homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


  New Poll  
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » The Archives   » The Big Archives   » Fellowship of the Ring (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Fellowship of the Ring
trowelblister
Geek
Member # 897

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted December 27, 2001 10:24      Profile for trowelblister   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Never has three hours gone by quicker for me, I remember sitting thru "Out of Africa" (3 hrs) with an aunt and silently begging for it to end, but FOTR seemed like 90 minutes to me. What a great movie, need to go see it again.
Posts: 242 | From: lansdale, pa, usa | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Zarquon
Alpha Geek
Member # 485

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 27, 2001 17:05      Profile for Mr. Zarquon   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The movie Rocks. I have seen it twice now. Sam does look in the mirror in lothlerian(sp?), it was the bowl filled with water.

I was suprised they didn't show Aragon reforging the sword, but I think that may be something that falls under the "ok to remove" part. It is quite apperant that he is returning to Gondor. I like how they played up his relationship with the elves, giving more reason to why he abandoned his position to become Stryder, without actually saying it out right. A lot of the movie exists in what is not said, which I find truely amazing, because the book says quite a lot.


Posts: 332 | From: Lewisburg, PA (middle of nowhere) | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Geordie

Member # 996

Member Rated:
5
Icon 9 posted December 27, 2001 19:30      Profile for Geordie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I was so distracted by people making bored noises and walking out of the theater that I am not sure I was ever able to truly get into it. I was really surprised how many people in the theater seemed not to like it. In fact my dad left about half way through and waited for me in the lobby.
Posts: 322 | From: Fairfax Station, VA, USA | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jidabug
Geek
Member # 779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted December 28, 2001 08:14      Profile for Jidabug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geordie:
I was so distracted by people making bored noises and walking out of the theater that I am not sure I was ever able to truly get into it. I was really surprised how many people in the theater seemed not to like it. In fact my dad left about half way through and waited for me in the lobby.

Shocking. Positively shocking! The crowd we saw the movie with was absolutely entranced. I don't recall seeing one person get up to even go to the bathroom, unlike when we saw Harry Potter when it seemed at least half the audience got up at one point or another.


Posts: 123 | From: No matter where I go, there I am. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zwilnik

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 615

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 28, 2001 10:44      Profile for Zwilnik   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
and I thought I was the only one that didn't like it! (although I reserve walking out for extremely bad films, like Lost in Space)

To its credit, the film is better than the book, but I got fed up of seeing long sweeping panoramic vistas after the first 2 hours of them.

Great casting, good acting, great trick to make the different races all look different sizes but very dodgy CGI for some bits (hobbits being shaken about by the troll, and running through the Dwarf mine). Unfortunately marred by a really dull plot (basically 'The Hobbit, extended dull mix') and being twice as long as it needed to be.

If they'd done it as a full series of 6 x 1.5 hour episodes rather than going with the book's 3 episodes, I think I could have put up with it a lot better.

Knowing that the 2nd book is more of the same, but with a lot more complaining and slowly moving across the country, I'll probably not bother with the next episode.


Posts: 1040 | From: West Sussex, UK | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged
trowelblister
Geek
Member # 897

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted December 28, 2001 16:48      Profile for trowelblister   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geordie:
I was so distracted by people making bored noises and walking out of the theater

People in general have no concept of politeness. The twits behind us ruined X-Men for me, just shut the hell up and watch the movie. We had the same problem when we went to see to re-release of the Excorcist----young teenage girls have no patience for a movie that is suspenseful and doesn't open with a car crash or decapation.

I need my own theater, like Lucas.


Posts: 242 | From: lansdale, pa, usa | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
trowelblister
Geek
Member # 897

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted December 30, 2001 10:01      Profile for trowelblister   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Going again today!!!
Posts: 242 | From: lansdale, pa, usa | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 10 posted December 30, 2001 11:03      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I just saw it yesterday, and was blown away by its depth. I think it was very well done. No one in the theater I went to spoke throughout the movie, but a lot of people went in and out, I guess the movie was too long for them to hold it in. One guy in the next row over did seem utterly bored with it, I know not why. I think a few people did walk out and didn't come back - their loss, not mine.
The only thing that I thought was a little unlikely was the fact that the archer was able to keep firing on people - his quiver always seemed full. Were the others in the fellowship carrying more quivers full of arrows for him, or something like this? Where did all those arrows come from? By my guess, he shot at least 50 or more arrows, and yet he kept at it, I can't see him having had that many with him. This peeve aside, the movie was simply fantastic.

Posts: 9332 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zwilnik

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 615

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 30, 2001 12:52      Profile for Zwilnik   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
One of the nice features of arrows vs bullets is that you can usually recover some or most of your arrows (especially if they're well made like Elven ones are supposed to be in Tolkien). Plus any archer worth his salt should be able to whittle up a new batch quite quickly. (In fact, given the rest of the 'filler' in the LOTR story, I'm surprised we didn't have an extra half hour of dramatic arrow whittling )
Posts: 1040 | From: West Sussex, UK | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged
theJacob
Geek
Member # 980

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted December 30, 2001 20:25      Profile for theJacob     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We wound up taking my brother anyway. He begged. He pulled off that little trick younger siblings can do to get their way. Even though I warned my parents that he saw an orc take an arrow to the head in on a TV comercial and would not stop saying how "cool" it was.

Anyho, here's my review.

PLUS: Excellant graphics
MINUS: They left out that crazy Tom guy who sings and lives with the moving trees.
PLUS: Nifty charecter development.
MINUS: All of the little hobbit antics.
PLUS: Tons o'detail
MINUS: While it is tradional in movies to check up on what the villians are up to, I do not remember that in the book.
PLUS: Me want to see it again!
MINUS: ONLY THREE HOURS!!!

------------------
Intellegnce+Laziness=Efficency


Posts: 141 | From: Colorado | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
quantumfluff
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 450

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 30, 2001 21:05      Profile for quantumfluff     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I saw it a few days ago. I loved it but think it will ultimately disappoint in the box office. The problem is that LOTR (the book) is an epic. It's like Wagner's "Ring" cycle (no pun intended) or "Roots" or "I Claudius". They are not simple stories, that have a clear plot line you follow to conclusion. They are stories that require you to understand the context of the situations as well. What drew millions of readers to the books was that they brought an entire new mythology to life. You didn't just get a few details about orcs so that you understand the fight better, you got the whole history of everything, unfurled bit by bit until you felt the middle earth. This actually requires some effort and imagination on the part of the reader.

I think LOTR (the movie) tries to do the same. That's what I want - it's been almost thirty years since I read the books, and I want the movie to gradually bring it all back to life. I think the fans, whome the producers had to win the favor of, want the same. Unfortunately, I don't think the average movie-goer today has the patience for that. It's a difficult movie for kids, as well as for some adults who would never read something like the book.

My major complaint is that I would have liked all three released at once, where you can watch the three parts on three nights in a row.


Posts: 2902 | From: 5 to 15 meters above sea level | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
trowelblister
Geek
Member # 897

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted December 31, 2001 05:12      Profile for trowelblister   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by theJacob:
.....While it is tradional in movies to check up on what the villians are up to, I do not remember that in the book.

Yeah, some of the Saruman bits in the movie represent snippets one learns later on in the book series. But, in a movie you want to the general public to like, you gotta keep that plot moving, you don't have the option/luxury of building it up over three books (or 10, if yer Robert Jordan). Also, I think that the general movie-going public probably needs a recognizable, physical bad guy they can point to. Sauron's disembodied, just a big-ass eye, which is cool (and true to the books), but most people need to see Darth Vader, if you get whatever my rambling meaning is.


Posts: 242 | From: lansdale, pa, usa | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
EddieKatz
Mini Geek
Member # 1004

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 31, 2001 12:28      Profile for EddieKatz     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My mom was telling me that she heard something on NPR a few weeks ago talking about LOTR, and they were commenting on whether or not the book was an allegory for the nuclear bomb. Of course, Tolkien maintained that it wasn't, but still, it's seems like a pretty compelling argument could be made. Had anyone else heard of that theory? I never thought of it when I was reading the books, but in retrospect, it seems quite reasonable.

I've seen the movie twice and will see it a third time with my boyfriend, if they ever let him back into the country. It just gets better each time!


Posts: 52 | From: Pittsburgh, PA | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Etherblade
Geek
Member # 360

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted December 31, 2001 15:06      Profile for Etherblade     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
*clears throat* Sung to the tune of any that will fit, as are most of his songs.

Hey dol, merry dol dillo,
here's what happened to ol' Tom Bombadillo!
Old Pete Jackson, he's as mean as a knife, and Tom and Goldberry were awfully in strife.
As to being left out of the flick,
Tom had to find work as a Wal-Mart St. Nick.
Goldberry flips burgers at the local BK,
and each cries as to what could have been at the end of the day, knowing that Pete Jackson said to "throw them away."
Hey dol, merry dol dillo, that's what happened to ol' Tom Bombadillo!

Etherblade


Posts: 192 | From: Shiznit, KY, USA | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
josalo
Single Celled Newbie
Member # 1046

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted January 02, 2002 04:10      Profile for josalo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I dug Fellowship, I've seen it 2x and will see it again before it leaves the theaters. Aside from some visual interpretation issues (tiny things like not liking the Black Riders' boots) the main problems I had relate to Aragorn.

1.- Arnor is eliminated. All right, simply not mentioned, and Denethor could bring it up when challenging his claim to the throne yet still, but read between the lines and I think you'll agree that Peter Jackson has decided to simplify matters by eliminating the Kingdom of Arnor from history, as well as the line of Anarion's claim to Gondor. In the new distillation, the line of Isildur is the line of "the Kings of Gondor in exile" apparently self-exiled out of guilt over Isildur's pride in keeping the ring. I don't like it. totally aside from the utility here, what about the potential for future spinoffs? Ah, to see the fall of Arvedui Lastking! Alas, it is not to be.

2.- Anduril. Reforged will be the Sword That Was Broken. Jackson sure made a big deal out of the sword in the movie. Now why not have Elrond reforge Narsil into Anduril as he did before the departure of the Fellowship in the book? Maybe saving it for the Two Towers? Obviously with the expansion of Arwen's role (which I like thus far, taking Glorfindel's scene is a good move- in the book when she arrives in ROTK it's like "who is this and why is Strider in love with her?) it may be that Aragorn and Elrond are going to "have it out" over Arwen and then the sword will be reforged. Preserve the legend, Pete.

3.- The giving of gifts. Galadriel's gifts are important throughout, not just the light she gives to Frodo (which is shown in an odd flashback- cut scene?), but the Elessar Aragorn later takes his name from, Gimli's lock of her hair, and the lembas of course (at least we see the cloaks, even if they are not explained). I guess, we'll see how it pays off.

All in all, a remarkably faithful adaptation, Jackson should be proud. I loved the visualizations of the Last Alliance, and Orthanc and Moria and the Argonath. I am sad mostly for Arnor, I feel Arvedui spinning in his forgotten grave ;-) I am breathless in anticipation for the next two installments, and thrilled that unlike some others ;-) we won't have to wait for 3 years for these,

------------------
I was there, Gandalf! I was there three thousand years ago! I was there when men's strength.. failed.


Posts: 1 | From: Los Angeles, CA USA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ConfusedGeek
Discontinued


Icon 10 posted January 06, 2002 20:09            Edit/Delete Post 
No one has metioned that LOTR got 3/4 of the American Film Institute awards it was nominated for, including Film of the Year?

It also got digital artist of the year and production designer of the year.

(It lost composer of the year to Moulin Rouge, apprently stringing 80s tunes together is better that a completely new score)

But 3/4 including best pic is cool. Especialy since this is the 1st time these awards have been given out. LOTR may go into history like "Wings" (1st Oscar)

http://www.afi.com/tv//afi2001.asp
http://www.afi.com/tv//AFIWinners.pdf


IP: Logged
Bregalad
Assimilated
Member # 1054

Member Rated:
5
Icon 14 posted January 07, 2002 19:34      Profile for Bregalad     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry if there's an empty post before this one, I hit a stray [return].

Movies and books are very different media and the things that work well in one don't necessarily work well in the other. I think Peter Jackson has done a great job of making an exciting action/adventure movie by taking the battles and sticking them together with mostly authentic scenes and dialogue. I was particularly impressed with how well the different size characters fit together and with the whole Moria section. I even liked the way Arwen's role was expanded because, let's face it, she comes out of nowhere at the end of the book. I forgive the other minor plot twists and I forgive the omission of almost all the truly important parts of the story because it's hard to build that many characters at once and give them all their due. I think he understood that it's impossible to tell Fellowship properly in 3 hours. To be honest I think each chapter would yield an hour of film and only nuts like me who register Tolkienesque domain names just because we can would sit through 60 hours of LoTR.

The acting, for the most part, was impressive, but I can't forgive Cate Blanchet for ruining Galadriel. She had the only well developed female character in the book and completely blew it. I hate to say it because I love the story, but that performance made me glad Peter Jackson compressed the 3 Lórien chapters into 10 minutes of film.

Let's hope they get my character right in Two Towers and render me as well as the Balrog was done in Fellowship.


Posts: 484 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 10 posted January 08, 2002 07:00      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So, I saw it again with a friend of mine and, just after the scene where Galadriel resists the temptation of the ring, he looks at me and says "So... that's what PMS looks like." I got yelled at for laughing too loudly

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
annie
Assimilated
Member # 909

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 08, 2002 09:02      Profile for annie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Zarquon:
I was suprised they didn't show Aragon reforging the sword, but I think that may be something that falls under the "ok to remove" part.

I really doubt it considering they actually *showed* the sword. It doesn't make sense to show it and then leave it there lying in pieces. I'm assuming that they'll pick up that story line in the next movie. I suppose it will fit in with the fact that Aragorn seems much more shy of taking the throne than he was in the book.

------------------
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.


Posts: 391 | From: somewhere in Canada | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
+Andrew
Alpha Geek
Member # 873

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 08, 2002 16:50      Profile for +Andrew   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Saw it myself this past weekend. As I said in more words elsewhere, it was a good movie but barely the same story as the book. A film worth seeing, as long as you remember not to expect to be shown the same story you read.
Posts: 349 | From: Boston, MA, USA | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
tekniklr
Geek Apprentice
Member # 806

Rate Member
Icon 12 posted January 08, 2002 18:29      Profile for tekniklr   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I liked the movie overall, even though it differs in some pretty big ways from the book (which have already been mentioned). That probably had to be done because not many people would want to go see 6 3-hour movies (LOTR is actually 6 books).

One thing I couldn't get over: in Rivendell, the actor playing Elrond is the same person who played Agent Smith in the Matrix. I found it pretty amusing because he was playing the character of Erlong EXACTLY like Agent Smith (very distinctive speech pattern :). One person at the theater commented that he kept expecting him to say "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson."

I feel like I missed alot of the movie the first time around, so I plan on going to see it again before school starts :)


Posts: 42 | From: NJ, USA | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angry Rooster
Assimilated
Member # 759

Rate Member
Icon 12 posted January 09, 2002 00:57      Profile for Angry Rooster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by tekniklr:
One thing I couldn't get over: in Rivendell, the actor playing Elrond is the same person who played Agent Smith in the Matrix. I found it pretty amusing because he was playing the character of Erlong EXACTLY like Agent Smith (very distinctive speech pattern . One person at the theater commented that he kept expecting him to say "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson."

Heheh, IRC buddy maswan put together a page to that effect http://www.acc.umu.se/~maswan/AgentElrond/

------------------
--Angry Rooster
"Eagles may soar, but roosters don't get sucked into jet engines."


Posts: 376 | From: Coeur d'Alene, ID, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
tekniklr
Geek Apprentice
Member # 806

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted January 09, 2002 09:52      Profile for tekniklr   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
ROFL!

That has to be the funniest thing I have seen in ages! I'm so glad other people found this casting choice as... interesting... as I did!


Posts: 42 | From: NJ, USA | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
  New Poll   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam