Lord of the Rings

What do you think of LOTR?

  • Loved it. The books and the movies.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The books are better than the movies.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The movies are better than the books.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don't really care about LOTR.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Absolutely Hate LOTR.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • To make this multiple choice: And it whups Harry Potter's butt anyday

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Harry Potter is better.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Geeky Nerd

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
Geek Heaven
Country
llUnited States
The only thing I like in the movie is Liv Tyler. :nuts:







______
The strongest principle of growth lies in human choice.
-George Eliot
 

Janos

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
354
Reaction score
0
Location
Combat Military Training Center, Hohenfels, Bavari
Country
llUnited States
I think the books and movies were great. It was a great idea on the director's part to film all 3 parts together, so all the actors would be available and would look the same (and wouldn't demand ridiculous salaries because part 1 was a hit).

Now we need to do a modern version of The Hobbit. I'll love see modern-day technology do Smaug destroying the city on the lake!

JS
 

GeorgiaDixie

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
0
Location
Savannah, GA
Country
llUnited States
I never read the books, but I did love the movies. And I normally don't go for all that fantasy stuff, but I just loved the battle scenes. I didn't really care for the Frodo stuff (I thought it actually slowed the action down), but thats just me!
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
413
Reaction score
1
Location
Fairfax, Va
The "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is one of the few movies that approaches (or possibly surpasses) the great work of literature its based on. The respect the movie makers had for the book is quite evident. Even when the movie version altered the book version the intent of the book was never lost. The few parts of the book that were deleted (ie, Tom Bombadill) or altered (ie, Arwen subbing for Glorfindel) actually streamlined the storytelling.

The state of the art special effects finally allowed the story to be in ways only previously imagined, but at no time did these effects overwhelm the human aspects of the films. The time and effort taken to physically create such a vast number of "peoples" and all the artifacts that made up their various cultures is just mind boggling. The attention to detail in the artwork and architecture added so much depth to the visual experience. I also found the use of the Elvin language (with subtitles) a joy to hear. After having read the language it was very moving to hear it, with all its fluidity. This was definately one of Tolkien's geniuses. For one individual to be able to create entire languages is absolutely amazing.

The scenery of New Zealand was beautiful and was literally its own character within the film. I doubt Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth would have been much different than the scenic spendor and diversity that was shown on screen.

At its heart it was always a story about people (well hobbits) and the power each of us can summon when we are truly challenged. The lifelong struggle of good versus evil, the strength of friendship and the power of faith. If you haven't read the books I would highly recommend them, but the movies are so well done it's one of the rare instances where if you don't read the books too you shouldn't feel cheated.

I hope they get the chance to make "The Hobbitt" and then the cinematic legacy of Tolkien will be complete.
 

Overseer

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
2
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
I'm agree with Lance on most points except the Arwen vs. Glorfindel point. I don't think that streamlined the story any. I think that was done just to put some boobs in at a point where there otherwise wouldn't have been any until the second movie.

And besides, Glorfindel was awesome, he was one of the few in Middle Earth that could openly ride against the nine and survive!

Also last I heard about a Hobbit movie: Peter Jackson wants to make it, but the rights are actually owned by someone different and there were supposedly issues involved in getting the rights. Tolkien's son or grandson (whoever it is that's alive right now) says he would love to have Jackson make it, but they have to figure out and get through all the red tape first.
 

Wolfe Tone

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Messages
407
Reaction score
1
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Country
llIreland
Originally posted by Janos
I think the books and movies were great. It was a great idea on the director's part to film all 3 parts together, so all the actors would be available and would look the same (and wouldn't demand ridiculous salaries because part 1 was a hit).

Now we need to do a modern version of The Hobbit. I'll love see modern-day technology do Smaug destroying the city on the lake!

JS
Great idea!

I did like the books better than the films though.

However that being said I never expected the films to be better anyway.

Under the circumstances it was going be impossible for Peter Jackson to please everybody with a cinematic version of LOTR.

I enjoyed the The Fellowship Of The Ring the best. I was prepared for a flop and well pleased with that that was not the case.

The Two Towers was good but did not live up to the first one, Gollum saved the day though!

The Return Of The King was very good, probably because the epic battle scenes carried it through.

I would like to see them all again though, away from the claustrophobic atmosphere of a Cinema. Then I might appreciate things I missed the first time round.

And there will be the chance to see yet more of the lovely Liv!
:demon:
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
413
Reaction score
1
Location
Fairfax, Va
Originally posted by Overseer
I'm agree with Lance on most points except the Arwen vs. Glorfindel point. I don't think that streamlined the story any. I think that was done just to put some boobs in at a point where there otherwise wouldn't have been any until the second movie.

And besides, Glorfindel was awesome, he was one of the few in Middle Earth that could openly ride against the nine and survive!

Also last I heard about a Hobbit movie: Peter Jackson wants to make it, but the rights are actually owned by someone different and there were supposedly issues involved in getting the rights. Tolkien's son or grandson (whoever it is that's alive right now) says he would love to have Jackson make it, but they have to figure out and get through all the red tape first.
You got a problem with boobs?:laugh:
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
413
Reaction score
1
Location
Fairfax, Va
Originally posted by Wolfe Tone
Great idea!

I did like the books better than the films though.

However that being said I never expected the films to be better anyway.

Under the circumstances it was going be impossible for Peter Jackson to please everybody with a cinematic version of LOTR.

I enjoyed the The Fellowship Of The Ring the best. I was prepared for a flop and well pleased with that that was not the case.

The Two Towers was good but did not live up to the first one, Gollum saved the day though!

The Return Of The King was very good, probably because the epic battle scenes carried it through.

I would like to see them all again though, away from the claustrophobic atmosphere of a Cinema. Then I might appreciate things I missed the first time round.

And there will be the chance to see yet more of the lovely Liv!
:demon:
The extended versions on DVD, with a great home theater are definately the way to go!!
 

RichardS

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
256
Reaction score
0
Location
Lost in the wilds of Georgia
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by Janos
I think the books and movies were great. It was a great idea on the director's part to film all 3 parts together, so all the actors would be available and would look the same (and wouldn't demand ridiculous salaries because part 1 was a hit).

Now we need to do a modern version of The Hobbit. I'll love see modern-day technology do Smaug destroying the city on the lake!

JS
It's on his plate. Right after King Kong.

Cheers!
:toast:

:armed:
 

RichardS

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
256
Reaction score
0
Location
Lost in the wilds of Georgia
Country
llUnited States
I like the books better, but I don't hate the movies. And while I do have some bones to pick with it. Such as Denethor being stupid rather than insane. Otherall it is a solid 9 out of 1o stars.

Cheers!
:toast:

:armed:
 

GeorgiaDixie

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
0
Location
Savannah, GA
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by RichardS
It's on his plate. Right after King Kong.

Cheers!
:toast:

:armed:
They're remaking King Kong? Again! I hope they don't screw it up, like they back in '76. The original is one of the great monster classics.
 

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
5
Location
Chicago, IL
I like the books and the film. I think I like the books more because the added depth...of course to put that into the film would mean 137+ hours of film!! :D

I think the extended versions (part 1 and 2) are definitely superior to the theatrical release. I'm dying to see the part 3 extended version!
 

BarcelonaBlom

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
0
Location
Pensacola, FL
Country
llUnited States
What EVIL EVIL EVIL :)demon: :demon: :demon: ) person said Harry Potter is better. They're a which BURN THEM! BURN THEM!!!!
 

Storm

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
Location
WV
Country
llUnited States
The books and movies are great. The battle scenes are some of the best ever. Tolkien is a literature god. And yeah, they're having some problems with getting rights to the Hobbit as of right now.


Harry Potter.....*shudder* :bang:
 

RichardS

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
256
Reaction score
0
Location
Lost in the wilds of Georgia
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by GeorgiaDixie
They're remaking King Kong? Again! I hope they don't screw it up, like they back in '76. The original is one of the great monster classics.
Yup; Peter Jackson is doing King Kong once again.

Here is the IMDB link for it. (Not a lot of information available though.)
http://imdb.com/title/tt0360717/

Cheers!
:toast:

:armed:
 

RichardS

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
256
Reaction score
0
Location
Lost in the wilds of Georgia
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by BarcelonaBlom
What EVIL EVIL EVIL :)demon: :demon: :demon: ) person said Harry Potter is better. They're a which BURN THEM! BURN THEM!!!!
*I* like Harry Potter movies. Haven't seen Prisoner of Azkaban yet. Also didn't vote for it. But I felt compelled to say I do like the Harry Potter books and movies.

Cheers!
:toast:

:armed:
 
Top