Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

OT: Lord of the Rings


Hardtail

Recommended Posts

I had the Return of the King on (on that old TV in my avatar :D ).

 

My favorite part of all 3 movies is the "Ride of the Rohirrm". When Theoden rides down the formation, hitting each man's polearm with his own sword; then when they all holler DEATH... just awesome!

 

Then the best part... when all the orcs are mowed down.

 

What's your favorite part?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 24
  • Created
  • Last Reply
They did change from what the books are about. In fact they left out the whole point of the books. The scouring of the Shire. The first movie made me so mad I could'nt see straight for a week. There was so much crap in all of the movies that was not in the books that I was mad after all of them. I hate it when some stupid director thinks they can improve on something that took someone years to get right. There was nothing in any of those movies that improved on the books in any way or form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by BadLife:

They did change from what the books are about. In fact they left out the whole point of the books. The scouring of the Shire. The first movie made me so mad I could'nt see straight for a week. There was so much crap in all of the movies that was not in the books that I was mad after all of them. I hate it when some stupid director thinks they can improve on something that took someone years to get right. There was nothing in any of those movies that improved on the books in any way or form.

I didn't actually see the movies as a huge deviation from the story line of the books. I was quite pleased with the movies and I've been a Lord of the Rings fan for many many years. I can't remember the first time I read the books, at least back in high school and we won't talk about when that was.

I did notice a lot of shortcuts and some, shall we say, artistic license taken in the movie version, but very good overall. I liked them a lot. I actually cared for the first one the most. I think they should have started with "The Hobbit" though and made all four of them.

bbach

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the books when I was in 8th grade....37 yrs ago??? I really enjoyed the movies. My only teeny tiny beef is exactly what Roberto was refering to. The book, The Hobbit, should have been a movie in and of itself, IMO. I always loved that book the best of the four. So, I feel they should have made four movies as well. What's a couple of dozen more millions to make another movie, anywhy?? They got it back in spades!!

 

Don

Don

 

"There once was a note, Pure and Easy. Playing so free, like a breath rippling by."

 

 

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=574296

 

http://www.myspace.com/imdrs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they will make the Hobbit as Jackson said he wanted to. I have the movies and if I watch them as just a movie they are OK. Lord of the Rings is almost the only fantasy I will read. I have read it at least 30 times so the movies were pretty far off base form my point of view. :cry:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a pretty hard task taking those books and turning it to three movies, so unless you think you could do better.....

 

I thought the books were great, movies were about as good as they could be without being 23 hours each. Still long, but short enough to keep the avg veiwer watching.

 

As to answer your question, my favorite part of the movies...is like the middle 2 hrs of the return of the king. Is that specific enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don`t want to get too far off base but I still have most of the original Lancer editions (now out of print) of Conan, with the Frank Frazetta covers. I had a similar reaction when I saw the movies-someone had no clue what the books were about, I could have killed De Laurentis on the spot-then I found out he hadn`t even read the books. Killing him would have been too fast. Maybe someday someone will do it right.

Same old surprises, brand new cliches-

 

Skipsounds on Soundclick:

www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandid=602491

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could never read the books - kept loosing the will to live - but I enjoyed the films as one who didn't know better.

 

A bit like 'memoirs of a geisha' - my partner had read the book & was fuming at what was left out - I hadn't read the book & felt it worked for what it was.

 

G.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the World will know Peace": Jimi Hendrix

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=738517&content=music

The Geoff - blame Caevan!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

I think they did a heck of a job translating the books into movies. Sure, they strayed a bit (Bombadil was a huge ommission) but overall I think Tolkien would have been pleased.

Exactly! I and my wife discussed the Bombadil issue. We thought it was a huge omission as well.

bbach

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read the books many times. Though there's some things I wish they had included, overall, I thought the movies were well made.

 

In the books, Tolkiens characters are one-dimensional IMHO. With all the imagination and work he had to muster to create this world of his, I felt he came up very short when it came to his characters.

 

I felt the movie had some fine acting (for the most part) and some top notch people doing it. I really get the sense much more in the movie than the books what a desperate plight Middle Earth is in.

 

On the subject of Bombadil, I'm not so sure how important he was. If they added him, they'd have to add in the Barrow Wights scene (they kind of did that in the Dead Marshes of Two Towers instead).

 

If that were added, you'd probably have to add lots more to when they were trying to make it from the Shire to Bree and being relentlessly chased by the Nazgul. In the movie, it seemed like they just chanced upon them once or twice but in the book, it seemed like they were around every corner.

 

I too, like someone else here stated, am a little disappointed that they didn't cover the Scourge of the Shire (it was only a vision to Frodo in the movie). Because of this, the movie made the hobbits look fat, dumb, happy and naive about the world around them since it had no effect on them.

 

Overall... it's an epic story and I'm very grateful to Peter Jackson that he stepped up and did the job of putting it on screen. For however many nuances he didn't nail (I could go on all day about it), I think Tolkien would be proud of him. It's a great movie (to me, it's all just one big movie) and I'll watch it until my grave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really liked the films, but unlike most of you, my favourite is the middle one. There's more human drama in there. And I thought the end of the last one dragged on a bit. Mind you, there were a lot of threads to tie together, weren't there?

 

I particularly liked the bit where Gollum argues with his own reflection. Some stupid woman at the theatre thought it was funny, but I found it extremely harrowing (There! I finally get to use that word!) because it's like the struggles we face so often within ourselves.

 

Great films! :thu:

 

 

Re: Bombadil.

 

I've read an interview with Peter Jackson somewhere and he said that the reason why they left him out was because he's totally "un cinematic". Fair enough. Movies are about movement and action and all those things, and as I recall, Tom Bombadil and the River's Daughter don't really do very much at all.

 

As far as Peter Jackson being "an idiot director", he's not. He actually got the rights to the films on his own and, as far as possible, did the entire thing himself. Not a bad bit of devotion to Tolkien, really. He's not some Hollywood hired hand who's just doing a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Bombadil.

 

I've read an interview with Peter Jackson somewhere and he said that the reason why they left him out was because he's totally "un cinematic". Fair enough. Movies are about movement and action and all those things, and as I recall, Tom Bombadil and the River's Daughter don't really do very much at all.

That ties in nicely with the other thing that was left out that irked me. All the bardic ballads that in the book served to set up the back story and helped create a world with a sense of history.

They would have been really difficult to work into the narrative of a film, but it would have been nice if Jackson had filmed them for the Diectors cuts dvd.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

They would have been really difficult to work into the narrative of a film, but it would have been nice if Jackson had filmed them for the Diectors cuts dvd.....

Yeah, there's a ridiculous amount of extras on the DVDs, I think it's like 12 hours' worth if you go for the really amazing extra deluxe edition. Another hour or so wouldn't have hurt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
my favorite part in the trilogy is when um merry? or is it peppin? is singing in the throne of minas tirith " when darkness comes ? " i think and the "throne keeper " is eating his meal when his son is riding towards that orc infested city.
I Am But A Solution In Search Of A Problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Braxat:

my favorite part in the trilogy is when um merry? or is it peppin? is singing in the throne of minas tirith " when darkness comes ? " i think and the "throne keeper " is eating his meal when his son is riding towards that orc infested city.

Yes, that scene really revolts me. It's so horrible and yet so intense and memorable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...