Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tarmac on December 17, 2003, 03:24:29 AM
-
Greatest movie ever.
-
Just got back. Freakn' awsome:aok Best movie experience Ive ever had:D
-
ditto saw the 12:20am show last night freaking amazing.
-
I'm looking forward to it, and seen good reviews. What did you guys think of 1 and 2 (movie versions), and did you read the books before or after?
-
Good go hear! Did you manage to get through it without a bathroom break? :)
-
Yup - Return of the King fits perfectly along the other 2s - you just feel they are meant to be ONE!
And I've seen em as ONE yesterday - 1500-0230 - OMG, my rear did hurt. And I didn't make it to the toilet in the second break - missed a battle in The Two Towers because I had to jump from my seat to take a leak!
[Spoiler!!!!]
Oh, btw, did your cinema also go crazy when Eowyn cut the head of the Nazguls flying creature? Best battle scene of all times - lots of action, epic and humor! Those Olifant scenes rememberd me of the Battle of Hoth in The Empire Strikes back!
-
I guess maybe I should clarify. I thought the first two movies had good and bad points. By far and away the best part was the casting, and I expect that to continue of course. I cannot imagine choosing better actors for the hobbits, legolas, gimli, strider, gandalf, saruman, boromir, faramir, and all the rest. They represented their characters perfectly, in looks and behavior.
Some of the bad points imo--
comic relief gimli in #2. if i am in the middle of a tense scene, I don't want to be "relieved" of the tension by some completely lame-ass smart aleck remarks.
stupid-ass narrative dialogue ("here we are"; "we have been traveling for days"; "we are searching for the hobbits"; "and no break in sight")
unexplained over-melodramatization which makes sense in the book but not in the movie (slo-mo appearance of shadowfax)
explained but lame over-melodramatization (every character dies dramatically at least once and is brought back to life dramatically several times over).
BTW, check out http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/01/jaromir.html. It's more of a slam on the disasters known as E1 and E2, but it of course applies here as well. :D
So I guess what I am asking is, do the rest of you agree with this, and if so #3 is going to kick bellybutton for me too. :)
-
Saw it. Rocked, as expected.
Funkedup is gay.
-
"It still only counts as one!!"
Favorite line in Return of the King.
Man... Theater went crazy when he said that...:lol
-
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/152728_ringsider.html
-
Thx for the link sandman. Looks like there's some lameness here too. But on balance I'll prolly like it anyway, it is lotr after all.
Aragorn gets his sword because Arwen is dying? Arwen with a "daddy-lied-to-me moment"? LOL :D I guess they had to throw some chickflickiness into it. What is hollywood without that.
-
take your fanboy blindfolds off. that move was medicore. master and commander and last samurai were far better.
after the 18th ending where pip and merry go to boston to get married i wanted to hang myself.
-
Hawklore, agree with you on Gimli's line there.
I saw it yesterday at the 2:30 PM showing. I pulled two of my kids out of school early to catch a matinee, qualifying me for "coolest dad of the year" award. I enjoyed it immensely, and was glad the movie didn't end with the royal wedding, but instead returned to Hobbiton. While I'm sad they didn't include the "scouring of the Shire," I understand Jackson's reasons for leaving it out. While I too raised an eyebrow when Elrond made his "Arwen's dying" remark, I could overlook it since the rest of the movie was so dang enjoyable. Since they chose to write Arwen more fully into the story (what's a cinematic epic without a love interest), I didn't mind the whole bit about the three-way struggle between Aragorn, Arwen, and Elrond. However, if I was writing the script, I'd have just had Elrond tell Aragorn that Arwen chose after all to abandon an imortal life for him, and that he must accept his birthright for her sake, as well as for humanity's. That would have given Aragorn's charactor plenty enough motivation to "become who you were born to be", without all that nonsense about Arwen's fate being tied literally to the one ring's.
All in all, two thumbs waaaaay up:aok.
-
Ordered tickets to see it Friday on an IMAX screen. Booyah!
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
pip and merry go to boston to get married i wanted to hang myself.
christ, you're kidding--they get married? LOL. unbelievable. ok, my expectations are lowered a bit. WTF is wrong with hollywood movies, that the endings almost *always* blow goats...
-
I'm seeing it tommorow with a bunch of my friends at 3:20. Thing is, I'm getting a tooth drilled at 12:20. How long will the novocaine last? Will I drool on myself for the whole movie?
-
Mold
Fromn4n is a troll, and a poor one at that, do not listen to him.
-
hawker238
Wouldn't you end up doing that anyway? I mean drooling on yourslelf?
LOL couldnt resist.
:D
-
Originally posted by mold
christ, you're kidding--they get married? LOL. unbelievable. ok, my expectations are lowered a bit. WTF is wrong with hollywood movies, that the endings almost *always* blow goats...
LOL, I think think "boston" should have tipped you off that he wasn't serious.
-
Originally posted by SOB
LOL, I think think "boston" should have tipped you off that he wasn't serious.
Seriously, it's well within the realm of possibility, Boston included. LOL. You just can't overestimate cheeziness, when it comes to movies.
-
The first movie of the trilogy remains my favorite. For me, it literally made the epic come alive. The Two Towers was a bit of a disappointment because in several places it departed, quite unnecessarily, from the original story line. The Return of the King was better. The only real gripe I have about it was that Frodo and Sam spent way too much time shouting at each other about Gollum. Frodo tossing Sam out on his ear didn't work very well either.
Despite the length of these films, I felt that there was a lack of development of certain characters. Eomer, especially, was almost a non-entity.
One of the best and most heroic scenes in the book is the clash between Eowyn and the Witch King. It was ably translated to film by producer Peter Jackson. Perhaps it could have been improved upon, but not bad nevertheless. "...and she raised her shield against the horror of her enemy's eyes."
-
The first movie of the trilogy remains my favorite. For me, it literally made the epic come alive. The Two Towers was a bit of a disappointment because in several places it departed, quite unnecessarily, from the original story line. The Return of the King was better. The only real gripe I have about it was that Frodo and Sam spent way too much time shouting at each other about Gollum. Frodo tossing Sam out on his ear didn't work very well either.
Despite the length of these films, I felt that there was a lack of development of certain characters. Eomer, especially, was almost a non-entity.
One of the best and most heroic scenes in the book is the clash between Eowyn and the Witch King. It was ably translated to film by producer Peter Jackson. Perhaps it could have been improved upon, but not bad nevertheless. "...and she raised her shield against the horror of her enemy's eyes."
-
Peter Jackson is a butchering pig****ing *******.
-
Yeah, that might be true. Wish they had chosen another director for this epic masterpiece. So many good names out there...D Lynch, R Scott, F Coppola....
Doesn't Jackson specialize in horror movies or something?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
One of the best and most heroic scenes in the book is the clash between Eowyn and the Witch King.
I think prolly the most heroic scene is when Sam kicks bellybutton at the end of book 2. "Now come, you filth!" Wonder if that's done good on film. Well anyway I'll see it this weekend.
-
Originally posted by mold
Yeah, that might be true. Wish they had chosen another director for this epic masterpiece. So many good names out there...D Lynch, R Scott, F Coppola....
Doesn't Jackson specialize in horror movies or something?
This movies are Jackson's project, discarded by Miramax, and passed to Newline cinema.
It's a New Zealand movie, not an Holliwood one.
The only suitable director is the "almost writer/media translator" : Peter Jackson.
It's not perfect, but is a damned good work.
For a better vision, and a more complete adherence, buy the dvd extended editions.
And watch the extras, he eplain a lot of choises.
-
I got bored after 30 minutes watching the first two LOTR movies.
-
Originally posted by Naso
It's not perfect, but is a damned good work.
Yeah, but it has more basic problems I think. I'm not talking about the adherence to the book...it has problems when you look at it as a standalone movie. E.g. over-melodramatic situations and dialogue, comic relief, bits and pieces meaninglessly thrown in from the books. Some of it was very well executed (casting and costumes and "visual atmosphere" come to mind). But some of it was not. A director known for better execution may have done a better job at the basics.
-
Who the hell was the Retarded/Burn Victim Orc that led the attack on Gondor. Its been a while since I've read the Trilogy(6 months).
*Semi-Spoiler*
The Oliphants and the Nazgul attack on retreat of Faramir was completely out of this world. As a matter of fact, anything with the Winged Creatures was worth the price of admission especially the Nazgul vs. Eagles.
-
As a long time tolkien geek i have to say. The movie accompishes so much, but the writers let their pride lead them astray. Of all the things they added only the oliphant scene worked.
The orc landing craft,
Denathors 1km flaming run,
arwen dieing if the ring isnt destroyed,
arwen turning back from the grey havens because of a vision of her child,
aragorns doubt about wanting to be king,
doppy the big orc leader,
sneaking up to light the beacon,
the counter attack to take osgiliath back
Parts that they left as close as possible amazed me. I would have never thought you could film the captivity of Frodo so accuratly and easily. I couldnt imagine how they would make that whole section in mordor. But he pulled it off increadably well.
The battle of the pellenor fields was increadable. Why they changed the timeing so that there was no confrontation between the witch king and Gandalf and there for allowing the bad guys into the city is beyond me as well.
In the time they showed the stupid fires of gondor going to rohan and arwens biological clock ticking they could have included the scouring of the shire. The book with out the scouring of the shire is a different story.
Why it was neccessary to rewrite aragorn as a hesitent man who didnt want to be king is totally beyond me. Its like if the master and commander screen play had Jack Aubery be a hesitent man who didnt want to be captain..
-
Return of the D&D homos standing in line wearing elf suits and plastic swords.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
In the time they showed the stupid fires of gondor going to rohan and arwens biological clock ticking they could have included the scouring of the shire. The book with out the scouring of the shire is a different story.
I might be one of the few, but I'm glad they left that out. As I told my wife on the way out of the theater: "If you thought the movie wouldn't let go at the end, you should try the book"
I liked the movie a lot. My favorite part was watching the Rohirrim Riding for Gondor. That was pretty cool. Im not sure why, but it was my favorite part.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I might be one of the few, but I'm glad they left that out. As I told my wife on the way out of the theater: "If you thought the movie wouldn't let go at the end, you should try the book"
I agree it doesn't belong in the movie, but it was a good part of the book imo. He builds up some characters in a series of quests, they come back to find a bunch of *******s in charge, and the returning travellers kick some ass. A good plot.
-
That whole chapter would be a very short maybe 15 minutus in the book but really shows the growth of the hobbit characters.
I also think that if they were filming the movie starting today. They would be better off with CG elves
-
It was lots of fun to watch. I was dissapointed that they didn't explore why Denethor was so warped, though. When this is exposed in the book, that Denethor had been looking through another palantir stone and was exposed to such evil and powerful visions by Sauron that he lost all his pride will to resist I was surprised. I was also waiting for the Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dur to meet Aragorn and his army at the Black Gate with Frodo and Sam's equipment; but with the way the movie was organized, that scene would have lost all of its suspense. I just wanted to see how diabolic he would look on screen. ;p
The books are basically a great story with wonderful plot, and the movies--especially the last two--are thematically action flicks. 'tis why the first remains my favorite of the movies: it is the most intimate. But that's how high budget movies are made today. At least the LoTR series, that blends the action and drama quite well, doesn't present itself as as a pretentious, poorely written borefest ala Master and Commander or Cold Mountain. Can't believe they are nominated for anything. At least I saw them for free.
funkedup is gay since early '02.
but i love animal.
-
but i love animal.
Aint that sweet!!!
-
It is all based around prince charle's private fantasy...wont happen though
-
So...any hints to who the retarded/burn-victim Orc was supposed to be?
-
my mum.
-
<3 nath
Originally posted by RightF00T
So...any hints to who the retarded/burn-victim Orc was supposed to be?
The retard from The Goonies.
-
LOL, I thought the same friggin' thing when I saw him. "CHUUUNK!"
-
Saw it last night.
Got to say I am disapointed.
Forced dialogue, no smooth transition from sceen to sceen, strange occurances that made no sense to those of us that cant speak Elvish.
Overall a fine movie, but I think it suffers from 'Return of the Jedi' syndrome.
Youve got the first, and the best movie that started it - Fellowship/ANH - youve got the second movie, which was the better movie from all accounts, yet cant lay claim to 'the original' - TTT/Empire - and the last film, which appears to be a soap opera of loose ends being tied up and a collection of 'stuff' thrown together to make an 'epic' film but failing - RotK/RotJ.
SOILERS---------------
I was really hoping the movie would have the same 'feel' as the trailer - but it didnt. Aragorn's 'speech' when he rallys his men looked awe inspiring in the trailer - but looked like a poor attempt to mimic Mel Gibson in the film.
How many frikken times can Frodo "die?"
Not having read RotK yet, I was surprised to see a few things - namely the total lack of main charectar deaths. Granted these are books written some time ago - but in order to convey the significance of the task (destroying the ring) you need to shock an audience by showing them what is willingly sacrificed in order to attain this. I think Frodo should have dove in with the ring and died. I also think one of the other two Hobbits should have died. The Dwarf would have been a nice touch - Baromir, etc.
Everyone was just fine at the end - whats that crap? It felt like a cheap fairy tale or the ending of a Zelda videogame. :rolleyes:
Some things I dont understand.
Why did Frodo and Bilbo leave with the elves at the end?
Where was Saruman this whole time?
Why was Faromir's pop nuts?
Fellowship was surprisingly good.
Towers was outstanding.
Return fell short.
-
Saw it last night too.
I found it very satisfying, but Saur's questions are valid. Anyone who is not familiar with the books would be confused by some of the events. My wife had many questions similar to yours. I think this story could have been 4 good movies. Jackson tried to do too much without sufficient explaination. Hopefully the extended version will fill in more of the holes.
Spoilers***********
Frodo and Bilbo get a free pass on the Elven love boat because they were ring bearers. The ring causes permanent damage to it's bearers. Sam gets a ride too (if you're geeky enough to read the appendicies you find this out.) beacause he too bore the ring for a short time.
Where was Saruman? - He plays a pivotal role in the "Scouring of the Shire" section of the book. He is supposed to be guarded by Treebeard and friends, but he is let go out of compasion and proceeds to cause havoc in the Shire. The returning hobbitts take care of that little business in herioc fashion.
Faramir's Pop Nuts? - (Had to read that a few times) In the book Denethor has a Palantir (seeing stone) He sees what Sauron lets him see however. The last thing he is allowed to see are the Corsairs (ships) sailing up from the South. This drives him mad as he thinks the ships carry even more enemy. (When in fact Aragorn has already taken them for his ghost army.)
-
Overall I loved it.
The ghost army was insane. Were they that effective in the book at fighting and the "mop up" job as depicted in the battle scenes?
Also, the ending "embrace" between Sam and Frodo was a few seconds too long and the kiss to the forehead didn't help... Along with the affectionate gazes, it gave it a minor homosexual flare :)
Nazgul question -- How does the Witch King "die" in the book? I thought the Nazgul were undead (not dead, but not living) and could not be "killed" by a man. Yet, a woman and a hobbit have no trouble dealing with him.
-
He couldn't be killed by a MAN.
The Witch King slaying is pretty true to the book.
-
Going too see it tomorrow, have only read the first two books so i dont know how it ends :D
After this one theres no good movies to look forward for... The new starwars trilogy is prulely crapola.... so what do you look forward to now movie wise????
Any word on The Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy making the big screen?
-
It was very good, the ending was 20 mins too long tough...
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Any word on The Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy making the big screen?
LOL. Don't wish for too much. There are certain things whose beauty is in their written form. :) I have a feeling that a HHG movie would kinda be a disaster.
-
Add 1980-esque aura, bad acting, and horrible special effects and you have the HHG movie.
-
the Witch King vs. Gandalf shoulda happened just like in the book.....then the Horns of Rohan sound on Pelennor Field.
in the movie they make Gandalf look like he's scared of the Witch King....far from it in the Book.
when the battering ram (wolf's head...sauron was also known to take shape as a wolf) busts the doors....its not Trolls we suppose to see....But the Witch King vs. Gandalf....that would of been much better.
beacon fires....waste of time
Merry hits the Witch King with an old Elvish blade found in Tom Bombadils Territory....we haven't seen that in the movie....He hits
the Witch right behind the knee...thats why he falters.....but merry is hurting at the same time...its the fact that his blade is Elvish that saves him.....NO MAN MAY KILL THE KING OF THE NAZGUL....doesn't say anywhere a women can't.
I think jackson fugged up royally when it comes to the character interaction....but he did well for the battle scenes.
thats why the book is good....it had both.
-
Second and third movies aint bad but the first one was superb...
The travel thru Moria had the Exact feel to it as in the book... 2nd and third lost a bit of "feel" dunno if that is the right word hehe :D
And the ending of part 3 was about 15 - 20 mins too long, was itching in my seat hoping it would end like 4 times...
-
agree that the 1st movie was the closes to the book.....
what pissed me off about the 1st is they left Tom Bombadil out of it.....would of been funny seein Ol' Tom put on the ring and nothing happens.....he just laughs:D
but it still was the best....
2nd an 3rd where action flicks...nothing to do with the book.
and I understand perfectly when you say FEEL....cause I didn't FEEL it was anywhere close to what J.R.R Tolkien wanted people to feel....it took him over 10 years to write that book...and the character interactions are pivatol to the story :(
-
The Oliphants were incredible. :)
The army of the dead was better than I could have imagined.
(http://www.lordoftherings.net/legend/gallery/images/pelennor/image3.jpg)
Enjoyed the movie... was a little disappointed about Minas Tirith. It looked good, but it had no life to it. The book spent quite a bit of time explaining what it was like to be a citizen of Gondor. The movie treated them all like cannon fodder.
I was surprised to see Saruman simply cast aside. Compared to the book, in the first two editions, his role was elevated.
Arwen? Sorry Pete, I like Liv Tyler as much as the next guy, but this was a bit much.
Cirith Ungol? Jackson could have spent less time on the beacon lighting and made this more than an afterthought.
Shelob? Visually stunning, but absolutely no sense at all that she was sentient.
Last, I knew that Sharkey wasn't going to make it to the movie... still, that's always been one of my favorite parts of the book.
-
Sandyman, I wasn't nearly as critical as you abou tthe movie: I thought it was about as good as anyone else could have done, and better than most. But I would love to have seen the ending where the Hobbits returned to the Shire and kicked ass, as they did in the book. That would have been worth about 30 minutes all by itself.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Sandyman, I wasn't nearly as critical as you abou tthe movie: I thought it was about as good as anyone else could have done, and better than most. But I would love to have seen the ending where the Hobbits returned to the Shire and kicked ass, as they did in the book. That would have been worth about 30 minutes all by itself.
Don't get me wrong... when the super-special-all-inclusive-limited-edition-everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-LOTR DVD box set comes out, I'm buying it. :)
-
I'm betting the "scouring of the Shire" will be on the extended version. Remember the vision Frodo had in the mirror of Galadriel? That was the Shire burning... which means it was filmed.
-
Ooooooohhhhh....aaaahhhhh.... .good point. The extended version, acording to my 16 yr old son, who knows all and can't be told anything, will be 5-5.5 hrs long.
I'm gettin it when it comes out.
-
I think the director got a little carried away with ROTK. Way too many slow motion linger on people scenes. Too much panning in and out from the spectacular views and simply too much overdramatization when it wasn't necessary.
A good flick... but about 30 minutes longer than it needed to be. I'll look forward to the extended version, but really wish they'd shrink the original first.
MiniD
-
felt like a 5 minute movie to me never noticed the time go by, even at a midnight showing.
It was well done, not perfect, but as someone else said better than many would have done. Sauramon (sp?) will be on the DVD next year so I am not concerned.
As far as the Liv Tyler character, shouldn't have been in the movies...but the air time involving her is only about 20min split up between 9 hours of movies so I can deal with it.
-
Slo:
Have to agree with you whole heartedly on your comments.
-
Worthwhile effort. The departures from the book were less irritating than in Two Towers. The Arwen "Havin' my baby" stuff and a few others left me frustrated that Jackson turned the potentially extraordinary into something less. Guess I'll just have to make my own remake one of these days :)
Charon
-
eh! I wouldn't go so far as to say it is the greatest movie ever.
It could use some acting.. it does have great "special" effects.
The content... well it's Tolken.... hardly a story with deep meaning... a lot of Norwegian Mystism and WWII symbolism.
The acting is well... type casted... but that's probably just the genre of the movie....
it's like saying John Wayne was a great actor... without realizing what role did John Wayne ever play?
The answer is John Wayne always played John Wayne in every movie he was ever in.
Same with Clinton Eastwood.... even though he tried to break that mold later on in his career.
Russel Crowe on the other hand was an middle age balding meek man in "the Insider" and a young man in "Gladiator", and a genus/crazy man in "a Beautiful Mind."
That's acting!
Lord of the Rings is Entertaining... but still mindless - hardly a great movie.
-
i r a genus/crazy man
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm betting the "scouring of the Shire" will be on the extended version. Remember the vision Frodo had in the mirror of Galadriel? That was the Shire burning... which means it was filmed.
The Time magazine interview with Peter Jackson last month (I think) listed the materials that would be added back into the extended-play DVD release of "Return of the King." In the interview, Jackson specifically talks about the fact that "The Scouring of the Shire" was never filmed. The bad guys in the movie's vision Frodo had were orcs, which were not involved in the "Scouring" chapter in the book. Actually, in the book it was Sam that had a disturbing vision of the Shire in Galadrial's mirror (showing a run-down, industrialized Shire, not a burned down one), but Sam was left out of the movie scene.
However, Sauruman will be given his due in the extended version of ROTK, never fear.