Wow! That was awesome, but now I am sad for they are complete. Damn Orlando is a fox.

Mike D and I watched the extended version of The Two Towers tonight, so I am just so pumped to see RotK now.

Orlando is the hottttest. He was on Leno last week- did you see him? I'm hoping they'll do another theatrical release of all three extended versions when the extended version of ROTK comes out.

Anyone who posts spoliers on this topic before I see the movie will be dealt a severe beat-down from yours truly. And yes, I will hit a woman.

I have no idea when I'm going to be able to see Return of the King. I'm definitely willing to forego my employee perk of free access if the movie isn't sold out to see it tonight or tomorrow. Is the Spider-Man 2 (I hope they stick with that title and don't add a subtitle) trailer shown before ROTK?

Actually, I heard they were calling it The Amazing Spider-Man. I'm assuming that would make the third and final one called Web of Spiderman. I figured a comic nerd like yourself would appreciate that.

Any title is better than X2: X-Men United.

Okay, I just checked imdb.com and they're calling it spider-man 2 AKA the amazing spider-man. I also saw that Dylan Baker (the child molester from Happiness) will be Dr. Kurt Conner (the Lizard?). Awesome!

(Edited by carligula at 10:40 am on Dec. 17, 2003)

Spidey 2: Electric Boogaloo. That's the word I get from my not so well placed sources.

They could easily go with Spectaculer Spider-Man or Peter Parker: Spider-Man for the third installment. I actually like the title of Amazing Spider-Man. I would have also liked X2 to have been called Uncanny X-Men instead of tossing on that United crap. Oh well, it's still the best comic film ever made.

I wonder if Curt Conners will be lizarding out, or if he'll just be a prominent character. I don't know if anyone has heard, but Cilian Murphy from 28 Days Later has signed on to play the villain in the upcoming Batman: Intimidation Game. And in other good news, Ben Affleck has stated that he doesn't want to do Daredevil 2. Hallelujah.

I heard about that. Now he is hot. As foxy as Orlando, I daresay.

Yeah, I read what happened. Now I'm pissed and don't even want to see the movie. That's what I get for reading the book. Fucking Tolkien.

Huh... you read books.

ooooh
yes yes

I read the book, and I am still damn excited to see it!

Tomorrow...tomorrow...I'll see it Tomorrow..you're only a day a-way.

I saw it tonight. I'll put it like this: if you liked the first two, you'll love part three.

I never thought I'd say this after the first ones, but Lord of the Rings totally kicks The Matrix's ass as a trilogy. Matrix had so much potential, but it kind of fell on its own sword. But then LotR had the advantage of being written by J.R.R. Tolkien and not the Wachowski brothers.

Still haven't seen a one of them.

Yep, we got the Spiderman 2 trailer. It was pretty spectacular and mostly featured mega hotties Kirsten & Tobey.

And then, the epic to beat all epics. I cried several times, just like I was afraid I would. It's not perfect: there's definitely some non-Tolkien cheesy dialogue thrown in, I guess for modern audiences; Legolas is forced to "surf" down something AGAIN; some parts were shortchanged or left out or switched. But overall, it was gut-wrenching & breath-taking & everything I had hoped. The audience I was in clapped out loud a few times throughout the movie & then afterwards. I know it was all CGI, but it was done so well I would SWEAR that Minas Tirith is a real city they found in the mountains of New Zealand.

For those who haven't seen it, you can go here.

I plan on seeing ROTK tonight...

I know. The lines/sequences that have been added in for modern audiences stick out like very sore thumbs. They make me cringe every time I hear them.

My stupid company won't let me watch the trailor (the site is blocked). I should just quit!

TOTALLY!

that aspect broke my balls to no end. one specific example was when eowyn revealed herself to the nazgul...she was more or less like "yeah, i'm a woman" and left it at that. i resent all of the retarded one liners that gimili is always throwing out. he's not supposed to be an idiot.

or how about the one at the end where gimli told legolas the whole bit about "not fighting beside an elf" "well what about fighting beside a friend"

...

Okay, I'm trying not to read any spoilers, but I wanted to know one thing:

Is there an intermission? I mean, it's 3 1/2 hours. There has to be one. Right?

ha. nope.

CARL do NOT read any further because you probably pack a mean punch...

I am warning you carl...don't read any more...your eyes better stop here...don't say I didn't warn you!

the ending was sooooo cheesy and I agree about all the other cheesy lines. you know what? I didn't realize until I was watching jeopardy tonight, but I think legolas means fox (as well as green leaf or whatever). yeah. i agree with that. reeoowww!

(Edited by mindylieu at 9:44 pm on Dec. 18, 2003)

Oh that's it. You're going down!

Seriously, though, I just got back from seeing it. Oh, so good! I couldn't agree more with your assesment of the end, though. Way too looooooooong.

Is that a promise??

oh bad little dirty minded mindy!

Alright, there is no room for such dirty-minded comments on this messageboard!

the end was awful. i mean, the damn sun was shining. it was supposed to be raining and grey - hence the 'grey havens'. there was also way too much hobbit homo-eroticism.

i agree completely. 30 minutes of hobbo-eroticism is over the line.

i was ready to award the gold to ROTK halfway through the movie, but the second half made me demote it to bronze.

The beauty of DVD is that we can turn it off whenever we want and pretend that was the end. This is one of those cases where I hope the directors cut is actually shorter than the original.

Kinda like AI. I remember reading a review of AI and the reviewer saying, when you think the film is over(blue fairy), get up, leave and don't turn around. You'll be glad you did.

Exactly!

Not a single person left to pee when I went to see this yesterday at the Opry Mills Imax. That to me says everything about how enthralling this movie is.

(Edited by somethingman at 9:22 pm on Dec. 19, 2003)

heh, leave as soon as they dump haley joel osmosis in the forest. maybe 1/3 of that movie's worth watching.

AI was a decent movie. OK, to say the best. I agree about the blue fairy ending...however, I still cried hysterically at the "real" ending. My emotions are too easily manipulated by filmmakers. I have still not seen the last Lord of the Rings. I didn't see the first two until I could rent them, and I may do the same for this one...3 1/2 needs a pause button, I'm sorry.

I lost it in the movie because my brother blurted out "I won't tell if you don't tell" when sam and frodo were giving each other that "look" at the end.

A bit contradictory statement... you fault them for changing the weather from the book, but wish they had changed the nature of the relationship between its principle leads?

Will

or that everyone at the movie had a bladder made of steel.

I got mine in 'Nam.

I finally saw it last night. I don't know if it's because I have never read the books, but I never thought that any aspect of the films were cheesy. I am an idiot, so I thought that all of Gimley's lines were funny and I never thought that any of them really stood out.

I also have to point out that I hate it when people fault a film because it isn't true to the source material. That doesn't matter. This is the film, not the book. I think fans of the book should be greatful that this even occured and that the source material was treated with respect and decent actors were cast. This really comes into play with comic films. I remember reading one post on an X-Board back when the first film came out. It basically said that the movie sucked because Wolverine was taller than Cyclops and because it appeared that Wolverine and Sabretooth had not met prior. The fact that Rogue hadn't siphoned off Ms. Marvel's powers was of particular nuisance to this dude. What I'm trying to say is that what works in the source material doesn't always translate over into film. This is a Hollywood movie and anything resembling a negative ending would have been nixed. Therefore sun shining and marriage. I heard complaints that Sam's battle against the spider was also moved. Well...for cinematic purposes, I can't see how it could have stayed in "The Two Towers." I dunno, I just get miffed when people complain that a film sucks because it changed things from the book. I trust that the essence and heart of the books was kept intact, which is all that really needs to translate. Past that, the film's merit should be judged on the aspects of the film itself (directing, acting, etc).

Return of the King was amazing. It deserves many Academy Awards.

I can't wait til The Amazing Spider-Man comes out and I get to read more dumb posts about how the film sucks because of it's lack of continuity with the comics.

Not quite. Peter Jackson has said he wants to make The Hobbit. Of course, he has to finish King Kong (2005) first!

Yes, it was, and I agree that that is what matters the most. The realization of Middle Earth on film could very easily have been more cartoony, more cheesy, more limited- I think Peter Jackson deserves an award for capturing the scope of the world from the books but still preserving the details of the characters' relationships. There are literary things that are just not able to be filmed, and there are Hollywood things that sometimes have to be done to get a movie made, and it's all ok.

I saw it last night and it was awesome. It was long but worth it in my point of view.

Why in their right minds would they change memorable lines, change the scenery in memorable scenes (i.e. The Grey Havens), not use props that they already had (i.e. the boat that was supposed to be shaped like a swan), include a fourty minute scene of pompous sentimental crap rather than the heart of what the book was about, etc? It doesn't make sense other than the fact that Peter Jackson thought his interpretation was better than the original book.

The Tolkien family for years would not sell the rights because they wanted it done correctly. They thought that they'd found that in Peter Jackson. The first film was flat-out awesome, one of my favourites of all time. I've never liked the way jackson has filmed battle scenes, however. The second film was okay, but parts I didn't like. With the third film, they've circumvented the focal point of the book-- what of the shire? It is ludicrous to say that that is simply Hollywood doing what it can to the best of its abilities. The Scouring of the Shire would have been twenty times more entertaining than crying hobbits.

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 4:40 pm on Dec. 22, 2003)

he was referring to the bed-jumping scene where nearly everyone in the room wanted to fuck frodo in the ass.

nothing here.

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 4:44 pm on Dec. 22, 2003)

yeah, that was a bit much.

agreed. Things just had this tension in that scene that REALLY shouldn't have been there.

i was all like

I agree with the point that for a film to not stick to the source material is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, the auteurs of the French New Wave held this belief and became some of the most famous directors of all time. Goddard, Truffaut, et al believed that the French tradition of quality old fart directors were just throwing out adaptations of classic literature which they stuck to rigorously and in the process made shit films, because the source material is secondary to film as an artform itself.

I believe that Jackson's decision to take out Saruman overrunning the shire was for the best, because it is far too anticlimactic onscreen for all the fellowship to play their part in defeating Sauron and then have a few go home and defeat one of his cronies. The defeat of Sauron should definitely be the climax onscreen for pacing reasons that have no bearing in the text itself but which are highly important to keeping an audience engaged.

There is a multitude of shit movies that adhered exactly to the source material because books are not screenplays and a book may progress slower in the mind without being boring than a film onscreen. For example, the PBS scarlet letter sucks, every BBC jane austen film sucks (not A&E), many of the shakespeare adaptations do as well, etc.

On the other hand consider Andrei Tarkovsky's Solaris which departs heavily from the source material and yet is better than the original book. The same goes for psycho and silence of the lambs (which are based on the same story believe it or not).

Well, that's quite a rant...

french farts and the sort aside, the movie was still lame. besides catering to fucktards and halfwits, peter jackson managed eliminate plenty of prime choice grade A shit in return for a half hour gay hobbit romp at the end of the movie. among this aforementioned neglected goodness was a) the mouth of sauron greeting the army of gondor at the black gate a hoard of orcs that were allegedly standing atop the wall singing and jeering, or as tolkien would have us believe, anyways, c) just about everything that happened to samwise and frodo, including but not limited to the ordeal with the watchers (and the vile of galadriel), the ring induced "samwise the strong" fantasy, and the hobbits marching in rank with orcs adn the subsequent battle between orcs and men at the crossroads. by the way, what happened to the songs in the book? rankin bass has the right idea. where there's a whip there's a way, i say. anyways, i'd have rented a novelty porn if i wanted a wise cracking homoerotic dwarf.



*the face with the sunglasses was the unexpected result of some random sequence of symbols that i may or may not have typed. though i did not intend for it to be there, do feel free to interpret as you wish.

(Edited by damon at 4:18 am on Dec. 27, 2003)

Maybe it was eliminated because it detracted from the focus of the film. The whole argument is that what works in a novel may not work on film. I'm sure that Jackson considered using every possible aspect of the novels, but filming and including all of these storylines would have resulted in a trilogy that would last, what, 24 hours? The books and what they contain are irrelevant when discussing the film itself. If the homoerotic gay hobbit romp at the end annoyed you, so be it. That was actually in the film and can be considered a valid reason for you not liking it. The fact that the film excluded subplots and happenings should not affect the way you grade the film.

Me, I'm all for gay hobbit romps.

I'm pretty sure that goes without saying.

Remember, 9 o'clock, my place. I've already got the cloaks, you just bring the (cock) ring.

This could be true in a lot of ways, but from the onset Peter Jackson proclaimed the movies to follow the books very closely. He will be judged accordingly.

All of those items that damon listed, which are not subplots in the slightest (and there are many others that I could recount if I had the time), while seemingly minute to the uninitiated are extremely powerful parts of the theme and plot of the story. You see, we're not saying "IT HAS TO BE EXACTLY LIKE THE BOOK!" We're saying "he took out the most powerful parts and made extremely miniscule and insignificant ideas from the story stand out like they're the most important thing since sliced bread." He completed a movie that was devoid of the meaning of the story; the reason the books and subsequent works have been heralded and appreciated by many.

If you saw an adaptation of Catch 22 that didn't touch on irony at all, you'd be pissed as well.

It would also not take 24 hours to include any of the items that damon discussed. That comment is ridiculous. Everything he mentioned falls into two categories: 1) The scene was already there and it was simply a matter of adding a character(s), prop or CGI to the film and 2) Could easily have replaced such bullshit like the Grey Havens which could have been a 5 minute scene. That's another thing, when I hear people use the "TIME CONSTRAINT!" argument, I realize it's complete bullshit because of all of the WASTED time that the films employ. The Rankin Bass versions waste no time, capture the meaning and important parts, include the fucking songs Tolkien wrote and are absolutely beautiful. They will always be held much higher in mine and others standards than the Jackson movies.

I agreed with everything that Peter Jackson did with the first movie -- and he cut out quite a bit from that book. I thought his vision of The Fellowship was dead on. The second movie began to annoy me with the ridiculous and unnecessary changes. The third shot everything to shite.

And, I'm sorry, but anyone trying to argue that they were doing all that they could to the best of their abilities to make it entertaining for a greater audience and hasn't read the books is ignorant of the facts.

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 3:11 pm on Dec. 27, 2003)

Ah, fanboys. How I love thee.

I don't really have a problem with the films being different in some ways than the books. I agree that what's great in print sometimes doesn't translate very well into film.

What I DO have a problem with is how Jackson significantly dumbed down the story's dialogue to give Joe Moviegoer plenty of mindless laughs. Nevermind that most of said dialogue is ususally completely inconsistent with the character(s) involved. Some specific lines/sequences have already been mentioned in this thread. You know the ones I'm talking about - yeah, those ones that could have been in *absolutely any* action/adventure blockbuster released in the last 30 years.

A round of applause for JC, please.

uh huh. after seeing the movie a second time i realized that gimili has been over-scotticized. while i don't mind the accent, i do get a little annoyed when he starts referring to everyone as "laddy". and the dialogue is tres dumbed down. one example that got deathscythe and i worked up was eowyn's "i'm not a man" response to the lord of the nazgul stating that no man could kill him. brevity is one thing, but damn.