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 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

LOTR-the worst tripe i've watched in years,if not ever

  • 28-12-2001 2:57am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,544 ✭✭✭✭


    This is a post about LOTR from a movie go'er prespective , please don't move it to that other scary place...

    I haven't read the books, after watching the movie i've no intention of either.

    I'm sure the books are great, brilliant etc etc, but as a movie they just don't transfer.(unless you've read the books and it all is just great.....blah).

    I went to see a movie, ie a plot, a start , a finish and if the dámn thing was going to last three fuppin hours i expect gratification :|

    Sure i knew in advance it was some thinga bout rings..:) , the intro explains it..so the plot is this guy is entrusted with a super ring and only he can destroy it and save the world blah blah...

    So fine, he has to fight off lots off baddies in the pouring rain (it never stops apparently..even in the caves..water is a permiating theme).

    But ffs at the end he is still on his póxy journey to smash/melt/whatever the ring..goddamn it!!!

    Just what is the point of a movie with a start and not end..and seemingly one 3 hour long middle (btw you know this ordeal is nearly over because the music will start playing end of movie tunes(uplifting hopefull mush) even though there seems to be no reason to end the story.

    Goddamn it, i wanted a movie and a got a book with the last page (or half the bleedin book) torn out.

    I dont care if the trilogy or whatever it was , was never finished, this is the movies and i expect, if i'm going to sit still for three hours..some kind of gratification.

    My advice to all ....bring a pillow, after the first half hour, hes not going to get any closer to securing the damn ring, so have a snooze and save yourself the torture of another 2.5 hours of the same...

    Have a weather station?, why not join the Ireland Weather Network - http://irelandweather.eu/



«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 508 ✭✭✭Block (8


    OMG ur gonna get it now :eek:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Originally posted by Longfield

    I dont care if the trilogy or whatever it was , was never finished, this is the movies and i expect, if i'm going to sit still for three hours..some kind of gratification.

    Emm, hopefully this will save your skin, but it is the first in a trilogy, next ones due to be released next Chrimbo and then Chrimbo 2004, at which point you will receive the end and the gratification which you so sorely desire :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    If your complaint. And from wha i see in the post. Is only the no where led ending then i can understand. Most people on the boards knew it was only part of the whole film. I think they missed out telling the regular movie go ers abou this. I personnally found out from a preview a year ago. Yes it is an annoying ending more so when your hyped up so much by the previous 3 hours. But this is more a fault of PR then to the film. If you were told. This is 1 of 3 films it ends before anything is solved. Then i hope you wouldnt be as p1ssed off.

    about the rain: no rain in caves...theres fire but no rain. It didnt rain in the final battle. It didnt rain when he fought or was being chased by the wraiths. Actually i dont remember there being much rain. cept when they come to the inn. ???:confused:


    You have some form of finish. This movie follows the fellowship of the ring. The subtitle. And it ends with the fellowship being broken. Think of it as....a star wars film (not in context but in ending) Like the empire strikes back. That didnt end properly niether did the 1sst one. (ok so Lucas didnt expect it to be a success but it still didnt end properly.) Its just Lotr made its "To be continued" Bigger then the others because...IT IS BIGGER!


    Are you telling me. That nothing in this film appealled to you? Not even its visuals?


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


    Originally posted by Longfield
    This is a post about LOTR from a movie go'er prespective , please don't move it to that other scary place...

    I haven't read the books, after watching the movie i've no intention of either.

    Yes, you really ARE going to get it. As block pointed out. :D
    Originally posted by Longfield

    I'm sure the books are great, brilliant etc etc, but as a movie they just don't transfer.(unless you've read the books and it all is just great.....blah).

    Complete muppetry!
    If you haven't read the books how do you know it doesn't transfer?
    It transfers PERFECTLY.
    Originally posted by Longfield

    I went to see a movie, ie a plot, a start , a finish and if the dámn thing was going to last three fuppin hours i expect gratification :|

    I won't dwell on this, as it's been pointed out already: It's the first part of the entire story!
    You've got another two films to go before you get your "Gratification."

    The entire story is too huge to film in a single part.
    Originally posted by Longfield

    Sure i knew in advance it was some thinga bout rings..:) , the intro explains it..so the plot is this guy is entrusted with a super ring and only he can destroy it and save the world blah blah...

    You have absolutely no idea what the plot is, do you?
    I've never seen a more childish, 'Just glanced at a film' interperatation of a plot in my life!
    Originally posted by Longfield

    So fine, he has to fight off lots off baddies in the pouring rain (it never stops apparently..even in the caves..water is a permiating theme).

    What film was it you were watching exactly?
    Originally posted by Longfield

    But ffs at the end he is still on his póxy journey to smash/melt/whatever the ring..goddamn it!!!

    Just what is the point of a movie with a start and not end..and seemingly one 3 hour long middle (btw you know this ordeal is nearly over because the music will start playing end of movie tunes(uplifting hopefull mush) even though there seems to be no reason to end the story.

    I wont bother stating the obvious again.
    Originally posted by Longfield

    Goddamn it, i wanted a movie and a got a book with the last page (or half the bleedin book) torn out.

    I dont care if the trilogy or whatever it was , was never finished, this is the movies and i expect, if i'm going to sit still for three hours..some kind of gratification.

    My advice to all ....bring a pillow, after the first half hour, hes not going to get any closer to securing the damn ring, so have a snooze and save yourself the torture of another 2.5 hours of the same...

    Pff...

    *Hands longfield most worst review of any film ever award.

    If you actualy want, I'll relay the plot to you, then maybe you might get it.
    But I'm not going to bother if I'm going to try a long explination, and it to be ignored.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 121 ✭✭joev


    Oh No.. they've got a Cave Troll.......

    Some sorta Troll anyway... :)

    The Film is:

    Beginning: The discovery of the ring, and the initial Flight from Hobbiton.

    Middle: Decisions on the course to take, and a 'quest' to get
    there.

    End: A Climax, emotionally and physically is reached with the battle and subsequent death of Borromir (and Aragorns defeat of the Uber Bad Guy - the Ururk Hai) - Subsequently the 'heros' go off into the sunset to meet their future fates, irrevocably changed by the events that they have shared in...

    Where's your problem with that?

    Did you also have a problem with "The Matrix" - Given that it also ends on a 'this is part one of three' note? I'll bet not...

    If you have arguements to make about the film, that's fine. Make some cogent ones with a tad more objectivity and it might become an interesting discussion. :)

    joev.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Originally posted by Longfield

    My advice to all ....bring a pillow, after the first half hour, hes not going to get any closer to securing the damn ring, so have a snooze and save yourself the torture of another 2.5 hours of the same...

    Well it obvious that you slept thru most of the film or you "imagined" going to it :)

    The vast majority have thought it to be the best film in years and those that have criticised it have been able to do so coherently something that you have failed to do here.

    This is nothing more than a blatent Troll !!

    Gandalf.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 121 ✭✭joev


    SNAP.

    /me Highfives Gandalf.

    joev.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,304 ✭✭✭✭koneko


    Some people can't watch a film if they don't have closure at the end. Not sure why exactly.

    If it isn't the usual Hollywood tripe they don't like it. Oh shock horror LOTR is a little different. How will we cope. I think it's been one of the best films of the year, maybe better still. Not all films need a happy ending to be good. In fact, the best ones don't.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MarcusGarvey


    Right, I posted this in the Phantom FM forum but I might as well repost it here. I did not dislike it as much as Longfield but I didn't enjoy the film. Without doubt expressing anything but a tiny lil complaint on someones makeup will get the fanboys all a seething but ****it here I go:

    I didn't like it. I found it boring and slow-moving. Some of the battle scenes were amazing and the orks were mightily impressive. The cinematography and scenery were amazing.

    Still it was a tad childish for me though and some of the actors apart from maybe Ian Mckellen were very wooden, especially Hugo Weaving who was doing some sort of Agent Smith thing again, this guy can act, he was actually good in Priscilla Queen of the Desert , Cate Blanchett was dire which I'm disappointed with cos she can also act , Liv Tyler, well she can stand around and look pretty but acting ? Pffft.

    Those hobbit kids were like the Phantom Menaces version of Jar Jar Binks, added for the dumb comedic moments.

    I wouldn't go and see it again, would not read the books after seeing the film and might not go to see parts 2 and 3. I'd really only go for closure though, to see what happens in the end.

    I was hoping it would have been darker, a lot darker. The fight between gandalf and the other white haired dude was good but again could have been fleshed out more.

    I was less than satisfied with it but then theres always one that goes against the masses. While it may have been too long for Longfield I thought they could have fleshed some bits out more, like the battlescenes but I guess 4 hours would have been too much.


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


    Man... I should really stop posting drivel at 4 AM... :confused:

    But still. That was an immesurable immature review to the film.
    I agree with Gandalf, it was a blatant Troll...

    At least Marcus gave a good, thought out opinion, even if I didn't agree with it.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    The special effects were great, cast was well chosen but the script was terrible.

    It patronised the audience, played them for chumps, kept repeating itself for the sake of vanity shots time and time again and at times was more embarassing to watch than those hammy lines in Star Wars (Leia: "Sometimes I wonder if he cares at all"; Luke: "I care." etc.).

    The one redeeming feature about the script, thank God, is that none of the writers felt the urge to stick in the odd ironic joke, Shrek-style. That just would have blown it.

    Since the films were made at the same time, I very much doubt the standard of the script is going to improve at all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 577 ✭✭✭Chubby


    Yeah, I have to agree with DadaKopf that the script was terrible. One of the only thing that was done right was most of the important locations and characters was crammed into the film which kept most of the LOTR fans happy. However this gave it a very rushed feeling even though it's already a 3 hour long film.

    The characters was literally rushed from one location to the next without breaks. Scenes like the one that in the elven forest Lothlуrien made very little sense in the movie and might as well be totally deleted in it's butchered state. The trailer shows the elves giving the fellowships gifts so I guess a lot more was shot but just wasn't included in the film to make it shorter. We're going to have to wait for the special dvd edition to see all the deleted scenes.

    I still enjoyed the film and it's visually amazing but I wouldn't call it the best movie of all time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,099 ✭✭✭✭WhiteWashMan


    Originally posted by Chubby

    We're going to have to wait for the special dvd edition to see all the deleted scenes.


    that will make it a 5 hour film :)

    i enjoyed it.
    i went in to be entertained.
    it was full of righteous arsé kicking so i was happy.
    it stuck fairly much to the book, so i was happy.
    it looked nice, so i was happy.
    the original book doesnt exactly have the greatest of scrpting, so no disappointment there.
    there was lots of nice graphicy things, so i was happy.

    end result = i was happy

    not as good as harry potter though :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,544 ✭✭✭✭Supercell


    Maybe i was a little ott, but it was late when i posted it and was maybe a little too full of xmas cheer.

    That said, it's not a deliberate "troll" (unless that was a pun :) ), this is a Films/TV discussion board, i didn't like it, i discussed it, and it seems i'm not the only one let down by all the hype, so, in that sense i stand by my words.

    Its a film not a book, i watched in the cinema, i dont care if it was a 15 part story, every part needs a beginning and an ending, this one only had music...

    Not really bothered if you get all hot under the collar about this opinion, and at least post why you think it was the best film of 2001, fine, just please don't get personal,it it makes you look retarded, its an opinion which should be as valid as the LOTR lovers here, /end.

    Have a weather station?, why not join the Ireland Weather Network - http://irelandweather.eu/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭phaxx


    I saw it today, and liked it. Dunno about "best film" or whatever, I don't really care about most films or pay attention to what's released and such.. but everyone's talking about this one so I had to see it. :) It was good. (Except there were annoying kids everywhere. And my seat sucked. Damn you shinji, being late and making us have sucky seats. :))


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


    Originally posted by DadaKopf
    The special effects were great, cast was well chosen but the script was terrible.

    It patronised the audience, played them for chumps, kept repeating itself for the sake of vanity shots time and time again and at times was more embarassing to watch than those hammy lines in Star Wars (Leia: "Sometimes I wonder if he cares at all"; Luke: "I care." etc.).

    The one redeeming feature about the script, thank God, is that none of the writers felt the urge to stick in the odd ironic joke, Shrek-style. That just would have blown it.

    Since the films were made at the same time, I very much doubt the standard of the script is going to improve at all.

    The script was fine, Dadakopf.
    You must remeber that it's pretty faithful to the book. To change the dialog would be downright ridiculous.
    Maybe if you're not a fan of fantasy, a lot of it would seem rather hammy. But I really enjoyed it.
    It's a bit arrogant to think that the script should be in modern english, and mannerisms.
    Lets not forget that JRR Tolkien had actualy created an entire world, in extreme detail, and even an entire Language, so the different dialog is definetly a part of the film.

    I mean, could anyone imagine John Boormans classic film Excalibur if any of the dialog went along the lines of: "You ****ing idjit! I'd hit ya upside the head wit meh sword!"

    But yes, thank god they didn't throw a few of the old 'Ironic jokes' I agree with you there.
    And they also had the decent sense to Change Samwise's Character a bit also, as in the book, he was nearly a Jar Jar binks himself! And could have added a bit too much hokum to the film.

    Originally posted by Longfield
    Maybe i was a little ott, but it was late when i posted it and was maybe a little too full of xmas cheer.

    That said, it's not a deliberate "troll" (unless that was a pun :) ), this is a Films/TV discussion board, i didn't like it, i discussed it, and it seems i'm not the only one let down by all the hype, so, in that sense i stand by my words.

    Its a film not a book, i watched in the cinema, i dont care if it was a 15 part story, every part needs a beginning and an ending, this one only had music...

    Not really bothered if you get all hot under the collar about this opinion, and at least post why you think it was the best film of 2001, fine, just please don't get personal,it it makes you look retarded, its an opinion which should be as valid as the LOTR lovers here, /end.

    1. If the entire 3 books were squeezed into a single film, just because "Every film needs a beggining and an end", then it would be a pretty damn poor film.

    2. Christmas cheer is forgivable. But to say your point still stands seems silly. Especially if it's as badly posed as yours. It seemed like you barely watched the film at all, and gave an overview based on an advert.

    3. Nobody is getting under the collar, or taking this personaly... Or at least I'm not. As you say yourself, this is a disscusion board, and I'm having a damn good time discussion here, arguing my points as aversed to others.
    I'm heartily enjoying it, thank you. :)

    4. Post what *I* think of the film? Sure...
    Here's my take on it, and it's rather deep meanings...

    As a story, I loved the idea of the "Bad-Guy"...
    If you didn't get it, here it is:
    Sauron, the dark lord basicaly imbued his "Essence" into this ring. So after death, his Evil lives on.
    I love the idea of a 'Bad-guy' not nessiceraly being a phsyical being, but a sense of all that is wrong with man in the form of the ring. Greed, power, envy, corruption. It's just fantastic.
    It's not like a quest to defeat some big bad arsehole. But all of man's weaknesses.
    This is what the ring represents.
    The "Physical" Sauron is only secondary to it.
    Even the idea that people, as Gandalf said would use the ring in attempt to do good, but it would do evil through them. This is a striking nod to the idea of people who do very evil things but have themselves fooled into thinking it righteousness.

    The ring is the PERFECT literary representation of evil.

    Couple this amazing story, and fantastic and beautifully detailed world it's based in with some of the most perfect casting I've ever witnessed, purely brilliant acting, astonishing special effects, and fantastically coreographed fight scenes, it is simply nothing short of pure brilliance.
    THAT is why I love the film, and I can't wait to see the rest of the series.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 398 ✭✭Mythago


    Just to add my 2 cents....

    I've read LOTR twice (last time was about 5yrs ago) & was eager to see the film, finally saw it with 2 mates. Overall I agree that on a whole the film seem rushed(even at 3 hours), but the books major moments transfered superbly, namely the mines & Boromirs finale. But as the film progressed, it did seem to skip over everything without ever delving deeper (kind of like someones rushed description of a yr long round the world trip: I was here,here,there, met so & so and so on). Admittedly it was impossible to go any deeper unless it was turned into something ridiculously long.

    On the other hand my 2 mates thought it was amazing & neither of them had even heard of a Hobbit, although at about 2 hrs one asked me how could the story wrap up in the short time left..... he cursed me as i said trilogy!! So as we left the cinema they had big grins & I felt a little cheated, until of course they started to discuss Gandalfs death ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18 Teleute


    I've already seen FOTR three times. Alright, so maybe I'm a LITTLE pathetic :rolleyes: , but I honestly think it's the best film I've ever seen. I read the books for the first time when I was in 6th class, decided I liked them but wouldn't really want to read them again for a while, and left it at that. I also tried to read the Silmarillion (boy, was THAT ever a mistake!)

    Now, six years later and less than a fortnight after seeing FOTR, I'm halfway through The Two Towers; and I've seen a lot of parts that are exactly the same as the book, or bits that didn't fit in the right place in the movies but were put in elsewhere to great effect - like Gandalf's "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?" speech, which was originally made in Bag End.

    Of COURSE there are three films. You can't fit an epic like this into just one. Besides, we at least know the next two will come out; the animated version was advertised as being the full film, and it really did cut out just at the end of FOTR. They ran out of money or something.

    I admit that I'm probably biased, because I live for fantasy and there are very few proper fantasy films these days. But my dad agrees with me - he thinks it was five-star, and even my grandmother thought it was brilliant, if a little loud, and perhaps containing too many Yrch.

    The script was good, in my opinion. I liked Arwen in the films much better than in the books - she was more like Tinuviel. And of course there was Legolas :D ... I think all the roles were well cast, though some of them were never intended to be strong or important enough for a film - a lot of them were padding. As for the scene after Moria, the first time I saw it I was too busy laughing at the two girls in front of me who had clearly never read book 2 bemoaning Gandalf's fate to notice ;) ; the second time I nearly cried, and the third I almost laughed.

    I've been online for far too long. I'm going to go and watch TV - after Monday I have to start studying again (*groan*). Sixth year is EVIL. Hopefully someone will actually notice this post. And to the inevitable scornful one who thinks I'm just some loony, I say, you might be right but I don't care. To everyone else, I hope this makes sense, but I'm very tired and have eaten too much chocolate.

    Farewell

    Teleute


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 932 ✭✭✭yossarin


    ...Just what is the point of a movie with a start and not end..and seemingly one 3 hour long middle...

    now be fair, what with the other two movies it'll be a 9 hour middle :)

    LOTR was fuppin great, imho.
    in fact, I think i'll go and see it again tonight

    Teleute - you've got it easy - I'm in my 5th year in college.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭alb


    I thought the movie was great. When i first heard they were attmepting to make films of the book i was horrified as i thought there was no way it could be pulled off, no way it could be 'huge' enough, but i was well impressed.

    My favourite part was the start when it showed history of the ring and Sauron being defeated. I think it was clever of them to pull all of this from the silmarillion and throw it in as a bit of background info at the start. Thsi should give a nice tasting of the final part of the trilogy too when the battle scenes will no doubt be massive, i can't wait.

    As for the script, it was perhaps the poorest part, but it was true enoguh to the book. One strange disclaimer i heard was that "script lines have been taken directly from the book... but may be said by different characters!!" which i found odd. Did anyone notice evidence of this?

    I also found it strange that they didn't make a film of the hobbit first. Afterall i think everyone should have read that before they did LOTR. Perhaps they'll do a star wars and go back and make that the trilogy has been released ;)

    Also what did everyone think of gandalf's breakdancing in the fight with saruman (sp?) Not seen anyone spin on their head like that Run DMC Vs. Jason nevins :)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46 richydoo2


    Hmmmmm.........

    You did'nt like Lord of the Rings................






    You're a fucking **** dude.............


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 496 ✭✭Bunny


    I saw said film and thought it was ok, much better was the scobes outside bray cinema talking about Frodo and Gandolf wha.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,487 ✭✭✭Gerry


    I'd advise people who have read the books, to inform friends who may be going to see the film that it doesn't have closure, to avoid disasters like this. A trilogy normally consists of three separate, but very closely related stories. The three LOTR films represent the three books, which is basically a single book, a single story told in 3 volumes.

    Longfield, I'm reminded of The Big Lebowski:

    "You're out of your ****ing element donny, you're like a child who wanders into a cinema, comes out, doesn't have a clue what went on in there."

    The alternate point of view is, well how many **** films have you seen this year? Would you rather see one of them? Even if most of it is lost on you, is it not a novelty to see something which doesn't conform to usual hollywood formulas?


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


    Originally posted by Gerry
    Longfield, I'm reminded of The Big Lebowski:

    "You're out of your ****ing element donny, you're like a child who wanders into a cinema, comes out, doesn't have a clue what went on in there."

    Oh man... Thats brilliant! :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,544 ✭✭✭✭Supercell


    Originally posted by Gerry

    The alternate point of view is, well how many **** films have you seen this year? Would you rather see one of them? Even if most of it is lost on you, is it not a novelty to see something which doesn't conform to usual hollywood formulas?

    Over 100 (in the cinema).....that enough?..

    Yes it was a novelty..poor script..great action scenes...maybe reasonable acting..terrible script...

    When does the novelty of releasing one third of a film (apparently) without any sense of closure, becoming something to be admired??

    Shítty script..means shítty film no matter how wonderful blah blah the dámn thing was filmed....

    Worst "blockbuster" movie of 2001 if not the last 10 years (at least)..

    Have a weather station?, why not join the Ireland Weather Network - http://irelandweather.eu/



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


    Originally posted by Longfield
    Worst "blockbuster" movie of 2001 if not the last 10 years (at least)..
    'if not last ten years (at least)'
    Real 1st class contradiction :D
    But i will put it in 3simple sentances from my opinion..........
    script = OK
    Acting = good
    SFX = amazing.


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


    Originally posted by Longfield

    When does the novelty of releasing one third of a film (apparently) without any sense of closure, becoming something to be admired??

    The Empire Strikes back?
    Please tell me that this ISN'T the best of the star wars movies. (With a straight face.)

    Twelve monkeys?
    That has to be one of my favorite films ever. Brilliant script, brilliant acting(Even from Bruce Willis), brilliantly shot.
    Originally posted by Longfield

    Shítty script..means shítty film no matter how wonderful blah blah the dámn thing was filmed....

    Worst "blockbuster" movie of 2001 if not the last 10 years (at least)..

    The script was fantastic. And the story was truly one of the most magnificent things ever.
    You go on from an arguement based on your perception that there's no sense of closure, to basically copy&pasting opinions of others.
    What exactly, in YOUR opinion was wrong with the script?
    Try not to copy&paste someone else's opinion again, ok?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    I think MarcusGarvey sums up what I was going to say.

    But I'll add a couple of things;

    I went into the film having not of read the books, or not even knowing there was 3 movies :) .... but I thought the movie looked great, but I'd of prefered longer , fight scenes. Thinking back, 3 hours long...brief fight scenes, where did the time go?

    Saying that, i wouldnt of minded the 3 hours as long as I left the cinema feeling something. I left thinking, did I just miss something, or did I misunderstand something and miss the ending?

    Yes, i know thats not meant to be the 'ending' , since theres 2 more to go, but imo, it seems to end in the way an episode of a series ends, leaving u in suspense etc, but the films are too far apart for that. To me it looked like the movie was filmed how a book is read (for all you people who read the books, this is probably a good thing), and stopped at a certain point without giving u the sense that Part 1 is over.

    Summary : Looked amazing, best visual effects I've seen yet, plot was good, little bit long, abrupt ending.

    Thats what I pieced out of it anyway :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Worst blockbuster of 2001? of last 10 years? There has been countless films caled blockbusters which i would call alot worse then LOTR.


    And for gods sake there is a sense in closure (well i felt there was?) and i havnt read the books (only first bit really really long ago in a school far far away (couldnt resist) ) And here it is;


    Title: The fellowship of the ring

    beginning: setting, why the fellowship was put together

    middle: Fellowships journey to destroy the ring and save the world..

    End: The fellowship loosing 2 of its people during the film is broken up by the ring/frodo/elfish advice/alot of stuff.


    Hence the film was abiut the fellowship it ends when the fellowship ends. Like The phantom menace it ends when the menace is over it doesnt continue on with the story they leave it for another film. Bad example..someone got somethign better?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    I agree there Blitz... I mean, in that sense it had more of an ending than The Empire Strikes back.


    I mean, would Longfield hate a film where the 'Goodies' lose simple because in films goodies are MEANT to win...?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    Originally posted by Longfield

    Worst "blockbuster" movie of 2001 if not the last 10 years (at least)..

    Now you're definitely talking bollocks - haven't you seen Pearl Harbour?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18 Teleute


    I definitely find it difficult to look at this from the point of view of someone who hasn't read the books - I may not remember everything that happened, but I am at least aware of the "big" plot twists.

    Alb, I'm pretty sure some people had different lines, but it didn't happen often - I think Boromir had one or two, maybe to give him that extra bit of screentime since he won't be in the next two. Mostly it was the same people but at different times.

    Oh, wait, I found one. In the book, when Bilbo gives Frodo the mithril vest he says "It's a pretty thing, isn't it?" But in the film, Gimli calls it pretty when he sees it. He just talks about the value in the book. I can't remember if Bilbo called it pretty in the film, too.

    Yossarin, it's probably worse in terms of workload, but psychologically? Eight subjects, all honours, expected to get a "good" honour (ie. A or B) in every one - and my boyfriend, who's in 1st year in the course I want to do, keeps telling me how awful it is? Honestly, sometimes I just want to hit him. 33 hours a week? School is (6.5 x 4) + 4.5 = 30.5, so I don't see what he's complaining about.

    Anyway, I've got to run now. Bye!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MarcusGarvey


    I don't know about the Worst blockbuster of 2001, nope, no no no. Theres been far far worse ones.

    The past ten years ? Christ no. Theres been some really good bad blockbusters in the past 10 years. Lethal Weapon 4, most of the trek ****e, countless pieces of crap.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭alb


    The 4th batman movie was even worse than lethel weapon 4, and the 3rd one was farily terrible too iirc. There's been a bad blockbuster every 2 months for the last 5 years anyway :)


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


    The Mummy/The Mummy Returns?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Seen the film this afternoon and enjoyed it. SFX very good & has an old fashion sense of uncompromising evil in the villians.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 391 ✭✭dragonkin


    It was great.
    I thought frodo was very good and portrayed the struggle of being forced to carry the ring very well but legolas rocks my world anyone who shows that calm in the face of death deserves credit.
    The panaramics where great although the plot was weak in places but I was desperate for a fantasy movie of any sort so I didn't mind too much.
    In fact I'm going to see it tomorrow, again.

    DK


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    OK, so there's been a lot of nattering on about the ending (or lack thereof) in FOTR. I thought I'd offer my 2c.

    LOTR is not a trilogy. It was printed in three volumes, and is divided into 6 so-called "books", but these are merely seperations of cenvenience (in the former case) and structure (in the latter).

    Someone involved in the project rightly or wrongly decided to break the movies where the books broke. IMHO, this was a poor decision. Yes, it has kept fans of the books happy. No, it will not matter once the trilogy is complete, but I still think it was a poor decision, for a variety of reasons. Not only does it cause problems with one of the later movies (too much to cut in one, apparently), but it also causes problems for those who havent read the books.

    People who have not read LOTR should be able to go to this film knowing nothing about it on the way in, and understanding what went on when they come out. For me, the movie has failed this test with everyone I know who has not read the books and gone to see it.

    They should understand that they are only partly through the story without an LOTR fan explaining it to them in the lobby or by knowing that its a three-film project. They should be able to understand why Bilbo's face distorted in Rivendell when he wanted the ring, and why Galadriel pronounced herself unchanged after being offered the ring and ranting about ruling the world. But they dont.

    FOTR, as a story, transitioned to the big screen better than I expected. Its flawed in places (my opinion). I dont necessarily agree with the directorial cuts and additions. Having said that, it avoids most of the drudgery which I find abundant in the written version and remains true to the overall story.

    My main gripe is that in catering to the afficienado's with so much detail, it often forgets that some viewers havent read the books and need explanations. OK - maybe it isnt always story-central, but there's so much of it in there that it all mounts up.

    Did anyone who hasnt read the books notice how Legolas walked differently to the others across snow, and if so, can you explain why? I'm sure almost all of those who read the books will know these answers.

    Interestingly, from reading reviews, I have found serious criticisms of the camerawork, SFX, music, continuity, etc *only* from reviewers who havent read the books. Are the book-readers somewhat blinded by their dream come true? Are they proclaiming it as the greatest movie ever made too loudly, simply because its a job well done that they so desperately wanted to be good?

    FOTR is a good movie. It has its flaws, but remains a good movie. Having read the book, it is very difficult to understand the criticisms from those who have not read it, but we should try :)

    Oh - and in my book, its still not the best movie of the year. Jeunet takes that honour for me with his sublime Amelie.

    jc


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Swifty


    Seen it last night. I hadn't read the books beforehand so I was like "Wuh?" when it ended. I enjoyed it, the special effects etc. were fantastic. I dont think I saw Frodo blink once through the whole thing :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭ObeyGiant


    Originally posted by bonkey
    People who have not read LOTR should be able to go to this film knowing nothing about it on the way in, and understanding what went on when they come out. For me, the movie has failed this test with everyone I know who has not read the books and gone to see it.
    Really?
    I have seen the film twice now, and I couldn't report a more different experience. Both times I've seen the film, I went with a varied group of friends, some of whom had read the book, and some who hadn't. Not one person came out of it wondering what went on for the past 3 hours. Certainly, some little things had to be explained (e.g. that the Uruk-hai wasn't Saruman), but other than that, nothing really stopped them from understanding the story. As a matter of fact, the people that were most singing the praises of the film most loudly were the people who haven't read the book.
    Originally posted by bonkey
    They should be able to understand why Bilbo's face distorted in Rivendell when he wanted the ring, and why Galadriel pronounced herself unchanged after being offered the ring and ranting about ruling the world. But they dont ... Did anyone who hasnt read the books notice how Legolas walked differently to the others across snow, and if so, can you explain why? I'm sure almost all of those who read the books will know these answers.
    What?
    You want the director to explain every character's quirks?
    Not one of the things you mentioned above were instrumental to people's understanding of the story. It's nice that, having read the books, people can see these things differently, but they are certainly not important to the storyline, explaining them all would have slowed the entire pace of the film, so they're left there to be picked up on by those who have read the book, and not distract those who haven't. To paraphrase a great man - "The viewers have teeth, for God's sake, let them chew".


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Originally posted by ObeyGiant

    What?
    You want the director to explain every character's quirks?
    Not one of the things you mentioned above were instrumental to people's understanding of the story. It's nice that, having read the books, people can see these things differently, but they are certainly not important to the storyline, explaining them all would have slowed the entire pace of the film, so they're left there to be picked up on by those who have read the book, and not distract those who haven't. To paraphrase a great man - "The viewers have teeth, for God's sake, let them chew".

    I really have to agree with Giant here.

    One of LOTRs strengths is the fact that it doesn't treat the viewer as a child, and keep explaining things to them, leading them by the hand, as such.
    It's refreshing to see a film that doesn't follow the good old hollywood rutine of making films for people with 15 minute attention spans.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,544 ✭✭✭✭Supercell


    Originally posted by AngelWhore
    It's refreshing to see a film that doesn't follow the good old hollywood rutine of making films for people with 15 minute attention spans.

    IE ppl who read a book and wanted it dramitized for their poor imaginations, rather than those with one that fell asleep.

    oh, btw monty, yes imho Pearl Harbour was better :D

    Have a weather station?, why not join the Ireland Weather Network - http://irelandweather.eu/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Wasnt Pearl harbour also 3 hours long with 1 major action scene and the rest of the film really really boring?? (dont look at me... I didnt see it. I was about to but some friends of mine directed me elsewhere (FF) they had just come out of it.) Maybe I'll rent it out and give you an opinion later.



    One thing you gotta admit...LOTR pulls you in better then any other film to a different world.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,544 ✭✭✭✭Supercell


    Originally posted by BlitzKrieg
    One thing you gotta admit...LOTR pulls you in better then any other film to a different world.

    I just wonder if thats exactly the point, ie some need the "in your face" variety of different world before they can become one with the movie.

    Personally, lights dimming, flickering screen transports me, but each to their own, if it takes LOTR to rock your boat , so be it, reality must be a very dull place for you......

    Have a weather station?, why not join the Ireland Weather Network - http://irelandweather.eu/



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


    Originally posted by Longfield

    IE ppl who read a book and wanted it dramitized for their poor imaginations, rather than those with one that fell asleep.

    You're quite amazing, Longfield, you really are.

    I'm actualy at a loss for words for once.
    I really don't know what to say.

    I've no idea how to deal with this level of Childishness.

    I mean...
    You're first arguement was based solely on the fact that "There was no sense of closure"...

    Then, when Dadakopf says he thought the Script was poor, YOU start blurbing about how it was rubbish also!
    When asked about why you think the script was bad, you don't reply!

    Now you're seemingly just throwing insults!


    I don't know what to think, I really dont...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Originally posted by Longfield


    I just wonder if thats exactly the point, ie some need the "in your face" variety of different world before they can become one with the movie.

    Personally, lights dimming, flickering screen transports me, but each to their own, if it takes LOTR to rock your boat , so be it, reality must be a very dull place for you......


    WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT LORD OF THE RINGS (the film) WAS VERY VERY VERY GOOD AT TRANSLATING THE MIDDLE EARTH ATMOSPHERE OF A FANTASY WORLD. Magic does not stand out in the film everything looks natural. It is very well made film which i enjoyed.

    If you've seen any of Peter Jacksons previous films you would undertsnad why I'm so impressed. And I was pointing out an opinion of how visually its impressive i dont know what your on about me needing that amount of SFX to satisfy.


    Your argument as angelwhore has pointed out has become childish. Answer the goddamn questions we've asked. If you didnt like the film ok. Just dont pour it here onto the boards as if its the word of god. Try being casual.

    Stranger: "I love LOTR"
    You: "Naa personnally i didnt like it."
    Stranger: "Oh why?"
    You: "personnaly felt that a, b and c didnt appeal to me."
    Stranger: "Oh ok...you suck."
    You: "I dont care bye."

    That approach might have worked instead of a 3 page argument p*ssing most replies off.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,234 ✭✭✭ayatollah


    ok first the fellowship of the ring is one of the best films i have ever seen!!!

    secondly its not anyone else's fault except your own if you could not follow the film as i went with some friends who had not read the book and with the exception of one or two parts could follow the whole film!!!

    and thirdly peter jackson - the director even said that he recommends that everyone read the book before watching the film!!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by ayatollah
    secondly its not anyone else's fault except your own if you could not follow the film as i went with some friends who had not read the book and with the exception of one or two parts could follow the whole film!!!

    Err, if there were one or two parts they couldnt follow, then by your logic it is their own fault. I would argue that while the overall story is mostly obvious and simple, there are a lot of nuances within the film which people who have read the books see and go "aaaahhh", while many of those who havent read the books either miss it compltetely or go "WTF was that about".

    Put it like this. Planet of the Apes (the remake) had one of the dodgiest endings in ages, which had a lot of people scratching their heads and going "Huh?" By the logic being applied here to FOTR, then this was the fault of the audience for lack of understanding, and not of Burton et al for lack of clarity or explanation.

    There is a fine line between cleverness and obscurity. If there is something which the movie explains, but which you need to be alert for, then its clever. More clever are the seemingly innocuous bits which have great relevance on second watching. What is generally never excusable are the unexplained bits - non-trivial things which happen which are not explained before, during or after....and there are moments like this in FOTR.
    peter jackson - the director even said that he recommends that everyone read the book before watching the film!!!!
    Which to me only goes to prove that despite his best efforts, he acknowledges that due to cuts and/or other reasons, there is stuff in the movie which you can only understand properly having read the book.

    He could be taking the stance that having read the book will give you a much greater appreciation of what he has done, but I dont think so. I have 3 or 4 friends who read FOTR for the first time in order to "prepare" for the movie. Without exception, each of them has said in retrospect that they shouldnt have, as they spent the duration comparing the movie to the book, seeing how things were visualised, and so on, rather than just sitting back and enjoying a damned fine movie.

    At the end of the day, I (personally) find it a very poor comment on the movie that you should read the book first, or that you need to read the book first. If that is the recommendation of the director, then I would maintain that the director has failed to bring the book to the screen successfully.

    jc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,099 ✭✭✭✭WhiteWashMan


    Originally posted by ayatollah
    ok first the fellowship of the ring is one of the best films i have ever seen!!!

    its a very good film, but not the best in ages...
    Originally posted by ayatollah


    secondly its not anyone else's fault except your own if you could not follow the film as i went with some friends who had not read the book and with the exception of one or two parts could follow the whole film!!!

    not true.
    just because you could follow it, doesnt mean everyone can.
    half the people i went to see it with fell asleep during it.
    hard to follow a film if youre asleep
    Originally posted by ayatollah

    and thirdly peter jackson - the director even said that he recommends that everyone read the book before watching the film!!!!

    why did he recommend it?
    is it because he loves lotr and thinks everyone should read it?
    or is it because he thinkits people will explain the film better when they watch it?
    no one should ever have to read a book to understand a film.
    it is the film makers job to make a belivable world in a couple of hours and a film that has direction that people should be able to follow without having to do some sort of study beforehand.
    is it an exam situation now?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭ObeyGiant


    Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
    its a very good film, but not the best in ages...
    He never said it was the best film in ages - he said it was "one of the best films [he has] ever seen!!!".
    At least allow the lad to have an opinion.
    Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
    no one should ever have to read a book to understand a film.
    it is the film makers job to make a belivable world in a couple of hours and a film that has direction that people should be able to follow without having to do some sort of study beforehand.
    is it an exam situation now?
    I agree - noone should ever have to read a book to understand a film. For one, it sets the viewer into the wrong kind of mindset for when they are actually watching the film (as I reckon was the case with Bonkey's friends).
    However - who could not understand the film?
    Little lad finds an evil ring that can only be destroyed in a certain volcano - a group of lads set out to said volcano, and get set upon by all sorts of evil stuff. What's not to understand?

    As for whether or not Jackson succeeded in creating a believable world... Of course he did. Anyone who says otherwise is an incurable cynic, who probably went into the film wanting to hate it anyway. Elves, wizards and orcs? Pish Posh.

    I believe Jackson's recommendation of reading the book before watching the film probably comes from his belief that people will enjoy the film more having read the book, understood the background story, and, as Bonkey previously pointed out, understood the character's traits a little better. I don't believe, in any way, that this was a cop-out for him having made a "directionless" film. As a matter of fact, I think that if he had have gone out of his way to make the film any more accessible to people who hadn't read the book, it would have taken away from the film as a whole.

    Having read the books or not, it was an enjoyable film.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement