Lord of the rings

[Morpheus]

Hi folks,

i saw the link on the Official HP and I wonder if anybody here from this forum is also a Tolkien Fan.

I love this novel, epos, and i also like the latest movie.

So what do you think about the novel and the movie. Did you expect the film in this way?

Cheers Morpheus

 

[Garm]

I thought the movie sucket! Really! I had been waiting for it for several years, and I thought that Peter Jackson would be respectful enough to not alter it too much. Boy was I ever wrong. Take for instance the love affair between Aragorn and Arwen...thought its several years since I read the book, I can't remember ever reading that. Neither was it Arwen that saved little Frodo.
And as a final little thing. How the hell are Frodo and Sam going to get over the mountain?! They recieved no magic rope from Galadriel. Just those friggin crackers.

As for the book, it may be well and swell that it was the first one and that it created a whole new genre, but George. R. R. Martin's Song of Ice And Fire just clicks a whole lot better than Tolkien's Lord of The Rings. And I think Silmarillion is way much better than LoTR! Just because it tears itself apart from the fairytale line, and there is really no-one else that have written such a book. Brilliant in my point of view.

 

[Man Made Mike]

Silmarillion would be impossible to make a movie about, in my opinion.

 

[Annie]

Lord Of The Rings trilogy is great.. i love it
I think the movie was good too, not as good as the book though but it was nice!

 

[D Mullholand]

the books are amazing, no doubt.

the movie was so-so with some nice moments. i thought it was "epic" in a computer-game kind of way, and became much duller when the fights started. for me, "epic" is more about Bertolucci's "The Conformist", Fellini's "City of Women" and Tarkovski's "Andrei Rubliov" - these are what i consider to be real movies with a scope. and, of course, "2001".

but at least it was better than that other episode 1...

 

[Garm]

One thing I really hated about that movie was when the little hobbits were to cross the river. In the book they turn around when they have left the dock, and they see the Ringwraith. I think that creates a whole different and spookier feeling than all that running and the jumping. BLÆ!:Shedevil:

 

[Ivo]

Originally posted by Garm
And I think Silmarillion is way much better than LoTR! Just because it tears itself apart from the fairytale line, and there is really no-one else that have written such a book. Brilliant in my point of view.

Have you read the "The Unfinished Tales" - this is the book after Silmarillion and it has some more developments... I really like the story about the black sword (Turin?) and his curse...

 

[Morpheus]

The Silmarillion is very great, amazing!!! But I agree that it can't put into a movie. But maybe The Hobbit. That would fit perfectly.

 

[Garm]

Aw, you're all wrong! You make Silmarillion as a musical!

And I thought Silmarillion was an unfinished tale...? Either way. Yes, I have read about Turin. Great story!

 

[pagan2002]

Originally posted by Garm
I thought the movie sucket! Really! I had been waiting for it for several years, and I thought that Peter Jackson would be respectful enough to not alter it too much. Boy was I ever wrong. Take for instance the love affair between Aragorn and Arwen...thought its several years since I read the book, I can't remember ever reading that. Neither was it Arwen that saved little Frodo.
And as a final little thing. How the hell are Frodo and Sam going to get over the mountain?! They recieved no magic rope from Galadriel. Just those friggin crackers.

As for the book, it may be well and swell that it was the first one and that it created a whole new genre, but George. R. R. Martin's Song of Ice And Fire just clicks a whole lot better than Tolkien's Lord of The Rings. And I think Silmarillion is way much better than LoTR! Just because it tears itself apart from the fairytale line, and there is really no-one else that have written such a book. Brilliant in my point of view.

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!
1. if you read the appendixes at the end of return of the king you will find the story of aragorn and arwen written by jrr tolkien. they got married at the end of the book so obviously they must have known eachother.
2. Peter Jackson has done a brilliant job, as have everyone doing the films. it would not be right to recreate the book exactly (its impossibly long anyway) so what he has to do is make 3 great films. a bit of artistic licence is needed. books are not the same as films...
3.on the 4 disc DVD coming out in november, theres a version of the film thats 40 minutes longer and apparently has more galadriel scenes in it, and the other gifts will be there. maybe 4 hours was too long for the cinema version.
4. the cast was brilliant. and arwen saving frodo is well allowed cos nobody gives a fuck about glorfindel anyway, and if tolkien was alive he's be blown away by the films and probably wouldnt mind the changes, he wasnt as anal as alot of his readers!

still, each to their own opinion...

 

[pagan2002]

Originally posted by Morpheus
The Silmarillion is very great, amazing!!! But I agree that it can't put into a movie. But maybe The Hobbit. That would fit perfectly.

deffo they should do a film of the hobbit. they could do just about every scene and character really well and not have to change that much.

 

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by pagan2002


deffo they should do a film of the hobbit. they could do just about every scene and character really well and not have to change that much.

yeah, thats what i meant, there is a lot of action in the Hobbit, its not that long so that they needn't have to change anything, many wonderful creatures and a brilliant story. I think PJ will do it., after TRotK.

yes i really long
for this extended dvd version. 4 h of this amazing film, though when I watsched the trailer for the second part, i thought: hey, the fellowship was just an appetizer,


I do agree with you that the changes of the rescue scene with Arwen and Frodo was o.k. , as you said if Peter Jackson would have done it exactley as in the novel, i mean the whole book, that wouldn't be possible to watch, yes would, but how many hours would that be?

I think effects and especially the landscape of New Zeland, is incredable. And the cast as well. By the way Sean Connery denied the role of Gandalf for he didn't understood the book,

And Ian Mckellen can definetly do the best smokerings, lol.

Cheers Morpheus

 

[flosskkii]

too right danny... the flick was great, the trailer for the 2 towers looks shit hot. I have never seen a film so well cast and produced.
Brilliant stuff....

By the way - Danny - d'you remember playing in Cork years ago when the lights were all gone and ye had to play on stage with lots of those little candles?... ah yes... old memory that..

John - Cork

 

[mehdi.i.e.e.e]

nah, best movie ever is LOADED WEAPON!

 

[ashure]

I could tell better ones...what about umm nevermind

 

[Hobo]

They already did a movie of the hobbit..
the same style as they made that 70´s version of Lotr...
you can check it out here.
but i dont like it too much..

3.on the 4 disc DVD coming out in november, theres a version of the film thats 40 minutes longer and apparently has more galadriel scenes in it, and the other gifts will be there. maybe 4 hours was too long for the cinema version.

corect me if i am wrong, but isnt it a 2 disc dvd??
i have heard about the extended version, but the dvd to be sold in sweden is only two atleast...

 

[Garm]

Originally posted by pagan2002


WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!
1. if you read the appendixes at the end of return of the king you will find the story of aragorn and arwen written by jrr tolkien.
hey got married at the end of the book so obviously they must have known eachother.
2. Peter Jackson has done a brilliant job, as have everyone doing the films. it would not be right to recreate the book exactly (its impossibly long anyway) so what he has to do is make 3 great films. a bit of artistic licence is needed. books are not the same as films...
3.on the 4 disc DVD coming out in november, theres a version of the film thats 40 minutes longer and apparently has more galadriel scenes in it, and the other gifts will be there. maybe 4 hours was too long for the cinema version.
4. the cast was brilliant. and arwen saving frodo is well allowed cos nobody gives a fuck about glorfindel anyway, and if tolkien was alive he's be blown away by the films and probably wouldnt mind the changes, he wasnt as anal as alot of his readers!

still, each to their own opinion...

1. hmh. I didn't remember that part... Still though. That they chose to cut in some lovescene with them rather than showing the whole, probably most significant, meeting Frodo would ever have with the elves, is in my oppinion a farse if there ever one!
2. That is probably the most subjective part of my judgement of this movie. I admit I didn't like it mainly because he didn't create the movie as I had envisioned it. You can see that the effort and the energy put into this movie really has paid of in the ways of special effects and scenery. Don't think anyone could have done that part better than just Peter Jackson. And the actors are nothing but brilliant. I think we should all thank whatever god made Connery say no to the offer, so that Ian McKellan could play him. Gandalf was supposed to be long and lean, not as chubby as Connery is (and there goes another subjective oppinion from me to you). The point in this mark two is that I had my expectations much too high for what a recreation of a book allows. Part of this is because Jackson claimed in so many interviews that their main goal was to stay as true to the book as possible. This because he knew that there were alot of 'anal readers' of the book and he was infact a very big 'anal reader'. Thus I thought that he had seen the book as this 'anal reader' had.
3. Now this is just an utter shite statement. By this statement you exclude all those people that don't buy this DVD, or haven't read the book, from the last two movies. Only thing that can make this okey is that Peter Jackson jumps in for a few minutes in the beginning of the next (or the last?) movie and sais: "For all you fuckers that don't understand shite, it is obvious that you didn't buy our DVD, and therefor you don't deserve to understand shite! Fuckers!" I do understand that 4 hours of cinema wouldn't have had the best effect on the general population, and that he needed to get in some of the money that it took to create these movies. But to prioritate the lovescenario rather than the meeting is still nonsense (and still it is my point of view we are talking about).
4. I 'give a fuck' about Glorfindel... And really, how do you know that he wouldn't have taken the anals side?

 

[mehdi.i.e.e.e]

Originally posted by ashure
I could tell better ones...what about umm nevermind

nah, nothing can beat Loaded Weapon 1.

maybe except Holy Grail

 

[pagan2002]

Originally posted by Hobo
They already did a movie of the hobbit..
the same style as they made that 70´s version of Lotr...
you can check it out here.
but i dont like it too much..



corect me if i am wrong, but isnt it a 2 disc dvd??
i have heard about the extended version, but the dvd to be sold in sweden is only two atleast...

theres a four disc special box set thing coming out later on. thats got extra stuff and a longer film.

 

[pagan2002]

he wouldnt have taken the anal nit picking side of things because he says in his forward that he has found loads of faults with the book since he wrote it, but he didnt mind as there was no way he was gonna re-write it. i just think he had too much imagination to be an asshole, unlike loads of tolkien fans who complain of legolas has the wrong colour hair. they need to get out more. you cant expect peter jackson to do the fims as you would have done them. he's the man which is why they put him in charge of a $300 million project and not you or me. i think he did well and i'm sure the 3rd film is gonna be dead good! if hollywood had done it then we'd really have the legend ruined. (they wanted to do one film and cut loads of it out. PJ insisted on at least 3 films at 3 hours+ each)
ps cate blanchett is the perfect woman