Lord of the Rings

by think41self 50 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  slipnslidemaster

  I'm not knocking the romance between Arwen and Aragorn. That is actually a really cool theme tying back in the lines of Elrond and Elros.

  I wasn't even knocking the replacement of Glorfindel with Arwen at the Ford.

  It was stuff like how Pippen and Merry joined the group. Why Frodo was leaving the shire and how. You know that something like 20 years passes between Bilbo's party and Frodo leaving. Before Gandalf "knows" about the one ring.

  The fight between Sauraman and Gandalf was pure bullshit. It was so "X-Men" I couldn't stand it. The creation of the Uruk-hai was completely unneeded to the story. And really lost was the slow turning of Sauraman's heart to evil.

  The filming was just amaturish. The closeups on the people every 5 seconds, the hurried feel to the film. Take the direction from Gladiator and then apply it to Fellowship of the Ring. Ridley Scott could have done SUCH a MUCH better job of making this film feel epic.

  Lord of the Rings is an EPIC. It is the culmination of thousands of years of history in Middle Earth. So much suffering and hardship. I didn't feel it in the 45 minutes that I could stand.

  I will go back, but after a couple of drinks like I said. I did see the preview where they cross into Gondor and I like the falls of Rauros (sp) and the statues of Isildur and Anárion. That was breathtaking.

  oh well, I guess I shouldn't have read everything ever printed by the Tolkien 20 times. I've read that stuff more then the Bible!! (just thought I'd throw that in)

  Slipnslidemaster: MerryChristmas!
• 

  Sky

  I guess I am gonna have ot buy the books, and start reading!
  Kisses,
  Sky
• 

  Pork Chop

  Every review I've read has been positive with the exception of one in the Christian Science Monitor. Are you a Christian Scientist slip?
• 

  Makena1

  I read LOTR and all the Conan books several times during Jr. High and HS years - and a few times after that.

  I was disappointed by the Conan movies - however, you could not get a better actor than Arnawld to play Conan.

  The cast selected for LOTR looks top notch, and the preview I saw of the making of the movie really whet my appetite to see it. I am sure there will be parts that will be a bit disappointing - but what book made into a movie totally pleases everyone???? Having it come to life with real actors and special affects, instead of the Bakshi animation series is something I have long waited for.

  Also - I read Bored of the Rings too many years ago. Favorite part was the council of Elrond, where Gandalf was revealed to be a 7th degree mason, and the cows outside in the pasture were chanting, "Say it loud and say it now - I'm a cow and I'm proud".... clever crazy stuff.

  All best,
  Mak
• 

  ashitaka

  THIS MOVIE WAS HORRIBLE TRIPE. GALADRIEL'S TRANSFORMATION WAS A JOKE, AND THE SCREENPLAY WAS SO BAD IT INCORPORATED CHAPTER TITLES INTO THE CHARACTER'S DIALOUGE. SEAN BEAN WAS A BRIGHT SPOT-YET FOR SOME REASON, A BLOATED SHREK FOUGHT THEM IN BALIN'S TOMB. THE CG WAS RIDICULOUS AT POINTS, ALTHOUGH THE SCENERY WAS NICE. RIVENDELL WAS DESIGNED WELL, BUT LOTHLORIEN LOOKED LIKE A CROSS BETWEEN THE GUNGAN CITY IN STAR WARS, AND THE EWOK VILLIAGE.

  ACTING? LET'S NOT EVEN GO THERE.

  AS FOR DIRECTION, IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SO BAD IF PETER JACKSON WASN'T SHOVING THE CAMERA UP THE NOSTIRLS OF THE ACTORS EVERY THIRTY SECONDS. THE JOKE WERE HALF-HEARTED AT BEST-THERE WAS EVEN A DWARF TOSSING JOKE.

  THE BALROG WAS OK, BUT BOROMIR'S DEATH WAS, AGAIN, OVERPLAYED.

  I HAVE READ THE BOOKS MANY TIMES, AND THERE'S NO REASON THEY COULDN'T HAVE BEEN MORE FAITHFUL, CONSIDERING THE 3HR. 15MIN. LENGTH IT WAS ANYWAY.

  FINALLY, THE WORST WAS BILBO'S "LARGE MARGE" EYES FROM PEE-WEE HERMAN'S BIG ADVENTURE, WHEN HE IS TEMPTED BY THE RING AGAIN IN RIVENDELL.

  WHAT A PIECE OF SHIT.

  ASHI
• 

  COMF

  I'm hoping the movie will bring something to the story that I found sorely missing when I read the books: life.

  The Hobbit was a great read; I loved it. Based on how inventive it was, I launched confidently into the trilogy. Worked my way into Fellowship and through to the end; I was glad to reach it. Lots of characters in here; lots of sidelines to keep up with. Into Towers, and the plot and the cast gradually became like slogging through neck-deep mud. I finished it laboriously, and was so glad to be done with it. I put off reading Return for almost a year. Finally, reluctantly, I picked it up, simply to see the undertaking through to its end and to be able to know the full story. I read through it, groaning and forcing myself to continue to read, until finally things began to pick up at the end. When Frodo declared himself lord of the rings is when I started liking it again.

  I was about 18 when I started, 20 when I finished. I've never tried to read them a second time. I remember the experience as an ordeal. I'm eager to find this movie an active and interesting summation of the spaghetti-threaded plot of the trilogy.

  COMF
• 

  Joseph Joachim

  I'm hoping the movie will bring something to the story that I found sorely missing when I read the books: life.

  COMF, when you read a book it is your own imagination what gives life to the story. Plus, some characters and situations in LOTR are very methaforic, and you have to see it in that light.

  I'm really sorry you missed the greatness of Tolkien's books, because there aren't too many books like that around. Perhaps it was too much to ask from a Texan.

  Joseph Joachim, an overly-enthusiastic pundit of borderline reality
• 

  COMF

  COMF, when you read a book it is your own imagination what gives life to the story.

  That would explain the success of some writers and the failure of others, then. It isn't that they lack skills that others possess; it's that the whole world has a poorly functioning imagination when it comes to those particular failed writers.

  Plus, some characters and situations in LOTR are very methaforic, and you have to see it in that light.

  Well, I've never been very good with methafors. That's why I lean so heavily toward cymbalie.

  Perhaps it was too much to ask from a Texan.

  Yes, perhaps so. No doubt Kinky Friedman, J. Frank Dobie, Adrienne de Wolfe, Francis Ray, and Tijerina Andres would agree with your assessing of a person's reading ability solely on a geographical basis. It's a mark of maturity to do so, I'm sure.

  COMF
• 

  patio34

  Many pleasantries to y'all,

  I'm not sure anyone has asked for my opinion of the movie. I did not read the books.

  But here I go wading in with my opinion of the movie (all 3 hours of it):

  Aaaaaaaack!! Kill, kill, kill. No lightness. No human-ness. No likeable characters. No warmth.

  It was just like 'Willow,' only without any of the endearments or charm.

  I did not like the movie, the story, or anything about it. It was dark, grim, depressing, boring, devoid of anything worthwhile. It didn't even have a plot, IMO.

  Well, I feel better now :-)
  I know almost every critic loved it, but go figure.

  Sorry, if I stepped on anyone's toes.

  Pat
• 

  patio34

  P. S. to my panning of the movie.
  I am fairly easy to please in movies, being quite a buff. So, it's not that I'm overly picky.