View Full Version : Lord Of The Rings...
just saw it... I LOVED IT!!!!
And once again - I need to go to New Zealand for some riding...
HOLY CRAP!!! Those mountains are freaking sweeeeet!!!!
Skilasnow
12-17-2003, 08:01 PM
DMC:
just saw it... I LOVED IT!!!!
And once again - I need to go to New Zealand for some riding...
HOLY CRAP!!! Those mountains are freaking sweeeeet!!!! I haven't even seen the second one yet
But Heck yeah wanna go to NZ for some sliding :skiplow:
Amen to an NZ Haute Tour! Great Idea :happydog:
As for the movie....I have three bones to pick.
Well informed folks should skip my beefs untill after they have seen the film. The rest, just follw the icons.
:p
:p
:p
:p
:p
:p
:p
Two involve proof of kingship by healing and the third is an entire epic that should have happend after the saving of Middle Earth.
1) Eomer and his son are missing, key to getting the houses of healing into the picture.
2)Consequently the King is not able to visit the houses of healing to treat the wounds of Eowen and be in the loop on Faramir's condition. Many accept Aragorn only after he has healed the wounded.
3)What about the fierce Hobbits? Where was "Sharky" (aka Sauruman), no battle to save the shire, no Hobbit resistance fighters? What about the doom of Sauruman and Wormtounge?
Aside from that and the few additions, it was a very nice film. I'm sure some of that stuff will show up on the second release DVD...profit motive being more important than fealty.....gee, wasnt the entire saga about fealty?
I hear you about that plot line...
But if they added that on top of the 3 1/2 hours it would've been insane.. I hope that does come out on the DVD.... then i can just hit pause...
skidude
12-18-2003, 03:10 PM
Is anyone board of the rings? :bored:
Modern moviegoers are wimps....Cecile B DeMille would be having a fit:
Itty Bitty screen; tittillation instead of character development; story board instead of plots and sub-plots.
Bah Humbug!
Ten Commandments, Gone With the Wind...if you cover time, cover it. Life is a rich fabric, let's see the colors, feel the texture!
elwood
12-21-2003, 06:49 PM
RR:
Amen to an NZ Haute Tour! Great Idea :happydog:
As for the movie....I have three bones to pick.
Well informed folks should skip my beefs untill after they have seen the film. The rest, just follw the icons.
:p
:p
:p
:p
:p
:p
:p
Two involve proof of kingship by healing and the third is an entire epic that should have happend after the saving of Middle Earth.
1) Eomer and his son are missing, key to getting the houses of healing into the picture.
2)Consequently the King is not able to visit the houses of healing to treat the wounds of Eowen and be in the loop on Faramir's condition. Many accept Aragorn only after he has healed the wounded.
3)What about the fierce Hobbits? Where was "Sharky" (aka Sauruman), no battle to save the shire, no Hobbit resistance fighters? What about the doom of Sauruman and Wormtounge?
Aside from that and the few additions, it was a very nice film. I'm sure some of that stuff will show up on the second release DVD...profit motive being more important than fealty.....gee, wasnt the entire saga about fealty? Good points RR, I have these grievances as well:
1) What was with the way they came across the palantir from Orthanc? Pippen just found it lying in the water? Wormtounge was supposed to throw that from the tower!!! No showdown with Saruman there either.
2) The book focused alot on the bonding between Sam and Frodo as the braved the evils of Mordor. The movie took its sweet a$$ time even getting to the confrontation with Shelob! That happened in the 2nd book.
and I stress your arguement about the reclaiming of the Shire. That was a huge part of the book that they completely left out. I only hope that is what is changed for the extended edition.
Other than that, it was a stellar movie, and should be seen by all. Jackson did a great job of portraying the books on film, better than any other director could have done, in my mind. Two thumbs up!
NH_tele
12-21-2003, 07:45 PM
I haven't seen it yet, but judging by the first two, it should be awesome!!!
And yes, those NZ are amazing, I remember thinking that, and only that when I first saw the intro to the second movie (it's got a kind of panning fly-by of the tops of the Misty Mountains)
The first two definitely did justice to the books.
I don't really care if one or two details here and there is slightly mis-placed, I mean, I've read the books enough (10+ times!) that a straight translation into film wouldn't even be as "cool".
The very first time I read the books, I didn't like the last "scouring of the Shire" part of the book, but in all readings since then I've thought it's a valuable addition to the series. However, I'd imagine the reason that it wasn't included is that Frodo, who is the pseudo "hero" of the series, doesn't have as big a part in those chapters. I think that's probably what made me initially dislike that part, and probably why it was removed.
el-bagr
12-22-2003, 08:32 AM
I definitely agree with the sage observations on the holes in the movie plot. I heard the extended version will only have an additional 45 minutes, while over 4 hours of plot-coherent footage lies on the proverbial floor.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.