Cool News
Quint Reviews THE TWO TOWERS!
Hey folks, Harry here... I warned Quint not to see this at a press screening. That's so not the right way to see the film. I'm dying. By 9pm tonight, I'll be in a room full to the brim with LOTR lovers watching a beautiful 35mm print of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING... then, after a brief intermission, we'll be turning the page to watch THE TWO TOWERS. Sure, Quint will be there tonight, but jesus christ in a flaming manger of death, why on earth would you... just a fucking week ahead of time choose to see this thing with critics... yuck! At this point I'm just giddy. These recent internet trailers are driving me nutsoid. Watching those Ents coming out of the forest - just blissful... Dad, me and the Possum Queen will be checking this baby out soon enough, and I can't wait, but I can. However, this next 17 hours are going to slooooooooooow waaaaaaaaaay doooooooooooown till I see FOTR, then... oh.... 6 hours of theatrical LOTR joy with a roaring crowd of filmlovers... YESSSSS! I love the Alamo Drafthouse!!!!! Here's the miserable spoiled soul...
Ahoy, squirts... Everybody's precious and very crusty seaman, Quint, here with my views of the highly anticipated second installment of the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, THE TWO TOWERS, which I've been trying my hardest for the past week to figure out how to put into words how I felt about it.
Holy Mary Mother of God... Thanks for reading my review. I think that's all that needs to be said.
-Quint
email: Email me here, you pervy hobbit touchers!
What?You want to know more? What for? OK! OK! I'll do it... I honestly don't know what else needs to be said, but whatever.
For you fans of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, you don't need me to tell you to go see this movie. My only advice to you guys is pick a theatre in your city that you know has great sound and picture and go before Sunday. Don't avoid the crowds, seek them out. See it with a theatre full of charged fans who are excited to be watching the movie. My only regret about the film is I saw it at a press screening with a room full of stuffy press people who for some reason train themselves to not show any kind of emotion during a movie. It's one thing to respect the film and not talk, but to not show any emotion whatsoever during a movie like THE TWO TOWERS... I just don't get it.
People want to know about Gollum. Let me start by saying that the CG work on Gollum is spectacular, but it's not the completely flawless "I thought he was real! No way he's an effect!" work that people have been reporting. The real flawlessness comes from the realization of the character of Gollum. The attention to detail in the CG work is rivaled only by the attention to detail in the character work. Gollum is without a doubt the best CG character ever put to film.
When you first see him, there's no doubt he's an effect, a grand and finely detailed and executed effect, but an effect nonetheless... That starts to change the second time we see him. You get so drawn into the tragedy of his existence, the inner struggle of Smeagol (the good) and Gollum (the evil) and his little quirky mannerisms he ceases being a CG character. You find you'll just be watching Gollum/Smeagol, not that great CG work. Props go to Andy Serkis. I'm glad New Line's pushing him for the Best Supporting Oscar. I don't think there's a chance in hell he'll get it, but if I were a member of the Academy I'd vote for him...
The first film set the bar and THE TWO TOWERS is a perfect compliment to it. These films are what we as fans have been bitching at Hollywood for not making for the last 15 years. High adventure, high production value, great characters, great acting, great story, an amazing score... These films are iconic and if RETURN OF THE KING is anywhere near as good a follow-up as THE TWO TOWERS then sweet jesus... We have a perfect trilogy.
I still prefer FELLOWSHIP over TWO TOWERS, but as of yet I've only seen TWO TOWERS once (next is tomorrow night at the sold out first midnight showing with a theatre full of cheering geeks, hopefully). The action in THE TWO TOWERS is far and above what we saw in FELLOWSHIP. The only thing missing is the intimacy of the first film, but being ACT 2 if it had that intimacy it would have made the trilogy uneven.
Brad Dourif shines in the few minutes he's in the film as Grima Wormtongue. He's such a slimy little cocksucker! I've known people like that in my life (still know one, actually) and Dourif grabs slimy cocksucker characteristics by the balls, digs in the nails and runs with 'em. Great job! Hope I see a lot more of him in the next flick.
Bernard Hill plays Theoden and sweet god he does a great job. Theoden is a tough character... Always teetering between stupid asshole and sympathetic king. He shows real emotion, real exhaustion, real fear. Fantastic job.
Miranda Otto is also fantastic in the film, though hasn't much to do. I can't wait for her to start kicking ass in RETURN OF THE KING, but she's a perfectly introduced character. We see the longing in her eyes to be a warrior not just another woman who needs protection, but we also see her love of Theoden, her king and uncle and respect for his wishes. Very subtle work is done by Ms. Otto and Harry is right on. She's without a doubt droolalicious.
The cast from the first film turn in equally great performances. Elijah, Sean, Viggo, Orlando, John, Dom, Billy... Great work guys!
Helm's Deep with blow your asses away. Just warning ya'.
The score keeping between Gimli and Legolas is priceless and perfectly depicted. Funny, but not stupid funny. As much as I want to avoid the whole LOTR vs Star Wars thing, I think Mr. Lucas should look at what Jackson did with Gimli during the Helm's Deep battle. John Rhys-Davies is really funny, but never ever comes close to anything like "I'm beside myself." He's not a fucking cartoon is what I'm saying.
Treebeard is amazing as well. The full on shots of him walking are pretty obvious CG shots, but those close up of his face are astonishingly good. Those eyes of his are so full of life you forget you're watching a damn tree. Perfectly realized. Count me impressed with Treebeard and the other Ents.
I could go on for thousands of words on this film which is why I first tried to keep it short and sweet... So, I'm going to stop now... God Bless you folks at WETA, God Bless you Peter Jackson. You folks are making magic here and I am already dying to see the next film. Way to go Howard Shore for the amazing score. Great job, Philippa on Gollum's Song. If you don't win the Oscar I'm going to punch a hole in the nearest wall. Amazing song, sung perfectly by Emiliana Torrini .
I'll be back soon, squirts. You're not rid of me that easily. I'll have some cool interviews and more movie reviews of this Christmas' offerings. 'Til that day, this is Quint bidding you all a fond farewell and adieu.
-Quint
-
+ Expand All
-
I really can't wait. i have not been looking forward to any movie in quite sometime lit I am with Two Towers. The hours are counying down, like Harry said, slllllllooooooow. But can't wait till midnight!!!
-
This next day can't go fast enough. The anticipation is killing me and Quint's review makes me want to just snap and break into the theater just to see it now! Just thought you'd like ta know...
-
in that last post, but I'm to excited. It's great being a geek, no matter what anyone says. I pity those who cant experiance the fun of it all
-
I have not gotten advanced ticket before, ever. Not for Star War, Star Trek, or any other event movie. But The Two Towers, well ya I got them two weeks ago. I can't wait, CAN'T FUCKING WAIT!!! I've wanted to see this movie since the end credits rolled on Fellowship. No, I wont show up to a screening dressed like a hobbit but I need to see this film and I am excited to see it with a bunch of other ubergeeks who want to see this thing as badly as I do.
-
24 hours to go.....tick....tick....
-
Just won a local competition here in Waterloo, ON, Canada. Got to see it two days before everyone else. And what I felt about the movie, my subject sums it up pretty well. Now, this is an achievement. Hey did anyone notice the Peter Jackson cameo at Helm's Deep.
-
Dec 17, 2002 4:15:15 AM CST
I'VE JUST SEEN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE GOLLUM DIES AT TH
by chuckrussel
(just kiddding) But I did see it last week. AMAZING! Can't wait to see it again at midnight!
'nuff said -
I swear to god, I must be the only fan of the original film who felt that the original theatrical cut of Fellowship felt lacking...
Most of my concerns were adressed in the recently released extended edition but I still felt... I don't know... a certain rushed aspect to the editing. I'm not saying that what was written was rusehd, but rather as put it together it felt like "do as many cuts as you can to keep it exciting"... it felt over-edited in a Bruckheimer way that undermined what I felt was a first rate effort from everyone invloved, from Peter Jackson on down.
I guess what I'm worried about is that seeing this film in the theatres will feel to me like a preview of the extended cut, which was willing to calm down for some breathing room. -
I'm giddy with excitement to see this movie. I'm so glad somebody gave PJ the means to make something truely great. Props to Richard Taylor and the whole crew. It's wonderful to be in the thick of film history. We will all lovingly look back on these days. Not since the original SW trilogy have i felt so goofy with anticipation. It's especially nice to have been a long time PJ fan and to see him rise to the top .......
-
Glad to see Quint not go the typical fanboy route with the review on this one. Rather subdued and practical, with only a wee bit of emotional flourish here and there. And to the retard who keeps posting that Hulk pic on all the talkbacks, yeah, we've seen the pic. It's been out half a week now, over on superherohype.com. It's also called "The Movie's Theatrical Banner." Great going, pally, you're really on top of shit there, wiseguy. God, it's so sad when the main writers can keep their dicks in their pants on something and morons like you in talkback can't.
-
Would these movies be any good without their expensive special effects? Would they heck. Haven't any of you noticed that the actual story is a bit, well, crap?
-
Name me a movie that has come out recently that has action and is not lacking in story? I can't think of any, at least not in the past year or so.
-
Just such a shame that after this we will have to wait so long for Return of the King.
####
On a side note/dig this shows a great comparison between Jackson who uses ILM to FURTHER the story compared to Lucas who uses to the detriment of the story such as it was. -
I feel as though the focus on action in this trilogy is a good thing. The first film would have been an instant classic, but was hampered at times by awkward pacing and heavy exposition. It was a bit slow getting off the ground, but then blossomed into a great flick.
By now, 99% of people going to see The Two Towers know the score. They know who these people are, what to expect, and what they want to see. They come for the action, the excitement, and the visual realization of Tolkien's very wordy and descriptive prose.
Let's face it; these films are not 'perfect adaptations' of Tolkien's work. They are, however, perfect companion pieces. If you enjoyed the books, you'll enjoy the movies. If you enjoyed the movies, but have never read the books, you'll want to start reading the books after seeing the films.
Films and novels are two completely different beasts. One is a highly verbal medium; the other is a mostly visual medium. In my opinion, adaptations do best when they don't try to "be" the book -- instead, opting to expand upon it, flesh it out, or simply translate words into imagery and motion.
Peter Jackson's LOTR is the perfect addition to J.R.R. Tolkien's LOTR. Nothing more, and nothing less. -
I was seriously underwhelmed by FOTR, it's probably the most overrated flick ever. From what I hear, TTT is boring and too feckin long. But since that didn't stop FOTR from becoming a huge success I expect the same will happen to TTT.
-
The subject says my first thought. On second thought, I, too, have been blessed with being able to see TTT at a press release screening. Loved the movie and I'm looking forward to tonight's midnight showing with fellow fans. As for PJs cameo, I missed it. I thought he might have been in the crowd that Saruman was inciting but I didn't see him there. I'll look more closely tonight during Helms Deep.
-
Seein' it tonight! Seein' it tonight! Everyone who didn't like FOTR should have their heads examined. LOTR is going to change movie-making just as SW did 25 years ago. What a great time to be a geek! Cheers!
-
Okay, so anyone want to know why PJ has a fetish for over the top (OTT) moments in the first two Rings movie (i.e., Galadriel grimace-inducing transformation scene, Theoden probably as awkward exorcism)? Answer: To make the moment when Denethor burn his arse not only triumphantly tragic and emotionally sad but also intentionally hilarious. Seriously. Galadriel-"I used 'magic' to be OTT"; Theoden-"I had 'magic' used on me to be OTT"; Denethor-"Well, PJ ran out of money, so we had to use practical effect to be OTT. Unfortunately, it killed." Jackson is a genius.
-
FOTR wasnt long enough. I think its a fantastic achievement and TTT looks like continuing the trend. I know a few (very few)people who claim FOTR was 'dull' or 'boring' and no matter how hard I try to understand these people -I cant. The only conclusion I can come to is that people seem to be lacking the ability to enjoy anything that doesnt have huge explosions or hammy dialogue and 'plots' that requires zero brain power to follow. This film is majestic with genuine, warm characters with soul. I love the 'action-less' scenes just as much as the action-packed ones....maybe even more so.
-
Okay, so anyone want to know why PJ has a fetish for over the top (OTT) moments in the first two Rings movie (i.e., Galadriel grimace-inducing transformation scene, Theoden probably as awkward exorcism)? Answer: To make the moment when Denethor burn his arse not only triumphantly tragic and emotionally sad but also intentionally hilarious. Seriously. Galadriel-"I used 'magic' to be OTT"; Theoden-"I had 'magic' used on me to be OTT"; Denethor-"Well, PJ ran out of money, so we had to use practical effect to be OTT. Unfortunately, it killed me." Jackson is a genius.
-
If the battle of Helm's Deep is like pg. 130 of book two and in the movie it is at the end of the 3 hours, what about all of the shit that comes afterward?
-
The thing is you CANNOT just 'copy' the text from the book and 'paste' onto screen and create a great film that has world-wide appeal to those who have AND havent heard of LOTR, without making some changes to aid its pacing and flow. How absurd would it have been to have Boromir die at the beginning of TTT?!??!? His death at the end of FOTR was magnificent, I have NEVER witnessed a more moving cinematic death (apart from maybe Optimus Prime's death in TF the Movie -broke my heart as a kiddie that did -snif!) Anyway, I digress, I have complete trust in PJ to adapt Tolkien's wonderful books to film and sit patiently in front of my PC twiddling my thumbs, waiting for tomorrow!!!
-
heh. *I mean to say there wasn't anything NEW said*
-
"When you first see him, there's no doubt he's an effect, a grand and finely detailed and executed effect, but an effect nonetheless..." That's no different than seeing Jim Carrey playing Andy Kaufman in "Man on the Moon". We you first see Carrey in makeup, you realize it's him. Halfway through the film you realize you're not watching Jim Carrey anymore, you're watching Andy Kaufman. Its like the first time you saw Jar Jar Binks and thought "Wow, he's a neat effect" and later in the film you forget he's CGI and become totally consumed by the fact that he's a bufooning fucking retard that's ruining an entire movie. At that point you don't even give a shit that he's CGI. If Gollum's character adds to the film, no one will care about him being CGI.I don't think there's a special effect out there that would make you think Gollum wasn't an "effect". Unless you used an emaciated, 80 year old crack-addicted midget. Or Stephen Hawking. He might work.
-
The story is CRAP!!! That's why the books were the best-selling books for the entire 20th century. The story is so crappy that more people bought more copies of Lord of the Rings than any other book except the Bible. You know, Evilody, when you post things as profoundly stupid as the shit you posted, you leave no doubt in anyone's mind that you are an incredibly stupid, moronic asshole.
-
"... It's a funny name." "It's a big hat, it's funny."
-
My countdown counter says only 16 hours 12 minutes and 50 seconds.
**goes insane
--Jaundice-- -
Good to see more updates, dieiing for the Harry Review. Tommorrow???? Please?? So I can read it before I go in the morning? Lucas should pay attention, as has been duly noted time and time and time again. So what if this movie ain't perfect. That's not the point. They got this thing to work on the big screen. We have it on the big screen. We get to go to Middle Earth in a Visual way. And it has been just as enjoyable as going there with the books in the 'verbal' way.
------------PJ has done it, he proved it last year. He has captured the melancholy, the innocence and spritual essence of MiddleEarth. He has also capture the brutality, the loss and the leaving of Middle Earth. And there is still 1 film to go. -
I admit to NOT liking the books as much as most. They were too episodic and lacked the joy found in much of the, oh say " Chroncals of Narnia." Before you start knocking me as a hater, I think The Fellowship is one of the great fantasy movies but, like the books, it lacks a little bit of joy. It doesn't rate with the great epics of all time. . . yet. It's like how "Star Wars" was a great fun space movie with cool effects and characters before part 2 kicked in. Maybe by the time the trilogy gets finished it will rate with "Sparticus," "Lawrence," "The Godfather I and II," and "The Wizzard of Oz." I can see it happening and I'm sure rooting for it. I'll be there opening weekend.
-
and I would like to take this opportunity to apologise deeply and profusely for any offence I have caused from my disgraceful behaviour in daring to have a different opinion from him. Rest assured, I have now changed my view completely following his enlightened post.
-
ever notice how Faramir is never brought up by anyone who has seen the movie. Where the hell did he go?
-
Or more accurately, PJ has perverted his character so much that everyone's blocking it out. i.e., he's a Boromir-lite who desires the ring, instead of being Aragorn-lite and too noble to do anything nefarious.
-
I don't mind the change. I am more curious about the actor and his job as Faramir...
-
can't wait to see that.
-
we don't need no spiders in this movie...It is spider discrimination by PJ. Free the spider!
-
I believe they pushed back "her" scenes to the third movie.
And yes, pity about Faramir. It is one thing to eliminate a character because you don't have time (Tom Bombadil). It is another to have one character perform the actions of a different character because she otherwise doesn't exist in the story but you need to be able to justify a romance (Arwen). It is yet another to totally change a character from honorable and heroic (if burdened by duty) to dishonorable. It'd be like making a movie about Snow White where one of the dwarves is an arsonist. Exactly how does that help? I feel that Faramir's original character would work just fine. In the book it is his duty to slay them, and he does make the scenes menacing because of that, but he wears his (good) heart on his sleeve.
Ah well, sucks to be a fan boy I guess. I'll just have to grimace and get past that part.
Animation -
Dec 17, 2002 10:41:00 AM CST
I can't believe no one thought of Stephen Hawking as Gollum befo
by ok then
Of course, you'd still need Serkis' voice -- that electronic drone wouldn't cut it -- but wow! What a great idea!
-
From everything I've read up to this point, Faramir isn't dishonorable or anything. He makes the same decision the book Faramir does; movie Faramir just takes longer to do it. He's still a good guy, though.
-
Well, 19 hours and 38 minutes to go... hello Tail-Enders!
-
I needed a bit of hope, maybe the Faramir parts won't be too distracting. Thanks!
-
whatever happened to the witty TBer I used to know? Now you come in here with threats of lightsabers to our hinders. There's no need for this internecine geek strife. Let's all join hands in celebration of escapist entertainment in whatever form it may take, be it Yoda kung-fu fighting or hobbits wandering aimlessly.
-
Fox News, "That's Entertainment" segment claimed that Viggo's 22 year old girlfriend dumped him because he doesn't bathe enough. I guess the 44 year old renaissance man should start hitting on French chippies.
-
how about Titanic. No buddy beats it. It will squash anakin like the two towers is going to squash two weeks. They will raise her from the depths of the Atlantic, and it will roll right over that poor ol Anakin. He better bust out some more light sabers. Not only that look at how many oscars Titanic took home. It is the envy of the movie world. Hmmm must be because I have only 26 1/2 hours until I get to go back to middle earth.
-
He gave FOTR only three stars! I'm wondering if since then he's seen the extended cut and if hopefully, he dug TTT.
-
What are you ultimately trying to say? You seem to be boasting at the fact that ATOC is moving gradually up the highest grossing films list, beating ROTJ (the weakest of the OT)......WHOOPEE-FUCKING-DOO!! WHO CARES?? I dont care if it became the number one grossing film...its still SHIT!! SW (OT) and LOTR still piss all over it. Hell, I can think of loads of films that quite literally use ATOC as their BITCH! Do you think that even if ATOC did take more money than LOTR (which it WONT), its a better film? Tell me, how much box office cash did Shawshank make or maybe the Godfather films? Did they make more than ATOC? I wouldnt have thought so.....but does that mean ATOC is a better film....OF COURSE NOT!!!!! I'll be the first to admit that the film that makes the most money is NOT by default the BEST film....CHRIST I mean look at TITANIC!!!! People who drone on and on about how much money a film makes are just losers. Cant you instead try and point out the good points (if any) in ATOC? Then your arguement might have some weight to it (y'know....to convince us that ATOC is a great film -which is isnt of course). Currently its just a pointless statement. LOSER!
-
I love the way only American box office is used. As if the rest of the world is irrelevant. In money terms it is certainly not. Take a look at worldwide grosses. I think you will find that AOTC has some way to go to catch up LOTR.
-
Goddammit, these TBs used to be amusing. I have to say, the Golden Age of Trolling LOTR TBs is definitely over. Now everybody is reduced to sockpuppetry and shock tactics like racism. I dread to think what the quality will be like by the time ROTK comes out. But never mind. Huge love and kisses and hugs and stuff to all the TE'ers off to see this tomorrow.
-
since when does box office count?
-
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZ
-
So non-US box office is not important is it?
Well lets look at the facts.
Titanic made 67% of its box office outside the US.
TPM = 53%
LOTR = 63%
Harry Potter = 67%
AOTC = 51%
These 5 films alone made $3,264 million non-US. Somehow I do not believe that their investors considered this an irrelevance.
As for name any non-US films worth squat?
3 names for you;
Lean, Kurosawa, Hitchcock.
Your arguments are so fetid that its hard to believe.
-
Why must you constantly search for the attention you so achingly crave on these talkbacks? What is wrong with you, sir? Why don't you go to a bar and bug the bartender, at least you're paying him. Or get a pro, do whatever you have to do...but please stop baiting the poor, sensitive fanboys on this site. They are helpless, like baby seals. You, however, are a boring schmuck. You sad, sad little man. You've probably always dreamed of getting your name in lights, haven't you? And this talkback is the closest you'll ever come, and you know that, too, don't you? And that's what hurts, that's what really hurts. Come on, let it out, let those tears fall. You'll feel better in the end, and MAYBE YOU'LL STOP HARRASSING PEOPLE ABOUT LOTR AND GET A GODDAM LIFE, YOU EFFING LOSER.
-
I'm not sure what all the comotion is over this review of LOTR: Two Towers - why doubt if someones already seen it?
I recently went to a BAFTA preview screening of the new film here in the UK at the Odeon Leic square (last thursday) and can happily say this film is as wonderful as the first.
I'm not going to review in any detail, as im sure Harry et al will do that upon their 'geek screening' in the US tonight.
But i wanted to point out a few things that no one in their 'reviews' seem to cover.(spoliers!)
Other than Gandalf's fight with the Balrog as he tumbles through the mines of Moria at the start, and a small piece where a group of disident Rohan Riders attack the Orcs holding Merry and Pippin at the side of Fangorn forest; the first fighting kicks in around 2 hours into the film (Kings small group of 'Rohan Riders' being attacked by Orcs) from which point the action is pretty relentless.
The much hyped Helm's Deep is spectacular and the attack on Isengard is simply breath-taking(though i wanted to last longer) - one of the most potent moments i've seen in a film for a long time. Although far shorter than Helm's Deep, i found it as, if not more moving.
But the Orcs attack (and Ents attacking Isengard) is only a third of the film. The army marching out of Isengard is immense. The Riders of Rohan look fantastic. The hobbits are simply outstanding again (except one small bit at the foot of the black gate is a bit dodgy when they are hiding),
and Gollum is as good as people had said. He's simply amazing. The peice where he (Smeagol) starts arguing with himself (Gollum) over whether Frodo is his friend (upon betraying him earlier with the Men of Gondor) was, considering what an emotional part of the script it is, simply outstanding especially as he's a CG character. My only gripe is they don't explain why the rope around his neck burns when they first capture him (its eleven rope) - still minor point.
Gimli is great, though i did think the jokes at the start of Helm's deep considering the tension, was unnecessary. The rest of the cast was excellent as well - but i wont give anymore away. Oh except Mordor is incredible (for the short period you see it). The scale of the blackgate and the huge Orcs used to open them was breathtaking.
Anyway, i'm spoiling it enough as it is and i could go on. If you're a fan of the first film, you'll love this, no doubt about it. Just make sure you don't need the toilet when they leave the Golden Hall to go to Helm's Deep (I did) as you won't get a chance to leave the screen for the next hour - its relentless.
I'm sure it will have its critics, but its a beautiful film as good as the first but for different reasons.
Nick -
Opening night tickets (me + bitch). The cinema is brand new and state of the art. Also, the cinema is one minute away by sub. Drinking some wine. Relaxing. The movie starts midnight. I'm working tomorrow and I just dont care. I love you guys! Weee!
N -
It's really quite annoying. I posted a mild response to his ravings over in a Nemesis room. Then I come here and find it's the same crap? Maybe he's just doing this to get attention. Ya think? Well, he's got mine. I can only hope he's joking. Box office numbers have NO bearing on artistic merit. Most of these top 50 movies are sequels aided by the buzz generated by their predecessors. Without the Star Wars name, AOTC would MAYBE break 100M. Word of its mediocrity as a movie would spread like wildfire. There's NO relation between grosses and movie quality. By fettastic's logic, The Shawshank Redemption isn't worth anyone's time, having grossed only $28M (according to boxofficemojo). Peter Jackson and the rest of the LOTR cast/crew have attempted to bring to screen a revered epic story. Star Wars just seems to bring truth to the Spaceballs parody... "stay tuned for Star Wars Ep ##:The Search For More Money". --d
-
WO TOWERS (TT) is a good movie, better than average. That said, it
-
"Impotace." Man most people on these boards have the occasional bad grammar (usually due to typos), but that is amazing! Well done. (Let's see how long it takes this imbecile to flame me, and let's count the grammar mistakes when he does.)
-
"Impotace" is what happens when someone experiences the impetus to become impotent. So, let's ease up on fettastic's choices of words. It is evidental that he is referending a new language that hasn't existentiated before. Perhaps based on Jabba-ese? --d
-
Well, I've always maintained that all Bloom brings to the role of Legolas is a limited range of blank expressions.
-
Read the book again. the first half (book) is all aragorn, gimili, legolas, gandalf, hobbits and ents. the second half (book) is all sam, frodo and gollum. PJ cuts 'em up, so it'll be a little more interesting on the big screen.
-
You're going to get me in trouble, making me laugh out loud like that at work. That was sheerly infintesticall hilariousment.
-
Dec 17, 2002 1:16:59 PM CST
"I warned Quint not to see this at a press screening. That's so
by iamlegolas
Hmm.... I saw it last Saturday night at LACMA in L.A. with a sold-out crowd watching a beautiful 35mm print (DTS sound and everything). Definitely a fanboy/fangirl crowed, everyone cheered at the right places and everything. I guess I scored in seeing it early and in the correct viewing conditions! I so rule... great movie BTW I'm debating in seeing it again tonight!
-
Me and my buddy have our tickets for 11:30AM tomorrow! If a theatre has 3 screens with showings a half hour apart, and 11:30AM is the first one, how early should we get to the theatre to esnure good seats? I live in Burlington Ontario, in case any of you want to use that in your calculations.
-
Go NOW. heh. I'm going with some friends at midnight tonight. I'm trying to convince them to leave shortly, and I live in a small Georgia town. I'm kidding, of course, but if I have to sit in the first two rows, I'm gonna kill somebody. -d
-
How can you compare HP to LOTR? That's nuts, man. If it weren't for Tolkien, that JK Rowling would still be giving rimjobs for nickels behind the East Squatney Shoney's. Fuck man, I like Potter OK, but there's just no fuckin' comparison. That reviewer's a cockdrinking loser. And I thought Shalit was bad...
-
http://www.theonering.net/movie/scrapbook/large/5673
-
sarcasm.
man harry, you really hire some great people to "write" for the site
-
I just read it, and it means nothing. This is obviously somebody who cares little for this type of movie. You can tell by his first criticisms (I think?) regard the dreary setting and "Mister" Frodo. He didn't care for the first and seems to not care for Tolkien's vision at all. Not everybody will like these flicks. Shouldn't matter what anyone says anyway. If I like it or not, I'll not know until tonight. Elliot's objectivity regarding THE MOVIE ITSELF is nowhere to be found, so the criticism becomes more about the story (i.e. the novels) which I liked. So, I'm not concerned. Yay. --d
-
my ass will be in Mordor...
-
http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/media/images/hawking_1.jpg
-
Just had to say I admire your choice of name. Or am I wrong about the "Gates of Fire" connection? ***Just have to say that our local critic, David Elliott, has absolutely heaped abuse on TTT, which means it will be MAGNIFICENT. He is absolutely infallible as a reverse barometer. Of course, he hated LOTR and positive gloats in this review that he spent the last year looking for and finding kindred spirits to hate it with, which strengthened him for a double heaping of abuse this year. I don't think he missed an actor or a special effect (he even hated Gollum!). As a troll, he's fairly amusing, though I really can't forgive any critic who sneers at Elijah Woods' eyes, merely because (apparently) they are large, blue and expressive. Apparently, they would have been tolerable had they been small, brown and beady.... Anyway, when I called the friend I'm going to TTT with on Thursday and told her that David Elliott have given it a terrible review, she screamed with delight!
-
people suck, they talk all through the movie and never turn their cell phones off. thanks for reminding me about all that. They once told Ebert he should only see comedies with a large group. He said he doesn't need a group to find out if something is funny to him.
-
$1800 for it? Now thats funny.
-
I notice David Elliot was one of the 'dirty nine' who thought fellowship was bad at rottentomatoes out of what 160' something reviews.
-
How much do you think The Two Towers will make...any guesses? Be brave now. More than Fellowship or less? Me I'm going to say A Billion. That includes all those lil countries that you slandered.
-
"What does $$ have to do with movie quality?" I just think it's a detriment to your posts when you constantly spew box office drivel and attempt to pass it off as intelligent film-speak. Box office numbers are akin to ballot-stuffing in my opinion. And who are you to fault others for "doing homework"? All you've done is view a website and then post those results here in order to bash a movie you supposedly like. And so sorry I "attacked" your "spelling" abilities. I saw an opening for some funny and went with it. That's just my humorinous nature, eh? --d
-
Dec 17, 2002 2:18:14 PM CST
DONT WORRY, the CGI will be enhanced at Skywalker Ranch for the
by thorn ms
I hear Lucas is following Jackson around talking about "his Precious"
-
Talk back isn't the same without first posters anymore. I know how anoying some people found it, but that was just one of the charms of being in talk back. The sudden rush of realizing that your the first person in the world to post. It was fun and harmless. Bring it back Harry. I loved reading those hilarious first comments. Besides the old format brought continuity to the talkback, you can tell what comments were made at what time more easily. This usually helped to determine which comments came after watching the film/episode and which came before. Bring it back.
-
Brilliant smackdown, my friend, and not even a cuss word used! Bravo!
-
I just want to say that your take on the CG usage in movies (and the relative merits) was one of the more intelligent postings I've seen. I have to wholeheartedly agree that MASS CGI doesn't necessarily mean GOOD CGI. Directors are learning where and when to effectively implement these effects. Hopefully Lucas can follow suit with Ep III and not create CGI for the sake of CGI. We have brilliant films like Toy Story, Shrek and Monsters, Inc. to explore CG worlds. CGI is a brilliant color that can be so easily overused on the movie screen canvas. Man, I just made myself throw up with that metaphor. I apologize. --d
-
Perhaps, Mr. Fett, neglecting your education, lo these many years, has not been the best choice you have ever made. I think that you had best go back and take a bit more time reading history before you spout off again in any forum. Why? Because the appaling lack of understanding in your screed is simply amazing. I imagine that you were the type to make fun of those smarter than you in school. Yep, the kind of person who has decided that it is uncool to actually learn a few things. The kind of person who probably has not read a real newspaper or newsmagazine since it was required in your High School current events class, and even then you probably only read the articles with the biggest pictures, and certainly never any with reports about what went on in the wider world then your own Ford Pinto with the real faux-leather seat covers. Please, peddle your ignorance on other sites, because the more you post here, the more people will delight in pointing out how much of a fool you are. Lastly, your comments regarding other countries are really rather xenophobic and fantastically myopic. Perhaps before anything else, you should spend some time acquainting yourself with a good dose of history, something not written by the Weekly World News would be a good start.
-
FUCK ALL!!! I'm a Star Wars fan and thought AOTC was brilliant (just my opinion). I love LOTR too. I enjoy both (but Star Wars slightly more). I like to see both do well at the box office. BUT, FETTASTIC, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Please, your argument is lame. Don't give Star Wars fans a bad name with your lame flames. But on a more positive note, I get to see TTT very soon, and its gonna kick my ass so bad. We love you Peter Jackson. George Lucas loves you too.
-
right on. great quote.
-
Dec 17, 2002 2:34:40 PM CST
Re: I nominate Walrus's last post as best post on this thread
by iamlegolas
Er... make that 2nd to last. You'll know it when you read it.
-
Umm... I camped out 3 days to see AotC at midnight opening night. And I'm going to get to go see TTT at midnight tonight as well. I love both series (though I'm not getting all emotional with blind devotion to one or another - I'll fully admit the flaws). I thought that being a geek meant that you can like multiple trilogies. Guess I was wrong. Shit, now I have to go through the hard process of which franchise to hate. Shit!
-
wrote:"Krauts and Limeys"***That's all we need know about you,....
-
Fluffygreycat2 mentioned that LOTR is a polytheistic work. If that is true, it was a huge unintentional gaff on Tolkien's part. Tolkien consciously tried to imbue LOTR with Catholicism (because he was Roman Catholic himself). Consequently, Eru is God, Morgoth mirrors Satan, etc. Just as in Catholicism, the fact that the Valar (archangels) and Maiar (angels) exist and are venerated does not mean that Middle Earth is polytheistic, anymore than Catholicism is polytheistic for venerating angels and saints (from a Catholic's view at least; others may disagree). There is still only one God/Eru, who used angels/Maiar as instruments of his will. Now, Tolkien was also reacting to the polytheism that was present throughout the Old English works he loved, and this Eru/Valar setup was perhaps a solution to this problem. Instead of worshipping figments of their imagination (or worse yet, evil beings), pagans could have been confusing the more seemingly present angelic beings for gods themselves (in Tolkien's mind). Likewise, in LOTR it is understandable if some beings seem to worship the Valar (who were very present and active in the First Age of Middle Earth) rather than Eru, who has remained distant and mysterious. Nevertheless, this doesn't change the fact that Eru is It in LOTR.
-
LotR trolls might be popping onto Star Wars websites, but that's the same thing Star Wars trolls are doing with LotR boards. Or, wait... maybe they're really just regular trolls who want to go and make trouble where they can and then laugh at all the fanboys hopelessly devoted to a single film franchise instead of going out and living a real life. And one more thing, why is there such a following of the Fetts? One dies like a bitch because he thought he could take on the second-highest Jedi in the order, and the other one dies in an even worse manner... being pushed off a boat by a blind man into the mouth of a monster. Maybe that's the real reason you hate RotJ so much... hmmm...
-
and i'm down to crappy one liners.
-
Is the only way to describe the newspaper scan of Gollum at
theonering.net. Looks like the oscar for best special effects is a done deal. -
Thank god AOTC is saving sci-fi! What a crock. You still did not make any correlation between $$ and the artistic merits of a film. I don't think you could. It's difficult. I know I can't do it. Probably because the correlation doesn't exist. What you've described (quite well, maybe) was the large money-making machine that is Hollywood. The interlocking network of revenues and profit-sharing that fuels production houses. Yay. If WETA goes under, Harry Potter fails? If WETA goes under (and god I hope they don't... ever), another house is waiting to pick up the slack. Man, this is tiresome. Point: AOTC's grosses DO NOT MAKE IT A GOOD FILM. I have still heard NOTHING that makes me believe otherwise. And The Shawshank Redemption is one of the best movies ever made. --d
-
Yawn.
-
I notice that the 2nd film in a series almost if not always does worse than the first film. However the Two Towers is different because it is really just a single large film. More people have had a chance over the last year to jump on the bandwagon so to speak and I think there will be a larger interest in the Two Towers. We will have to wait and see though. As for box office meaning something...yes it does in that a movie studio will be able to survive or perhaps more movies of the same genre will be made. However, a movie studio can also hurt a director's vision by saying we have to have this scene or that scene in the movie. Also Art which movies are should never be judged by how many people have purchased it...
-
Enjoyed both your recent posts - Walrus, regarding foreign cinema, and Brian T, regarding Eru, which would certainly be my take in Tolkien's theology.
-
Fettastic, please STOP. Yes, we all know Box Office is important. But do you watch Titanic and think; "that is the most successful film EVER". Of course you don't, because it is SHITE. But AOTC is brilliant, and so was FOTR. But what does it matter to us how much money they make. Geeks don't take Box Office to heart. If they did, then film geeks would be known for their religious following of Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet while "boxing the wookie" to pictures of James Cameron and his sexy beard. So, Fettastic, are you really saying that you grade films on how much money they take??? If so then thats quite pathetic. Why not quit bothering these LOTR fans, and go to TheForce.net. Great Site to discuss Star Wars. But this is a LOTR talkback, mainly to discuss TTT. Which will rock.
-
Thank you so much for enlightening us. Without your vast knowledge, we talkbackers would simply fall into that deep chasm known as ignorance. What would we do without you? Please, share some more of your completely inane, obvious ramblings.
-
Thanks, daughter of time!
Oh man, TTT is so close I can taste it... -
Fettastic, you really are pathetic if you place importance on box office receipts, because we all know you will never share in the profits (since you never part from your monitor), so what do you care?
-
Here in england at my local cinema TTT has been announced booked SOLID FOR 3 WEEKS on 2 screens.That is just a small start to something big me thinks.
If good films are just about how much money it obtains like you ramble on then you should seek a career in accounting or some shit(maybe work at the 'Ranch').
GOOD filmmaking = Good films.Die another Day had 150 million chucked at it and it was a film of ED Wood preportions.Pearl Harbour anyone? The fact of the matter is that LOTR has already made more than it has cost to make the entire trilogy (plus PJ makes films like these because he loves them) so even if (and its a veeeerry BIG if!)it was to flop the films will still be there to be enjoyed by people with freedom of Choice.
I saw TTT today and have to say that It pissed highly on top of AOTC and although it is a slightly lesser film than FOTR it beats it hans down on spectacle (I cant remember the last time I watched a film with my jaw open).BUT I do love Star wars too(original trilogy)...so sue me! Just face the facts stop denying yourself these wonderful films love em both and grow up a bit.eh? -
I really think the FOTR was a remarkable movie. One hell of an undertaking, bringing such an epic story to the screen. FOTR was such a beautiful movie on screen with actors who excelled because they actually believed in what they were doing. Then there's Jackson who was able to deftly direct a large cast over an even larger landscape and still achieve such cohesion. But there will never be a Best Picture or Best Director for these efforts. I don't know if the Academy will ever allow a fantasy movie to win Best Picture. In the greatest sense of the category, I feel the FOTR was the "Best Picture". You can see the detail in every scene, the painstaking care that the filmmakers applied. Best Pictures seem to move the audience or make some social commentary. Perhaps FOTR or fantasy movies in general are not regarded as doing so as much. It's unfortunate because LOTR seems to be shaping up as much more than a fancy collection of bells and whistles. At least AOTC seems to be in the lead for Best Animated Feature Film. --d
-
Dec 17, 2002 3:36:52 PM CST
". Let me tell ya, it's nice to have a 47" widescreen HDTV and o
by dr_zoidberg
Well, I live in Scotland and I have a projector that makes a 12ft image on my nice screen wall. I'm not rich as such, but through working I've earned the money. But, are there 700 DVD's worth owning??? I know there are lots of subtitled films, but surely 700 is a bit excessive. How many have you watched more than once???
-
Dec 17, 2002 3:38:54 PM CST
Yeah those are some pretty impressive figures, fattasstic
by timbenzedrine
All that money and not one dime of it goes into your pocket. Tell me, do you spend your entire life basking in the reflected glory of other people's accomplishments? Ever do anything yourself except amass the largest collection of plastic action figures in your home town?Then you carry on about America's greatness as if you had anything to do with THAT. Do you even have a job? Where do you find the time to post these rambling diatribes of yours?It's Tuesday afternoon and you've been posting this annoying fecal matter all day. What are you trying to accomplish? Here, and in your own sad, pathetic life?
-
Woaggghh! [run over by car]. And now for something completely different. Hey Fettastic, women are not going to LotR to see Liv Tyler. Not the straight ones anyway. There is a VERITABLE PLETHORA of attractive men in these movies. I just spent several hours discussing this with female coworkers who aren't particularly geeky. + As an American, I'd like to apologize for my bigoted countrymen. We aren't all possessed of a superiority complex (often combined with a complete and total ignorance of geography, history, etc.) No I don't hate the country I live in, but look folks, this fine U.S. of A. has the highest crime rates and teen pregnancy rates of any developed nation. Not to mention that our justice and health care systems are extremely biased in favor of white, middle and upper class people. What's up with that? Aren't our illiteracy and high school drop-out rates much higher, too? Er and no good movies have come out of Japan?? Never heard of Kurosawa or Miyazaki, apparently. Nope, no one gives a crap about the Seven Samurai and it has never influenced Amercan cinema.
-
You remind me of a trip I took on Denali where we wore the same underwear for three weeks...try it some time it is a moving experience.
-
can anyone offer any feedback on this more than worthy topic of LOTR discussion. it's a point i've been mulling over for the past few days, and Brin's article elaborated perfectly. all fiction draws parrells to reality, either metaphorical or literal. where then do the orcs and the "evil" forces of middle earth stand in any logical system, even a fantastic one. Orcs obviously have language, society structure, tools, clothing. yet this race is "evil" in nature. this isn't possible, because any evil society would self destruct for lack of "humanity" (which applies to ficticious non-humans sprung from the mind of a human) and altruism. the culture couldn't exist, because the evil manifested in greed and destruction would cause it collapse. nothing could be built. how then can the orcs exist as an evil force? they have to be a society with it's own goals and desire for future growth. the cannot exist simply to kill and destroy, otherwise they would cease to exist without enemies. if the "forces of evil" overrode middle earth, they would set up a new society of trolls, orcs, "dark men", etc like any other society in the history of human existance. they exist in a fantasy world, but we have to identify with their motives on some level, otherwise they are evil for the sake of evil, which can't exist. evil must serve some purpose and be supported by passion. i love the LOTR, though it's been some years since i read the books. still, this issue bothers me...because tolkien never bothers to explain why one system is better than another. is it simply because the elves and humans are attractive while the forces of evil are hideous, and thus evil? can anyone respond? this is a far more interesting than a SW vs. LOTR debate, or nitpicking the latest review.
-
There would be no Star Wars if Kurosawa had not made "The Hidden Fortress."
-
Big TV's. Big SUV's. Lots o' DVD's. Wow. I'm so unsuccessful. I don't even own a DVD player. My TV can easily fit in the front seat of my really small car. And I live in the US!! What am I doing wrong?? Somebody HELP ME! +++++ Patriotism is one thing... but there is a reason that the term "Ugly American" hasn't gone the way of the dodo, and I really hope the person behind the fettastic persona isn't such an ass. --d
-
C'mon guys. We all know that the term "Jedi" comes from the Americanized English word "Jedi" ('jeh dye) a noun meaning "Jedi". And lightsaber fights are merely an extension of the 1845 lightsaber duelings of the Old South. I don't know who these people are you keep mentioning, but what the hell do they have to do with Star Wars and the good ol' US of A? --d
-
Thats so true.....Also How much did the excellent HIDDEN FORTRESS make in terms of box office power?
Who knows...? Who cares? Obviously not enough in FETTTASTICOS terms so it must suck...right?
HIDDEN FORTRESS is a masterpeice Star wars is movie guff... -
You is THE man! Thankyou for showing me that there are some rational,intelligent people in the USA ther is hope!
p.s:- MST3K..Right? -
Dec 17, 2002 3:58:46 PM CST
As leader of this great country, it is my duty to ask Mr. Georg
by george w bush
get rid of you weapons of mass animation. Not only have you stockpiled acres and acres of computer hardware, but you continue to threaten the free world by clandestinely reconstituting screenplays, poor character actors, and Sher. This cannot continue. I ask your generals at al hashame, a.k.a., skywalker ranch, to put down your mouses and Dilbert embroidered coffee mugs and lead a revolt against this insane man--a man bent on absolute cinematic conquest.__________Ladies and gentlemen and the great people of this county, for the sake of peace and domestic security, I urge support my struggle with Mr. Greg Luke and enrich yourselves with quality enternainment.
-
The guy is only gloating about the success of AOTC because some of the unwashed Tolkien extremists are going around claiming that LOTR has killed off Star Wars and the Matrix and Indy and Spiderman and everything else that exists in movie world. The fact that AOTC is now only $20 million behind FOTR proves that LOTR didn't kill anything off. Attack Of The Clones was still playing in cinemas worldwide in November. A full, 7 months since it was released! And what's even more amazing is the fact that is was a sequel, while FOTR had all the hype about it being the FIRST movie in the LOTR series. Plus the fact that the critics bashed TPM and AOTC and yet the people STILL want to go and see it again and again. People like Fettastic are only responding to the Tolkien extremists who seemd determined to start a fight with fans of ANY other film.-----------------And to whoever said "no critic in their right mind would place AOTC above TTT", well, check out BBCi. AOTC got five stars and was one of their top 5 movies of the year, while TTT only got 4 stars.
-
All people like you do is reflect poorly on American people as a whole. When you read comments like yours it just shows you what is wrong with many of your countrymen this type of insulated attitude of thinking living outside the USA makes you a poor disadvantage person. I am from a small country of 3.8 million and when I read and hear what goes on in the USA I just thank god I live were I do. Yes you maybe the richest country in the world however like an early poster said that doesn
-
I think the answer to your question lies in the fact that orcs are in fact sub-human with some human characteristics, but they are not the product of true creation (by Eru), as were the Elves, Men, etc. They are "bred" by Sauron (and later, Saruman) in some unspecified way (more akin to maggots than, say, horses), originally in "mockery" of elves. More importantly, they appear to be controlled by Sauron in the same way ants are controlled by the queen, and, when that control is lost, they appear to become aimless and eventually die. They do not form true societies, and when control is feeble or divided (as in the Tower of Cirith Ungol), they do self-destruct, due to their utter lack of altruistic impulses. I now hand the debate - or at least the documenting - over to the true Tolkien scholars in our midst....
-
After all this moaning, you are still harping on about how much money a film takes. We never doubted your facts, as they are widely available on the internet. But please be more constructive. Use characters, story, plot, dialogue, visuals, sound, depth, etc, to show why Star Wars is more successful than LOTR. It doesn't matter if others don't agree, your opinion can't be altered by others. But box office means nothing to most people when it really comes down to the film as a piece of art. So please, think just a little more and you will redeem some of your credability.
-
Dec 17, 2002 4:12:49 PM CST
Uh.Fett you forgot to mop this bit up get on with it will ya!...
by angels-egg
-
You know who I mean.... If we fail to give him the attention he craves, perhaps he will retreat to his delusional xenophobic world and let the rest of us talk in peace. I really mean that. Not one more post with his name attached. It'll drive him crazy.
-
Theres a stain here on these talkbacks...yourself.
-
orcs have language, songs even. i consider these signs of culture and community. they can argue amonst themselves. i take all these as signs of a group of individual/reasoning creatures. i'm not out to bash the trilogy...i feel great affection toward it in fact, but i'm left still questioning the "evil" nature of the antagonists in the trilogy.
-
yes Angel you are correct, it is an MST3K reference. "Frodo gets drunk and screws with his neighbors." "Eww, wizard whizz!" etc. + Hey does Wormtongue throw Saruman's palantir at Gandalf and co., where Pippin picks it up, and later ends up being temporarily possessed by Sauron? Don't tell me Jackson left that stuff out. Aww, man!
-
Your jesus in the manger message was a real nice holiday thought. Way to go.
-
And I'm still at home. Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please let TTT be worth the wait.
-
they are feral...feeding on their instinct to kill and hunt and destroy.
Also they seem to be an extremly dumb race.
They are a sort of corrupted version of elves.
I mean what exactly makes a 'stormtrooper' or policeman (matrix) evil? -
Heeey yooo guys! I'm leaving for the theatre (theater US?) in a few minutes, so here's my final thoughts before I LEAVE YOU HERE HA HA HA. Anyway. It's a strange thing how this TB can generate this vast amount of opinions, both hatred and love, without actually having seen the film. Well, it's time to pop the cherry and get this over with at last!
-
ya need somebody to slaughter in medieval fashion, right? On a different level, orcs are (probably) cannibalistic creatures who fight amongst themselves when not able to kill others. They definitely will kill orcs from other tribes if given half a chance. When not commanded by a powerful will such as Sauron or Saruman (or the goblin king in the Hobbit and possibly the Balrog in Moria, Durin's Bane must've at least kept them in line if he didn't actively control them), they probably end up killing each other in the end. I posit widespread cannibalism as a self-limiting factor on any society or species. However, I am a semi-retarded purple robot so you should take my theories with a grain of salt.
-
Sorry to say that said sequence is not in the film...
I didnt read the books (yet) But just love the movies! -
I don't agree with most of what he say, and he appears to betrying to give Star Wars fans, and Americans a bad name. But......some of you Tolkiens people bring it on yourself. Nearly every TB on this site has some LOTR fan claiming that TTT is the best movies ever and everything else sucks! I read the other day, someone claiming that Martin Scrosese was a shit director compared to Peter Jackson and no one should go see Gangs Of New York. Pleeeaaassseee! It pisses me off like you wouldn't believe especially as most of it is lies. Take Gollun. You guys are going on about how he looks much better than Jar Jar. WELL OF COURSE HE DOES! JAR JAR WAS MADE 3 YEARS AGO! And in 3 years time the next CGI character will look even better. The point is that Jar Jar was the first. Lucas was the pioneer and whether you like Jar Jar or not, you have to accept that. If you don't then you are just kidding yourself. WETA will improve thing, ILM will then improve them more, then it will go back to WETA and so on and so on and we should be delighted about this.
-
BLARP in Lost in Space (shite) was one of the first...then Draco in Dragonheart.
-
I don't have the answer here, but prrhaps the songs are just part of the "mockery" of the Elves? I don't think there's necessarily a strict corrolation for everything - i.e., because certain characteristics mean something in terms of our evolution, they mean the same thing in a world where the races were truly Created. Clearly, an army of slaves incapable of communicating via speech would be fairly useless to Sauron, but maybe it's part of the horror of what he was capable of, in creating an army for himself with outwardly human traits but no human "soul" and no ability to live outside of himself. Maybe this is an example of why, in Tolkien's theology, free will is of such VITAL importance.
-
stormtroopers are serving an oppressive government. they either support it's policies by choice, or have been brainwashed...who knows. they serve a structure of government and organization, that's all that matters. the group is perhaps misguided in its philosophy and supression of freedom, but not evil. it's an embodiment of greed...a dictatorship. they aren't roasting one another on spits. the agents in the matrix are part of a computer program which exists only for it's own expansion...it's caught in a loop of growth. it cares nothing for art, or beauty, only growth...hence it is "evil" but only in it's drive toward extreme self preservation. it cannot love, it cannot create society, it's not alive...like a gun...it's an invention gone awry. the orcs are a group of individuals, not a single consciousness...therefore they must cooperate if they are to remain functional and prosperous, therefore they can't be evil.
-
Dec 17, 2002 4:35:55 PM CST
Has ABC's Joel Siegel been to the Elliot school of film criticis
by ok then
JS gave TTT a "B," the same rating he gave Samuel L. Jackson's "Formula 51." A bit better than "I Spy"'s B-, and not stacking up to the brilliant B+ - rated "Solaris."
-
I think the biggest issue regarding Jar Jar isn't the believability of the CG, but more that it was a HORRIBLE plot device. Gollum is central to the story of LOTR so hopefully the character itself is fleshed-out, so to speak. We all know it's CG, but does it interact well? Is it believable AS A CHARACTER? And, as for someone defending a franchise, I don't think anyone at ILM really needs a fool like fettastic backing them up. I agree wholeheartedly that any post suggesting that "Scorsese is a shit director compared to Jackson" is totally asinine. But, asinine responses to asinine posts are still... well, asinine. --d
-
"Also they seem to be an extremly dumb race." i'm sure that imperialists thought the same of more "primitive" cultures they deemed worthy of conquest. i'm sure many of their traditions seemed barbaric when taken out of their cultural context.
-
That thing in Lost In Space was not a digital character. It was a digital monkey. No different from the dinosaurs in JP and no one would claim that they acted.
And Dragonheart doesn't count either because it was more like a traditional cartoon. It wasn't an "actor" even though it had the great Sean Connery's voice.
Jar Jar was the first fully realised CGI character that could act and interact with real life actors. Talk to any CGI genius and they'll tell you the same. I know because I've worked with them. -
Dec 17, 2002 4:44:49 PM CST
fettastic, for once, just once - ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!
by tv casualty
And the question is: Given your constant harping over AOTC box office and rental sales, DOES THAT MAKE IT A GOOD MOVIE??? If not, then why bring it up. And if so, how do you justify Titanic? Is that one of the best moviesever, by these standards. No quips, no jokes, no insults. Just answer these questions. Please. I swear I will post this exact same message in every talkback you post in until you give me an answer. I don't want any shit about AOTC "saving" sci-fi, either.
-
It was an example....
Stormtroopers are in fact NOT evil they follow orders thats it (god why am I talking as if they are real?) I was using the comparisons with orcs in lotr.
In movie terms it doesnt really matter. Orcs are following Sarumons orders but they are driven by consumption and destruction (even self destruction) which is relevent to the story of lotr (I really cant see how people miss this!).The guy wanted to know what catigorised orcs as 'evil' in the LOTR universe.That is all. -
Compared to FOTR AOTC can only be considered a financial disaster. I know that fett likes to ignore world wide boxofice figures and only focus on the USA figures but the only way you can decide if a film is a financial succes for the studios or not is by the world wide box office numbers. When you look at those AOTC doesn't even come close to FOTR its over 200 million dollars behind and by all accounts TTT is set for atleast the same financial success as FOTR if not more so I am sorry to say fett that yes STAR WARS IS DEAD LONG LIVE LOTR
-
But I'm not sure what it is. If it's "money good" then I understand. I guess I'm confused... I was under the impression that filmmaking began as a form of expression. I was led to believe that bringing great stories to the screen was an artistic endeavor first, and a financial endeavor second. I guess I'm idealistic. As for your skyscraper metaphor... get a new one. Films, like any form of art, have inherent value whether someone "buys them" or not. I think it's telling that you love these financially successful movies so much. If you admire their marketing or money-making ability, say so. But that is a far cry from reflecting on the characteristics that actually make them FILMS. And great empires have been measured by their museums far more often than their banks. --d
-
There seem to be two levels of evil in LOTR. The first is beings who were innately good, and actively chose to be evil. Morgoth, Sauron, the Balrogs, etc. fall into this category; they were created good by Eru, and yet had free will and were able to choose selfishness. The second is beings who seem to be sort of innately evil. The orcs (who originally were elves that Morgoth captured and corrupted through magic and torture, but are now a self-perpetuating race), in my view, fall into this category. Interestingly enough, you can argue that men do, as well. Elves are clearly the model of what humans could have been, had they not had that little mishap with the apple in the Garden; elves are inherently good (and the only race among the Free Peoples never to have willingly served the Enemy). Humans (prior to Christ, in the Christian viewpoint) were innately stained at birth by this act of rebellion; it seems that orcs are just inherently nastier than humans. And yes, the Garden scenario survives in LOTR; somewhere, Tolkien writes that men first came out of the East, with a shadow already on their hearts (and Morgoth had made a mysterious journey eastwards before the men started arriving). However, humans have the potential to rise above this in LOTR and become good, because they have free will. Theoretically, so do orcs. Tolkien did not like the idea of a sentient race being irredeemable, and wrote that orcs, since they most likely have souls, could be redeemed. Presumably, this could only happen if there was no Dark Lord around, because the orcs seem to have almost a genetic imperative to obey the will of a strong evil master.
-
I just read through the rest of the talkback, and don't worry about it. You don't have to respond. You pretty much answered my questions, and confirmed my belief that you are possibly one of the stupidest people I've ever encountered. Seriously. You are an emnbarassment to this website. You're the fan equivalent of a hack. Not to mention ill-mannered, illiterate, and ignorant. I know some of it is just trolling for the sake of trolling, but for christ's sake, inject some humor or something to help us stomach it. Ah well. Just remember folks -this is the kid who SWORE by Birds of Prey. Valuable opinion there.
-
You know the price of everything and the value of nothing. I'm glad the lord blessed me with the ability to enjoy beauty and art. It must really suck to be you.
-
It looks like the Talkback order is getting all fucked up again. GRRR!!!
-
...tick...tock
Sigh -
I'm proud to feed my face with as much good film as I can get my greedy, capitalistic hands on.
-
21 more hours and I'll be eating rabbit.
-
I want to find and read more fettastics stupid comments so we can all have a good laugh!
-
Yes, you are quite correct Daughter of Time. It is indeed a reference to Gates of Fire. A great book, hope the forthcoming film is as good.
Is your name a reference? It seems to remind me of something from somewhere. Can't remember what though.
Prochnov, regarding the Orcs are evil discussion. It is quite true that Orcs have song, probably stories, music and a society. However I 100% do not believe that this precludes them from being evil. If you take the Nazi's for example. They were very into music, some of which was amoungst the most beautiful music ever written. Indeed the man who wrote much of it was also a rabid anti-semite. They liked fine art, certainly given the quantities they stole. They ambitions with regard to architecture were high to say the least and they were interested in sport, literature, history and myth (largely as a means of propogating their Aryan super race stuff). I don't think anyone would deny that they were as close to being evil as mankind gets and yet they had all the things you say preclude the Orcs from being so.
As well as that example if you know Britain at all you will know that most gangs of football hooligans like singing 'songs'. Does it make them 'good'? Probably not. -
All,
I personally feel that trying to make comparisons between JRRT's mythology and Catholicism / Christianity ... cheapens the work slightly. Sure, he couldn't help being who he was, and there is no doubt his Catholic background shaped how he envisioned certain aspects. However, I think he strongly wanted to make his own Polytheistic situation because he enjoyed the older religions so much, and they are great for setting up stories. There is no doubt his personal upbringing influenced him, but I think struggling to force his stories to match with any set of ethics just weakens the pleasure of the story as it is. Just my opinion. Also, I do not believe that he had any Garden of Eden fall-of-humans scenario at all, or a Jesus parallel (though several characters are sacrificial; it is a human trait), so I don't understand the comments about Elves being what humans could be if it werent for the fall in Eden. I dont remember who made that comment but thats the trouble you get into when you try to force one mythology on another one. The early humans, when found and educated by the gods, were as strong and righteous as their elven kin in their way. Certainly, both Elves and Humans had great moments ... and failings. They just have different fates. So, enough of my rantings. I'm off for holiday until Jan 2 so I probably wont see any responses, but hey, fuel for discussion I suppose! :) Later. -
Seriously, man get a life.... stop annoying people with your PRO-USA bull/"$"/$/...on a talkback about TWO TOWERS....the Fett guy is the laughing stock of this tb....come on .....man get a life...it's all about movies.......you like PEARL HARBOR.....it's your fuc/$/$ing prob...you need to see a doctor for that one.......this guy is a joke....and he thinks he's the KING of the WORLD because he's trying to change the world behind his keyboard.......Without James Cameron (canadian), Kurosawa ( Japanese), Hitchcock (Brits) , Jeunet, Renoir, Truffaut, Godard (France), Ridley Scott (Brits), Fellini, De Sica, (italia) where would you be.....trying to sell some American Dreams candies on Staten island....I thought so....Long Live Michael Bay & Lucas (Harbor, Armand Geddon, SW) says the fett guy..........I feel sorry for the state of his nation in which only him lives in.....at least Stanley Kubrick (the God among all directors) knew guys like Fett too well and he left for the Glorious Britain....
-
The only thing anyone needs to know about fettastic -- the full measure of his "geek cred" as it were, is the fact that he seems to be utterly unashamed to admit that he finds subtitles on foreign films annoying and distracting. After having read this in at least two of his posts in other TBs, I automatically regard anything he says pertaining to film as being singularly invalid. I think his proclivity for moving his lips when he reads those pesky subtitles interferes with his mouth-breathing. Doc out.
-
Are you sure? I thought ... Treebeard has a bomb in his trunkrings!!!
-
Greetings...figured my first post should be in a talkback which I actually enjoyed. I gotta say, someone needs to hose down all the little people who think they can make a movie better than the director, cast and crew.
It seems that people on here really ARE legends in their own minds. Sure, we all have our own little image of how the film "should" be, but that doesn't make the director's vision a BAD one...it's just different. Be happy that the LOTR saga has been handled as well as it has been, especially in regards to both theatrical AND home releases. New Line has done an outstanding job, period. I just appreciate the fact that Tolkien's masterwork has been interpreted to the screen in a most successful manner, especially in my lifetime.
And to the moron who keeps posting about how movie grosses determine a film's greatness...PLEASE. Your inane babbling is without point or logic, and the ass nesting between your shoulders only continues to spew forth shite of a most fetid nature. Kindly shut your noise-hole.
Great site, by the way. Harry...I always enjoy what you have to say, even though I don't always agree with it. Peace... -
i understand your point about the nazi's, but they had a political philosophy, albeit a misguided one. they believe their system of thought and organization superior to all others, whereas the orcs are violent mass. countless volumes have been written on Hitler and the Nazi's and the complex psychology behind the movement, whereas the orcs are characterized as being evil for the sake of destruction.
also:angel's egg writes, "Also they seem to be an extremly dumb race". sorta reeks of the harsh judgements passed by imperialist cultures upon the discovery of "less advanced" tribal cultures who's traditions may seem barbaric outside of cultural context. -
and no, music and art does not define a group as "good". i mentioned orc songs simply to make the point that the orcs must exist as a society, and as such they must have some driving force. the nazi's did, as did any army/nation in human history. they all thought they were "right". if the orcs are "evil", then i need some explanation behind this evil, some philosophy. they aren't fighting a war to simply hack things to pieces. there has to be some motivation.
-
again, in regard to the nazis. germans indoctrinated toward nazism behaved in a way which i'd deem "evil" in a fearful, misguided way. but germans aren't evil. whereas tolkein considers orcs, trolls, etc evil in all circumstances. orcs were living in the misty mountains, following no particular leader, yet still they were evil.
-
Yes: "Truth is the daughter of time," though I don't know the source, beyond its use prefacing the book by Josephine Tey (and no, I am a rabid Richard III apologist; I just like the quote and the moniker). Loved "Gates of Fire" and can only pray it won't be ruined as a film, as it will only work with nearly the same amount of love poured into it as LOTR.... Speaking of which, wouldn't you say that "the opposite of fear is love" is just as applicable to LOTR? What else but love motivated Frodo and Sam to drag themselves to the Crack of Doom? ***Regarding Nazis, though, you've raised one of the most troubling issues of our age and nothing like being as easily resolved as the evil orc issue. In fact, I won't even get into it here, as millions of words have been written on the topic without anyone coming out much the wiser on the problem of evil in the 20th century? (And why stop with Nazi? Why not mention Stalin... or the Khymer Rouge... or ...) But the Nazis go more toward proving that almost anything can be corrupted and perverted, even one of the world's most "civilized" societies. And then you have to break it down into rabid Nazi, Nazi supporter, avoidance of the whole issue while going about one's daily business and trying to survive under them, actually hate them but unwilling/unable to take action against them (out of cowardice, inertia, fear for one's family), etc., and that's not counting generations of conditioning that resulted in many being convinced they were actually helping bring about a better world by their actions! It all happened in increments, which is what makes the thinking of some of our trollers so frightening. Tolkien, in his world, gives us the apparently created-evil orcs, but he also gives us many examples of goodness perverted or worn down.... It is something we have to be aware of as a possibility in OURSELVES and not just project onto others.
-
Perfectly valid opinions concerning LOTR. However, in his letters, Tolkien pretty clearly shows demonstrates that Catholicism is meant to inform the work as a whole (although religion is notably absent in any overt way in LOTR). He wrestled over such issues as the souls of orcs, and the unfallen state of the elves, because those issues were important to him. Tolkien was a REAL Catholic, and he really believed the things that the Church taught him. He also took the act of "subcreation" (as he put it) very seriously; he felt that subcreating frivolously was somewhat irresponsible. These facts coupled lead me to believe that Tolkien did not create a polytheistic world, not even "for the heck of it" or because he though it was neat that Anglo-Saxons and the Nordic peoples were polytheistic. He admired these people, but he firmly believed their religious views (polytheism) were wrong, and that it would be wrong to place his subcreation at odds with his beliefs. However, building an explanation/excuse for them into his work by means of a Greek Pantheon-ish Valar veneer under which lurks true monotheism probably appealed to Tolkien. In my opinion, such considerations do not cheapen LOTR at all; in fact, they enhance it by adding another layer of understanding for the book.
-
I feel ill-equipped to respond as fully as one should. All this time a great portion of the human race were sitting around staring at the dirt just waiting for McDonald's, Star Wars and Santa Claus? They never created their own stories, jokes, myths, native "costumes", decorations, jewelry, housing, pottery, cuisine, etc.? Hey I like Thai food and Balinese jewelry. I enjoy learning the mythology and social structure of other cultures. Guess that makes me a bad commie socialist or somethin'.
-
Dec 17, 2002 6:04:42 PM CST
If that piece of Vanessa Carlton on downers spiral-notebook poet
by vegas
In a year where U2's "The Hands that Built America" (Gangs of New York), NewOrder's "Here to Stay" (24 Hour Party People), and Eminem's "Lose Yourself" (8 Mile) should all be eligible, giving that mopey little b-side an Oscar will be my least favorite moment of the night.
-
Someone made a comment about movies making only 1 million in Japan. If you had ever lived in Japan, like I have, you would notice that Japan has a LOT of people (130 million) that movies are way expensive there (around 20 bucks a pop) and that there are cinemas everywhere--it's a rich country, and people are willing to pay through the nose. Hence, the only movies that make only 1 million are movies that weren't very popular.
Sure, the US has a bigger population (270 million) but we also have a lot more poor people who might have trouble affording to see a movie. Even if we were all rich, hey, the world's got 6 billion people--we're only about 4.5 percent of the world's population. That's why the world matters enormously in terms of movie success. If China (1.2 billion) gets as rich as Japan, they could make a movie a huge hit even if flopped in the rest of the world. -
A lot of this is addressed in the later volumes of "The History of Middle Earth".
Orcs' wills ultimately derive from Morgoth's. As a sub-created entity, Morgoth had no power to corrupt, so when he gave the Orcs the power of generation, each Orc born took a piece of Morgoth's essence away. So by the time Morgoth was cast out of the doors of night, he was actually weaker in stature than Sauron, whereas once he was the most powerful of the Valar. His power had been dispersed into Middle Earth, and would endure until the world was unmade.
As for the Orcs, they're very tribalistic. The closer the relation, it seems, the closer they have something resembling altruism. So most Orc-on-Orc slaughter is between different bands, tribes, races of Orc.
Tolkien's world is indeed a pagan monotheism; most advanced pagan religions posited a remote supreme deity acting through either sub-created divinities, or avatars. Christianity has tried to obscure that fact, to make paganism seem much more different from its own theology than it really was. -
The one sentence should have said I am NOT a rabid Richard III apologist. I won't even get into the punctuation....
-
I also have to say: S. Korea, China, Mexico, India, Thailand have all had worldwide hit movies in the past few years. Hollywood dominance is fading. Sure, some of these movies were not hits in the US (though some, most obviously "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon were) but again, in a world of 6 billion people, being popular in the US is not necessary to have a hit.
As for subtitles: give me a subtitled movie over a dubbed one any day. At least, don't give me a movie that's from a non-English speaking country that's in English--that's stupid as hell, like you're going to watch a movie filmed in China and everybody is going to be talking in English. -
Oh, and there *is* a Jesus figure in his later writings, in the "HoME" series. In the "Dialogue of Finrod and Arabeth" (sp?) we find out that the humans have a myth of a fall of man, that Morgoth fooled them into worshipping him instead of Eru, who spoke to the first men through the dark, and only then did men become mortal; and that the wise men of the 1st Age believed that only when Eru himself physically entered the world would man be healed of his sins and made immortal again, though the Elves couldn't fathom how Eru could fit in the world. Tolkien then struck out the passage, saying it seemed like a "parody" of Xianity. All this and more in "The War of the Jewels", "Morgoth's Ring", and "The Peoples of Middle Earth". If you read only 3 volumes of that over-wrought series, those are the ones to read.
-
And fett, you'd have a better arguement about BO if clones wasn't lagging Fellowship by a couple HUNDRED million worldwide. Oops. And more successful than Titanic? Let's subtract 350M for the cost of the film and marketing - it "only" made 1.45 BILLION profit, more than any of the SW movies GROSSED. Hell, HP1 beat PM worldwide, and HP2 looks to do the same to Clones. You're beating a dead horse, jackass. Move along.
-
almost sort of chilling.
-
Your right my previous post was a form of bigotory and ignorance. America have produced a lot of great things that have benefited the world. Nuclear weapons for one is a great benefit to the world. And by the way I thought LOTR was a film directed by a Kiwi filmed in New Zealand with a large number of kiwis involved in the production of the film. Yes it was funded by a US company but still I would class it as more of a NZ film than having yanks trying to claim it
-
(This is not original with me, but was discussed in Tom Shippey's book on Tolkien, which I haven't yet bought but have picked up at the bookstore.) I think Tolkien did an excellent job of illustrating both the evil without (Sauron, the orcs, etc.) and the evil within (temptation, possession, etc.) which (as Shippey and no doubt many others have pointed out) are the two sides of "Lead us not into temptation/but deliver us from evil." ***However, this is all MUCH too intense a discussion for the last day before we will be flooded with all-new images and topics for debate. Me, I'm ready for swoonage!
-
Good points regarding the "nationality" of the LOTR movies. Also, great point bringing up all those big bad nuclear weapons that the evil USA regime brought into the world. Brilliant. Perhaps someone on this TalkBack rubbed you the wrong way. You've certainly responded with the wit and grace befitting your intelligence. I would congratulate fettastic for turning this movie discussion into a Battle of the Best Nations Ever, but I really think I can only blame the rest of us as he's too busy counting his money. --d
-
Complicated religio-literary discussions can NEVER get too intense! Ahh, you're right. Fuck it! Bring on the movie! :)
-
I'm an American, and I have also lived in several other countries. I love the United States, but I also love some of the other countries I've lived in. I also love both Star Wars and LOTR.
You, Sir, give our country and all Americans a bad name -- not to mention Star Wars fans. You're a pompous, mean-spirited, ignorant, haughty, xenophobic, amerocentric, culturally fascistic troglodyte -- whose one eyebrow knits in consternation and futile concentration at the sight of subtitles on foreign films. In short: a fucking tool.
Doc out.
-
Dorks of the world unite! All together now! On your knees... continue sucking the hobbit dick of Peter Jackson. You disgust me.
-
Dec 17, 2002 7:32:29 PM CST
All those who think Fettastic should shut the fuck up, say "Aye"
by piddle
Aye.
-
Dec 17, 2002 7:35:14 PM CST
All those who think Fettastic should shut the fuck up, say "Aye"
by piddle
Aye.
-
If your country is so great then a) why are u people packing shit now ? b) why did u let a bunch or retards destroy the most powerfull symbols of america, with a bunch of razors. Now that's what I call creative.
I remember I came back from watching sexy beast, turned the tv on, and there you go the TWO towers going down down down, that was one the best nights I've had. Great movie followed by greater entertainment on tv.
Fettastic You live in fear mate, and you will forever live in fear. That's the price you pay for you big tv and stupid dvds. -
I think it is a bit ridiculous to debate what one "country" or another has given to the world, when in most cases it was an individual or a team happening to work in one country, or an immigrant to that country, or someone in one country supported by money or technology from another country. Examples are limitless, but I'll give just two: the Bomb was a product of German, British, Danish and American scientists working together(I'm sure I've left out somebody) - and LOTR (the films) is an enormous Kiwi achievement backed by masses of American money (from what international sources it would be impossible to separate out) with lead actors from America, England, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand. We are all fairly well inseparable at this point, on this planet. We import and export food, music, movies, weapons, technology and ideologies - and not least of all, people. And our countries are composed of those individuals, not stereotypes. Any time ANYONE starts talking in stereotypes, the communication has lost any value.
-
Sauron...isn't in the books? HAHA!
God fett, honestly...shut up. SW wouldn't exist without LotR, and the LotR movies wouldn't be possible without SW's advances in technology. Who cares which one is better, they're both entertaining. Box office sales determine quality now? Hmm...that must mean Britney Spears is the best female artist in the music industry, McDonald's has the best food in the world, and the Bible is the best thing ever written.
Read a book, fett. I know idiocy is a hard disease to overcome, but if you work hard, you should be able to understand that without the Hobbits, LotR does not exist. I'm sure if you tried, you could understand that there are two more movies for Pippin to evolve into a much more likable character (that is, if you don't like him already).
[/end rant]
Oh, looking forward to TTT btw. :E -
A simple debate about LOTR turns into argument over the merits of nuclear weapons. God help as all. By the way TTT will rock. And can someone fix the damn talk back order.
-
Whihc bodes well as FOTR reached 95%. On the other hand, they rate Attack Of The Clones at 63% which seems a little high...
-
Dec 17, 2002 9:16:23 PM CST
Ladies and Gentlemen: The President of the United States
by george w bush
The Tolkienites and Star Wars fans must come together to forge a new tone in this talkback. We must come together to form a coherent strategery to avoid these senseless vollies of hatred and mistrust. We must fully recognize our true enemies, Hollywood, George Lucus, and Kevin Eubanks: the axis of evil. With cojo... I mean approval from the Screen Actor's Guild, I and the rest of the entertainment community request, no, demand that that Lucas fellow hand over all storyboards, scipts, screen tests, and other parafilinania to SAG and other impotent but hollow organizations. These WMA (weapons of mass animation) are proliferating at an astonishing rate and will likely equip Hollywood and Kevin Eubanks with the necessary advanced technology to destroy what so many fecal and talented artist have accomplished thus far.
-
Dec 17, 2002 9:24:59 PM CST
Ladies and Gentlemen: The President of the United States
by george w bush
-
Or is there a whole fresh new crop of assholes popping up in these talkbacks? Or have all the naysayers of yesteryear acquired new handles so they can try out a new round of pimple-assed arguments since the last batch proved to be so miserably unfounded? Anyone recall the chants of "Mark my words FOTR is gonna bomb $5 million tops!" Cant wait to come back in a year for the bleating whines prior to the 3rd round knockout.
-
I swear, if you take out all the TalkBacks from or about fettastic, there are like 17 left. Everyone who keeps giving him attention needs a purple nurple. I'll start with myself. yyeeEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWwwww! Okay, who's next?
-
Dec 17, 2002 9:41:08 PM CST
Ladies and Gentlemen: The President of the United States
by george w bush
Harry, Harry, I would hate for you to accidentally choke on a Parmigiano Focaccio breadstick or haplessly wonder into a banned nuclear test site.....Oh, I see--you already have. Well, from hence forth, executive order number 2940 shall decree that the talkback shall be at all times in order and that pink fuschia colored fiber optic Christmas trees be banned...and that's it.
-
It's 04:00 in the morning and I just got back from a premiere screening in Stockholm. Everything you've heard is true.
-
Come Oscar time, will it take home those gold Statutes?
-
Dec 17, 2002 10:50:30 PM CST
Huh? if everyone is talking about this as a 4 star experience...
by zone zero
Then there are two possibilities. 1: TTT will r0x0r 2: TTT will be the symbol of lame. Oh god, I hope it will be the type of experience I can tell my grandchildren! LOTR is 1 for 1, let's go 2 for 2!
ph33r z0n3 z3r0. -
This is a child who jerks off over starwars.com so much his web pages are stuck together. Can we just remember something about Star Wars, Lucas filmed almost all of the trilogy in England? Also Norway and Tunisia? Why? Was it because it was cheaper? Maybe. Or in Lucas' own words 'Britain has the best movie crews in the world'. Cost doesnt come into it, Lucas made so much out of A New Hope he could have filmed Empire on the moon! Yet he returned to Britain. For Episode 2 he went to Australia due to a change in laws in Britain, but guess what? He took his Anglo-American crew with him and now uses Australasians. everyone knows Star Wars has plagarised so much from LotR so why bitch? Star Wars is the grandchild of Kirosawa and Tolkien. Also if you have time check out who invented the television. Got to France, England and Germany and you'll get a different answer everytime
-
Okay, a couple of things. Firstly, I was a Star Wars fan first - when I was given a copy of LOTR as a kid, I realised that it was the real deal and could see where many authors and movie-makers (Lucas included) had nicked their ideas from. I still love SW to death (and always will), but my heart belongs to LOTR (especially now with the quite incredible films that Peter Jackson has made).
When TPM came out, I was disappointed. It was okay, but not great - it let down the trilogy. When AOTC came out, I emerged from the cinema feeling like I'd just had my bottom invaded by George Lucas for 2 solid hours; all the while he would tell me to look at the pretty space-ships to distract my attention from the pain he was causing me. AOTC is bad, not just as a Star Wars film, but as a film in general. The dialogue is poor, the acting is wooden, the action quite boring, and the romance (a critical part of the story) is grossly unbelievable. Being a die-hard SW fan I hated to admit that George Lucas is not as talented as I thought (TESB, the best SW film was neither directed nor written by GL - coincidence?).
It pisses me off that people like Fettastic will blindly champion the work of a man who no longer considers artistic vision more important than creating a 2 hour toy commercial. Surely you must feel disappointed by it, Fettastic? Do you just have a problem admitting it? I can freely admit that, although I consider LOTR to be one of the greatest works of fiction of all-time, it has many flaws (as do the films). Trying to start a holy war between fans of two works of fiction is not only futile (given that you can't compare the two), but it doesn't change the fact that TPM is sub-standard and AOTC is a disgrace to the SW saga.
There's a few things you need to be aware of, Mr Fettastic:
1) Box office means nothing. It bares no relation to whether a film is a good film or not, it just means that a lot of people were persuaded by advertising or their friends to go see it. As someone mentioned earlier, a film is supposed to be an artistic endeavour first, and a financial one second. Besides, the majority CAN be (and frequently are) wrong. Want proof? George Bush Sr., Reagan (twice), and George W. Bush. Want some cinematic proof? Okay, AOTC and TPM made a ton of money each ... Donnie Darko and Memento made fuck all money and are better films than AOTC and TPM can ever dream of being.
2) International box office is often MORE important than domestic, as the rest of the world is far bigger than the USA. America represents only 1/24th of the world's population .. China on the other hand has 1/5th of the population. If you can't understand these figures, go get someone to explain them to you. If you truly believe that countries outside the US don't matter, then you are the living example of why most nations think Americans are stupid (something I actually refute).
3) Without LOTR, SW would not exist. For nearly 50 years, LOTR has been a template for fantasy fiction the world over, and sci-fi falls under that banner. I won't list the comparisons here (I don't have time), but I wil tell you for a fact that Star Wars owes it's existence to the fact that George Lucas has borrowed (and in some cases, stolen wholesale) ideas from Akira Kurosawa's "Hidden Fortress", Frank Herbert's "Dune", and Tolkien's "Lord Of The Rings". Be nice to us LOTR geeks ... we made your beloved saga possible.
4) Comparing the two movie franchises is pointless. Peter Jackson has made a trilogy of epic scale and beauty, involving yet never overly complex, emotional, breathtaking, a work of great achievement. George Lucas has made one good sci-fi trilogy and two feature-length toy commericals.
I can now sit back and enjoy the considered, eloquent, and articulate retort from Mr Fettastic ... or, to be more precise, the misguided, idiotic, and worryingly cretinous "yo Hobbitches - LOTR sucks ass" rant he will undoubtedly produce.
-
Now, if only someone actually knew the code that sets it off, they could ALWAYS be FIRST!!!
-
We only went to New Zealand because England had to many retards and was harder to shoot. He needed isolated locations with beautiful scenery so he took it from America to New Zealand where Peter Jacksons Weta Workshop was based. It's still an american made movie in another country. Hell they filmed star wars all over, specially Spain for the Senater Amidala sceens.
-
Pot, kettle, black.
-
Yes I do admire my patience in adding my note this late. And all the people who have to re-repeat endlessly, can't you make your point in a more condensed way
please? (Notice i said please.)
Are there no Rangers in TTT? Where are Aragorn's trusted Numenorian loyal henchmen?
-
Once there was a tv show about a talking dinasaur called Barney, and eventually it was made into a film. There was also a movie about a puppet called Elmo. Checking facts, they each made a ton of money; partly from screen, partly from video, and partly from merchandise. I understand there was some cult film 'classic' that had a bad run at the box office for abit, called "Citizen Kane". Thanks to Fettastic's financial advice, I now realize which of these were the better films. Time to bow to the Elmo shrine.
-
Through all of the America bashing and Hobbit masturbating I have one question. Where's Harry's review? Don't give me that "I didn't write it until after the midnight screening." I don't want to go off on a rant here, but we all know that you wrote it 2 years ago. You wrote the review for all 3 LOTR flicks right after you got done riding Peter Jackson's baloney pony like Slim fuckin Pickens riding the nuke at the end of Strangelove. You have about as much integrity as the Nixon administration. "Trust him" your ads implore. I'd trust you about as much as I'd trust Gary Condit with my teenage daughter. About as much as I'd trust Ted Kennedy to drive me home after a party. The odds of finding an unbiased review from you are about as good as Axl Rose showing up for a GNR concert. My trust in you is as violated as your spinchter is by Peter Jackson's Hobbit harpoon. By the way hobbit heads, I have news that will make you as happy as Harry at the all-you-can-eat night at the Sizzler. New Line will be releasing yet another version of the first LOTR on dvd next year to coincide with the release of TTT. It will contain 20 minutes of new footage, consisting mainly of Frodo puking non-stop. Look for the easter egg of Peter Jackson laughing at you all for spending another $50. Maybe they'll include the LOTR ashtray this time.
-
From the Chicago Tribune review by Michael Wilmington: "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" takes us back to J.R.R. Tolkien's land of myth and fury - and the return quest is even more staggering and marvelous than last year's maiden voyage.... Here is a movie, like "The Fellowship of the Ring," that's packed to the brim with wonders, chock-full of rip-roaring action, breathtaking landscapes, intoxicating spectacle and full-blooded characters - as heady a draught of fantasy and high adventure as the movies have ever given us. Here are visions to haunt your dreams and action to set your heart pounding: vast bloody battle scenes, whimsical comedy, macabre horrors and shimmering beauties.
Just as he did in part one, Jackson has been enormously faithful to Tolkien's original story - but also inventive and cinematically ingenious in his translation and compression. He has made more changes here than with part one, but each seems justified.... Jackson has woven the three threads tightly together instead of keeping them separate. Intercutting swiftly back and forth, he builds to a crescendo of incredible sustained fury, first with the amazingly vivid and violent Helm's Deep war (a cinematic battle you can easily rank with the Babylonian sequence of "Intolerance" and any of Akira Kurosawa's great film conflagrations), and then, shortly afterward, with Frodo, Sam and the Gollum's suspenseful penetration of Mordor...."The Two Towers" is most of all a stupendous visual achievement, a great movie fantasy. Dramatic pyrotechnics pay second fiddle to the technical ones, but they're not lacking - though, in fact, so many characters pack the environs of Jackson's vision of Middle Earth, it's hard to pay adequate tribute to them all.... C.S. Lewis, in his original remarks on Tolkien's "Two Towers," called it "good beyond hope," and the phrase fits here too. Increasingly, the complete movie "Lord of the Rings" seems a popular film entertainment that can be ranked with the very best ever made." Of course, even as I type this, I realize some of you are already THERE. -
Well, first off he only gave FoTR 7/10 so he's not a huge fan but from what we've heard about Helm's Deep and Gollum a pan seems kinda harsh. Come on, EBERT don't pan it!!!
-
Nuff said, huh?
-
...why sledgehammer450, indulging in some sad advertising, and fettastic haven't been banned long ago. They add nothing, and both are guilty of violating the "off-topic" rules repeatedly. Although, I do have to admit, having fettastic around for comic relief was better than the other day when one of my students threw up during his final and the blind girl's seeing-eye dog tried to eat it. No joke.****tmquinn--America is an overconsumer, but the 3% of the total population that is involved in agricultural production actually makes enough food to feed America as well as export, over the years, large quantities of grain to such areas as China and the now-defunct USSR (which was highly-dependent on US food). The United States' dependence on other nations for food is, like its dependence for other nations on oil, a choice and a product of economic and commercial networks rather than a lack of self-sufficient capability. However, the bulk of US produce is exported, and the Alaskan oil wells are held in reserve for national emergency. Don't mistake me for sympathizing with fettastic's imbecilic rants about the worthlessness of other nations--just adding my interpretation of your own response.
-
Actually I think this is a good review, well argumented. I personally think that the film is worth 8/10, but I can see where Joblo from www.joblo.com is coming from. In fact I agree with many of his criticism, but I liked the good parts more and the weaker aspects didn't bug me so much. Of course I have the advantage of having read the books several times *** CRITIQUE:
A mediocre follow-up to the impressive opening picture, THE TWO TOWERS is too long, spends too much time with bits that don't bring much to the story, too little time with the characters that we got to know in the first installment and other than an all-out war between good and bad to end things off on a high note, not much that's particularly memorable. In retrospect, I wasn't particularly interested in seeing the first movie, but I have to admit that once it got going, I quite enjoyed myself (it even came through stronger on DVD the second time around). It had a rhythm, a good pace, emotional highs, solid action sequences, many unforgettable moments. This time around, I was actually looking forward to seeing the sequel, but very little about it impressed me at all. Many of the characters that we met the first time are barely even seen here, like Liv Tyler, whose character has her face pasted on this film's poster, yet only has about five minutes of screen-time in a story-line that doesn't even seem to fit within all of the other stuff. Christopher Lee's Saruman is also barely shown, while Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving essentially wander through for cameo appearances. The film does bring new players into the game, like Tree-Beard, a hard-to-understand boring walking/talking tree, who spends much of the movie carrying two hobbits on his shoulders, but none are memorable or all that interesting. Brad Dourif's Wormtongue character is somewhat engaging, but he "gets off" way too easily under the circumstances, in a Bond villain-esque type of scene ("No, let him go...enough blood has been shed"-gimme a break!), while others like The King and his daughter, barely made any kind of impact on me. Other than having the "hots" for Aragorn (who doesn't!), the daughter didn't bring much else to the proceedings. Looking back, all the stuff with the two hobbits and the trees could have been excised altogether, and nobody would have gotten hurt (at least, from a narrative point of view).
Gandalf is also quite absent from the movie, and even when he does eventually show his white mug, disappears just as quickly, only to reappear almost an hour later, with only a few minutes left in the show (Maybe he went to get his name officially changed to Gandalf the "Wizard Who Doesn't Do Much Wizarding" for the next installment). So which characters are we left with? Well, Frodo and Sam are two of our point-men, who along with an amazing CGI creation called Gollum, walk along, discuss the ring, Gollum's intentions, and walk some more. They go through a couple of twists, but all in all, their journey isn't all that substantial. In fact, the "ring" itself seemed to taken a backseat in this film. The plotline was centered more around Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli, and the impending war which was about to break out. In fact, much of the movie is essentially just the anticipation of the war, conversations about it, strategies and such, but very little real action. When the end battle finally hits, it is quite a feat, with thousands of creepy Uruk-hai going ape-shit on the gang of goodies from Middle-Earth, but a lot of the stuff before it didn't particularly hype or excite me. Much like the first film, I had trouble understanding some of the names of the people and places here as well, and even mistook a couple of players for one another (every other guy on a horse seemed to have long hair and a goatee!) Bar -
Dienekes--I had my students reading ancient historians, and the comment about fighting in the shade was voted by my class the best one-liner in history. :)****Daughter of Time--your name comes from a quotation by Galileo, "Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority," in response to his frustration at the Church's desire to suppress his astronomical theories as being heretical.****prochnov--We know that stormtroopers were inspired, if not specifically by Nazis, at least by the traditional idea of the fascist soldier of a totalitarian regime...so they are misguided, perhaps brainwashed, individuals. Their "evil" is dependent upon your individual beliefs on personal accountability. But the forces of Sauron are evil because they derive from Morgoth, who was not simply a rebel. Tolkien's love of old northern European mythology, which has a distinctly fatalistic tone, was at odds with his personal nature as a devoted Catholic, which has the world ending on a more hopeful note. So while much of the interaction of the gods, or godlike figures, of the Silmarillion is influenced by mythology, it retains a certain Catholic element. Morgoth's great sin was not in changing the son, but in placing his own will above that of the supreme being--his pride caused him to pursue his own designs above those of his creator, and because he was not as wise, resulted in disaster. So if we follow the trail of evil through all the various rankings down to Sauron...the orcs could be considered more evil in a few specific ways...one of those being that they are the products of a flawed creator who belongs to a flawed system. Another can be seen in their possible origin as corrupted elves; elves were the perfect mortal being,, existing in harmony with nature. The existence of the orcs is therefore a distortion of creator's plan and therefore inherently unnatural event, evidenced by their hatred of the trees and all things living. As for David Brin's take on things...while it's an interesting interpretation, it's one imposed ONTO the text rather than taken OUT of it; with the Silmarillion, Tolkien made clear that the side of Sauron was evil, and those who CHOOSE to follow and ally themselves with him do it out of greed and the promise of power.
-
There was one public (anyone could buy a ticket) preview screening of TTT in the US at the Metreon in San Francisco as a benifit for Amnesty International. Just got back an hour ago. Before the first reel rolled, there was a filmed greeting from Peter Jackson (full screen width, spliced onto the front). If there was any lingering doubt, the man is a class act from start to finish. Oh yeah, the movie was great, too. Quibbles? Lots (about the same as Fellowship). It's still effin' great. Can't wait for the all day marathon in 2004, which is ultimately how this will have to be viewed.
-
. . . you should be getting home any minute. I'm stuck at work and bored as shit so don't spare the details.
-
Why can't we like them both. Fettastic, rants will do nothing to get people to see your point. First rule of Argumentation and Debate class. Facts and figures will help. But it all comes back to why people think you have to be in one camp or another. I don't know if LOTR is good or not because I did not see the first film. I am getting in on DVD and will watch it and make a decision. But if I do not like it, it does not mean it is bad. I like all the Star Wars films, but that does not mean that LOTR sucks. I get so pissed when someone comes into the talkbacks and says "STAR WARS RULES ALL!!! LOTR SUCKS BALLS!!!" or "LOTR RULES ALL!!! STAR WARS SUCKS BALLS!!!". It is just ignorant and irritating. If you don't like one or the other, than why bother posting in the talkbacks of the movie you hate. As for monitary gains making a good movie, not always true. I was not a big fan of Titanic, but it grossed serious scratch. AOTC made over 300 mil. and was considered a bomb. I liked it, but it was expected to make 4 bills plus. X-Men pulled 58 mil. in the first weekend shocking all of Hollywood, and thereby getting every comic book creation onto celluloid. Money in the end is not the end all of making a good movie. Just remember that Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane and Gone With the Wind were box office disappointments in the beginning. The Belt Has Spoken!
-
Just got back from TTT, midnight show. The theatre by me had it playing in three theatres tonight, two were full to capacity and mine about two thirds full. You won't be disappointed. It definitely ups the ante from Fellowship and is NOT lacking in character development. The Wargs look real, unlike they look in the trailers. People will complain about action scenes being blurry and obscured at times, like Gladiator. Gollum is truly a site to behold. His performance is as real as any human beings and worthy of a Best Supporting Oscar nomination. There's a just a couple of niggles here and there one being the fact that they should have showed some more large-scale action in a couple of instances instead of it occuring off camera and merely explained by characters. Aragorn and Gimli shine in this film and Gimli's comic relief came close to being over the top maybe twice. I coulda watched this film for another hour, especially Gollum. He really makes the film and Jackson nailed him. The wait for Return of the King is more excruciating than ever. God Bless Peter Jackson and Friends.
-
East coaster here, 4:00 AM and back from TTT! It's good... REAL good! :)
-
Sorry--it's late and I've been writing all night--Melkor, as I'm sure I'll get e-mails telling me, and not Morgoth was involved in the song of creation and changed it.
-
Dec 18, 2002 4:28:00 AM CST
When the lights came up I was SO disappointed...however, on the
by crazymonkeypants
I just got home from the midnight screening of the Two Towers and I have to admit at first I did not like the movie. I have read the book several times and it is my favorite installment of the trilogy. I just couldn't understand why they had made some of the changes that they did. I understand that it is and adaptation, an interpretation and not a literal translation. Still I couldn't understand why the story had changed so much. On the drive home (about 30 minutes) my husband and I talked about the changes and I asked him what he thought. He made a really good point. He said all the changes made sense cinematically. If you look at it from PJ's point of view, a lot the elements in the book, as good as they are, would just fall flat on the screen (for example how many scenes of the indecisive Ent Moot could they show before the audience pulls their hair out?)The changes made may not make for a very good book, but they made for a good movie. In all fairness I can not reconcile all the changes made. I really did not like the portrayal of Faramir. In the book he is always firm but always compassionate in his treatment of the hobbits. The point is he is NOT his brother. In the movie he almost follows in his brother's footsteps. Maybe there will be some redemption of his character in ROTK. All in all I really liked the movie and I think upon a second viewing I will like it even more.
-
A couple of footnotes...Helm's Deep...there are no words to describe the amount of ass-kicking action...(and I LOVED the addition of the Elves, that's one change I can definitely abide!!), the wargs were cool as hell, Gollum was excellent, and Gandalph's decent with the Balrog was stunning. Legolas was a bad-ass angry elf, and Gimli was very funny without being too hammy (well maybe he was hammy once or twice but it wasn't bad). Last but not least Bernard Hill was great as Theoden.
-
Does it really matter if some critic gave TTT 5/10. The only opinion of the film that means anything is my own I don't need some critic telling me to like or hate any film.
-
[link]http://www.msnbc.com/news/848687.asp?0cv=CB21[/link]
This guy David Elliot writes
"This series, a world hit, seems meant for people who are scared of Shakespeare and wouldn -
BrainT, there's a few errors in your post. Balrogs, like dragons, were created in Angband by Morgoth as purely evil soldiers for his own purposes. They were never good and Eru certainly had nothing to do with their creation.
Sauron himself was a Maia (therefore originally good I guess) and was corrupted to evil by Morgoth. Tolkien's "theme" of the fall into bad ways is that power corrupts. Morgoth knew more of Eru's purpose that the other Valar - even Manwe - and had the greater ability. He grew ever more frustrated by the "rules" and eventually lost it, turning to evil and hindering the work of the other Valar, eventually moving out to Angband and setting forth his dark minions. This story is repeated throughout the history of Middle Earth and Numenor in the stories of Feanor, the sons of Elendil and many others. This is why Gandalf and Galadriel know they cannot take the ring despite their wish to do good. It is not just the will of the one ring that will corrupt them - it is also the power they will gain from it. -
I don't get the point. Who's going to consider the opinion of a guy who scores EIGHT for "Spy Kids", "Charlie's Angels" and "A.I.". The first two movies could be entertaining, period. They are NOT good movies. And A.I. ... well, it's just plain BOOOORING!!!.
-
This is at the end of a LONG talkback, so I'll keep it short (and join the melee in tomorrow's forum). The film has so many high points, it's hard not to be impressed. HOWEVER, if you can't see this film for the choppy mess that it is, you're blinded by devotion. The first ten minutes were awkward, to say the least. Flashback scenes--UNNECESSARY. If you're choosing not to do a recap, assuming that everyone has seen FOTR, why show the Bridge scene again? Hearing the muted dialogue on the mountain pass-overs was cool. But we didn't need to see the old footage. Also, (SPOILERS) how do Gandalf & Balrog fall into this deep, DEEP pit, and then finish their battle on top of a snowy peak? I don't get it. As for the rest of the film, the cuts back and forth were for the most part jarring, and not in an aesthetically "cool" way. When I read The Two Towers last year, I thought, "I hope they cut back and forth between the stories in the film version". Now I'm not so sure that was a good idea. I know you can't have Helm's Deep end halfway through the film, but something didn't feel right. Especially when they don't even show the end of the battle. We get a shot of the 5 horsemen on top of a hill with Gandalf saying "The battle of Helm's Deep is over." Gee, thanks. Merry and Pippin...what a fucking waste. Really. If you're not going to stay true to the plot points, fine, but it's insulting to relegate certain fellowship members to these tiny walkons, or to comic relief (Gimli, also insulting). I can live without Shelob in this film, but if you've too much material for one film, you shouldn't be ADDING stuff like Faramir taking Sam & Frodo into the Gondor city. This sounds very angry, but I loved so many images, scenes, performances in this film. My problems are mainly editing choices, both script-wise and visually. I fully expect Return of the King to deliver, but I'm not getting my hopes up so high to expect near-perfection again. Say what you want about Lucas, but he has a much better sense of rhythm than Jackson (although juggling 4 plots at the end of Episode 1 was too much even for him). I'm not saying he would have done this film better, but damn...it could have been.
-
Dec 18, 2002 6:59:16 AM CST
After all my whining and bitching, Peter Jackson actually proved
by a goonie
The sentence that keeps coming to mind is "a fully-realized work of genius." I'm sure most of you will not recognize my name nor connect it to the correct comments regarding Fellowship. You see, I've been blabbing my ass off for the past year here on this site about Fellowship. I liked it, it was good, but it wasn't great. I had numerous problems with the film. Mainly, the ridiculous ommission of a large amount of Tolkien's text and the subsequent addition of some unnecessary nonsense. The CGI bothered me big-time. The editing, too. However, I did enjoy the acting, Shore's score, and Major's production design. And I loved the fifteen minutes in Hobbiton. Anyways, the point is, ever since Two Towers teasers and such started popping up on the net, I started to blab my opinions on here as usual, and they went a little something like this: due to the fact that the films were all shot as one and therefore all pre-scripted, and due to the fact that the crew remained practically identical for the films, all three films would essentially have the same pros and cons. There would be some great stuff in Two Towers, but there would also be the annoying faults of the first film. As the film's release neared, my words rang ever truer in my mind. I watched all the different trailers and such and they all supported my belief. Then there was Harry Potter and the Chamber of the Secrets, which I also expected would suffer the same fate. It would differ very little from its predecessor. Then I saw Harry 2, and discovered I was right. There was hardly a single original shot or moment in the whole film. It was practically identical to the original (except the effects were better). So it only makes sense that Two Towers would be just like Fellowship... boy was I wrong. Seriously now, I don't know how PJ and co. did it, but they did. Lesnie's photography was great. The acting was wonderful. The shots were inspired. But the screenplay. Suddenly one of my biggest complaints about Fellowship became my biggest praise for Two Towers. The adaptation of Tolkien's text... perfect. Incredible. This is a film essentially with no first act. And yet the screenplay is more perfectly structured than most movies released this year. It's genius. The writing, coupled with the editing, makes each story flow and manages to find the precise moment at which to leave one story for another. Howard Shore's score is even better now. All the new music is beautiful and very welcome. The sets and art direction continue to amaze, as does the incredible make-up work (look at Theoden under Saruman's spell!) And then you have the effects. Come on, who knew WETA Digital had it in them? Well apparently millions of Jackson and Fellowship fans across the world, but still... how did I miss it? The work here is astonishing. The Oliphaunts, the army of Uruk-Hai, the Nazgul, the Ents!!!!!!! The Ents are perfect! They're better than I could have ever imagined! Treebeard is amazing. Their attack on Isengard is incredible. And then you have Gollum... man, what a piece of work. Andy Serkis and the animators breathe life and soul into a character that could have ended up a gross-looking version of Jar Jar Binks (or worse, Dobby the house elf). Before this, the closest CGI ever came to actually delivering a performance was with the T-Rex in Jurassic Park. Now look at Gollum. I rest my case. So there you have it. I was proven wrong. I, doc_loggins, insulter of Peter Jackson, am now one of you. I am now officially able to sing the passionate praises of LOTR while shitting all over Lucas's atrocious collection of brain-damaged drivel known as Attack of the Clones. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is a great and powerful picture indeed.
-
pretty good actually.
Gimli: what's happening?
Legolas: Shall I describe it to you? or find you a box?
arf. -
Just got back from seeing the Two Towers and all I can say is, what a brilliant movie!
Don't listen to the trolls on here who are slagging it off. This movie is fantastic. All this "I was disappointed" crap is just that. Crap. TTT is better than FOTR IMO. Be prepared to pick your jaw off the carpet when the Helms Deep battle takes place.
Hail Peter Jackson, new king of the cinema! -
Just a reminder: the person most responsible for the look of FOTR is Alan Lee. Yes, Major EXECUTED Lee's designs, but most of the sets and minatures in FOTR come directly from Lee's imagination. And if anything, Major's sets don't really do justice to Lee's haunting drawings. Disgracefully, Lee and his collaborator John Howe have not been given top billing in the credits - even though they are just as much responsible for how this movie turned out as Jackson, Walsh, Boyns, etc.
-
BY ROGER EBERT
With "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers," it's clear that director Peter Jackson has tilted the balance decisively against the hobbits and in favor of the traditional action heroes of the Tolkien trilogy. The star is now clearly Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), and the hobbits spend much of the movie away from the action. The last third of the movie is dominated by an epic battle scene that would no doubt startle the gentle medievalist J.R.R. Tolkien.
The task of the critic is to decide whether this shift damages the movie. It does not. "The Two Towers" is one of the most spectacular swashbucklers ever made, and, given current audience tastes in violence, may well be more popular than the first installment, "The Fellowship of the Ring." It is not faithful to the spirit of Tolkien and misplaces much of the charm and whimsy of the books, but it stands on its own as a visionary thriller. I complained in my review of the first film that the hobbits had been short-changed, but with this second film I must accept that as a given, and go on from there.
"The Two Towers" is a rousing adventure, a skillful marriage of special effects and computer animation, and it contains sequences of breathtaking beauty. It also gives us, in a character named the Gollum, one of the most engaging and convincing CGI creatures I've seen. The Gollum was long in possession of the Ring, now entrusted to Frodo, and misses it ("my precious") most painfully; but he has a split personality and (in between spells when his dark side takes over) serves as a guide and companion for Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin). His body language is a choreography of ingratiation and distortion.
The film introduces another computer-generated character, Treebeard, a member of the most ancient race in Middle-Earth, a tree that walks and talks and takes a very long time to make up its mind, explaining to Merry and Pippin that slowness is a virtue. I would have guessed that a walking, talking tree would look silly and break the spell of the movie, but no, there is a certain majesty in this mossy old creature.
The film opens with a brief reprise of the great battle between Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and Balrog, the monster made of fire and smoke, and is faithful to the ancient tradition of movie serials by showing us that victory is snatched from certain death, as Gandalf extinguishes the creature and becomes in the process Gandalf the White.
To compress the labyrinthine story into a sentence or two, the enemy is Saruman (Christopher Lee), who commands a vast army of Uruk-Hai warriors against the fortress of Theoden (Bernard Hill). Aragorn joins bravely in the fray, but the real heroes are the computer effects, which create the castle, landscape, armies and most of the action.
There are long stretches of "The Two Towers" in which we are looking at mostly animation on the screen. When Aragorn and his comrades launch an attack down a narrow fortress bridge, we know that the figures toppling to their doom are computer-generated, along with everything else on the screen, and yet the impact of the action is undeniable. Peter Jackson, like some of the great silent directors, is unafraid to use his entire screen, to present images of wide scope and great complexity. He paints in the corners.
What one misses in the thrills of these epic splendors is much depth in the characters. All of the major figures are sketched with an attribute or two, and then defined by their actions. Frodo, the nominal hero, spends much of his time peering over and around things, watching others decide his fate, and occasionally gazing significantly upon the Ring. Sam is his loyal sidekick on the sidelines. Merry and Pippin spend a climactic stretch of the movie riding in Treebeard's branches and looking goggle-eyed at everything, like children carried on their father's shoulders. The Fellowship of the first movie has been divided into three during this one, and most of the action centers on Aragorn, who operates within the tradition of Viking swordsmen and medieval knights.
The details of the story--who is who, and why, and what their histories and attributes are--still remains somewhat murky to me. I know the general outlines and I boned up by rewatching the first film on DVD the night before seeing the second, and yet I am in awe of the true students of the Ring. For the amateur viewer, which is to say for most of us, the appeal of the movies is in the visuals. Here there be vast caverns and mighty towers, dwarves and elves and Orcs and the aforementioned Uruk-Hai (who look like distant cousins of the aliens in "Battlefield Earth"). And all are set within Jackson's ambitious canvas and backdropped by spectacular New Zealand scenery.
"The Two Towers" will possibly be more popular than the first film, more of an audience-pleaser, but hasn't Jackson lost the original purpose of the story somewhere along the way? He has taken an enchanting and unique work of literature and retold it in the terms of the modern action picture. If Tolkien had wanted to write about a race of supermen, he would have written a Middle-Earth version of "Conan the Barbarian." But no. He told a tale in which modest little hobbits were the heroes. And now Jackson has steered the story into the action mainstream. To do what he has done in this film must have been awesomely difficult, and he deserves applause, but to remain true to Tolkien would have been more difficult, and braver.
-
Dec 18, 2002 8:44:38 AM CST
Um, "Charm and Whimsy"? Has Ebert *read* the books in the last
by jtylor
I'm still wondering how PJ will deal with Tolkien's writing that the heads of slaughtered Gondorians were catapulted inside the walls of Minas Tirith by Mordor's seige engines without getting RotK an R. "Gentle Medievalist"? The Medieval era was profoundly un-gentle...
-
...Yet again as before with 'fellowship' you get the people who fail to realise 'its a film' and raise their expectations to a level that nothing can compare.I did this with fellowship,saw it,disliked it and then saw it again and for some strange reason adored it.I now consider LOTR to be a modern masterpeice of 'filmmaking'.Seems that some people are sitting way too close to the screen if they thought helms deep was 'choppy'It was just brilliant.
I knew what I was expecting with TTT except I didnt realise how much there was to be delivered this time round...in short fucking brilliant stuff there. Personally I dont give a damn about farimers 'change' but im not a tolkenite just a lover of movies.And this is one hell of a movie...yes It does lose some soul from the first but there in fact is no first.You must take into consideration this is ONE FILM split into 3 PARTS.If anyone cant deal with this then dont bother!
Y'know there was someone who went with me who hadn't seen fellowship! And they were non plussed by TTT. -
Liked it???Pigs may fly yet.I agree that *maybe* he should read the book again sometime in the future and realize not only the violence in LOTR but also some of the whys it was made as it was.I am not saying that one should agree with them,just understand them.I think it would be very interesting when all is said and done,to watch it all as one film(which it is) and then see what critics and more important what film goers think.
-
I puzzled over Ebert's reference to charm and whimsy myself, perhaps when he read it in the sixties there was another influence at work. As for his continued criticism that LOTR has been hijacked by the humans and other 'big' people, again one has to wonder when he last read the work, because a good portion of the story is given over to Aragorn and the others. Someone should remind him that the last book is called "Return of the King", not "Triumph of the Hobbits".
-
to be a hobbit geek.
-
There
-
As the Eminem song goes, guess whose back? It's been empty without me. And yes, I did like TTT more than LOTR and I did see it almost four weeks ago. You can check out the review at
http://www.eclipsemagazine.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=581 -
Um, is it mine? Yours? Peter Jackson's? President Bush's? Might be easier if we had a picture. Oh, wait, I know, Pope John Paul II. No? Man, I can't guess. Whose back is it?
-
Malexandria wrote "I actually liked the music this time out,(meaning she didn't like the first films score) although the score is EXACTLY the same as before (I watched the Extended DVD the night before I saw TTT as a refresher.)"
Your review is poor and the only reason I can think of that you posted on here is because you want more traffic to your site and to get people talking about you again.
If you think the movie could be over in another 10 mins, then you havent got a clue about this saga, and best not review the film in the first place, eh?, as you obviously are not a fan of fantasy. -
Those numbers don't lie, and I have no worries that this entire series will be regarded as one of the most accomplished masterpieces of its time.
Thank God PJ took on this task with all the enthusiasm and dedication that this story deserved.
-
3 HOURS TO GO!!!!!
-
Treebeard: "We march on Isengaurd. It may well be to the doom of us all. The last march of the Ents." Saw the midnight show last night. Holy sweet mother of cool, it's too much to digest. I may have to see it twice more before I can even review it. The Ents marching on Isengaurd may be one of the coolest things I've ever seen on film. Viggo and Miranda Otto are fantastic. The Helm's Deep battle is awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping stuff. Must go back....must see again. I'm going on 3 hours of sleep...ugh.
-
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I really loved this film, but why did Peter create scenes that never exsisted in the books? Why are there elves at Helm's Deep, (which, that part didn't bug me too much), but why on God's green earth didn't we get to see Shelob?!?!?!
I was looking forward to Shelob for over a year! I love the ending of the novel, and I think it would have been a great ending for the movie, especially for folks who have never read the books! "Oh no, Frodo has been captured by Orcs and Sam has the Ring!" That would have been great!
Also, Shelob would have been another awesome monster to put into this movie. We got to see the fall of the Balrog, and we got great looks of the Nazgul's steeds.
Overall, LOTR:TTT is a 9 out of 10 for me. If they had stayed truer to the book, it would have been a 10. I can fully understand trimming or adjusting scenes from the book to better fit the movie, but why make up stuff like Faramir taking Frodo, Sam, and Gollum to that city on the river? That was stupid. Oh well. -
Just so that you know...
-
Just so that you know...
-
I am in France and i just come back from the first screening of TT (i was totaly full at 9:45am)
and is the best film of the year, special effects are awsome and Gollum is the best cgi creature ever (ILM had some work for episode 3). That's all, i have only one thing i my head about this movie : Fu.....GREAT -
Dec 18, 2002 11:21:34 AM CST
Harry, could you PLEASE ban malexandria, she's nothing but a spa
by minderbinder
And to be honest, the spamming part bothers me more than the cunt part. She contributes nothing to these boards other than pathetic pleas to click on her site and up her hit count.
-
I read Ebert's review, which is all about Tolkien's whimsy, his presumed shock at the big battle scene (nothing turns a Medievalist off like a battle scene) and his alleged theme of the triumph of the common man/little guy as personified by the Hobbits. Where Ebert's coming from is pretty clear: all he remembers about the trilogy is singing along with Tom Bombadil between hits of Maui Wowie, and knowing with moral certainty that Sauron represented LBJ.
-
watched FOTR last night. best shot in the movie for me still has to be the moth. I wonder how PJ ever decided to do that. Taking the camera from the moth (nature) down into the pits (industry). tis a great bit of camera work.
-
Ebert's comments about the "spirit" of the film lose credibility when he complains about the battles in the movie as if they were merely a footnote in Tolkien's work that Jackson exaggerated beyond all proportion. A major portion of the second book was indeed centered around the battle and it's importance to the entire world of the story. Ebert may disagree with the degree the movie focused on the warring, but he overstates his case.
-
Llama, thanks for the erudition; you truly live up to your name. And on the subject of Ebert, I am with Fluffy Grey Cat - he should stop pontificating from the point of view of dim and obviously distorted memories. "Gentle Medievalist" - ha! I still suspect that if he ever read the book at all, he stopped after the first 50 pages, when Frodo was still in Hobbiton, or at least never got beyond Tom Bombadil, because after that, I don't recall a "whimsical" moment. You'd think in the past year he'd have gotten enough righteous anger directed at his ignorance that he'd have skimmed Book II, in self-defence - at which point he might have discovered a whole different world than he's "remembering." Hope he never shows up in court as a witness.... ***Well, I don't see TTT until tomorrow, but I did wander by the theatre last night to say hello to the line forming for the midnight show, and bought more tickets for Saturday, so I'm sure of at least two viewings before Christmas (and another one Christmas Day, I hope). Elanor has been refusing to "spoil" the ending for me, but a friend (who knows I'm interested) e-mailed me a review from the Boston paper... so I know one of my best beloved Frodo-and-Sam bits is included! Namarie, mellyn. This will be a long day and a sleepless night!
-
Two problems occur in Ebert's review, neither of which have to do with the movie. Both, I would argue, are misrepresentations of the books. First, Ebert wonder's about the battles and the gentle medievalist Tolkien. This is problematic, because even if Tolkien was the greatest of pacifists, his books do not share that ideal. His books, especially the farther one goes, are soaked in the vagaries of battle. There are a great many examples of true violence in these stories, right down to the pivotal scene back in Hobbiton at the end of the Return of the King. The author and the story are not the same, and Ebert makes the mistake of writing that the nature of Tolkien is the nature of the book. Second, when Ebert speaks to the notion that these books are whimsical I am afraid that he has completely missed the 'spirit' of the book. This is not a light-hearted romp, this is serious business with a great deal of sadness. His hero, Frodo, loses just about everything, and suffers as much pain as a major character can suffer without actually dying. Maybe moreso. Nonetheless, I think it is Ebert who has misread the work. Also, simply because Ebert writes a good column, does not make him a great arbiter of writing. Yes, he won the Pulitzer, so what, it means that he writes movie reviews and articles about movies well, nothing more, nothing less. Don't grant him more than the award itself awards.
-
Two problems occur in Ebert's review, neither of which have to do with the movie. Both, I would argue, are misrepresentations of the books. First, Ebert wonder's about the battles and the gentle medievalist Tolkien. This is problematic, because even if Tolkien was the greatest of pacifists, his books do not share that ideal. His books, especially the farther one goes, are soaked in the vagaries of battle. There are a great many examples of true violence in these stories, right down to the pivotal scene back in Hobbiton at the end of the Return of the King. The author and the story are not the same, and Ebert makes the mistake of writing that the nature of Tolkien is the nature of the book. Second, when Ebert speaks to the notion that these books are whimsical I am afraid that he has completely missed the 'spirit' of the book. This is not a light-hearted romp, this is serious business with a great deal of sadness. His hero, Frodo, loses just about everything, and suffers as much pain as a major character can suffer without actually dying. Maybe moreso. Nonetheless, I think it is Ebert who has misread the work. Also, simply because Ebert writes a good column, does not make him a great arbiter of writing. Yes, he won the Pulitzer, so what, it means that he writes movie reviews and articles about movies well, nothing more, nothing less. Don't grant him more than the award itself awards.
-
Llama, thanks for the full quote; your name is well-chosen. And on the subject of Ebert, I am with Fluffy Grey Cat - he should stop pontificating from the point of view of dim and obviously distorted memories. Tolkien a "gentle Medievalist" - ha! I still suspect that if Ebert ever read the book at all, he stopped after the first 50 pages, when Frodo was still in Hobbiton, or at least never got beyond Tom Bombadil - because after that, I don't recall a "whimsical" moment. You'd think in the past year he'd have had enough righteous anger directed at his ignorance that he'd have skimmed Book II, in self-defence - at which point he might have discovered a whole different world than he's "remembering." Hope he never shows up in court as a witness.... ***Well, I don't see TTT until tomorrow, but I did wander by the theatre last night to say hello to the line forming for the midnight show, and bought more tickets for Saturday, so I'm sure of at least two viewings before Christmas (and another one Christmas Day, I hope). Elanor has been refusing to "spoil" the ending for me, but a friend (who knows I'm interested) e-mailed me a review from the Boston paper... so I know one of my best beloved Frodo-and-Sam bits is included. Namarie, mellyn. This will be a long day and a sleepless night!
-
Stop lying, and stop judging. You DON'T live in the USA, so what do you know? And you would give your left nut to live here, don't lie. And you are wrong: The US is a WONDERFUL place to live, and I pity people who don't.
-
I've posted twice (the second a re-posting with minor edits) and neither has shown up. So probably this won't either.
-
Saw the midnight screening of TTT. The only things that I didn't like were the forced humor with Gimli and Gollum. Other than that it was a great movie. Can't wait for ROTK!!!
-
I mean, c'mon, haven't you seen that picture he circulated of himself? Life's been pretty hard for a third tier Bullet Boys roadie. Ever since the Sleeze Beez broke up, man... --------- I mean, come on Fettastic, shouldn't you be bainging all those chicks that are hotter than Asia Argento, or riding your 1983 wiffle metal motorcycle, or lifting weights, or any of that other crap you like to drool about when you run out of ideas .0005 seconds into any discussion? Jeez.
-
This TB is a year long...
Quick heads up to Quint for a nice review sans spoilage.
Keep on writing like that.
Friday is MY day!
cant wait!
-
A really good movie...
I for one was prepared for CGI Gollum to be less than great. I was not too impressed with the shots of him in the teasers -n- trailers we saw but knew that would not be a big factor in my overall impression of the film. But, I must say some post-production work was done to good effect and the close up shots and facial expressions were actually really really good!
But more than that, all the crying bitches I have heard moan about the humor tweaking done on Gollum (and even Gimli) can go suck an ass! The duality of Gollums nature is hard to convey in motion picture and the humor was certainly NOT over the top. I think after a few more sittings :) it will be even more clear that the humor aspect was used quite well to give people like my wife (who never even heard of Gollum and never read the books) a glimpse of the schizo-like conflict raging inside of this pitiful little creature. Without ever reading the books, people I knew who spoke about the flick afterwards actually vocalized much of the spirit that the book conveyed... in other words; they GOT it! Nobody was either rolling with laughter or aggravation after each of the humor sequences in the movie. Just a lot of half cracked smiles and grins.
I was happy with the amount of attention we got on Legolas and with the comradery between the remaining fellowship'ers, I was giddy like a five year old watching the opening Balrog sequence, I was pissed when the Ents refused to help and gripped with excitement when they rocked Isengard. People who say they were checking their watches often... well the only reason I did was to get a grip on myself hoping it wouldn't end too soon. This film moved and progressed at a FAR better pace than fellowship! Even my narcoleptic wife was awake through the whole midnight showing after I thought I was going to have to elbow her out of snoring the whole fucking time...
Great way to bring a treasured story to life on the big screen. 'nuff said. I won't irritate those people who are sick of hearing crap like "it was a masterpiece of epic theatrical storytelling" and "it was the best movie ever made". It was just a great flick period. See it, enjoy it for what it is... good times on film! Whether you love story or not, it's just a good satisfying watch.
GIMME MORE! ROTK here we come... well after a few more viewings of TTT of course! -
I think there is sort of a consensus growing and it happens to match my first thoughts on TTT. First off, remarkable movie. I'm not prepared to rate it to tFotR until its had a chance to digest a bit more. TTT had the opposite pacing problems of Fellowship, where tFOTR felt overpaced (understandably), Towers felt overstretched. Despite being a huge Tolkien fan, most of Jackson's "add-ins" from Fellowship sat well with me. They helped streamline the story and fit in missing pieces both story wise and pacing wise. The new stuff in Two Towers was at best superflous and at worst continuity murder. SPOILERS- Ok, the problem with freelancing from the established source is the temptation to force stupid actions out of smart characters for the sake of whatever you are trying to accomplish with the scene. For instance, the Kings nephew in a single day see's his cousin the heir slain, an invasion of orcs and hillmen, his sister pursued by a pervert, his uncle the king bewitched, and himself banished. His solution? He rides off with the entire army of Rohan(only 2000?) for Parts Unknown. No. Another continuity problem, Elrond for whatever dubious reason decides to send elves to help Rohan. Who leads them? Haldir. Haldir FROM LORIEN. huh? Why not just name him "That elf that we've seen somewhere before and may be familiar". Third problem, Osigiliath. I just dont get the point of this whole scene. To show us a city battle? All of this could have been done in Ithilien w/o altering Faramirs character. And what, precisely, changes Faramirs mind? Seeing Frodo crack up? Wouldnt you think that would make him _less_ inclined to let him take the ring off wandering about Mordor? These kinda things grate at me. All that being said, Gollum (the character not the CG)was nothing short of heart rending. Fuck all those people in the theatre laughing when he was having a breakdown.
-
Actually I'm kinda fat myself but I needed a subject title and I love that SP episode title.
I don't think Ebert has ever read the full "Lord of the Rings" He read the Hobbit and the first half of FOTR, got bored when it turned from Hobbit songs to the meat of the story and decided to read "Valley of the Dolls" for the umpteenth time instead and now has some how convinced himself he had read the full LOTR. He bitched the same nonsense when FOTR came out, saying the humans had hijacked the movie even though it's clear that Frodo and the hobbits where the main characters in the movie. As for TTT, I sadly won't see it until Sunday (dammit, dammit, dammit) but I'm sure a good chuck of the movie is Frodo's trek with Sam and Gollum, not to mention who the fuck does he think gets the Ents fired up? Besides in ROTK Sam, Merry and Pippin will all assume thei heroic roles just like in the book (I hope they have the Scouring of the Shire!), I have utter faith in PJ. Oh and please Mr. Jackson. You know we all wants it... A Rosie the Hobbit nude scene! *G* -
Sorry, but I don't understand the appeal of Brad Dourif. I mean, he's not really a BAD actor per se, and by now he's got a certain recognition factor with the SF crowd, but he just makes such dull, safe choices. I feel like I've never seen him really get into a character, make it something unique...he keeps getting these "intense psycho" roles, but he just never seems...well, genuinely intense. His character development (to me) seems very superficial...he only does exactly what you'd expect. It's really not hard to play characters the way he does, but if he gave them some dimension it could really be cool. For example, think of Willem Dafoe in "Shadow of the Vampire". Any actor out there could have curled his fingers and glared around "intensely", and done a passable job, but Dafoe managed to give the character some real mystery and heart, and really propelled it to a much higher level. Dourif is just so pedestrian onscreen...still, at least he's consistent...you always know what you're getting. Maybe he's really great to work with or something.
-
http://www.joblo.com/twotowers.htm
My exact feelings. -
I had to break up some good ranting with something about the subject of this talkback but...
OK, I've seen this movie and am confused, In an early trailer we had seen Arwen go up to the shrine with the shards of Narsill (sp) and in the actual movie when aragorn is in dream land/the river he wakes up with a big sword on his belt, is this supposed to be Narsill or what?
Damn as much as I liked this movie I can see a few points were things seemed cut-out (gimli and legolas never finish their orc tally game, saruman talking about Gandalf finding Isildur's heir) I guess we'll have to wait till next october for the special edition The Two Towers DVD to see everything.. -
You are wrong, and so is Ebert. The problem is that the book Ebert is referring to doesn't exist. He is not comparing the film to the book (which I could understand), but a version of the book which exists only in his owm imagination and not in reality. He hasn't read the book in 30 years. He has trouble remembering what happens in it. He complains that the film spends less time with Hobbits than with other races. This comes straight from the book and besides, nearly all of the *cinematic* stuff happens with non-hobbits. PJ even had to move Shelob to ROTK so that the final film wouldn't become too human-centered. There is almost twice us much human storyline in ROTK than there is hobbit stoylines. Ebert calls Tolkien a "gentle medievalist" who wouldn't apprectiate the battle carnage. Tolkien wrote a brutal, dark and violent book which couldn't be translated accurately without R-rating. Ebert misses the whimsy, but it didn't exist much anymore after the first of the six books. And the trouble with Ebert's attitude is that this misguided criticism with no basis on the actual book is his biggest negative point about the whole film. He takes a purist approach, but his opinion is not based on the book. That's a big contradiction and renders his review pointless.
-
HURRAY!
-
HURRAY!
-
HURRAY!
-
I generally enjoy your explications, they are informative and well written, and you seem to be one of the more well read Tolkienites here. Anyways, regarding what you said about the Hobbits atavism and differences from humans, how do you resolve the issue of Hobbits seeming natural autonomy and general inherent decency with the Sackville-Baggins. I know Lobelia has her redemption at the end, but you've got to admit that their greed and nastiness seems at odds on its face with the espoused Hobbit ethic. What's your take? Of course opinions from the rest are welcome as well:)
-
HURRAY!
-
I like how you describe all the "gay boy LOTR nerds". Can anybody spot fettastic in this clip?---http://www.ifilm.com/ifilm/product/film_info/0,3699,2456970,00.html--- BTW I love both FOTR and AOTC. There are "gay boy" fans for each of these trilogies, 2X for SW, so just watch it when describe fans of LOTR. And yes I realize there is a LOTR "gay boy" in the clip as well so don't bother pointing that out.
-
http://www.theonering.net/movie/ttreviews/review.php?id=412
---Jaundice--- -
We need some where else to talk LOTR because this talkback thread has gone to hell.
-
A well done film, and I was really absorbed in it. More so than the first. I really felt like the screen was alive, with only a few foibles. First off I think if you want the book read the damn book. It's the story in its purest form. *SPOILER* I didnt mind the elves showing up. Or even the way they change Eyomers role. I only took issue with how Faramir was represented. I think he was made out to greedy and that just wasnt the way Faramir is in the books. end*SPOILER*. As far as Ebert's claim of the movie losing the spirit of the books, I disagree. I do think there is less focus on Frodo and the Hobits but thats unavoidable. Howerver, the battle was key to the out come of the film, in all fairness time spent on things such as the Wargs (it was really cool dont get me wrong) could have focused on the Hobits instead of none book related peices. This strays the most from the books, but not in its spirit. Merry and Pippen are key players in ROTK, and basically all they did in the book was hang with treebeard. So i cant complain. In my opinion Frodo was more compelling this time around and Sam is just how he should be, and Gollum, Gollum steals the show. I felt more with Gollum on the screen than I feel with most real actors. I am not BSing about this either. He was just amazing to watch. I wish the first all digital charecter (JAR JAR) could have had this sort of depth. Sure Harry Potter's house Elf was pretty good. But nothing like this. My Mother went with me and my freinds to see this at midnight. She has fallen asleep at almost every Midnight screening we have ever gone to (star wars), she also fell asleep during FotR. But she was wide awake this whole film. She really liked Gollum, in fact he was the topic of most of the coversations about the film. I am totally pleased. It fit my expectations. I know I am going to flack for this next bit but, I wish they had worked the Requiem for A Dream music in to the helms deep battle after the trailer I just associated that music with the Movie. It's just such a great peice of music. I love it.
-
Dec 18, 2002 8:11:34 PM CST
The Two Towers Is A Tour-De-Force...Where Is The Real Talk Back?
by barron34
A few points: the movie is out, but all LOTR:The Two Towers has on AICN is Quint's positive but somewhat restrained review and this Talk Back. Where are the main reviews from Harry and Mori and the corresponding Talk Backs? We regulars are impatient. Must we settle for just this Talk Back? Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of this Talk Back is NOT EVEN ABOUT THE MOVIE. Here's a suggestion: do not read any Troll's posts and definitely do not respond to them. The bulk of this Talk Back are just such posts. I have no interest in them, and neither should you. Most of this Talk Back, from what I have been able to glean, is apparently about America's agricultural output and overseas box office. My response: huh-what? For God's sakes, post about the movie, or not at all! The majority of posts here have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOVIE*****In reference to that point, and as a minor public service, I will list some (but not all) of the nickname's of the posters on this Talk Back who DO, in fact, post about the movie: they include: FluffyGreyCat (who hits the nail right on the head in regards to Ebert's puzzling and uninformed review), Velocity (who writes a sober review of TTT from the point of view of a real Tolkien fan), Morgoth (who also hits the nail on the head regarding Ebert), Hildebrand, DaughterofTime, and Millie, who is so correct that I must quote directly: "These films are not 'perfect adaptations' of Tolkien's work. They are, however, perfect companion pieces. If you enjoyed the books, you will enjoy the movies." He goes on to say that if you did not read the books, but enjoyed the movies, you will be compelled to read the books. In my opinion, this is right on, and is the best that can be hoped for in terms of translating beloved books to film: they are very different media (books and film), and the idea of a 'perfect adaptation' is a complete myth and utter impossibility. The best we can hope for is a great movie (or movies, in this case) that are 'perfect companion pieces' to a book or books. That is what Peter Jackson serves up here, again, for the second time. In any case, please go down the Talk Back and read the posts of these folks that I have mentioned. They are worth reading. They actually discuss the film in question, and are not off topic like most of the rest of the Talk Back. There are other posters that I have not listed who also discuss the movie, and I apologize for not listing them exhaustively, but you must sympathize when I say that sifting through this muddy Talk Back for any posts THAT ACTUALLY DISCUSS THE MERITS OR DEMERITS OF THE FILM is a rather tiring experience, what with all the off-topic nonsense that 90% of the Talk Back is. So, read the posts of the folks I mentioned, as well as any other posts you see that actually discuss the movie, but I would advise you to skip the off-topic nonsense, if you like.******On to the film itself: I am a Tolkien fan from old days, but am rusty on the topic since I have not read the books in several years and am not fanatical about it like I was as a kid. In any case, I was not dissapointed by this film, but was, in fact, thrilled by it. Thrilled by the action, the epic sweep, the grand cinematography and beautiful locales, the beautiful costumes and design, the FX, the story, the characters, the performances, and the direction. This is a fantastic film. Is it a perfect film? No, but what film is? Was it a great film? The jury is probably still out at this early phase, but I would venture to say that when all the smoke and dust clears and all is said and done, this film trilogy will stand amongst the best films of all time, and certainly will be one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, fantasy films of all time, along with Star Wars, the Wizard of Oz, and the few other films that are in that rare pantheon. The Two Towers is a thrilling film. If you are a hard-core fan (and many of you are), you might be disappointed by various alterations in story, tone, and characters. Some of you have points on these matters (such as Faramir's behavior and character in the movie versus the books), but I will refrain from addressing these matters in this initial posting, and will perhaps enter into discussions regarding these details at a later time. The reason being for this is that, as a viewer, these few details did not change the fact that the movie was thrilling and fantastic for me. I never expect perfection and total adherance to a book by a film, for to do so is foolish, in my opinion. No such 'perfect movie' has ever been made. It is a myth. This way, I am never dissappointed, for no film can ever be perfect, and no movie adaptation can ever be completely faithful to a book, though the filmmakers must do their best in this regard. No, I am here to praise this film, not to quibble about what some might consider it's flaws. So, I must conclude that, overall, this film succeeds tremendously as a live-action fantasy film as NO OTHER MOVIE IN FILM HISTORY EVER HAS, and THAT is what I feel that we, as real fans, MUST focus on. We must not allow other details to distract us from this larger point. Yes, there are flaws, but the flaws do not rise to a level where they keep the film from being great, in my opinion. To allow a change from the book (for example, the presence of Elves at Helm's Deep) distract us from the overall creative success of this film at this moment will miss the point and blunt the fact that what we have here is the second great film in one of the greatest fantasy films of all time. Let us not miss THAT point(although I am certain that some of you will not agree with me, those that do should make themselves heard). Why am I not hearing this sort of praise about this film here in this Talk Back? Most positive reviews here seem restrained (witness Quint's review) or focus on details that seem to me to be a bit beside the point while perhaps missing the larger picture. *****While, for the moment, I might seem like a lone voice crying out in the wilderness, I suggest that this is merely because here at AICN there has been a rather strangely muted response to this film relative to the rest of the world so far. I suggest that you look at reviews other than those here or the rather baffling review Ebert gives. Most print reviews are overwhelmingly positive, and go beyond mere praise for a film that is merely good. Most print reviews seem to recognize the great creative success of this movie as the second film in a unique and extraordinary trilogy of films. To confirm this, I suggest that you go to Rotten Tomatoes (www.rottentomatoes.com) and read all of the links to reviews in the regular print media. They are overwhelmingly positive, and not MERELY positive, but quite frankly, these reviews recognize the greatness of the achievement of these films. Were there flaws in this film? Yes, undoubtedly. Is this film a breathtaking epic fantasy the likes of which has never before been seen on the big screen? I would say yes. Hell, yes, in fact. THAT simple fact should be what we fans should focus on. We as fans should recognize the achievement of this film rather than going off on tangents or by focusing on where the film failed to match up to the books. We can discuss those details in due time, but for the moment, for those who agree that this film is a great creative success, let us savor the victory of this film, the prior film FOTR, and happily anticipate the final film in the trilogy, which will undoubtedly be great as well. Anything else is just a footnote, in my opinion. There is time enough for writing those footnotes in the future. For now, let us just praise what is praisworthy about this film and enjoy the fact of it's success. Barron out.
-
Dec 18, 2002 8:26:40 PM CST
Talk Back Is Random; Skip Off Topic Posts And Read Mine, Morgoth
by barron34
Most posts on this Talk Back are NOT about the movie, but are off topic posts by Trolls and people responding to Trolls. Here's a suggestion: do not respond to Trolls! Do not read their posts, do not respond to their posts. Most posts on this Talk Back are not even about the danged movie! Post only on the movie, and only read posts ABOUT the movie. You will save much time and effort. The posts of the above TBers are a good place to start; these people are writing and posting about the movie, NOT about the state of U.S. agriculture, overseas box office for this or that, or the price of coffee in Brazil. These folks are writing about The Two Towers, not some other nonsense. Read their posts, respond to their posts! We'll get a decent Talk Back going if we try! (and when they stop randominzing the damned posts! put them in order for God's sake, Harry!)
-
I managed to watch the 7:45 evening showing here in Britain tonight and I cba to talk about all it's obvious brilliant bits because I am too blown away by Gollum. I know loads of critics e.t.c have waxed lyrical about him so I had high expectations but this was something else.
Utterly utterly amazing and worth the ticket price alone. Helms Deep is a mere bonus :) -
May I add my voice to yours in suggesting that serious readers of this talkback simply go to Rotten Tomatoes (which I confess, I accessed for the first time last night) and read the almost endless glowing reviews of TTT. These are not just "positive" reviews - they are saying this film is a masterpiece and comparing it to some of the greatest films EVER, despite whatever flaws it may have. And as an aside, I'll tell you why I enjoy reading reviews. It's because I really do like to read what articulate people have to say about a given film, and although it can be horribly frustrating to read such pointlessly negative reviews as David Elliott's, the positive reviews (and occasionally, the thoughtful negative ones) are just as entertaining as the intelligent comments on the talkback. I love hearing what people have to say when they care about something - as opposed to mere mindless rants, which we should utterly ignore. Also, Barron, I thank you for the compliment of including me in such excellent company.
-
I would have to agree about the pacing of the movie. It was one of the first things I noticed. It seemed off, like a clear direction in the editing wasn't made. I think I was also a little put off by the opening scene recapping Gandalf's fall into darkness. Perhaps it works in the grand scheme of things but it seemed out of place - out of order - at the start of this film. I think the pacing, though, detached us, the audience, from the film a bit. It made it a little more impersonal. I know at times I was thinking I can't wait until the DVD release whrn Jackson has time to go back and re-edit the film perfectly. That is not to say I didn't love this film. In fact, I found myself growing into it more and more as time went on. I won't go into details. All I know is that by the end of the film I could have stayed and watched Return of the King tacked onto it. That was how involving the story - in and of itself storywise not characterwise - was for me. I think a large part of that had to do with Smeagol-Gollum. He was brilliantly and vibrantly realized. I was completely drawn into him and his plight. It took a few moments to warm up to the CGI but after a while I was lost in the character. The Two Towers is a terrific film. It works in the grander scheme of the story - tough to really pull of when you think about it. I'm just wanting now for everything to come down in Return of the King.
-
I would have to agree about the pacing of the movie. It was one of the first things I noticed. It seemed off, like a clear direction in the editing wasn't made. I think I was also a little put off by the opening scene recapping Gandalf's fall into darkness. Perhaps it works in the grand scheme of things but it seemed out of place - out of order - at the start of this film. I think the pacing, though, detached us, the audience, from the film a bit. It made it a little more impersonal. I know at times I was thinking I can't wait until the DVD release whrn Jackson has time to go back and re-edit the film perfectly. That is not to say I didn't love this film. In fact, I found myself growing into it more and more as time went on. I won't go into details. All I know is that by the end of the film I could have stayed and watched Return of the King tacked onto it. That was how involving the story - in and of itself storywise not characterwise - was for me. I think a large part of that had to do with Smeagol-Gollum. He was brilliantly and vibrantly realized. I was completely drawn into him and his plight. It took a few moments to warm up to the CGI but after a while I was lost in the character. The Two Towers is a terrific film. It works in the grander scheme of the story - tough to really pull of when you think about it. I'm just wanting now for everything to come down in Return of the King.
-
I can't believe I'm writing these words. I loved FOTR, despite its (few) flaws - I've seen it dozens of times in the theatre and on DVD and it has many superb qualities. But now I am forced to conclude that FOTR was a lucky accident. Because TTT is, in one, dreadful, regretful word: shit. It's an unfocused, incoheret mess. It's in the same league as TPM and AOTC - and I don't use that comparison readily. My worst fears for this movie came true: Jackson has tried to juggle about ten balls at once - and has dropped ALL of them. I sincerely believe that, like George Lucas, he has lost all notion of how to make a film and the success of FOTR has freed him from whatever constraining influence the studio or his collaborators had on him. I don't know where to start with describing how this movie fails so badly. Well, let's start with the word 'movie'. This is NOT a movie, but a collection of random, weak, meandering scenes which have absolutely no connection with each other. Jackson has abandoned any attempt to hold together a coherent narrative and has settled for making a blind stab at creating some sort of visual accompaniment to the book - but this 'movie' absolutely cannot stand on its own feet. The cutting between the different scenes which accelerates towards the end of the movie is a misjudgement of monumental proportions. I will go into this more at a later date, when I've had time to think about this, but here's some general, random impressions: There can no longer be any doubt: Jackson cannot do action scenes. The Helm's Deep seige is unbelievably mediocre - a massive anticlimax. There is absolutely no pacing or rythm or coherence to this 'battle' which is edited so strangely that I challenge ANYONE to have the slightest idea of what is actually taking place. The constant cutting between pointless scenes is excessively tedious which is something I never thought I would say about LOTR. In fact, the word 'pointless' is one that crops to mind when I think of most of these scenes. They are dead weight, they drag the plodding narrative down and just add up to nothing.... Question: why are the orcs all a bunch of 'china plates' from South London? I can see them being in a mockney Guy Ritchie film, but they're completely out of place here, me old mucker. Question: Why on earth does Faramir suddenly decide to let Frodo go??? After 'overhearing' an impassioned speech from Sam about there being good in the world? Surely not. No way could Jackson come up with such a bargain-basement motivation("Mom, the biggest problem in the universe is that people don't help each other...") Surely not....Question: What on earth is the purpose of Aragorn 'dying' and being brought back to life? Anyone? That was Gandalf's gig. It serves absolutely no purpose.....Frodo Vs winged nazgul: hello? Now Sauron knows who has the ring and where it is. Goodbye element of surprise: now all Sauron has to do is take it instead of wasting his time building armies and conquering the world. End of story - no need for Return Of The King. A bold revisionist move from Jackson, designed perhaps to save the cost of making a third movie after this one SINKS LIKE A STONE.... Return of the Balrog: Oh Jesus, Gandalf stabs him in the heart and that's it. A far cry from the amazing metaphysical/symbolic/abstract confrontation in the book. After all, why do something brilliant when you can get by with something mediocre? The Eye Of Sauron: Yes this wonderful symbol/metaphor from the book and 1st movie is now.....an ACTUAL GIANT 3-D EYE floating on top of Barad-dur like a gas-filled weather baloon. Oh, and it's got those electrical lightning bolts running through it that Jackson promised he would NEVER use as it is so crap. You're right, PJ - it IS crap. Thanks for showing us how much. And I could go on and on and on...but there are two things I will say to put into perspective how I feel about this movie: Firstly, that when the closing credits appeared, I fully expected to see the words: "Directed By George Lucas". And secondly: I have no desire to ever see this movie again. Or Return Of The King. I'll be sticking to my FOTR DVD -the THEATRICAL cut, thank you very much.
-
I can't believe I'm writing these words. I loved FOTR, despite its (few) flaws - I've seen it dozens of times in the theatre and on DVD and it has many superb qualities. But now I am forced to conclude that FOTR was a lucky accident. Because TTT is, in one, dreadful, regretful word: shit. It's an unfocused, incoheret mess. It's in the same league as TPM and AOTC - and I don't use that comparison readily. My worst fears for this movie came true: Jackson has tried to juggle about ten balls at once - and has dropped ALL of them. I sincerely believe that, like George Lucas, he has lost all notion of how to make a film and the success of FOTR has freed him from whatever constraining influence the studio or his collaborators had on him. I don't know where to start with describing how this movie fails so badly. Well, let's start with the word 'movie'. This is NOT a movie, but a collection of random, weak, meandering scenes which have absolutely no connection with each other. Jackson has abandoned any attempt to hold together a coherent narrative and has settled for making a blind stab at creating some sort of visual accompaniment to the book - but this 'movie' absolutely cannot stand on its own feet. The cutting between the different scenes which accelerates towards the end of the movie is a misjudgement of monumental proportions. I will go into this more at a later date, when I've had time to think about this, but here's some general, random impressions: There can no longer be any doubt: Jackson cannot do action scenes. The Helm's Deep seige is unbelievably mediocre - a massive anticlimax. There is absolutely no pacing or rythm or coherence to this 'battle' which is edited so strangely that I challenge ANYONE to have the slightest idea of what is actually taking place. The constant cutting between pointless scenes is excessively tedious which is something I never thought I would say about LOTR. In fact, the word 'pointless' is one that crops to mind when I think of most of these scenes. They are dead weight, they drag the plodding narrative down and just add up to nothing.... Question: why are the orcs all a bunch of 'china plates' from South London? I can see them being in a mockney Guy Ritchie film, but they're completely out of place here, me old mucker. Question: Why on earth does Faramir suddenly decide to let Frodo go??? After 'overhearing' an impassioned speech from Sam about there being good in the world? Surely not. No way could Jackson come up with such a bargain-basement motivation("Mom, the biggest problem in the universe is that people don't help each other...") Surely not....Question: What on earth is the purpose of Aragorn 'dying' and being brought back to life? Anyone? That was Gandalf's gig. It serves absolutely no purpose.....Frodo Vs winged nazgul: hello? Now Sauron knows who has the ring and where it is. Goodbye element of surprise: now all Sauron has to do is take it instead of wasting his time building armies and conquering the world. End of story - no need for Return Of The King. A bold revisionist move from Jackson, designed perhaps to save the cost of making a third movie after this one SINKS LIKE A STONE.... Return of the Balrog: Oh Jesus, Gandalf stabs him in the heart and that's it. A far cry from the amazing metaphysical/symbolic/abstract confrontation in the book. After all, why do something brilliant when you can get by with something mediocre? The Eye Of Sauron: Yes this wonderful symbol/metaphor from the book and 1st movie is now.....an ACTUAL GIANT 3-D EYE floating on top of Barad-dur like a gas-filled weather baloon. Oh, and it's got those electrical lightning bolts running through it that Jackson promised he would NEVER use as it is so crap. You're right, PJ - it IS crap. Thanks for showing us how much. And I could go on and on and on...but there are two things I will say to put into perspective how I feel about this movie: Firstly, that when the closing credits appeared, I fully expected to see the words: "Directed By George Lucas". And secondly: I have no desire to ever see this movie again. Or Return Of The King. I'll be sticking to my FOTR DVD -the THEATRICAL cut, thank you very much.
-
I don't think America deserves all the bashing it gets. I saw a little here. And I'm sorry if this is off topic, but America isn't half as bad as it is made out to be. Sure it has many questionable policies, especially anything to do with Kissinger, but the fact that it COULD forcefully/economically take the entire world, and the fact that it hasn't says something about it's people. They have no stomach for such things. I say this as a Canadian, America's lesser known and much less powerful little brother. Most people in america would rather the government not overthrow democracies to install puppet regiems, but they have as much say in it as anyone in europe. If you wanna bash anyone, bash large corporations that persuade the American Government into doing such things, Americans don't have any sway over this, and they aren't ignorant or selfish as a whole.
And my two cents on the film, It was amazing. The whole faramir thing is a bit puzzling but isn't important, and the fact that the effects weren't 100% indistinguishable from realife isn't important as the fact that they made a huge epic novel successfulyl into a huge epic movie, that didn't disapoint me.
And my two cents on The whole starwars vs LOTR thing. I was a huge SW fanboy until TPM, GL killed the whole thing for me, and most of my friends. In fact one of my friends had his ENTIRE room decked out in SW stuff, he had hundred of action figures, posters, pajamas, bed spreads, he made each and every single on of his girlfriends(Contarary to popular beleief SW fanboys aren't nessacarily geeks who can't get laid, I can remember about 8 of his GF, 6 were really hot) view the entire trilogy in one day and he's 23. He didn't even bother seeing AOTC. After TPM and LOTR, he sincerly beleives that aliens have kidnapped and replaced GL and that GL had escaped but is hidding under the guise of PJ. I thought AOTC was much better than TPM but still a somewhat weak movie. I suppose if Its dialogue was in japanese I'd think it was the coolest thing ever. -
A stain-glass window knight coming to life in Young Shelock Holmes (1985), done by Lucas' own ILM. Go to IMDB.com and check it out under trivia:
-
Does anyone know if that clip from Madtv is available for download anywhere?
-
Dec 18, 2002 11:11:19 PM CST
I agree with gmaster9; TTT was a good flick, but it contained ma
by johnnytremaine
The film could have used A LOT more cutting. This may be heresy to Tolkien fanatics, but the whole sub-plot with the Ents was a lead weight around the whole film. The first half hour also seemed way too long: it consisted mainly of everyone running, walking, and more running. After a while I thought to myself, enough, I get the point, the characters are traveling a long way, move on now. You can tell the effect of a film by watching an audience; during quite a few scenes, people were sighing, looking at their watches, and everyone kept getting up to go to the bathroom. Ideally, an entranced audience is held to their seats by a gripping narrative, leaning forward, and still sitting even through the end credits, still digesting a great story well told. That wasn't the situation with the audience I saw it with. Even though FOTR contained mostly exposition, I thought it was a much better paced film; not so with Two Towers. I will say that the battle at Helm's Deep was magnificent, one of the cinema's truly memorable moments. About Gollum: he is the character audiences will remember. This CGI creation steals every scene he's in. In sum, a good cinematic experience, but with more editing it could have been better at two hours instead of three.
-
I like both sagas quite a bit, am I supposed to like one and despise the other? No, despite some reservations I have with Episode I and less so with Episode II (which I loved), I cherish the Star Wars saga. And I'm already a big fan of Peter Jackson's adaptation of the Lord of the Rings. In fact, I may get tortured for saying this, but I actually prefer his films to the actual books, which I found a bit over written. I mean let's face it, Tolkien's book was over descriptive and hampered by pacing problems. I know a lot of people say, "Well that's just Tolkien describing his fantastic world." Indeed it is fantastic, but I felt it dragged a bit. However, it's still a fantastic book. So getting back to Star Wars and LOTR...why do people have to pan one saga and laud the other? How ridiculous.
-
Dec 18, 2002 11:31:08 PM CST
SOMETHING AMAZING HAPPENED TO US AT THE PREMIERE...PLEASE READ
by peteyz
Last night I had to choose...I wanted to see the new Star Trek movie (although critically panned) or stay up late and lineup for the TWIN TOWERS premiere. SO I said WHAT THE FUCK and got in line and waited 3 hours with all those transgendered fools dressed up as hobbits and whatnot.....So, we're sitting down to watch the movie and there was about 12-14 minutes of pure ads before the previews....It was awesome because the crowd booed mercilessly during the entire set of commercials drowning out the volume. Then came time for the previews where we got Bad Boys 2, Terminator 3, Pirates of the Carribean, Finding Nemo, and some other shit I can't remember. The crowd was FURIOUS because all told it was just about 20 - 25 minutes of shit before the movie....THEN, the Famous Players theatre host guy comes out to introduce the movie and people are shouting "turn up the volume" and "you suck" as he's explaining to people to shut off their cell phones and pagers. Just as he's finishing up, he says, "And before we start the show we have a special guest who would like to say a few words". -------------------------------------> Out walks IAN MCLELLEN and he introduces the entire film to a crowd stunned in amazement. He mentioned that yesterday was his last day shooting XMEN2 in Vancouver (where I saw the movie) and that Peter Jackson had a message that the THIRD film will be the best of the three....He also was kind enough to mention that this was the only premiere he had attended for the film....WOW, It was surreal and awesome and as a moviefan I will remember it forever. You can bet I will be holding on to my ticket stub for a long time...I loved the movie and can;t wait for the next. THIS IS WHAT MOVIEMAKING SHOULD BE!!!!!!!!!!
-
Your thoughts are well articulated and presumably well intended. I appreciate your adherence to avoiding ad hominem attacks. So with all animosity and antagonism aside, I purport to disagree with you completely on a factual basis of the conclusions of your argument. Your first point, the discrepancy between America
-
... as the glorious day arrives we find fettstick crouched in his cosmic closet chanting "my preciousssssss" while fingering his pen-lightsabre. all that the sad pathetic little space-nugget has left is to dream wistfully of a time long passed .... a time when his mentor wasn't made sport of by children half his age.
-
Dec 19, 2002 12:06:02 AM CST
Hollywood take notice - The Two Towers is P - E - R - F - E - C
by much too tall
I mean, it's no "The Hot Chick" but what is? -
I apologize to everyone who was offended or got pissed off by someone in this talkback. I am deeply sorry.
-
Dec 19, 2002 12:12:12 AM CST
if ANDY SERKIS doesn't get a BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR nomination, I
by much too tall
Who gave a better performance this year?
Seriously, who?
-
Ha Ha Lucas you lazy fat fucking frog throat. You have been put to shame by this film. How pathetic and nakedly exposed you are now. When I watched Episode 2's final battle I was impressed with the special effects but I simply..didn't care..about the story...about the choppy sloppy music editing (John Williams you suck, no wonder you didn't get Lord of the Rings, your idea of matching beats to scenes is crappy. Your music didn't match anything in that final battle. It was like the day after thanksgiving turkey, old and rehashed and dry. I spit on you!)...or whiny anakin.
IN TWO TOWERS MY FUCKING DRAW LITERALLY DROPPED...LITERALLY. In all my nitpicky years I've never ever been that amazed. PETER JACKSON, you have dethroned Spielberg, Lucas, Scorsese, and Coppola...and the funniest fucking irony about it all....is that you made "Bad Taste" and "Meet the Feebles" (Which I both like). YOU ROCK!!!! YOU ARE KUBRICK INCARNATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -
Thought you all might enjoy this from the (of course) glowing review in the Hollywood Reporter: "But what strikes one more than anything in "Towers" is the material's dreamlike quality, from Frodo falling into the Dead Marshes and the way Gollum slithers on all fours to the massive black gates of Mordor and Gandalf's climactic charge on Shadowfax -- the lord of all horses -- down a very steep hill." The dreaming life of the characters (and especially of Frodo) is such an ongoing theme of the book that I am thrilled to think that the visual essence of that may be captured in the film. And I think the subject of dreams in LOTR might be a very rewarding topic for a later conversation by the Tailenders. The reviewer goes on to say, "The one misgiving is the very ending, which seems less satisfying than the vile treachery of Gollum, now set for the opening of "Return." The biggest frustration is having to wait now until Dec. 17, 2003, to complete the journey." ***Fourteen hours to go, and I am almost ready to abandon this site (despairing that Harry and Moriarty will ever post a review), and besides, the CD is now playing "Samwise the Brave" and I must close my eyes and give it my full attention. (Whatever I feel about the movie tomorrow, the score is more wondrous than the first and becomes more beautiful and complex with every listening. I dream of hearing it live in a concert hall!)
-
Saw it at the Arclight Cinerama Dome in Hollywood this afternoon (btw, don't buy that propaganda about their "special reserved seating" for eleven bucks...after arduously being ushered to my exact balcony seat, minutes later it turns out they sold the same seat to three different patrons...reserved means in the general section of the theater at best. Sorry for the digression.).....packed house and the lobby is so full of wonderful LOTR props such as a life-size Uruk Hai and a Ringwraith it felt like a convention. ...... Good parts of TTT: Gollum (absolutely the most memorable character in the film, you miss him when he's not onscreen), the battle scenes, Gandalf the White. Bad parts: We don't see nearly enough of either Gandalf or Saruman; presumably they will have larger roles in ROTK. Unfortunately, other than the fantastic Gollum (who steals the flick), and with Gandalf and Saruman so little onscreen, there aren't many other memorable characters and the character interaction that we saw when the Fellowship was unbroken is of course missing. The use of Gimli the Dwarf for dumb humor is unconscionable -- almost EVERY scene he appears in he is the butt of some joke or makes some remark relating to his small size. Worst of all is at the start of the siege of Helm's Deep when Gimli is (ridiculously) made to stand behind a section of wall that he can't see over so he has to continually ask, "What's going on?" -- taking all the tension out of what should be the most tense part of the damn film. I mean, how hard would it have been for him to stand on a rock or behind an arrow-slit? And he stays there so we get to hear the joke twice more! Sheesh. Other bad parts: Maybe it's me, but I just hate those damn Elves. They remind me of the snobbish, manipulative Vulcans from the new "Enterprise" series. I kept wishing Elrond would just shut up, get on the f*ing boats with the rest of 'em and ship off for Valinor so we could watch our heroes in action. (Legolas is underused too, and like all the Elves never seems to be really "with it" -- they just don't have the same investment in this war as the humans, since they are immortal and always one step away from shipping off to the western lands.) ..... Recognizing that TTT was made at the same time as FOTR, it was clear all along that the major issue was going to be editing -- and that's where Jackson flubs up a bit. Some of the cuts between the three parts of the Fellowship are jarringly sudden, and I feel sorry for anyone who hasn't recently read the books -- very easy to lose one's sense of place. I will see this again, but it will place behind FOTR in my mind. I have high hopes for ROTK next year: we'll see the Fellowship getting back together which should make for more character interaction, not to mention the excitement of Shelob and Mordor. Then it will be time to watch all three films together, since Tolkien wrote LOTR to be one single book. The flaws of TTT may be put in better perspective then.
-
Dec 19, 2002 1:26:32 AM CST
I don't know what to say about TTT... I just know it doesn't suc
by wasp
I can't really judge this movie without seeing it like two more times at least. Biggest beef... well, the same problem I had with Fellowship, the editing could be better, for sure. At the same time, I have a huge amount of respect for Horton and Peter Jackson for doing as well as they did with the awkward and challenging source material of TTT... we're talking about a middle chapter with no beginning, no end, a bunch of new characters, and three separate storylines. Talk about a cinematic nightmare. The editing within scenes is generally better than the editing of FOTR. The cinematography is astounding. The visual effects are mostly fantastic. The score is probably about as good as the first one but it was too muted at the showing that I attended. I can respect a person who doesn't like this film and can think of many legitimate reasons that a critic might have to devalue it (mostly having to do with editing and muddled narrative arcs), but anyone who completely dismisses this film, this film that holds some of the most thematically impressive frame compositions I have seen in mainstream movies of the past ten years (flower in grave door), this movie that boldly stages action sequences like no fantasy movie has ever done before (Warg battle), this movie that holds the most compelling CG character yet in the form of Gollum, and this movie that still finds ways to generate some pathos despite its massive scale and disparate storylines (Faramir's capture of Gollum)... anyone who dismisses all these things and just calls the film "utter shit" needs to learn a little more respect for what a filmmaker like Peter Jackson has accomplished, despite all the flaws in his movies. This movie is not perfect by a long shot, but it really needs to be seen in the context of a 10 1/2 hour marathon viewing of all three LotR films back to back, told as one story, as it was meant to be seen. Until then, let us acknowledge the inherent faults, but let us also have the civility to at least recognize the supreme effort and passion and technical mastery of those involved. I suppose that's asking too much. Well, whatever it may seem like, I do like this movie, I have no idea how much right now, and my respect to those who disagree. I just feel bad for PJ when I hear rants against these films, because his passion for the story is quite evident up there on the silver screen, even if he does trip sometimes.
-
I mean the guy obviously has his head so far up his ass he should crawl in after it and disappear. I don't know what bothers me more, that someone might mistake him for a typical SW fan or that someone might mistake him for a typical American. Just the fact that he has to rant about the Box Office crap shows that he knows AOTC can't stand up to LOTR or the OT on a purely artistic scale. However I find it funny that he harps on the BO so much when AOTC can be viewed as somewhat of a disappointment at the BO since it's the first Star Wars film NOT to be the highest grossing film of the year. Both domestically and worldwide "Spiderman" and "Fellowship of the Ring" (which made the bulk of it's money in 2002) have made more then AOTC. There is a chance that with the Imax release of AOTC it MIGHT catch FOTR's domestic take (but not Spidey's) however it won't come anywhere near FOTR's worldwide gross (which is the number that truly matters if you care about BO takes.) Also if it does catch FOTR it'll only because of the IMAX release which FOTR did not have. FOTR also had far fewer showings per screens then AOTC since it's nearly an hour longer. I'm also willing to bet that where as AOTC's BO was a HUGE drop-off from TPM's box office, the BO for TTT will be even greater then FOTR since a lot of people who didn't see it until it was on video will want to see TTT in the theaters. Pretty much everyone I know is aware of the fact that I'm a huge fan of both Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings. Where as anyone who saw AOTC apologized for not liking it (until they heard my opinion) except for Obi-Wan, Yoda and the last 30 mins or told me they hadn't seen it since they heard the dialogue and acting was really bad, especially in the love scenes. While anyone who had seen FOTR told me how much they loved it and those who hadn't seen it told me everyone they know who had loved it. I think the majority of old-time SW fans like myself as well as the general populace is loosing patience with Lucas's half-ass writing and directing. Great action set pieces and FX can only carry a film series so far. I personally was ready to go to my grave as the worlds most die-hard SW fan until TPM and AOTC lowered Star Wars to the level of a typical summer blockbuster. I even held the candle during the dark times when Star Wars was no longer cool and us fans where mocked. (You can read about my SW love affair here... http://www.jedimasteryoda.com/editorials/swandme.html ) Because of my deep love for the original films, I do manage to find some things to enjoy in the new films however I could never in good conscious call them high quality films. Maybe if Lucas had handed his ideas to a gifted writer and a gifted director like he did with "The Empire Strikes Back" and had a producer who wasn't a shameless yes-man, then maybe we would have had something special again but alas it was not meant to be. However I think it's become clear to most old-time SW fans like myself and the general populace that the "Lord of the Rings" is a phenomenon of epic proportions just as the original SW trilogy was. Anyone who can't see that and wants to continue with the delusion that the new Star Wars films are as good as the old and better then Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings"... Well go ahead if it floats your boat. But don't come to these LOTR boards and bother us with you nonsense. Just stick to your Lucas-Hero worshiping boards and leave us alone since you obviously care more about the brand names then you do about the actual quality of the films. I will always be grateful to Lucas for the grateful, Indiana Jones (including young Indy) and even Willow. However I really wish he would have made the new SW films like he gave a damn, especially since he still has some cool ideas as personified with Obi-Wan's adventure in AOTC and the last 30mins. *sigh* Oh well. Just glad we know have LOTR and there's always the OT. Provided Lucas doesn't severly fuck them up with more changes when he finally puts them on DVD...
-
Where the hell is Harry's review??? I'm missing his orgasmic comments... is this perhaps an ill omen? Or is he taking over 24 hours to fully "digest" the movie? I'm seeing TTT Friday and I'm getting a little nervous with the back and forth reviews. Who do I believe?? Where are you Harry?
-
That should have read:
I will always be grateful to Lucas for the OT, Indiana Jones (including young Indy) and even Willow.
-----------
Spell check does weird things. -
Not as good as the first one, and I wasn't a huge Tolkien fan to begin with. At least the first one was fresh. Just like the original, a lot of running around, my friend and I both almost fell asleep at various points. Special effects very impressive for a near three hour Xena episode. Mr. Frodo, like Radcliff from the horrible Potter films can't carry the film. His homosexual fatman sidekick peaked with his work in "Goonies". The best parts involved harry Vigo falling off a cliff or people falling off ladders. The audience howled to the Tom & Jerry sound effects. Also, the main highlight involved the people getting hit in the groin. (It happened three times) It's sad when the revolting CGI Jar Jar Golem (who sounds like Roger Rabbit with a touch of Cobra Commander) is the most memorable and charismatic character. They also bring back characters back from the first film that made no impact. I got pissed they didn't follow through and kill any characters. They would cut back later to show how the characters narrowly escaped. It was like watching a 1950's weekly serial. (I.E. Commando Cody) I was so hoping that the James Van Der Beek Elf would die, but alas, it was only his brother. They even ruined a potential weed joke. How many wet dreams did we have to watch with Vigo and Liv Tyler? Is Gandalph the White Wizard Trent Lott dead? Is he a ghost? Is he Giles from Buffy? Ride unicorn ride! Ride postman ride! At least the last action scene made me forget the Hobbit's kin riding freaking talking trees for a majority of the film.
-
And why do my posts keep ending up in such random places??
-
Roger Ebert STILL gave the movie 3 stars and recognises that the movie does the job it was intended. He resigned to the fact that Jackson missed the ENTIRE point of Tolkien book and isn't going to cry over spilt milk. To his credit, in his review of FOTR, he even stated that his dissapointment with the first movie was HIS opinion and he had to go by his feelings. Now that he knows thet Peter Jackson HAD no intention of bringing the spirit of the book to life, he decided to enjoy the ride_____________________________________________Im not that forgiving. The battle of HELMS DEEP only took up one chapter of The Two Towers. It took up WAY too much of the movie...of wich they could have reunited Aragon, Gimily, and Llegolas with Marry and Pippin. They could have ALSO kept the original ending to the TWO TOWERS, and it would have been FAR more effective.It seems pretty funny to me that Baski managed to get the true spirit of LOTR in one movie(And cover more of the plot quicker and more faithful than what Jackson could do.)_____________________STill it was a fun movie, it will do well in the Box office, but for my money Yoda kicked some serious ass with CGI. And for many peoples misconception....A naked CGI character is easier to animate than a clothed one. The list form eaisest to hardest is this 1)Mechanical items Armored characters, 2) Naked crearures with skin/scales. 3) Naked furry creatures. 4)Scaley/skinned creatures in clothing, 5) Hairy creatures in clothing. 6)Hairy creatures with multiple TYPES of cloathing._________________On top of that Lucas people went so far to try to get Oz's Yoda permomance and mannerisms of the puppet down on top of making him act.
-
I usually have Lord of the Ring once a year, perhaps once every two years ever since I was in 11. I am 35 now. While I CANNOT quote you directly from the book, and I am Admittedly illeterate in Elvish, Dwarvish or other such things, I do remember the plot rather well. The Battle of Helms Deep was only one chapter of the book. The whole Aragon and Arowen was VERY much in the background. In fact, the relationship is shown from the HOBBITS perspective._______________________Ebert, (whom I saw on Charlie Rose the other nigh) said that he HAS to tell you his opinion...of why he feels the way he does. Otherwise he is NOT doing his job. (For example, as a critic, he loathed the type of movie Jackass is....but he realized that he also never laughed so hard and so long in his life)__________________________________
TTT, for me, wrecked a chance at doing Tolkien as a generally faithfull adaptation of the work. If you can point out to me the scene where Aragon over the clift to be ressurected via Arawen, where Arowen seemingly abandones Aragon, starts out for the boats, or Faramir captures Frodo and takes him to Minas Trinath-then I will admit Jackson is a visionary.___________________________________________________So far, I believe that TTT has great action scenes, great acting, but woefully misses tale Tolkien told. It is nothing more than a good Dungeons and Dragon movie. -
IMPORTANT NOTE TO D!CKHEADED DIRECTORS FROM DOWN UNDER:
When adapting a beloved classic, D!CKHEAD, *do* try to avoid making major changes to the fundamental plot and characters.
I'm not saying you have to replicate the book word-for-word. I'm saying: try not to make huge, basic changes that are not at all consistent with the plot and the spirit of the book. For example, like making Faramir a near-replica of his brother Boromir, instead of an important foil for him.
Also, D!CKHEAD, avoid replacing perfectly good dialogue carefully crafted by a master linguist -- dialogue that your fans know practically by heart, with totally lame paraphrases more suited to a Hong Kong karate movie or a Martin Lawrence action-comedy. As above, I'm not saying you should use EVERY bit of dialogue. Just don't replace the parts that do need to stay in with totally watered- and dumbed-down versions of the real thing.
By taking these simple precautions, D!CKHEAD DIRECTOR, you can avoid the world making the understandable assumption that you think you know better than a world-reknowned author how the story "really" is supposed to go.
Thanx!!!
-
Why did Peter deny us Shelob?
-
...to disagree with me, but I'd prefer you do it based on what I actually said. I did NOT say Ebert lost credibility because his "personal reaction is different from mine", I said he lost credibility because he exaggerated his argument. (Having now seen the movie for myself I find his complaint of lack of focus on the hobbits even less credible - they were given plenty of attention.) I also find his dismay over the depiction of the battle as opposed to Tolkien's supposed "gentle Medieval"-iality less than credible and suggest that that is a less subjective argument. One can find detailed depictions of violence in the original work.
-
Where has the magic feeling gone? I thought TTT was visually stunning but lacked the passion of FOTR. Much of the script was forced and uninteresting. What I liked most about FOTR was that it not only succeeded as an epic film production, it also was one of the most intelligently scripted book-to-screen adaptations I've ever seen. TTT by contrast had only a Star Wars level of clunky dialogue, with the exception of Gollum. Frodo's struggle with the Ring was overdone to the point that there is really nowhere else for it to go - it's obvious he won't be able to destroy the Ring on his own in the end.
Faramir was totally off-mark. Where was the noble countenance? I hope Denethor is portrayed more effectively.
As a sidenote, what was with the cheesy lightning bolts going through the Eye. What happened to the Eye "wreathed in flame"?
The editing also disappointed me. We could have used less of the added scenes of Rohan (especially the superfluous Aragorn "death" scene) and more of Fangorn Forest. I know this is the dark second act, but it is important to contrast the ancient beauty of Middle-Earth with the darkness and destructive power of war. The scene of Treebeard's house would have been a big help. Also, the singing drone of the Ents and the Entmoot was sorely missed.
The Good: I loved Gollum and Sean Astin also impressed me. Gimli's comic relief was enjoyable, though a bit overdone at times. The Balrog fight scenes were amazing as was the reunion of the three hunters and Gandalf the White.
All in all, I like the movie as a fantasy epic, but it is not on par with what I've come to expect from Peter Jackson. I only hope that the ROTK script sticks closer to the source material (on the level of FOTR) and that the editing is approached differently. Bring back the passion!
-
********************First, the adjusted gross. LOTR was released 6 months before AOTC so it has no bearing in that instance. As far as ROTJ, that film was released at least 3 times, all with different dollar values. Besides, adjusted for gross is totally pussy-assed anyway. I mean, who really cares about Gone with the Wind? Well frankly I don't give a shit.****************************
OK first I am gonna apologize for not reading all the freakin posts, I don't have time this week....buuut....I read a few doofy ones 2 of which were from Fettastic...
# "1 See Above"
Fettastic what is the fucking cocain induced dream world were you living in when you made this insanely stupid quote (no offense). ADJUSTED GROSS IS THE ONLY FUCKING THING THAT MATTERS!!!...let me rephrase that just so you and any other delusional fanboy understands clearly: ADJUSTED GROSS IS THE ONLY FUCKING THING THAT MATTERS!!!
Adjusted Gross tells us MUCH more clearly how many fucing people went to see the film...and for all you Money is evrything guys...it tells us TRULY how much the film made. I mean shit When ANH was released you could buy a very large brand new house in a burb for like 20,000...in the early 70s' anew corvette was a few thousand dollars (under 5K)...so you want to compare movies like jaws success by giving new movies by saying that $300 million today means the same thing as it did in the 70's or 80's? Sorry but that anti-logic is the defenition of stupidity...Sorry , but AOTC's Nearly 300 mil AINT EVEN CLOSE to ANH or Jedi Adjusted dollars....and yes they were released multiple times which makes it a more difficult analysis, but there are sites that adjust for each release (it really aint that difficult). and while 3 releases (or whatever) is still an advantage, my comment would be: if you think AOTC or TPM is gonna be re-released in a decade or 2 and do ANYTHING like the OT....I've got a bridge to sell you that connects the US to England.
ADJUSTED GROSS tells you VALUE, and TRUE EANINGS...Gross alne tells you barely more than nothing...it is basically good for analyzing the last 5 years or so...I mean Damn accoriding to the gross logic Jaws, which cahnged the way summers were approached in holywood was a fair summer movie at best...NOT.
# 2 AOCT made more than Titanic (I beleive)
Dude where is you car? Look at the Worldwide Gross instead of US, and Titanic outdrew AOTC even if Lucas made and promoted it for free (or maybe when studios analayze profit you think they just give away that meaningless green stuff that they didn't get in tyhe USA...shit I think they just put another pile of Yen in the dumpster...gotta go..
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 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!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 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
- 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
- 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 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 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!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts