Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Two Towers

2

Comments

  • #52
    spooky donkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,042 ✭✭✭spooky donkey


    Saw it last night, loved it.
    Thought it was a lot better than the first one, look foward to the next one!

    And i still think sam is gay after seeing that!


  • #53
    Caesar_Bojangle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭Caesar_Bojangle


    And i still think sam is gay after seeing that!

    If you read the book it actually appears as if frodo has more chance of being gay than sam
    at least sam gets married and has a kid, whereas the jubilant frodo never shuts up about ol bilbo and in the end goes away with a bunch of men


  • #54
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    I was reflecting on this tonite, and now that I've time, I'm gonna post about it...

    Firstly, I'm saying this as a film fan, and *NOT* a Lord Of The Rings fan.

    Now, when I saw LOTR:TTT at the premier, I was literally gob-smacked! But on recolection, I was also completely and utterly Gob-smacked at watching the Matrix, Jurassic Park, Independance Day, X-Men... Films I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot barge pole now. Upon repeated veiwings of any of these films, I found them extremely boring. Independance Day especially... I actualy walked out of the Cinema when seeing that for the second time.

    Obviously LOTR:FOTR blew me away visually, but beyond eye-candy, it's a film that has stood up to an uncountable amount of viewings from me. So what is it? What the hell was so engaging about the film? It had soul!

    Once the trill of all the eye-candy was gone, there was still an unbeleivable story and character to the film. I was watching the expressions of each actor at many a time, and they all conveyed such emotion! One example is when Gandalf throw the ring in the fire, takes it out and gives it to Frodo, asking him if he can see any markings... Watching his expression turn from a very relieved one when he's told 'Nothing' to an extremely worried one when Frodo says 'Wait..'

    It's extremely well acted.
    And it's more than that, really...
    It's the fact that there are these characters that I really do seem to care about, and they seem to have very real emotions! Emotions I can almost feel myself.

    Now, flash farwards to today...
    Upon seeing The Two Towers for a second time, I obviously wasn't as impressed with the 'Eye-Candy' as I was at first, yet I can definetly say it's better than when I first saw it. Frankly, I'm realling 'getting into' the characters, and truly caring about them. Best example I can give of this is:

    *Minor Spoiler*
    When Gollum has Sam held, and Frodo threatens to cut his throat, you can see the expression on his face slipping away. Quite an amazing thing to have a CGI character convey such emotion... I only noticed this on the second viewing. The expression going from his face, it was like the 'Gollum' personality leaving 'Smeagol' when he got into a fix. When he started sobbing, I could barely watch it... I really felt him. I truly pitied him. I felt so sorry for him...

    This is the kind of stuff that makes a truly great film. Characters that truly make you feel what they're feeling.

    Does anyone agree?


  • #55
    Ajnag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 691 ✭✭✭Ajnag


    Good but...

    Liked the film, but got some minor irritations,

    The ents were cool and all, but the impression I got from the book was of an entire forest moving towards Isenguard.kinda dissappointed at the low turnout of such a cool character.

    The gimli comic relife bordered the (dare I say it) joe pechi in leathal weapon 4 :(

    But I guess Peter Jackson had to for wider appeal.


    Otherwise damn good! and I guess im one to brood on small things.


  • #56
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    There were really only 2 things that irritated me about the film:

    1. Gimli falling off the horse... What exactly was the point of that?

    2. Aragorn presumed dead... Again, what was the point!?


  • #57
    BKtje
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,063 ✭✭✭BKtje


    Thought it was a great film, best ive seen in a LONG time.
    However like everyone else who's read the book it seems i had problems with some of the changes made.

    1- Aragorn being presumed dead. Is that just to highlight the fact that your one has a crush one him? :o

    2- The ring being taken to gondor. I was all waiting for Faramir to be wiser then his brother, then he comes out with, ' The ring will go to Gondor'. I was like grrrr this isnt the way its supposed to be. The gondor scene seemed cheap to me as well. 1 second a mass battle, then after frodo does his thing its all quiet?

    3- Helms deep was great but they should shown more of the fight when Gandalf arrived. I was all up to seeing his magical power and the big fight, but it just peters out. All you see of Gandalf in any of the fights is his using his staff as a mellee weapon. wtf? wheres his magical powers etc :p


    Great film, wish they didnt do the thigns above tho :)


  • #58
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Originally posted by B-K-DzR
    3- Helms deep was great but they should shown more of the fight when Gandalf arrived. I was all up to seeing his magical power and the big fight, but it just peters out. All you see of Gandalf in any of the fights is his using his staff as a mellee weapon. wtf? wheres his magical powers etc :p

    I'd say this was because of New Nice Cinema's constraints on the film(s). They want the films to be 3 hours or less. Aparently Peter Jackson wanted a 4 hour film with this. So I'd say the scene was rather edited.

    I also think that I've not seen the full film until I've seen the Extended Edition, as the track record from Fellowship goes... I seriously can't wait for the Two Towers DVD.


  • #59
    Pepe LeFrits
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 15,001 ✭✭✭✭Pepe LeFrits


    Overrated.

    The Savoy had an 'intermission' roughly half-way through to change reels or let people get feeling back in their arses or something. Up til that half way mark i was bored silly. It improved a bit after, but the constant switching from the entertaining large battle scenes to the talking trees was really fking annoying.

    Some good bits in it, but it was faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar too long, the good bits were interspersed with boring long bits and/or talking tree scenes/gollum scenes, and the dialogue was very longwinded. By the end of the film i was glad it was over so i could regain feeling in my behind.


  • #60
    Pugsley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,136 ✭✭✭Pugsley


    Originally posted by kaids
    Some good bits in it, but it was faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar too long,
    My biggest complaint about the film is that it was too short and a lot was missed out :eek:
    Judging by the posts I can see a lot of people agree'ing with me here, this film could easily be made into 2 seperate 3 hour films, but then it would be another year until we saw the helmsdeep battle, and them super cool ents, so thank god he done it in 1 :)


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Lex_Diamonds
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭Lex_Diamonds


    Such fuss over these films tbh, the huge budget still cant convey the books properly (see Gondor battle) and the characters are lifeless and I dont really care what happens to them. Instead of being swept along by the film im waiting for a good bit to come along and entertain me.

    Some less than stellar Cg and out of place groups of Orcs marching across boring landscape which served to remind me of the zero atmosphere of your average Zena episode. I just dont think the books have been convincingly portrayed on screen with the current films.

    In ten years time these films will command about as much respect as Krull...

    Having said all that, I thought Two Towers was alot better than FOTR. Helms deep in particular.


  • #62
    Jak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,643 ✭✭✭Jak


    In ten years time these films will command about as much respect as Krull...

    I've had just about enough of your Krull bashing...

    JAK.

    ps- Good movie, but the scale of some things was less than impressive. I mean .. Rohan was a mid west village apparently and the kingdom of Gondor is made up of 12 people or thereabouts.


  • #63
    Pugsley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,136 ✭✭✭Pugsley


    Originally posted by Lex_Diamonds

    In ten years time these films will command about as much respect as Krull...
    oi, i liked that film :o


  • #64
    Kalina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,518 ✭✭✭Kalina


    Treebeard was brilliant!! The best scene in the movie was the Ents assault on Isengard, the look on Saruman's face when they started hurling chunks of the wall around like they were soccer balls was priceless!!:D
    I enjoyed the film as a whole, it was certainly worth waiting a year to see, really can't wait for Return of the King now!!


  • #65
    Pigman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,092 ✭✭✭Pigman


    Originally posted by Jak
    I've had just about enough of your Krull bashing...

    Me too! Actually I take that back. Everything Franchesca Annis did (including Dune) sucked.


  • #66
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    WTF!?

    Krull is a classic!
    Like The Princess Bride...


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Saruman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,389 ✭✭✭✭Saruman


    Originally posted by Conorisco
    I'm sad they left out the last few chapers, eh the palantír and whatever. And also how did Ganfalf and the balrog make they're way up the mountain.

    I dont think anyone else commented on this. Firstly there is still time in ROTK to add the Palantir bit. Gandalf has not confronted Saruman at Isengard yet so the palantir has not come into it etc etc. As for the Balrog and Gandalf on the mountain.. remember the book? If not the film gives a clue but not much, you are expected to know.. Its something along the lines of Gandalf sent the Balrog fleeing up the tunnels of the deep earth. Gandalf followed until they reached the Everlasting Stair. Up the stair he gave chase until he reached Durin's Tower, on the peak of Zirakzigil. Long they fought atop the mountain. Finally, Gandalf took the Balrog and cast him off the mountain. The Balrogs fall broke the side of the mountain and killed Gandalf. Gandalf's Maia spirit returned to the Valar, and was sent back, until his task was completed.


    AS the movie.. it was fantastic.. so far i have seen it twice... it runs so well you dont notice 3 hours go by... At least i did not.. some people complain about sore bums and boredom on this thread... their loss.

    There was 1 thing and its very small, only 1 little gripe and thats Osgilliath/Faramir.. no point in saying more as others have said the same... Faramir should have been able to hold out longer than his brother.


  • #68
    Corega
    Registered Users Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Corega


    Very good movie, great graphics, great screenplay, some nice twists, the ads didn't give away too much, except for
    Except for Gandalf returning.
    .


    Had a nice bucket of popcorn with butter on top and a Haagen Daz ice cream, pralines and cream if I remember correctly.


  • #69
    Ry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,020 ✭✭✭Ry


    I enjoyed it so much I think I'm gonna HAVE to see the 3rd at the Premier. Though how does one get tickets to it? :/

    Ry


  • #70
    Woden
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,560 ✭✭✭Woden


    have to saw watched the extended dvd version of FOTR last night and i think that FOTR is better then TTT's it was good alright but still something sits ill with it, will c it a third time tomorrow perhaps after seeing FOTR so recently this will improve the viewing


  • #71
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Originally posted by SpiraL
    I enjoyed it so much I think I'm gonna HAVE to see the 3rd at the Premier. Though how does one get tickets to it? :/

    Ry

    Check the LOTR board about a month before the release.
    Dev will post instrutions.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    azezil
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,397 ✭✭✭✭azezil


    /me gives TTT soggy cabbage of approval

    is there a higher compliment :)


  • #73
    Caesar_Bojangle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭Caesar_Bojangle


    I may be a LOTR literature fundamentalist but in all fairness both FOTR and TTT were mediocre movies. You just have to look at some of the posts in which people are saying i didnt think it was great the first time i saw it, but it suddenly clicked on my third viewing. You shouldnt have to watch a movie three, four times to conjure your final verdict, criticism or praise. Thats were you fan boys can not see the films lack of pizzaz. If it was any other movie it would be slated straight away from your first viewing, i dont think any of you would give it another chance if say it was another chick flick. Its like spiderman, the first time i watched i thought it was just about passable but after sitting down on stephens day to watch it again, i couldnt handle it i just turned it off because it is so bad, and i was a ardent spiderman fan as a kid et al that paraphernalia.


  • #74
    the66electric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 406 ✭✭the66electric


    Don't f.u.c.k. him Samwise Gamgee, and i don't intend to...


  • #75
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    I'm not sure, the film just didn't sit right for me. I liked it, and came out wanting to see it again, but something nagged me for days afterwards about it. It could be that what i valued as important sections of the book were overlooked in the film.

    The fantasy addict in me will always have loved the films for all the shinyness of the many weapons and nice castles. But I was very uncomfortable with the use of Gimli for comic relief. And Helms Deep ended very unsatisfactorily for me, it was built up for far too long to end so abruptly (prob editing), and the ride-out was almost meaningless, and in my opinion in the book it is one of the more stirring scenes. I found (being vague for ppl who haven't yet seen it) that the uruk-hai with the torch was alot more moving than the rest of the film. I even felt sorry for the Uruk hai, but than again I felt the same thing with the sucide bombers in Hamburger Hill (i think...)

    Anyways whats important is that we're finally seeing some decent quality fantasy in the cinemas again. (decent being not Harry Potter.... grrrrrr)

    PS Krull has rocked ever since i first saw it as a kid, and the princess bride is possibly the funniest film i've ever seen.


  • #76
    LoGiE
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 2,975 Mod ✭✭✭✭LoGiE


    Saw TTT yesterday and was very impressed, especially with the last hour of the film. Lots of action/battles = :) oh and just looking at the lovely Liv Tyler (If only briefly in this film)


  • #77
    Lex_Diamonds
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭Lex_Diamonds


    OK, OK, I take back what I said about Krull :) It actually is a good movie. So for the benefit of you all, here is my re-edited statement:

    "In ten years time these films will command about as much respect as Red Sonya..."

    Anyone else think Conan is a much better film that these LOTR efforts?


  • #78
    azezil
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,397 ✭✭✭✭azezil


    Originally posted by Lex_Diamonds
    Anyone else think Conan is a much better film that these LOTR efforts?
    CONAN! as in Arnie the big sword wielding puff-fairy! oh get out :)


  • #79
    Bard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,309 ✭✭✭✭Bard


    My verdict on this movie is simple.

    It is a stunning, beautifully crafted piece of motion picture history;- a work of brilliance with very few flaws. Everyone should see this film.


  • #80
    RicardoSmith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,264 ✭✭✭RicardoSmith


    Just seen the film. I think it was very like the first one. While some of the scenes were very good and the cgi was excellent, I don't think it will be a classic. The film as a whole is too drawn out and (as with the first one) theres too much sentimentality. Theres a lot of places where theres really nothing going on, and scenes that add nothing to the story. There were no spine tingling moments for me.

    Even the battles which were good, for me are not a patch on the battles in Braveheart or the opening scene in Gladiator. In particular the latter one gives you a sense of the overwhelming techological superiority and might of the Roman army, and also the physical effort and brutality of hand to hand combat of the day. The battles in TT felt quite sterile in comparision. Though the CGI was excellent.

    Thought that Gollum is surprisingly good, and his internal battle is brought across very well. If the rest of the film was as well resolved, it would have lifted the film for me.

    Have to say that I think it deserved more than a 12's rating. Its quite violent and theres lots of savagery. What do the rest of you think?

    Anyone see the animated version of the film? 1978 by director Ralph Bakshi? I thought that film was a good effort. Particularly the battles. Though haven't seen it in quite a while. Must get it out again.


  • #81
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Ok, I've a bit of arguing to get to now...
    Originally posted by Lex_Diamonds
    OK, OK, I take back what I said about Krull :) It actually is a good movie. So for the benefit of you all, here is my re-edited statement:

    "In ten years time these films will command about as much respect as Red Sonya..."

    Anyone else think Conan is a much better film that these LOTR efforts?

    That was unalled for, you bastard! :eek:

    I think the fundemental badness in your statement is the fact that Red Sonja was in no way, or at any time, ever considered the least bit entertaining on any level whatsoever! It's a dreadfully insulting analogy, tbh. And one of the worst films in Fantasy history.

    But I must thank you for bringing up Conan.
    One of the greatest films ever made, tbh. And a huge favorite of mine since childhood, it was. Incidently, I just stuck on the soundtrack, which is also one of the greatest! It's a film that has stood up to unrivalled amounts of viewings.

    Generally, I love such films. And I have quite a few of them on DVD: Excalibur, Conan, Braveheart, Gladiator, and of course Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring. And even the 1978 Lord Of The Rings animation. As well as countless more Fantasy films on VHS: Willow, The Dark Crystal... And so on.

    Now, I'd say it's a fair assumption that Excalibur preceded these films, and gave way to the boom of Fantasy films in the 80's.

    But here's the funny thing!
    The director of Excalibur, John Boorman, originally wanted to make a film of Lord of the Rings, and got refused. He then went on to film Excalibur instead. So if it wasn't for LOTR in the first place, we probably wouldn't have such films today. ;) And I look farward to another boom in Fantasy as to be triggered by the current films.

    However, I wouldn't be able rank Conan any ways lower than LOTR, it is clearly a film that has been with me for the latter half of my life, and shall again receive many, many views, seemingly without any boredome. But I will say that in 10 ten years time, I can still see the LOTR films standing up as strong as Conan has done.

    Is this a suffiant reply lex?


    Now, on to more argueing...

    Originally posted by Caesar_Bojangle
    I may be a LOTR literature fundamentalist but in all fairness both FOTR and TTT were mediocre movies. You just have to look at some of the posts in which people are saying i didnt think it was great the first time i saw it, but it suddenly clicked on my third viewing.

    Complete rubbish!
    In my post anyway, I said that I was utterly blown away at first viewing. And that to compare the film with the first honestly, that I'd have to see it a few more times.

    And frankly, I'm not going to see it again, simply to compare films honestly. I'm going again to enjoy the film completely and utterly. And I'm sure I will, just as I've done with the first film.

    Neither film is in any way mediocre on any level. There is also the fact that there is no presidence for the films, as there's never been such a huge undertaking in cinema history, making a mostly faithfull adaption of what was considered (And proven, going on track record) to be an unfilmable peice of work.
    Originally posted by Caesar_Bojangle
    You shouldnt have to watch a movie three, four times to conjure your final verdict, criticism or praise. Thats were you fan boys can not see the films lack of pizzaz.

    Lack of pizzaz?
    Is this quite possibly a troll?
    Frankly, as far as 'pizzaz' goes, or sparkle, or glamour, or what ever you want to call it... It's fact that the films are technically groundbreaking, besides on the level of filming the unfilmable. Not only is there no lack of pizzaz, but there's pizzaz that simply hasn't been seen before. From the opening sequence of both films, to the Balrog of Moria, Helms Deep, Gollum... It's all breath-taking.
    Originally posted by Caesar_Bojangle
    If it was any other movie it would be slated straight away from your first viewing, i dont think any of you would give it another chance if say it was another chick flick. Its like spiderman, the first time i watched i thought it was just about passable but after sitting down on stephens day to watch it again, i couldnt handle it i just turned it off because it is so bad, and i was a ardent spiderman fan as a kid et al that paraphernalia.

    I'm sure if I saw Spiderman a second time, yes I might be bored ****less. But the analogy you're giving is with two films, one of which I personally have watched countless times, and another I'm sure to watch countless more times. Not with a throw-away comic book adaptation.

    I find some of the points you make ridiculous, and almost trollish.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    CodeMonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,103 ✭✭✭CodeMonkey


    Originally posted by azezil
    CONAN! as in Arnie the big sword wielding puff-fairy! oh get out :)
    Conan was indeed a much better fantasy adventure. LOTR and TTT are fantastically well made movies and they look great but they are also dull, repetitive, somewhat predictable, uninteresting and confusing for people who have not read the book or watch the extended LOTR before wandering into TTT. I am sorry but the film is long and boring.

    All the characters are pretty one dimensional and again, uninteresting. They are either good or evil. And the some of the many unnecessary long winded and formal dialogues are as camp as hell. Peter Jackson is spending too much time pleasing the many Tokien fanboys to make the movie entertaining. Even Harry Potter was more fun if not a bit childish.

    Back to Conan. Conan was a barbarian and Arnie didn't pretend to be anything more than a muscle bound guy who's good with the sword. The story was told in a far more coherent manner, the romance was interesting and properly developed instead of us wondering why the hell does those 2 women lust after Aragorn. Even the fighting in Conan was a lot more realistic. Yes Conan did single handedly kill lots of lackeys but they weren't super duper killer Orcs, genetically engineered and grown in test-tubes to butcher man-kind. And Conan does get captured, injured and even killed. Aragorn and Gimli didn't even get scratched when they jumped the Orcs at the gate-bridge. I can go on and go but FOTR and TTT just aren't that great!


  • #83
    RicardoSmith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,264 ✭✭✭RicardoSmith


    While lots of classic movies have some glaring clangers in them. "Where Eagles Dare! is a case in point, saw it again recently and theres some real howling mistakes in it. But it still a classic.

    Conal though quite low brow is a classic. Its quite entertaining. I agree that both of the LOTR while quite good aren't classics. I think they tried too hard to put the book on film, (though I think they have done this quite well) and forgot that they were making a movie/film. It has neither the gritty reality of something like "Band of Brothers" nor the entertainment factor of something like "Kellys Heroes". It kind falls somewhere in between. Much like "Dune" does actually. Though I think "Dune" has more character.

    Its basically the book on film and little souless IMO. I can forgive the unreality of many of the scenes but I too felt more than a little distant from any of the characters. Gollum has the best character and you actually feel closest to him! Thats says a lot for the non-cgi acting in it!


  • #84
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Originally posted by AngelWhore
    But here's the funny thing!
    The director of Excalibur, John Boorman, originally wanted to make a film of Lord of the Rings, and got refused. He then went on to film Excalibur instead. So if it wasn't for LOTR in the first place, we probably wouldn't have such films today. ;)
    George Lucas. Flash Gordon no go. Star Wars the result. 'Nuff said.

    (and yeah, Krull is a classic. As much as the Princess Bride except less people seem to remember it. And I thought Lysette Anthony was well fit in it (or I would have done had I not been 8 when it came out - AFAIR girls were smelly creatures when I was 8))


  • #85
    Caesar_Bojangle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭Caesar_Bojangle


    Complete rubbish!
    I find some of the points you make ridiculous, and almost trollish

    Caesar still loves you baby.
    Is this quite possibly a troll?

    No a troll is a supernatural creature derived from Scandinavian folklore (either a dwarf or a giant) that is supposed to live in a cave or in the mountains. Something i aint.
    Lack of pizzaz?
    Frankly, as far as 'pizzaz' goes, or sparkle, or glamour, or what ever you want to call it... It's fact that the films are technically groundbreaking, besides on the level of filming the unfilmable. Not only is there no lack of pizzaz, but there's pizzaz that simply hasn't been seen before. From the opening sequence of both films, to the Balrog of Moria, Helms Deep, Gollum... It's all breath-taking.
    Neither film is in any way mediocre on any level. There is also the fact that there is no presidence for the films, as there's never been such a huge undertaking in cinema history

    Titanic, harry potter, star wars were all technically groundbreaking movies to a degree, it doesnt mean they were actually any good, but still received success in the masses around the world culminating in all making the top ten grossing movies of all time. Just because people flock to see it, does not literally mean its a classic or even any good. Gollum, i can not fault he was absolutely amazing, the balrog scene too but helms deep was nothing more than the sinister folk stacking ladders against the wall only to be knocked back on to their arse which was to be the so called orgasm of ttt didnt live up to the ballyhoo.

    Angelwhore, tis only a movie but caesar still loves ya baby despite your hurtful troll taunts.


  • #86
    RasTa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,116 ✭✭✭✭RasTa


    cool movie
    but my major complaint is the way gimli was portrayed as a clumpsy oaf when in the book hes a man of strenght, pride and honour
    there was absouletly no need to have him in there for comic relif,tha pissed me off
    and whats liv tyler doing in the movie, pointless


  • #87
    Lex_Diamonds
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭Lex_Diamonds


    It pains me that Conan is regarded with derision or at best, indifference by the majority of people.

    The battle where Conan and chums fight at the stonehenge type area is tremendously rousing. Thanks mainly to the score that accompanies the action.

    An interesting point that was made by the director, which resonates especially after seeing LOTR, is that Oliver Stone who had originally penned an early draft of the Conan script wanted to have mutants and fantastic creatures running about the place, as in the books. The producer vetoed this however as he was keen to maintain an air of believability to the proceedings.

    This is possibly the mistake of the new LOTR films, current technology just cant bring the book to the screen in a sufficient manner to suspend disbelief. (I realise that it was necessary to portray creatures onscreen and this could not be avoided)


  • #88
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Originally posted by Caesar_Bojangle
    Titanic, harry potter, star wars were all technically groundbreaking movies to a degree, it doesnt mean they were actually any good, but still received success in the masses around the world culminating in all making the top ten grossing movies of all time. Just because people flock to see it, does not literally mean its a classic or even any good. Gollum, i can not fault he was absolutely amazing, the balrog scene too but helms deep was nothing more than the sinister folk stacking ladders against the wall only to be knocked back on to their arse which was to be the so called orgasm of ttt didnt live up to the ballyhoo.

    Judging from your reply, we obviously have very different definitions of 'Pizzaz'. Because as far as I know, it's a very 'Bling Bling' term, basically describing eye-candy in this context.

    So, maybe I'm getting your meaning wrong? Because all the films you mention there have plenty of pizzaz, where concerned. Or as my definition goes... And I never once mentioned anything about overall well-doing of a film, and popularity of it to be in any way relevant to my judge of it. Naughty for putting words in my mouth.

    But in all fairness, Helms deep was a LOT more than the orcs being knocked on their asses... If I remember correctly, the orcs over-whelmed it. And frankly, my highlight of the entire Helms Deep was Theoden being convinced to ride out hard... Man, you could really see the fire in his eyes! A far better sight than the multi-million dollar effects, in my mind, and it is in scenes like this that the film's true heart lies, of which it is completely stacked to the rafters with such emotions. This is what the draw of the first film was for me, after the 'Pizzaz' and eye-candy of the effects lost its sparkle.

    Because, when it comes down to it, the effects are only a tool. A way of telling the story. This point is perfectly emphasised in Gollum. My favorite scenes in the book, are those concerning him, and to be quite honest, my favorites in the film also...

    It's only a film, yes...
    But oh my! What a film!

    The battle where Conan and chums fight at the stonehenge type area is tremendously rousing.

    That's the 'Battle Of The Mounds' you faux-conan fan!!! :mad:


  • #89
    RicardoSmith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,264 ✭✭✭RicardoSmith


    Originally posted by AngelWhore
    ...my highlight of the entire Helms Deep was Theoden being convinced to ride out hard... Man, you could really see the fire in his eyes! A far better sight than the multi-million dollar effects, in my mind, and it is in scenes like this that the film's true heart lies, of which it is completely stacked to the rafters with such emotions. ....

    Have to disagree. I didn't think the acting was that great at all, with Theoden being particularly wooden. Each to his own I guess. It didn't grab me anyway.


  • #90
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Originally posted by RicardoSmith
    Have to disagree. I didn't think the acting was that great at all, with Theoden being particularly wooden. Each to his own I guess. It didn't grab me anyway.

    You seriously have to be bull****tting me...
    I mean, you look at Jackson's choices for the roles in the film. Definetly well-capable, and rather left-of-field actors, who are usually in one part or another, very much character actors, and not the usual Hollywood tripe. Brad Dourif, for example... A tremendous Villian in almost every film he's been in. The odd acception being One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, and maybe Missisipi Burning.

    Viggo Mortenson also...
    There's not many actors than can convincingly put the ****s up the almighty Christopher Walken on-screen, as in The Prophecy. Also taking into consider the calibur of actors who are cast as Lucifer: Al Pachino, Robert DeNiro, Gabriel Byrne... I could go on. Also, The Prophecy definetly wasn't some low budget afair, with a lack of actors... These guys were handpicked on pure tallen, such as the unbeleivable under-rated Eric Stoltz. And Mortensen was also one of the sole reasons I ever enjoyed in my watching of GI Jane. Otherwise a snore-fest.

    Ian McKellen, another great example of such an actor. I mean, X-Men? Unarguably the best-known comic book series there is, next to Batman, and Superman. Richard III. Apt Pupil. Gods And Monsters. As well as playing Hamlet, and Macbeth. Frankly, all of his roles at one point or another always require an immesne depth and character. An actor that was hand-picked to play Gandalf, above the favorite for the part, Sean Connery, who it was said was the only man alive that could do justice to the character.

    Christopher Lee... The man spent a lifetime honing his art of portraying such a powerfull, and sinister prescence. This guy is just an Immortal actor.

    I really could go on like this for some time, but I think you get my point by now?

    There is no question in my mind that just about every actor in the film is in the film because they are the best man/woman for the job, and absolutely no-one else would be suitable... And this goes for Bernard Hill, aka King Theoden, who was in no way, shape or form 'Wooden'.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    RicardoSmith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,264 ✭✭✭RicardoSmith


    We're all entitled to our own opinion dude. Ian McKellen & Christopher Lee were fine in the movie. Still didn't think much of King Theoden though, regardless of how you rate him in other films. Just because an actor was good in another film does't mean that he'll be as good in every other film either.


  • #92
    Pepe LeFrits
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 15,001 ✭✭✭✭Pepe LeFrits


    "When Rabid Fanboys Go Wrong: Angelwhore"


  • #93
    Gavin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭Gavin


    Originally posted by RicardoSmith
    We're all entitled to our own opinion dude. Ian McKellen & Christopher Lee were fine in the movie. Still didn't think much of King Theoden though, regardless of how you rate him in other films. Just because an actor was good in another film does't mean that he'll be as good in every other film either.

    I agree, he was quite wooden in the film. e.g when they thought that Aragorn had died ( where the hell did that come from anyway ? ), Theoden peeks over the cliff, sighs and wanders off. No effort to acknowledge a great man gone.

    Overall, I was annoyed with the several scenes they stuck in that had nothing to do with the book, such as the scenes with Arwen. Also the protrayel of Gimli was odd as well. eg with them running after the hobbits, dwarves do not get tired.. But there's Gimli huffing and heaving.

    I liked the film, but as with all books, it's never as good on the screen.

    Gav


  • #94
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,735 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Saw the film, and like a majority of the posters here, really enjoyed it.

    My minor quibble would be it does not have the same theme of underlying lost and of grandeur passing as the books, ie no mention of the Ents search.

    Favourite scene, the enterance of the Elves at Helms Deep.

    Finally,
    , but as with all books, it's never as good on the screen.
    as Verb said. Case in point "The Postman".


  • #95
    Syd_Vicious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 74 ✭✭Syd_Vicious


    This is Syd_Vicious speaking...

    I saw the film two days after it was released and the cinema was practically empty!

    I thought it was an excellent film with Gollum being the stand-out character and was done perfectly.

    However, they're a few faults I found with the film:

    Gimli & Legolas joking about how many orcs they kill at the start of the Battle of Helms Deep - If you had ten thousand orcs trying to kill you, I doubt you would be laughing and joking

    The end of the film - Why did Peter Jackson make the army of Isengard (sp?) look so weak at the end of the film. Seriously, now it looks like a five year old could beat the armies of Mordor

    Lack of Sauron - The evil eye should has been used more to increase the tension or the evilness of Mordor

    Excellent film otherwise

    BTW I haven't read the books but my friend is reading all of them including the older ones. In the scene with Gandalf and Balrog, Gandalf called him Balrog of Morgoth. From what I know of the early books, Morgoth is the ultimate evil of all the LOTR books while Sauron is only his general. Does this have any meaning at all?

    This has been Syd_Vicious speaking...


  • #96
    RicardoSmith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,264 ✭✭✭RicardoSmith


    Originally posted by Manach

    Favourite scene, the enterance of the Elves at Helms Deep.

    Actually that was a good scene. But alot of the scenes lacked that kind of impact and emotion. I might go and see it again as I liked the first one a lot better after a second viewing.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Gavin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭Gavin


    Originally posted by Syd_Vicious
    This is Syd_Vicious speaking...


    BTW I haven't read the books but my friend is reading all of them including the older ones. In the scene with Gandalf and Balrog, Gandalf called him Balrog of Morgoth. From what I know of the early books, Morgoth is the ultimate evil of all the LOTR books while Sauron is only his general. Does this have any meaning at all?
    B]

    Morgoth created the Balrog's, or Durin's Bane as they like to call em. Tis in the Silmarillion.

    Gav


  • #98
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Originally posted by kaids
    "When Rabid Fanboys Go Wrong: Angelwhore"

    For more Rabid Fanboy action, please dial: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75230
    Originally posted by Verb
    I agree, he was quite wooden in the film. e.g when they thought that Aragorn had died ( where the hell did that come from anyway ? ), Theoden peeks over the cliff, sighs and wanders off. No effort to acknowledge a great man gone.

    Yet it would make complete sense for him to pine and while over him, when he rushedly has to leave him own men for dead, in aid of urgency of Helms Deep, and the unguarded rest of Edoras?

    Frankly, it would be a rather irritating plot hole if he had bothered to say anything. Although, I didn't like the fact that Aragorn was presumed dead, what so ever. Rather pointless, so I agree with you there.
    Originally posted by Verb
    Overall, I was annoyed with the several scenes they stuck in that had nothing to do with the book, such as the scenes with Arwen. Also the protrayel of Gimli was odd as well. eg with them running after the hobbits, dwarves do not get tired.. But there's Gimli huffing and heaving.

    I liked the film, but as with all books, it's never as good on the screen.

    I'll agree again here.
    One scene in particular that irritated the hell out of me was where Gilmi fell off the horse... Completely pointless, and not in any way funny.

    And no film is ever as good as the book. But I do feel that The Lord Of The Rings is about as close as it's going to get to being as good.
    Gimli & Legolas joking about how many orcs they kill at the start of the Battle of Helms Deep - If you had ten thousand orcs trying to kill you, I doubt you would be laughing and joking

    Oh, that was so like, not how it happened in the book! :rolleyes:


  • #99
    Pepe LeFrits
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 15,001 ✭✭✭✭Pepe LeFrits


    Originally posted by AngelWhore
    Oh, that was so like, not how it happened in the book! :rolleyes:

    And the books are no doubt perfect :ROLEZYEZ: @REIOZLELZ: :ROLEYZ:


  • #100
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Originally posted by kaids
    And the books are no doubt perfect

    As long as we got that one clear.


  • #101
    Celt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,333 ✭✭✭Celt


    Originally posted by AngelWhore
    As long as we got that one clear.
    We dont. The books, while, no doubt classics, are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement