StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've heard gimli plays the voice of treebeard. . . and in behind the scenes the battles go on for quite a while. . .

Saw LOTR at least 3 times in the thearter... more than 5 times if I count the Morpheus downloads and the bootleg DVD I got on it the first week the movie came out. (Chinese street markets have the coolest things... )

But I'm still waiting with baited breath for the expanded version DVD to come out in November. I'm hoping there's going to be a much longer part for Lothlorien and Rivendel.


One thing that kind of threw me off the first time I saw LOTR, though, was Legolas. I was expecting him to be all cheerful and hyperactive as in the book, not the solemn worrier in the movie. But now that I've gotten used to Bloom's Legolas... well, he *is* kinda cute.

Im a little irked that while watching the extra features on the DVD I found out they are going to release an extended version in towards the end of the year.

If I had known that I would have waited. The extra scenes look like they would have removed some cloudy areas for folks that did not read they book.

TPJ if there's any way you can return the DVD or maybe sell it to a friend then do so! I'm waiting till November to buy the special edition DVD. I've already rented LOTR on VHS to satisfy my hunger till then.

I just bought the DVD and am pissed to find out it isn't wide screen! Goes to show, you have to read those damn covers.

They could have done it as six movies....

Lusankya wrote:They could have done it as six movies....

That actually would have made more sense, as the original trilogy was written and organized into six Books. It also would have made it easier to follow the plotlines of the second and third books, so they wouldn't have to jump back and forth between Frodo & Sam's story in Mordor and Aragorn & co's story in Rohan/Gondor. Then they wouldn't have to worry about each movie going overtime too... and still have enough room left to put in those details they had to cut out: Bombadil, Glorfindel, Lothlorien, etc.

TPJ if there's any way you can return the DVD or maybe sell it to a friend then do so! I'm waiting till November to buy the special edition DVD. I've already rented LOTR on VHS to satisfy my hunger till then.

I dont think I can take it back, but I would be okay with just giving to one of my friends then buying the extended version. Thanks for the idea.

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

Isn't that a rather arrogant stance? Assuming that you have to deliberately downplay your product to keep it from being perfect, that is?

Oh well, I guess it's a good thing to have a high self-esteem.

As for what I thought of the film... it matched my mental image surprisingly well - I especially liked the part in the Shire, that was done just perfectly. None of the actors looked completely different from what I had thought, either.

The few things that looked strange to me were the faces of the orcs (I mean, they're supposed to be ugly, but not look like the Toxic Avenger), the Uruk-Hai (were they supposed to be Jamaican Uruks?) and the face of the Cave Troll, but these were minor things.

The one thing I thought they did completely wrong, though, was Lórien. The forest is supposed to be a place of beauty and light, filled with golden trees, not a gloomy place that looks more like an underground cavern than an enchanted grove.

Too bad I only got to see it once in a theatre (since nobody would come with me for a second time... ). Maybe one day I'll be able to buy a DVD player...

The movie was good, but it was not anything special. It was not a masterpiece. The world depicted was indeed brethtaking, but the necessity to make an action film resulted in the diminishing of the work. They had to weaken down the Nazguls, the orcs, and Sauron to make the movie more interesting.

Sauron was never described in the book for a reason. When Jackson made him go around smashing the elves, they made him something definite, not the pesonification of one's greatest fears, like he is in the book. He is more impressive as the Eye.


The orcs were slaughtered by the dozens, and even though that is what happened in the film, it still looked like Medieval Rambo

Finally, the Nazgul. They were scrared off by a TORCH! How lame is that?

Also, there is a specific reason why Arwen could not have faced the Nazguls.


Finally, for all you movie fans, SARUMAN GETS KILLED IN THE TWO TOWERS!
Talk about changing the story.

I agree that the Nazgul and Sauron were considerably weaker than they should have been, but remember that the Nazgul are primarily instruments of fear instead of actual power.

The other person I thought was weakened was Aragorn. There is no way an Uruk Hai should have stood a chance against him, one on one.

I also think they made Saruman considerably more powerful for the movie than he should have been, but that was to simplify things.

Overall, I think that they did an exceptional job with the movie. The acting was superb, and it faithfully followed the book. The cinematography was very good, and their attention to detail was also very good. Certainly a modern classic of film making.

The Battle Of Helms Deep is supposed to be nonstop 45min. Thatsa spicy meatballa.

From the responses I've heard from other viewers, many saw Tom as being pointless, and thanked Eru that he was not featured in the movie. Apparently, he did not advance the plot in the book. A tragedy, cos' Tom is sometimes my kind of guy: big, jovial, with a good Russian sense of jolly good fun

The movie was good. Damn god. A masterpiece to be exact. It many not be true to the book, but it was PJ's interpretation of Tolkien's epic, and that's how I managed to enjoy it. In fact, up there with Star Wars, LoTR the movie as it's place.

I'm considering conscriptingorcs and hobbits into the SOviet Union soon: hobbits to be da cooks, and orcs to be da soldierz. Heh, I'm a hobbit myself, just look at mah tummy !

The best part of the movie, IMHO was where Elendil's son, took up his father's sword, and whopped Sauron's ass. WIth a broken sword. No magic, no special effects, jus plain ol' humanity, instict, bravery, courage, and whop ass. That's one heck of a broken sword.

I for one was not impressed. I can understand getting rid of Tom, but it seemed to me that they changed things that did not need changing. I rather liked Frodo's show of courage at the ford when he faced the Nine. I was quite disgusted by their treatment of Merry and Pippin. They were a bit young and naive, but they were not clownish fools. Then they extended the battle in Moria, but played down the Balrog. How much time might they have saved by keeping the escape from Moria as written? They also did not do a good job of explaining things. Someone who had not read the book likely would have thought that Moria was created by Balin. A couple of lines here or there would have explained so much. And did the battle in Mordor remind anyone of the fight between Morgoth and Fingolfin? All in all, it was visually impressive, but I think it could have been a bit more faithful to the book without being difficult to watch, in fact, it probably would have made more sense.

Kolinar Romanov wrote:From the responses I've heard from other viewers, many saw Tom as being pointless, and thanked Eru that he was not featured in the movie. Apparently, he did not advance the plot in the book. A tragedy, cos' Tom is sometimes my kind of guy: big, jovial, with a good Russian sense of jolly good fun

The movie was good. Damn god. A masterpiece to be exact. It many not be true to the book, but it was PJ's interpretation of Tolkien's epic, and that's how I managed to enjoy it. In fact, up there with Star Wars, LoTR the movie as it's place.

I'm considering conscriptingorcs and hobbits into the SOviet Union soon: hobbits to be da cooks, and orcs to be da soldierz. Heh, I'm a hobbit myself, just look at mah tummy !

Stupid move. Orc's are too tall to crew Soviet tanks. Better to use the hobbits for that, you could cut down the profiles even more…

precious, movie watched it, yes!

precious
kicked ass it did precious, we kill those who dissagree right prescious.

We hate Sci0Fi stealing Bragga's forever, yes.

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:precious, movie watched it, yes!

precious
kicked ass it did precious, we kill those who dissagree right prescious.

We hate Sci0Fi stealing Bragga's forever, yes.

Ok....that sounded like Yoda for awhile there.

fgalkin wrote: Sauron was never described in the book for a reason. When Jackson made him go around smashing the elves, they made him something definite, not the pesonification of one's greatest fears, like he is in the book. He is more impressive as the Eye.

*shrug* They followed the book, we know Sauron went out to face the Last Alliance, thats how he got his finger cut off and lost the Ring in the first place.

The orcs were slaughtered by the dozens, and even though that is what happened in the film, it still looked like Medieval Rambo

Urr....how would you suggest they had done it? As you said, they followed the book, how were they to go about not making it medieval Rambo?

Finally, the Nazgul. They were scrared off by a TORCH! How lame is that?

Meh, I haven't read the book in too long, how did they drive them off when they stabbed Frodo? Dun remember. Though I would have liked if they had included even a short scene where they see fire on Weathertop from Gandalf fighting the Nazgul and find his rune.

Also, there is a specific reason why Arwen could not have faced the Nazguls.

They needed to give Arwen a bigger role, and anyone who hasn't read the book and probably quite a few who have wouldn't realise that.

Finally, for all you movie fans, SARUMAN GETS KILLED IN THE TWO TOWERS!
Talk about changing the story.

Nyet. Christopher Lee has said he will appear in all three movies. So unless someone starts having flashbacks of Saruman for some reason, its reasonable to assume he is still kicking (Maybe we'll get to see the Harrowing of the Shire?)

Rhadamanthus wrote:
Nyet. Christopher Lee has said he will appear in all three movies. So unless someone starts having flashbacks of Saruman for some reason, its reasonable to assume he is still kicking (Maybe we'll get to see the Harrowing of the Shire?)

A major piece of foreshadowing for it didn't make FOTR. And it would likely take 15-30 minutes of screen time to cover. Given how full the movies are already, they may simply not have time. In that case, they still need to kill off Saruman, so they may as well do it in the second movie.

We will see in time I guess.

Captain_Cyran wrote:

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:precious, movie watched it, yes!

precious
kicked ass it did precious, we kill those who dissagree right prescious.

We hate Sci0Fi stealing Bragga's forever, yes.

Ok....that sounded like Yoda for awhile there.

My smeagal/gullum impression usually does sound like yoda....

USAF Ace wrote: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 wrote:of course. the movie is amazing. jawdropping. stunning. wonderful.

Well, last night I rented the DVD and watched LOTR for the first time. I unhappily have to report that I reallly didn't enjoy it. It was surely a technical masterpeice, the special effects were top notch, and the acting was better than average. I can easily understand why people love this film, but alas, its effects were lost on me. I got lost and disinterested in the movie very early on, and spent the last three quarters of it wondering when it will come to an end. I guess it's just not my cup of tea.

I read the book many years ago as a child, but I wasn't super-impressed with the movie. Those scenes of 50 orcs dying for every "good guy" come off OK in your imagination, but they look really stupid onscreen. Also, the "boom boom, see the evil orcs massing" scenes were really repetitive after a while.

I liked the mood and atmosphere of the film, but it's not as good as its fans make it out to be.

The mithryl armour also plays out a lot better in the mind of a 12-year old child than it does in the analytical mind of an adult. No matter how hard and strong that mythical armour is, it won't save Frodo's life from a giant cave troll spear because it's flexible. This means he will die of blunt-force trauma despite the armour's mystical strength. He'll be dead of massive internal hemorrhaging inside his perfectly intact piece of magic chain-mail.