The Official Movie Thread

The best part of the extended edition of Return of the King is the Mouth of Sauron. It's so cool how Jackson did that (I think).

Has anyone here seen No Country For Old Men, and does it live up to the hype?
 
I honestly don't think they were that good. I give them a 6 or 7.
If you want to know my argument about them, see Clerks 2.
Also, Aragon solves all of the problems with a randomly thought of and never mentioned group of warrior ghosts? Terrible writing.
 
The best part of the extended edition of Return of the King is the Mouth of Sauron. It's so cool how Jackson did that (I think).

Has anyone here seen No Country For Old Men, and does it live up to the hype?

freaking awesome. go in with an open mind, and don't jump to conclusions about the end *cough*
 
The LOTR trilogy is good if you watch them as movies and don't compare them to the books, because there are too much fucking stuff they've changed to make it really all that similar (ofcourse the main plot is, but all character portraits are for the most part totally different).
 
Have you seen them yet?

These are the extended editions.

I saw Fellowship a couple weeks ago, borrowed from a different friend, and he never came through on delivering the other two. So finally another friend of mine got his parents to bring them.

I watched the first half of Two Towers last night and I'll do the second half tonight.
 
The LOTR trilogy is good if you watch them as movies and don't compare them to the books, because there are too much fucking stuff they've changed to make it really all that similar (ofcourse the main plot is, but all character portraits are for the most part totally different).

Yeah, but there's no way they could have included everything, obviously.

I agree. But I think the random ghosts looked cool. Fellowship gets an 8, Two Towers gets a 7, Return of the King gets a 6.

It's a sin because every fan of the books should watch the movies. They suck compared to the books, but still.

How about 10 , 9, 10? And you can't compare them to the books
 
I honestly don't think they were that good. I give them a 6 or 7.
If you want to know my argument about them, see Clerks 2.
Also, Aragon solves all of the problems with a randomly thought of and never mentioned group of warrior ghosts? Terrible writing.

Didnt Gandalf tell him about the Ghosts?
 
Yeah, the ghosts were explained prior to him going into the mountain. I imagine prior lotr knowledge is expected before seeing the movies
 
Mathiäs;6982302 said:
Yeah, but there's no way they could have included everything, obviously.
Yeah I know, but some changes just doesn't make sense, like Aragorn afraid of of his bloodline and of being crowned king. Aswell as Boromir saying stuff like "Gondor has no King, Gondor needs no King! He wants Aragorn to come with him to Gondor, which Aragorn isn't really even agaist. Also Gandalf not wanting to go into Moria at any cost when he was accually the one who wanted to go there. Why change stuff like that? It makes most characters alot different from how they "should" be.
And ofcourse more obvious stuff like Arwen and the fact that the killing of the Witch King is totally different because he Merry doesn't have the enchanted sword, etc.