Official Lord of the Rings Thread

[Mike Olbinski]

My review...

SPOILERS!!!!




Saw it this morning, sold-out theatre, which was great. A bunch of fans who wanted to see the movie, were quiet, but cheered when there were parts that warranted that...great place to see it today.

All I can say is WOW! I loved it, and I'm sure to get grief over this (especially from BIM), but I had tears in my eyes the final 30 minutes. Now, I wasn't blubbering like a baby, I just mean the end was so good, so emotional, that it just got to me...plus, loving these books as long as I have, seeing it on screen was amazing.

Dang, I don't even know where to begin. It was just so stinking awesome! The battle was insane, so many great moments...the Riders of Rohan showing up, Eowyn cutting off the head of the dragon, Legolas taking down that oliphaunt...I mean, it just doesn't end.

The acting was superb, the music amazing, the CGI and effects second-to-none.

I will say that a few things stuck out that probably irked Stout more than me: Pippen and Merry were the same height as Frodo and Sam at the end, which is wrong of course. Sam used the ring to get past the orcs in Mordor, which they didn't do, etc.

But man, there was just so much that was good about this movie. Rip Jackson for not sticking entirely to the book, but he DID stick to it in the most important places...like the end, when Sam says "well, I'm back"...that was just right out of the book...awesome.

I'm sad it's over, the journey was just something I don't think another movie will ever be able to give me again. I can safely say now that these three movies, this one trilogy, is my favorite movie of all-time, and will remain so probably forever.

I can't wait for 10-11 hour marathons when I watch them all back-to-back-to-back.

If you can't tell, I loved it. I was ready to see it again right when it ended. I'm just so happy that Jackson was up to the task of doing these movies...I was scared they would just end up sucking, and he took them to such a level that I never believed would happen.

Go see it.

Mike

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

Re: My review...

Originally posted by Chandler Mike
SPOILERS!!!!






I will say that a few things stuck out that probably irked Stout more than me: Pippen and Merry were the same height as Frodo and Sam at the end, which is wrong of course.

SPOILERS!!!!





Gandalf's explaination about how Hobbits would evolve into men was one of my favorite parts in the series of books. I too paid very close attention to that as well, but I thought the proportions were correct even if it was understated. Heights went, from shortest to tallest; Sam, Pippen, Merri.

 

[mdamien13]

Review coming from someone who doesn't remember the books well at all.

LOVED IT!!!! LOVED IT!!!! Peter Jackson, you da man! Movie wasn't perfect, as some have said. Had a minor pacing problem and I could have done without the whole Arwen angle but oh well. Ending was a bit dragged out but when you keep in mind that this is the end of about 11 hours of film how could you not tie up as many loose ends as possible?

Was I the only one who, when watching the cavalry charge against the elephant-like creatures, was thinking "This is how George Lucas wished the Battle of Hoth would have looked". I can't believe that Peter Jackson actually one-upped himself after The Battle of Helms Deep in TT.

Best movie of the year, IMO. Absolutely incredible. Has to be seen in a theater (although I second Skorp's opinion on idiot teenagers).

 

[BuckeyeCardinal]

LOTR

What's meaningful to me is that many of mine friends....knowing the voracious reader that I am.....couldn't believe that I hadn't read LOTR back in the 70's....it was sort of a cult following then....I was stuck on historical fiction and classwork.....and actually thought Tolkien would be fantasy science fiction too far out for even me.

I was wrong.

I have read all of LOTR.

Hollywood has of course changed it because that's Hollywood.

The book and the movie are of course like many movies based on a book somewhat different. In the book the part where Frodo and Sam dress up like Orcs takes about a chpter....in the film it's a few seconds.

The endings are are too elongated....but that's Hollywood again....and I just hate it cause it made me cry....cry becasue I knew the journey was over.

Tolkien has taken the human experience and placed it in a comparison of primevil experience coupled with common every day trials and tribulations.

By the way....my boys are into the battle scene thing (Braveheart used to be their fave) and agree these are the best. The Riders of Rohan and their light cavalry charge is comparable to the charge of Arthur's light Brittanic cavalry aginst the foot soldiers of the Saxon invasion of Brittain circa 500-600 A.D.

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Re: LOTR

Originally posted by BuckeyeCardinal

The endings are are too elongated....but that's Hollywood again....and I just hate it cause it made me cry....cry becasue I knew the journey was over.

It's not Hollywood, it's Tolkien...aside from not having the Scouring of the Shire, that ending was pretty much out of the book...

I LOVED the multiple endings, I mean, why is it so bad that it doesn't end quick enough?

Mike

 

[Chaplin]

Re: Re: LOTR

Originally posted by Chandler Mike

I LOVED the multiple endings, I mean, why is it so bad that it doesn't end quick enough?

Mike

Right! How many movies out there end too quickly? A LOT.

 

[BuckeyeCardinal]

Re: Re: LOTR

Originally posted by Chandler Mike
It's not Hollywood, it's Tolkien...aside from not having the Scouring of the Shire, that ending was pretty much out of the book...

I LOVED the multiple endings, I mean, why is it so bad that it doesn't end quick enough?

Mike

Cause.

I didn't want it to end.....a quick ending for this movie is like getting your head cut off with a dull axe or a sharp sword.....I wanted the sharp sword.

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Re: Re: Re: LOTR

Originally posted by BuckeyeCardinal
Cause.

I didn't want it to end.....a quick ending for this movie is like getting your head cut off with a dull axe or a sharp sword.....I wanted the sharp sword.

I shed a few tears too, I know what you mean...but I'd rather it have run longer...I didn't want it to end at all.

Mike

 

[arthurracoon]

How long before the movie do you have to be there in order to get good seats?

(we would be going to the AMC Awhatukee 24 theater)

thanks

 

[BuckeyeCardinal]

Racoon Man

Originally posted by arthurracoon
How long before the movie do you have to be there in order to get good seats?

(we would be going to the AMC Awhatukee 24 theater)

thanks

I'd say get there an hour early....some theaters I think can reserve you seats which may be the way to go.

My sons and I went to a 9 PM showing at a small town where nobody goes theatre on a Sunday night and it was packed.

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Yeah, an hour would be good if you want the best seat. We got there 40 minutes early on Saturday, sat up higher, but still got center seats.

Mike

 

[Dback Jon]

Finally saw it last night - I mostly avoided this thread until now..
Impression (may contain spoilers):



Overall, very good movie. I have the books basically memorized, so I tried hard to divorce myself from wanting a literal translation of the book.

Things I liked:
The ending - mostly faithful to the books, and, like Mike, I had a tear in my eye.
Battle of Minas Tirith - awesome!!! Loved the beasts, calvary charge, etc. Scene with Pippin and Eowyn slaying the Witch King was exactly how I imagined it. Appreciated how Jackson worked the Dead Army into the story - I thought that change was good, filmwise.
The Battle of the Black Gate - again, superb! Complete with eagles! Actually glad he omitted the Mouth of Sauron.


Things I didn't like.
Very much dragged in areas - especially whenever Frodo fell under a "ring spell".
Finally trip up to the Cracks of Doom took WAAAAAAAAAY too long, and too "weepy".
No Saruman?? I don't blame Christopher Lee for being mad. The scene where Pippin "found" the Palantir of Orthanac in the water was very contrived - almost an afterthought thrown in to satisfy purists. I would have much rather had the book version - would explain the importance of it much better.
Hopefully, the extended version will have the Scouring of the Shire ending, instead of the lame "nothing happened here" version. The problems in the Shire were a major plot element in both the book and the movie - no have it like niothing happened was disapointing.

Faramir and Eowyn. You only got a glimse of them standing together at the coronation. Jackson overplayed Eowyn's longing for Aragorn, then leaves it there - the best love story of the book was missing. I sincerly hope that is one of the extended scenes.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Dback Jon

Hopefully, the extended version will have the Scouring of the Shire ending, instead of the lame "nothing happened here" version. The problems in the Shire were a major plot element in both the book and the movie - no have it like niothing happened was disapointing.

You need to read the rest of the thread.

The Scouring of the Shire was never filmed, so it will NOT be in the extended cut.

 

[Bob Chebat]

I finally saw this movie last night. We went to the 10:45 showing at Cine Capri, and for a viewing experience, there truly is none better.

The film itself is fantastic. There are so many great things about this movie. The only problem I had with it is that it was too long.

I know several will disagree, but I really just wanted it to end. At 2:00 am, turning the screen black for several seconds and then moving to another 5 minute scene is like a concert encore. Had I read the book I may have understood the closure a bit better.

I'll be excited about the DVD when I can watch it at my own convenience and intervals as to not get bored with it.

If this film does not win Best Picture of the Year, the Academy voting is indeed fixed.

 

[arthurracoon]

Wow.

Saw it on Christmas day and it was pretty exciting!

again I say,

Wow.

 

[Pariah]

I realize I'm in the minority when I say this: I didn't like any of the three movies.

Were they beautifully shot? Yes. Was the make-up and costumes impecable? Yes. Would these movies be as popular if not for the books? No.

First of all, the cinema is a different medium than the printed page (duh). You need to have a story told in acts. In my opinion, the story should have been either changed to have been told in three three-act films, or released as an extremely long movie. I hated the way the first two movies ended without any wrap-up of storyline.

Also, there's too much going on in the movie for it to flow well. Again, I'm sticking to my assertion that without the following the books created, very few people would tolerate the compexity of these films.

Now before you flame me for simply being a "playa hater," please understand that I was a Tolkien-geek when I was a kid. To this day I still love the fantasy genre. But, as a lover of film, I thought these movies don't stand up on their own.

I'm not trying to say that a great number of people who love the books shouldn't enjoy the movies--they should, but I don't understand why they're getting such film industry acclaim. The story is not suited for the silver screen.

 

[AZCB34]

I am late to the LOTR on screen stuff. I just got Fellowship for Christmas and started watching it last night...hope to finish it today. I am impressed so far. Looking forward to finishing it and grabbing the next installment on DVD.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Pariah
I realize I'm in the minority when I say this: I didn't like any of the three movies.

Were they beautifully shot? Yes. Was the make-up and costumes impecable? Yes. Would these movies be as popular if not for the books? No.

First of all, the cinema is a different medium than the printed page (duh). You need to have a story told in acts. In my opinion, the story should have been either changed to have been told in three three-act films, or released as an extremely long movie. I hated the way the first two movies ended without any wrap-up of storyline.

Also, there's too much going on in the movie for it to flow well. Again, I'm sticking to my assertion that without the following the books created, very few people would tolerate the compexity of these films.

Now before you flame me for simply being a "playa hater," please understand that I was a Tolkien-geek when I was a kid. To this day I still love the fantasy genre. But, as a lover of film, I thought these movies don't stand up on their own.

I'm not trying to say that a great number of people who love the books shouldn't enjoy the movies--they should, but I don't understand why they're getting such film industry acclaim. The story is not suited for the silver screen.

Totally disagree.

There are two kinds of "trilogies", or as they say, "sequels"--those that follow a strict story through all the films, and those that just have same characters, etc., just different unrelated stories.

The first kind is obviously LOTR, Star Wars, Back to the Future, Godfather. The second kind is Lethal Weapon, Indiana Jones and Alien.

Books or no, the story of LOTR is much, much, much to grand for a single movie. I can't even imagine anyone, even if they hadn't read the books, wanting those three movies into one. As it is, Peter Jackson had left out a bunch of stuff.

Back in the 80s, the story was probably not suited for the screen--hey, even the animated versions were pretty crappy. But now, in the 2000s, when technology is so much better. I can't understand why LOTR isn't suited for the screen, but say, Star Wars is. They're both epic trilogies, dependent on special effects, with a lot of character development.

The only real tangible difference is the fact that Star Wars wasn't based on books.

But my question to you is, why bother at all? If you hated the first one, and hated the second one, why watch the third one? IMO, the movies aren't as good as Citizen Kane, but they are pretty close to masterpieces.

Not every great movie has to be an independent drug movie or a romantic comedy with Hugh Grant.

And let me tell you, this "film industry acclaim" you're talking about doesn't come from the fact that these movies were novels--it comes from the fact that it is a perfect marriage of script, acting and visuals. Sure, the pro-novel people (like Stout) have a lot of problems with the movies, but ask any of them if they'd rather NOT have seen the movies, and they will all answer a resounding NO.

 

[ajcardfan]

I read the Hobbit and the entire LOTR trilogy in one week's time when I was 16. I literally could not put the books down. I have never reread the books, but they have always been at the top of my favorite reads ever.

I just saw Return of the King tonight and I absolutely loved it. Yes, I cried at the end dammit. As much as because I knew it was over, more than anything else. I cried when I finished the books too.

I think some of you are being too harsh on Jackson. The spirit of the books was faithfully replicated, and that was the most important thing to duplicate. I know I never dreamed that this triology would ever be filmed at all. I thought it was impossible, Middle Earth was too intricate and vast, the scale of action too huge to get on screen. I was worried before I saw the first film. And, I've got to say, it's been pulled off better than I dared hope for. Even I recognized some differences from the books, even though I read them more than 20 years ago. But, I'm grateful that Jackson made these movies and let me escape to Middle Earth again, even if only for a few hours.

Now that I've seen the movies, time to read the books again!

 

[KingofCards]

Originally posted by ajcardfan
I read the Hobbit and the entire LOTR trilogy in one week's time when I was 16. I literally could not put the books down. I have never reread the books, but they have always been at the top of my favorite reads ever.

I just saw Return of the King tonight and I absolutely loved it. Yes, I cried at the end dammit. As much as because I knew it was over, more than anything else. I cried when I finished the books too.

I think some of you are being too harsh on Jackson. The spirit of the books was faithfully replicated, and that was the most important thing to duplicate. I know I never dreamed that this triology would ever be filmed at all. I thought it was impossible, Middle Earth was too intricate and vast, the scale of action too huge to get on screen. I was worried before I saw the first film. And, I've got to say, it's been pulled off better than I dared hope for. Even I recognized some differences from the books, even though I read them more than 20 years ago. But, I'm grateful that Jackson made these movies and let me escape to Middle Earth again, even if only for a few hours.

Now that I've seen the movies, time to read the books again!

Good post. I've read the trilogy three times but long ago, and I also thought the lame cartoon version would be the only "movie" every made about it.

I will see it on tuesday and reserve final judgement until then but I enjoyed the first two movies.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Totally disagree.

There are two kinds of "trilogies", or as they say, "sequels"--those that follow a strict story through all the films, and those that just have same characters, etc., just different unrelated stories.

The first kind is obviously LOTR, Star Wars, Back to the Future, Godfather. The second kind is Lethal Weapon, Indiana Jones and Alien.

Books or no, the story of LOTR is much, much, much to grand for a single movie. I can't even imagine anyone, even if they hadn't read the books, wanting those three movies into one. As it is, Peter Jackson had left out a bunch of stuff.

Back in the 80s, the story was probably not suited for the screen--hey, even the animated versions were pretty crappy. But now, in the 2000s, when technology is so much better. I can't understand why LOTR isn't suited for the screen, but say, Star Wars is. They're both epic trilogies, dependent on special effects, with a lot of character development.

The only real tangible difference is the fact that Star Wars wasn't based on books.

But my question to you is, why bother at all? If you hated the first one, and hated the second one, why watch the third one? IMO, the movies aren't as good as Citizen Kane, but they are pretty close to masterpieces.

Not every great movie has to be an independent drug movie or a romantic comedy with Hugh Grant.

And let me tell you, this "film industry acclaim" you're talking about doesn't come from the fact that these movies were novels--it comes from the fact that it is a perfect marriage of script, acting and visuals. Sure, the pro-novel people (like Stout) have a lot of problems with the movies, but ask any of them if they'd rather NOT have seen the movies, and they will all answer a resounding NO.

Jeez, don't get your panties in a bunch. I know you don't agree; I know I am in the minority.

I wanted to see all three movies to give them a chance. I didn't like them and I have my reasons why. You did like them, and you have your reasons why.

I didn't know this was a thread where you could only say good things about the movies. I'll remove my post if it offends you.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Pariah
Jeez, don't get your panties in a bunch. I know you don't agree; I know I am in the minority.

I wanted to see all three movies to give them a chance. I didn't like them and I have my reasons why. You did like them, and you have your reasons why.

I didn't know this was a thread where you could only say good things about the movies. I'll remove my post if it offends you.

What are you talking about? Can't I respond? You even EXPECTED a response, and now you're crying about it? Chill out man, I wasn't "yelling" at you. Geez. Some people just can't handle it I guess.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Chaplin
What are you talking about? Can't I respond? You even EXPECTED a response, and now you're crying about it? Chill out man, I wasn't "yelling" at you. Geez. Some people just can't handle it I guess.

Chap, I think the point is, you've tried to make these the teflon movies. You have categorically denied any kind of criticism of the movies and refused to concede a single point anyone makes in opposition to them. In essence, you're taking the industry stance.

That's okay, because I wouldn't expect it any other way. You're in the industry, after all. I just find it odd when people call you on it, you respond like this.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Stout
Chap, I think the point is, you've tried to make these the teflon movies. You have categorically denied any kind of criticism of the movies and refused to concede a single point anyone makes in opposition to them. In essence, you're taking the industry stance.

That's okay, because I wouldn't expect it any other way. You're in the industry, after all. I just find it odd when people call you on it, you respond like this.

Respond like what? What the hell are you talking about? He posted that he EXPECTED posts back that were contrary to his own opinion--that's what happened. I NEVER once said he was an idiot, didn't know what he's talking about, etc. You and I have been through that as well. If that's the way he took it (or you in the past), and I know it sounds cold, but I don't care. If you want to read a damn message board and start crying that I'm demeaning you or whatever, go ahead. Just know that that has never been my intention.

What I'm tired of, is the complaining and whining of certain people that can't handle a DISCUSSION. Because this is just a message board, that's all it is, but then some people come on and make a big freaking deal about it and think I'm yelling, when in fact I'm just typing.

I'm passionate about movies--sue me. It's my work, it's what I went to school for--it's what I DO. You don't see me ragging on whatever it is YOU do, do you?

I'm just sick and ******* tired of apologizing for myself all because you guys can't handle a little bit of an opposite opinion. Lecture me all you want, but I am sick and tired of it.

I wrote a legible and IMO intelligent response that he returned with the sarcasm and complaining that I always get to my posts. Why? I never invite sarcastic comments and complaining about how I'm demeaning people. I NEVER call people names. NEVER.

Maybe this board WOULD be a better place if I just didn't post anymore. I mean, then EVERYONE would agree about movies I guess. Kinda defeats the purpose of a message board, don't you think? Everyone has different insights to different things, especially movies. Yet, I'm the one who gets attacked, and I'M the one everyone thinks is the mean, spiteful one, when simply, I post an opinion that is contrary to many others, and those people simply can't handle it and decide to make me out as an attacker.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Stout
Chap, I think the point is, you've tried to make these the teflon movies. You have categorically denied any kind of criticism of the movies and refused to concede a single point anyone makes in opposition to them. In essence, you're taking the industry stance.

That, my friend, is plain not true. I have NUMEROUS times pointed out that you have made some good points--some of which I try to refute using my knowledge and background, as well as my opinion. It obviously doesn't convince you, but in reality, it's not supposed to.