Lord of the Rings - Masterpiece or just crap?
04 January 2002, 12:41 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 988
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's funny how opinions vary.
I went to see Star Wars when it originally came out and thought it was average. I still cannot understand what all the fuss is over Star Wars/Star Trek etc.
I haven't seen LOTR (hopefully next week), so I'm hopefull of something a bit special.
These are my opinions by the way (in case your flamethrowers are set to something more sinister than 'stun').
I went to see Star Wars when it originally came out and thought it was average. I still cannot understand what all the fuss is over Star Wars/Star Trek etc.
I haven't seen LOTR (hopefully next week), so I'm hopefull of something a bit special.
These are my opinions by the way (in case your flamethrowers are set to something more sinister than 'stun').
04 January 2002, 12:41 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 1998
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer the original question, undoubtedly a masterpiece. Not 100% authentic to the book, but 99% there. This will be the first film I'll be returning to the cinema to see again.
Gary.
Gary.
04 January 2002, 02:21 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
see again !!!!!
it is not worth 6 hours of your life!
Tiggs
ps talk, battle, talk, battle..... would have been ok but it was more talk, talk, pan pipes, battle, pan pipes, talk, talk ,talk...
it is not worth 6 hours of your life!
Tiggs
ps talk, battle, talk, battle..... would have been ok but it was more talk, talk, pan pipes, battle, pan pipes, talk, talk ,talk...
04 January 2002, 02:28 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Little Miss WRX:
Have you actually read the books 'Chelle? 
(memories of skipping 15 pages of description to get back to the plot, followed by skipping another 5 pages of a song that the dwarves sing)
But sorry has Star Wars got a book behind it that can be classed as one of the greatest booke ever written? Hmmmm.....no LOL I rest my case
(memories of skipping 15 pages of description to get back to the plot, followed by skipping another 5 pages of a song that the dwarves sing)
04 January 2002, 02:47 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOTR is pants, simple as that... nice effects (thats expected now anyway), some nice eye-candy (Miss Tyler) and a predictable and naff story with a GIT who looks like a girl - 'Mr Frodo', and ...
lemme guess what happens to the two-thicko things that got captured... oh, they won't be killed will they??? noooo, just held captive until Liv Tyler, Agent Smith, 'Mr Frodo-girly' and them lot rescue them... sigh.
I could do better with Lego Studio
M
lemme guess what happens to the two-thicko things that got captured... oh, they won't be killed will they??? noooo, just held captive until Liv Tyler, Agent Smith, 'Mr Frodo-girly' and them lot rescue them... sigh.
I could do better with Lego Studio
M
04 January 2002, 03:49 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carnetix, Adams and Nitosport
Posts: 12,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michelle - 
But I thought he wrote the books... so if they aren't up with the books he wrote then... <brain ground to a halt and is pouring with acrid smoke>
But I thought he wrote the books... so if they aren't up with the books he wrote then... <brain ground to a halt and is pouring with acrid smoke>
04 January 2002, 04:39 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: www.mrcookie.co.uk
Posts: 5,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt
Nope neither of them so you'll just have to watch/read Return of the King
Si
Ps Caution it will get strange
Pps i think this film is very good
lemme guess what happens to the two-thicko things that got captured... oh, they won't be killed will they??? noooo, just held captive until Liv Tyler, Agent Smith, 'Mr Frodo-girly' and them lot rescue them... sigh.
Si
Ps Caution it will get strange
Pps i think this film is very good
04 January 2002, 04:48 PM
#42
i read one of them HP books the other day - still dont understand what all the fuss is about
Yes its all going to get a little strange. If Mr Tolkien had his own way he was going to write them in his own language he devised. Now theres dedication...
Yes its all going to get a little strange. If Mr Tolkien had his own way he was going to write them in his own language he devised. Now theres dedication...
04 January 2002, 06:12 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few misconceptions on here I think about LOTR.
LOTR was written (a) before SW, so can't really be accused of rehashing it (to go back to the first page of the thread), (b) in the 1940's so is fairly original (it's just that we have seen/read so much that has been made/written since that it may seem unoriginal or corny), remember the world was a very different place during WWII and maybe the **** threat had a bit of an influence on the plot, and (c) not aimed at kids (it was written for Tolkien's son who was serving in the RAF at the time) so shouldn't really be judged against HP, which it pi55es all over anyway.
I am not a LOTR geek - although I may be a geek. I have only read the book once. I am not here to defend it, but I couldn't resist the urge to add my pompous ramblings to this scintillating debate .
BTW I love SW IV, V and VI. Episode I was obviously sh1te, unless you have a mental age of under 10 (flame suit on). The fabric of life is a rich tapestry made up of varying experiences and opinions yaddayaddayadda.
None Prouder
LOTR was written (a) before SW, so can't really be accused of rehashing it (to go back to the first page of the thread), (b) in the 1940's so is fairly original (it's just that we have seen/read so much that has been made/written since that it may seem unoriginal or corny), remember the world was a very different place during WWII and maybe the **** threat had a bit of an influence on the plot, and (c) not aimed at kids (it was written for Tolkien's son who was serving in the RAF at the time) so shouldn't really be judged against HP, which it pi55es all over anyway.
I am not a LOTR geek - although I may be a geek
. I have only read the book once. I am not here to defend it, but I couldn't resist the urge to add my pompous ramblings to this scintillating debate . BTW I love SW IV, V and VI. Episode I was obviously sh1te, unless you have a mental age of under 10 (flame suit on). The fabric of life is a rich tapestry made up of varying experiences and opinions yaddayaddayadda.
None Prouder
04 January 2002, 06:22 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
books a book and a flicks a flick, just cause lotr book is good doesnt allow the film to be cack and get away with it.
Tiggs
ps- HP books are great storys but i dare say the movie is pants (havent seen it)
Tiggs
ps- HP books are great storys but i dare say the movie is pants (havent seen it)
04 January 2002, 06:41 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiggs, I couldn't agree more. The HP books are great IMHO but the film is disappointing. I thought the LOTR film was superb, but I haven't seen Rush Hour 2 so it may well be better . Of course it is important to appreciate that LOTR:FOTR is not intended to be 85 minutes of cack for the MTV generation but the first episode in a trilogy. Therefore it will need to spend a lot of time introducing characters, themes and plot lines for the later films. It should be judged against this background....sorry off again.
None Prouder
. Of course it is important to appreciate that LOTR:FOTR is not intended to be 85 minutes of cack for the MTV generation but the first episode in a trilogy. Therefore it will need to spend a lot of time introducing characters, themes and plot lines for the later films. It should be judged against this background....sorry off again.None Prouder
04 January 2002, 07:20 PM
#47
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er, I meant the Tolkien books
Did you not see my thread about the LOTR film from a book fanatics point of view?
I could list from memory the hundreds of things they have left out as I have read the book so many times I almost know it off by heart
05 January 2002, 04:30 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 1998
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be interested in suggestions from all these people slating the film, as to what aspects of it could be done better.
Mattski - if you'd been paying attention to the film, you would have known why Meri and Pippin were taken away by the orcs unharmed, and the place it plays in the story as a whole.
Gary.
Mattski - if you'd been paying attention to the film, you would have known why Meri and Pippin were taken away by the orcs unharmed, and the place it plays in the story as a whole.
Gary.
05 January 2002, 06:54 PM
#50
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not slating the film on its own as a stand alone film it is pretty awesome - but as it states based on the book by.........I can only say it is loosely based as it is obvious it got dumbed down as someone said before. A whole host of things were missed including tiny little bits that looked like they were deliberately changed cos the producer/director thought better to do so
The list is VERY long.........
The list is VERY long.........
06 January 2002, 08:09 AM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Arborfield, Berkshire
Posts: 12,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I also thought it was highly over hyped. I havent read the book(s) but was expecting a Star Wars style impact.
The film was very slow to start with and treated the audience like complete muppets. Frodo Baggins (and all the hobbits it must be said) were annoying - Eliyah Woods (sp?) was totally the wrong character for Frodo. Hugo Weaving was exactly the same as he was as Agent Smith in the matrix (which was good in the matrix but naff in LOTR). Then u jumped to Rivendale and a load more characters whom u had no idea where they came from.
The only characters that shone and impressed me were Aragan (played by Viggo Mortensen) and my favourite Legolas (played by some unknown english lad called Orlando Bloom, who is also in the new film Black Hawk Down which looks well worth a watch).
The end was crap as well - just as it got going the credits just appear out of nowhere and the whole audience turns to each other as if to say "what the ****"?
For what its worth I thought Episode 1 didnt live up to the previous episodes although that is a hard thing to do. Having watched it again a couple of times it has grown on me but Jar Jar Binks ruined the film and I thought Ewan Mcregor played Obi Wan poorly. Still it was a better film than LOTR
The film was very slow to start with and treated the audience like complete muppets. Frodo Baggins (and all the hobbits it must be said) were annoying - Eliyah Woods (sp?) was totally the wrong character for Frodo. Hugo Weaving was exactly the same as he was as Agent Smith in the matrix (which was good in the matrix but naff in LOTR). Then u jumped to Rivendale and a load more characters whom u had no idea where they came from.
The only characters that shone and impressed me were Aragan (played by Viggo Mortensen) and my favourite Legolas (played by some unknown english lad called Orlando Bloom, who is also in the new film Black Hawk Down which looks well worth a watch).
The end was crap as well - just as it got going the credits just appear out of nowhere and the whole audience turns to each other as if to say "what the ****"?
For what its worth I thought Episode 1 didnt live up to the previous episodes although that is a hard thing to do. Having watched it again a couple of times it has grown on me but Jar Jar Binks ruined the film and I thought Ewan Mcregor played Obi Wan poorly. Still it was a better film than LOTR
06 January 2002, 12:00 PM
#53
one has to remember the trilogy of books is just one story. The books have no ending, apart from the last one ofcourse
if you wanted so see the whole story you'd be there for 16hrs, (full directors cut )
if you wanted so see the whole story you'd be there for 16hrs, (full directors cut
)
06 January 2002, 03:18 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
right! based on all this i bought the hobbit and lotr (books) yesterday.
finished the hobbit and well into the first lotr book- loads better than the movie but i dare say if i saw the flick now i'd like it better as things like blue glowing swords, giant eagles and stone trolls would make a bit more sense!
my advice is to read the book first then watch the flick (or at least read the hobbit which will improve your understanding of the film loads, and the hobbits not hard work to read either)
Tiggs
ps- still like rush hour 2
finished the hobbit and well into the first lotr book- loads better than the movie but i dare say if i saw the flick now i'd like it better as things like blue glowing swords, giant eagles and stone trolls would make a bit more sense!
my advice is to read the book first then watch the flick (or at least read the hobbit which will improve your understanding of the film loads, and the hobbits not hard work to read either)
Tiggs
ps- still like rush hour 2
06 January 2002, 11:29 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
saw LOTR last nite.
enthralling
amazing
brilliant
come to mind immediately.
the time went in the blink of an eye. interval after 1 hour and then all of a sudden it was finishing !
gonna have to go see it again soon. i'm a real fan of the books and thought it was a truly stunning adaptation of the first book.
cant wait til next year for the next one
enthralling
amazing
brilliant
come to mind immediately.
the time went in the blink of an eye. interval after 1 hour and then all of a sudden it was finishing !
gonna have to go see it again soon. i'm a real fan of the books and thought it was a truly stunning adaptation of the first book.
cant wait til next year for the next one
07 January 2002, 11:45 AM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw it on Saturday. As a film, pretty good, great effects and scenery etc.
BUT, huge liberties were taken with the storyline. There were many, many things that are integral to the storyline that were just left in the background or mentioned as an afterthought.
I've read the books several times and was dissapointed by the film, my girlfriend has never read the books and was also disappointed as she thought the storyline was crap.
And of course balrogs have wings, in fact the books calls it a winged creature specifically
BUT, huge liberties were taken with the storyline. There were many, many things that are integral to the storyline that were just left in the background or mentioned as an afterthought.
I've read the books several times and was dissapointed by the film, my girlfriend has never read the books and was also disappointed as she thought the storyline was crap.
And of course balrogs have wings, in fact the books calls it a winged creature specifically
07 January 2002, 06:36 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 9,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I throught the film was very good. It was always going to miss out large chunks from the book, otherwise the only people that would have been able to keep up with what was going on would have been those that had read the book, a bit of an audience restricter.
I read the book a few years back and found it to be a bit of a chore (took me 2 weeks to read the thing which is unheard of for me, I was reading over a good book a day at the time) given editorial rights over it I would have hacked out about a third off the book.
I read the book a few years back and found it to be a bit of a chore (took me 2 weeks to read the thing which is unheard of for me, I was reading over a good book a day at the time) given editorial rights over it I would have hacked out about a third off the book.