Anyone seen it 2+ times?

Remove all ads!

I saw the movie 3 times in theatre and have watched it, to many times on dvd.

I believe that movie is not supposed to be compared to the book. The movie is the representation of the directors view of the movie. When people go to see the movie, wanting it to be as how they understand it, they will be disapointed. Movies are supposed to be viewed with a clean slate, you have to suspened your mind and allow the movie to dictate what is real or not.

To say the movie is horrible, is just telling me that the movie does not comply with what you thought the movie should be.

 

If I was doing research on "assumptions" and "target audience", I most assuredly would have posted a topic exactly like this one.

And even on my subsequent posts, never mentioned to WHICH movie I was referring.

Other than that, I've seen LotR a whole bunch of times. Downloaded the Divx screener before the movie came out on dvd. Saw it about 4 times in the movies, twice in Digital theatres.

If you're going to make a book into a movie, you do it as well as LotR did.

 

S_Goddess, you are refering to Tom Bombadil yes? saving the hobbits from the Willow? (can't remember the willow's name)

Ejsmith, are you taking a pot at me for forgetting to put in the film title i was talking about?

 

Willow?

I assume you've posted that under influence of level10 spell called Lucas' Willow (the mage who is responsible for it's creation is George L, the spell is called Willow).

If you don't know what am I talking about, please go rent a movie called Willow. It's not synthetically/graphically amazing as LOTR, but the story is FAR MORE BETTER than the one in LOTR:the movie. Not to mention the actors.
I hope you don't still believe that LOTR movie has the same story and (actor) emotions as the book does?

Let me know if you'll watch LOTR2 after you watch Willow.

 

I have seen it 3 times in the cinema and 1 time on my friends video. I agree that there a A LOT of things that could have been done better. *coughARWEN-*****cough* Arwen ticks me off and all that Aragorn stuuf in TTT as well. I am afraid of TTT. Seriously, I just despise the movie-Arwen and that was a BIG MISTAKE to expand her role. No, seriously. Jesus. I need help.

 

I've seen it twice in the theaters, and five times at home... Hum... I must find better things to do when the internet blanks out...

 

I've just finished reading the book, and I feel...exhausted.

Read it properly, mind you. People always ask me if I'd read it and I said 'yes,' because I'd read the chopped-up-for-kids versions when I was young, or seen cartoons, etc., knew the story at any rate.

But the book...wow...made me cry. I can't remember the last time I cried at a book. (It's humiliating if you're in the paris metro..) It's a masterpiece. The Tolkein universe is unimaginably vivid, complete with history, geography, legend, myth, etc., etc. I never stop reading but I've never read anyone with a better knack for coming up with names that are so appropriate that you couldn't imagine them being anything else. And the characters...who could be more loyal than Samwise, more gallant than Aragorn, wiser than Gandalf, more treacherous than Saruman, more beautiful than Galadriel, more menacing than the Nazgul? (The bits where I cried: the courtship of Faramir and Eowyn, the return to the shire, among others.)

I felt a wave of depression when I put it down, for there wasn't any left to read. (Is that why we play D&D?)

But look: I loved the film. It was one possible interpretation of the book, abridged, yes, as films must be. It was visually stunning and fun to watch. But to suggest that the film somehow contaminates the book, that I do *not* understand. The book is immune to contamination. It's that good. I don't think of Elijah Wood as Frodo any more than I think of Leonardo Dicaprio as Romeo, or Charlton Heston as Moses.

If you want to see the "faithful" cinematic interpretation of a book, go watch Harry Potter. Nothing could be more bland.

And Ex, I've seen Willow, and it's perfectly average. No better.

Edit: And about all this Arwen business...everyone seems to hate her "expanded role"...the Arwen/Aragorn romance is related as an appendix to the book. What were the filmakers supposed to do at the end of part three? Have Aragorn marry some chick the viewers had yet to see? That makes no sense in cinema. Same for Bombadil...he's one of my favorite characters in part 1, but the old forest episode adds nothing to the plot other than to provide the hobbits with some proper swords. The people who were disappointed by this film because it fell short of the book were destined to be disappointed, no matter how it turned out.

[ November 20, 2002, 02:10: Message edited by: Gonzago ]

 

Pathetic as it is, I'v seen the movie 23 times. Four thimes in theater and 19 times on dvd. I love the movie. (If it had a pig as Sauron, it would then be an unbeatable movie. oink)

 

I liked the movie, but that's not why I'm posting. This post started in January 2002. If we can keep it going, it will be the post that never dies. (Unless it is murdered by the Tal in black.)

 

TSFS, neither Tal nor Ex nor BTA are going to close it as long as we stay on topic and don't break any forum rules. Topics aren't closed just because they're old...but if you have nothing to contribute to the debate, a debate (I might add) in which reasonable people can disagree with each other intelligently, then don't bother posting. I reread this topic so I could see what other people might have to contribute to it, not to hear some newbie try to second-guess the admins.