| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| What Do you Think of the Movie? |
| Awesome, better than the first one |
|
57% |
[ 26 ] |
| Awesome, but not the best |
|
31% |
[ 14 ] |
| Average, The first was better |
|
8% |
[ 4 ] |
| Poor, Don't waste your time with it |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 45 |
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
I didnt like first part, I am not going to see second part.
P. S. I really love written LotR |
Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:28 am |
|
|
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
I can't really able to judge LOTR: TTT yet, either it is better or worst than the first film - i will watch it again. I only can generally say that it's about as good as the first one. However, keep in mind that TTT shouldn't be totally judged independently from The Fellowship of the Ring or the upcoming third film. Even when J.R.R. Tolkien first want to publish the story of Middle Earth, it's in one book, not as three episodes or trilogy - it's because the story became so big that his publisher demand it to be published in three parts.
Some film critics, like Roger Ebert said that TTT have too many actions and became "action picture," or "Middle-Earth version of "Conan the Barbarian." Okay lets see, isn't true that even in Tolkien's story the second and third part got more fighting scenes than first part? which mainly served as introductory?, about Shire and the book's characters? He also said Jackson's story is too much of "a race of supermen,..." Well, I never like an overblown magical moments in film, but at least we never see Gandalf shooting fireball or casting stinking cloud over a groups of Uruk-hai. P.J already pretty much toned down the supernatural elements in LOTR series. Beside, why don't we also complaint about the supernatural elements in the Spiderman movie?
However, there's several scenes in TTT that are questional, among them is the campy triangle love scenes, the Ents (too much fairy tale?), lack deeper insight into characters because of epic scope of the movie, confusion from complicated and intermingle plots development (especially for people who haven't the books). Here's what P.J said:
"It's the most difficult of the three films, the structure. It was the weakest story in a funny kind of way. We had to craft the shape of a movie out of these very disparate storylines that were going in all directions.
"We had to make them somehow combine and get a rhythm to it, make a shape to it and make it feel like you were watching a structured film."
He said the final instalment, The Return of the King, will be his favourite (sound like he's advertising), but i can't wait. 
_________________
 |
|
Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:47 am |
|
|
Erb Duchenne
Slayer
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 987
Location: malaysia |
Well, there was so much hype and anticipation for the first part and when I saw it I still was flabergasted. I loved it. For for some reason I'm not exactly rushing out to see TTT.
Although the first part was a great cinematic piece, I felt they detoured from Tolkein's writing too greatly and unnecessarily in some parts. I like Liv Tyler, but that's no reason to inflate Arwen's role and delete other characters because of it.
If you read the history of the writing of the LOTR, it actually WAS published in three parts and over a year apart. After all three books were published only did they compile it all to one book and publish the ONE BOOK version.
The LOTR is actually a spawn off The Hobbit, which is seldom talked about, which explains how Bilbo got the ring in the first place. I think for prosterity, they should have started with that story. LOTR was finally published 12 years after the Hobbit.
_________________
Erb Duchenne |
|
Sat Dec 21, 2002 8:13 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Unfortunately it doesn't open here until Dec 26th; we've got tickets for the 27th and I can't wait.
I'm going to be a complete fanboy here although I certainly understand that literature that most of us have grown up with and forms the basis of classic fantasy is something close to many peoples hearts.
The story changes in FOTR were reasonably appropriate, I thought. I think it's a valid criticism to observe that Tolkien made poor use of women and the ford crossing would have been somewhat confusing to someone who hadn't read the books (why did a flood rise up?). I can't see how changing Arwen for Glorfindel changes the structure or intent of the story significantly.
I'd love to see the Hobbit done but the prelude in FOTR did a good job of setting the scene. The scenes with the war against Sauron were some of my favourites. I'm just happy that a studio had the forsight to commit to 3 movies and a whole lot of money with a director that had only modest success previously, but had a passion for LOTR. Just imagine if Jerry Bruckheimer had done it (Pearl Harbour, Gone in 60 secs - apologies to his fans).
About the trilogy: Erb is correct to say it was first published as a trilogy but Remus is correct to say Tolkiens's intent was one novel. Since I think the intent during the writing is more important than the publishers choice afterwards I think it's one book. To quote the preface in my current copy "The Lord of the Rings is often erroneously called a trilogy, when it is in fact a single novel, consisting of six books plus appendices, sometimes published in three volumes".
Anyway, I can hardly contain myself. I'm expecting Helm's Deep to be one of my favourite cinematic scenes ever! |
|
Sun Dec 22, 2002 12:58 am |
|
|
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
...To quote the preface in my current copy "The Lord of the Rings is often erroneously called a trilogy, when it is in fact a single novel, consisting of six books plus appendices, sometimes published in three volumes"...
Ahh yes, that's the first paragraph after the contents.
And yes too we got lucky that the films been made and became a very successful films. P.J almost fails to get approvable and financial support from a movie studio, even for making two movies based on LOTR. As you know, before this no sword & sorcery movies ever as successful as P.J's The Fellowship of the Ring, unless you include other type of fantasy films like science fiction. The success is simply a history in making; and the first day box-office earnings of TTT is almost 50% higher that than the first movie!. I think LOTR series potentially becoming a succesor to the legendary Star Wars trilogy.
Another thing, what you guys/girls think about the Gollum character in TTT?. Almost all reviews that i read so far said the performance of Gollum (Andy Serkis) is excellent or outstanding. There was even some talks that Andy Serkis derserves to get nomination as best supporting actor, although he's just an animated character in the movie. But for me most of time i'm unable to get hold of his emotional expressions or supposed heart wrenching acting. What do you think about Gollum character? |
|
Sun Dec 22, 2002 4:48 am |
|
|
FireAnt
Noble Knight
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 212
|
I saw it today and really liked it, Gollum character.
Kind of spoiler
I did like the whole love secen(sp?) I thought they dragged it on a bit too long.
end spoiling
All in all good moive
_________________
"If history is to change, let it change, If the world is to be
destroyed, so be it, If my fate is to be destroyed... I must simply
laugh" -Magus |
|
Sun Dec 22, 2002 8:39 am |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
*In response to spoiler*
If you haven't seen it yet, don't even think of calling yourself...
Pi = 3.141592653589...
Sq. Rt. of 2 = 1.414213562...
***
I perhaps think that they should have 'interspliced' the horse with Arwen in that scene... 
***
_________________
Make good choices. |
|
Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:39 pm |
|
|
Bilbo
High Emperor
Joined: 12 Mar 2002
Posts: 1620
Location: New York |
Gollum was very well done. In a book, it's easy to get inside a character's head, which you really can't do in a movie like this where there's no narrator. Gollum's expressions are great, and Jackson was very clever in how he got us inside of Gollum's head.
_________________
The world itself shifts and changes and fades to mist like the strings of a minstrel's harp, and mayhap the dreams we forge are more enduring than the works of kings and gods.-Robert E. Howard
=Member of the RPGDot Shadows, The Nonflamers' Guild, and The Alliance of Middle Earth= |
|
Mon Dec 23, 2002 5:02 am |
|
|
Gothic Soul
Master of Shadows
Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 682
Location: Underdark |
Did you recommend me reading the book first???
_________________
"Whow, the necromancer is here" -Bartacus to myself |
|
Mon Dec 23, 2002 5:15 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
I had friends who had no trouble following FOTR and hadn't read the books, but I can't say for TTT.
However, if you haven't read them yet, WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?! You should be off in your favourite chair reading a masterpiece.
Seriously, it does help to understand the nuances. |
|
Mon Dec 23, 2002 9:38 am |
|
|
Jericho
Chicken?
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 1535
Location: Toontown with the SANDY BEACHES |
IMHO you could skip reading the books. The books are very slow and full of enviormental descriptions.
I didn't like them at all. But I did read them and I must say the movie is a lot better and gives the story the speed and excitement the books failed to achieve.
_________________
Never argue with the insane. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
And according to Lintra it is contagious
Quote from Val to Jericho: "You're an evil little cat, you know that."
Quote from Dhruin: "*Sigh* If only I was as perfect as Jericho"
Quote from Mr Roach: "We all wish we were perfect as Jericho" |
|
Mon Dec 23, 2002 1:21 pm |
|
|
Korzen
Forsaken
Joined: 02 Nov 2002
Posts: 3673
Location: The User Groups Section. |
I liked the books quite a lot. IMHO there were a lot of fights described. So the book was exciting if you ask me. |
|
Mon Dec 23, 2002 1:44 pm |
|
|
Erb Duchenne
Slayer
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 987
Location: malaysia |
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
About the trilogy: Erb is correct to say it was first published as a trilogy but Remus is correct to say Tolkiens's intent was one novel. Since I think the intent during the writing is more important than the publishers choice afterwards I think it's one book. To quote the preface in my current copy "The Lord of the Rings is often erroneously called a trilogy, when it is in fact a single novel, consisting of six books plus appendices, sometimes published in three volumes".
I never meant to imply Tolkien's intent. I was merely pointing out, for those who didn't know, the similarities between the first published books and release of these movies... a year apart... open ended so it's not really a standalone title like Star Wars. This one really IS all one big story.
_________________
Erb Duchenne |
|
Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:39 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Sorry, Erb. I misunderstood your point. |
|
Tue Dec 24, 2002 2:28 am |
|
|
Gothic Soul
Master of Shadows
Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 682
Location: Underdark |
Ok I'm right now in my favorite chair reading the two towers I'm enjoyning the book maybe I can finish it before I go to see the movie on saturday  NO???
_________________
"Whow, the necromancer is here" -Bartacus to myself |
|
Tue Dec 24, 2002 3:10 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:27 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
