Cool News
AICN Sends One Lucky Chatter To the NYC World Premiere of THE TWO TOWERS!! A Fullblooded Fanboy
Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
This one’s been brewing for the last few days, and it gives me distinct pleasure to be able to publish this, a pretty unique fly-on-the-wall view of an event I’m sure most of us wish we could have slipped into last week. What makes this so strange is that, in part, it’s the story of something that Harry Knowles, alleged starfucker extraordinaire, passed up so that someone else, someone who would never otherwise get a chance, would get a once-in-a-lifetime thrill that they could then share with all of you. Check this out...
A FELLOWSHIP OF SIX’S JOURNEY TO THE NYC WORLD PREMIERE OF THE TWO TOWERS
By Y.J.K. Busco aka yoda1
TRAILER: Harry Knowles is quite possibly the most generous person that I’ve NEVER met. Why? The tale must be told now how six New Jersey friends came to experience the dream of a lifetime one fateful night in the snow-covered city of the Big Apple. Only then will you have your answer.
This is my first article for AICN, so bear with me.
PROLOGUE: It all started on Tuesday Dec. 3rd, 2002, around 11:30 in the morning. Before I headed off to college class I figured I’d drop in on the ainticool.com chat-room to see what was happening. Not much. The usual regulars and the usual subject matter. However, just as I was about to leave, Harry asked if anyone lived around the New York City area. “I do”, I casually said.
Something was special; something was different on this day. It was in the air. For some reason I felt he had something brewing up his sleeve, and sure enough, as his next line of text scrolled up on my PC screen, it felt akin to the wormhole sequence in STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE: “Do you want to go to the Two Towers World Premiere in New York City?”
Time and space slowed down. It wasn’t natural, it didn’t feel normal, and I was in utter and complete SHOCK. I forgot where I was and what I was doing. I lost all ability to type. I couldn’t touch the keys, I couldn’t think - I had a cognitive freeze-up. My first reaction was one of disbelief! How could this happen to some nobody from New Jersey - some Joe Shmoe, with no credentials save a heartfelt passion for film?
I began to panic.
My mind raced. “What will I do? How will I get there? Who should I take?”
After Harry received my contact info, he told me a representative from New Line would call. So I sat by my cell phone, shaking, sweating, constantly making sure the phone was ON and the service bars were UP.
Fifteen minutes later the cell phone rang and a man told me he heard that I’m a friend of Knowles and wanted to know if I would like to attend the Premiere of the Two Towers in NYC. With not even a moment of hesitation I responded with a large resounding“Y E S.”
He told me that six screening and party passes were coming overnight through Fed-Ex. I then told the man that this was the greatest moment of my life, and abruptly dropped the phone, almost collapsing to the floor. I then looked at my six friends and told them that we were going to the “F***ING WORLD PREMIERE OF THE TWO TOWERS IN NYC!!” We all embraced one another, running around the room like a bunch of crazy silly little hobbits stoned out our minds on pipe-weed.
History became legend. Legend became myth. For two and one-half days, rumors of our impending adventure seemed to passed among the inhabitants of the chat room.
Then, finally, the time came.
One Night to Rule Them All.
ACT I: Fast Forward to Thursday, Dec. 5th 2002.
The turn of the tide is upon us... it’s the moment of truth. Not even Saruman himself, sending an army of 10,000 strong ‘Massive’-fueled fighting Uruk-Hai can stop us.
But Saruman doesn’t control the weather in NYC. At least, I hope he doesn’t! We are receiving severe winter storm warnings for the entire tri-state area, and we face the unreal possibility of being snowed-in! New York has become our Cahadras!
Arrangements must be made for our limo to come and get us earlier than anticipated. But lo and behold, our driver is now, officially, LATE. The screening begins tonight at 7:00 and the hour is growing later and later, for we now face an even greater and threatening dilemma: do we ditch our limo driver and take the Moria-like Path train (only a mine’s-stones throw away), or do we hold out, praying for the limo to find us and deliver us to the city in time?
The roads are not well paved, there could be accidents, there could be traffic and we’d have to travel at a slower speed. Driving through NYC is like maneuvering your way through a maze of Metal-Nazgul, Fell-Beasts, and Crebain From Brooklyn. The choice could indeed make or break our fellowship.
I am about to pass the buck to the shortest member of our group, and let him decide... but hey! What’s that? A beautiful pearl-white automobile is pulling up out front!
“If you get us there as fast and safe as possible, we’ll certainly make it worth your while”, we tell him. “It’s the Ziegfeld Theatre in Manhattan and this is the greatest night of our lives, so you damn well better get us there by 6:00”.
The driver’s name is Bill, (fitting, don’t you Samwiser’s think?) and the man is weaving in and out of snow-covered lanes, petrifying little old ladies at their wheel’s helm as we pass! We are indebted to this man. Oh, what a brave SOB!
Like Elves passing onto Valinor, every other car seemed to be going into the west, the opposite of our destination.
Okay... the theater is actually north, but hey...
Finally, we see a huge spotlight in the distance. We have passed the test, and will go into the premiere, and remain the fellowship.
One Night to Find Them.
For those who have never been in the Ziegfeld, it’s an opulent old-fashioned movie theater seating about 1200, housing a screen and sound system that I’m told are the best in North America. All in all, a great hall that would even impress the Dwarfs. Once inside, an usher escorts us to our first row seats, and as we go, I’m taking a few pictures, and I’m noticing even the female USHERS are gorgeous! Are female job openings scarce in Rivendell? Perhaps Hugo Weaving’s teeth scared em all away?
“Figure I’ll give Gordon (the New Line rep who arranged for our tickets) a call”, I say to myself, and it turns out he’s all of about ten feet in front of me. I’d like to say he is a sweet, soft-spoken guy who I owe a great deal to. I can’t say enough about how much he’s done for the fellowship and how easy he made this night for us. Hopefully we’ll cross paths again sometime in the future.
Roaming around the theater in an aimless daze, feeling like the nine must have felt at Lothlorien, THE phrase of the night is said for the very first time, one that will be repeated over and over until after the after party. We just keep looking at each other and saying, “What in the #@$% are we doing here!?!?”
We hang out in the lobby, eating some of the free popcorn (starving by this point), hoping to sneek a peek at the arriving stars. Six minutes pass, and I’ve already seen James Caan, Susan Sarandon, Will Farrell, Jack Black, Chloe Sevigny, Jon Favreau, and scores of others, all filing in, all taking their seats.
Miranda Otto, who plays Eowyn in the movie, took the short way ‘round and stands in a corner. She seems a little shy, but as beautiful as the god of Middle Earth makes them. A perfect photo-op. Anyone who tells you the camera makes actresses more beautiful is lying to you or just wants to sell you something. She is much more radiant in person than celluloid could ever make her look.
I mean that, Miranda, so be sure to scroll down towards the bottom for my email addy!
The rest of the cast and crew arrive. All of the hobbits are here... Elijah Wood, Dominic Monaghan, Billy Boyd, and Sean Astin. Peter Jackson is on a tight schedule, so all I can get out is the (*sigh*) typical “I’m a huge fan and I love your work!” Looking back with a genuine hobbit ear-to-ear grin he replies, “Thank you, I appreciate it.” I believe him.
It is now time to meet the cast and crew. The moment we have all been waiting for.
Bless Eru, I am sitting first row, front and center.
Bob Shaye, the big dude at New Line Cinema who had the wisdom to grant us these 3 films, is the first to address the audience. Hmmm... he seems pretty nervous... I can see his hands shaking a bit. I’m sure it’s probably an overwhelming moment for him. He just noted the singular vision of Peter Jackson and company, and said that the films just would not be possible without all their hard work, and passion and blood, sweat and tears. All right, he’s done. Who’s up next?
Mr. Peter Jackson, of course! Huge applause ensues, and Peter with his scruffy hair dangling all over his face, with his charmingly round physique, scuttles his way up to the microphone.
I direct my eyes to the screen through my handy-dandy digital camera, doing my best like a seasoned reporter and to seize every moment, taking candid photo after photo. I’m actually giving up on seeing much of the rest of the crew with my naked eyes. Are these photos no other site will have?
The pictures really speak for themselves. Everyone is so excited. The theater is overflowing with energy and the love is pouring through on everyone’s faces. People are practically sprinting down the aisle to hug Peter and the rest of the New Zealand bunch! I am at something so much larger than life and capturing moments that are so intimate, so personal and so immediate... well, I never fathomed it.
Everyone is eventually returning to their seats, the lights are dimming, the beautiful red draping curtain is opening, the screen is coming down, the film is BEGINNING...
Note to readers: insert Howard Shore’s “The Two Towers” score CD now...
ACT II: The Film.
Now, I’ve only read 1/2 of FOTR and haven’t even touched the pages of TTT or ROTK, and when I think of what the word passion means to me, I think of film in general... and women, too, of course.
I’m also as big of a fan of FELLOWSHIP, the film, as there is. I’ve watched that film to the point of memorization. It’s ingrained in my memory, etched like hauntingly beautiful poetry in my mind. It is for certain one of my favorite films of all time. It’s the most passionate piece of work I’ve seen in A VERY LONG TIME, a bold reinvention of the fantasy genre. I say all this without hesitation.
The overall theme of my story has been all my opinion, so to be consistent, I will continue in that line and give you my opinion of the film. I’m only offering a short, spoiler-free summary, so away we go!
Nothing anyone has said or will say will prepare you for what you are about to see. Nothing I say in this piece will either.
THE TWO TOWERS is the grandest action/adventure film that has ever graced the silver screen and the most accomplished visual effects film in the history of cinema. It is also the most breathlessly-paced 3-hour tour (de-force) I’ve ever seen. Can anyone say “roller-coaster”?
Lucas, Spielberg, Cameron, NONE of them have ever made a film that is this grand, this glorious, this bold. Stop rolling your eyes, PLEASE! Tom Cruise did enough of that in MINORITY REPORT. After viewing TTT, you think maybe you shouldn’t have even seen it, because it’s going to ruin every other film you thought you loved before it (and possibly after). This film raises the bar. And that is indeed a grand thing.
Has Peter Jackson finally been given the tools to show the world what he can really do? Is it hyperbole to say that the man’s mind is endlessly inventive? Oh, man, I wish I could discuss in detail the film’s many set pieces, since any one of them alone is worth the price of admission.
To say that the film’s opening is a “showstopper” is an understatement. To say that Gollum is the most impressive CGI character in the history of cinema is an understatement. To say that Helms Deep is the most impressive battle scene in the history of cinema is also an understatement.
To say that the work that WETA Digital/WETA Workshop, under the mad genius of Richard Taylor, has done here isn’t the biggest FU you to every other FX house in the business would also be a gross understatement. ILM, Sony Imageworks, The Mill, and Digital Domain are all going to be sent scrambling back to their offices wondering what in the hell Richard Taylor and his New Zealanders have been eating these last 5 years.
Did all these people know they were going to create the best trilogy of films in history when they started this project? HARRY POTTER, the STAR WARS prequels... nothing, nothing compares. I say they’re all rubbish by comparison.
And for the record: I loved HARRY POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS and I love ATTACK OF THE CLONES. This is not empty fan-boy rhetoric. But there must be a winner. Or not. It doesn’t matter: SEE THIS FILM!
TTT continues to top itself from the opening frame on. There is a progressive build. It is a subliminal pressure that mounts. In fact, I’ve never seen a movie that has ever so successfully topped itself scene after scene. I also haven’t seen a film in a long time that generates such intense audience reaction and involvement.
I know, I know, I know what you’re saying, all of you lurking there in the darkness of your home computers, gas-can and matches in hand... “It was THE WORLD PREMIERE, but let this fact not evade your conscience: the Ziegfeld was not filled with a bunch of geeky Tolkien freaks, it was full of snooty stars and celebrities. The entire theater must’ve cheered at least 15 times and gave the film a HUGE round of applause when the end credits rolled!
Now... ready for the bad stuff?
And set down that gasoline can, damn it... this won’t be too painful. I promise.
Okay, after waxing rhapsodic to an almost ridiculous degree (even though I think it’s all deserved), I’ll cite the film’s few shortcomings.
Amidst the enormous spectacle and scale of the film, I missed some of the smaller, more intimate moments from FOTR. This film is also a bit colder than FOTR. And it has a much more difficult task of telling three splinter-stories, all at once. You see, the fellowship has broken. You’ll know more once you see the film. The narrative approach reminds me of Lucas’s signature climactic endings that have become the staple of every Star Wars film - except with TTT it’s spread across a full three hours of the film.
I imagine it must’ve been doubly difficult to edit this film. At what point in each story do you decide to cut off the narrative energy? At what point will it not feel jarring to the audience to crosscut from one story to the other? It’s an inherent risk, and the film loses some of the storytelling richness of the last film. However, the difficult editing decisions that have been made are excellent ones.
Of the three stories, the Treebeard story is the least interesting. Treebeard himself is well designed but the work on him is probably the least impressive in the film. Compared to any other standard in any other film, he looks fantastic, but compared to Gollum, the Wargs, the Oliphaunts and the “new” Nazgul, he’s not quite at the same level of three dimensionality. I’m hoping the Extended Edition of TTT will add a bit more depth and history to the Ents, Treebeard, and their place in Middle Earth.
I’d also like to note that Christopher Lee as Saruman has very little screen time in this film and he hardly makes an impact, except for one moment when he overlooks his massive army. For that moment, it’s as if Leni Riefenstahl took her camera and dropped it into Middle-Earth. It’s one of the more powerful images in the film and a great Hitler-like moment.And then there’s Gollum...
When I saw Andy Serkis at the afterparty, I told him, “If the academy ever grows a pair of balls, they’d nominate you for best supporting actor”, and he responded, “Oh, thank you. Thank you very much, man... that’s great.” Sitting so close to the screen, I had the opportunity to examine every single subtle detail of Gollum’s design. To think that he’s just a bunch of pixels and numbers and wire framing and motion capturing... well, I refuse to believe it. There is a soul behind those eyes. There is a four dimensional person in more ways than one inside this character. There’s a moment in the film where he breaks down and begins to really lose it and just cannot take the pain of not having his “precciousssss.” It’s the best character moment in the film, and that is really saying something, considering how strong the performances are from the whole ensemble. Gollum will not be insignificant in 10 years when the technology advances once again to an exponential degree because Andy Serkis’s heart is buried in that computerized performance, and the film is richer for it.
Thank you to all involved. One Night to Bring Them All, And In The Library Bind Them.
ACT III: The Afterparty.
The film faded to black, Gollum’s theme playing over the end credits, and the audience sat through most of it, clapping for the major cast and crew credits. Our fellowship of six then proceeded outside, back into the frigid cold, and hopped onto one of seven Greyhound buses provided by New Line. The party was held at the New York Public Library, a HUGE place. We entered the dimly lit exhibit halls where martinis and long-faced Lothlorien Elves awaited us... REALLY.
The first thing we did, before anything else, was EAT!! That movie made us famished, so we probably looked like a pack of Gavonnes, but we didn’t care as my friends and comrades and I just starting eating like pigs.
Roasted turkey, roasted ham, and garlic-mashed potatoes were on hand in abundance and cooked to absolute perfection. I had about 3 different plates full. Then the drinking began. After a few pints and whole-halves of martinis, vodka & tonics, vodka & cranberry, and even a couple of Guinesses, I felt more than up to the task of talking to the cast and crew.
Upon reflection, I can honestly say I had some really fantastic conversations with Mark Ordesky, Philipa Boyens and Richard Taylor. They were all so friendly, and I think I talked to each one of them for at least 10 minutes.
Mr. Ordesky was genuinely interested in how I felt about the film and told me that, from what he knows, the extended DVD cut of TTT is going to clock in at about 3 hours and 35 minutes. I told him I had already heard it would end up being over four hours and he said, “I have no knowledge of it being quite that long.”
I also asked Philipa Boyens about nervously adapting the popular novels and how difficult that was. She said in her charming New Zealand accent, “It’s a nightmare but Peter, Fran and I just brainstorm and wrap our heads around the material and somehow we come up with something.” Philipa was standing next to Christoper McQuarrie, screenwriter of THE USUAL SUSPECTS, and she told me, “Now, he’s somebody I wish I could write like.” She also asked me where I was from, then told me her daughter loves guys with New Jersey accents. I said, “ME?! An accent?!” It was a cute little moment. Hehehe.
I also had a chance to speak with super-producer Barry Osbourne (APOCALYPSE NOW, GODFATHER II, THE MATRIX series, and LORD OF THE RINGS, just to name a few) for a few brief minutes. He enjoyed Italian cookie after Italian cookie as we spoke. I told him I was a reporter from AICN and that Harry Knowles sent me out to cover the film. He slowly turned his head and looked at me with his scrunched eyes and said, “Oh, yeah? That’s fantastic. What did you think of the film?”
I told him, “It was possibly the best adventure film ever made, and it’s quite obvious that Richard and WETA have graduated to another level.” He seemed very gratified and told me he was looking forward to reading my article on the net and asked what nickname it would be under.
After speaking with Barry, I quickly shook hands with Howard Shore and told him how big a fan of his score I was.
And then, for probably a good six minutes, I just stared at Miranda Otto. My friend caught me and slapped me and said, “Dude, you’re friggin’ starin’. STOP IT.”
You see, I have a tendency to stare when I have a few drinks in me. I drift off. What can I say? *shrug*
I decided to take a break from trying to speak with celebrities for a while and found my friends who were spread out all over the party. We all took a few moments to actually think about where we were and we just all looked at each other and once again said, “What in the #%@$ are we doing here?!”
It was the theme of the night, really.
Three of the biggest highlights of the night came next!
I got a great picture with Hugo Weaving, and I said, “Hey, I hear you only do trilogies now. Is that true?” He started laughing, so I told him that I loved him in both THE MATRIX and LOTR, and that every time I watch FOTR, I can’t help but think he’s going to say, “Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.” Yes, I know, it’s a very old and very bad joke, but he really liked that one and started chuckling. I asked him one big favor.
“You gotta give me a ‘Mr. Anderson,’ man. You gotta!”
He bent down a little, because the guy is like friggin 6’5 and he called me “Mr. Anderson” right there in the middle of the party. I couldn’t believe it!
I also had the great privilege of speaking with Andy Serkis, the soul behind Gollum, towards the tail-end of the night as well. He struck me as a really warm man that kept to himself and seemed sort of awestruck by the whole affair. I told him earlier that he deserved an Oscar, and we talked about how cold the water was in the scene where he jumps in to catch a fish. He said, “Oh, man, that water was frigid cold, mate.”
Barry Osbourne interrupted us and we all had to say goodbye to Gollum. Hell of a nice guy, he was. Yesssssss.
Oh! Before Andy left, he did give us a “my preccciousss”! It was priceless!
To cap the night off, I had the great fortune of speaking to Richard Taylor. He’s also a very tall man, and when you speak to him in person, his Kiwi accent isn’t quite as pronounced as it is in interviews. We talked about the immense scale of THE TWO TOWERS and how massive MASSIVE actually is. We talked about Helms Deep and the quarter scale Bigature that Weta Workshops created for the film. Richard said, “Peter was very intent on creating a SAVING PRIVATE RYAN-like experience with Helms Deep, and he wanted to create grand scale moments, but he also stressed the importance of individual and interpersonal sequences as well.” Richard also went on to say, “We learned this much from ATTACK OF THE CLONES: it looks amazing from afar, but there is very little stressing of the individuals and their interaction with everything that’s happening around them.”
EPILOGUE: The lights in the library went up, the last call was made, and the crowd filed out. Most of the stars faded into the east, the elves had long since passed, and there hadn’t been any dragons for ages. My fellowship of six huddled together, looked at where we were, and promised never to forget what we had been to.
We walked outside, back into the harsh weather, wrapping our jackets tight as we waited for our boy Bill the limo driver, our night winding down. We were meant to have those tickets, just as Bill was meant to drive us. And that was an encouraging thought.
Thinking back to the beginning of my story... what if I hadn’t been in the room at that exact time to get the tickets? What if New Line hadn’t contacted Harry? Barring all scientific talks of Chaos Theory and theological inquiries into Predestination, we know that even the very wise cannot see all ends. All we can do is make the best choices with the time that has been given to us.
The curtain call was made, the experience came to an end but it will never leave us, it will never be forgotten. We may never have a better experience in our lives. Upon reflection, my youthful enthusiasm may seem elated, but it is exactly what it is: a real and genuine emotional moment trapped in time, that needn’t be questioned, and will never be revisited again.
A Fellowship of friends on a journey to The World Premiere of The Two Towers in NYC comes to a close. For The Time Will Soon Come, When TTT Will Shape The Fortunes Of All Moviegoers...
This concludes my coverage. In closing, I’d like to briefly summarize my favorite 1000 movies.
Just kidding.
It goes without saying that I cannot even begin to express how grateful I am to Harry, Moriarty, Ain’t It Cool News, and of course Gordon Paddison and the folks at New Line for giving us this unforgettable opportunity!
I hope I did a little something different here and didn’t just supply yet another nuts n’ bolts schematic of a movie. You can get that in lots of places. Instead, I intended to relay a bold story of the everyman, the common-man, actually, make that “simple-men”, who didn’t just sit in a darkened theater for 2+ hours, but who shared a fantastic adventure they will look back on and think about in their minds and feel inside their hearts for the rest of their lives. If it was almost as if you went along with us on our journey, then this report has served its purpose.
Thank you for listening.
You can call me Yoda1.
Namarie. I’d like to also point out, as Yoda1 did for me, that one of our other chatters, BilboFett, really helped him shape the above material into something worth sharing with you. Great work from all involved, and I’m very glad it worked out the way it did for you. Can’t wait to see the film very, very soon for m’self...
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
That's it. You're a lucky bugger. Glad you had a good time :-)
-
This was one of the best articles on the site that I've had the privilege to read. yoda1, thanks. Great work. Great work by you too, BilboFett, good editing there. And I'd just like to end with a resounding "Mr. Anderson!"
-
This is a great "review." I can completely picture my group of friends being the ones to do this. Part of me is extremely jealous but mostly I feel gratified that representatives for all of the "small-folk" in the world got to go and be our give our 2 cents. What an amazing experience! Thank you so much for sharing. I'm curious, did you have to worry about exams while you were preparing this? If so, then I appreciate the effort all the more. Of course, any pity I have is completely wiped-out because of your fantastic luck. Appreciation, yes; pity, no. The Japanese say that amazing luck comes around every 12 years. I'm glad you've enjoyed yours!
-
I know someone who actually turned down the chance to attend and cover for the Russian newspaper Kommersant the World Premier of the Chamber of Secrets. I... oh all right, your story is cooler than mine.
-
I said it many times in chat and i say it again now...ur one of the luckiest people alive right now...and i think it was really great that the team at AICN gave you the chance to experience such an event...your review was honest, funny and i felt just as excited as you probably did when i was reading it, your pictures even tho i saw them the other night still bring me great joy!! ooooooooooh dear...December 18th why do you mock me??
-
As I've been looking forward to this movie since I was...12, read all the reviews and oh yes, rather enjoyed the books, Yoda1's account this morning is an absolute thrill! If Harry doesn't make him a regular contributer I would be dissapointed. LOOK at that picture of Elija! FUNNY!
I want more Yoda1! -
That was quite the epic review. I'm really happy for you, buddy, but one question: Did you grow up in a barn? Just kidding. Elijah Wood looks like a freak.
-
If he had, he'd have gone himself. What does he do? He gives the experience of a lifetime to someone he doesn't even know. Good job, mate.
Oh, and good review. Thanks for your thoughts. -
My first post...but damn!...what a cool article to be posting to!
Yoda1, I hate you, but I love you're work! -
I'd like to be the first to nominate myself to visit the premiere of "The Return of the King" next year! DAMN! That review got me harder than a week old biscuit!!
-
This is the stuff legends are made off "Mr.Anderson". Hehe, just had to say it... Brilliant work nonetheless, cool pics help too.
-
Hehehe... Starting a fight, starting a fight...
-
I don't bother talking about the plot, since everybody probably knows it already. It should be said that I have read LOTR three times and I loved FOTR (9/10) and I saw it four times in theatre. Despite being a big fan of the book, I'm no purist and I have no problem with the changes that have been made to these movies. In most cases the changes make the movies better and most importantly more cinematic.
I didn't have any special expectations for TTT, I simply assumed it would be on just about the same level in quality as FOTR was. And it was close, but in the end TTT didn't really win my heart over like FOTR did.
I thought that the three separate storylines were well put together. The emphasis was clearly on the three riders and most importantly Aragorn. Structure of the film is very complex with constant intercutting between the three storylines and several flashbacks and even one flashforward.
Arwen and Aragorn never meet in the film and the whole love story aspect (told as flashbacks) seemed pretty pointless. Luckily it took only about 10 minutes of the film. It will make Arwen's scenes in ROTK more credible, but TTT has a lot of characters who just hang around for no apparent purpose in the context of THIS film. Eowyn is one of them, but thankfully Miranda Otto is excellent in the role and I actually enjoyed her presence.
Bernard Hill was very good as Theoden, but when he is under the influence of Wormtongue, he is burdened by overblown make-up. The exorcism scene where he is freed from the influence of Saruman was just as embarrasing as the nuclear Galadriel in FOTR. The scene took me totally out of the film for a moment. Brad Dourif makes a good, slimy Grima. But he also has an unnecessarily overblown make-up, and his function in the film seems unnecessary thanks to a Saruman addition in Theoden's condition, which I don't think was in the books (It's been 10 years since I've read them the last time).
Gandalf doesn't have much to do in the film. And he was always at his most charming when he interacted with hobbit characters, which he doesn't get a change to do in this film. His presence is missed.
Viggo is excellent as Aragorn, but I have to admit that I think the character is rather one-note, like it was in the book. He is just the traditional clean cut hero, and the film's emphasis on him makes it less emotionally engaging than FOTR.
Legolas and Gimli rock, and the latter has much more to do in this film along with bringing some major comic relief.
Frodo's and Sam's journey is very well scripted. Sam has a lot more to do now and Astin nails the role. Elijah is very convincing when Frodo starts to turn to the dark side. Faramir is very different than in the book, but in the context of the film his character worked very well.
And then there is Gollum... I was disappointed in him. He is incredibly well scripted and Serkins provides him a great vocal performance. But I was never able to believe in him. He looks like CGI. He is the most complex and best-acting CGI creation ever, but it just isn't enough. And the point is that there is no reason why they couldn't have just used Andy Serkins in a body suit and make-up. It would have been a much cheaper and more convincing solution. Gollum interacts with his environment in a very realistic manner and especially his introduction scene in impressive in technical sense. But he looks fake, especially in the daytime scenes, and MOST of his scenes are bathed in light. Gollum also has a slightly cartoonish design. Again, why not use a body suit and make-up. I don't get it. There is no reason why this character was made as CGI.
The thing is that otherwise masterfully made Gollum scenes were always ruined for me a bit since I was not able to take him for real. However, I suspect that most people don't have this problem. The opinions on Gollum so far have been very positive, so I'm probably in a minority here.
However, I loved the ents. The effects are often fake looking, but there is no other option than to use CGI and animatronics to make creatures like these. The technology isn't quite there yet. There were even moments where the ents seemed like they came out of some old Harryhausen film using stop-motion. I liked it.
Treebeard has a very appealing personality and the Ents are just a very fun bunch. The meeting of the ents actually made me laugh out loud since many of them looked very goofy, but I mean this in a good way. And I guess the whole consept of walking trees looks more or less ridicilous. Anyway, the ents rocked and their final act of fury is lot's of fun.
Pippin and Merry are giving a good match to the ents and Pippin actually gets to play a very important positive role in the story, so he is not always there just to cause trouble.
Just like FOTR, TTT has plenty of scenes that seem totally extraneous to people who have not read the book. And it also has a tendency to repeat things that the audience already knows. There is a bit cheesy mind communication scene between Elrond and Galadriel in the film at midpoint, which is just a recap of what has happened in the film so far. It felt very unnecessary to me, but maybe it helps the people who have not read the book.
The film has a rougher, more realistic look than FOTR. Somehow I didn't think it was equally impressive, but it was a close call. Maybe the realistic look just feels too ordinary when compared to the the more fantasy-oriented FOTR. Anyway, Helm's Deep, Osgiliath, Fangorn, Mordor, etc, all look amazing. The film has a very varied visual style and sometimes I thought that the post-production filtering was a bit overdone. I had the same problem with some scenes in FOTR.
Shore's score is very good again. I've been listening to the soundtrack quite a lot lately, but while watching the fillm I didn't notice most of the familiar tunes, simply because PJ prefers to keep the music on the background.
PJ delivers a major, if a bit unfocused directing job again. At his best he is incredible, at his worst he is all too heavy-handed. The keyword to describe TTT is incoherent. At it's best it delivers amazing scenes, at it's worst it feel hammy and misguided. FOTR suffered of the same problem to a certain extent, but in my opinion TTT is worse in this sense. The film also lacks a strong emotional hook, there is no Boromir and Gandalf and Frodo are reduced to almost supporting roles. Gollum had potential to be a great tragic character, but CGI stopped me from caring for this intriguingly written creature.
Happily the film delivers some spectacular action sequences, which are the highlights of the film. I loved the Gandalf vs. Balrog, warg attack was a lot of fun and so was the ent attack. Helm's Deep is pretty incredible. The massive software used in the gigantic armies looks a bit fake at times, but mostly it's very convincing and the size of the scenes is outstanding. It should be warned thought that there is an almost 90 minute period in the film where there is no action at all.
In FOTR, most of my favourite scenes were small drama scenes. In TTT I found myself at times just waiting for the next action scene to come in. It's still a very good film, but right now I feel it's a bit weaker than FOTR. It should be noted thought that this movie requires a second viewing before I can give my final grade, and the same thing applied to FOTR as well. Things that bothered me now might not bother me anymore after second viewing.
Until then, TTT gets 8/10. A very good film, but it just has too many flaws to be considered as a great film.***
I also chatted with a guy from my work who is a movie critic (Moviefile on MoonTV) and he had pretty much the same problems I had. But he also thought that Helm's Deep was a bit of an overkill. He will give the flick 4 stars out of 5. He loved FOTR and would give it 5/5.
I think that this film perform slightly worse at the B.O than FOTR. But things are looking pretty good for ROTK, which might well be the best chapter in the trilogy.
-
Great story!Harry,that was a hell of a thing to do.Damn it, now I REALLY can't wait!
-
The gushing, the awkward fawning to celebs, the bad jokes, the garlic-mashed potatoes cooked to absolute perfection gla-iven glaven -- I'm actually embarassed for him.
-
Dec 09, 2002 9:49:35 AM CST
I think Monaghan got his suit from the Arsenio Hall Collection.
by rev_skarekroe
Yikes! sk
-
The more I think of it, the more I realize that Gollum was the main reason why TTT felt weaker as a film than FOTR. Imagine if a major character like Boromir in FOTR would be acted by some guy who looks very cartoonish and acts in an *extremely* over-exaggarated way. He would be a major distraction. The scenes between Sam and Frodo are so incredibly well made that they provide the emotional anchor of the film. However, Gollum is in almost every scene with them, and watching this artificial object be there is equivalent of noticing a bluescreen effect in every scene with Sam and Frodo. It distracts so much that it kills the credibility of these scenes. And so the film loses much of it's emotional weight. And it's a true shame, since besides Gollum these scenes are full of some pretty damn great scripting and filmmaking. Hopefully the rest of you can "buy" Gollum, since the film will be much better for you than it was for me. No matter how much I tried no to think about it, the words "Jar Jar Binks" came to mind several times. But if you can believe that this CGI object is real, then you can enjoy a very fascinating and well written character.
-
Never open with a showstopper!
-
Especially the part where Star Wars can't touch TTT!!!!
-
I probably would've reacted exactly the same way at your age. Thanks for taking me on a great night out, and thanks for taking me back a few years.
-
You made me feel like (a) I was about 20 again and, (B) I was there. Thanks!
-
Sorry 'bout that. With the order screwed up, I thought the first one hadn't gone through.
-
Truly great stuff... when I was reading this, I actually could imagine myself being a part of the experience. Thanks man...
-
If the elven butt boys and mindless zombies of current culture could just take heads from sphincter and see through brown eyes that they are totally deluded on this movie, I would cry glee.
Fotr movie was a snore from about 30 minutes in until it ended. The story is so badly written that most sequences had no real purpose supporting the over all story line. Face it, Tolkein wrote like a 15 year old caught up in the pimple popping fantasy of some dumb realm that is actually more boring than earth. Elves and special effects don't mean it is worth watching....I had more fun watching 'In the Shadow of Kilamanjaro'.
Oh, the fact that you self important geeks read a book in your life doesn't make you smart enough to realize that FOTR turked out. I read the first book years ago and was put to sleep worse then a cyanide nightcap. Tolkein never understood what plot, pacing, or consequence meant and Jackson conveyed that wonderfully in his movie. I love watching fantasy nerds flip out when someone doesn't like their garbage entertainment...then they attempt to get 'holier then thou' on the grounds that they keep a steady digestion of crap books but read without ever disciphering what they absorb.
Movie sucks. Face it. -
I don't know why so many people think Lord of the Rings is a good movie. What I liked best was the cinematography. Perhaps I'm too critical, but here are my observations. First of all, Elijah Woods' British accent was horrible. I don't know why he couldn't just use an American accent. His accent was not convincing in the least. Second, the music was awful. I was very disappointed with it. Third, the battle scenes looked very fake. They should have been better photographed with much better camera angles, lighting and realistic combat. Fourth, there was very little character development in this movie. Fifth, the dialogue was horrendous. I couldn't stand it. I was just waiting for the battle scenes and when they did arrive, they were a huge disappointment. See Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon for an example of how to film a swordfight. Sixth, the Hobbits were extremely annoying. There was no way that Sam could survive with his lack of intelligence and dexterity. The viewer needed to see that he was running on adrenalin and performing to the best of his ability. It simply wasn't evident. At the end of the movie, I simply didn't care if he survived or not. He was utterly devoid of fear, of the emotion that needed to be portrayed on the screen. Seventh, the battle between Gandalf and the other wizard was unimpressive. It should have been a lot better. And my eighth and final point is simply that we weren't adequately immersed in the world of the Hobbit at the beginning of the movie: we needed to see families, daily life, emotions, people interacting with others, animals, the world of a village. It would have been nice to give Frodo more personality and more of an environment, whether at home, school, work or play. He simply wasn't developed adequately at the beginning. There's much more I could say, but I feel I've said enough. I was disappointed with fotr, and anyone who says it's one of the greatest movies ever is greatly mistaken.
-
...all that endless running around through chasms and corridors only builds leg muscles, not character. The 3D versions of the characters running in long shots were attrociously animated- they cried 'Look! I'm fake!'. When they finally traversed enough dark tunnels they arrive to a long winded meeting of super geeks who don't speak a decent line of dialogue, and had funny ears that took the spot light because the characters and plot were so boring.
When society upholds Tolkein and his works as pinnicle, it is a sad day indeed. Stupidity triumphs over skill obviously....a good film for mindless masses. -
Dec 09, 2002 10:37:37 AM CST
walk walk walk, fight walk walk walk, talk-about-how-evil-the-ri
by sabirs
Arrrgh! That was the whole of Fotr. That movie was just a paper-thin premise dressed up with midgets, she-males with pointy ears, new languages, cgi monsters, and lots of walking.
Now there's gonna be two more movies of them fighting and walking through the wilderness exclaiming all the way about how evil this ring is, and how they have more walking ahead of them. Probably the last one left will be dildo (or whatever his name is) and he's finally gonna toss the ring in. I hope he falls in with it out of guilt for making the world watch this crap story.
And before you say it, yes I know I don't have to go and see it, but it will be all over T.V, the toys will be in every shop and I won't be able to go near a Burger King without seeing Elijah Woods' gormless little plastic face staring back at me from the mountain of merchandise.
Fantasy movies are fine but it seems to me fantasy fans like this stuff only because it has fantasy imagery. They don't care about story depth or character development.
I -
Great article Yoda1... You're a damn lucky guy. Sounds like an absolute blast! Now if we can all just refrain from starting another SW vs. LOTR argument on this talkback.
-
Dec 09, 2002 10:44:50 AM CST
Great article. I can't honestly see TTT being better than FOTR..
by dr_zoidberg
But if it is, then WOW. I will be truly gobsmacked. But AOTC is still my favourite of the year (and I have seen pretty much everything).
-
OK, FOTR(the movie) was shite of the purest form. Whoever wrote the screenplay obviously hated the book, otherwise they might have written something that remotely resembled Tolkien's masterpiece. The music made me feel like I was being whacked with a mallet every couple of minutes to remind me I was watching an epic tale. Howard Shore ought to be sent to the guillotine.
At least McKellen, Mortensen and Bean brought real life to their characters, but the effect was ruined by fucking dreadful editing and directing. Why did Jackson think that an over-the-shoulder shot would be appropriate for Aragorn delivering the "You cannot wield it, none of us can" line? -
I actually saw Lord of the Rings last new years eve. My take on it: I wasn't impressed. It was disappointing, even though I had very few expectations. There were loads of problems with it that I couldn't ignore. I tried to give the producers of the film a little credit, because they probably assumed that everyone who sees the movie has read the book 4000 times. (I haven't.) My only consolation is that I don't have to go see the other 2, which are probably equally long.
So why the hell did I allow myself to go see this movie? Well my only experience with Tolkien is the Hobbit, which was the most deadeningly dull book I have ever read, but since I was made to read it for school, my girlfriend told me that I should give the series another chance. Also, I had previously gone and seen Harry Potter, so I had all but dropped my inhibitions about hokey magic stories.
I was so wrong! There are a lot of differences between Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. For instance, Harry Potter is a kids story, but it does show well developed, dynamic characters. The characters in LotR are boring, because you never really learn much about their personalities or motivations. In HP, the magic is dealt with creatively. You see the kids learning about it as you are (an interesting approach). The magic is the means to an end rather than absorbing the whole story. Above all, HP shows real characters who you can better identify with. Harry could be your neighbor, your brother, or you. The story shows him as a character with courage who faces his challenges. Not once did I feel any identification with or any compassion or even hatred towards any of the LotR characters. I just didn't care. And for whatever reason, this means that the movie maker has failed in his task.
Another thing that irritated me about the movie was the lighting / camerawork / visual effects. Later I was told that it was *supposed* to be this way and it was supposed to be symbolic to follow the book, for reasons not explained in the movie. That didn't make it any less annoying. For example, in the beginning (and other parts) of the movie I had could never look at anything long enough to get an understanding of what it was supposed to be. Everything was either too dark or the camera was too close, too far away, or moved too quickly to get a good glimpse of the setting. (Which I must admit looked intricate and well done, and would have been interesting, if i could have seen it!) Some parts of the movie were way too bright and i did not even bother to look at these. They made my eyes hurt. In addition, there were too many unexplained visuals that were distracting from the story. These may have been explained in the book, which I have not read, but mostly they were frustrating. I believe a movie should stand on its own, without needing a written "guidebook" to wade through the details.
Oh by the way, was there supposed to be an ending? Fotr lacked one, which would be a maddening problem, except for the fact that I don't care. If I did, however, I would head to the library, the other 2 books are obviously there to take out.
In conclusion, (and in order to not offend the die-hard freaks), I'll say that this story might better be reincarnated as a video game. After all, characterization is not high on the virtues of most video games, and of course, garish visuals are always welcome.
I won't be seeing TTT.
-
Does anyone else suspect they were all written by the same troll? sk
-
Tailgunner22:"When society upholds Tolkein and his works as pinnicle, it is a sad day indeed."As opposed to what?****velocity:"Tolkein never understood what plot, pacing, or consequence meant"Really?Guess you missed it.****And thanks everyone for the midgets, she-males,dildo,shit,sphincter comments,your highly intelligent remarks are are breakthrough of cinematic journalism!
-
Listen, I'm all for supporting personal opinion, and personal liberty, and all that, but COME THE FUCK ON!!! The Lord of the Rings trilogy is NOT crap. I wish I knew exactly what happened to you people as children to force such fucking retarded and OBVIOUSLY WRONG comments out of your empty heads. Seriously, shut the fuck up, you aren't making any sense.
-
I decided that perhaps reading the books before I saw the movie would be a good idea.
BAD IDEA!!! The story line may have been fresh thousands of years ago when the author was alive, but jeeezzzz, good versus evil, with cute little fat fucks taking on the forces of darkness, gimee a break. The books would be half the length, and a hell of alot more readable if all the superfluous flowery descriptions were removed. I mean, is it a comment on the average IQ of the target audience that we have to be told again and again that Elves are tall and beautiful, Hobbits are short and fat, Aragorn is posing against the sunset looking noble and the bad guys are really, really bad. I got that by reading the jacket notes. And as for the bleak wilderness and the beautiful trees where the fuckin fairy goddam Elves live, who cares? We got it the first time!
Ahhhhh....that was therapeutic to say the least.
I now wait for the unwashed masses of zealots to tell me what an asshole I am, but guess what you repetitive dick heads, I already know I am an asshole.
It amazes me how fragile the ego's out there are. Do I threaten your sense of self worth by denigrating that which you hold sacred? Is no one allowed to dislike these movies? You are all zealots.
Fotr was incredibly boring and I suspect TTTTTITT will be the same.
-
Nobody's said it yet, and I'll get flamed for sure, but -- yoda man!
Seriously, excellent work my friend. Hope to see more of your stuff on this site.
You actually met Miranda Otto... You BASTARD!!!! LOL
Doc out.
-
Dec 09, 2002 11:10:20 AM CST
REMEMBER THAT NOBODY IS RIGHT OR WRONG - YOU HAVE AN OPINION...
by dr_zoidberg
And an opinion is not a fact. I love LOTR. Some hate it. I love Star Wars (including AOTC, and TPM was ok). Some don't. I hate Harry Potter. Some love it. Learn to live with other people's opinions. You don't need to embrace them. But you don't need to fog them off either. But of course there are always going to be 12 year old trolls with nothing better to do. Oh, and "basement dwelling virgins".
-
It never ceases to amuse me that the most hateful comments blasting Tolkien, his writings, or his fans as being juvenile, tasteless, or lacking in intelligence are always full of embarrassing spelling and grammatical errors. Certain amount of irony in that, eh?*****And to Bob Clark--"Mr. Anderson" is Neo's name inside The Matrix.
-
The talkbacker who bemusedly suggested that he might need to turn in his geek card for not catching the Mr. Anderson reference. Yes. By all means and with all haste -- turn it in, because your licence has been revoked. Not only that -- a geek task force (GTF) will shortly be stopping by your house to confiscate any and all DVDs, tapes, CDs and film-related memorabilia you may have accumulated during your 13-year life.
-
Custer is absolutly right. Everyone has their own views on things and should be allowed to speak without being called a troll. I really didn't like Fotr but LOTR fans seem unable to accept that a lot of people didn't like it.
-
QUOTE "I will say that Virkku sounds like he pretty much went into TTT with a pre-conceived resentment of the CGI Gollum." *** RE: Wrong. I thought that Gollum looked great in trailers. The main problem with Gollum is that he over-acts in a cartoonish way all the time. There is no subtlety in the way he is animated. However, reviews so far indicate clearly that not everyone feels the same way. QUOTE: " Gollum is a six-hundred year old creature who lives on raw fish and Orc babies and has been poisoned and warped by his twisted desire for an evil ring. Exactly how "realistic" did you expect him to look? If you check out any of the footage of Andy Serkis in the Gollum suit you'll notice he looks like anything BUT an emaciated froggy skeleton man." *** RE: I didn't expect him to act in a very over-exaggarated, cartoonish way. I wanted more subtlety. And I didn't have difficulties in accepting his design, but the fact that most of the time he is clearly pasted on the background doesn't have anything to do with his backstory. I don't know what kind of body structure Serkins has, but they could have used his voice with someone very skinny as the physical performer. Would have looked much better. QUOTE: "And I'm sick of this nonsense about people being "taken out of the film" by one bad shot. What exactly does that mean? Are you really drawn into the story so much you forget you're watching a movie and actually think your witnessing a battle fought six thousand years ago by elves and dwarves and orcs?" *** RE: Yes, when I watch a good movie I'm drawn to story. When the exorcism started I was TOTALLY into the movie, but this cheesily executed scene with a bad morphing effect took me out of the film in both terms of execution and content. When Theoden is not possessed anymore, we see the traditional morphing effect used since Michael Jackson's "Black And White" video. His wrinkles disappear, his beard gets shorter, etc. It's a clumsy effect and it seems unconvincing that his beard suddenly disappers just because he is not possessed anymore.
-
Gollum is certainly a much better character than Jar-Jar in terms of technical execution and writing. In fact Gollum is the best written character in TTT. But Gollum over-acts all the time with extreme, cartoonish facial expressions. If we assume that Gollum is not a CGI effect, but a real creature. Well, the creature that played Gollum gave the worst physical performance of the film, despite the great vocal performance. He is just totally lacking in subtlety. Thankfully Treebeard's character was executed beautifully.
-
Dec 09, 2002 11:30:57 AM CST
Lordy, lordy. Fotr is only the second movie I've ever walked out
by rockinchair
Lordy, lordy. Fotr is only the second movie I've ever walked out of early (the other being "Armageddon"). It was so damn annoying! Noise like you won't believe! After the fiftieth instance of a character barely escaping death it's time to try another plot gimmick already! And that dialogue!
We [must, shall always, must never] [destroy, traverse, give in, fight] the [Fravlepuss of Demakargle, Gweenosconce of Dimpleblush, Hagiocopt of Wishendorn] !!!!!! [!, !!, !!!, !!!!]
There. There you have every freakin' stupid line in the whole stupid movie. Here's the plot:
1. Use above dialogue generator to generate line 2. travel through scenic land 3. fight monster(s) 4. repeat
Is this all we expect of a movie these days? A stupid video game!!
-
RockinChair, you truly are a moron. Despite the fact that you paid $10 to see a movie that you walked out on, you also failed to understand the plot of a children's book. A plot that was not only simple enough for a child to understand, but deep enough to engage adults, though unfortunately you seem to fit into either category. Please sterilize yourself to ensure that none of your spawn ever inhabit the earth.
-
Fucker , fucker, fucker. You are a lucky bastard. Good job reporting the event though, it was neat to read such a neat account from someonne who is just like us. Good thinking Harry. You done good.
-
What did you think of the Balrog and Cave troll in FOTR?
....Be honest. -
Dec 09, 2002 11:44:35 AM CST
Flashback with me now, to last year, about this time, Ebert & Ro
by iamlegolas
Roeper really shines on this one! *** http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/011224.html *** Click on the speaker icon next to FOTR.
-
What did you think of the Balrog and Cave troll in FOTR?
....Be honest. -
LOTR sucks. Face it. LOTR rules. Face it. How bout, fuck you? I don't have to "face" anything. I enjoy what I enjoy, you enjoy what you enjoy. I don't understand why people (idiots) feel the need to crusade for or against a particular film by touting their opinion as a fact that the uninformed masses simply haven't discovered yet. I personally loved FoTR. I expect I'll say the same about TTT. You hated it? Great. Diversity is wonderful thing. Just don't expect me to "face the facts", because your facts are my rubbish. Ciao.
-
Virkku was the only one who could break it down constructively. The rest of you can go suck a monkey nut dry. You're just hating to hate... but guess what. I can guaran-goddamn-tee you I won't remember one of your reviews come 12/18. Know that you are insignifican,t and forgotten.
-
Dec 09, 2002 11:54:57 AM CST
trolls...they seem to be getting a might bit desperate in their
by hildebrand
Well, well, well, the trolls have been busy this morning. Goodness, you would have thought that Tolkien and Jackson were more dangerous to the masses then when the enlightened folks accused Socrates of corrupting the youth of Athens. Such sturm und drang! Such passion! Such a willingness to use sexual deviancy metaphors! Wow, you folks are a talented bunch. It was boring! It was too long! It was derivative (oops, sorry, a polysyllabic word used where it should not have been, my mistake)! Please, take the show somewhere else. Everytime a glowing review from anyone shows up on this site, the trolls line up to try to slap them all down again. Sound a great deal to me like one of the favored critiques of the movie, redundancy at its finest.
-
Ok, let me explain myself better. The exorcism scene was the first *weak* scene in the film. Up to that I had seen only scenes ranging from good to great. So it was a shock to see a weak scene come by, and therefore I was taken away from the movie. In terms of weakness I would compare it to the nuclear Galadriel scene in FOTR, which was in my opinion the only truly weak scene in that movie. However, the complaints I have given are something that many people probably won't agree with. The reaction to Gollum seems really positive so far, and I hope the rest of you like him more, because it allows you to appreciate the whole film on a greater level. I still thought that TTT was a very good film and I'm looking forward to seeing it again.
-
Dec 09, 2002 11:58:23 AM CST
Matt, from X-Entertainment.com, also covered the premiere
by declan_swartz
http://ugo.com/channels/filmtv/features/thetwotowers/
-
Hello there, morons. Yes, you - If you're the ones trying to convince all who enjoyed thus far the live-action interpretation of the Lord of the Rings, that they are in fact meek, or weak-willed for doing so. Whilst you, the intellectual superior, chortle and snort and their meanderings. Let me be the latest to say Fuck you. You know nothing. Let me also take the opportunity to say to you regular talkbackers who adopt alter-Troll egos and troll for reactions and then proclaim that it was all just for fun and that we should have deciphered your message revealing who you truly are - fuck you too. You think anyone is interested? You think you have even a minor celebrity by posting on a chat board? I don't know who you are, and I don't care. FotR was hardly flawless, but I really enjoyed it. This one could be just as good - which is to say that it will cost as much as other movies and you can see it this holiday season. And it will be fun, and on creative level, maybe inspiring. It will not ruin my life, rape my childhood or change the way I think about myself. In all likelyhood the CGI will be obvious and suck, since it sucked for all other CGI scenes in all other movies I've seen. That is an opinion. As is the rest of this. Man, do I love TTT talkbacks.
-
there a need for this guys pictures of himself and his friends?
get a life -
I liked Balrog and Cave Troll a lot. But you have to remember that they don't play complex character-driven roles in the film. Gollum is a step up from them in terms of technology, I'm sure 3D artists will admire him a great deal. But basicly Gollum required a performance as good as Elijah Wood and Sean Astin can provide. The voice is there, but CGI can't achieve the complexity and subtlety of a talented human actor. Folk's at WETA did a great job, I simply blame PJ for wanting to make Gollum a CGI creation in the first place.
-
I could care less about the people that complain about the LOTR movies. The fact is, though, I do pity them. Little minds that are obviously going through life devoid of imagination deserve no less.
Thank God I wasn't born like that! If someone wants to call me *King Geek* in order to appease their own sense of inadequacy, feel free. I'm having such a blast watching this movie series I won't even notice.
And I'm sure nobody else that truly loves the works of Tolkien will notice anymore than I do.
Happy Holidays! -
Dec 09, 2002 12:09:03 PM CST
Remember I said that the BBC panned FOTR? Well here is the revie
by mani
The Tolkies' provisional wing is after me for dissing their religion -----------------------
Mark Lawson
Saturday December 29, 2001
The Guardian --------------------
As a journalist, I've never been a controversialist. Britain's prisoners start sewing extra mail-sacks when they learn that Julie Burchill is writing a column. For me, they could make the shallowest of in-trays during recreation. But, in the last two weeks, I've started looking at brochures for bunkers. There have been letters verging on death-threats, calls for me to be sacked or (a recurrent and perhaps revealing word) "disciplined", vicious comments on websites.
What produced this abuse was expressing dislike of the recent film of The Lord Of The Rings twice on television. For the record, it's my view that JRR Tolkien's books are a laboured reorganisation of Norse myth by a writer who struggled with the sentence structures of English. Professor Germaine Greer, who joined in, is also, according to my correspondents, to be the subject of calls to the director general for her life-time banishment from the BBC.
In the course of more than 900 arts shows on radio and television - on such reliably contentious subjects as The Satanic Verses, modern jazz, pornography, Intimacy, and Tracey Emin - there has never been such an extreme reaction. Nowhere in the commendably detailed book of BBC producer guidelines on the handling of contentious editorial issues did anyone ever think to print: Don't Mess With Hobbits.
As in all discussion of fundamentalism, it's necessary to acknowledge that the vast majority of Tolkien-readers are gentle, peaceful people who tolerate the existence of other points of view. We are talking in this piece only about a small band of fanatics who have misunderstood the message of the holy book.
The religious metaphor is appropriate. The nearest I've previously come to the seething directed at me in the last two weeks followed hostile comments about the TV version of Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast. It's clear from this that I suffer artistic resistance to mock-antiquated myths which tweely create fake kingdoms, and that works of that kind have a tendency to become, for some admirers, a displacement religion.
So deep is these people's acceptance of the legends and beliefs of Peake's or Tolkien's fiction that any dissent from this world-view is classified as blasphemy. But at least Salman Rushdie took on a great prophet. My nemesis is elves and those other ones called - is it orks? Orcs?
Reading the letters and emails from the extremist Tolkies, I thought of a story which has appeared in Britain's newspapers in the last few Christmas seasons. It's about a man who loves the rituals of December 25 so much that he eats a full Christmas dinner every day of the year after sitting down to watch a video of the most recent Queen's Speech.
For several years, this has been reported as if it were a touching human interest story -The Man They Call Mr Christmas - although it always seemed to me that he might more accurately be described as Mr Christmas Crackers. Finally, this year's pieces revealed that his doctor has warned that the unvaried intake is killing him and that he is being treated as an addict.
It's pretty clear that festive lunch had become a crutch for Mr Christmas: he was happier living there than in the actual calendar. And I'd guess that, among the provisional wing of The Tolkies, elves are to them what turkey is to Mr Christmas. Escapist literature has its place, but if a book, and a children's book at that, means so much to you that you can hate other people for disliking it, you've walked through the library into some other room: and perhaps a ward.
While the Tolkies are an extreme example, the elevation of dislike of a children's movie to heresy is part of a worrying wider trend in culture. A curious feature of cinema in 2001 was the sudden clutch of movies made from books which had attained the status of sacred texts for their readers: Harry Potter, Captain Corelli's Mandolin and Bridget Jones's Diary, as well as the Tolkien saga.
At screenings of these, you felt that large parts of the audience had come not in search of enjoyment but to monitor deviation from the original. The directors were widely praised for how close they had stayed to the page. This hostility to interpretation is anti-cinematic. The point of movies is to rip up the words and reassemble them as pictures which may - which should - differ in key details.
Another point of films, in fact, of all art, is to produce two views about their meaning and worth. Although the word "reviewer" has become synonymous with critic, it's an odd term because it strictly means to see again - a second opinion - despite the fact that critics pride themselves on giving the first opinion. This kink in etymology is presumably explained by the fact that critics are looking over or re-viewing the conclusions of the creator.
Even so, there will always be a second opinion or a twentieth. The opinions of critics are reviewed by audiences and then by other audiences. I accept that the Tolkies may disagree with me about the supremacy of the movies of Baz Lurhman or the excellence of the novels of John Updike. But I wouldn't want them reviled or sacked for thinking differently. Like Christ, Mohammed and Karl Marx (though all were rather better wordsmiths), JRR Tolkien would surely be horrified by some of his followers.
-
Loved this report. The details, the pictures, the fanboy enthusiasm and the fact that Mr Anderson's rave review did not completely exonerate THE TWO TOWERS out of criticism. Well done.
-
I am keeping a open mind with TTT.
I read some reviews that the Wargs looked fake but I ve seen the sequence and it looked great to me. I am in disagreement with you about the comment you made in terms of the make up for Slima & Theoden....but each to their own.
When I go to see a film as late I go without picking at the effects (apart from DIE ANOTHER DAY which was horrible)working on a project like LOTR is a very big undertaking (Bigger than anything of recent times) and I can let a few F/X & editing niggles go (Like the steps moment in moria in FOTR which was average at best).But it is down to opinion of course...so I respect yours.
Its good to hear a new perspective regarding Gollum as I doubt he would be perfect as many reviewers say.Its just not going to happen.
-
No offense, I know I'm risking yet ANOTHER enemy on these talkbacks, but honestly, I just don't believe you. I DON'T BELIEVE A-ONE OF YOU. There is no way in hell that you didn't like FOTR. There just isn't. You are simply one of those people who always try to differ from the crowd because someone, somewhere, led you to believe that people would respect you more if you always disagree with the majority. You probably hate the Matrix, too, don't you? And you figured out the twist in the Sixth Sense before you even saw the film, didn't you? You're all so predictable. Sure, FOTR might not have been your favorite picture, but to say that it's BAD and you don't like it is a lie, plain and simple. I don't care what any of you say. Sorry to focus the blame on you, madeofstone, I just happened to read your post as my fury hit its peak.
-
Way to represent us accurately :-). Being another Jersey college student, I am quite proud to be of the same clan as our dear reviewer here - although I doubt I would have had the audacity to actually put forth the timeless (while forgivably cliche) request upon Mr. Weaving, no matter how much alcohol was in me. Yoda1's review, while entertainingly sophomoric, succeeded admirably in continuing to send chills down my spine in hardly-bearable anticipation of this predictably glorious masterpiece.
-
I'd give my eyeteeth to have been in your shoes, but I'm out here in the middle of the MiddleWest. *sigh* Sounds like an awesome time. Love the pics of PJ :) Your writing felt a lot like Harry's loooooooooong works from the set of LoTR - not that that's an all-bad thing. Dude - Dec. 18 is TOO EFFING FAR AWAY!
-
I can except the fact that some people don't like these films. That's fine. I don't like movies that others have loved.
But I won't except the fact that anyone will insult any of the production values. Everything in these movies are exceptional. From the writing to the performances to the special effects. You can't ignore the fact
that everythign in these movies are topnotch. -
I've just about had enough of you fucking trolls and your ridiculous comments about one of the greatest films of all time!!! Just face facts, this is no flash in pan film, this is cinematic history being made. This isnt a Titanic, which everyone initially loved then saw it for the joke it really was. LOTR is quite clearly, in the eyes of the majority, one of the most amazing movies ever made from one of the finest works of literature ever written!! Which is also shaping up to be potentially the greatest movie trilogy ever made!!! (and yes I love Star Wars too -but only the OT)!! LOTR has everything.....action, drama, depth, character, emotion, good vs evil, betrayal, love, hate, friendship, sacrifice, and I could go on. Sure there are other great films out there but I know of few that encompass ALL of these emotions and do it so convincingly! I've lost count of how many times I have seen this film and I am HONOURED to have been a part of the experience. Regardless of what you antagonistic little no-life fucks think, I know, in my heart, that these films are glorious!!! LONG LIVE LOTR!!!!
-
Boss, You've done a beautiful thing. I always knew you were at heart a sentimentalist. Ya Big Lug.
-
Message reads.......To even suggest that or to even hint at the notion that you "walked out of LOTR in the cinema" is the greatest work of fiction since Tolkien wrote LOTR!!!! I have seen some stinkers in my time but I have never been compelled to walk out. What sort of sad, miserable loser would do such a thing??? I might understand if you were talking about a well known crapfest like maybe Robin Hood -Men in Tights (which staggered me as to just how awful a film could actually be) but to suggest that you walked out of LOTR just makes me think youre a sad little man with no soul or sense of wonder about you. If thats the case then I truly feel sorry for you as you missed out on one of the finest films EVER MADE!!!!!
-
God these suck. LOTR ROCKS! LOTR SUCKS! YOU SUCK! I ROCK! Or something like that. I will say though that some of the detractors are pretty lacking in the quality of their criticisms. And please, why insult the reviewer? I'd be pretty fuckin' starstruck myself. It's probably just jealousy. Anyway, I just watched my extended FOTR for the 5th time on Saturday, and yes, I am a hopeless geek. sue me. I loved the damn movie. It's officially on my ever-shifting top 20 list. And all your harranguing and screaming and criticizing ain't gonna change that. So stop wasting your breath.
-
If this asshole was a real Lucas fan, he would not haave enjoyed TTT -- he was just a starfucker is all. AOTC is film of the year, I have now seen it 61 times, but I will NOT be watching TTT. Stupid Tolkien idiot fans cannot handle that Lucas is a real master with imagination. Willow was better than FOTR, and Willow is not even 1/10th the greatness that was Phantom Menace. I have written about 10 posts about this shitty Two Towers movie, which is a disgraceful rip-off of 911, telling you how bad TTT is going to be, but you are too dumb to listen. I don't know why I am wasting my time, but as a Star Wars disciple, I believe it is my duty. Bash me all you want fanboy geeks, but TTT sucks and ROTK will probably be worse.
-
Remember I said that the BBC panned FOTR? Well here is the reviewer talking about how he got DEATH THREATS from extremists.****Key word is extremists,really doesn't matter what the heck it is,looney 'toons can be found in all places in society.BTW G. G. has never like Tokien,...yawn.
-
Dec 09, 2002 1:04:53 PM CST
Aaaaaaaagh, Virkku! You confirm my worst fears for this movie...
by orson w
I didn't want to believe it, but all the signs were pointing to the movie being as you describe it: all action, special effects, lots of tacky dialogue and......no soul. All the hype and hysteria made me very suspicious indeed... I'm still keeping an open mind and hoping you're wrong but in the past you've always spoken the truth....Did they really make Gollum all cartooney and over-acting? How could they make such a mistake with the most important and best-written character of the whole book? If that's the case, they really should have used an actor rather than CGI. Goddamn it, I should have known this would happen when they turned the deliciously sinister Balrog into a corny video-game character .... Still hope you're wrong though...I'm biting my nails in anxiety and anticipated disappointment. Next, you'll be telling us that the soulful little moth gets shot down by Saruman in a revenge killing. At this point, it wouldn't surprise me...
-
Matrix. Star Wars. Indy. Evil Dead. Back to the Future. Some Star Trek films. Hammer Horror. Aronofsky, Fincher, Soderbergh, Kubrick, Lynch, Cult TV, Britcoms, Nightmare on Elm Street, Marvel Films, Harry Potter, the Coppola Clan, and even Bond films.
We are geeks. We like movies. This year's best may be TTT for some, AoTC or HPatCOS for others. Even Nemesis.
Some of these movies are good, some great, some of them are just fun. None are perfect. Art is never perfect. But it is still art. And you know what? We want more. We are the reasons movies get made. We pay many thousands of people's salaries. We have our parts to play in our somewhat bemused society, and we don't have the time, the patience or the will to create these great things ourselves. So we watch what other geeks have created, and we smile and go home, with this break from reality echoing in our imagination. We are fans. WE ARE GEEKS, and the GEEK shall inherit the earth. We make our artists rich, but we also need to say "thank you", even if the product isn't what we call perfect. So, Peter Jackson, we wish you a very merry Christmas, you and Fran and the kids. And Thank you. And to all of you who have an Idea, a spark of creativity that is so all-consuming, a story that needs to be told, We await your art. We will support you, we will even talk some smack, but we will come, and we will compensate you for your time, and one day we may even say "Thank You". -
Dec 09, 2002 1:56:09 PM CST
Thx for reporting in yr 15 minutez ... next one please
by aronld scazziger
thats all
-
like the speeches in White Squall or Rules of Engagement?
-
Hey, here's a tip. Read more. And while you're at the library picking up the Star Wars Pop-Up books, take a look over in the Big Peoples' Book section. Pick up The Two Tower. Open up the cover. Look at the copyright date. Yeah, I guess Tolkien was a psychic and wanted to insult us all by making a bad jab at the 9/11 attacks by naming his book The Two Towers back in the mid-1950s. Libraries and bookstores are my friends. I promise, you won't die if you happen to crack a novel that's over 200 pages long. They don't bite.
-
At least it spared any mentions of fecal matter or ejaculate. But we'll get that soon enough, I'm sure.
-
Thank you for that lovely piece. At the end of the day, isn't that why we all come to places such as this website, or to movies that look enjoyable? You are the type of intellectual what the other talkbackers should emulate. And Happy Holidays to you too.
-
Dec 09, 2002 2:15:41 PM CST
this guy clearly did something right in one of his past lives!
by enemakid
NO ONE should be THAT lucky!!! but all the same... that is the most genuinely passionate review i have EVER read... heres a guy that loves the book, worships the movies... way to go bud!
and anyone that says FOTR sucks needs a lobotomy -
Dec 09, 2002 2:20:18 PM CST
"Actually, it throws down a gauntlet the movie now has to live u
by uncle_les
And I'm very fucking bloody well sure Peter fucking Jackson will make this bitch live up to its expectations. Who da man? Yoda man! (Flame me, ya fuckers, I don't give a shit.) Great review, dude. Unlike some other "I-was-doing-this-and-that-before-and-after-the-film" sort of reviews I CARED what was gonna happen or what you were doing. Some great writing. Miranda Otto is tha bomb (though not as much tha bomb as Natalie Portman is, recognize!). And as for our mate Derek; you will all be sucking his spinning steel this December 18th, SHITHEADS! Peace out.
-
...are the trolls on this TB even more imbecilic than usual? You people, (if you are indeed people and not just some nasty semi-sentient ooze clinging to the bottom of the www septic tank) have entirely too much time on your hands. Why would anyone spend this much time on something they profess to hate?
-
Dec 09, 2002 2:30:02 PM CST
Fiery, the moth falls! Virkku, you confirm my worst fears for th
by orson w
I didn't want to believe it, but all the signs were pointing to the movie being as you describe it: all action, special effects, lots of tacky dialogue and......no soul. All the hype and hysteria made me very suspicious indeed... I'm still keeping an open mind and hoping you're wrong but in the past you've always spoken the truth....Did they really make Gollum all cartooney and over-acting? How could they make such a mistake with the most important and best-written character of the whole book? If that's the case, they really should have used an actor rather than CGI. Goddamn it, I should have known this would happen when they turned the deliciously sinister Balrog into a corny video-game character .... Still hope you're wrong though...I'm biting my nails in anxiety and anticipated disappointment. Next, you'll be telling us that the soulful little moth gets shot down by Saruman in a revenge killing. At this point, it wouldn't surprise me...
-
Yoda1, thats one of the best articles I have read on here this year. It puts to shame a lot of articles which have appeared on this site. Nice writing.
-
Dec 09, 2002 2:40:05 PM CST
"There was no way that Sam could survive with his lack of intell
by gypsytrobot
Yo Gary Gygax, let's carry this idea to its logical conclusion. Sam: STR 10 INT 7 DEX 6 CON 18 WIS 16 CHA 11 Hobbit fighter level 3, 9 hp. Equipment: elven cloak, magic rope, short sword + 1, +3 against undead. Special skills: cooking, gardening, crying.
-
Just messin with ya Give It A Name.
-
is perhaps the best written I have read on this website for a long time. Well done to all involved. I couldn't believe what I was reading. Also, Harry do you have any tickets for the UK premiere?
-
A review of the experience was what he was after. If you want a scene by scene breakdown of the film there are plenty of other reviews out there that will oblige you.
-
Dude you are a fucking tool. You're the type of fan that gives us geeks a bad rep. Do you know how many times poor Hugo Weaving has had to do something stupid like that on command because some overbearing fanboy like yourself thinks Hugo's his trained monkey that will perform (what he's paid millions to do on film mind you) for you at your whim? What gall you have! What hubris! What ignorance! I'm sure Hugo is such a great guy that he takes it all in stride but I'm equally sure there's nights where he says to his significant other "if I have to say that damn "Mr. Anderson" one more time I'm going to kill somebody." In my work, I've been able to converse privately with some celebrities who have confided in me that they hate some of their "fans" precisely BECAUSE they pull dumbshit like you did. I mean what was a nice guy like Hugo gonna do say "no" and have you report something bad about him. Hugo is an artist....would you throw Picasso a napkin and say "Dude, you gotta give me a cubism scribble!" Grow the fuck up and realize that when you meet a celebrity they are not your property to command to perform, they are human too. Hugo was just there to be a guy at a party promoting AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FILM, and trying to have a good time, NOT to be your little fanboy jones ...get a clue buddy...
-
Dec 09, 2002 3:23:10 PM CST
Some people gotta shit where there's no toilet, I suppose...
by nordling
It was a PARTY. Did you see the picture of Hugo Weaving? He was smiling. Had a wine glass in his hand. Having a good time. Who the fuck are you to say he didn't enjoy that or not? I'm sure if he didn't want to do it he wouldn't have. I'm sure the Brandos of the world appreciate your "sensitivity" to their cause. I wouldn't have asked him myself, but only because I'd probably be too shy to do so. I'm glad Hugo had the humor to do it. Good for him. Sounds like he was having FUN.
-
have any of the people knocking/praising Gollum or any other part of the movie actually seen the it? I mean it isn't actually out yet. The only possible time you people could have seen it is at the Academy screening or various press screenings. I'm sorry but you are not part of the press or Academy although some of you would like to think you are. So before you criticise I think you should mention how, or where you saw the movie or what part of the press you come from. I can't criticise one way or the other at the moment you see. I've not seen it. Having seen the trailers does not give any of you the right to criticise the movie one way or the other yet.
Just to reiterate what I said before, this review was one of the most enjoyable, well written reads on this site for as long as I've frequented this site. Also, if he (Yoda1 - slightly rubbish name) wants to show pictures of himself and his mates then that is his right. Finally, Trolls have the right to criticise like anyone except most of the stuff they say (on this talkback for instance) doesn't make sense or is written by illiterates (sorry) but true. -
Dec 09, 2002 3:32:27 PM CST
DAMN you, Yoda1! Those tickets were mine!. OK, so I don't live i
by ol' painless
I live in New Zealand, to tell the truth! But this will not prevent me from taunting you mercilessly in AICN chat for your disgusting good luck. Maybe I'll see you at the premier here in New Zealand too? Just kidding, unless you can scam a round-the-world plane ticket . . . and the way your luck is going lately, you might just be able to . . .
-
...and it's not a@#$%^&* TRILOGY either! And If you trolls know what's good for you you'll clear the hell out before TATOW shows up, or *ULP* even worse, Elanor's dreaded PATOW! You have been warned so don't come wailing and whinging around here when your posteriors are in conflagration...
-
Look it's all in context! If he's at the Inside the Actor's Studio taping that's for an audience of hundreds (or millions if add television audience)! Can't you see the difference between that and a chill after-party for an entirely different movie? And as far as the photo of him smiling...OF COURSE HE'S SMILING what else would you expect to see? Hugo looking like he's about to strangle the dork? Look, like I said, Hugo is probably such a nice guy that he takes it like most celebs do all in part and parcel of the job but it doesn't make it any less annoying for him or anybody else with a "catchphrase." I'm sure our own esteemed sitemaster Harry could share a few stories even with his quasi-celeb status of how tiresome some, not all fanboys can be... Look, all I'm saying is that if you ever get a chance to meet a celeb, don't ask them to say "What you talkin' about Willis?" or "Did I do that?'" or "You look mahvelous" etc. I'm can't believe I actually have to explain this to some of you...doesn't this seem obvious?
-
you think you could write a better review. It sounds like jealousy to me. I mean he is not a reporter you know or maybe that fact had slipped. Considering this it is a great report. If he was a reporter it would be a fantastic report. He didn't give a thoroughly detailed account of the film with detailed notes...so what. I've been ignoring those reviews like the plague.
-
he was kidding. Turn your sarcasometer on.
-
wha, sarcasm hmmm indeed. I am German we have no comprehension of this... (joke I'm being sarcastic not really German)
-
BobClark's post was SARCASM. Don't embarrass me.
-
are simply three fucking morons who dont realize an informal personal review from the real thing. Yoda1 did an extraordinary job on an article that the man himself Harry Knowles wanted him to write in the way that he did. It wasnt supposed to give you what went on in the movie, or what looked good, or who was great. It was simply supposed to give you a fans experience before and after a world premiere. Not to give you a specific review of the movie. Its assholes like you that think you fucking know everything and take the fun out of an unordinary experience that a person like yoda1 and others would give their left testicles to do.....i hope you three morons are not affiliated in any way with the movie industry because you are embarrassments with your hateful and envious comments....I want more from yoda1 and then some...
-
Put down the mike and I'll buy you a drink. Maybe next time. Jesus.
-
...and said I got 6 call girls from Scores waiting to service you I would understandably be hyped up. But this is a freakin movie premiere!! Cool yes, worth wetting yourself over....comeon!?
-
I think I shall name it Gamgeeism. It is too a religion and you will become a convert if you stay around here long enough. I think you are one of the few who call LOTR children's book or books depending of course upon your definition.
-
The buzz on this one just keep getting better and better and better! For every sparse negative (I guess every majority needs a dissent), I keep seeing dozens of raves all pointing to the same thing, it's another masterpiece. LOL! TTT on Dec. 18, GONY on Dec. 20 then... time to break out the valium!
-
I would first like to thank Gordon Paddison of New Line Cinema and Harry Knowles for giving me this oppurtunity to go to the World Premiere of TTT. We still cannot believe we were actually there that night. Not only was the movie the greatest I have ever seen, it was quite possibly the greatest night of my life. Meeting the entire cast and crew, having a few drinks with them and taking pictures with them was an unbelieveable experience. Thanks again
FYI If heaven exists it would smell like Liv Tyler -
Dec 09, 2002 4:10:23 PM CST
Oh, BTW - "walk walk walk, fight walk walk walk, talk" - Saving
by nazismasher
C'mon guys! 9 days to go and the trolling is still not up to par. I'm starting to lose faith and you guys are still lobbing grapefruit at the plate.
-
I shouldn't have read his account immediately after reading The Filthy Critic's bogus (and screamingly funny) stand-in-line journal:
http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/ -
I accepted your challenge and put in the words "children's literature" and "Lord of the Rings" into my favorite search engine. I got over 16,000 hits. I guess I'm not the only one who thinks LOTR is children's literature.*** So many expects!Now tell us WHY its a childrens book?
-
I am so sick of all this Two Towers hype on AICN that I went and watched Attack of the Clones again. And I discovered a great website where they accuse Peter Jackson of a hate crime and are requesting government intervention. I agree with them. The website is: www.twotowersprotest.org / if you are a Star Wars fan, you should go and check it out. However, where they accuse Jackson of deliberate hate speech, they should also have charged the Tolkien estate with theft for stealing George Lucases ideas. Thank you for listening.
-
You might start by defining children's book? (Do you have something against them). You found LOTR boring after fifty pages; does that sound like a children's book? A query can be a dangerous thing. Did you use an 'and' or an 'or' on that web query... What is an adult book? Wait I might know the quick and naughty answer to that.
-
You blew up my sarcasometer. You're buying me a new one.
-
You are correct Tom E. Stay away; don't come near this site. Once they suck you in there is no escape; run while you still can and forget all that you have seen in here. Else you too will become a hobbit.
-
Don't know if it's because I love to wallow in the green goo of jealousy but I really enjoyed reading that. Look forward to similar reports in the future. Especially with photos of the night. Nice one Yoda.
-
All I can say is stumble along in the Book until you get to Bree. If you are not hooked by then and few have not been hooked then lay down the book. Tolkien to me is like Twain. It might seem simple but underneath there are some very adult themes. Tolkien wrote this book or these books as a mythology for Britain. He wrote the Hobbit as a book for his children; they are quite different.
-
....you pompous asswipe, Webster's Unabridged says: Trilogy: "1. a series or group of three plays, novels, operas, etc. that, although individually complete, are closely related in theme, sequence, or the like. 2. (in ancient Greek drama) a series of complete and usually related tragedies performed at the festival of Dionysus and forming a tetralogy with the satyr play. 3. a group of three related things. [1655-65]; s book, and you ARE blithering idiot. Deal with it.
-
The dominant literary mode of the twentieth century has been the fantastic.This may appear a surprising claim,which would not seemed even remotely conceivable at the start of the century and which is bound to encounter fierce resistance even now.However,when the time comes to look back at the century,it seems likely that future literary historians,detached from the squabbles of our present,will ee as its most representative and distinctive works books like J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings,and also George Orwells's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm,William Golding's Lord of the Flies and Inheritors,Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five and Cat's Cradle,Ursula Le Guin's The Left Hand of darkness and Dispossessed,Thomas Phinchon's The Crying Lot-49 and Gravitiy's Rainbow.The list could be readily extended,back to the late nineteenth century with H.G. Well's The Island of Dr. Moreau and the War of the Worlds,and up to writers currentenly active like Stephen R. Donaldson and George R.R. martin.It could take in authors as different,not to say opposed,as Kingsley and Martin Amis,Anthony Burgess,Stephen King,Terry Pratchett,Don DeLillo,and Julian Barnes.By the end of the century,even authors deeply commited to the realist novel have often found themselves unable to resist the gravitional pull of the fantastic as a literary mode.
This is not the same,one should note,as fantasy as a literary gene-of the authors listed above,only four besides Tolkien would find their works regularly placed on the 'fantasy' shelves of bookshops,and 'the fantastic' includes many genres beside fantasy:allegory and parable,fairy-tale,horror and scince fiction,modern ghost stories and medieval romance.Neverthless,the point remains.Those authors of the twentieth century who have spoken most powerfully to and for their contemporaries have for some reason found it necessary to use the metaphoric mode of fantasy,to write about worlds and creatures which we know do not exist,whether Tolkien's 'Middle-Earth',Orwell's 'Ingsoc',the remote islands of Golding and Well's,or the Martians and Tralfamadorians who burst into peaceful English or American suburbia in Wells and Vonnegut.
A ready explaination for this phenomenon is of course that it represents a kind of literary disease,whose sufferers-the millions of readers of fantasy-should be scorned,pitied,or rehabitlitated back to correct and proper taste.Commonly the disease is said to be 'escapism':readers and writers of fantasy are fleeing from reality.The problem with this is that so many of the originators of thelater twentith-century fantastic mode,including all four of those mentioned above(Tolkien,Orwell,Golding,Vonnegut) are combat veterans,present at or at least deeply involved in the most tramatically significant events of the century,such as the Battle of Somme(Tolkien),the bombing of Dresden(vonnegut),the rise and early victory of fascism(Orwell).Nor can anyone say that they turned their back on those events.Rather,they ha to find some way of communicating and commenting on them.It is strange tht this had,for some reason,in so many cases to involve fantasyas well as realism,but that is what happened.***Tolkien's sales figures have always been an annoyance for his detractors,and as early as the 1960's commentators had been predicting that they would soon fall,or declaring that they had started to fall,so that the whole 'cult' or 'craze' would pass or was already passing into 'merciful oblivion'(so Phillip Toynbee wrote in the Observer on August 6th,1961),just like flared jeans or hula hoops. The commentators were wrong about this - a surpise in itself,since Tolkien never followed up with either a Hobbit-sequel for the children's market nor a Lord of the Rings-sequel sequel for the adult market.But the whole issue of his continuing popularity was brought forward dramatically during 1977.***Popularity does not quarantee literary quality,as everybody know,but it never comes for no reason.Nor are those reasons always and necessarily feeble or meretricious ones,though there has long been a tendency among literary and educational -
I'm forced to vehemently disagree with your points due to personal experience. Going into FoTR last year, I was the only person amongst my friends and family who head read the books. None of my friends new what the hell the series was about, or what to expect out of the film. I was quite content in my assumption that as a fan of the book I would enjoy FoTR to a large extent, but that my friends would come away confused and unsatisfied. That did not occur. Not only was I thrilled with the movie, but my friends were blown away, and were sent into a frenzy to locate and read the books for themselves. In my mind, a good gauge of success in regards to book to film translations is how much of an interest in reading the source material is generated by the film. The "fans only like the movie because they are fans of the book" stuff is crap. Just look at TPM. Legions of fans were let down after riding a wave of hype that promised them the greatest film of their lifetime. FoTR is and always will be a great film to a lot of people. There's no reason to be unpleasant simply because other people are having a ball with something you're not. That's horribly immature.
-
Dec 09, 2002 4:55:40 PM CST
WAY TO GO, Yoda1... that was a great, fun, infectious, slap-hap
by bregalad_
It reminds me of the exciting, detailed reports from Quickbeam at TheOneRing.net when he went to New Zealand to visit the sets of TTT.... To read click: http://greenbooks.theonering.net and read Quickbeam's "Where the Stars are Strange" series. So much fun!! Great to have fans like you and him give their point of view "on the inside." And Goddamn, you look handsome in that suit. Heh-heh-heh.
-
Dec 09, 2002 4:56:33 PM CST
Man, this guy seems to have graduated from the Harry Knowles' sc
by el duderino
But that's a huge compliment dude! Great work! Had I been the one who was given those tickets, there's no way I could ever produce a report that good! I dug the pictures too, especially of Elijah Wood looking all bugged out! Awesome job man!
-
"Alas, the final story followed in The Two Towers concerns the lost hobbits Pippin and Merry, eventually forgotten by Aragorn after he reunites with Gandalf (Ian McKellen). Pippin and Merry encounter a creature that could only come from Tolkein's strange mind, an anthropomorphic tree-like creature called an ent. The ent has been a closely-guarded secret by the filmmakers and now we know why: because it is possibly the stupidest-looking fantasy creature ever to appear in a movie. I'm serious. This is Neverending Story stuff. This is almost Labyrinth stuff. With big, googly eyes, the ents (yes, there are many, each more embarassing than the last) always appear against an obvious bluescreen as they shamble through the forest with the hobbits. The effect is so horrendous it's hard to believe it's in the same movie as the battle of Helm's Deep and the digital Gollum. Oh well, every series must have its Jar-Jar, it seems."
-
Dec 09, 2002 5:04:57 PM CST
Todd McCarth at Variety weighs in with less than flattering comm
by atticus finch
"At least for non-Tolkien fanatics, the two "Rings" thus far lack that essential bit of magic to transport one to another world and make the leaving difficult; despite the vision, organizational skills and assurance Jackson and his talented team have marshaled on behalf of this sprawling undertaking, there is something slightly laborious and unenchanting about the projects that prevents total surrender to them."
-
there a need for ZO to post such a pointless geek remark? Get a li--oh, forget it...
-
Why do you insist on posting quotes from articles that supposedly disparage the film? What exactly are you concerned about? Does people enjoying or loving a movie threaten you in some way? If they do then you are the sorriest excuse for a film fan I've ever seen. Eh, I don't know why I get worked up over that horseshit. He certainly won't be there when I see the film. Thank God. Because if he is, he can add another word to his biography: hypocrisy.
-
Stop it with the negative waves. You are bumming me out. Now I might have to go read their complete and happy review. Still spoiler free though...
-
lol congrats dude. ignore these bitch ass haters!
lucky bastard! :p -
yeah, that conversation was more hilarious than any comedy made so far this year
-
I just wanted to say that I thought that this was a freakin awesome telling of the nights festivities. I love all the pictures, it made me feel as if I was there with my friends. That's so awesome. I am extremely excited and jealous of you for this amazing experience you had. ...only 8 days left...
-
You only have to read a few of these posts to see that "star wars fans" are fretting like a bunch of school girls. I dont want to take anything away from star wars (I thought the latest one was quite entertaining) but all we have to do is let the waves of gushing reviews and awards that Jackson's trilogy has and will recieve speak for themselves. My god I'm excited!
-
You claim attack against the person then you turn around and do it. What gives? If you want to debate then have at it. Defend your claim that Tolkien is a children
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I don't deny that LOTR is sometimes classified as "children's literature". My point is that's it's an erroneous classification, borne out by the fact that the vast majority of people who consider it such have never bothered to actually READ it. As for whether or not the three parts are complete in and of themselves being a matter of opinion or interpretation: It simply isn't. You being the great literary authority that you are would realize this if you'd ever bothered to actually read the book. Pick up ROTK sometime, there's no way a reader can have any idea whats going on without at least a synopsis of the first two. You lost the argument about trilogies to the dictionary and are just too arrogant and narrow minded to realize it. How's that for an ad-hominem insult you wanker?
-
"I find nothing inherently wrong with stories in which good people do unquestionably good thing because they're good, and evil people do unquestionably evil things because they're evil. I just think it's hard to make a story like that particularly interesting." But it's not that simple. Frodo doesn't want the quest of the Ring. It's just that really no one else can do it and expect not to be tempted. And I'm not going to spoil what happens, but let's just say it's not easy for him either. And as the books say, Saruman and Sauron weren't evil in the beginning. In fact one of the most resonant themes of the books is that evil isn't just "evil." Evil grows from good intentions.
-
How about letting the people know of the universally awesome reviews for CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, which is guaranteed to smoke your ass and whip it to high heaven. That movie will be the ultimate slice of entertainment, and judging by the sound of things, it will have a golden statue with its name on it come March. Enough of this hobbit malarkey, start covering some films from real filmmakers, goddammit.
-
and damn you're cute Yoda1!
(i'm assuming thats you in the brown suit jacket)
rich
dgraysn2yahoo.com -
The hobbits are taking over. They will set things right; you just wait and see.
-
I saw TTT with yoda1. I just wanted to say that it is hands down better than "Teen Wolf 2"
-
Only 12,600 hits for Ass Rape and The Bible!!!!! This world is going downhill, I would have expected at least 10x more hits.
-
Thank God! I mean, not much could be better than Teen Wolf 2. Jason Bateman in simply one of the greatest performances ever. I mean, you can feel the angst. "Should I, like, howl?" Let's hope Elijah rips a few pages out of THAT actor's book. And who could forget Mark Holton as Chubby? Okay, I pulled that off IMDb. I'm a faker. Dear God... help me, I'm going insane...
-
... and you're absolutely correct. Your view of LOTR (the novel)is a GREAT example of 'ipse dixit'. Now who's using 25 cent words? Not only are you arrogant and narrow minded, you're also a self important hypocrite. And my opion of you is not an example of 'ipse dixit' as you have made these character traits abundantly apparent in your posts to this to this forum. Does anyone else here think that givitaname needs to giveitarest?
-
what I really want is to see a review which says that this movie has good HUMAN acting, not CGI acting. I want a review which says that this film as EMOTIONAL intensity, and not intensity through brutal violence. I want confirmation that it's the MOVIE that has a soul and not the 10,000 "massive" programmed uruk-hai that do. Oh well, I'll have to wait until the 18th to see. Mordor smells like grapefruit.
-
I have no clue what ipse dixit means but I giving up on him because he keeps tossing out unsupported claims. JAG, I am sort of with you on that. I wonder though if it is still there and it is just being drowned out by the action. I read Elanor's review though and am content.
-
When the hell will my time come, dammit. They only turned me right side up yesterday. HEY HARRY, PLEASE KEEP ME IN MIND FOR NEXT YEAR'S NEW YORK PREMIERE!!! PLEASE!!! Aaaarggg... Well, I guess it's just a week and a day way. I got my midnight tickets. Joy!
-
you forgot to include your email Yoda1....how is Miranda gonna get in touch with you?!?! Seriously though, a really great review of the night's events. Thanks for sharing it with your fellow geeks.
-
...stupid asshole. It's jerkwad losers like yourself with your tongue firmly wedged up Yoda 1's ass and your celeb-mauling ilk that led to the likes of Herve Villachez (Tattoo from Fantasy Island, you dumbass) to kill himself. How many fucking retards like yourself and Yoda1 you think commanded him to say "Da plane! Da plane!" every time they saw the poor guy before he couldn't take it anymore. It's losers like yourself who think that just becuase you bought a ticket that when you see a celebrity they OWE you personally not only time of their life but an on the spot performance. Every celeb has a nightmare story about gene pool shallowenders like your clueless self and Yoda1. Get some perspective you waste of sperm and egg!
-
I love how you generalize all Tolkien fans into a stereotype that is ridiculous at best. I hate fantasy, but I love Tolkien. To say he wrote like a fifteen year old is indicative of your own perception problems not the weakness of the text. As I said, I hate the fantasy genre, but Tolkien transcends the genre, and fits more into the role of mythmaker than anything else. By the way, my taste in books tends more towards Burroughs, Buckowski, Vonnegut, and Welsh. Hardly what you would call accessible authors with no grasp of the intricacies of character development. I guess that blows your little theory out of the water.
-
... unsupported claims. It's Latin for "he himself said it" - an assertion without proof. And aren't we all impressed that 'giveitarest' knows a little latin, oooh. We might as well just concede the argument right now because we are obviously intellectually overmatched...
-
Some amazing discussion about Tolkien here, I begin to wonder who has actually read the book in question. First the LotR books are not a trilogy, a trilogy would be three independant, stand alone tales with an overiding theme or connection, such as characters or timeline. LotR on the other hand is one tale split into three books for time and budgetry reasons (this was the editor's idea not Tolkien's).
RotK, for example could not be read without reading the first two, as it would be incomprehensible, also RotK, the book, is HALF appendices, glossaries and geneologies for the whole LotR. As for being a childrens novel, I find the idea laughable. Give 30 kids the book and maybe two of them might finish it. The FotR movie, exceptional as it is, doesn't even scratch the surface of the depth and complexity of the novel. You can't expect kids to fully understand all the poems(yes poems) depicting the history of Middle Earth and the complex relationship between elves and men (hobbits are just a small side story to Middle Earth). There is also no fine line between good and evil in the book, Gollum for exmaple, normal hobbit, corrupted by greed, brought round by Frodo, only to betray him and then save the day in the end (sort of). While reading the book you have no idea how Gollum is going to turn out. The ultimate proof for anyone who thinks Tolkien wrote for children should read his finest work, The Silmarillion as I know many of my friends who have read LotR can't even touch it without getting a headache. -
LOtR is much more complex than you seem to think. Its character development and (to some degree) its plot may be archetypal, but the point of these books is neither of those things. Middle Earth is the main character of these books, and it is one of the richest and most complex creations in literature. Now for many this may hold no interest, and the writing style may be dismissed as anachronistic, but for the fans the background is what fascinates. The story is pretty basic on the surface, but the thematic exploration within the text is much more complex. By no means do I expect you to become an avid fan of the books. It is obvious that they are simply not your cup of tea, but taking a self important tone, and proclaiming them as simplistic children's literature is being dishonest. Especially when you consider the fact that there are many scholars who would disagree.
-
Harry did a fine and wholesome thing. Damn fine review! I'd like to see Yoda1 review "The Return of the King." Man I'm jazzed for the 18th!
-
The journalist in the Guardian hit it right on the head - in the advent of these movies attitudes have been expressed that anybody who doesn't seem to even have a remote interest should be shot on sight. Well I'm sorry, but people have their own opinions folks. J-Lo's flouncy romantic comedies may be insulting to intelligence but they appeal to a certain demographic - so what the heck are you going to do about it? Launch a damn jihad on J-Lo movie fans? Tell you what, all people who still have this argument just go and see TTT and leave all other movies for everybody else - that means you can only see TTT AND NOTHING ELSE. Maybe then you can see what a bunch of idiots you all are. -
Dec 09, 2002 8:25:37 PM CST
This is getting tiresome. First of all LOTR is not my favorite b
by skyway moaters
..and the name is Skyway MOATERS, not MOATER, a character from another great book that you would probably consider childish. If you want to have an intelligent debate about LOTR read the damn book first. I'm done with this. You aren't worth the time it takes to type these posts, and I type pretty fast.
-
what you and others are failing to understand that it was all and all just a fun and entertaining experience that was documented for reading. I understand very clearly about the concept of idiotic fans nagging and badgering actors and other celeb figures when they are in such places as premieres. But what you may not understand or take into consideration is that the situation may and in fact DID NOT play out in the manner that you see fit to deem it. It is embarrassing when a person tells someone to, "do this line or do that line." I do know that asking Hugo weaving for a "Mister Anderson" was neither degrading or annoyingly inappopriate. When a conversation is conducted for some time, as was the one between yoda1 and Hugo Weaving, the time and the place to joke around with someone may happen. It was a fun and enjoyable moment, as Hugo Weaving though too, to "do the line" from his infamous Mr. Smith. When you are not somewhere and do not know what actually goes on you should not feel fit to state your opinion.
-
I'm bored now. I always get a little depressed around the holidays, too. Sometimes it sucks being a geek. At least I'm cuter than Harry.
-
before i get into the crush i am devoloping on yoda1, let me just say, i very much enjoyed the condensed version of their evening. i know there are naysayers out there on the whole matter or reviewing the movie itself, but let's be honest people - you can read all the reviews you want with someone else's opinion coming through but until you see the movie (which i haven't yet but am counting the minutes) you don't REALLY know what they are all talking about. so hearing about these 6 lucky people and the unbelievable evening they had was, for me, more than good enough. and i enjoyed the review of their evening greatly. and if i make some serious typos, forgive me. i'm not used to these fingernails yet...
at any rate, as i'm reading the review all i'm thinking is, "the guy in the yellow shirt is so cute! why did i ever move from the northeast?" so, yoda1 (if you are in fact the guy in the yellow shirt) great color choice! you looked so sharp and suave and you've got the greatest smile and if i don't stop typing now i'll just go on and on and i do have work and an education to attend to so i'm going to stop typing now.
right. stopping the typing. where are all the attractive LOTR nerds in texas, now that i know they do, in fact, exist...
this is so going to get deleted...
-
Moaters, nice work as per usual, putting the trolls' in their place. 16 days left for me. We don't get to see TTT until Boxing day, damn it all!!! Cheers.
-
for Herve Villechez's death????? Are we to believe that Herve offed himself because he was asked to say, "Da Plane! Da Plane!" one too many times and cracked up? i think poor old Herve had other issues to deal with. I personally doubt that Hugo has a life-sized portrait of Villechez in his house that he looks at pensively to remind him of his fragile sanity, faced with legions of his crazed fans who force him to mechanically spout out, "MR. ANDERSON" at inopportune times.
-
so, Conan, this may be a dumb question, but what does boxing day commemorate? obviously not so much the sport boxing, but the boxing rebellion, right? but what is the significance? it certainly sounds more interesting than say, Columbus Day or President's Day, which are just adulterated and twisted excuses to have white sales at department stores and close banks. i want to celebrate boxing day.
oh wow, i can't stand it. 8 days, and i will find myself camping out in line with some college friends awaiting the midnight showing. my boss is a LOTR nerd too and completely understands. in fact, i think he's going to be coming with us. scary. a friend of mine who works for HP and can't come, wrote me this email, which i just had to share:
"One simply does not walk into HP at noon on Thursday. There are
hallways filled with hunched back computer techs, towering piles of data to scramble the mind, there is evil there that does not sleep, not with a hundred vacation hours could you do this...it is folly."
it is a good thing i have a lot to do between now and next tuesday else i might lose my mind in giddy anticipation, if i haven't already. i mean, i am babbling, and i *still* think Yoda1 guy-in-the-yellow-shirt is so cute!
-
I recently did the exact same thing to Hugo. I spotted him and ran up to him, threw a series of super fast rabbit punches to his gut, screaming "SAY MY NAME!! SAY MY NAME!!" Mr. Weaving responded by kicking me about 20 feet and throwing me into an oncoming train. He never did give me a Mr. Anderson, but I did hear him muttering something about "da plane" as he walked away. I guess he's kinda sensitive about that after all, when he's not at a party having a good time, surrounded by friends and fans, enjoying his moment in the sun and hamming it up with someone who seems to really appreciate his work and who seems like a pretty nice fellow on top of it. Hey, wait a second. There's Sean Connery!! Gotta go see if I can get a "Mish Munnahpennah" out of him. BRB.
-
All you dungeonmasters out there who deny that LOTR is racist need to check out John Yatt's article in the Guardian: "Race and Wraiths". Of course Yatt only focuses on Tolkien's hatred of dark-skinned people and not his anti-Semitism, misogyny, homophobia, hatred of dwarfs (unlike Tolkien, I can fucking spell DWARFS -not dwarves), Italians and Hispanics. I realize that my boycott is part of an uphill battle against racist dungeonmasters. It took thirty years for most people to admit that Gone With the Wind was racist, and there's a large number of people who still won't admit it sixty years later! I hope AICN kepps going for sixty years until the last morGoth, elanor or virkku admits what a bigoted pile of crap LOTR is. I'll be waiting...
-
I love the internet. Went to Google, typed in "boxing day" (I too was curious) and found:
http://www.web-holidays.com/boxing/ -
Both LOTR movies
-
Both LOTR movies
-
Dec 09, 2002 10:25:08 PM CST
Hey, Harry, think you can convince PJ to have the world premier
by moonwatcher
That way, I might grab my 15 minutes of fame and satisfy my lifelong desire to be first in line for a long-awaited movie while movie geeks from around the world envy me my incredible good fortune. Great review, Yoda1 - you must have accumulated some incredible karma.
-
Dec 09, 2002 10:44:59 PM CST
I'm afraid you're going to have to wait lot longer than 60 year
by skyway moaters
...because you are totally out to lunch in calling LOTR racist. AGAIN the eternal question for blathering trolls like yourself, (assuming you're serious in this diatribe and not just trying to ellicit a hateful response): Have you actually read the book? The charge of racism against JRRT & LOTR has been quite thoroughly and sucsessfully refuted over and over and over. Do we really have to go into it again? *Sigh* Ok site some examples, I'll refute them, again...
-
and I haven't chimed in for a while. To IAMLEGOLAS, roeper and eberts audio was absolutely frightning. Jeebus they agreed harry potter was a better film???? hahahahahahaha! my lord, that was so funny. Boy are they eating THEIR words! (Cool tidbit, I was standing next to Elijah, Billy and Dominic the other day!:)
-
From the review: "And for the record: I loved HARRY POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS and I love ATTACK OF THE CLONES. This is not empty fan-boy rhetoric." ******** Um, that doesn't exactly make you sound like a non-fan-boy.
-
care for this guy's review, he goes on and on about how great it is but doesn't get to the heart of the movie. and that mr. anderson thing was silly. thats bad. I've read better coverage. I still hope gollum works.
-
1) Tolkien was very bigoted against dark-skinned people. There's a Salon article about him where he describes the "orcs" as having the facial characteristics of Blacks and Asians. The books are always going on about how "fair" the humans and elves are and how "black" the orcs are. The evil armies are also full of dark-skinned humans from the south. Hobbits are obviously based on the porcelain lawnjockeys that are so popular on the lawns of white bigots. They play the stepnfetchit/ low comic relief role in the story. Sure Jackson made the little barefoot motherfuckers white in the movie, but we all know the truth. (2) "Orc" is an ancient Italian word for "monster". In LOTR, Tolkien's orcs are sweaty, hairy, foul-smelling, violent, stupid brutes. This is the same way Italians are always being portrayed in movies. (3) Boromir (sounds like Oyveyismir) is a greedy, powerhungry man who pretends to be a member of the fellowship, bur betrays them in order to try to steal a GOLD RING. This is pure ant-Semitism. (4) The elves are a blatant slap at homosexuals. In LOTR, they are overly critical, stuck up, and oh-so-clever. This is a nasty stereotype of gays. I know several gay men and not one of them would ever dye his hair blond and leave the eyebrows UNTOUCHED! The hobbits are just as "gay" and they are annoying as hell to boot. They started sobbing every five minutes. I believe this played a vital role in the murder of Matthew Shepherd. The most homophobic scene of all was the one with Saruman where he tells his Mandingo super-orc field hands that he wants the hobbits brought to him "unspoiled". Clearly, this is meant to convince the audience that gay Englishmen (a redundant term if ever there was one) live to kidnap short people and stab their poo. In case there was any doubt, Saruman tells his dark-skinned horde "YOU WILL ALL TASTE MANFLESH!". So according to Tolkien, men of color can't wait to blow pasty Englishmen. This is no laughing matter. The suicide rate among gay teens is MUCH higher than the general population. Hate crimes against homosexuals are on the rise. We don't need things like LOTR to make things worse.
-
"You know, people used to use the expression "suspension of disbelief." It's what you still have to use (to a considerable degree) when watching (for example) King Kong. That a special effect isn't perfect is no indictment. We have enough sense to know that the darn talking tree isn't real. All PJ is responsible for doing is using the tools available to him to such a degree that our own imaginations can take over. When people complain endlessly about poor special effects, they're often saying that they lack sufficient imagination to handle that job." - Whistler, TORC
-
yes it's true. You see I have the ability to:
1. finding minor faults in a movie and still enjoying it.
2. enjoying more than one trilogy without having to attack the lesser one
3. suspending my disbelief long enough to enjoy a movie where the CGI character was not 100% photo-realistic
and finally.....
4. read a book and then watch it's movie adaptation and undertand that the written word does not always translate well onto the big screen, and therefore must undergo some changes to the plot, characters etc..........
these superpowers allow me to enjoy more movies than all you complainers out there put together. So keep bitching and moaning if that's what it takes to make you feel better - coz your only ruining the movie for yourself.
peace.
-
Loved the article guys..... What a cool experience, thanks for sharing.
-
....I mean this is hilarious! Not only does he get tickets to what has to be the greatest premiere of all time, he also get chicks on this site as a result of it!!***LOL* now I'm jealous....:-) -
Thanks for the review and the pictures! I especially love the one of Elijah. These are by far the most personal pictures of the premier that I have seen and they are really great! I am so jealous, yet I am also so excited about getting to see the movie! It was really cool of Harry and AICN to give those tickets to you. Also, of New Line. I mean, someone paid over $6000 on the LOTR official fan site to go to the premier! The LA premier is going for over $4000. Anyway, thank you for sharing your exploits.
Regards -
Dec 10, 2002 4:05:11 AM CST
hey, pud, here's something funny for you, you politically correc
by rampagingtroll
At a speech I heard Richard Taylor (dude who runs Weta) give earlier this year, he actually mentioned how most every male actor playing an elf was quite homosexual. But, you know what... they didn't walk off the set or get their panties in a wad because they thought they were shedding a bad light on homosexuality! They actually seemed to have a blast. Guess they're all over in New Zealand committing suicide now.
-
Jar Jar was the pioneer of the "full CGI _actor_" technology. Still an impressive creature he is. Notice that I'm not talking about Jar Jar as a "character of the story". Gollum is only yet another CGI creature, like Dobby in HP2. Better, faster, blahblah, you know. Thus he will never be a technology breakpoint.
-
when will I reach the meat of the review? No offence, this is just the typical boring dull stuff, emphasis on TYPICAL and DULL. It's like piling on the quoteables and churning it into paragraphs. And that bit about 'having no credentials outside of a passionate love for film' was beyond gay. This whole thing is written like Harry himself. Hugo Weaving reminds me of David Bowie in that pic, he should play him in a bio. Some helpful criticism, I like the goofy puns, but there are a LOT! Again, no offence.
-
I'm sorry to disappoint you but I haven't got the faintest idea where the term, "Boxing Day" originated. I seriously doubt it came from the 'Boxer Rebellion.' It is English as the post from Noteboom points out. I think the real meaning has been lost in the 'mists' of time. In Australia Boxing day is a traditional public holiday celebrated on the 26th of December. It's probably the best day of the year for seeing movies (in Australia) as alot of major films are released on that day, ie: TTT. Hope that's enlightening. Pud. AS per usual, great post, very funny. I'm starting to wonder if you're not a bit homophobc though. You insist on accusing everyone else of homosexuality, Hobbits, Wizards, Elves, Englishmen etc. For someone who claims to be so familiar with homosexual men, (and I don't feel any particular need to go further along that line of thought, less I be accused of focusing on personal attacks and not actually discussing movies...) one would think you would be a little bit more tolerant. You wouldn't want people to think you're a hypocrite would you? People might not take you seriously... Narsilreforged, you seem to suffering from being a bit hypocritical as well. Accusing someone of being an, "LOTR fanboy homo" and then calling him biased, ably demonstrates this, don't you think? Let the flaming begin. Cheers.
-
First let me give you a little bit of backstory. I
-
Dec 10, 2002 5:23:10 AM CST
Despite the nice, heartfelt report, I can't help but be reminded
by a goonie
In fact, he made the exact same comment that this particular film raises the bar, and that it will now ruin every movie you see afterwards. I'm sorry. I'm not holding my breath on this one. Fellowship was a strong epic picture that had various flaws, many of which were connected to the effects-heavy interpretation of Tolkien's text. I expect a similar experience with this film. I've said this before, and I had tb'ers say to me, "how can you know how you're going to feel about a movie if you haven't seen it yet?" but rest assured, I will almost certainly have the same reaction to TT that I had for FOTR. Look at Harry Potter 2. Good, charming fun, but practically identical (creatively and technically) to the original. A new storyline, which anyone who has read the books already knows, with better effects work. But the thing is, like with TT, you have a cast and crew that is almost identical to the original's. In the case of LOTR, the filming of all three was done back to back, with some reshoots later on. Therefore Jackson hardly had any time to have a change of heart or mind regarding his shots, or his direction of the actors, etc. Same thing goes for Andy Lesnie, whose photography will be almost certainly the same. WETA Digital may have made some improvements in this short time-span, but if the trailers are any indication, we're gonna see a whole bunch of CG effects that don't come anywhere near the brilliance of ILM's work in the Jurassic Park films and in Starship Troopers and DD's work on Titanic. I'm not trying to mindlessly bash this film series that many love so much; I too am very passionate about this subject and certainly did enjoy the original film (I am actually quite enamoured with the Extended Version of Fellowship), but this time, I'm gonna wait till I see the finished film before I start joining the Peter Jackson fanclub. I have a feeling that my review will resemble what is found in this post.
-
pud, don't you think you're taking just a few to many liberties regarding how Tolkien was "racist"? almost bordering on paranoia, I think.
Narsil, I think he might have been a bit biased, but his love for LOTR stems only from FOTR since he clearly states that he hasn't read the books.
As for everyone else who seems intent on "exposing" the "homosexual" points of the book and movies, wishful thinking perhaps? You people are clearly self-haters in denial.
So stick that in your crackpipe and smoke it. -
So I got up today and casually made my may into work, switched on my PC and thought to myself, 'I wonder if there has been an improvement in those loser troll's wasted efforts to try and slag off LOTR? What new and original comments could be added to the nonsense already spewed forth by those unfortunate fools who cant accept that the film is fantastic?'. So as I loaded up this page I scanned down to the bottom and I saw one name which made me sigh with utter disdain, yes it was yet another post by that fuckwit PUD! 'DEAR CHRIST -NOT AGAIN I thought!!! What else could that idiot have imagined that is wrong with the film?' But then....relief passed over me when I realised that this is PUD after all. A person only cabable of saying the same shit over and over again!!! For the last year this idiot has said EXACTLY the same remarks about the film. Remarks which are as ridiculous then as there are now. FOR FUCKS SAKE GIVE IT A REST!!! NO-ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR FUCKED-UP OPINION!!!! ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU POST THE SAME SHIT WEEK IN, WEEK OUT FOR THE LAST YEAR!!!!! SERIOUSLY PUD.....STOP IT!!!!! But just before I go....I feel I have to reply to your absurd remarks!! 1)****Tolkien is bigoted against dark-skinned people**** Dont be so fucking naive!!! Ever since the dawn of time, white (or light), has been associated with good and black (or darkness) has been associated with evil. I'm not religious, but check out the bible!! "Let there be light!!", etc, etc. Can you tell me how any other good-vs-evil fantasy film has differed in the way good and evil is portrayed??? Oh and tell me...what colour was Darth Vadar, the ultimate bad-ass. Voiced by a coloured person as well? Hmm....? Put it this way, I dont watch LOTR and think ill of any coloured people, so for me, it isnt racist!! I just dont see the relation! 2****"Orc" is an ancient Italian word for "monster"**** HAHAHAHA this point is laughable!! So? It means monster in Italian.....big deal!! To then draw a comparison between orcs and italian men is even worse!!! I thought you said that orcs were meant to be black men? Well which is it PUD??? 3)****Boromir (sounds like Oyveyismir)**** Frankly I dont even care about this remark, it pointless. Claiming cos a name sounds like another is pathetic face it, its just co-incidental, plus I dont think they even are that similar. Next you'll be saying that Frodo sounds like Homo and making some ridiculous point about that!! *sighs* 3)****The elves are a blatant slap at homosexuals**** DEAR GOD!!! You're really clutching at straws now! Do u mean elves generally or just Tolkiens elves? Cos all elves are portrayed and fair, gentle folk. They can be seen as being gay but not the homosexual usage of the word gay but the old meaning, that of being happy and merry. I also know a few gay friends and they certainly are NOT resentful of these elves, in fact most of them fancied them!! hehe SO that shoots youre argument down in flames!!! Hobbits likewise are just happy, peaceful, content people that have strong friendship bonds. I'll tell you something as well for free, I would rather live in an idyllic society like that, than the evil, greedy, materialistic, money-obsessed, treachourous world we all live in now!!!!!!! Thier life was a literal paradise (up until the ring showed up of course)!! Oh and before I forget, I am from the UK and although I am Welsh, and therefore not really English, I take GREAT offense to your RACIST remark about my people!!!! The fact that you would end your pointless post by being that which you took such pleasure in exposing (a racist) makes you an even bigger fool!!!! AND SO ENDS MY POST!!!
-
Too bad he's obviously straight :(
*sob* -
Like I have stated, Gollum is in technical sense the best made CGI character ever. He is also the most emotionally complex and best acting CGI creation ever. And this just isn't enough for me. The thing is that after seeing the film I realized that CGI just can't capture the kind of performance I expect from Gollum, and that there was no reason why he was made as CGI in the first place. Can someone claim that the apes in Planet Of The Apes (2001) would look better if they were CGI? No? It's the same thing with Gollum, why not use body suits and make-up like in POTA (which was a weak film but had great make-up). However, *you* might expect a different performance. Maybe you think that he *should* over-act and have totally over-exaggarated facial expressions. Maybe you simply interpret his character in a different way. I wanted more subtlety, maybe you think that he is not wacky enough. Don't worry, most people so far have thought that Gollum rocks, so my opinion clearly reflects an opinion of a very small minority. FLUFFYGREYCAT, I don't think that the Watership Down comparison works. What if one of those drawn 2D bunnies would make an appearance in TTT as one of the main characters? Wouldn't it be a bit distracting? The thing is that I expect different artistical approach from cartoons and live-action movies. One of the great achievements of LOTR movies is how real they feel. Gollum didn't feel real for me.
-
Like I said in my review, some of my complaints might disappear when I see TTT for the second time. That's what happened with FOTR. Maybe I even learn to like Gollum's execution. And despite it's flaws, I can't wait to see TTT again, which is probably the highest recommendation I can give to any film. It's a very good movie with some amazing scenes in it.
-
I have read LOTR three times and I understand perfectly that we have to look it as a one long film instead of three separate one. But the problem of extraneous characters who have nothing to do before ROTK still exists, even if it was so in the books as well. It might seem pointless to mention this for someone who has read the books, but we have have to remember that most people have not read the books, so it makes sense to mention that the film spends a lot of time simply establishing the third film.
-
ummm...maybe you should go back and read the books. I just finished reading them again (6th time) and is still fresh in my mind, and I would call Gollum anyhting but subtle.
-
Pardon the excitable child in me but....WOO-FUCKING-HOOOO!!!!!!! Not long now my friends!!!! TTT is almost upon us!!!!!!
-
I understand what you are saying, but it's still a matter of opinion. If in the books it says that Gollum looks very angry, this can still be interpreted in different ways. For me he looks very angry in a subtle manner, for someone else he looks furiously angry and a total madman in an extreme, cartoonish way. Despite the extreme nature of his character, I always thought that Gollum would act in a more subtle manner than he does in the film. But if this CGI creation fits your mental image of Gollum, I will be happy for you.
-
yes. but in the books, Tolkien just doesn't say "Gollum was angry", he goes on for three or four paragraphs detailing exactly HOW angry he was. And I can remember a number of different times where Tolkien describes Gollum "twisting", "spitting", and "rolling" with rage. You're not just interpreting it differently, you're changing the core description of the character.
-
This is what i like to read on AICN. Shout outs to Yoda1 for getting the oppertunity of a lifetime, and geeking it to the max all the way. And to all you maggots who whine about the lack of complexity in the review: Did you read the header on this report? It actually says "A Fullblooded Fanboys Rave Report". What the fuck did you morons EXPECT to read??? Again, thanks to Yoda1. I really enjoyed this read. I hope you dont feel bad about all the shit some of these haters are dishing. Because youre the guy who experienced the night of your life, not them.
-
Wow! That's just about the best story I have ever read on this site. A true fan who can actually write clearly, has a digital camera and reported on the shmooze scene and not just alpha-blending translucency of Gollum's skin.
Yoda1 -- well done! -
None of this removes my problem. I think that Gollum is animated in an unnecessarily over-exaggarated and cartoonish manner. He isn't believable to me because the way he acts doesn't seem natural. Most of the facial expressions he makes are five times stronger than what Jim Carrey could ever do. And it *IS* a question of interpretation whether you see Gollum being like this or not. A man in suit and make-up would look better, it would also remove the "floating" effect that CGI tends to have.
-
I'm beginning to think that you just have problems with cg created characters. Because quite frankly, if Gollum were just a guy in a suit, he would look rediculous.
-
Dec 10, 2002 8:00:28 AM CST
Why are LOTR bashers called trolls when slamming the hell out of
by sea bass
I swear you LOTR queens are the most pretentious, insecure, defensive lot in geekdom.
-
It's because LOTR is actually worth defending. And all the people who bash LOTR are clearly dull-witted idiots who can't see a good think when it's right in front of them.
-
I'm not against CGI at all. Often it is the best possible method to achieve something. But for Gollum there were cheaper, more practical and convincing options. They could have made Frodo as CGI creation as well, but why bother when you can use a real actor? Would you be praising Frodo as the most realistic CGI creation ever, or would you wonder why they didn't use a real actor? Same counts for Gollum, who has a very human-like form. A body suit and make-up wouldn't have been ridicilous at all. Those crafts have been perfected and they can look 100% realistic. Think of the apes in POTA. Would they look better as CGI? No, they wouldn't. Same counts for Gollum. *** Body suits and make-up have several advantages: the skin surface, hair, etc, can be more detailed and realistic. The interacting with other actors is natural. Lights, colours and contrasts are automatically correct. Interacting with surfaces like water is 100% realistic, something that is impossible to achieve with CGI.
Also, the body movements are REAL, not animated. This results in correct illusion of mass, right speed at movements, etc. CGI never gets these things right with humanlike characters.
And finally, the actor can ACT his performance instead of letting animators try to create an illusion of acting. This is the biggest advantage and something that cannot be reached with CGI.
If you can point out the shortcomings of a body suit and make-up when compared to CGI, feel free to point them out. It should be noted that Gollum's body structure and face are very human-like, which makes him easy to act for a human actor.
-
THE TWO TOWERS!! A Fullblooded Fanboy
-
The fact is that if Gollum were a guy in make-up, he would look just like that. And to mention POTA is pointless, since there is a big difference between how they approached the apes, and how they would approach Gollum. In POTA they used ALOT of padding, body suits and hair to cover up the fact that they were actors in suits. They did it very well. You just can't do that with Gollum. Gollum is very human-like, as in he has 2 arms, 2 legs, and a head. But he is far from human. Look at any paintings or pictures of Gollum done over the years, and you'll see that there's no way they could have FAITHFULLY recreated him practically for the film. Gollum is much more then just a skinny guy with big eyes. They would have had to use ALOT of CG to alter the actor to give him the look of Gollum. And if they'd do that, why no go all the way and give him the perfect look in full CGI.
-
There was no definite pre-existing design for Gollum. I don't think Tolkien ever draw him (I could be wrong, thought). But the thing is that a very skinny person could easily play Gollum. He is only thin, not unnaturally thin. Some humans have a same kind of body structure. Body suits can have prosthetics to emulate the slightly deformed design of Gollum, such as the very strong and visible spine, and the unconventional muscular structure. The body of the CGI character in the film would be EASY to do as a bodysuit. Bodysuits can have a great interaction with the real muscles of an actor, so that they move in a completely natural manner even if there are prosthetics. His ears, mouth, nose, etc would be easy to do as well as make-up and prosthetics. The only impossible thing would be to create the huge eyes he has in the film. So the eyes would have to be smaller, but they could pick up an actor who is very skinny and has unnaturally large eyes, and it's not a difficult task at all to find such person. The thing is that they could have used the (great) voice of Serkins and have someone else to play the physical part. Eyes can have contact lenses to give them larger pupils, because Gollum is a creature of dark. In my opinion it is enough that Gollum has BIG eyes, they don't have to be HUGE. And real human eyes can convey emotion much better than CGI eyes. There are a couple of shots in the film where Gollum runs fast with four limbs, and there is no way an actor could do this, but it's the only thing that requires CGI in the film. And it doesn't add anything, so it could have been cut out.
-
Please stop Smeagoling this thread into oblivion already!!
-
You're still ignoring an important fact. Over the centuries, the Ring warped not only Gollums mind, but his body as well. Gollum is much for of an animal now then he is a person. The only way they can achieve that practically is with an excessive amount of make-up and prosthetics. The more of that you have, the less real Gollum would look.
-
I think this thread's been obliviated (?) already. :) yoda1 shout out, again!
-
I do understand this, but when I talk about make-up and prosthetics (I think "prosthetics" is in fact a better word than "body suit" to describe what I mean), I compare them to the CGI creation which is in the film. The (almost) exactly same design is *not* difficult to make with these methods, except for the eyes. He would be a bit different, but just as close to the character described in the books. But I think we have beaten this to death already, so I prefer not to discuss much about it anymore. The fact is that most people are going to like Gollum a lot, if the general opinion so far is of any indication. Many are going to be greatly impressed by him. I just have to live with him, because this is how he he is and there is no other way anymore. Maybe with repeated viewings I learn to like him as much as other do. Hopefully so.
-
Fair enough. I was just trying to convey the fact that CGI was the best way to go.
-
It seems that the reaction to ents has been far more negative so far than the reaction to Gollum. I loved the ents. They often feel like stopmotion puppets, but I think it's really appropriate since they are supposed to be like walking trees. The puppet feeling comes from the fact that they are very static, but I think that's the way how they should be. Treebeard is the most serious and conventional looking of the bunch, but most of the others look HILARIOUS! And I really do mean this in a good way, but I think that many would have probably preferred a more serious, mysterious and even threatening look to them. That's how I felt they were in the books, but admittedly it was always a bit hard to imagine what the look like. When the ent meeting comes, I actually laughed out loud when I saw the 5-6 ents in the meeting. They looked *really* goofy and surrealistic. There was a resemblance to some old Jim Henson puppets. Treebeard is the only ent character who has a real personality, and I think he was wonderful. It was impossible to not to like him.
-
Soooo, I just saw a Black Hawk Down and was wondering what your thoughts were on it?
-
...devided into those who have read Lord of the Rings, and those who are going to read them"
That's one of my favorite quotes that are usually on the back or inside cover. I couldn't get through "The Silmarillion" either. I found 3/4 of what I read to be dull and mind-numbing. Plus it reads like a 1940's history text book. -
O-kay Harry, we get the point, you and fanboy are paid shills for New Line. This story has been headlined for too long, especially since it is a shit movie as described by objective reviewers. Why don't you give me equal time?? Most of the Two Towers reviewers have only seen that once, which is hardly accurate. I, on the other hand, have seen Attack of the Clones 73 times - why won't you let a real fan and objective viewer like me review the AOTC DVD and review TTT (since I refuse to pay money to see it, you should give me the free preview duckets). Enough is enough, take down this thread now. Star Wars 4 Life!!!
-
*yawn*
-
Dec 10, 2002 11:08:16 AM CST
So ONE guy didn't like Gollum, and now all the geeks on here are
by minderbinder
Too bad the talkback order is hosed, this one is unreadable...
-
my panties aren't in a bunch. I just disagreed with him over the fact that he thought Gollum would have been better if he were a real actor and not CGI.
-
I think I would rather have my fingernails torn off.
-
PENIS ENVY
-
HEY EVERYONE, this imbecile spurted out the same ludicrous remarks about LOTR last year, and he was proved wrong in EVERY respect!!! NOW HE'S SAYING THE SAME THING ABOUT TTT!!! And whats even funnier is this marvelous piece of contradiction that the blithering idiot spews, and I quote..."You are so insecure with your fantasy film that you constantly bash SW to feel better about yourselves. Your pile of shit movie doesn't come close to touching SW." HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.....you sad little contradicting prick!!! Why dont you and PUD go suck eachother off!!
-
Has anyone read the script? Does it have better dialogue or is it as bad as the last one? I couldn't stand all that "we shall walk with hope into the firey dark chasm of doom and relish with pride our achievment in defeating the evil, bad, terrible wizard of murdooorrr" etc.
And thanks Mani for posting that Mark Lawson thing. It summed it all up really. To the zealots you either have to love this film or your life isn't worth shit. It's really sad. -
You guys are amazing, all three of the movies I keep seeing mentioned in the talkbacks were great flicks. Why does everyone care about everyone elses opinion? If everyone in the world says Attack of the Clones sucked I couldn't care less, I'd still own the DVD and be the first in line for Episode III. Same goes for Return of the King. I can't say the same for Harry Potter, though I still enjoy the films I always think theres something missing.
My main reason for responding was merely that I thought the review was great, there was something genuine about this review. It was something that you knew was written by a guy that thuroughly enjoyed the experience. Something you don't get from MOST reviewers, and is quite often the best sort of review there is.
My only question is, WHY IN GODS NAME WASN'T I THERE WHEN HE GOT THOSE GOD DAMN PASSES! LoL. -
Dec 10, 2002 12:04:52 PM CST
Legal Ass looks like Barbie. And does he actually do anything in
by velocity
Who's idea was it to make Legal Ass look like a girl and give him blonde pib-tails? Tolkein or Hackson?
And does he do anything in this film besides standing there with his hair blowing in the wind? -
Wood plays a hobbit, not, say, a turn of the century Irish kid from New York...wait a minute! Anyway, all the hobbits sound different, they're HOBBITS, not people. It's okay if Frodo's accent is different from Sam's or Merry's or Pippin's. It's fantasy (and personally, I don't think Frodo's accent is so bad). The next thing people will be saying is that Middle Earth is too rural for their tastes.
-
I don't think so. When she smiles, it looks like a rictus grin. It's truly horrible to behold. Maybe you could cope with having her around if she promised to stick to frowns and looks of concern.
-
"Elijah Woods' British accent was horrible"
As there is no such thing as a "British accent", perhaps you are not best qualified to make the judgement. What Wood is affecting here is a sort of neutral, middle-class home counties English accent. Having been brought up in the south of England, I can assure you that Elijah's accent is perfectly acceptable. Sam and Merry are given West Country sorts of accents (Somerset, Wiltshire, Dorset). Pippin's accent is Scots, fairly mild (to my ears) lowlands rather than e.g. highlands or broad Glaswegian. Gimli is also given a Scots accent, which seemed kinda strange as if you were going to choose an accent for a race of stumpy miners, Welsh would seem a more appropriate choice. -
Speaking as a WELSHMAN, and being 6'4", I can tell you that we're not 'stumpy' as you put it!! I know plenty of english ppl that are a whole manner of shapes and sizes. So lets not start insulting eachother. We're both British afterall. Despite that gripe, I think the accents that youve suggested are all spot on and Elijah's inparticular was excellent considering his real accent! I know of people who hadnt heard of him before that were shocked to discover he was in fact american. Anyway....carry on...
-
*NO ONE* has called this guy a plant or a sell-out yet! You guys are slipping! ;-P
-
They can't drink to save their lives. At least the Scots can do that, if nothing else. But the Welsh? Anne Robinson was correct when she said the Welsh are pointless. They truly are. Jettison that country into the sea!
-
Why can't we all just fucking get along, huh? I love SW. I love LOTR. Sure, the prequels are weaker than their predecessors and FOTR (of course, I haven't seen TTT yet), but I still love them. Y'all have the right to hate them, as others have the right to hate LOTR. I have read the trilogy and "The Hobbit". I go to these films biased, yes. I also go to the prequels biased, because of the story arc I know they will eventually form. Fuck it, let's stop hating. *** And by the way, Natalie Portman is an utter angel when she smiles. Peace Out.
-
Can we reall trust the opinion of someone with a name like "WeedyMcSmokey"
-
You're one to talk.
-
Dec 10, 2002 1:04:10 PM CST
LOL I knew it......MonkeyLover........you shame the English
by snake-eyes
I knew that you couldnt resist it. I restrained myself and didnt rise to bait, cos I can take a joke! I say that cos you english are the biggest jokes of them all!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!! Dont even begin to start about drinking issues cos from my experience you guys are the biggest pussies of all when it comes to drinking. The Scots, Irish and our good selves should kick your arrogant asses back to France!!!! hehe
-
Thank you for your last post regarding the accents. I thought Elijah's was lovely, and the others were a treat to listen to, adding greatly to the characters' individuality and the sense of their belonging to a real world. Also, given the perfectionism on the set, I doubt if the dialect coaches would have settled for anything less than precisely what they wanted.
-
The question is can we really trust someone with the name Mr Crime!!
-
Hello!
The orcs are pretty, but I always pictured them (reading the books and playing role playing games) with square shaped jawes and small tusks (ie War Craft).
Btw, did you notice the close up on Sam (looking at a plant) on the ext ed? He looks like a mongoloid! A vegetable looking at a vegetable! Damn funny stuff. -
Not Cahadras, or whatever you illiterate fool called it, try READING the books first; I suggest you begin with some Dr. Seuss, seeing you can't even write appropriately, you F'ing bandwaggoner, people like you and Harry make me sick. 'Evening.
-
I think you should lie down, picture yourself in a field, and count to 10........or take a valium. Your choice....
-
I must be hearing things. Anyone who hasen't read the book MUST READ IT BEFORE they go see this movie! Knowing the backstory makes the movie that much better...you actually know what they are talking about when Legolas say a Balrog of Morgoth! (or Melkor for those who have read the other books...you know what im talkin' about)
-
In all fairness, I think it's possible to like and understand the movie without reading the book. For instance, I felt the same way about American Psycho - I couldn't believe people liked the movie or even understood it without reading the book. But they did. Perhaps they misunderstood Ellis' ultimate point, but they still enjoyed the movie.
-
Fine fine, I'll allow people to see it-for now. But Harry, come on man, your running this ship, you gotta know whats going on, just take a few days out of your schedual and read the trilogy if you haven't already, thats all i ask
-
Don't get me wrong, though. Personally I prefer reading the books first. And Lord of the Rings is the mother of all book trilogies.
-
I'd be walk very gingerly around Monkey Lover. He can kick your ass in the insult department, I'm willing to bet.
-
I love FOTR, but I'm not a LOTR fanatic. I like AOTC, but I'm not a Star Wars fanatic. I enjoyed Spider-man, but I'm not a Spidey fanatic. You see, I think that its okay for people to love individual movies, but to adhere to an entire franchise, to buy every toy, book and love every sequel before having even seen it, well, thats going a little too far. Thats a form of fanatical religious faith. Except when it comes to Star Trek, of course. First Contact is the Citizen Kane of all science-fiction, The Wrath of Khan is purely and simply a Divine Revelation that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ inspired his prophet Gene Roddenberry to put on film, and The Original Series is as sacred as the scripture of the Old Testament. Okay, Voyager was pretty lame, but we believe that the minds of our latter-day Saints, Berman and Braga, were being manipulated by the evil thoughts of the Anti-Kirk at the time. Blessed be his name, James Tiberius! - I know Kung Fu.
-
I love FOTR, but I'm not a LOTR fanatic. I like AOTC, but I'm not a Star Wars fanatic. I enjoyed Spider-man, but I'm not a Spidey fanatic. You see, I think that its okay for people to love individual movies, but to adhere to an entire franchise, to buy every toy, book and love every sequel before having even seen it, well, thats going a little too far. Thats a form of fanatical religious faith. Except when it comes to Star Trek, of course. First Contact is the Citizen Kane of all science-fiction, The Wrath of Khan is purely and simply a Divine Revelation that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ inspired his prophet Gene Roddenberry to put on film, and The Original Series is as sacred as the scripture of the Old Testament. Okay, Voyager was pretty lame, but we believe that the minds of our latter-day Saints, Berman and Braga, were being manipulated by the evil thoughts of the Anti-Kirk at the time. Blessed be his name, James Tiberius! - I know Kung Fu.
-
...and a total cocksucker. He just made up some nonsense bullshit to the BBC saying it was a "shame" that Jackson's feeble pathetic movie didn't win a Best Picture Oscar. "It's outrageous that the first film and indeed the director were not both given Oscars because the film and the direction were so superior to anything that came up for an Oscar that I thought it was quite disgraceful," Lee said. Why wasn't Christopher Lee saying the same thing for the far - far - far superior Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones earlier this year??? He probably cost that movie $250-million stabbing George Lucas in the back, and yet here he is making outrageous comments about shitty LOTR. He must be senile or have oldsheimers. Lee can go to hell, he's a sell-out, and I hope GL kills off Dooku fast. I am out.
-
They haven't announced the 2002 movies yet...unless you are already assuming Aotc won't receive a nom for best picture.
-
First of all to 'Columbian', this line of yours, "Pop Lucas' ballsack out of your mouth just long enough to tell him this..." was the funniest thing I've read in a while. What wonderful imagery!! hehe As for Jar Jar Boinks, the gimp whose mind appears emptier than a Hermit's address book, and like those other fools before him, (not giving any names away....P*D and ELFK*LLER), why dont you all stop chewing cock for a second realise that your opinions are so ridiculous that you are simply laughed at by all the visit this site. If you even made some sense people might actually respect you but alas, I have more respect for shit on ones's shoe than you guys!!
-
Take your head of the sand, people. Watch your entertainment, take some thought and nutrition out of it, and move on. The pedantic criticisms and flaming going on here about LOTR sucking and AOTC rocking is puerile and childish. If you are going to discuss something about the films, how about looking at some of the *themes* and questions about *what these films can teach us* instead of ranting and gnashing about CGI crap all the time? Tolkien writes about power and temptation -- care to comment on Jackson's treatment of those? If you can imagine life in 1941 -- Nazi's attacking western Europe, Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor -- and see a nation obsessed and distracted by arguments about Cary Grant vs. Gary Cooper, you might have an idea of how ignorant and pathetic most of us look in contemporary America. Cos that's what's happening here! Bush and his war party are warning us of smallpox attacks and perpetual war ... the biggest industries in the land are military, prisons and law enforcement ... the rest of world hates us ... and we're getting throwing grenades at one another because Treebeard doesn't look as cool as Jar Jar!?!? Nice indictment of your priorities. If flaming and triviality is all that occupies your brain, let's face it, you've forfeited any credibilty to criticizing _anything_ by virtue of your sub-moronic IQs. Flame away children...
-
'salright, mate, my old dear's from Swansea. And I'll admit your 6'4 has me beat.
-
Check this out:
http://us.imdb.com/top_250_films
FOTR is #5, AOTC is not even in the top 250. Why? Because the acting and the dialog is terrible. I love Star Wars but Lucas has lost it. ESB is easily the best Star Wars film... who directed it... hint: it wasn't Lucas. And to all you anti-CGI people, I bet you dream at night and then wake up and say, yeah right, that looked totally FAKE!!! -
You people sound like a bored 65 year old couple having sex. Aren't you sick of this bullshit yet? I guess there's always a new person willing to indulge in the eternal LOTR debate.
-
Well? Is it?
-
...nice one m8! I appreciate that. Swansea eh? I assume youve done the Mumbles mile then, or if not I bet your 'old dear' has? (apologies to anyone else who wont have a clue what I'm on about, and yes I know its off-topic). Lets rectify that shall we....um....lemme see.....ah yes.....FOTR RULES, SW OT RULES, TTT SHOULD RULE, TPM & ATOC SUCKED.....and um....thats about it I think!
-
If you hadn't said it, I was about to jump in myself. This COULD be a forum for intelligent discussion about the film, the book, and how they relate to a world poised on the brink of destruction... OR we could celebrate the love and artistry poured into a work that defies the darkness... or just enjoy the friendship of sharing our pleasure with others who feel it, too. But THINK, people.... If the lights go out, is this how you want to be remembered: by your petty invective on the Internet? If you died tomorrow, is this what you want to go out screaming? (Or, if you live forever, might you not want to put your brains and voices to better use?)
-
Yes, I agree, I would be much happier discussing the important issues about the film. I would love to tell everyone how it moved me to tears and filled me with awe. I would love to explain the sheer joy and happiness I experienced that I'd not felt in a good many year of cinematic garbage. As others have said, I felt LOTR did set a benchmark of sorts for all other films. In fact every subsequent film I see since I find myself drawing comparisons on every level to LOTR. It really opened my eyes as to how warm and moving and frankly wonderful a modern film can be. I love the use of english in the film, almost poetic, no slang or vulgarity (how rare is that these days). That fact there was no product placement, no pepsis or cola cans in sight!! That everything was organic and landscapes breathtaking. It reminds me how wonderful this planet can be, and how idyllic the Hobbits lived. Its a joy to watch and I could so over and over again. I could go on and on..................however..........we all know that this site is infested with idiots with a mentallity befitting a child nd their "mines bigger and better than yours" mentality. So....what do we do? If anyone really wants to discuss this film's impact or level genuine criticisms then please GO FOR IT!! To those other idiots.....kindly FUCK OFF!!!! Oh by the way, I have the misfortune to be watching Dungeons and Dragons on TV at the moment, I've never seen it before and DEAR SWEET LORD.......this is the biggest pile of shit I've ever had the misfortune to watch. LOL
-
The shit hit the fan once the first prequel screened. Prior to EP1, everyone on this board were SW geeks and thus, the comparisons SHOULD be taken serious. They all read: "You fucked up my STAR WARS, George!". Defending SW is pointless, since you are defending SW against your own kind, but you DO serve a purpose. Bitching about SW is a collective disapointment expressed in various forms, including comparisons. It feels better to bitch about it and THANK YOU for bitching back! The "neutrals" would be long gone if they did not like the bitching perhaps just a little. This is a bitching board. Live with it, bitches!
-
the TTT opening happens in london pretty damn soon, harry give me the tickets and i can get a couple of english girls to come along which i'll photo, so all you 'shut ins' can jerk over
-
Check out this. It's a fully animated fanfilm and very high quality. It has a nice Tolkien reference in it, as well as a few others. Enjoy.
http://download.theforce.net/theater/shortfilms/howsithstole/HTSSC_Part1.mov
PS. Fellowship of the Ring and Attack of the Clones are 2 of my 5 favorite movies ever.
-
I typed "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and "children's literature" into a search engine and got 3,000 hits! Who would have known that Edward Gibbon's massive history of Rome was such well-regarded juvenile reading? Then I tried "War and Peace." Holy crap, 84,000 hits! Who knew Tolstoy was actually writing for his 8 year old grandson? Maybe there are other reasons these books are listed on websites that also contain the words "children's literature"... Naaahh. Couldn't be.
-
I enjoy LOTR a great deal, and am very stoked about TTT. However, I do not appreciate people getting onto this builitin board just to argue about whether or not the movie is good. If you like it, great, if not, great. Maybe you should be discussing elements of the movie and not just "Oo, pictures move good," or,"Oo, pictures move bad." I would like to say, for the record; as much as I may enjoy these films, I would give my right pinky toe to see beautiful New Zealand in person and smell that fresh air and walk through the valleys, but would prefer not to spend more than ten bucks to see TTT. Get it?
-
I thought the moth was real...damn. That is some cool Cgi.
-
you know, i was thinking today as i slaved away at my menial job that if i had been given the chance to attend the premiere, there's a really good chance i would have gotten so amazingly wasted that all i could have reported back was that the bathrooms in ziegfried's are really cold and that marble floors don't feel so good when you fall on them. and then my friends would have gotten so irritated at me being so sloshed that they would have dragged me over to where, oh, say orlando bloom was lurking about and allowed me to converse with him in my weakened condition, thereby embarassing myself to the point of a restraining order being issued.
but you know, regardless of what anyone here says about yoda1's review of TTT, we all would have loved to have been there. even if you hate tolkien and despise LOTR, i still maintain that any person who has posted here would have switched places with yoda1 in a second. and maybe you think you would have given a better review and gone into more detail about story, plot, CGI, cinematography or debated the finer points of WETA vs. ILM, but the point is simply that this was yoda1's experience and his relation of that experience to us.
and it's much better than the headache-from-hell-god-i-wish-i-was-dead-what-did-i-say-last-night-i-hope-i-wasn't-too-embarassingly-drunk-what-are-all-these-bruises-from-oh-no-i-was-sloppy-drunk-girl review i more likely than not would have written. either that, or i would have lost the ability to formulate a sentence at all that night and just gibbered away all night, not unlike what i am doing here...
anyways, its just what i was thinking today. thought i'd share. -
..here give me some valid, intelligent reasons on why they don't like this film. Just so people can realize that some peole didn't like it, and they aren't just flamers. We have to face the fact that some people didn't like it. I loved it. I'm going to see it multiple times. Why? Well, let's see....good story, good script, good characters, good performances, good sets, good costumes, good make-up, good special effects are just some of the awesome production values that went into making these movies.
If people post "THIS MOVIES SUX COCKS CUZ THE HOBITS ARE GAY FAGS YODA KICKS GOLLUMS A$$ CUZ GOLLUM IS ALSO GAY TOO" over and over again, just how the hell are we supposed to take the people who ACTUALLY didn't like it seriously? I liked SW ep1&2. I just think LOTR is better for all the reasons I stated above. -
I know others have said this too, but this really has been the best article I've read on the site. I could see myself acting and feeling the same way you felt during this whole amazing experience, the whole "oh geez I cant beleive this is actualyl happening to me" feeling, and I'm glad that an ordinary fanboy got to do something as great as this.
And to those who are ridiculing others who dont like LOTR, get a life people. People have their own freaking OPINIONS, and really it's a matter of taste, because plenty of people hate the whole fantasy thing. With the exception of LOTR and Harry Potter, I hate fantasy too. Sure, it's hard to understand how others dont have the kind of passion and love for this movie that I have, but like I said, people have their opinions, and you have to respect them instead of throwing them immediately away.
Having said all that, I cant wait for The Two Towers, I'm counting down the days! Happy Holidays everyone! -
Alright, let's discuss themes, Tolkien's and PJ's. I've now listened to the director/writer commentary on the dvd, and I think I have a firmer grasp of what PJ was trying to do. It is obvious, on the one hand, that they (PJ, Phillipa, and Fran) are all VERY familiar with the books, and could even put up a pretty good fight in one of those famed scholarly LOTR debates. On the other hand, they state quite clearly on many occasions that, "well, we certainly couldn't do it the book's way, it wouldn't work. We needed to maintain the sense of urgency." Which is true, as far as it goes. But it also erodes some of Tolkien's themes. By the way, I'm not bashing the movie, I thought it was wonderful in many ways. However, for example, seventeen years pass in the book between Frodo recieving the ring, and setting off on his journey. Part of Tolkien's point here is not that Frodo is a youngster raring for adventure, but an established Hobbiton gentleman, wealthy, well educated and a bit more worldy than his peers, but content in his ways, who must rise to an enourmous challenge. I know there has been endless debate about Frodo's age, and I myself have even defended EW. When I read the books as a teenager, of course I always pictured Frodo as my own age, and so it really didn't gall me. Nevertheless, EW does look extremely young--even at 21 he looks about 17 tops, and I really think this changes a major thematic element--a young guy going on adventures is standard stuff. I think Tolkien's Frodo had a much harder decision. Other gripes with PJ's Frodo--he's not particularly brave or proactive. Tolkien's Frodo doesn't cower in fear of the Riders on Weathertop after putting on the ring, he draws his sword and basically tells them to fuck off in Elvish, and takes a stab at the Nazgul king before getting it in the shoulder. He also defies them at the Ford of Bruinen (as done by Arwen in the movie while he dangles dazed and helpless), draws first blood from the Cave Troll in Moria, etc... PJ's Frodo is such a wimp that he has to give the solution to the doors of Moria just to seem more proactive. If PJ had left in just two out of those three incidents, it would have been enough. So, not to overstate, but Tolkien has a Frodo who is older and content, and discovers he has a strength and courage he hadn't dreamt of, while PJ's young, adventure-craving Frodo turns out to be a bit of a wuss. The next big difference is Aragorn, who is "conflicted" in PJ's version. Some liked this aspect, but I found it agravating. In the book, Aragorn CANNOT marry Arwen unless he is the King of Gondor and Arnor (the old Northern Kingdom), and he has bloody well set his mind to the task. He is at times a fearsome figure in the books, rather than melancholy. I find his "inner struggle" irritating, but others may disagree. I also don't understand why it is presented as if Boromir has heard of Aragorn. The Steward holds the throne till the King returns. If Gondor knew there was a rightful heir, they would bloody well make him King. What, Aragorn's line decided they didn't want to rule Gondor, and Gondor knows all about it, but they figure, "oh well, I guess we'll just have a Steward till one of them wants to come back." What the hell? That's just dumb. You got to admit, a lost king no one even knows exists is cooler than that. Ok, Final big issue, Gimli. Again, lots of folks don't mind, but it was actually the worst part of the movie for me. Dwarves are NOT rough and tumble, roar and splash ale around mini-Viking types. They have complex culture, they are familiar with courtesy, and can interact normally with other races, without harumphing, grunting, or growling. I was so glad when the gift-giving scene was in the extended edition, and I had heard it was "word for word" from the book. That alone would have entirely redeemed all the grunts, roars, and NNOOOOOOOOs. But they don't get it right, dammit! This is a marvelous exchange; "'There is nothing, Lady Galadriel...Nothing, unless it might be--unless it is permitted to ask, nay, to name a single strand of your hair, which surpasses the gold of the earth as the stars surpass the gems of the mine. I do not ask for such a gift. But you commanded me to name my desire'....the Lady smiled. 'It is said that the skill of the Dwarves is in their hands rather than in their tongues...not so with Gimli. For none have ever made to me a request so bold and yet so courteous.'" Istead of that, we get Gimli muttering awkwardly; "well, um, er, actually, there is one thing...no, no, grumble grumble, och, arrghh..." or something to that effect. Finally, as much emphasis as PJ put on making the world real, much of it didn't quite come off that way. Some things were a bit to pretty, some a bit to ugly. I know there are expectations for a big fantasy movie, but Tolkien tends to be a lot more realistic thatn people realize. Orcs are not quite the monstrous beings they are in PJ's version, they're just kind of wretched and twisted. The balrog is more of a menacing shape than a full-on giant super-demon. The elves don't live in fairy-mansions. They're exotic, but a bit more down-to-earth than in the movie. These things, necessary for a cinema event, I suppose, nonetheless detract from the "real" feeling of Middle Earth. Well, if anyone ever finishes this, I'd love to hear any reponses. By the way, I could certainly go into just as much detail about what I thought the movie got right, but what fun is that? ;-)
FMG -
Pud, Elfkiller, Jar Jar Boinks etc would never go to something like this. They would not be able to hide behind their usernames on the internet. As if one of these fuckwits would actually show their pasty, acne ridden faces to the light of day... They're too busy jacking off to their 74th watching of AOTC, in their parents basement. Fuckin hell, and they tell us to get a life!!! MorGy you are quite correct. Thomas EDISON (the one on this site...) is a fuckin knob, to put it quite crudely. I don't normally speak this way, but I'm trying to bring my literacy level down sufficiently to allow these imbeciles to follow it. Hmmm, maybe if I start spelling things incorrectly and start tacking words onto the end of sentences that make no sense? Would that do the trick? Maybe I'll have to start using 'small' words, to allow the minds of the trolls to eventually gain some insight into my thoughts? Or better yet, I've just had a brain storm, why don't I go and get a frontal lobotomy, that way I'll be able to converse with these people at their intellectual level!!! Cheers.
-
For wresting this back into a genuine discussion. I agree with much of what you say, though I wouldn't give quite such a middle-aged spin to Frodo, regardless of appearance. Outwardly, he retains the look of a hobbit just come of age; inwardly, well, he has spent 17 years reading, wandering the Shire, and enjoying his friends... He is not so much a "respectable gentleman" as a dreamer and scholar with what the Victorian's called a "competence" (i.e., enough to live on without having to work) which in itself should keep him inwardly youthful. I agree, though, (and we have spent time discussing it here) that some of his heroism is lost in the film version. And, also, I hope we do not hear much more about Aragorn's reluctance. As you say, it makes no sense that there is a known king who is just ducking his responsibilities.... A bit of brooding doubt is interesting. But(as with these endless film-clip references to "the world of Men") enough is enough. Say what you will about Gimli, he has still ended up with one of the most moving lines in the film, and shows at last the soul of a poet. ***By the way, I just finished re-reading "Master of Middle-Earth," a truly wonderful book which I highly recommend, and it makes much of Frodo's Elvish qualities, beginning with the fact that, from the very beginning, he is more prone to dreams and visions than any character in the book, Elvish or otherwise. Perhaps he also has their quality of combining both youth and maturity? Certainly, as the journey goes on, Sam and Gandalf both see him as shining with an inner light.
-
Went out on my lunch hour and bought the Frodo and Sam cover.... Unfortunately, I'll have to wait until after work to play it. And it wasn't on sale. Not remotely! I spent $21 on it at Sam Goody and complained bitterly about the lack of a sale when there was one last year), but I wasn't about to go elsewhere. Not when I could be playing it in a few hours.... I'd have mentioned it earlier, but why bother among all the name-calling?
-
While I agree with your points, I do think we should give PJ & co. some leeway...
Naturally, somethings had to be changed so it would work as a feature length film (or films). And it would be great if the movies were exactly like the books, but only we (those who read the book) would understand it completely. All that was changed was necessary, not only for cinematic perposes, but so the uninitiated to the world of Tolkien......
though I still would have loved to have seen Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-wights ;) -
Not my personal opinion, you see. I've just read submission number 134,984,876 that speaks to this regard. One thing all of these postings dissing Tolkien have in common...they do not expound on what "good" literature is. Let's look at characteristics by which to measure literary quality in order of importance:
1. It must be enjoyed by many people. You could pulish a novel with the world's deepest characters, woven from the purest tapestry of linguistic elegance, and it wouldn't mean shit if no one read it. Ditto for pacing and plot development.
2. See point number 1.
I did enjoy The Hobbit the LOTR. I couldn't really get into The Silmarillion, though. I also enjoy the works of Tom Clancy, Ken Follett, Stephen King, DAVE BARRY (he's a Pulitzer Prize winner, you know), Anne Rice, and James Patterson. I'm talking books, not movies, as many of the movies derived from these authors' works just plain suck ass. The Sum of All Fears is probably the best example of that.
As far as movies go, I like Monty Python, the works of Jim Abrahms and the Zucker Brothers (Airplane, Naked Gun, et al), I'm a lifelong Star Wars fan, anything by Kevin Smith, True Romance, and Pulp Fiction, to name a few.
For the guy who missed the "Mr. Anderson" reference...no offense, dude, but who the hell ISSUED your geek card? -
Now that my rants over. I pretty much agree with you McGruder. I have often been flamed for belief that particular elements of the movie didn't work as well as that which was originally written by Tolkien. Lines like Aragorn's, "he needs Elvish medicine." Piss me off quite frankly as they are designed to pander towards a 'dumb' audience. Now it seems to me, an audience not versed in Tolkien would expect to see the use of archaic (as some describe it) speech. They are there to see a 'FANTASY' movie afterall!!! Replacing the best part of the books (IMHO) the dialogue, with more 'modern' speech is both unnecessary and detracts from the impact of the story. Tolkien was an amazing writer, in the technical sense which any person who has actually read the book (and understood it) has to admit, if they are being honest. Now I'm certain PJ et al could put up a convincing argument as to why it was necessary to rewrite the dialogue of the books for the movie, but I for one will remain unconvinced, unless the argument is so brilliant it stuns me into insensibility... I have argued this point many times but people accuse me of being a purist who doesn't understand the necessities of movie making. Perhaps, but at least I would treat an audience with a bit of respect and challenge them a bit to understand the movie. How many moviegoers (unfamiliar with the books) would have understood Bilbo's speech, "I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve?" Dialogue such as this encourages people to understand what it means. (Whether or not they deserve the respect is another question completely though.) Cheers.
-
Attack of the Clones better than FOTR??? Damn AOTC was one of the more painful experiences I've ever had at the movies. While I'm not a great LOTR fan like some of these other guys I think I'd enjoy the Hotchick more than Lucas's craptastic film. FOTR blows AOTC out of the water.
-
You asked for some honest words from someone who didn't care for FotR, so I'll offer my take. I quite liked aspects of the film, but found its flaws too glaring to ignore. I thought the effects were a mixed bag, the action scenes were poorly filmed and cut, some of the creatures were Battlefield Earth ugly, the pacing was uneven, visually the film was often quite muddy and the poetry and lyricism of the novel was largely jettisoned in favor of a somewhat better than average monster movie. It's by no means a bad film, but in my oppinion it was a long ways from great. I'd give it a 3/5.
-
Conan, I'm pointing out the HOMOPHOBIA in LOTR, not the homosexuality. ========= Snake-eyes, "orcs" are a smear against Blacks AND Italians. After all, anti-Italian bigots call Italians "guineas" -implying that they are part African. This kind of thinking led to the framing, show-trial and execution of Sacco and Venzetti many years ago. "Orc" just continues this ugly tradition. Darth Vader is an example of anti-racist moviemaking. George Lucas hired James Earl Jones, a strong proud black actor, to play Darth Vader because he was the best man for the job and didn't give a damn about his skin color. This proves that Lucas is not racist. Too many Hollywood pseudo-liberals refuse to cast black actors as REAL villains. Or they give them bullshit "police captain" roles. The fact that Lucas would cast James Earl Jones, a strong proud black actor, as the bad guy shows that he isn't overcompensating for anything. =========== This leads me to Rampaging Troll. I don't fault the gay actors who played elves in LotR just as I don't fault Butterfly McQueen for playing Prissy. An actor has to make a living. =========== Raker, Black Hawk Down was based on real events, so hiring black actors to play Somalis makes sense. The overwhelming majority of Delta Force and Ranger troops are white, so hiring whites to play them also makes sense. Your question, however, does not make sense. =========== morGoth thinks I make this shit up. This is silly for three reasons. (1) Some of the articles I have cited were first described here in TB, like the recent "Race and Wraiths" article in the Guardian.
-
(2) I don't have the imagination to make this up. (3) Deep down you and the other Renaissance Fair rejects know I'm right, that's why the reaction to my posts is so shrill.
-
May I humbly recommend Patrick Gordon? He's scrawny enough to pass for a 500 year old Hobbit.
-
Hi. Yes, its me. The co-wizard behind the curtain. The Cyrano of the Bergerac. Let me clarify some things:
1) Yoda1 and I decided the review from DAY ONE would be a retelling of one fan's dream come true, NOT a scholarly-scientific (throw out any other words you'd like here) treatise of the film itself. Why? 2 major reasons.
I) There are seemingly COUNTLESS reviews of that type ALL OVER THE NET. I suggest you jump over to www.theonering.net for a good list of them. There was also a WB special, a (completely crappy) MTV Movie House special, a Bravo "script to screen" special, etc.. etc.. So we felt we didn't need to jump in line to be like the rest of the bunch. We wanted to do something different. Hence, the following "I hope I did a little something different here and didn -
I imagine that the line one walks when dealing with the translation of a book to a movie is a great deal more precarious than many of us think. I do think that we have an example before us that may (or may not be) of help in our discussion, i.e. the Harry Potter movies. I thoroughly enjoy reading the books to my son (at 6, while still liking to read as much of them as possbile, they are still a bit beyond his ability, by the end of this school year I imagine that he will do fine with them on his own), and have enjoyed Harry's adventures, and Rowling's prose. The problem arises in the fact that the translation to the movies has been a bit too close. They have labored to get the details correct, but they seem to have missed out on the spirit of the books. From a purists standpoint, and frankly having Rowling on the set is not helpful, the movies are right on the mark, but are they as good as movies as they could be? I would argue that they are not. Such slavish devotion to the text inhibits the movies from taking off. Now, where this becomes relevant to a LOTR talkback is that these movies have the same issues to deal with, how does one translate the book to the movie? First, the obvious notion is that you cannot be a literalist and keep everything from the books, because the movie would be completely unmanageable. Thus, you have made the first very important, and dangerous, decision -- you have got to edit, and how does one go about editing a very famous work in such a way as to please purists, casual readers and non-readers? Seems like a tall order to me. My question, to open a line of discussion that could be fun, is this: What would you cut? What would you include? What is the most important theme of the movie? What would be the 'thesis statement' of your version? What choices would you make if you were the director? Finally, what audience are you trying to reach?
-
I can't believe my long-ass post actually got read by some folks. I suppose it did come off as a bit harsh. I would like to add that I thought the extended edition addressed alot of issues I had with the theatrical release, and I had a great time watching it. What it comes down to for me, I suppose, is that Tolkien had a very precise world that fit together logically. The film captured some of that, especially in the extended version, but whenever it deviates, i.e., Aragorn is known in Gondor, or Gimli thinks Balin is livin' it up in Moria (don't people who haven't read the books wonder why Gimli seems to think his cousin is ruling in Moria, when everyone else is terrified of the place, and it looks like it has been abandoned for hundreds of years?). Either explain briefly that Gimli thinks Balin MIGHT be there, because he went to take it back from the orcs but nobody's heard from him in a while, or just leave Balin out of it... Of course I'm biased towards accuracy, but it really seems like the movie is at its best when adhering closely to Tolkien. When it gets off course, the logical structure doesn't hold together as well. Is this just my bias, or do ya'll see what I'm saying? The tapestry is so complex that a loose thread kinda leads to a chain reaction, or whatever ;-). Last point; I really enjoyed the movie, and no doubt will love The Two Towers, but in the end, I think the best dramatic adaption to date is the BBC radio series. Does that mean I'm a snob? :-0
-
I think PJ, Walsh and Boyens did an excellent job of translating FOTR to the screen. It could have been so much worse (only one movie; . The reason we are picking out flaws at all is that the overall quality of the movie is so high that we want the same level maintained for the whole thing. And then again, everyone has different issues with the adaptation. I, for example, find PJ's rendition of a doubting Aragorn and the addition of Arwen to be an IMPROVEMENT on the book (Mercy! Please don't shoot!)And I am utterly baffled as to why people admire Orlando Bloom's portrayal of Legolas: to my mind, all Bloom brings to the role is a selection of blank expressions - he's no more an elf than my dog is.
-
Have to say it pretty much rocked. The middle sagged a little and I think the melodrama was a touch over-done but by and large it was excellent. The opening is incredible. INCREDIBLE, I tells ya. Gollum was amazing. Andy Serkis has done a brilliant job - nothing like the BBC version - but genuinely spirited. I also don't think Gollum was at all over animated, Virkku, maybe a little lacking in, erm..'physical substance' from time to time but easily the most accomplished piece of interactive CGI I've ever seen.
-
Aww yeah baby I got it and it is e'en better than the first. I won't even bitch about the Gollum song as everything else is so good.
-
I've actually been coming to AICN for about 2 years now but that was the first time Ive posted. I guess I'm just getting a little disenchanted with my fellow geeks lately and had to drop in my two cents. Everyone just seems to focus on the negative nowadays - Yelling about the star wars prequels, winging about Jar Jar etc.....Some of you are even complaining about movies before they are released!!! Me? I prefer to sit back and watch a movie, see where it takes me, and how it makes me feel. I enjoyed AOTC (true, the acting was bad. true, the whole movie was mostly eye candy blah blah blah) but I enjoyed it because i was once again (after 2 decades!) in the world of jedi knights and I got to see George's ultimately tragic tale of a good guy being consumed by the darkness within him, and the good people that must watch it all happen. (And lightsabres!Lots and lots of lightasbres)Granted, I liked FOTR better than AOTC and TPM put together, but my favourite movie ever is still Star Wars. So I'm gonna be in line for Episode 3 and feel a little sad that it will be the last star wars movie ever (I mean really - you guys don't expect George to do any more star wars movies with the amount of slamming you have given him do you?). If you all just sit back and TRY to enjoy these movies the chances are that you will. To me that makes a whole lot more sense than complaining about the little parts you hated. I can't wait for TTT and ROTK.........I can't wait for Episode 3.......I can't wait for the Matrix sequals......I can't wait for the next movie that I haven't even heard of yet. Some I'll like, some I won't. But my impression of a whole movie will never be limited to my opinion of whether a minor character looked realistic or not. cheers.
-
If you are still around that is. Thanks for answering. Here is another question for you. I take it then that you consider the real events that occurred in Somalia in 1993 not to be racist. Besides the obvious fact that Tolkien created Middle Earth, what difference is there then between the
-
To Raker and the rest, the problem with your questions to Pud and his minions is that they reflect an unhealthy belief that things that happen in the real world actually matter to him. He couldn't care a whit about what actually happened in Somalia, he couldn't care a whit about what actually happened anywhere. Reality alone refutes him, therefore he has to create his own world where he is the one who makes sense, and it is the rest of us who are more than just a bit loony. My hope is that he does not get banned, because he does such a wonderful job of dragging the other trolls down with him. Guilt by association. ...Somewhere over the rainbow, Puds will fly...He is in his own little world where only his dreams come true (never claimed to be a lyricist, but you get the jist)....Ah Pud, we wish you the best of health in mind and body, but we are already too late for the mind. Now don't forget to take your anti-psychotic medication, wouldn't want you to actually get loose in your natural state. Fare thee well.
-
For me, the balrog in the film looks exactly like I pictured it would look like. Minus the horns.
But it's pointless to comment on it, since the description in the book is so vague, that everyones vision of it will be unique, and not everyone will be happy with it's presentation in the movies. -
I think it is a foolish thing to closely compare the book to the movie. Chris Columbus did a remarkable job of translating HP into the movie almost verbatim and something was lost. The movie is PJ
-
Don't ban the PUD; he is as much a part of this place as the rest of you. freedom of speach and all of that.
-
Bodes well, as The Guardian's critics are notoriously hard to please.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/lordoftherings/news/0,11016,858161,00.html -
Of course, I've always thought that simply taking on the quest and continuing in the end was proof of courage beyond any doubt, but (absent the small moves we all miss on Weathertop and at the Ford), Frodo does have some really courageous moments in FOTR. And I confess, one I missed the first few times through - or at least missed the significance of - was that he actively wrenches the Ring back from the Nazgul's reaching hand on Weathertop before being stabbed - in fact, it seems to be this act of defiance and WILL that triggers the stabbing. It's not as obvious as the scene in the book, but given that he is terrified, trapped and helpless, it says, "No!" as much as wielding a blade. Raker has already referred to some other highly courageous moments in the fight with the troll and in his instinctive lunge toward Gandalf (prevented only by Boromir's equally instinctive move to protect Frodo).
-
Casting James Earl Jones proves nothing about Lucas. He just wanted the dollar signs to grow, buddy, and that's all. For all we know he addressed Jones as n$%@*& in the editing room.
-
Dec 11, 2002 1:47:39 PM CST
PUD! The depth of your delusion is truly staggering...
by skyway moaters
...where do I begin? Your last post is the clearest example of "hate speech" in this rather fetid TB. You accuse Tolkien of homophobia and then proceed to bash gays (and Englishmen?!) with total abandon. Good=white and black=evil is a religious metaphor found in any religious canon you care to site. Light =day or
-
and I'll just be sitting down in my chair on my way back to middle earth... I hear what you are saying MorGoth. I sort of think I can see through his foul outside and it doesn't really bug me...but I can see your point.
-
"...were bred to BE cannibals" DOH! *** Namrie Mellyn, an, Trubba Not. SM{;-0
-
who says you can't learn something around this place.
-
enough with the posts bashing pud!. I think it's been well established, by his posts alone, that he is an idiot. Nobody needs to tell us that he is an idiot. We already know.
-
... I submit that the films' characterization of Aragorn is much closer to Tolkien's than the 'nay-sayers' have opined. IMO, Aragorn is an extremely conflicted soul, bordering on tortured. It's brought out over and over in the book, and not just in the appendices. First, he's unsure of his worthiness to restore his bloodline to it's rightful postion. Second, for Aragorn to achieve his goals, 'The One' must be destroyed, which means 'The Three', and all that was built with them will fade, essentially bringing and end to 'Elvendom' in Middle Earth. Third, he was raised in Elrond's household and views the Half Elven lord as a father. Elrond is dead set against his marrying Arwen, and absolutely 'forbids' their union unless Aragorn should regain the throne of Gondor. Fourth, if Arwen marries Aragorn, she must choose to become mortal and die out of the world, surrendering the birth-right of her race. He WANTS Arwen to take-ship with her her people when they inevitably depart MI. But he also loves her, and she "won't take no for answer". So to sum up, in order to achieve his goals, Aragorn must: Win a war against overwhelming odds, defy the clearly stated wishes of his adoptive father, in effect 'banish' the Eldar from Middle Earth, and 'condemn' the love of his life to an end that was never intended for the members of her race. All of which, he is pretty sure he's incapable of accomplishing in the first place. Not exactly the cock-sure stereotypical badass that some describe as Tolkien's Aragorn hmm? What moral person wouldn't be torn over such a large devide between what their heart desires, and what they perceive to be the "right thing to do"?
-
Dec 11, 2002 4:00:38 PM CST
Elfkiller and Jar-Jar whoever you dudes are, may I ask you why a
by jamboreech
If you don't like 'Lord of the Rings', may I ask WHY THE HELL are you in a forum that is labeled Two Towers Review? The people in here are not going up to your Star Wars or whatever else forums you go to and flaming what you like, so why are you especially causing trouble here? No one was talking to you anyways, no one asked you or cared for your opinon on anything and especially nothing gives you the right to come into here and start badmouthing people YOU DONT EVEN KNOW and making assumptions YOU DONT EVEN BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND. There are ways to say you dislike something, some people don't like the movies but they obviously don't come in here like total losers and diss it's fanbase. You obviously have not shown you can write something without being hostile, derogatory, and hating (self-hating most likely). Read the rules to Talkback on the side, NO HATE SPEECH. Gee I thought it was pretty simple and straightforward but its apparent that some people don't understand SIMPLE rules. So just do us a favor and please leave.
-
I have to say, it's quite funny how half the posts on this LOTR thing are dissing the movie. (I myself was in awe..it was spectacular!) Tell me, why in the hell are you IN this chat if you have nothing but insults towards the movie? I respect your opinion but please, this is not a place for diatribe. As for you, Yoda1, the whole time I was reading your review I had this unbelievably goofy grin plastered to my face! I can't tell you how jealous I am! If you haven't been told how LUCKY you are to have gone to something so splendid as that, then I'm telling you now. YOU'RE F*****G LUCKY! I'm sure I'd react just like you if that ever happened to me...Anyways, my comments over, no need to bore you any longer!
-
...DoT, elanor, raker. I does me best. I can occasionally muster the patience for such an effort, but more oftened than not TATOW gets loose depite my sincerest efforts to reign it in. *** NAMARIE MELLYN AN'TRUBBA NOT! Youse ol' Tolkienoids youse! {;-0
-
I can't believe my long-ass post actually got read by some folks. I suppose it did come off as a bit harsh. I would like to add that I thought the extended edition addressed alot of issues I had with the theatrical release, and I had a great time watching it. What it comes down to for me, I suppose, is that Tolkien had a very precise world that fit together logically. The film captured some of that, especially in the extended version, but whenever it deviates, i.e., Aragorn is known in Gondor, or Gimli thinks Balin is livin' it up in Moria (don't people who haven't read the books wonder why Gimli seems to think his cousin is ruling in Moria, when everyone else is terrified of the place, and it looks like it has been abandoned for hundreds of years?). Either explain briefly that Gimli thinks Balin MIGHT be there, because he went to take it back from the orcs but nobody's heard from him in a while, or just leave Balin out of it... Of course I'm biased towards accuracy, but it really seems like the movie is at its best when adhering closely to Tolkien. When it gets off course, the logical structure doesn't hold together as well. Is this just my bias, or do ya'll see what I'm saying? The tapestry is so complex that a loose thread kinda leads to a chain reaction, or whatever ;-). Last point; I really enjoyed the movie, and no doubt will love The Two Towers, but in the end, I think the best dramatic adaption to date is the BBC radio series. Does that mean I'm a snob? :-0
-
Your last post had me with you almost all the way (very good metaphor about the tapestry threads), until you brought up the BBC radio adaptation. Dear GOD, how I loathed it... From the Nazgul galloping about like frenzied coconuts to Robert Stephens' nasal Aragorn to Ian Holms' sniveling Frodo (wouldn't he have retained his youthful vocal cords, not to mention lack of sinus problems, when he inherited the Ring?).... I played the scene in the Tower for my sister, and she was as stunned and appalled as I was at the way the scene was utterly ruined. I understand it's supposed to be the gold standard for adaptations, but all I could think of while listening (and I did listen to the whole thing) was PLEASE don't let Peter Jackson have been influenced by this! Anyway, although it makes no sense that Gimli is so optimistic about Moria, and Aragorn so reluctant (to put it mildly, in the scene at Gilraen's grave) to re-forge Narsil, it really is nothing in the balance, against the hundreds of hours of bliss I have experienced watching just the first movie. And (as Elanor has counseled me, and as I know from my own experience with the first), I'm sure my enjoyment of TTT will grow with multiple viewings, as I let go of my expectations of what "should" be there and just revel in what is.
-
Dec 11, 2002 9:46:26 PM CST
No Emma, more than half of the posts are by people who liked the
by jamboreech
-
That was a great read, Yoda1. Sounds like your good fortune could not have fallen on more appropriate shoulders. Glad you and your friends had fun rubbing shoulders with the stars and filmmakers, I wish I could've been there!
-
That's right! FRODO is the walrus! Goo goo ga-joob! I kid, I kid. Walrus, I actually think PJ was pretty justified in making everything a bit more extreme. It is a big event picture, after all. The orcs and Elves and such would have been OK were it not for what I saw as errors of judgement regarding plot. Then again, PJ is a filmmaker, and I'm not. Alot of folks would, as you suggest, probably have been bored by my version. That being said, let me just juxtapose a couple quotes. I said, "Orcs are not quite the monstrous beings they are in PJ's version, they're just kind of wretched and twisted." You replied, "And you know this how? ...I don't recall there being any concrete description...aside from fleeting references to them being swart, hunched over, with long arms and basically being degraded forms of elves, twisted by Morgoth and Sauron. (blatant sarcasm deleted)." Well, in my opinion, you've kinda made my point. I would consider that an arguement FOR what I was saying. And no, I'm not a Balrog wing fiend. I don't really care. Actually, I liked PJ's portrayal of the wings. It was very half-and-half, sort of shadows, sort of wings. As for the tree-city, there is only one building in a tree that is referenced, in the big tree, right in the center. It has a "a house, so large that almost it would have served for a hall of men upon the earth." Look, all I'm trying to say is that PJ stressed how intent he was on maintaining the realism of Tolkien's world, and yet he ended up, as I said, making some things too pretty, some things too ugly, etc. In the interests of good cinema, and the general public's expectations, I think it was the right way to go. But I was a bit dissapointed. As for Frodo's courage, I'm not saying that it is less courageous for a 17 year old Frodo to go on this quest, it's just less unique. Movie heroes are typically young guys, we expect it, unless you want to talk about Ahnold, but we all know he should stop making movies anyway. PJ's treatment of Frodo seems to me to be a thematic change. Again, it harks back to what may be a cinematic necessity, i.e., the audience expects/is more comfortable with a young hero. In any case, I stand by my statement that these two Frodos are fundamentally different. In the chapter Shadow of the Past, while Frodo does have a sudden desire to go after Bilbo, he also is very reluctant to leave, and ends up delaying it as long as he can. I have no doubt that the young Frodo in the movie loves the shire, but there is no particular struggle within himself when it comes to leaving, and he does it quite quickly. Again, these are cinematic purposes being served, but ultimately I think Tolkien's presentation is more unique and more satisfying.
-
Well, fair enough. I guess in some cases it's just each to their own. I grew up with the BBC adaption along with the book; my brother recorded it off NPR when they broadcasted it in the eighties. Personally, I love it, although I can't entirely dissagree with you on Robert Steven's performance. However, if Andy Serkis comes anywhere near Peter Woodthorpe's Gollum, I'll be overjoyed. In closing, I would just like to say that if you hated the BBC version, pray to God you never hear even a sentence from the Mind's Eye one (although it is the only dramatized version I know of that includes good old TB!).
-
I haven't gotten around to reading your post yet, so my other replies are not in answer to you. Since you did me the courtesy of writing such an elaborate response, I will certainly read it and reciprocate, but I gotta take a break for a bit!
FMG -
It's El-A-nor, of course!
-
Dec 11, 2002 11:49:25 PM CST
pud and jarjarboinks keep going it is funny to see reactions to
by the killer-goat
pud and jarjarboinks you guys are like the funniest most sarcastic poster i have seen on this tb and you made me laugh very much i think no one is getting your humor which is too bad because no one could possibly mistake it but there they are so i guess you can keep playing with peoples minds until then and pud all your homo examples are priceless humor and jarjarboinks is the best starwars fanboy spoofer and thats da bomb peace out
-
...the guy is a one joke moron, kind of like "PUD!". So Shepherd, I guess you missed the part where I asked Pud to cite some examples so that I could refute them, again. Are you sure you know who the gullible ones are on this board? Who's baiting who? You've come in at the end of two year "conversation" and put your little pointy hoof squarely in your mouth...
-
Dec 12, 2002 12:19:15 AM CST
Or maybe that's goatkiller's pointy little hoof in your mouth?
by skyway moaters
-
This isn't particularly in response to any of today's posts, but a general musing on the subject of what it means to be one age inside and another outside - if it means anything at all. What DOES it mean to be just turned "of age" physically and 51 internally - and might it not mean something entirely different in Frodo's world? I've been told more than once that, metaphysically, we're all about 30 inside, and that seems about right. That is to say, we grow up, we mature, but at some point, we become "ourself," and while the outer self ages, the inner self remains fairly constant, adding experience and sometimes wisdom (though I sometimes think we both gain and lose wisdom as we age). This might account for the shock most people my age (which is book-Frodo's) feel when they contrast how they feel internally with what they see in the mirror. And I remember once in my early 20s having it strike me with incredible emotional force that the grandmother I knew, who had just died, was the SAME PERSON as the person in the photo I had of her at 26. In fact, I think there is something wonderful and liberating in realizing that you are really dealing with the spirit, at any age - old age or youth no barrier. But getting back to Frodo, it's almost impossible to reckon how much different the internal aging process must be in the Shire than that of our world. It isn't just that Frodo doesn't age, externally, in 17 years. His very world doesn't change. Think of the stresses that most of us have that he doesn't have: he has a "competence" that gives him unlimited leisure in which he lacks nothing (he has books, a comfortable bed, enough clothes, plenty of food, a well-stocked wine cellar!), but also desires nothing materially; his social life consists of friendship, pure and simple; he is more aware than his neighbors that there is a world beyond the Shire, but it has yet to impact him (no wars or recessions threaten his horizons); he is healthy and attractive ("taller and fairer than most"), physically active, intelligent, good-natured, occasionally bored and irritated by his fellow hobbits (but too kind to show it), content with his own company but charming and companionable in a pub... in short, the "best hobbit in the Shire," at any age, one would think - and I'm not at all sure how a Frodo at 33 (which we are assuming is the human equivalent of 21) would differ greatly from a Frodo at 51. In any event, I don't think Elijah Wood looks "too young" for Frodo precisely because he also projects a kind of spirit and depth few actors have at any age. You can see that he is thinking and feeling at every moment. There is an openness to him that I've found equally in very mature youth or old people touched by sanctity (I know of no other word for it). A light, if you will. At any rate, I can no longer imagine any other Frodo, nor do I want to.
-
I just couldn't resist. I figured, either these guys were yanking the chains so hard the anchor was threatening to fall on them, or they were actually serious about their posts. In either case, a silly, grammar-free post was befitting. I just found their posts to be incredibly funny, and I couldn't stop laughing. Honestly, I sincerely hoped their comments were all in jest. But if there truly has been a 'feud' amongst you, then pud and jarjar obviously win the anti-matter award for density.
-
... There really is no inconsistency between the book and the films as long as you consider the effect of the ring upon its bearers. Frodo turns 33 in the beginning: "A Long Expected Party". Hobbits "come of age" at 33. So, it is logical to extrapolate that a Hobbit of 33 is roughly equivalent to a modern day human of 21 years. In the novel, seventeen years pass before Frodo leaves The Shire, which would make him 50 years old when the quest begins. BUT, one must take into account the life extending effect of The Ring. Frodo, according to Tolkien himself, looks much the same at 50 as he did at the Hobbit tender age of 33. So much so that other Hobbits remark that it is "unnatural", "too much of a good thing", and "will have to be paid for". Pippin is only 29 at the beginning of the quest, still in his "tweens" as the Hobbits say. Although Merry's age is never explicitly stated, he is good friends with Pippin, and Tolkien refers to him as "one of Frodo's younger friends". Which implies that he is over 33 but not by much. I always got the impression that Sam, although it isn't explicitly stated either, is roughly the same age as Merry and Pippin. Therefore, logically, all four Hobbits should resemble human men in their early twenties...
-
Is Victoria Alexander the same lady who last year came up with the 'bow guy', or am I getting my critics confused. She starts by asking why did Bilbo give Frodo the ring.
-
I think she must have written this on drugs. She never backs up her points; she flounders about, and well maybe she is just looking for hits on her web page.
-
If you really want them exactly, the birth dates are all in the appendixes. In fact, Sam (and Pippin, and probably Merry) would have been children at Bilbo's party. (It took me a few readings of the book to sort this out, and to grasp that Frodo's referring to Sam as "my lad" wasn't just because he was a member of the servant class, but also because Sam IS younger than Frodo, though I always pictured Sam older, by the same token - aren't faithful manservants usually older?) In any case, yes, they should all look like young adults, but Sam should indeed look a bit older than Frodo.
-
I just want to say that it is okay to not like LOTR. I'm a HUGE
fan of the movies and the book, but only because it is more personal. I've been a writer since I was eight and I went from genre to genre until I saw FOTR and it was like Peter Jackson hit me on the back of the head with a newspaper. I now have a novel finished and in the process of being edited to be sent. Fantasy was my genre all along and Jackson and Tolkien has the credit for showing me that. I have a friend who is going to film school--her inspiration is the movie My Girl. I'm not fond of that movie, but so what! So to those who feel attacked for not liking LOTR--brush it off and watch the movies you like!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 165 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 153 total posts 138 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 47 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 36 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 36 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 117 total posts 26 posts