Lord of the Ring


(Turrin) #1

Have you all seen the Two Towers? I don’t know when it comes out outside the US, but around here it was released yesturday (the 18th).

Like a true fan, I saw it opening day.

Like a true fan, I was disapointed with the inaccuracies. I admit that they cannot follow the book exactaly, and that technicaly, it was still a good movie, but the accuracy of the move left much to be desired.

Gollum however, is incredible. The GC was top-notch. I was amazed. Watch his eyes.

In my oppinion, if you want to enjoy the movie, don’t read the book first.

But that’s just my oppinion.

Turrin


(IMProvisar) #2

I haven’t watched the movie yet, but I did see a bit on TechLive (on TechTV) about how Gullum was created. Apparently they had a real actor in most or all of the shots performing the action, then digitally replaced him with the CG character. Not sure all the specs, but it looks really cool.

Imp


(Cativo) #3

I haven’t seen it yet. The first one was good, a bit long. anyhow, There’s an article on Popular Science December issue on how the battles were created: the programers “thaught” the cg characters how to fight! Also, particles are used to control the life of warrior. In SW 2, there were 30,000 particle base characters in the colisseum(provably more during the battle)! King Returns is said to use 100,000!


(blengine) #4

In my oppinion, if you want to enjoy the movie, don’t read the book first.

consider it done!

im seeing it this monday coming up!!! oh i cant wait! if its at least half as good as the first one, im gonna be a happy camper, though ive never camped in my life… i cant wait! :o :o :o :smiley:


(valarking) #5

Like a TRUE fan, I’m a 13 year old who has to beg my parents to DRIVE me to a movie, so there’s no telling when I’ll get to see it.
We saw FOTR on opening day last year, the theater was nowhere near full. It was also one of the quickest lines I’ve been in.


(CubeFan973) #6

I was SO excited about “Fellowship.” The CG was going to be particularly interesting to watch. Me and my brother managed to get tickets opening day. I got to get out of school early. The theater was quite full.

By the time the movie ended, I was bored out of my mind. The only movie that I’ve seen that’s longer is “Pearl Harbor.” (I’ve never watched “Titanic,” and I’m never going to, hopefully. “Hamlet” is kind of interesting to me, a Shakespeare fan. The 8-hour version of “Greed” is lost, apparently forever.) Even that wasn’t as boring. It was nearly 3 hours long! Not to mention they got rid of Bombadil and got them to the Prancing Pony or whatever through pure coincidence or something!

I haven’t seen “The Two Towers.” And I’m not planning on it. My brother is probably going to wear out the DVD, so I’m most likely going to see it bit by bit whenever I walk through my house. Oh joy. Worse, IT’S EVEN LONGER!

The only movie I even have a plan to see this winter is “Catch Me If You Can.” It’s Speilberg, how can it go wrong? Then again, “Minority Report” took too long to end, not to mention it was too action-packed. I’d rather watch a dramatic film than an action. In “Catch Me If You Can,” the closest thing to action in it seems to be how Tom Hanks is chasing Leo down. Too bad I know what happens to Leo’s character due to a stupid plot summary which shouldn’t give away things like that.


(valarking) #7

Dang, you sound like one of those 50 year old women who hate any movie that has any fights/violence in it. Also, try watching the newer 6 hour Dune. I think your attention span would fizzle out after about 30 minutes apparently.
About FOTR: Bombadil wasn’t that important, and quite frankly, I thought his part in the books was stupid at best. That’s the point where I put down FOTR for about 6 months until, when I was sick, I trudged through the “Hey dillo dillo! Tom Bombadillo!” crap to discover an incredible book.

Summary:
The Lord of the Rings is for big boys with adequately big attention spans.
And it sure as hell isn’t a chick flick, sorry.


(Goo) #8

I just got back from The Two Towers and I have to see that I loved it, although I was a bit disapointed by certain parts. They changed a whole lot of it, much to my distress. The scene with the Ents and Isengard was so cool, and Gollumn was superbly done. He looked a bit fake, but only because he was done so well that nothing like him could be real. I am very disappointed they changed the ending. The ending to the Two Towers is the ultimate cliffhanger.

Goo


(theeth) #9

the part in Osgiliath was really unneeded, I think they should have sticked with the book for that one.

Gollum was great indeed, I loved the schysophrenic conversations.

Martin


(Alltaken) #10

well can you blame them for changing a few bits of it.

compared to many movies (of books) the lord of the rings is very close to the books in how they go.

when peter jackson got the director role it was because he wanted to make the movie 3 episodes with as much of the books in as possible rather than make it a single movie (as most other people bidding for it wanted to do)

but i suppose i am biased because they are making the film in my city and country and because peter jackson is a local boy as well as the movie was all edited digitally by weta studios which is about 20 min drive from my house.

oh well i am seeing it today then i may go to Te Papa (our museme) and check out the exebition with all the models they used etc…

and to defend the movie (which i havn’t seen yet) more it is the greatest realistic effort in cinema ever.

every extra has a custom made fully detailed costume. (eg if there was a close up you could not find a fault)

also a bulding that was in the film (all three) for only 2 seconds had a whole team make a model of it for over a month.

it is this detail that you should not take for granted.

any other director would have used “adequate” costumes for extras and made cheap models for the film.

(but i am biased)

see ya and have fun.


(Timonides) #11

hey… I saw it yesterday… :smiley:

It was really good…

BTW. Gollum is incredible indeed… :wink:

Spyros.


(valarking) #12

I saw it yesterday. Gollum and the Ents were indeed technical wonders. I also was dissapointed they got rid of TTT’s excellent cliffhanger ending.
Also, what was the deal with Aragorn’s little “plunge” into a river. Also, did Faramir REALLY keep Frodo, Sam, and Gollum captive that long? It amazes me how they go to great pains to get the Elven Quenya language perfect, but they do stuff like this. I can’t say I noticed too many others changes because I can’t remember anything about the book.
It’s funny, I know more about the Silmarillian than I do LOTR.

I was watching some of the Mordor shots and thinking, “It’s amazing how EVIL they got this to look.” The battles were impressive. If they did parts of the Silmarillion in a movie, that would be AWESOME. Difficult, but incredible.


(theeth) #13

well, they changed completely the role of Faramir and his psychology. In the books, he clearly understands that the ring’s influence caused Boromir’s death and let the hobbits go with some provisions while in the movie he wants to take the ring back to Gondor.
Also, there’s a little timeline problem. How can they arrive at Mount Doom at the correct time if they make a detour by Osgiliath which, as I remember it, is at least two or three days from Minas Morgul, where they should have been by then.

Also, the wargs are suppose to be giant wolves and they made they look rather like giant dogs.

but anyway, it was a good film, I’m just saying that it could have been much better IMHO.

Martin
PS: yes, a movie about Silmarillion would be great.


(CubeFan973) #14

Everyone knows I’m 13. And, I don’t like action, so you guys treat me like Janet White :smiley: (watch “Twilight Zone,” “Eye Of The Beholder”). Chick flicks are interesting. You don’t know if they’ll end up together or not.

Hey, Tom Bombadil may not have been important, but him showing them the way to the Prancing Pony (I haven’t read it in a year, that might be wrong) is much better than them being chased by Black Riders there.

The Lord of the Rings is for big boys with adequately big attention spans.

Actually, another local family likes the movies. Even their 15-year-old. And I thought intellegence comes with age.

And it sure as hell isn’t a chick flick, sorry.

DUH!

BTW: What’s so exciting about action, anyway? Oh, guys dying, more guys dying, possible love interest, more guys dying, even more guys dying, love interest blossoms to attract girls, everyone in the vicinity gets killed, more people get killed, the whole world is destroyed, boy & girl live happily ever after. Chick flicks–most of the time, you’re not sure how it will end.

“Horror” films are also boring. People get killed by a eranged murderer. Twist optional. Thrillers are exciting when they’re more psychological: “Signs” is the best freaky film ever, though not M. Night Shyamalan’s best (that’s “Unbreakable”, and “Sixth Sense” and “Signs” tie for second). Whenever it makes you jump, I consider it scary.


(Alltaken) #15

well, they changed completely the role of Faramir and his psychology. In the books, he clearly understands that the ring’s influence caused Boromir’s death and let the hobbits go with some provisions while in the movie he wants to take the ring back to Gondor.
Also, there’s a little timeline problem. How can they arrive at Mount Doom at the correct time if they make a detour by Osgiliath which, as I remember it, is at least two or three days from Minas Morgul, where they should have been by then.

Also, the wargs are suppose to be giant wolves and they made they look rather like giant dogs.

but anyway, it was a good film, I’m just saying that it could have been much better IMHO.

Martin
PS: yes, a movie about Silmarillion would be great.[/quote]

yeah i saw it last night.

yeah there are things they should have left the same (as they were unessisary to change)
but as for the wolves and dogs (he he he dogs come from wolves and i thought they looked more like hyenas)

no cliffhanger (it would make people angry not having a complete film)

as for the trees i felt they looked a bit cheap when walking.

FAVORITE PART.

the fight in the first 5 mins of the film and the attack on the castle (can’t remember the name) (and by the way that castle was built just 1 or 2 kilometers from my house)

yeah it was the best movie i have seen for ages. (better than SW episode 1)


(theeth) #16

uhm… yes, you’re right, they did look more like hyenas. Still, there’s a difference between hyenas and giant wolves (smaller “nose”, different spine curve, …)

counterexample #1:

Luke, I am your father!
NOOOOOOOOO!

counterexample #2:

still looking for a counterexample #2

it’s not because it’s rarely done that it shouldn’t be done.

Martin


(Alltaken) #17

yeah i agree that is true

people should break the mould and dare to make a clifhanger


(valarking) #18

Yes, I agree about Faramir.
He was one of my favorite characters in the book. He almost resembled Aragorn, but in this he’s a thick headed, idiotic jerk.


(crow) #19

The only problem i had is during the battle scenes there are archers drawing their bows and shooting with no arrows, methinks the CG team forgot something! Also the dam breaking was horrible!!!


(ryan) #20

I went to see the two towers today. I am a 47 year old LOTR fan, having read the books about 10 times. Both Fellowship and TTT were great in my estimation.

It is important to remember that it is not even a good idea always to be too true to the book. Cinema is a very different medium compared to a book. Because the dramatic and pacing requirements are so different the changes in LOTR and TTT are acceptable as the characters are all recognizable and the story held all the way through.