Hardtail Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I had the Return of the King on (on that old TV in my avatar ). 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 More sharing options...
Trucks Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Maaaan I watched the movies and I seriously have NO idea what you're on about LOL But I dont think thats your fault Soundclick Myspace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus A. Picker Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 The Ents! Any scene with ents is good. http://www.smokedsalmonband.com/exile/exile1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A String Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I really enjoyed the trilogy, but "Return of the King" kicked a$$! I think he did an amazing job at capturing the books. Craig Stringnetwork on Facebook String Network Forum My Music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantasticsound Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Originally posted by A String: I really enjoyed the trilogy, but "Return of the King" kicked a$$! I think he did an amazing job at capturing the books. Huh?!? They captured the ring, A-string, the ring. There wasn't a bit about capturing any books as I remember... It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman Soundclick fntstcsnd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantasticsound Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Oh, yeah... (I loved those films. A great blueprint of what to do when adapting a book to film. More than anything I hate when a great book is "changed" to work onscreen, only to completely lose focus because of the changes. ) It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman Soundclick fntstcsnd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadLife Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Bbach1 Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 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 More sharing options...
mdrs Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 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 More sharing options...
BadLife Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollock Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 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? my band: http://www.blujavu.com www.myspace.com/blujavu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus A. Picker Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 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. http://www.smokedsalmonband.com/exile/exile1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skipclone 1 Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 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 More sharing options...
The Geoff Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Bbach1 Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Hardtail Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Kramer Ferrington III. Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 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! 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. Band MySpace My snazzy t-shirt empire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus A. Picker Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 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..... http://www.smokedsalmonband.com/exile/exile1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kramer Ferrington III. Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 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. Band MySpace My snazzy t-shirt empire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backnblack Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 i have a friend that is a big fan of lord of the rings. im not really a fan. ive seen all the movies. Brett, sonofazan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braxat Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Kramer Ferrington III. Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 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. Band MySpace My snazzy t-shirt empire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braxat Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 exactly! if it only had a violin in the background... I Am But A Solution In Search Of A Problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guitarzan Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 and when spongebob says to patrick...oh...sorry ... nevermind http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=193274 rock it, i will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbach1 Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Patrick, have you seen Gary? Meow. My daughter makes me watch that with her. It's kind of addicting in a silly sort of mindless way. bbach Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.