo, on Glorfindels horse, crossing the ford with the Riders close behind. He turned to face them and drew his sword, so the Nazgul moved in for the kill. Unfortunately, the river had a different plan, for Elrond asked it to overflow and consume the Nazgul (Gandalf added the horses and such for effect). Good stuff, but not nearly dramatic as Arwen staring down nine pissed Wraiths and then her doing elf-magic to deal with them.
I missed old Tom, but to be fair, he wasn't necessary to the plot. Plus they would have had to explain him, and Tolkien purposely left him an engima (there is a big debate on what Tom is). In fact, IIRC, the character predates the writing Lord of the Rings for a few years. As big as the movie was, they couldn't include him, though it would have been nice.
One problem I had that I don't know how they are going to address is the Numenorean swords that the Hobbits got in the Barrowdowns. They skipped the Barrowdowns entirely, and the fact that those are Arnorian swords are significant (at least it is with Merry when he stabbed he Witch King). Aragorn picked them up at Amon Sul in the movie, which I suppose is the good place to find it since it was Arnorian, but you'd think that Amon Sul would have been thoroughly looted by then. Oh well, nitpick on my part.
It's an enjoyable movie.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-08-09 09:19am

Tons of it

Just they did leave Tom out did they? Never got a chance to see the movies on the big screen but I'll grap the DVD

Next of Kin · Post by **Next of Kin** » 2002-08-09 10:45am

But TFOR had Tom Bombadil!

I was muchly disappointed that he didn't show in the film.

Lusankya, I felt the exact same when I heard that Tom didn't make the cut but if he was added in, LOTR would have been closer to 4 hours instead of three. That's just way too many trips to the concession stand and the washroom for me!

starfury · Post by **starfury** » 2002-08-09 11:50am

But TFOR had Tom Bombadil!

yeah I missed him too, I only saw it once but I intend to get the DVD once it came out, awesome film and it was only the start of the trilogy.

the two towers should definently be better as it is the second film in a trilogy and the second film is usually the best, though the LOTR surprises with it's high quality with it's first film.

still I can't stand sitting still for 4 hours if that was to be the original length of the film.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-08-09 12:27pm

I saw the movies 4 times, but its was really only great that first time. After that its just fun.

( minor nitpick)

To be honest Tom Bombadil was lost on me, I had completely forgotten about him until I reread the book after the movie. I read the book for the first time in grade school in the early 80's.

I did pick up the DVD at Borders for 23 bucks only to find out Frys had it for $16. DOH!

I thought that for people that did not read the book the whole seen in Lothlorien ( sp ? ) was lost on them. They did not now about the Elvin ring, or what the test was about.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2002-08-09 12:40pm

have the dvd, watched it twice in 24 hrs. bwhah.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-08-09 12:51pm

Okay feel for me, I work part time as a projectionist at the theaters as well as going to uni and I actually got to see the movie heaps of times, Star Wars too! In fact I used to see them both at least three times a week from upstairs for free! Are you guys feeling sorry for me yet?

Well here is the bad part, when FOTR first came out, my manager pulled me aside and told me that I was not allowed under any circumstance to throw or bash people with the trash-can if they came out of the movie saying;

Stupid person at cinema: Uhh what was the point? They didn't even do anything at the end... Is this just an intermition or something?...Duh

And if you knew in what kind of area I work in, believe me when I say; feel sorry for me... So many people... So little time....

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2002-08-09 01:30pm

The best part of the TFOR movie was the lack of that irritating ass Bombadil.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-08-09 03:02pm

I agree that it was robbed at the Oscars. It is clearly the better movie in every way.

I am not saying that BM was bad. In fact, I rather liked the movie, but it was not Fellowship. It was not even close. Hopefully, Two Towers will be as good or better, but it will also be a more difficult movie to do. In Fellowship, there were pretty clearly certain scenes that could be dropped because of time. Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wights were kind of their own sub-plot, and could be removed for brevity and simplicity. In Two Towers, there are very few such scenes, and the film-makers will have a more difficult job of determining what to cut and what to keep.

Incidentally, attacks on the movie's length are full of shit. What kind of readers are these people, who cannot sit down and be entertained for three hours?

spongyblue · Post by **spongyblue** » 2002-08-09 06:46pm

My theroy on the Oscars is that they figure "Hey there are two more comming out, we can give them the awards when the last ones done." Asshole acadamy

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2002-08-09 08:00pm

Apparently, I'm the only human being alive who didn't like it. I fell asleep at least twice on it.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-08-09 10:12pm

I am about to say the unthinkable: I have never seen Lord of the Rings, or have read the book.

I am about to ask the unthinkable: Would it be worth it for me to go rent the first movie on dvd? Is this something that an agnostic viewer could get into?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2002-08-09 10:25pm

of course. the movie is amazing. jawdropping. stunning. wonderful.

Subnormal · Post by **Subnormal** » 2002-08-09 10:42pm

Im just glad all of the movies will be out in Theatres and DVD before Ep 3 even comes out so I don't have so much free time.

I hope in TTT they don't drop the Ents they are very very important characters, probably will all be CGI, I didn't see them in any of the trailors. The battle of Helms deep will be awesome, hopefully it's not as short as the Battle at the beginning of FOTR was, it looked cool but was only 10 seconds long, I hope this one lasts a few minutes. I was dissapointed at times when they left out stuff that I thought interesting or I wanted to see, I have no clue was a Barrowwight looks like and it would of been cool to find out. And when Frodo gets the knife in the dark, and they go to the Stone Trolls they could of explained it, as they did in the book. I told my father when the movie got to where sam was and Frodo were starting out from Hobbiton that the movie was going to be very long, I wish it would be longer, but suspense and such would of decreased and possible bordum would of set in. The Book and the movies are two different things and I believe they should be looked at differently.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-08-09 11:27pm

I also hope that they keep the Ents because Treebeard is such a great character and the Ents are such a funny and exotic race. I was mildly curious to find out what a barrowwight looked like, but I was also not especially looking forward to Tom Bombadil in Fellowship. I thought that it would needlessly slow the movie down on a kind of sub-plot if they visited him and talked about the wights.

Subnormal · Post by **Subnormal** » 2002-08-10 12:12am

They left out the entire Old Forest part in the movie which took up about 40 or so pages of the book, though it would of been boring, but I would of liked to See the Old Willow and Bombadil's house, and I forget her name but the girl who lived with him. They could of just had a swift scroll from them entering the Old forest then get caught in willow then go to Bombadil's for the night they get caught by barrowwrights then freed by bombadil and they get their weapons last no longer than 8 minutes if done right. I was a bit disappointed with the Prancing Pony scenes, in the book they have a lot more hobbits and such in it, but in the movie it was all abunch of wicked looking men, And Bree looked like a muddy hell hole.

If the Ents are left out of TTT I will be heavily dissapointed, they are so important to the stroy line, and interesting.

I don't remember the Balrog having a flaming whip in FOTR I remember Gandalf "Smoting" fire and when the Balrog steped on the the Bridge they both fell, but I guess it gave those who never read the books a scense of drama, or surprise.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2002-08-10 12:56am

Well, I do not believe the Ents are out, i think we can see a Ent in the trailler...

I liked the movie . thought did not liked Liv Taylor...Its just seemed the out teory : Its for guys. Rpg do not show girls, so they had to put one up.
Of the part outs, I missed the singing. But I know, people out get mad. And Galladriel role was too little...
But the movie had momments, how they are able to show things in the way i pictured...Gandalf refusing the ring, first time they look at Aragorn, the elfs. Amazing. But Moira part rocked.
A part of Oscar...Cmom, Gladiator and Titanic won it. Academy is just plain and simple minded.