AmazingJas Member Posts: 437 From: Sydney, NSW, AUSTRALIA Registered: 04-03-2003 |
My wife and I just got around to going and seeing the final instalment of LOTM. Just wondering what you guys thought of it. I thought it was better than the first 2, and the battle scene really had me engrossed. But it runs at about 3 and a half hours, which is a loooong time to sit and watch anything in one go. |
D-SIPL Moderator Posts: 1345 From: Maesteg, Wales Registered: 07-21-2001 |
It was great, right up until the last 30-45 minutes, which were really slow and a bit boring. Would watch again tho. --D-SIPL ------------------ |
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
Best movie in the world (I'm big LOTR fan) can't wait till the extended comes out. ------------------ |
bennythebear Member Posts: 1225 From: kentucky,usa Registered: 12-13-2003 |
i wanna go see it but all my friends work, i don't have a woman, and going to a theatre by myself sounds kind of depressing...anyways...my point being is i have to wait until it's out on dvd to watch it. but i really liked the first two. i might even buy all three, i'm sure they'll have some kind of boxed set. later and GOD bless. |
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
Just watched it too  . My family plans on getting all three on DVD when it comes out on video .While we're at it, a mini-poll - how many here have the books? We do, and I plan on reading them ------------------ [This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited January 03, 2004).] |
|
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
Got the two versions of LOTR books, one hobbit book, one Simarilian book and one Book of Lost Tales (those two are about MiddleEarth [tolkien made a world, then created a story, LOTR, in it]) we also have both movies on DVD, extended and regular. also, to add.. three action figures, and a toy Sting Sword. LOTR runs in our family. It's blood. ------------------ |
|
AmazingJas Member Posts: 437 From: Sydney, NSW, AUSTRALIA Registered: 04-03-2003 |
I just found out from my brother that the ending is a bit different from th book. The book ending sounds better to me, would have been really good, but I guess they couldn't fit it in. |
Krylar Administrator Posts: 502 From: MD, USA Registered: 03-05-2001 |
Really liked the first one, and the second one was okay (not as good as the first, IMHO), but I thought last was too sloooooow...especially that last 30-45 mins. I think that they could have had 4 movies and made things much less rushed feeling. And, yes, the ending is quite different than the book, in some respects. But I personally prefer the way the movie ends over the way the book does. -Krylar ------------------ |
Imsold4christ Member Posts: 305 From: Gresham, OR, US Registered: 01-20-2001 |
The first movie was kinda slow. The second was the best. The third was somewhere in between. Oh sure, the battle scenes in the third were awesome, but after the movie was all over the story still felt a little unfinished somehow. I think that the producers were relying too much on their ability to release and extended edition. "Yeah, the story isn't complete, but we can just finish it in the extended edition." Grrrr. I for one, liked the long ending on the 3rd movie. There was a lot of stuff that needed wrapping up (three movies' worth!), and I would've been extremely frustrated if they had just left them all as loose ends. Ooo, oo, and I really liked how they had the "happy family ending." That was a nice touch. Just like in the book too, I heard. †Caleb† ------------------ |
Mack Administrator Posts: 2779 From: Registered: 01-20-2001 |
Going to see it tonight with the future-Mrs. ------------------ |
Klumsy Administrator Posts: 1061 From: Port Angeles, WA, USA Registered: 10-25-2001 |
i loved the start of this 3rd movie, how it built the background of gollum and showed the evil nature of the ring so well. i really think there were so many good messages in the film (s) and it was done very well. as for the producers and the extended edition, they didn'trush producing this movie as really most of it had been filmed a long time ago.. they just had to cut out alot of things to get it into cinema.. really each movie has about 1 hour cut out of it. the line i remember (maybe not word for word) which sticks out to me is "put aside the ranger, and become the king you were born to be" the things i disliked the most were the army of the dead and especially that frodo put the ring on in the end. but that is okay because though tolkien was christian and put lots of christian themes and worldview into LOTR , it wasn't an analogy of the gospel.. (but it captures so well the nature of evil, i love how in the first movie, how everybody 'manifested' with their desire for the ring, even with their 'nobel' causes.) but really the portrayal of the the character gollum, that really is so effective and so good (not jsut the CGI, but i mean storywise, dialogwise etc) as for the characters the one i would relate to personally the most would be 'aragon'.. Even the actor, when we was walking around town over here, he would wear his sword, even like going into the supermarket - it got the police called on him once Karl ------------------ |
|
AmazingJas Member Posts: 437 From: Sydney, NSW, AUSTRALIA Registered: 04-03-2003 |
quote: huh? Please tell us more Karl! about your spear fighting exercise in particular? |
|
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
swords are awesome. not to go off topic... but check out this link. http://www.weaponmasters.com/index.html?ID=a65a6174db5edae94afdb949c86a0092&ITEM=KE-2042&SUB_ITEM=MORE_PICTURES&SORT=&FDX=&FMAX= The Masamune Odachi... 5'6... oh yeah... spear in side? sounds... painful. and to answer the comment about the different ending. stop reading if you don't want to know yeah... in the book, the hobbits come back to the shire to find it taken over by saruman and men, looking strangely similar to mordor... they bring to hobbits together to fight them off and restore it. and to Caleb, yes... the happy family ending was in the book... exact quote of the line too. ------------------ |
|
Imsold4christ Member Posts: 305 From: Gresham, OR, US Registered: 01-20-2001 |
I was glad that they made the effort to give more background info on Gollum, but at the same time dissapointed because they did it wrong. The ring is supposed to gradually woo you and drag you down to the depths of pure evil, but they portrayed Gollum recieving those effects immediately. That's a sharp contrast with the effect it had on Frodo. He had to wear it for weeks and weeks before it started having noticable ill effects on him. Gollum is supposed to be portrayed as good in the beginning, so that the corrupting power of the ring can be shown. Instead they make it out as if Gollum was always evil. †Caleb† ------------------ |
|
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
Actually, their protrayal was accurate. the quoted him on many occasions, and he did murder his friend once he caught sight of the ring. ------------------ |
|
Imsold4christ Member Posts: 305 From: Gresham, OR, US Registered: 01-20-2001 |
Bah, in that case, Tolkien wrote it wrong! †Caleb† ------------------ |
|
Klumsy Administrator Posts: 1061 From: Port Angeles, WA, USA Registered: 10-25-2001 |
i believe he wrote it right man was not born good, and corrupted by his enviroment as humanists and communists believe. but rather we have a sinful nature in us, that natively is bent towards selfishness and evil.. responding to temptation is our most skilled and natural ability in the flesh. the only way we can resist evil is by God's protection and strength, and that Jesus died removed the power of sin. ------------------ |
Torial Member Posts: 73 From: Cedar Rapids, Ia, USA Registered: 07-23-2002 |
quote: That is certainly part of it, my estimates are that "only" 18 hrs would be needed to do LotR justice! But the key from I understand is Peter Jackson didn't like the Scouring of the Shire and so didn't include it. ------------------ |
|
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
for one... there is wasn't enough time in the movie to include all, and the scourging of the shire would sort of create a double ending, which doesn't always looks so well in movies. so little time, They should have made 6 movies, as tolkien orginally wanted 6 books. oh yeah, 6 3hr movies.. torial, you are right, 18 hrs should be good... ------------------ |
|
Papillon Member Posts: 31 From: Registered: 04-22-2002 |
Yay! I'm not the only one who thought it should have been 6 movies I didn't really like what they did to the start of the first LOTR... There was a lot more fast running in the movie than how I remember the book... |
|
bennythebear Member Posts: 1225 From: kentucky,usa Registered: 12-13-2003 |
thanks for the warning about the ending archangel :-). i must ask a question out of ignorance(what else is there to ask it from?), do the extended movies have more to them? like more story, longer time length, etc...? |
|
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
the extended versions are over half an hour longer. sometimes over 45 min. what's especially great about the extended is better character dev. There is also parts of the story left out and just some extra scense, like humor and stuff. ------------------ |
|
Torial Member Posts: 73 From: Cedar Rapids, Ia, USA Registered: 07-23-2002 |
quote:
Btw, would anyone like a good summary of LotR? ;-)
[This message has been edited by torial (edited January 13, 2004).] |
|
AmazingJas Member Posts: 437 From: Sydney, NSW, AUSTRALIA Registered: 04-03-2003 |
But I can't see them putting the book ending in the extended edition? They'd actually have to cut some of the theatre version out for that to make sense? |
|
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
they won't put the book ending. They haven't even filmed it. ------------------ |
