Post by: Kasceis on December 11, 2003, 12:01:07 PM
Who else is hyped about this? I've read all the books and getting my advance tickets soon. I'm counting down the days!
Post by: phatboy on December 11, 2003, 12:36:49 PM
Post by: Kasceis on December 11, 2003, 12:50:51 PM
Post by: akdaman1 on December 11, 2003, 12:56:53 PM
Post by: Berny on December 11, 2003, 01:00:58 PM
Anyway, I have ticketses in the plural because I am seeing it on both Wednesday and Friday after it comes out. This will be the best one yet.
Oh yeah, and I have all 3 soundtracks, but not the internet ones.
Post by: Kasceis on December 11, 2003, 01:01:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: akdaman1
For some reason I dont wanna see it . I know I will love it but I aint anticipating it . I loved 2 towers . Is there something wrong with me?
Yes, very much so akadaman1.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on December 11, 2003, 01:04:57 PM
I haven't read it
The fact that i'm reading it AFTER seeing the movies spoils the fact that everything i visualize has already been shown.
Oh well.
Post by: Berny on December 11, 2003, 01:21:49 PM
Post by: blindskate on December 11, 2003, 02:31:27 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 11, 2003, 02:39:54 PM
In any case, Lord of the Rings fandom is one area no one has me beat- I've read the book 6 times now, own an atlas and guide to Middle-Earth, and have 12 History of Middle-Earth books (would be 14 if I could find the last two). I've even written a short story of Glorfindel and his fight with a balrog during the First Age, which is still on the forums, I think, if you want to look for it.
Post by: Ghost_of_a_Flea on December 11, 2003, 06:01:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Now now, Berny, you've said too much already.
In any case, Lord of the Rings fandom is one area no one has me beat- I've read the book 6 times now, own an atlas and guide to Middle-Earth, and have 12 History of Middle-Earth books (would be 14 if I could find the last two). I've even written a short story of Glorfindel and his fight with a balrog during the First Age, which is still on the forums, I think, if you want to look for it.
Do you walk around hunched over repeating, "Must find the preciousss."
I can't state that I'm that much of a fan, but I was a big fan of the books long before the movies (and distinctly remember hating the cartoons!). I really want to get some of the guides and the History of Middle-Earth books, but that takes money... and right before Christmas...
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 11, 2003, 06:05:41 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 12, 2003, 02:35:22 PM
Post by: Kasceis on December 12, 2003, 03:31:13 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 12, 2003, 03:34:43 PM
Post by: silverdonut on December 14, 2003, 01:35:20 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 14, 2003, 03:40:11 PM
And silverdonut, who is this friend of yours who is a girl? Any way I can contact her?
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 14, 2003, 03:48:11 PM
There's this one kid that like YELLS at me during movies. He thinks he's whispering, but it actuall hurts my ears (probably because everything else is silent). But it's always these horrible jokes.
"OH THAT'S GOTTA HURT! AHAHAHAHAH!"
--___________________--
Post by: silverdonut on December 14, 2003, 04:16:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Hostile Creation
Hey, there ain't nothin' wrong with being interested in only the opposite sex.
And silverdonut, who is this friend of yours who is a girl? Any way I can contact her?
Yes well while your watching a movie and them pointing at people and talking about how hott they are can be quite distracting. And no, you can't contact my friend. I forgot, all you think about is sex. Yes, I read what you wrote about it and what blindskate said, and I can't help but laugh.
Post by: Kasceis on December 17, 2003, 07:27:45 PM
Can't wait till tomarrow to see it again!
Post by: Berto2K on December 17, 2003, 11:08:42 PM
Only crappy part was that the camera operator couldn't get it focused just right, so there was a very slight blur to it the whole time :\.
Post by: Ghost_of_a_Flea on December 18, 2003, 06:13:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Berto2K
Yes, I saw it tonight as well. This movie rocks. You will not get bored by the 3 hour 21 minutes of it. There is no way they could have split this up into 2 smaller shorter movies, it would kill it completely. I have not read any of the books, nor saw all of the 2nd one. Sure I felt a tad lost at the beginning, but that feeling left completely as they all stand on their own very well. An awesome comclusion to the trilogy. I would definitely see it again.
Only crappy part was that the camera operator couldn't get it focused just right, so there was a very slight blur to it the whole time :\.
We had similar problems with the camera... a few stops and a couple times the sound was off, but the movie was outstanding! It met and surpassed every one of my expectations!
Post by: Swordsplay on December 18, 2003, 06:39:22 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 18, 2003, 07:50:54 AM
I too also promised myself that I would finish the books before the third movie. I have two chapters left before I see the film on Saturday. Hopefully I can pull it off. It doesn't really matter anyway since I'm pretty sure those last few chapters aren't in the movie. The ending of Return of the King is way too drawn out for a movie.
Those of you who want to see it alone to eliminate distractions are being pretty silly. If you want that then you better have your own f*cking theatre because no matter what there's always some idiot in a movie theatre that will break your concentration. It might as well be your friends who at the very least you can punch.
Post by: Swordsplay on December 18, 2003, 07:54:19 AM
Post by: dus on December 18, 2003, 08:15:15 AM
Post by: krisdfish on December 18, 2003, 11:21:45 AM
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 18, 2003, 11:28:21 AM
If I could maybe MAKE SOME FRIENDS I could go to the MOVIES and eat POPCORN and sit on SEATS inside the BUILDING on someDAY.
Post by: CardBoardBox on December 18, 2003, 11:30:04 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 18, 2003, 11:55:08 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 18, 2003, 12:49:50 PM
I read the books, but I was never a huge fan, plus it's been quite a while. . . there were many important parts that I could not remember until I saw the movie. They left Sharky out, though. Poor Sharky.
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 18, 2003, 12:51:46 PM
Post by: Ghost_of_a_Flea on December 18, 2003, 02:51:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
I want to tell all the fans here one thing- judge Return of the King as a movie, not as an adaption of the book. You'll enjoy it much more, trust me.
Yes, there's certain things left out from the book that a lot of fans are pissed off about, but it wouldn't come across right in the film. Books and movies are different mediums and have to be treated as such; what works in a book won't always come across well in a movie. I don't want to spoil anything for anybody, but if they had kept everything in people would hate the movies... it would drag out way too much! The movies were done better than I could have ever imagined, just watch the cartoons if you want to see a poor translation!
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 18, 2003, 03:36:59 PM
However, I will NEVER forgive whoever put elves in Helm's Deep- maybe it's just be geeking out, but I quite simply couldn't stand that.
Post by: DrForester on December 18, 2003, 06:18:13 PM
As for Return of the King, I went to a midnight show. We had someone who decided to take Pun to a new level. Amongst the Hobbit and Elf costumes, there was a guy dressed as Elvis.
The movie was great. Sarumon was perfectly cut out, and I don't mind since it will be there in the Extended Edition. Was a big disapointed that there ins't the scouring of the Shire (And won't be even int eh EE) but it was a very obvious thing to be cut. I'll jsut put that one along side Tom Bombadil in that it was cool, but didn't have to be there. Loved that the rest of the ending was almost completly unchanged from the book.
The movie itself was great. The battle at Minas Tirith was fantastic, the Army of the Dead was very creepy. The battle with Shelob was jsut as I imagined it. They managed to show most of the emotion seen in the books. Not only has this trillogy surpassed all trilogies before it, but it has the ebst book to movie translation I think we can ever expect to see in film.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 18, 2003, 06:40:55 PM
Besides, I've written about all I can write today. :\
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 18, 2003, 09:26:12 PM
Quote
As for Return of the King, I went to a midnight show. We had someone who decided to take Pun to a new level. Amongst the Hobbit and Elf costumes, there was a guy dressed as Elvis.
He may not be as clever as you think. If he read Soul Music by Terry Pratchett that pun is used.
Post by: Oldskool on December 20, 2003, 10:22:22 AM
Spoilers ahoy!!! I was satisfied with the ending. They basiclly ended it where the book ends. Sam says "Well, I'm back...", but they skillfully removed the "Scouring of the Shire" plot, which was Ok, since the movie would have sucked with it. Imagine this: "Well, we're home... let's settle, OH NO! RUFFIANS AND THE WHITE WIZARD" Good in the book, but it just doesn't work like that in movies.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 20, 2003, 10:41:31 AM
Post by: Berny on December 20, 2003, 10:43:43 AM
Berny's Review
omg!!!
(out of 5)
Post by: Uglydot on December 21, 2003, 05:19:30 AM
Post by: Berny on December 21, 2003, 08:41:42 AM
You are the first exception, uglydot. I heard that they play one ANNOYING song througout the picture and it got old before they started playing it.
Post by: Swordsplay on December 21, 2003, 08:59:30 AM
Post by: MattVDB on December 21, 2003, 11:39:08 PM
I got a group of around 25 together to go to Portland OR to watch the midnight showing. After sitting in line for 6 hours, I was treated to an awesome something something of a movie. Dark, but fun.
I left it thinking I liked TTT more, but seeing as I already had 2 more tickets purchased, I would see it again anyway. After getting less then 2 hours of sleep I headed off to my school where literaly, less than one dozen students didn't see the opening. That day (Wednesday) at 3, just as school got out, the movie magic began again. Better the second time when I had less sleep. A little weird.
The next day I played a concert, and on Friday I went to an all night party. I went again at 3 o' clock on Saturday, with even less sleep, but the movie got better. I have never cried in a movie before, and I kept that reputation even after watching ROTK, the first time. I don't know if it was because I was tired or what, but I did shed a tear my third viewing. Very impressive.
As if that wasn't enough though, my friends were crazy enough to have a viewing of the trilogy today and they roped me in. I can't complain; it was on the largest HDTV I have ever seen. LOTR rocks. I saw King again at 8 o' clock Sunday.
If you get the chance to see it, do. You won't regret it. Just try not sit next anybody if you can. It has been out long enough that everybody wants to talk through it. It can be pretty lame.
Foxtrot has some great comics this week too, if you get the chance.
SPOLIERS
OK, so I am keeping this vague, but when you see it a second time, during the reprise of a spider, just listen to the crowd. One of the funniest things I have heard in a long time. The gasps. The wispers. The thud. You can really tell who has done their reading and who hasn't.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 22, 2003, 06:55:29 AM
*SPOILERS AHOY*
Merry didn't fight in the last battle at the gates of Mordor in the book but that's okay. I think having Merry and Pippen united and fighting together to the very end is ultimately more satisfying. The scene at the beginning of the last battle where Aragorn is the first to attack the orcs and Merry and Pippen follow second is a great little scene that wouldn't have been possible if Merry wasn't there.
The sons of Elrond and that Mordor general guy they meet at the gates were taken out but again that's okay because those are rather superfluous characters and it would have been too confusing to introduce all of them when they pretty much just stand around. In a book you can explain in detail who they are but you can't in a book unless they do stuff.
There's no Scourging of the Shire in the movie but again that's okay because it really doesn't make sense for there to be a conflict after the Ring is destroyed. The whole problem of the story is that the Ring must be destroyed. Therefore it's just confusing and unnecessary to have ANOTHER problem after that. Not only would it make the movie too long but it would just confuse the hell out of everyone. And no that scene will not be added to the extended cut because they obviously didn't film it. When the hobbits return everything looks the same as it ever did. It's not like they simply removed a scene. Plus in the commentary for Fellowship Jackson mentions how the scene where Frodo looks in the pool in Lothlorien and sees the Shire burning that that was their take on the scourging and how he didn't plan to put the actually scourging in the finished film.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 22, 2003, 07:19:32 AM
[SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!!]
The Scouring of the Shire is an EXTREMELY important part of the story, and it makes perfect sense for there to be a conflict after the Ring is destroyed. The whole point the Scouring of the Shire represents is that just becaue you've destroyed the Ring does not mean you've destroyed all evil. A lot of people will get the impression from the movie that all evil is now gone and everything's peachy keen. The Scouring of the Shire shows that evil still does exist in the world, and always will exist. That evil is something you can never wholey destroy. Yes, a major evil, Sauron, was removed from the world, but that doesn't mean it was ALL removed. It also showed how one doesn't have to have inordinate power to work evil deeds, as we can see by the fact that Sauruman, despite being cast out of the order of the Istari by Gandalf, was still able to bring about the near enslavement of an entire race of people. And lastly, on a very basic level, it showed how hobbits aren't just a dumb country of farmers and peasents, that they'll stand up when they need to. The ONLY excuse I can accept for the Scouring of the SHire being cut out of the theatrical release was time- the movie was already 3 hours 20 minutes. But that leaves no excuse whatsoever to leave it out of the extended DVD, none at all. It's an essential part to the story of the Lord of the Rings and I think it needs to be told.
Post by: Ghost_of_a_Flea on December 22, 2003, 08:04:16 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 22, 2003, 08:07:13 AM
That's why I said I can understand it being cut out of the theatrical release, but there's no excuse leaving it out of the extended DVD, which is almost entirely for fans.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 22, 2003, 08:34:11 AM
Yes there's an excuse. It wasn't filmed. It's also not as simple as merely adding it to the film. That part wasn't just left out, the ending was constructed as if it was never meant to be included. Adding it would require an actual CHANGE to the ending. I think it's unrealistic to expect Peter Jackson to change his movie and film a different ending just for the Extended release. For the most part the extended releases merely add new scenes and footage, they don't outright change them.
You obviously feel it was an important scene. I don't and obviously Peter Jackson didn't either. Neither of us is right or wrong but since it's Jackson's movie he gets the final say. No matter what people are going to complain about stuff that's been changed or removed but if the film was a literal translation of the book it would have been REALLY long and REALLY boring. I think Peter Jackson did pretty much the best job anyone could have. Others would have changed too much and ruined it while others would have kept it too similar.
It's funny because on most forums people are complaining that the ending dragged on too long. Here the big complaint is that it was too short.
Post by: Ghost_of_a_Flea on December 22, 2003, 09:15:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
You obviously feel it was an important scene. I don't and obviously Peter Jackson didn't either. Neither of us is right or wrong but since it's Jackson's movie he gets the final say. No matter what people are going to complain about stuff that's been changed or removed but if the film was a literal translation of the book it would have been REALLY long and REALLY boring. I think Peter Jackson did pretty much the best job anyone could have. Others would have changed too much and ruined it while others would have kept it too similar.
I think that Peter Jackson seen it as being an important event in Middle Earth, but not an important event in Lord of the Rings. Yes, it's semantics, but it's obvious that Peter Jackson believed that the trilogy should end with the destruction of the ring. I don't want to say whether it should or should not have been in the film because movies and books are different mediums and I'm not qualified to create either, so I'll just offer my opinion.
I see both sides of this issue; in the books there's a whole world, there's a ton more depth than you can pull across in three movies. The movies are just that, a series of three movies; where as with the books the LotR trilogy is just part of an even greater picture. So Peter obviously believed that the Scouring the Shire came after the climax or ending to LotR; so if I look at them as part of the universe of Middle Earth I can be upset... but I have the books for that. I just see trilogy of movies as a great adaptation of one man's interpertation of the books (a lot of people interperate the books in different ways).
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 22, 2003, 09:58:37 AM
Quote
Yes there's an excuse. It wasn't filmed.
That's what I meant- there was no excuse not to film and hence no excuse not to include it in the DVD.
Quote
It's also not as simple as merely adding it to the film. That part wasn't just left out, the ending was constructed as if it was never meant to be included. Adding it would require an actual CHANGE to the ending.
Have you ever read the book? The only difference between the movie's ending and the book's ending was the exclusion of the Scouring of the Shire. It's like the exclusion of the Old Forest in FotR- they just didn't show it. No ending would have to be changed at all- seriously, I know you've read the book, which kind of confuses me that you think they'd have to change the ending. Hell, they even kept the last line of the book in the movie.
Quote
You obviously feel it was an important scene. I don't and obviously Peter Jackson didn't either. Neither of us is right or wrong...
No, I'm right, you're wrong.
It's not a little matter of opinion, it IS an essential part of the story- the simple fact Tolkien wrote it should say as much. As long as LotR is, Tolkien didn't write anything that wasn't necessary- he was not an author who simply threw things in just to make it longer.Quote
No matter what people are going to complain about stuff that's been changed or removed but if the film was a literal translation of the book it would have been REALLY long and REALLY boring.
Why do you think the general public thinks The Two Towers is better than Fellowship of the Ring? Because they thought FotR was REALLY long and REALLY boring. Why do you think Tolkien fans think Fellowship of the Ring is better than The Two Towers? Because FotR was a much more faithful adaption of the book. RotK could have been both- theatrically it could be what the public wants and on DVD what the fans want.
Quote
I think Peter Jackson did pretty much the best job anyone could have.
Best? No. One dam fine job that nobody else could have replicated? Hell yes. I think overall he made a very faithful adaption of the book, with most of the changes being not only necessary but extremely well done. That doesn't mean I think ALL the changes were necessary OR well done (I think we can all agree that the person who put elves in Helm's Deep needs to be crucified). That's precisely why I said judge the movie as just that, a movie, and not as an adaption of the book, because faithful it was not. That doesn't keep me from regarding each movie independantly as the three greatest cinematic masterpieces ever crafted by mortal hands- I shudder to think if my brain could handle judging the entire 10+ hour epic.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 22, 2003, 10:27:18 AM
Oh okay. I thought you realistically thought they should film that scene and put it in the DVD.
"Have you ever read the book? The only difference between the movie's ending and the book's ending was the exclusion of the Scouring of the Shire."
Yes I have read the book. In the movie the four hobbits walk past that guy in Hobbiton and he sees that they're wearing regal armor and riding horses. IE: they've just returned and everything is fine. When I say that the ending is changed it means that in order to put in the scourging they would have to remove shots from that scene and present it in an entirely different manner. There's no way they could just insert the scourging into the film as is without removing some of it. As a result it's a change instead of a mere extension.
"Why do you think the general public thinks The Two Towers is better than Fellowship of the Ring? Because they thought FotR was REALLY long and REALLY boring. Why do you think Tolkien fans think Fellowship of the Ring is better than The Two Towers? Because FotR was a much more faithful adaption of the book."
I was unaware that the general public prefered Two Towers. In fact almost every person I've ever met who has seen both movies liked the first one more. The only people I've ever met who thought Fellowship was boring never bothered to see any of the other movies. I personally like Fellowship more not so much because it was more faithful but because I liked the story better. I like the first book better as well.
"No, I'm right, you're wrong. It's not a little matter of opinion, it IS an essential part of the story- the simple fact Tolkien wrote it should say as much. As long as LotR is, Tolkien didn't write anything that wasn't necessary- he was not an author who simply threw things in just to make it longer."
Yes this is a matter of opinion. I don't think Tolkien wrote anything to make it longer but that doesn't mean all of the detail in the book is an essential part of the story. In terms of a narrative there are several characters and parts that do not affect the overall story whatsoever. For example the various lyrics to the songs present in the book ultimately are not required for the story. They're just a neat little detail that was thrown in. If they were excluded the story would still make perfect sense. I see the movie not as an adaptation of the book but as an account of the story of the Ring. If those events really happened then you could see the movie and book as different accounts of the real life events. In the grand story of the Ring the scourging of the shire is unimportant. It's a detail that one account made note of and the other didn't.
Of course it seems pretty silly that we're arguing over something like this when the movie kicked ass regardless of what was included or excluded.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 22, 2003, 12:03:13 PM
Quote
I was unaware that the general public prefered Two Towers. In fact almost every person I've ever met who has seen both movies liked the first one more.
Almsot everyone I've talked to who has not read the book thinks The Two Towers is better, mainly because they thought FotR was very boring. Even a quick look at the general consensus on IMD shows TTT several places higher than FotR.
Quote
Yes this is a matter of opinion. I don't think Tolkien wrote anything to make it longer but that doesn't mean all of the detail in the book is an essential part of the story.
Some passages are more for backstory than story progression, yes, but the Scouring of the Shire is most definitely not backstory. It was necessary to show that evil still existed and would always exist, and that the hobbits weren't stupid little fat farmers who didn't know any better.
Quote
Of course it seems pretty silly that we're arguing over something like this when the movie kicked ass regardless of what was included or excluded.
That's what geeks do, though, is nitpick over tiny little details until we're blue in the face.
Post by: Berny on December 22, 2003, 02:12:15 PM
Post by: nolimit19 on December 22, 2003, 03:01:20 PM
P.S. i seriously want to see them make the hobbit more than anything now. it would be sooooo cool.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 22, 2003, 03:23:07 PM
Post by: ThePerm on December 22, 2003, 03:48:24 PM
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on December 25, 2003, 05:19:58 PM
Last I heard, the Tolkien estate is the main problem for them(and even if we were to see any adaptation, it wouldn't be till probably '09-'10, because of King Kong). Damn it, they're screwing up everything for their loyal fans these days. Thank G-d good old John Ronald Reuel got this 50gs for the movie rights back in the day- or there would be no LOTR movies to begin with(and if there were no LOTR movies to begin with, I would never had read LOTR/H/Sillmarillion- which would have been a great loss)
Leaving the Scouring in the movie would have been feasable at this point- the character progressions of Merry and Pippin have come to the point in ROTK that it would have been possible. In any case, for PJ to include the Scouring of the Shire, he'd have to change the Scouring story to begin with(i.e. buckland, sandyman, lotho, etc.- as it would be too many characters to introduce at this point) as well as the Isengard sequence which was supposed to be at the end of TTT/beginning of ROTK:EE. All in all, I believe that yes, in the books, your point that evil still exists in the world after Sauron's demise. But the way the movie progresses and is set up is such that Sauron is the source of all this great evil- witness the destruction of the Dark Tower and the blowing away of all those nasty Orcses. It wouldn't do to have a little miny-war with Saruman right after that. It just doesn't work.
Post by: Berny on December 25, 2003, 05:24:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Peter Jackson said he'd make The Hobbit if New Line can get the rights from United Artists (who made the animated version). If they do, I'll feel very sorry for Peter Jackson- he will have spent some 10 years of his life adapting one man's books.
Yeah, but he did a good job. I'd say that the good in the movies far outweighs the bad, the mistakes. And his next project, King Kong, is just him spending another couple of years adapting a movie that's been done twice? Maybe only once. I forget if they remade it or not. I really want to see an original film from this guy. I want to see what HE is capable of doing.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 25, 2003, 07:09:37 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 25, 2003, 08:29:50 PM
Post by: Termin8Anakin on December 25, 2003, 11:50:30 PM
I think it was a great movie.
Fox play a guy that, after a freak accident, sees ghosts. HE uses this ability to make a living as a fraud ghostbuster, getting two ghosty pals to stir up some trouble (raise and shake beds, knock over some things, etc) until people turn up dead, and he stumbles upon a plan that has a freaky woman conjuring up the ghost of her dead muderer-boyfriend to continue their killing spree. Fox has to use his abilities and overcome his past to save the small town.
It also has this insanely eccentric FBI/CIA (whatever
) agent who's job used to be infiltarting various hardcore cults (the effects of which are quite noticable). He suspects that Fox was behind his wife's death, as well as the string of deaths that have been happening, since Fox was the last one to see them.A good movie
And Return of the King?
Wow.
Just........wow.
It was a great beginning, and a tearful ending. I don't think I've ever been close to crying as much as the ending of RotK.
Great work Peter Jackson
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 26, 2003, 09:18:27 AM
Quote
It was a great beginning, and a tearful ending. I don't think I've ever been close to crying as much as the ending of RotK.
I did cry at the end.
Seeing Sam walking up to his hobbit hole and seeing his daughter running up to him (who was actually Sean Astin's daughter), and then hearing him speak that line, I couldn't help it.
Post by: Ghost_of_a_Flea on December 26, 2003, 09:39:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Termin8Anakin
It also has this insanely eccentric FBI/CIA (whatever
Jeffrey Combs as the agent was great! Of course he shall forever be Dr. Herbert West from the Re-Animator series to me, but he's a great actor! As I've said already, I'm addicted to horror movies... they're my obsession.
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Berny: Oh, of course he did a good job! But he msut be exhausted even now, after doing Lord of the Rings. King Kong has only been remade once, but Jackson's remake will stay much closer to the original. As for his other movies, he did make the very critically acclaimed Heavenly Creatures, which launched Kate Winslett's career, but that was based on a true story. He did make The Frighteners, and the decidedly more gruesome and bizarre splatter flick Bad Taste, as well as Meet the Feebles, which has been likened to Muppets on drugs.
You forgot one Peter Jackson's greats... Braindead (usually known as Dead Alive); possibly one of the greatest zombie movies outside of Romero's Dead Trilogy and the Evil Dead movies (I also dig Lucio Fulci's work, but I wouldn't call them masterpieces). Easily one of the goriest movies of all time; really good zombie flick!
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 26, 2003, 10:31:57 AM
Post by: evil intentions on January 04, 2004, 04:06:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuote
It was a great beginning, and a tearful ending. I don't think I've ever been close to crying as much as the ending of RotK.
I did cry at the end.
Really? I didn't feel sad at all.
I kept thinking the movie would end. But it just kept on going.
[SPOILERS!!!]
The first time when I thought it was going to end is when Frodo was awakening on his bed to see "The White Wizard" adnt then when merry and pipen and everyone else came. I thought it would end right after that.
The second time is when they came back to the Shire.
The third was when Frodo was going on the boat with the elves. (I admit it's pretty close to the ending, yet, they still shoudl Sam and his family.
I think the funniest part in the movie was where Gandolf hit that messed up king into the fire and he ran out and jumped off the cliff. All of my cousins and I were laughing hystarically.
Post by: mouse_clicker on January 04, 2004, 10:34:17 PM
I just said I cried, not that the ending was sad- there is a difference.
And I HATED the scenes where Gandalf just beat up Denethor with his stuff- it made me cringe more than anything else in the movie, and I thought it was the only thing keeping it from being truly perfect. I already wasn't happy with Denethor's character being a two dimensional cardboard cutout, but when Gandalf hit him with the staff, not once but multiple times, I was almost as mad as when they put elves in Helm's Deep. Seriously, how could a man who makes such beautiful masterpieces that capture essentially ever nuance of the book put in something like that that just undermines it all? It doesn't make any sense.
Post by: Ocarina Blue on January 05, 2004, 12:29:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
As for his other movies, he did make the very critically acclaimed Heavenly Creatures, which launched Kate Winslett's career, but that was based on a true story. He did make The Frighteners, and the decidedly more gruesome and bizarre splatter flick Bad Taste, as well as Meet the Feebles, which has been likened to Muppets on drugs.
You forgot Brain Dead. Two hours of pure gore, honestly. This movie outdoes watching all of the fatilities in Mortal Kombat 3 in a row repeatably for several days on end. That movie is the most horrid thing I've ever seen (I've decided to opt out of viewing tub girl). However, by dehumanising the victims, it somehow managed to go unnoticedby by our beloved rating's authority. Seriously, viewing this film not only gave me a new view on Jackson's work, but a new view on his mind.
Looking over both of the movies, my two major observations were that:
a) Books and movies are not compatable formats, and
b) The movies are more Jackson than Tolkien
Post by: Oldskool on January 05, 2004, 10:52:32 PM
Or... a SILMARILLION MOVIE... It could have an intro about the creation of Arda (the world) and the Valar and Maiar, and then go into the main story about the First Age. Perhaps it would do better as a mini-series than a movie.
Post by: Berny on February 29, 2004, 06:11:26 PM
^_^ 
Nine stars for each of the members of the Fellowship.
Post by: SearanoX on March 01, 2004, 10:18:44 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 01, 2004, 10:33:46 AM
Post by: Draygaia on March 01, 2004, 11:41:50 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 01, 2004, 12:34:39 PM
Wha?? I think it's fair to assume that you are literally the only person on Earth to wish this, or even think of it. Dwarves wouldn't even make any sense since the whole point of the ghost army is that they are able to wipe out the Mordor army with no problems. Dwarves obviously could not make the same impact. Plus it's like a HUGE change to the story for really no good reason. Far worse than the Elves thing which is really more of an addition than a change.
As for the Oscars I'm glad to see Return of the King win best picture though I really see it as a piece of a greater movie so it seems kind of "wrong" for a part three to win best pic. They should have given the first film best picture two years ago instead. I am very glad to see Peter Jackson get some recognition for his work. Three films, three oscars for Jackson. Seems fitting.
However I think it was overkill for it to win EVERYTHING it was nominated for. There's no reason it had to win best song for example aside from the Academy wanting it to do a clean sweep. "Into the West" is not even that great of a song in my opinion (though "May it Be" from the first film is). I personally wanted "Kiss at the End of the Rainbow" from A Mighty Wind to win that one.
One thing that's interesting is that because of the extras on the extended LotR cuts for the first time I can think of I recognized people who won technical awards. My brother and I cheered when Richard Taylor came up to accept his awards. With no other movie would I have any idea who that guy was.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on March 01, 2004, 03:49:55 PM
I didn't watch the whole Oscars cermony, but jusdging from the hilarious LotR spoof that Billy Crystal did with Jack Nicolson and Michael Moore (didn't watch all of it either), it was going to be a LotR-dominated show.
The song he sung at the beginning was funny also.
Post by: DrForester on March 01, 2004, 07:28:57 PM
All in all im glad it won, it may not have deserved everything this year, but anything it got one of the other two should ahve got. RotK got all it's awards AND the awards the other two should have gotten. It's a fitting tribute to all the films acomplished.
Post by: Berny on March 03, 2004, 03:45:13 PM
And mouse, I have triangulated SearonoX's position using my Ranger tracking skills. He can be removed in 3 days time if you but say the word. Oh and a suggested method of execu....I mean removal would be nice.
