|LotR-RotK (no spoilers inside)||dr hoo|
Dec 17, 2003 4:08 PM
|Great, need to see it again, can't wait for the extended version.
A comment on the audience. We saw all three locally at the first non-midnight showing. First movie, theater half full, mostly with young males. Except for the family in front of us who took their kids out of school.
Second movie, full theater, long line. Now the crowd is mixed 50-50 male female, with mostly a young college age crowd.
This one, full theater, VERY long line. The crowd was very mixed, and I saw quite a few middle aged housewife types there (at the 11:45 showing). This is going to be freakin' HUGE box office. Deservedly so. I know people are expecting this to be big, but I think it will be bigger than anyone expects.
My jaw still hurts from all the dropping it did.
|As a big fan of the books...||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 18, 2003 5:33 AM
|as a kid, even read them again in adulthood, I was there at the first showing of the FOTR, went to see the Two Towers, will see this one as well but not in any hurry. I know it's hard for a movie to be as good as a book but I just haven't been able to get into these movies all that much. Visually spectacular but a little too sappy for me. FWIW, my wife who never read the books really liked the FOTR but hasn't seen the Two Towers yet.|
|Me too, but I think you have to look at the films as...||dr hoo|
Dec 18, 2003 6:01 AM
|.... one SINGLE film.
You should once in your life watch all 3 films in a row, extended cuts prefered. Those extra parts drain some of the sap from the sappiness by developing the characters more. In any case, it is clearly a masterpiece and I would have a hard time saying it is not the best film ever made in almost every detail.
Brought to you by the maker of "Bad Taste". I STILL can't believe THAT.
Now the books are a different animal all together. I was not happy with some of the modifications made, but listening to the commentary on the DVDs made me see why decisions were made as they were.
I have read the books multiple times, and will again. The film evokes the same gut level emotional responses in many ways. It works given the requirements of the medium. But I would give up the movies before the books any day.
|The movie(s) border on sacrilege...||The Walrus|
Dec 18, 2003 10:28 AM
|...I first read the trilogy in the back of our Rambler station wagon going cross-country on vacation in the summer of '66--I'd never encountered a written work so captivating, so rich, so inventive...I've gone on to read it 40+ times, so I guess I'm more interested in it that the typical moviegoer. Maybe I need to relax and take the movie version for what it is, but as a True Believer, I keep (mentally) shrieking "No, that's not what Frodo (or Sam or Pippin) looks like" or "(fill in blank) didn't say/do that" or "Dammit, they've got Gollum sounding like Donald Duck on helium". Peter Jackson took this great work of fantasy and turned it into a (very lavish and technically adroit) cartoon.
I suppose I'll see "RotK" eventually--if it ever makes it to the cheap theater here--but I'm in no rush. I think I'll start reading the real thing again this evening. It must be at least half a year since I last indulged....
|don't be a geek||ColnagoFE|
Dec 18, 2003 11:01 AM
|Sure the book is better but that doesn't make the film any less of an accomplishment. Can you imagine the director trying to make a direct copy of the book? It just would be too long and cumbersome to all but the biggest Tolkein geeks out there. For what it is I think the director did the books great justice. Some of the scenes from the book would just not make great film.|
|still in awe||Duane Gran|
Dec 18, 2003 8:22 AM
|I saw it last night and am still feeling the buzz. I read the books about 15 years ago and have been gradually re-reading them. I think Peter Jackson & co did an admirable job of adapting the book to film.
As a fan of the story, I'm just glad that more people are being exposed to the fantasy genre and in particular the Lord of the Rings. Incidentally, I can't recommend the extended edition enough. They really do add more depth and provide smoother transition (especially in TTT). I've seen them in video stores for rent.
|what pi$$es me off||ColnagoFE|
Dec 18, 2003 9:15 AM
|Is that they release the "regular" version and then a couple months later release the super-duper extended versions!!!|
|I've fallen for that trick nm||PdxMark|
Dec 18, 2003 10:04 AM
|fair notice||Duane Gran|
Dec 18, 2003 10:04 AM
|At least they have been up front about it. Before the first movie was in theaters it was publicized that the DVD release would contain a standard and extended edition. I have no doubt that some people payed twice for it, but I don't think they had any deceptive intentions.|
|to be honest...the standard version is fine with me||ColnagoFE|
Dec 18, 2003 11:03 AM
|I rarely have enough time to watch all the DVD extras anyway with a job and 2 kids. I'm sure all the extended stuff would be cool, but I'm pretty happy with the regular versions.|
|you really should rent them, at least, if just for the movies.||rufus|
Dec 19, 2003 10:02 AM
|the extended editions made Fellowship, which i felt was a near perfect film to begin with, even better, and made The Two Towers, which i felt had many problems, into a far, far better movie that the theatrical release. less abruptly edited, better paced, better involvement in the characters and story. it's a longer movie, but feels shorter for some reason. it made a three-star movie into a four, four 1/2 star.|
|agree, and what's more........||rufus|
Dec 19, 2003 9:57 AM
|nothing is the same on the two releases. as you said, they told people ahead of time how they were going to release these films on dvd, so you could make the choice of whether you wanted to spend more for the deluxe packages, or be satisfied with the simple two-disk theatrical release. furthermore, none of the extras on the theatrical releases has been repeated on the extended edition disks, so all the extra material on them has not been seen before.
so it's not like they're re-packaging the same old material with a few additional scenes and charging a bundle for it. not a lot of studios can say they haven't been guilty of doing that.
|I knew if I looked hard enough||moneyman|
Dec 18, 2003 9:28 AM
|I could find a reason to like you!
The LotR books were an integral part of my adolescence, giving me immeasureable amounts of joy in their reading and the discussions of them with my friends, who were bigger LotR geeks than me. I passed on that love of the trilogy to my children, who are also big fans. What would you bet that they pass it on to their children?
I think all four of us will go see it this weekend.
Are you done with finals so that you can concentrate on Tolkien now? Did you know that the original LotR manuscrpts are at the Marquette University library? I have seen them/touched them/read them. Tolkien wrote the whole thing in longhand, then his wife transcribed by typewriter. He wrote some of the story on the backs of his students exam papers!
|Done? I WISH!||dr hoo|
Dec 18, 2003 4:00 PM
|Nope, still intro essays to read, and an upper level final to give/grade. Busy busy busy.
I did, however, change one of my finals to a take home to free up my Wednesday afteroon so that I could go to the movie. It's been a busy few months, but I DO have my priorities straight!
|Went to see it last night... lame attempt at a review||PdxMark|
Dec 18, 2003 10:28 AM
|I worked late and thought I could pop into the 9:20 PM show Wednesday night. (Is that still the release date?) No go. Sold out. But the theater added an 11:20PM show, so I walked back to the office, worked some more, and traipsed back to the theater at 11PM. My pre-purchased ticket guaranteed me a seat.
The theater was almost full again, even for an 11:20 start (well, 11:40, actually, but at least now I know that I'm too chicken to watch most movies that are going to be released Summer '04).
A great movie. I'm a sucker for alot of the sappiness, but some of it is even a bit much for me. Hobbit sappiness has to be done just right for me not to cringe. At bottom, I think I very much like almost everything with Gandalf, Aragorn, Arwen, Theoden & Eowyn. Hobbit scenes are OK to good. Gimli has a couple good wise cracks. Frodos experience in Shelob's lair was frightening.
The different scales of different scenes give lots of shifts in emotional feel. Battle scenes are shown on a personal scale and the scale of the overall battle, and the emotional weight is similar to watching CNN during a Gulf War. The large overviews are fascinating and almost technical, impersonal, but the savagery of personal views brings the weight of the violence right home.
I like one of the themes of the movies, which is repeated in this one, that each of us can only do the best that we can with the situation that is given to us. Likely disimssible as sappiness, but I think it makes explicit an idea that I take inspiration from when I see it in real life or other movies too.
As a cycling aside, the bike ride home afterwards was glorious. The streets are dead quiet at 3AM. A quarter moon (not an official phase) shined ahead of me. The streets were dry and the air just cold enough...
|after seeing the film||TypeOne|
Dec 19, 2003 1:10 PM
|I wanted to ride with a lance this morning to surge through the rows of Ork joggers on the MUT.|
Dec 19, 2003 1:14 PM
|I liked your opinions of the film Pdx, although I thought the Hobbit sappiness was overwhelming. And I thought I must have been watching the director's cut yesterday with 4 alternate endings!
The battle scenes were incredible - it puts to shame any George Lucas digital animation and direction.
|I love the series, but...................||Len J|
Dec 18, 2003 1:37 PM
|the movie is only half as good as the book.
I have read the trilogy over 15 times since I was a teenager. It is one of my favorites. All of my children have been hooked also since they were 11 or 12 years old (beginning with the Hobbit). We have made movie attendance a family event. (we are all going this weekend). That being said, there are certain things in the movies that purists like me rail against:
1.) Arwen is much bigger in the movie thaan the book. (Theire relationship was a footnoete in the book.
2.) Gandalf. The casting IMO for this character is awful. Gandalf, in the books had a larger than life presence that the movie character has not come close to matching, at least in the first two movies. A real disappoinment since he is so integral to the story.
3.) Aragorn. Casting sucks. Instead of someone with kingly presence, somone you know you would instantly follow, hollywood gives us a hunk, someone who will attract the ladies to the seats. For such a key role, they lost much of the true meaning in the book.
That being said, the movies are wonderful. But they pale in comparison to the book.
I can't wait to see the following in the final:
1.) The path of the Dead.
3.) Battle on the fields of Pelainor
4.) Battle at the gates.
5.) How they end the movie. Will it be at Mt Doom, or the return of the king, or the return to the shire, or Bilboe's goodby? Can't wait to see.
Call me a purist, but I think staying true to the book would have drawn as many or more into the seats, Hollywood just wasn't courageous enough and felt it needed the love relationship & the hunk to sell the movie.....O yee of little faith.
Rumor has it that The Hobbit will be released next year.
|see "don't be a geek" post above (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Dec 18, 2003 2:17 PM
|Read my post above.........||Len J|
Dec 19, 2003 11:17 AM
|I did not suggest that all of the book should have been filmed, nor did I suggest that the movie wasn't good. What I did suggest was that the casting could have been better, and that they didn't need the "Extended" love story.
|Go ahead and be a geek...or purist...or True Believer...||The Walrus|
Dec 19, 2003 12:20 PM
|...you're almost right about the casting--actually, it could hardly have been worse. Gimli is about the only fairly inspired pairing of actor and role; Legolas is kind of "iffy". As far as the love story goes, it was completely out of proportion, and damned sappy, at that. True, not all of the book could/should have been filmed, but the emphasis was misdirected too often.|
|after seeing the movie||ColnagoFE|
Dec 22, 2003 10:29 AM
|I agree that the love story got a bit tiresome and even would suggest that the battle scenes were a bit long--could have used that time for more character development--but all in all a great movie experience. And the sappy hollywood type ending made me shed a tear or two. Casting was OK by me though. Nobody wants to see an old ugly Hobbit for long (a la Bilbo at the end) or an ugly leading man or woman in a Hollywood film. I do think that Smeagal and Sam deserve nods for their performances though. They were great IMO.|
|Saw the movie last Friday...||The Walrus|
Dec 22, 2003 11:59 AM
|...and it wasn't a total loss. Sam's battle with Shelob was good (am I the only one who flashed on Michael Jackson's booking photo after Sam tore away the spider's threads from Frodo's face?) , I thought the battle scenes were entertaining, I really dug the destruction of Mt. Doom (I'm a lifelong volcano junkie) and yes, I did get a bit choked up when Frodo et al sailed away from the Grey Havens. Apart from the unjustifiable romantic diversion, I still take exception to the many liberties taken with the story line. I've come away with the feeling that the script was written by someone who once read the Cliff's Notes version of the Trilogy and only dimly remembers the details. But what the hell--it's only a movie, and I can re-read the books to get rid of the bad taste that it left.|| |