siri
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by siri on Jan 22, 2004 0:33:06 GMT -5
hi guys!! i know that this is all about shyness but i just want to start a new thread that is very far from shyness... i just wanna know if any one of you likes LOTR? anything that you can comment about that movie. i really like to know coz i really like this movie.. ;D _________ SiRi
|
|
|
Post by greedy_goddess on Jan 22, 2004 19:39:37 GMT -5
Okay lets see. The first movie was good.The second one I thought kinda sucked,and the third one was awesome. Melisa
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Jan 23, 2004 12:48:02 GMT -5
Well i thought all 3 films were rather superb, witht the fellowship being my favourite. I think that the books however are far superior to the films. Reading the ROTK before watching the film kind of ruined the film for me because i though that the book was much better, even though the film was still excellent. I recommend anyone who enjoyed the films to read the books!
|
|
|
Post by Jarous on Jan 23, 2004 13:47:59 GMT -5
I am a great fantasy fan (particularly Middle-earth fan) and I really enjoyed The Fellowship and The Two Towers. The atmosphere, the details, the story (not that it's to Jackson's credit), the effects ... superb movie. But The Return of the King? If you asked me, it's the most supreficial film ever that can't stand a comparison with its predecessors. Strange, I'll be buying the Extended Edition anyway - just to see if the added scenes won't make things somewhat better
|
|
|
Post by Agravein on Feb 5, 2004 14:15:05 GMT -5
I liked all films, but ofcours the books were better. But awsome effects, just some few details that could have been better, or left totaly out. Thumbs up fore Jackson.
|
|
|
Post by Evarie Fayore on May 7, 2004 9:28:24 GMT -5
I saw the first 2 movies before reading the book. I thought the 1st was kinda average (I think that that's because I didn't fully apprieciate some of the characters/events) and I thought the 2nd was awsome. Then I decided to read the book then see the first two movies again. I enjoyed them a lot more than on my first viewing (got occasionally frustrated when characters/events were portrayed differently though). I saw the 3rd one and loved it. The movies were great but the book was better (although hard to get into at first -but definitely worth it!).
|
|
|
Post by Hermit on May 29, 2004 8:50:19 GMT -5
I haven't seen "the Return of the King" yet, but i am anxious to, i plan on buying the dvd soon. Some SPOILERS below! I've probably read the trilogy 15 or 20 times in as many years, it's my favorite novel(s) with the possible exception of the Dark tower series by Steven King. I really enjoyed the movies but even so it lost much in translation, and i don't just mean what had to be left out, there were fundamental changes in the mindsets of the different characters from what the were in the books. For instance: i felt Elrond was a bitter, judgmental naysayer, rather than the unfathomably wise and compassionate individual that he was in the book. In the movie, he seemed defeatist in the extreme, as if there were no hope of success. In the book he was much more composed. He says at one point in the movie that Aragorn has "turned away from that path" referring to Aragorn's quest to restore Arnor and Gondor and to defeat Mordor- which was *never* the case. Aragorn never once wavered in his determination, it had been his lifelong goal. On the subject of Aragorn and Arwen- in the movie Elrond was steadfastly against their relationship- no question. In the books, Elrond raised Aragorn and looked on him with love as his own son. (not coincidentally, Elrond's brother Elros, who chose mortality, was the progenitor of Aragorn's line, and was the first king of his people) Elrond was not opposed to their marriage in the least. His only "stipulation" regarding their joining, was that Aragorn fullfill his destiny and become king before he gave his blessing. Despite his love for Aragorn, he felt his daughter deserved no less- such was the majesty of Elrond's line: direct descendant of one of the first Elven kings and of the otherworldly maiar (angelic being of sauron, gandalf and saruman's race)- Melian. I was similarly unimpressed with the way the Ringwraiths were portrayed- the part in the fellowship where they attack and wound frodo was weak.. i wanted to retch when Aragorn threw the torch into the wraith's face- who then frantically flailed about like one of the three stooges bleh! I also hated the way Arwen caused the river to swell against the them when protecting frodo- as if all elves simply can simply wave a wand, say "hocus-pocus" and shoot fire out of their rear-ends! In the book it was the power of Elrond's great ring and his command of Rivendell *through* that ring that caused the river to swell. What i did like about the movies is how everything looked -with the exception of the dead marshes- which i felt needed to have trees and be a much darker setting, kinda like the florida everglades. I absolutely loved how Mordor looked: mount doom, Bara-dur, the black gate with it's troll powered automatic door system . The shire looked very much like the books described it and how i envisioned it. I also loved the part where Gandalf is imprisoned by Saruman ( i think Ian MacKellen was the absolute best choice for Gandalf) When he jumps from the tower onto Gwaihir the eagle's back was excellent. Gandalf's fight with the Balrog was also cool as hell- falling through the mountain while battling the demon. The location of the film combined with the utter excellence of the computer graphics made for an awesome visual experience which, for me, compensated for my purist's objections to the many shortcomings of the films.
|
|
|
Post by aerie_faerie on Jun 29, 2004 8:05:14 GMT -5
Yay, the LOTR films are complete genius! I don't think anybody else could have done a more briliant adaptation. So deserved it's eleven Oscars ROTK is my favourite by far, although to be honest I was a tiny bit unimpressed with the way taht Mt. Doom was portrayed. But I suppose that was due to the huge build-up and all. I just want to add that I do not merely like LOTR because I am a huge fangirl of Leglolas *ugh* This really belongs on the Overhyped thread, but Orlando Bloom really isn't that brilliant! (Sorry fangirls!) But you have to give him credit for pulling off that blonde wig, not many others could have done that.
|
|
|
Post by Alecto on Jul 1, 2004 18:13:30 GMT -5
I really liked the last one the most. I could have done without Legolas. He's good to look at, but I really didn't feel he added that much to the movie.
|
|
|
Post by losergeek1138 on Jul 27, 2004 14:48:29 GMT -5
this may be heresy, but i thought the movies improved on the books, simply because JRR tolkien's writing is rather slow-paced and wordy...
(prepares for stoning)
|
|
|
Post by Alecto on Jul 27, 2004 17:50:49 GMT -5
I'd have to agree actually. I got bored with trying to read the books.
The words just don't flow.
It took me a month to finish one of his books, when I usually finish others in 2 or 3 days.
|
|
|
Post by Hermit on Jul 27, 2004 20:07:24 GMT -5
*Starts winging sharp edged rocks*
j/k ;D
I guess that's the thing with Tolkien.. you either dig the depth and detail or your bored by how it drags on..
I love how much story is packed into those three books.
I also love the originality of the novels, I felt that this quality -the charm of the story- was drained from it in many key parts of the movie.. the hollywood "cookie cut-out" design which most big films seem to follow mixes badly with Tolkien.
I still loved the films though, they delivered a heck of a lot more enjoyment than i thought they were going to. More than any one other thing in the movie, i was really impressed with Ian Mc Kellan as Gandalf. Whatever face i'd imagined for Gandalf from reading and re-reading those books has been replaced by him.
|
|
|
Post by Jarous on Aug 7, 2004 14:25:33 GMT -5
Bah, the movies are inferior to the novel - they don't even get near. And TROTK was the most shallow of them all - but that's perhaps because too much had to be fitted into too little time - I'll give Jackson another chance in the Extended Edition...
|
|
|
Post by Kitten on Aug 8, 2004 1:07:39 GMT -5
I agree that the books lent a certain charm to the stories that the movies just lacked, but I enjoyed the movies regardless. Peter Jackson did a great job considering the supremely popularity of the LOTR trilogy, and I thought the special effects were breathtaking.
Besides, the books never had Viggo Mortensen...mmm, Viggo.
|
|
|
Post by Jarous on Aug 9, 2004 7:18:49 GMT -5
Nope ... you know why? Because they got Aragorn and that's much much more than Viggo...
|
|