View Full Version : Lord of the Rings - WOW
WildWayz
19-12-2001, 15:18
WOW - just got home from seeing this wonderful film - it is fantastic. Beautiful set pieces, great acting, fantastic storyline (well, it is based on the Bible - erm book ;D).
Shame I gotta wait until next year for the 2nd part of it :~(
BTW - do NOT see it during the day - When I went, some school took their whole year of kids there - ******* loads of ****** 8-10 year olds throwing popcorn, pulling hair, getting up etc
If the film was 1hr 30mins, then sure, take them - but never take a kid to see a 3hr film!
Shame Liv Tyler was in it for only 5-10mins - she is DAMN sexy with those elf ears! :D
Roll on the next 2 films!
--James
I would edit your post about Liv Tyler. Didn't know that and I think probably others don't either. Just a thought.
WildWayz
19-12-2001, 15:30
Done - soz about that :(
(Wasn't a huge spoiler though :))
--James
garliadr
19-12-2001, 15:31
Just got back as well - thought it was fantastic - sets it up well for the 2nd one. Liv Tyler - yum
Also won a keyring off the free scratchcard!!
:clap:
Davester
19-12-2001, 15:32
Was waiting for this thread to appear. guess if the school kids distracted you, you will have to go and see it again!! :D
Isn't really a kids film!
I can't wait. Cinescape gave it a good review although they said it was far from being a classic :( and liv tyler (pictures anyone ;) ) is well, nice :D
garliadr
19-12-2001, 15:33
No annoying kids where I was, just a fat bloke sat in front of me.
WildWayz
19-12-2001, 15:35
heehee :)
yeah - NOT a kids film - not that it is gory, just the length and plot :)
Liv Tyler is a babe - I SO badly want to make love to her - but only if she wears those Elf ears! ;D
Also, was that Agent Smith from The Matrix who played that Elf lord person thingie?
Yep it was - he played Elrond
--James
AndyWilson
19-12-2001, 16:08
How on earth is that Liv Tyler thing conceivably a spoiler???????
Shingster
19-12-2001, 16:12
Yup, Hugo Weaving played Elrond & Agent Smith.
I've got to wait till either tomorrow or Friday to watch LOTR. :(
AndyWilson - Just thought she had a bigger role to play in the movie and knowing she is only in it for 5 mins kinda spoilt it for me. Sorry mate i'll get me coat and never descend on your door again.
lycanthrope on the loose
19-12-2001, 16:17
my sister went today, she's only 11 and doesn't even know who the author is. :p knew there be
<marquee>loads</marquee>
of kids in the cinema :p , me is wise and waiting till the 30th :D
guess were gonna have to seek sanctury at 9 o'clock showings in out of town multiplexes:argue:
wabznasm
19-12-2001, 17:20
Went to the 11 o'clock showing, of course the usual nutters were there. One nutjob decided to comment (VERY LOUDLY) on every action on screen ("I've read the book, you know"), laugh at the serious bits, laughed every time someone on screen was smoking (ha-ha, he said 'weed', yes very funny), kept mentioning Cornwall for some reason, and he also left the cinema half way through the film TO DO SOME SHOPPING! and came back with a carrier bag full of sweets!.
Apart from all that, the film was excellent. If 'The Phantom Menace' lived up to all the hype it got, it would have been this good.
One of my favourite bits:
That bit where Bilbo screamed "Give it to me!" at Frodo and his face changed was just damn creepy (did that actually happen or did I imagine it). I'm really surprised this film got a PG.
Originally posted by WildWayz
Liv Tyler is a babe - I SO badly want to make love to her - but only if she wears those Elf ears! ;D
Easy tiger!!!,:eek:
Still shame she's not a dwarf, convenient height if you know what i mean.:eek: :eek:
Shame on me, shocking attitude:D .
And what did i say in my email Wildwayz;). Glad i'm going to wait now. I might put it off a bit longer and see this and Oceans 11 at the same time. Ooh that'll be fun (and everyone will be at work/school. No drinks at all that day.
WildWayz
19-12-2001, 17:31
Originally posted by wabznasm
One of my favourite bits:
That bit where Bilbo screamed "Give it to me!" at Frodo and his face changed was just damn creepy (did that actually happen or did I imagine it). I'm really surprised this film got a PG.
heehee - yeah - saw that bit too :)
TBH there was action, but no real blood or gruesome bits.
I still think it should have been a 12 to stop little ***** from watching it and to allow it a more adult theme :)
Afterall the kids have Harry Pothead :)
--James
Davester
19-12-2001, 18:28
Originally posted by WildWayz
heehee :)
yeah - NOT a kids film - not that it is gory, just the length and plot :)
Liv Tyler is a babe - I SO badly want to make love to her - but only if she wears those Elf ears! ;D
Also, was that Agent Smith from The Matrix who played that Elf lord person thingie?
Yep it was - he played Elrond
--James
Kinky! :nuts:
you're like teh guy off mallrats with his dangermouse thing.
Check out the average rating on IMDB!!
Saw it this afternoon...
Caught the 14.45 showing..was walking towrds cinema and two bus loads of kids came out....OH NOOOOOOOO!!! I thought but there were none in the showing i went too..phew :)
Anyway the film gets a great big thumbs up from me...the 3 hours just sped by...
Makes up for the boring Harry Potter film....
feverpitch96
19-12-2001, 19:37
Originally posted by AndyWilson
How on earth is that Liv Tyler thing conceivably a spoiler???????
Well, it was certainly news to me. :)
Sorry lads, I just don't rate her. :eek:
scoobydoo
19-12-2001, 20:11
"Sorry lads, I just don't rate her. "
Ye Gods man are you blind !, Ears or no ears, phwargh!
Brilliant movie, no kids in the 10.30 am showing, just a load of people in suits, guess they should've been in the office!:nuts:
TBH there was action, but no real blood or gruesome bits.
Apart from the dismembered & decapitiated Goblin/Orc hybrid near the end - lol (a young kid near me squeeled in glee)
Some of the visual set pieces especially of the two Elven homelands were absolutely exquisite and quite moving (reminiscent of "Legend" to a degree maybe) - the Arwen and Aragorn fairy tale scene in Riverndale was wonderful
Absolutely gorgeous movie - loved it and not afraid to say so
Having now seen FOTR, and having read the book almost as far back as I can remember (and I'm 25), I do have to say that it was a good film, with an excellent adaptation and a perfect cast, but it still pales next to the book.
Yes, you can probably say that I'm too much of a LOTR nut to really get into the film, especially since I sat there the whole time thinking "why did they add X or leave Y out?", and to be fair to Jackson and co, they could never make a commercially successful LOTR film that included everything from the book.
One thing that I really couldn't warm to though was the scene at the Fords of Bruinen. In the book, Frodo is left alone to face the Ringwraiths after crossing the Ford. The film, of course, drops this in favour of a standoff between Arwen and the Ringwraiths. IMHO, this was a notable mistake as the book version shows Frodo's courage in facing such terrible foes, and despite his wound to boot. In the film, he simply comes across as fairly timid.
So this "Lord Of The Rings" isn't a porn film then?? :D
Just got back from an Evening showing. WOW WOW WOW
Just a tip for people who've not seen it. Drink as little as you can cause you won't have a chance to go the the toilet....LOL
Idle Child
19-12-2001, 23:13
Originally posted by wabznasm
Went to the 11 o'clock showing, of course the usual nutters were there. One nutjob decided to comment (VERY LOUDLY) on every action on screen ("I've read the book, you know"), laugh at the serious bits, laughed every time someone on screen was smoking (ha-ha, he said 'weed', yes very funny), kept mentioning Cornwall for some reason, and he also left the cinema half way through the film TO DO SOME SHOPPING! and came back with a carrier bag full of sweets!.
lol, - the day crowd are quite a bunch aren't they..
still however bad that crowd was it wasn't as bad as a mental patient making the most bizarre noise ("ummmming" shriek/wail) through most of the movie. All the quiet scenes were pretty much spoilt. but then, what can you do? or say? :( i certainly dont blame him/her, but i do blame the minder that thought that bringing them into a watch a 3 hour movie of this subject matter would be some grand day out for them. of course, they're people to too, but the cinema goers weren't giving the person any sympathy in the slightest for spoiling their viewing pleasure - and after 2hours and 55 minutes of the noise from the unfrotunate soul, there wasn't a person in the cinema that wasn't getting extremely annoyed at the disturbance - there were "tuts", fidgeting, "ssshhhes" and some in front and behind of me where starting to shout over.. it was an awful situation..
but onto the movie.. i thought it dragged in places, but was actually quite impressive. i've not read the books, but the worlds did seem nicely rendered and natural, without apparent overuse of the CGI which lucas insists on in his new prequel movies. Trouble is though, when people get this movie on DVD, they'll be fast forwarding the incidental stuff, straight to the main plot points and battle sequences.. so you could actually shorten the movie down to around 1.5 hours and have the best stuff which will be rewatchable.
I thought the character of Frodo was a ditherer.. after his constant crying and self-questioning, i got a little annoyed that he didn't take charge more, after the sacrifice and death of fellow members, he should have pulled together to show some sense of leadership when the chips were down.
gandalf however was a great character and superbly acted - shame about what happens to him. !!
Best fantasy film since "Excalibur" in my opinion. I have no interest in the turgid books at all - tried to read them, struggled through, gave up thirty pages into ROTK - but the movie was wonderful.
carrott_girl
19-12-2001, 23:26
Well, I just got back from seeing it and thought I'd let you all know my views (and me bro's) whilst they are fresh in my mind.
Well, as soon as we left the cinema my brother said (and I paraphrase here): "20 years of excitement ruined in 3 hours." My reply was "One word:crap." to which he said, "It would have been Lord of the Rings if they'd just kept their mouths shut."
So there you go, we did not like it! Some of the problems I had with it (forgive me if there are spoliers which I do not tag appropriately):
1) Whoever wrote it should have read the book first! Yes, in general it followed the book and I understand that they'd have to leave things out. They left out little details, but lots of them, and they just kept on adding up.
2) Frodo and Sams' friendship was not explored, Sam just seemed to follow Frodo about.
3) They made Borromir evil - he is/was not evil, just overpowered by the ring.
4) Saruman in general.
5) When Galadriel became all evil and stuff she showed too much emotion afterwards.
6) Merry and Pippin should not be potrayed as stad-up comedians.
7) Gimli is not a whinger and is serious!!!
8) The score!!! Good in places but absoultely terrible in others. Too happy most of the time.
9) The Balrog does not have wings!!!
10) Too much crying.
11) Aragorn should not make you go "pwoaaarrrr" (Legolas maybe, but not Aragorn).
12) The Aragorn/Arwen romance (I actually liked the Liv Tyler bit in general).
13) They rushed to get to all of the action scenes (I undertand they needed to keep it going).
14) See number 1 again and again.
Now, you all think I hated it but I didn't. As a film it was wonderful and I loved the computer graphics and the action scenes. Definitely needs a seconf viewing but it is NOT Lord of the Rings. :(
Idle Child
20-12-2001, 00:26
you're summation reminds me, carrot_girl, of another flaw in the movie..
so many characters to keep track of! i'd forgotten most of their names.. infact the only standout names were Frodo and Gandalf.. as for the rest? i couldn't put a name to their mug shots if i was paid..
maybe i just didn't pay enough attention or something?
JimDriver2
20-12-2001, 01:24
I just got back from seeing it and I have to say I thought it was excellent! Easily the best film of the year. Only CTHD and Traffic have come close this year. I can't wait for the next two!
As for those of you disappointed with the film, I can see your points from what you've said, but I don't agree with them. Certainly Frodo is depicted as a wimp in my opinion. Films of books never do live up to the books, a good Book is always going to be better than a film, but thats more down to the medium. A book allows it to be personalized, a film can't.
Oh and no probs at the 9pm showing, no kids or crazy people! Oh and if anyone he lives near Romford I highly recommend you use the Brewery Cinema from now on, its the best Cinema i've ever been in!
Wondered how long it would be before the LOTR's purists came out of the woodwork :)
I basically don't agree with a lot of the criticisms and like the film so much that I can actually be bothered to respond
1) Whoever wrote it should have read the book first! Yes, in general it followed the book and I understand that they'd have to leave things out. They left out little details, but lots of them, and they just kept on adding up.
So what - I think Pete Jackson left out as little as he possibly could and was actually quite brave not to leave out more - it was a 3 hour film after all
2) Frodo and Sams' friendship was not explored, Sam just seemed to follow Frodo about.
Didn't bother me one bit
3) They made Borromir evil - he is/was not evil, just overpowered by the ring.
Simply don't agree with this and I doubt many people will
4) Saruman in general.
What about him ?
I thought the casting was generally quite excellent
5) When Galadriel became all evil and stuff she showed too much emotion afterwards
Huh - we cant have been watching the same movie ?
6) Merry and Pippin should not be potrayed as stand-up comedians.
Again just simply don't agree - there characteristizations were fine
7) Gimli is not a whinger and is serious!!!
When did he whinge ?
Im really losing you now - perhaps if you said a little too bumbling I might agree with you
8) The score!!! Good in places but absoultely terrible in others. Too happy most of the time.
Thought the score was OK but not great (a la Gladiator) - would have been nice if Hans Zimmer, John Barry, Ennio Morricone etc... had been commissioned
9) The Balrog does not have wings!!!
Didnt bother me one bit - didnt even notice any wings - especially as it fell into the chasm !
10) Too much crying.
Gandalf & Borrimir "died" - people cry when people die
11) Aragorn should not make you go "pwoaaarrrr" (Legolas maybe, but not Aragorn).
Again simply dont agree - the casting of Aragorn & Borrimir was excellent
12) The Aragorn/Arwen romance (I actually liked the Liv Tyler bit in general).
Perfect match IMO
13) They rushed to get to all of the action scenes (I undertand they needed to keep it going).
Thats simply not true - the first part of the movie spent quite a while building up the plot without any action whatsoever
ProgressiveScan
20-12-2001, 05:19
Originally posted by Mike
Best fantasy film since "Excalibur" in my opinion. I have no interest in the turgid books at all - tried to read them, struggled through, gave up thirty pages into ROTK - but the movie was wonderful.
Gotta agree on the books, Mike, I gave up on FOTR after one chapter (third time of trying to read the book as well), I hate Tolkien's writing style!!
Still booked my ticket last night, and people coming out of one showing were raving about the film, so it looks like reading the book might not matter like Harry Potter.
soberion
20-12-2001, 07:47
Ok, as a person who hasn't read the books I totally enjoyed the film, and so did the other dozen people I was with, (many of whom had read the book).
However, One thing hit us all and slightly ruined the experience. The battle scenes were very hard on the eyes. Now, I'm not sure if it was -
Bad focusing, (the film looked fuzzy in quite a few shots).
Sitting too close to the screen, (we were about half a dozen rows from the front,although it wasn't exactly the biggest screen in the world).
or simply the direction and effects made it all to busy on screen.
Several times I had to look away becasue It was starting to make my eyes strain. I just hope it was down to poor projection at the UCI. I shall be going to see it again and will pick another cinema to see it in.
Absolutely loved it. A wonderful, magical film, that IMO stayed faithfull to the source material.
A smile crept across my face when the screen went back and we were presented with "Wingnut Films presents Lord Of the Rings".
Peter Jackson......well done.
oh LarsT , you might want to put your comments in spoiler tags m8, as there are some pretty big ones in your reply to carrot_girl.
John Murray
20-12-2001, 08:17
Spot on LarsT - for Lord of the Rings purists, read trainspotters!
I must have read the books a dozen times over the past 20 years and love them, but I thought the film was superb - I went at 7 pm last night and have never seen an audience so transfixed (and quiet! - sorry you day-time audiences! :D ) for 3 hours.
Yes, yes, Tom Bombadil wasnt in it, and Frodo might not have matched everyone's mental image of him (how could he?) and who CARES if a Balrog 'should' have wings or not?!
The film worked really well on its own level - the cast were generally superb - I went with my girlfriend who has never read any of the books - she thought it was fantastic and says she is going to start reading them today - job done as far as I am concerned!
suprised to see one of the seminal works of literature of the 20th century described as "turgid".
to those who may be put off reading the tolkien novels by such comments i would say give them a go, check out the comments on amazon to see that this definitely a minority opinion.
hookbeak
20-12-2001, 08:40
A literal translation of the book would be a terrible movie. People would be asleep halfway through the thirteenth song. I haven't seen LOTR yet - but the same arguments are popping up like they did for Harry Potter "they missed this/this is different".
Well there's a good reason they are different. A movie is not a book, they are totally different mediums.
If you want a word for word LOTR - read the book.
Simple.
Mr Flibble
20-12-2001, 08:49
Never read LOTR - really looking forward to this - so thanks for the use of spoilers LarsT :brickwall
Maybe you should edit point 10 in your post
carrott_girl
20-12-2001, 08:52
Originally posted by John Murray
Spot on LarsT - for Lord of the Rings purists, read trainspotters!!
Why thank you. :) I never said that I wanted it to be perfect, matching the book exactly. They just made too many mistakes. My points above may seem nitpicky and pointless but they made so many changes that it bacame a large change for me. Now I look back on it (and you do as well-if you've read the books) how on earth can you say that......Aragorn would have just let Frodo go at the end? He, himself said, in the film that he was going to protect Frodo and the ring. No matter what anyone says, the PROPER and REAL Aragorn would not have doen that. You may think that that is just a minor plot change but to me it ruins the entire character.
As for being a purist, I can honestly say that I enjoyed Bakshi's version more as the characters are how they should have been depicted. Also, the BBC radio adaptaion is superb, and they left out Tom Bombadil!! :eek: But that doesn't matter because he didn't MAKE Lord of the Rings, but the alterations that were made to the film did.
I would see it again, and plan to, it's just a shock to see a film that I had such high expectations of to be "ruined." there were parts which I thought were amazing (the entire 1st hour) but as soon as they left Rivendell it lost it bascially. Did LOVE the action scenes though, but since when are beheadings allowed in a PG? :D. Also, the black riders were superb, made me jump every time and I was terified of Gollum.
I can't come up with any defence to back up my statements I'm afraid LarsT as they are just my feelings on the film and not facts, however I will reiterate that they would not have cried, even at that point. Frodo, especially cried too much, he was the Ring bearer and should have been strong. If they've got him crying now he's going to be a nervous wreck by the end of the trilogy. That just reminded me, I did like the way that Broromir turned.
As an endnote, they got Sam right!
CBSKYWALKER
20-12-2001, 09:09
I have known most of the story for ages and am only just reading the books. I have got to the first 2 chapters in the 3rd book and am loving every bit of it.
Went to see the film last night at 8 o clock at star city (birmingham). Excellent crowd , So quiet ive never seen anthing like it !
The movie IMO was brilliant , Peter jackson has nailed a movie version of the book everyone said couldnt be made ! The special effects were fantastic and its like you were there. The biggest thing for me in the movie was the emotional response to the characters even though i knew what was going to happen i was still willing them on and even got worried in the battles.
My mother gave the perfect reaction after seeing the film she said she felt like she did when she was a child watching a movie willing the characters on with sweaty/clenched palms.
The casting was brilliant i especially liked Orlando Bloom as Legolas he was perfect ! and strider too. The glimpses of gollum were cool and i just cant wait till the next part.
Well done PJ !!!!
Originally posted by Mr Flibble
Never read LOTR - really looking forward to this - so thanks for the use of spoilers LarsT :brickwall
Maybe you should edit point 10 in your post
DITTO. Not seen it yet and it's probably a good idea not to read anymore of this thread.:(
silverpenguin7
20-12-2001, 09:25
Well I am seeing it saturday night. I am 65 pages from the end of the book so I have to make sure I finish it before then!
But, I have mixed feelings towards it now :(
Was really looking forward to it (well still am) but some of the comments here have made me worry a little. Oh well, guess I will find out soon enough! :D
I'm a big fan of the book (fav all time book) and the radio play by the BBC.
Overall I think the film was just too epic and sweeping to take everything in in one sitting. Definetly a film to see more than once.
I think it will slowly grow on people, esp once the second and third ones start to arrive.
There are bits that niggled me slightly because they were changed or missing and made you think WHY? but in no way did they spoil it.
Sorry to pick on CG but these seem to be common complaints from certain fans.
1) Whoever wrote it should have read the book first! Yes, in general it followed the book and I understand that they'd have to leave things out. They left out little details, but lots of them, and they just kept on adding up.
How you you have done it?
There is simply no way you can film the lot. The radio play was 13 hours long and still missed out bits! Three three hour films is about the limit.
2) Frodo and Sams' friendship was not explored, Sam just seemed to follow Frodo about.
There was ample evidence to show a newbie to the story that these two are good friends, which is all they are at the start.
Remember this is the first film of three. The relationship between them becomes fully developed in the next two.
3) Spoiler:
They made Borromir evil - he is/was not evil, just overpowered by the ring.
Eh? How did they make him evil?
He was, just as you said overpowered by the ring.
Saruman in general.
??
The casting? The look?
When Galadriel became all evil and stuff she showed too much emotion afterwards.
Lost me a bit there.
6) Merry and Pippin should not be potrayed as stad-up comedians.
They do start out as country bumpkin type characters. This is perfectly in line with the book. If they stay that way in the next films it may be a problem but I doubt it.
7) Gimli is not a whinger and is serious!!!
Gimli was great! Didn't notice any over whinging.
Strange how all fantasy dwarves end up scottish though :)
Shame the Galadriel and Gimil bit was missing.
8) The score!!! Good in places but absoultely terrible in others. Too happy most of the time.
Aye, the score wasn't great.
9) The Balrog does not have wings!!!
Oh come on!
Not even the geekiest fans can agree on this one.
Only one person can say for certain and he is probably sitting in heaven amazed that such a trivial detail is causing so much argument.
The Balrog is an absolutely amazing cinematic treat. Scenes like that are THE reason films are made.
10) Too much crying.
Yes they should buck up a bit.
They only have the whole worlds fate in the hands and have to suffer a few deaths.
11) Aragorn should not make you go "pwoaaarrrr" (Legolas maybe, but not Aragorn).
Casting is just spot on.
I thought was suitably smeggy as strider.
12) The Aragorn/Arwen romance (I actually liked the Liv Tyler bit in general).
Nicely done and not too intrusive.
I don't think they needed to have her summon the water though.
carrott_girl
20-12-2001, 09:52
Originally posted by Goragio
Sorry to pick on CG but these seem to be common complaints from certain fans.
It's okay! I knew that I'd face a lot of disagreement, but I'm not bothered.
2) Frodo and Sams' friendship was not explored, Sam just seemed to follow Frodo about.
There was ample evidence to show a newbie to the story that these two are good friends, which is all they are at the start.
Remember this is the first film of three. The relationship between them becomes fully developed in the next two.
>I understand that it is deeply explored in the next books but I feel that it still lacked something. I think that there was just something extra needed to show that they were good friends.
3) Spoiler:
They made Boromir evil - he is/was not evil, just overpowered by the ring.
Eh? How did they make him evil?
He was, just as you said overpowered by the ring.
>I just felt that the way that they portrayed him made the audience feel that he was evil. I can't remember specifically but at Rivendell they handled the whole Boromir wants to take the ring to Minas Tirith thing wrong and made him appear all wrong.
Saruman in general.
??
The casting? The look?
>Okay, I should have developed this further. My problem with Saruman was just the lines he came out with basically and when he was with all of the orcs etc. it just made it appear like he was saying "look how powerful I am, walking among my minions."
When Galadriel became all evil and stuff she showed too much emotion afterwards.
Lost me a bit there.
>I know that it's just the tiniest thing but when she does her "In Saurons place there will be a Queen" etc etc (for started thatbwas dodgy) and she seemed to be upset afterward, she wouldn't have done that.
10) Too much crying.
Yes they should buck up a bit.
They only have the whole worlds fate in the hands and have to suffer a few deaths.
>Are you being sarcastic? :D I undertand the pressures but still. (see other post about crying).
12) The Aragorn/Arwen romance (I actually liked the Liv Tyler bit in general).
Nicely done and not too intrusive.
I don't think they needed to have her summon the water though.
>I actually liked her summoning the water, I think that it would have been difficult to show that Gandalf was actually doing that.
I know that it must seem to most of you that I'm just picking on little things (which, I guess I am) but they all add up!!! There are many other problems that I have with the film and for me it just isn't right. I'll say it again: it was a great film but wasn't Lord of the Rings
Just read CarrotGirl's comment about the ending.
This one had the wife and I talking about it for a while afterwards.
We thought that that section of the book would have been just a little too much of a downer to end the film on.
Gandalf's dead, so is Boromir. The fellowship is broken the hobbits lost. Aragorn decides to follow the orc tracks not even knowing for sure that Frodo is there.
The film ending is more of a resolution. Needed, given that the audience has to wait another year.
It doesn't really change Aragorn's character. He isn't stupid, he knows that Frodo has made up his mind to go alone. There isn't much he can really do about it, after all Frodo could sneak off at anytime. Add to that the fact that he knows staying with the ring leads to temptation to "turn to the darkside". Putting his faith in Frodo and letting him go is perfectly in character for Aragorn.
I thought it was stunning, a wonderfully crafted, epic masterpiece.
The locations and the casting were almost spot-on and the cinematography was suitably epic and inventive.
Took me back to when I was a bairn seeing Star Wars and Superman on the big screen.
I could really only find minor quibbles if I was to really nitpick but I won't.
One of the few true blockbusters that has actually delivered the goods in ages. Received a standing ovation at the end.
:clap:
carrott_girl
20-12-2001, 10:08
Originally posted by Goragio
Just read CarrotGirl's comment about the ending.
This one had the wife and I talking about it for a while afterwards.
We thought that that section of the book would have been just a little too much of a downer to end the film on.
Gandalf's dead, so is Boromir. The fellowship is broken the hobbits lost. Aragorn decides to follow the orc tracks not even knowing for sure that Frodo is there.
The film ending is more of a resolution. Needed, given that the audience has to wait another year.
It's supposed to be a downer!! The whole book is depressing (maybe not depressing, but dark). I know it seems better to make it like that but I thought that that was a significant change. I think it would have made a good cliff hanger personally. It would leave the audience on the edge of their seats and really wanting know what happens next (they should have kept Gollum in that part as well, then the audience would remember that he's following them). I personally think that it trivialised the whole film. Aragorn just letting Frodo go like that also messes up the decision that he had to make to follow Merry and Pippin instead.
Thanks Gizmo. I wonder if that was directed at me. Just because I have a problem with the film and don't agree with the majority doesn't mean you have to say that I nitpick. Yes, I took that offensively if you hadn't guessed. (
Ron Hill
20-12-2001, 10:44
The wife and I and a friend of ours saw it last night and all of came out giviing it a resounding thumbs up.
Time obviously works differently in Middle Earth because it certainly felt nowhere near 3 hours in length despite what my watch told me.
We're all going to see it again for sure.
Havn't seen a film this powerful since proper original trilogy Star Wars movies.
thedapman
20-12-2001, 10:48
Originally posted by wabznasm
Went to the 11 o'clock showing, of course the usual nutters were there. One nutjob decided to comment (VERY LOUDLY) on every action on screen ("I've read the book, you know"), laugh at the serious bits, laughed every time someone on screen was smoking (ha-ha, he said 'weed', yes very funny), kept mentioning Cornwall for some reason, and he also left the cinema half way through the film TO DO SOME SHOPPING! and came back with a carrier bag full of sweets!.
This summarises exactly why I haven't been to the cinema in years. There should be a law allowing you to commit extreme carnage on people like that :mad:
I'm a big big fan of the books and I was very impressed at how they portrayed the whole experience on the film.
OK, it's not literal to the books but so what?
On it's own it stands as one of the greatest cinematic events I've witnessed on the big screen.
The last time I remember being that impressed was probably Superman II.
There are a few times when it all slows down, but I think it's needed to flesh things out.
This whole post is one spoiler fest. Maybe whoever posted it could add spoilers to the title, or people could edit their posts.
Agree with the blurring though, I asked my friend if he notciced it at his showing and he did. Not sure if that's down to projection technology or direction.
We'll know when the DVD comes out.
Loved the prologue at the start. Sauron kicks ass!
SOUNDSTYLE
20-12-2001, 12:14
I saw it last night a was impressed. All the characters were as I imagined them to be. It had the feeling at times of the excellent 'Jason and the arganauts' and 'Clash of the titans'.
Afterwards I felt like seeing it again, and that hasn't happened for a good few years with a film.
Can't wait for the next two and for the trilogy to come out on DVD.
Alegol1983
20-12-2001, 12:54
Originally posted by SOUNDSTYLE
Afterwards I felt like seeing it again, and that hasn't happened for a good few years with a film.
I know what you mean, I've never been to see a film twice in the cinema, but I was going to see FOTR today (after seeing it yesterday) after school, but I decided seeing it twice two days running would ruin it for me. Defiitiely be seeing it again soon...
Favourite sequence, anyone?
Sorry guys Im a bit of an ignoramous when it comes to spoilers - can some nice person explain them briefly ?
On my browser I get big blocks of black with the word spoiler in the top left hand corner but then when I "reply with qoute" the blocks of black in the post I am replying to magically turn into text
Im using web filtering s/w so I was wondering if this was to blame ?
Im sure one of you nice people will clear this up for me
Originally posted by Alegol1983
Favourite sequence, anyone?
All Saruman's and Gandalf's scenes, Moria was awesome, the prologue was cool, the scene where Elrond tells Isildur to cast the ring into the crack of mount doom was superbly dramatic and sinister,the scene where the hobbits crack due to Gandalf's death was superb put a tear in my eye, the scene where the eagle rescues Gandalf from Orthanc and the wizard duel were both very cool and the scene at the end as the fellowship went up the river and it intercuts between epic, sweeping shots of them in boats with close ups of the chargin orcs with great, dramatic music was brilliant, Sean Bean lust for the ring at the end and then redeeming himself by protecting the hobbits...........film of the year and that there is no doubt. Only one line at the end didn't fit and spoilt the atmosphere slightly Lets hunt some Orc *sigh*
I wanna see it again sooo bad it hurts.
Idle Child
20-12-2001, 13:31
Originally posted by LarsT
Sorry guys Im a bit of an ignoramous when it comes to spoilers - can some nice person explain them briefly ?
On my browser I get big blocks of black with the word spoiler in the top left hand corner but then when I "reply with qoute" the blocks of black in the post I am replying to magically turn into text
Im using web filtering s/w so I was wondering if this was to blame ?
Im sure one of you nice people will clear this up for me
you dont have to "reply with quote" to see the text.. Just highlight the inside of the black block with left mouse button and you'll see the text "magically" appear.. or click inside it with 3 clicks.. :)
to write spoilers add the [spolier] *put text here* [/spoiler ] tag
Arch Stanton
20-12-2001, 15:43
Mr Stanton has just seen The Fellowship.
( Yup afternoon showing. Small kids seemed to really enjoy it. But the early teens were the pains... )
Mr Stanton thought is was absolutly fantastic.
Inteligent, well directed ( well done, Derick. ), excellent acting ( even Sean Bean didn't drift into his Yorkshire accent, which is a first. ) beautifully shot, faultless SFX. I could go on.
The only bad point...Enya on the soundtrack. There's no need for that.
For those of you getting anal about the plot details that differ from the book.
GET A LIFE!
I thank you.
carrott_girl
20-12-2001, 15:57
Originally posted by Arch Stanton
For those of you getting anal about the plot details that differ from the book.
GET A LIFE!
Maybe you should rephrase that to: "Those of you who have a different opinion. Get a Life."
If you have nothing constructive to say then don't say anything at all. I did not give my opinion only to be mocked and laughed at. Thank YOU.
I apologise if this is off topic but I don't like it when I am made fun out of for no apparant reason.
Was it just me or ...
did Bill, the pony just suddenly appear in the film for a minute? I'm sure they must've cut out a scene in Bree which explained how they got him. Or was I just not paying attention?
If you think of the film as someone's interpretation of the story and adaptation for a today's PG audience (eg IMO the romance felt a little out of place and I think it was only included so that the film would appeal to female viewers ), then even a fan of the book should enjoy it.
Personally, I loved the film. I had only finished reading Fellowship a few days previously and did find myself doing a comparison throughout - but in another way, it was fantastic to see Gollum and the Balrog and hear some dialogue lifted straight out of the book eg. Bilbo's reluctance to part with the ring and his outburst at Gandalf.
Where I think the film really hit the mark was that it transported me into middle-earth. I didn't feel I was just watching a film. The only other time that has happened was when I saw Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. I think I finally understand what people felt like when they first saw the original Star Wars films all those years ago.
Originally posted by charith
If you think of the film as someone's interpretation of the story and adaptation for a today's PG audience (eg IMO the romance felt a little out of place and I think it was only included so that the film would appeal to female viewers ), then even a fan of the book should enjoy it. [/B]
I think it was included for parts 2 and 3.
When it gets dealt with in a bit more depth, people won't go "where did that come from?"
At least alluding to it prepares viewers.
:D
Carrot_girl, just keep repeating " it's only a film,it's only a film"
Oh and i thought the film was excellent but i'm sure i saw a headbutt by Aragorn in there somewhere which is very strange for the censor to pass.
Nevermind only 12 months to go until the next installment ........... :D
Arch Stanton
20-12-2001, 16:29
Originally posted by carrott_girl
Maybe you should rephrase that to: "Those of you who have a different opinion. Get a Life."
If you have nothing constructive to say then don't say anything at all. I did not give my opinion only to be mocked and laughed at. Thank YOU.
I apologise if this is off topic but I don't like it when I am made fun out of for no apparant reason.
Sorry to have caused offence. None was ment.
But i was amazed and the level of nitpicking going on about what is a very very good film that could have been a disaster of 'Mummy returns' proportions.
You see we're comenting hear on a film. Not a book.
They could have filmed it word for word but that would have made the dullest ( and longest )film ever made. The changes made ( in MHOP ) the story flow a damn site better than it ever did in the book. ( i've read up to the 2 towers years ago and gave up finding it more of a chore than a good read. ) Plus the fact that your complaining about things like the monster having wings is a bit like slagging off the Mona Lisa because there's a dodgy brush stroke in the top left hand corner. ( I didn't even notice wheather it had wings or not, i was more botherd about how the heroes were going to get away from the thing. )
Obviously you really like the book and the book will always be there but i really do think you can't see the wood for the trees.
Or as Tolkien would have put it... Can't see the dark dispairing wood which spread across the mighty vally floor for the evil twisted knawly trees which reached it the jade black knight sky as if reaching out to grasp the moon with there finger shaped braches. This reminded Frodo of a song....
Samba123
20-12-2001, 16:29
12 months to go...
A lifetime almost. :(
Great film - very true to the book. As a Tolkien afficianado, I was a little disappointed not to see Tom Bombadil and the hobbit's adventures with the enchanted forest included, but even so.
Does anyone else think watching all 3 in succession in a few years is going to be an immense experience or is it just me?
carrott_girl
20-12-2001, 17:06
Originally posted by Arch Stanton
Obviously you really like the book and the book will always be there but i really do think you can't see the wood for the trees.
My God, you people get up my arse! Read my posts carefully, I said I liked the film (and plan to see it many more times this week)but it just wasn't the 'real' LOTR. It's a film, the book is a book and they are separate. I like Tolkien's LOTR and Jacksons'. Note to self: never ever have an opinion again.
/going now cos' I is very angry/
ProgressiveScan
20-12-2001, 17:24
Originally posted by SOUNDSTYLE
I saw it last night a was impressed. All the characters were as I imagined them to be. It had the feeling at times of the excellent 'Jason and the arganauts' and 'Clash of the titans'.
Afterwards I felt like seeing it again, and that hasn't happened for a good few years with a film.
Can't wait for the next two and for the trilogy to come out on DVD.
Yeah, I agree, I think I'm gonna go to a late showing next time, I felt like I'd taken my brain out and washed it in a cesspit, the amount of stupid and idiotic people were in the audience with me.
Quite a few were tutting at the end as if they'd been short-changed - Didn't help that a guy with a neck as long as a Giraffe was sat in front of me so I couldn't see half the bloody screen either!
Oh, and I think there was a guy smoking dope on the back-row too!
Originally posted by Arch Stanton
Or as Tolkien would have put it... Can't see the dark dispairing wood which spread across the mighty vally floor for the evil twisted knawly trees which reached it the jade black knight sky as if reaching out to grasp the moon with there finger shaped braches. This reminded Frodo of a song....
:clap: :D
anyways I saw it yesterday and thought it was fantastic, having read the books once saw the Bakeshi film a good few time and listening to the radio version a fair bit I would say that by seeing these other versions they may cloud your judgement on the film. I saw the Bakeshi film when I was quite young (before I read the book and hence began to picture it in that way) also things like the way Sam sounds. He sounds exactly the same as he did in the radio version and if he wouldn't have he would've seemed wrong. I was suprised that Sean Austin pulled it off.
I agree about the idea of introducing the romance in the first picture and dare I say it this improves on the book as it will show
you that Aragorn already has someone when he meets Eowyn. Who's playing her BTW?
It was a shame that we didn't get to see Wormtongue and Theoden in the first one.
I really appreciated the expanding of Sarumans character and the cuts to Orthanc showing an army being built were very impressive, like the Urukhai coming out of a cocoon.
I also didn't see the problem with the book simply getting to action bits as they can not simply have the fellowship walking around for 2-3 hours talking Quentin Tarantino dialogue about dwarf bread.
I was dubious about Sean Bean being Boromir but I was quite impressed with his performance.
I also have to admit that I preferred the Balrog in Bakeshi's version not exactly sure why.
I went in to see this film expecting cuts and changes and the one that were made were acceptable, I'll be seeing it again when the crowds die down, hopefully by next year. I also hear that the dvd is due out before the next film, as someone asked Peter Jackson if he was going to "do a Lucas" and he said no, is this true?
Originally posted by McMikey
I was dubious about Sean Bean being Boromir but I was quite impressed with his performance.
Gotta diagree, he was the only guy all year I knew was right for the part. Read the book after the internet preview earlier in the year and in my mind Sean Bean was perfect for the part. The only criticism that can be levelled at the film is that it is only part one. As a full 9+ hour film nothing will better it. Can't wait to see the the charge of the Rohan and all of the other epic battles in the sequels. Just thinking about what PJ will do with the two other books gets me excited.
John Murray
20-12-2001, 20:09
Wasnt the Cave Troll fabulous?! Superb CGI......:clap:
mikegray
20-12-2001, 23:51
OK, I'll put my head on the chopping block, but of my friends who saw it, one of them thought it was a 9/10 film, the other a 5/10, and I'm somewhere inbetween.
I know we all wanted a masterpiece, but I really didn't get into it. Maybe I was in the wrong mindset to see it or whatever... got the shivers down my spine during the opening monologue, but during the bit where Gandalf looks like he's breakdancing (there, that's not a spoiler unless you've seen it!) the spell got broken and I never really got back into it which was a real shame, as I went into it with no expectations and thought I was going to very much enjoy it.
The thing we all agreed on was that the film *felt* long, and that's rarely a good sign. There are three hour plus films I've seen which were long but didn't *feel* it, if you know what I mean, whereas Fellowship definitely did.
I certainly didn't think it deserved a PG rating, though - a 12 with parental discretion (as being trialled by the BBFC currently) seemed more suitable to me, as several younger children were obviously upset and had to be comforted by their parents during the screening I saw [I know the BBFC has advised that under 8s probably shouldn't see it] and one had to leave... I really think (and both of my friends agreed) that the PG certificate was somewhat suspect for this one...
Overall, it was watchable, certainly, but I didn't feel that *on it's own* it was a masterpiece, but that as part of a trilogy, when it all comes together it might well be... does that make sense to anyone?
Maybe I'll catch it again on DVD - thinking of which, how would you prefer it - a three disc set with two discs for the film (obviously with an intermission) and a disc of extras, or a disc for the film (but with lower bitrate, obviously) and a disc for the extras? [I assume it's *got* to be a double-disc set... no way a studio will miss the chance to charge double-disc prices when it can..]
One can only hope (considering his involvement) that there won't be a Harry Knowles commentary track, which judging by the review on Ain't It Cool News would sound something like
:: insert strange slapping noise ::
"Oh! Peter Jackson.... Oh! Frodo!... Oh! Elijah!...... Oh! Oh! Oh! Mmm..... Peter...." etc, etc... :rolleyes:
Other juvenile and cynical comments that I'd like to make before anyone else does:
1. The score sounds like a cross between James Horner's "Titanic" score and the Hovis Bread Advert
2. The three hobbits in a bed scene
3. When Gandalf was fighting his evil ex-master type chap, he looked like he was breakdancing.
4. The bit with all the arrows in the guy's chest reminded me very much of the beginning of Monty Python & The Holy Grail with the duel between the Knights, the whole 'It's Just A Flesh Wound' thing
5. It's all about Frodo's ring... :nuts:
6. The whole smoking weed thing, and then shortly afterwards the hobbits excited about finding mushrooms.
OK, that was pathetic of me... I'm sorry. Flame away. ;)
I came away from the film with the same emotional & intellectual feelings that I always have after reading the novel. To me, it "felt" exactly right! Which is quite an achievement, I think - not many books adapted for the screen have left me feeling the same way.
(This is, of course, not necessarily easy to achieve for everyone - reading a book is a VERY subjective experience!)
i just got back from seeing it and loved it. i havent left the cinema liking a movie this much in ages. the acting/effects and sets were great. it didnt feel like 3 hours to me. the first time i looked at my watch more than two hours had passed.
questions though,
who created the rings? i know sarumon created one but who made the others?
why did the 'mortal men' who had 9 rings become the black riders but noone else?
and who was sarumon? was he a good guy that was corrupted and became the evil guy or are we supposed to take him as the devil?
mikegray
21-12-2001, 00:34
Originally posted by tomos
i just got back from seeing it and loved it. i havent left the cinema liking a movie this much in ages. the acting/effects and sets were great. it didnt feel like 3 hours to me. the first time i looked at my watch more than two hours had passed.
questions though,
who created the rings? i know sarumon created one but who made the others?
My understanding was that Sarumon created all of them, but gave the less powerful ones away and kept the one true ring for himself.
why did the 'mortal men' who had 9 rings become the black riders but noone else?
pass.
and who was sarumon? was he a good guy that was corrupted and became the evil guy or are we supposed to take him as the devil?
Well, I don't know. I assumed that he was a metaphor for the devil, if you will - or at least for the idea that power corrupts
thanks. cant wait to see the other two chapters of this movie.
how are you all buying the dvd? buy each part or wait for a complete box set?
Relax CG - i can see where your coming from even if I dont feel the same way - watching a film is a highly subjective experience and lots of internal & external things can influence ones opinion ... bla, bla ...
Wrt the questions - I'm sure there was an brief explaination in the film but heres my understanding anyway
who created the rings? i know sarumon created one but who made the others?
Think your mixing up Saruman & Sauron - Sauron the evil spirit thingy in Mordor slain 500 years earlier was the creator of all the rings
why did the 'mortal men' who had 9 rings become the black riders but noone else?
Sauron originally gave the lesser rings to a select few Lords/Kings to help out with his world domination I guess - the rings caused those guys to turn into the Ringwraiths and become enslaved to him
and who was sarumon? was he a good guy that was corrupted and became the evil guy or are we supposed to take him as the devil?
Assuming you really do mean Saruman and not Sauron then heres a qoute :
"Facing off against the Fellowship is the evil Saruman, once the head of the Council of the Wise, who has since succumbed to the dark temptations of Sauron’s power. Saruman wants Frodo’s ring and is willing to use his specially bred Uruk-Hai — grotesque, war-like creatures -- to get it. Perhaps no one could embody Saruman better than that long-time master, Christopher Lee."
Sauron has always been an evil guy I think - I read the Tolkien stuff about 20 years ago and vaguely remember him being some sort of ancient evil god like being who has a whole load of compatriots who have cast him out into Middle Earth - along the same lines as the devil being a fallen angel of God I think - on the other hand I might be talking rubbish
i meant sauron but got mixed up by the names.
i read the last few pages of the book that i borrowed from my mother and in that frodo says:
'he was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against'
does that mean that he used to be an angel hence now the devil?
steve lucas
21-12-2001, 07:02
Went last night. Totally gobsmacked! Took my 14 year old son and his mate. Comment from them on the way home.. best movie ever, but should have been more than a PG!
As an interesting aside, all copies of LOTR have disappeared from their school library and all the local libraries, with big waiting lists !
So even if there are (in my opinion minor) differences between the book and the movie, the movie has served one purpose -- to get kids back into reading!
ProgressiveScan
21-12-2001, 08:18
Originally posted by tomos
i just got back from seeing it and loved it. i havent left the cinema liking a movie this much in ages. the acting/effects and sets were great. it didnt feel like 3 hours to me. the first time i looked at my watch more than two hours had passed.
questions though,
who created the rings? i know sarumon created one but who made the others?
Sarumon created the Master Ring, unknown to all the other 9 rings.
why did the 'mortal men' who had 9 rings become the black riders but noone else?
Because the race of Man was weak and their greed in accepting the rings without question may have meant they were given tainted rings.
and who was sarumon? was he a good guy that was corrupted and became the evil guy or are we supposed to take him as the devil?
I think he's the devil
who created the rings? i know sarumon created one but who made the others?
In the early Second Age, Sauron walked around Middle-Earth masked in a fair hue and with noble manners, and he only named himself Annatar, Lord of the Gifts. He tried to persuade the free people to join his side.
With Annatar's guidance, the Elves under Celebrimbor forged many rings with various powers, among them 16 great rings of power, and three rings independent from Sauron's influence. He, in turn, had only a plan to enslave the Elves to his power, for in secret he had forged the One Ring to rule all other Rings of Power in Mount Doom in his land of shadow; and Sauron put much of his own power into it. However, as he put it on, the Elves became aware of it, and were not fooled: they took off their rings, and Celebrimbor hid the three rings later known as the Elven Rings.
Sauron then demanded all rings for himself, as he claimed they could not have been forged without him. Although he was given none by the Elves, he regained them after he had waged war on Eregion in 1697. The Elven Rings he did not find, but seven of the rings he gained he gave to the Dwarves, trying to ensnare them. To the Dwarves the Rings brought great wealth, but great greed also, although in the end they never fully succumbed to the influence of the Rings and their master. It is said that the foundation of each of the great seven dwarven hoards was the power of a Ring.
Men, on the other hand, had always proven the readiest to heed Sauron and give in to his will. Sauron gave them nine rings, and these made their bearers the greatest lords of their time among the mortals. But, as they used the power of the rings to enter the shadows, to see what others could not perceive and not to be seen themselves, they got drawn ever more under the control of Sauron himself, and they became less and less human, until they were only dreadful phantoms of shadow, known as the nine Ringwraiths, or Nazgűl in the tongue of the Enemy, fully under the sway and will of their Dark Lord.
[/spoiler] [/B]
Well, I thought it was excellent! There were quite a few places where it misses out bits of the book, and having read it I would be happy to sit here for 4 or more hours to have them filled in, but to the viewer who hasn't read the book this would be unbearable I think.
There were a few points that irked me slightly though, I'll put them all in a spoiler just in case :) I had only read the Fellowship of the Ring when I watched the film, meaning I could watch the film and assess it based only on the first book. Knowing events to come might have changed my views a bit.....
1) carrott_girl mentioned that the friendship between Frodo and Sam is not explored well enough. IMHO, when reading the book I saw them having a more master and his favourite pet relationship (thanks Data), which is developing into a friendship as I read. OTOH, Merry and Pippin are Frodo's closest friends from the outset in the book, but they seemed to be roped into the quest to start with more by chance than anything else in the film.
2) The dwarves/elves conflict hasn't been resolved yet. Gimli's turning point in the book occurs at Lorien, but it was absent in the film. I felt that was quite an important moment in the storyline.
3) Really, really minor, I know, but its the thing that irritated me the most as it would have been really easy to put in... Glamdring (Gandalf's sword) is also supposed to be an elvish blade, and as such should have also glowed when the fellowship are attacked in Moria.
That's all I can think of right now....
Maj
SOUNDSTYLE
21-12-2001, 13:29
Originally posted by tomos
thanks. cant wait to see the other two chapters of this movie.
how are you all buying the dvd? buy each part or wait for a complete box set?
I'm going to wait for the box set.
SOUNDSTYLE
21-12-2001, 13:36
I thought the film should have had a 12 rating at least. Some of it would be extremely scary for most small kids I should think.
I know that kids these days are more grown up than they look but when you're scared, you're scared and you can't do anything about that.
Panavision
21-12-2001, 15:25
It's not a perfect film, but still exceptional. I'm glad I haven't read the books, a direct adaptation rarely works, I prefer a looser style.
I just wish the action was slowed a little.
Jonnyrepp
21-12-2001, 15:25
A wonderful movie. Brought back to me trhe magic of movie-going. Roll on part 2!
:clap:
Shingster
21-12-2001, 15:59
Originally posted by tomos
questions though,
and who was sarumon? was he a good guy that was corrupted and became the evil guy or are we supposed to take him as the devil?
Deron answered your first question, but the question about who Sauron (NOT Saruman, who was the character played by Christopher Lee! Why did Tolkien give the 2 main baddies very similar names? bleedin odd innit??)
It's been a while since I read the SilMarillion, so I can't remember the correct names to characters. Hopefully some knowledgable bugger will correct me if they read this post.
Basically, the mythology of Middle earth is kind of based on Greek, Christian & Egyptian Mythology. So, the mythlogy goes that one all-powerful god, who's name i've forgot (Sort of equivalent to the Greek god, Chronos) created lesser gods (Kind of like Hera, Zeuss etc), 1st & most powerful of these was Mordok?? (I know it;s Mord something, as that's why there's the realm of Mordor) who is kind of based on Lucifer in Christain mythology. So this Mordok fella was the first evil entity.
After the big God & the lesser Gods, you have the Demi-gods, who have a name, but again, I can't remember. These are the likes of Sauron, Saruman & Gandalf. Sauron was the most powerful & became the right hand man of Mordok, hence the reason that he ended up becoming an evil *******!
Ok, the elves where then born & middle earth was created as a home for them.
I'll stop there, as my memory on all this is too crap.
Needless to say, Sauron isn't analagous with Satan, but think of him as Satan's right hand man, who became extremely powerful after the fall of his master!!!
Saw it today and loved it - luckily enough the screen was quite empty so not many annoying kids about and those that were there behaved themselves - most annoying was the bloke sat behind me with his wife and daughter who insisted in whispering what was going to happen next (obviously trying to show he'd read the book) but insisted on getting them wrong most of the time (showing that he couldn't read that well) :mad:
The film itself - excellent, the characters worked for me (was a little worried about Frodo as I was under the impression wile reading that he was older) especially Aaragon.
The bits left out of the book didn't worry me that much although I agree with Dash on point two would have liked to see more from the book during that segment.
Overall I'm very happy with the film and utterly gutted that I cant see the other parts for 12 and 24 months and can't own the DVD Now!
might go and see it again over xmas
Now #1 at www.imdb.com - shame they didn't release it on a w/end as it might have been the biggest first day take ever instead of just a "measly" $18.2m
Its almost certainly gonna eclipse the total take on Harry Potter which is tosh (relatively speaking)
A lotta people are making comments about the film being spoiled by spurious audience noise
Well ... right at the start of the film there were a group of kids/teenagers making sniggering noises etc ... (& had been throughout the ads) ... normally I would either ignore it or move elsewhere but for THIS film I was not having any of it - I politely but firmly asked them to keep the noise down as I was not gonna have THIS film messed up by that sort of nonsense - normally I avoid physical confrontation but this was one occasion when I was not gonna be messed about with - if your at Hatfield UCI when I watch this film again then keep quiet or else watch out !
:)
Read the Hobbit, but not the trilogy, so here's my opinion as a neutral, and not a purist.
Dull.
Nice fx, and action.
One guy came out and said it was complete *****
At least 7/8 walked out throughout
Bit harsh, as I couldn't fault the direction, or most performances, just dull.
Will watch the other 2 though and I suppose thats why they didn't cut the crap out and make 1 3hr film from the books
Truly a fantastic Film (Never Read the book either)
Definately by far the best film of the year.
WIll be seeing this one again very soon indeed.
Just a pity it's another year before the next one.
Chris
Originally posted by carrott_girl
Thanks Gizmo. I wonder if that was directed at me. Just because I have a problem with the film and don't agree with the majority doesn't mean you have to say that I nitpick. Yes, I took that offensively if you hadn't guessed. (
Actually, it was not directed to you at all and I seriously do not see how you can be offended, I neither alluded to your post nor took issue with your, or for that matter, anyone elses opinion - I simply put my own opinion of the movie into the discussion.
I think the movie is a modern masterpiece and, therefor, for me to find fault with it I would have to be nitpicking.
lycanthrope on the loose
22-12-2001, 19:19
just coome back from seeing it... had to miss the last 20 mins thanks to the excellent bus service :mad: wasn't gonna wait 3 hours in weston :eek:
when the people came out from the previous screening a townie said it was boring :o . suprised by the amount of kids that parents brought to see it, probally sketched them out.
time for some dinner now :nuts: :p
Went to see it this afternoon at Sheffield UGC on a Huge screen. I hadn't read the books and am not a big fan of fantasy films but I did enjoy it, good but not great.
It was gorgeous to look at though and the three hours flew by. Quite a few kids in the audience who remained quiet (either really enjoyed it or were scared) but one bloke lost it right down the front, turning round and shouting at someone behind him "shut the ****** up your ruining the whole ********** film you've been whispering whats gonna happen all the way through the ********** film you ******" or something like that right at a quiet moment which made me and my mates crease with laughter.
Seemed to work though so if any of you have more problems with noisy or distracting people in the cinema take note :D
Just came back from seeing it. wow, just wow. Far better then i expected. Best movie of the year? Yes. All time? Can't be, because it's only part of a whole story. Best trilogy? Certainly has the potential, if parts 1 & 2 doesn’t drop the ball, so to speak, then yes it will be.
Just one question for those who have seen the 1978 cartoon. Towards the end of the cartoon (which would be about halfway through the second movie) Gullim (the one that says 'my precious' all the time) plays a more significant role, is this true to the book? I only ask because in the cartoon I found him very annoying in a 'Jar Jar Blinks' kind of way. If the second movie is anything like the last part of the cartoon, then it's going to be completely ruined for me.
sorry but have to add my .....opinion !(for what its worth ?)
saw the cartoon ...years ago !...but peter jackson !!!
looking forward to it for that reason only !!
thought it was great ........good action and though dragged to seee it :D by turk 182 !!!......on opening night in belfast !!
cant wait to see it again lol............
:clap:
Dizzying, sensational, genuinely believable, breath-taking, phenomenal...
Peter Jackson has done us all so very, very proud! One of few films where I had a constant grin on my face from enjoying it so very much right the way through.
To hell with the books; it was sheer cinematic delight from start to finish.
And remember...nobody tosses a dwarf!
Davester
23-12-2001, 12:26
I went to see the film last night and loved it! Was very impressed. There were some good and bad points:
1. missing bits from the book. he was brave to take bits out and I am gald he did as a book needs different things to a film. some of the parts he took out would have made the drag.
2. the score - excellent in places, like the bit when Gandalf dies, but not very strong in other parts. While watching star wars you notice the score, in FOTR you don't.
3. liv tyler and cate blanchett - wasn't a big fan of them at all! Wasn't impressed with their acting, especially blanchet.
4. Gandalf- great performance. Should have been a little more serious in places.
5. visually stunning but Sarumans castle could have been improved.
6. orcs - expected more
7. I am sure there was a headbut in this - a pg? (not a complaint).
8. sam and frodo's relationship could have been developed more.
certainly the film of the year and if the other two films are better it will become one of the all time great movie sagas. IMO the main weakness is that I am familiar with the story. There were no real surprises for me as I know the books very well, but for someone who has not read them it must blow them away! Also some parts didn't transfer well from the book to the screen.
I thought the LOTR is a very good film but not an excellent one.
Originally posted by Roberto
Just one question for those who have seen the 1978 cartoon. Towards the end of the cartoon (which would be about halfway through the second movie) Gullim (the one that says 'my precious' all the time) plays a more significant role, is this true to the book? I only ask because in the cartoon I found him very annoying in a 'Jar Jar Blinks' kind of way. If the second movie is anything like the last part of the cartoon, then it's going to be completely ruined for me.
It is true to the book - he becomes one of the main players in the story from the start of the second book to pretty much the end of the story (what I guess will be the end of the trilogy). So Gollum will be in the next two films quite a bit :)
I just realised there might be a real howler in the film. When they're crossing the Misty Mountains they definately don't have a horse, but when they reach Moria, they've mysteriously acquired Bill the pony. :confused:
hmpf
the film was beautiful i can't fault that. BUT BUT BUT its not great at all, and never a classic, because:
a) in compressing the film down to 3 hours they missed out to many essential story threads - ok thats fair enough (i suppose reluctantly ;-) BUT the film itself doesn't always follow comfortably because of what was cut out, and it becomes a disjointed film.
Without the books behind it , frankly the story element would be regarded as competely off teh wall ;-)
What is this nonsense about triologies anyways.. there are 6 books aren't there (the three we know each split in two) why not give the story more time? Even saying that the cartoon wasn't much longer... if at all and i thought it handled the story much better.
b) they changed things which only sad gits who read the story or listened to the bbc version would know... and changed them in ways which are less satisfying than the original. in the same vein some of the embellishments elsp. when the guy seeminly deliberately throws himself off (you know what i mean) are just plain odd/out of step.
c) some of the direction is just bad. i mean ugly bad. The "give me an oscar please" performance at the end battle was so pathetic i wanted to scream "get on with it". That and the single white female vs the 9 where the really bad sequences i thought... but each to their own.
there is less essential material in the 2nd and 3rd books so i hope they slow it down and make a better substance of a film from it... i don't think i could actually watch lotr:fotr all that often really starting to nitpick! ;-)
a lot of similarities with this and harry potter really, and they're both hyped to hell, making far too much money and in the core not very good! (but pretty)
Originally posted by Hex
It is true to the book - he becomes one of the main players in the story from the start of the second book to pretty much the end of the story (what I guess will be the end of the trilogy). So Gollum will be in the next two films quite a bit :) Well they better tone him down (i.e. give him as little to say as possible) because i did find him extremely annoying and repetitive (in what he says at least)
silverpenguin7
24-12-2001, 10:34
Originally posted by silverpenguin7
Well I am seeing it saturday night. I am 65 pages from the end of the book so I have to make sure I finish it before then!
But, I have mixed feelings towards it now :(
Was really looking forward to it (well still am) but some of the comments here have made me worry a little. Oh well, guess I will find out soon enough! :D
Ok, finished the book 2 hours before going to see the film in the end!
My feelings are:
1) Ok, yes there were a lot of bits cut from the book but if they had not, the film would have been at least double the length. All the important stuff was there and thats all that REALLY matters.
2) One thing I did feel was that it moved a little to fast. To me it didn't feel like they had been on the quest for long. But I do realise that is not an easy thing to show in a film. But a good example was when they go through the mountian. Gandalf says it will take 4 days to get through yet it feels like they are there for about 20mins! Good fight scene though!
3) A few people have said the Balrog had no wings. Just to point out, it did! I'm not being anal about it, just stating a fact :)
4) Parts of the second book were used which confused me at first as I have not read the 2nd book yet. But my friend who has explained a few points to me and it all made sense after that.
5) One last thing, someone else pointed out that the horse/pony (forget its name) felt like it just appeared. I thought that as well. Didn't feel like it was introduced properly (yes I know its only a horse! :p ).
Thats about it, I enjoyed it very much. Yes I would have loved to see more elements from the book remain (to slow down the fast pacing a little) but then I'm not sure if my rear end could handle another 2-3 hours on a cinema seat!! Roll on Directors Cuts :D :D
just had a quick look at the cartoon again ;-)
its only a bit longer than 2 hrs and actually takes the story further than the film (and hence has a much more satisfying "end")
its obviously also takes chunks out of the story (on teh bits i was checking for it took out much more than i remembered / the film) - but whats in there holds better to the book.
oh and again the one thing i thought the film had going for it - its good looks, the cartoon has some wonderful images, but on the whole i'd forgotten how ugly it made everyone ;-) Gimli (who shall never be tossed - baring the fact that the actor who plays him seems to have some lazy eye problem...) & the elves look so much better in the film ;-) but thats probably because they seem much more lifted from d&d ;-) though I'd have prefered uglier and hairier hobits!
and to teh guy who complains about golum. Hardly fair to compare him to jar jar. I mean he's a perhaps simple, but very clearly defined character and you can't cut too much of him out as he "may have some part yo play..." ;-) he's also not trying to be funny which is where all these jar-jar-esque characters fail dismally.
However its the hobits that get on my (metaphorical) tits... i hope they cut masses out of their quest and give us the fights, romance & adventure of everyone else! (and pretty please a flashback to gimli & galadreal & pressie scene it makes me cry every time ;-)
[i hope gross mispelling of lotr character names isnt a crime ;-]
Originally posted by silverpenguin7
Roll on Directors Cuts :D :D [/B]
i bet thats what a lot of us are hoping for ;-) maybe 4 hours over 2 dvds etc with lots of scenes put back in ;-)
but they might be planning on putting some scenesin the sequals based on flashbacks... we'll just have to wait (2 years ;_((( to find out
Shingster
24-12-2001, 13:01
Apparantly the first cut of FOTR was around 3hr 30mins and included the Gimli/Galadriel scene. Dark Horizons have all the details, they also quote Jackson as saying there're no plans for a directors cut.
bah ;_(
well roll on deleted scenes then!
Kit_Taylor
24-12-2001, 13:22
I enjoyed it. A good number of boring parts, lacked good 1 on 1 sword fights a la The Princess Bride, some dodgy FX shots (the lowest number I've seen a blockbuster yet, though) and a bland score, but there were loads of fun bits and pieces that I could pick out. eg
Tentacle beast
All the Isengard flybys
Orc character designs
Superhero ninja Legolas
V.scary Nazgul
Liv Tyler - didn't like the romance, but don't care because she looks fit with those pointy ears.
In all, it made me wish I'd read the book so that that I could take even more pleasure in how it was realised.
Originally posted by Kit_Taylor
I enjoyed it. A good number of boring parts, lacked good 1 on 1 sword fights a la The Princess Bride,
haha ;-) its a great movie one of the best, but frankly most of the actual sword fighting (minus the jumping/ott bits) are just basic exercise moves ;-)
Originally posted by Kit_Taylor
some dodgy FX shots (the lowest number I've seen a blockbuster yet, though) and a bland score, but there were loads of fun bits and pieces that I could pick out. eg
Tentacle beast
All the Isengard flybys
Orc character designs
Superhero ninja Legolas
V.scary Nazgul
Liv Tyler - didn't like the romance, but don't care because she looks fit with those pointy ears.
thought legoas submachinegunrapidfire style of shooting was quite beautiful ;-)
Scary? I sat through the whole film and got a little freaked out by Galadrael's "double voice" routine but didn't bat an eyelid other than that (comon if you know the story there is nothing to fear but fear itself!)
The friend i was watching it with though spent the whole time grabbing me or trying to wriggle behind me 'cause she was scared to bits (no I'm not taking under 8's to the cinema, she's 30 ;-) actually made it more fun, a bit liked canned laughter, in the sense of "you should be scared now" ;-))
I was all ready to make mental recordings of liv but frankly i thought she was much sexier in Plunkett & mac.
Davester
24-12-2001, 15:07
Originally posted by Shingster
Apparantly the first cut of FOTR was around 3hr 30mins and included the Gimli/Galadriel scene. Dark Horizons have all the details, they also quote Jackson as saying there're no plans for a directors cut.
Quite a vital part IMO- for the relationship between Gilmi and Legos.
Originally posted by Roberto
Well they better tone him down (i.e. give him as little to say as possible) because i did find him extremely annoying and repetitive (in what he says at least)
Well they can't really make him less repetitive as 'my precious' is in almost every line he says in the book :)
I agree with dms - you shouldn't compare him to JarJar either as he is meant to be a fairly tragic character who has been twisted by The Ring, and like it or not he will have to become one of the main characters in the second film (if they stick to the book he will have to be in it for about half the film) have to say that there were some scenes that I am really looking forward to as I skimmed over the book again today.
have to wait 12 months, @@@@!
Davester
24-12-2001, 22:21
Originally posted by Hex
Well they can't really make him less repetitive as 'my precious' is in almost every line he says in the book :)
I agree with dms - you shouldn't compare him to JarJar either as he is meant to be a fairly tragic character who has been twisted by The Ring, and like it or not he will have to become one of the main characters in the second film (if they stick to the book he will have to be in it for about half the film) have to say that there were some scenes that I am really looking forward to as I skimmed over the book again today.
have to wait 12 months, @@@@!
Golum is great and can in no way be compared to Binks :rolleyes:
It will take a very good acting display to do him credit.
Originally posted by Davester
Golum is great and can in no way be compared to Binks :rolleyes:
It will take a very good acting display to do him credit. I'm more then prepared to give the second movie a chance, I’m only voicing a concern based on the animation of the 70's in which he was so damn annoying. The first movie has already touched me in a way that the cartoon never did, it was just so unbelievably spectacular. And i have faith in the director and producers that they will make Golum more then bearable in the second movie.
King_Arrogant
25-12-2001, 00:49
i thought the film was superb a masterpiece the star wars for a new generation of cynical film fans
I loved the end very much, where without spoiling anything it leaves you with a sense of aaaaaaaaaaaaaw come on !!! like all tv shows with "to be continued" at the end do
Makes me want to read the books ( in my opinion the film is taking too long already to come out on dvd I may have to see it again )
But for some practise I am going to make a spoof of it that I started writing as soon as soon as I got home from seeing it there are some very very mockable moments in the film
Breakdancing wizard fight and Boromir who just wont die
10/10 veeeeery good
silverpenguin7
25-12-2001, 09:07
Forgot to say before, did anyone notice how clean the print was?
The Odeon I watched it in (Richmond) had an amazing print!! There were no specs or blemishes at all throughout the whole film. Maybe its cos the reel is only a few days old but it did look superb (apart from being a little too dark fort he first 10 mins or so).
Shingster
25-12-2001, 10:47
The print that i saw was also pristine. The image quality was truly stunning. It was a 60ft screen as well, so if there were flaws, they'd have been easy to spot.
Originally posted by Shingster
The print that i saw was also pristine. The image quality was truly stunning. It was a 60ft screen as well, so if there were flaws, they'd have been easy to spot. I thought it looked a bit grainy but hell it was shot on Super 35 which always suffers on huge screens (in comparison true anamorphically shot 2.35:1 stuff)
I was a tad disappointed with the film as a whole - but in hindsight that's because I went in to see the 'new' Peter Jackson film as opposed to the <I>Lord of the Rings</I> movie.
Great film - but only a mediocre 'Jackson' film.
One of his bests is on Channel 4 tonight! :p
Stamford
27-02-2002, 07:39
I thought that the film relied too much on the scenery! The story was too long and drawn out.
After saying that I`ll probably go see the next installment.
Neil_Marsh
27-02-2002, 11:19
Just wanted to say that I enjoyed it, having read the book and listened to the BBC radio adaptation several times in the last 20 years, but I do feel that certain elements felt wrong.
The elves especially. Firstly, perhaps trivially, I don't remember Tolkien ever mentioning pointed ears. They are just supposed to be luminously beautiful. They seemed rather coldly hostile.
Galadriel's temptation to accept the ring was overdone. The whole Celeborn and Galadriel performance was awful - very stiff.
Aragorn should not have been reluctant to claim the throne of Gondor. It is after all what he has been working towards his entire life and the only way he is ever going to be able to marry Arwen.
Saruman seems to have been able to build up his army overnight.
Overall, it is very good, but it is a pity they couldn't convey they distances and time-scales better.
Gandalf seems to travel between the Shire and Isengard very rapidly.
The scale/perspective looked wrong for the views of Mordor from both Minas Tirith and Emyn Muil. ie. The mountains of Mordor should be on the horizon, not looming over Minas Tirith.
I'd like to reiterate that I did enjoy it, but wanted to vent my own quibbles.
I hope there is a broom at the Oscar cermony, cos The Lord Of The Rings is gonna sweep the floor!:clap:
having just skimmed over the past page, people were talking about Gollum, personally I think the best thing that came out of the cartoon of LOTR was Gollum (& John Hurt as Aragorn). Anyways I've also heard that in The Two Towers (don't look at this spoiler unless you've read the book ) shelob the big spider is not going to appear in it and she will in fact be in the third film. Also there won't be much of the dealing with the state of the shire when the hobbits return.
on a related note I finally got round to hearing a couple of episodes of the BBC hobbit, and I must say I really didn't like it, especially the music. It's nothing compared to the BBC LOTR.
longlife
01-03-2002, 19:23
Peter Jackson is working on a director's cut of the first Lord Of The Rings film.
He told Ananova he was hard at work preparing the DVD release for later in the year.
The DVD of The Fellowship Of The Ring will feature an extra half hour of footage.
"There'll be a theatrical version of the movie on DVD and an extended cut with an extra 30 minutes in it," said Jackson.
"That'll include the sequence when Galadriel gives the Fellowship gifts.
"The DVD gives you a chance to give more information about the characters, who they are and what they are."
Jackson says when he's finished working on the Lord Of The Rings trilogy he'll be taking a holiday.
He says he's about halfway through editing the second film, The Two Towers.
Jackson says so far the film is "looking good."
He said: "I've got two more years of work, this year with The Two Towers and next year with Return Of The King, so after it's finished I'll have a rest and a holiday!"
(c) Copyright Ananova Ltd 2002, all rights reserved.
:D
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.