[Dark_4ce]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer

Heh... saw this comming. Yes, I know the same actor did the voice - my point is that he uses almost EXACTLY the same voice for both Gimli and Treebeard. Very annoying...
 

Thats true. It did sound exactly like Gimli. I recognised it straight away and thought it was quite odd, but it fit the character in my oppinion. But it kinda felt like PJ was cutting some corners on that one. The only true gripe I got on the movie is Legolas playing skateboard down the stairs... That was too much in my oppinion...

[diamondgeezer]

And one too many jokes aoubt Gimli being short. Just one too many.

[Windrunner]

I saw the movie yesterday. And it was as you guys say A1 SUPAR (even if i don't know what it means)

[Anaz]

Originally posted by Windrunner
I saw the movie yesterday. And it was as you guys say A1 SUPAR (even if i don't know what it means)

windrunner...A1 SUPAR denotes a lot of sarcasm...so basically you said it was crap....I believe what you meant to say was "it was very 1337"...

[Sandwich]

Just saw it, and it rocked. The crowd was laughing far more than they did in the first one, although the humor was a bit overboard.

I love how they are including a reference to Dwarf Tossing in each movie so far - I find it hillarious!!

[Thor]

I saw it on Friday, and I loved it.  And really, I don't think it really matters if Jackson added or subtracted stuff.  If you watch it as a MOVIE, it stands on its own, has good pacing and a deepness that isn't found in most movies.  If you watch it as the BOOK, of course it isn't right.  You just cannot follow a book that large and complex word for word.  And lots of it wouldn't work on screen.  Faramir, for example would be reduced to all of 5minutes, when in the book he has more time.  Thats the major problem.  The book happens in the course of years, while the movie has to be paced faster for it to work.  I saw Fellowship before I read the books.  And I like the movie as much as the book, but I'll come back to the movies more than the books.  They are simply an interpretation, not a replacement, not the gospel of LOTR, but A vision of what the books where.  And I still believe that Jackson has done a great job on them.  I doubt that anyone could do better, especially by being so inflexibly bound to the books that they aren't willing to make things proper for a movie.  So if you aren't happy with the movie, than read the book.  Otherwise, enjoy one of the greatest films in recent history.

Thor's Favourites

FX:  My god!  they look fudgin awesome!  LOTR is the best looking movie I have ever seen.  AOTC  doesn't even come close.  Everything just looks s real.  especially Gollum and the Ents.  Well done.

Action:  Helm's Deep was one of the best battles I have seen since, well, something.  Just the pure size and details.  Massive is a sweet peice of software that I would love to get my hands on.

Gollum:  What a great character.  I really hated the audience in my screening, which I'm sure missed the point that he's a deeply conflicted character.  More Kudos!


Thor's Not so Favourites (but not hates, give me a second):

Jumpiness:  It seemed to jump around between the characters to much.  I kept gatting to the point of imersion in one story, than I'm yanked back to another.  By the end though, the jumps settle down and fit better.

Saruman(sp?):  Well, I like him, but they didn't wrap up his defeat, which should have been done at the end.  I suppose this could have been done if they had followed the book with Faramir, but I liked how he seemed more like his brother, tempted by evil but ultimately does the right thing.

Thor's Disliked:

Grima Wormtoung:  He needed more screen time!  He was a really dispicable character, just what was needed.  his character is left in video limbo.

Frodo:  He needed to be focused on a bit more.  TT(movie) is definately more about Aragorn.

There, I'm done ranting.  I'll defiantely go back again after X-mas, maybe twice!  

*Disclaimer:  Thor respects everyone else opinion, and nothing in the above was intended to hurt.  If you are so ofended, than I'm sorry.  The statements above reflect Thor's opinion, and are based on his enjoyment of the film, his love of making movies and numerous other factors.  Everything is accurate, as far as he can remeber.*

[CODEDOG ND]

*The Dawrf* "I Got TWO!!!"
*Legolas* "I Got SEVENTEEN!!!"

theehee...I want to be the dwarf.

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by Thor

but I liked how he seemed more like his brother, tempted by evil but ultimately does the right thing.[/b]

But in all actuallity, Faramir was tempted for all of a second. He saw the Ring for what it was and he barely wavered. Thus, his character was changed in the film, and that's what I find annoying.

Grima Wormtoung:  He needed more screen time!  He was a really dispicable character, just what was needed.  his character is left in video limbo.[/b]

Interesting you say that. If the book had been followed, Isenguard and Saruman and Wormtongue would have been, as you say, wrapped up...

Frodo:  He needed to be focused on a bit more.  TT(movie) is definately more about Aragorn.

Course it is. If you'd have asked Tolkien, he'd have told you that  the LOTR is all about the final events in a history of many thousands of years, and that means Aragorn. Tolkien only wrote "more about Hobbits" because the public demanded it of him

[karajorma]

Okay now I`ve watched the movie I can weigh in too.

1) Aragorn falling off the mountian side. Hmmm didn`t particularly like it. I know why it was done (to give Eowyn more time to show that she's falling for him) but I think there were better ways to do that.

2) Faramir being tempted. Didn`t like it at first but I think now that I know he eventually relents I think I`ll be okay with it on watching the movie a second time. Also you must remember that in the book Frodo is a lot more forthcoming about having fallen out with Boromir. This allows Faramir to see that Boromir's lust for the ring ended up leading him to his death. Since Frodo and Sam keep their mouths shut it takes longer for Faramir to see the error of his ways.
 I also like the idea of making the rings effect on men even stronger.

3) Minas Morgul. Don`t be surprised if you don`t see it in RotK. It wasn`t on any of the maps in the film. Most likely it will be completely missing in the third film and only Cirith Ungol will be there.

4) Elves at Helm's Deep. Really don`t care. The point that elves are a waning force in Middle Earth is hammered home quite heavily anyway. I see no harm in them doing one last thing in rememberance before they leave.

5) Gollum - Give that CGI actor an oscar. No hint of Jar-Jar about this creature. Absolutely loved the discussion between slinker and stinker.

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by karajorma
5) Gollum - Give that CGI actor an oscar. No hint of Jar-Jar about this creature. Absolutely loved the discussion between slinker and stinker.

YES - the film must win the special FX Oscar, if only for Gollum

And frankly, if there's no Minas Morgul then I'm going to have track down Jackson and go all Fanboy on his sorry arse

[karajorma]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer


YES - the film must win the special FX Oscar, if only for Gollum

And frankly, if there's no Minas Morgul then I'm going to have track down Jackson and go all Fanboy on his sorry arse

I think it will just be mentioned (like the old forest). Missing out Minas Morgul on the map was the first time I`ve seen them show a change in one of the original maps from the book.

As for missing out Morgul I can live with it considering they keep showing us lots of lovely shots of Barad-Dur itself.

[vyper]

[glow=red] Vague spoilers included here.[/glow]

I saw The Two Towers today and both me and my g/f thot it rocked. I don't know why people complain so much about it not being "true to the book." If you want to read the bloody book - go read it. If you want a cinematic version then go see the film. There will always be differences.
Anyway, I loved the castle siege - really made me think of all the old stories I read about medieval sieges and stuff. And the bit with Gollum.... wheee! That little guy rocked. Anyway, my judgement - good movie.

[diamondgeezer]

As I have said three times, my beef is with Jackson changing the characters  - not just the lines or the specifics of the action scenes, but the character's actual... um... character. If you see what I mean.

I've mentioned the Faramir ****-up. But what about Theoden? Where in Tolkien's writing, exactly, does he start bithing about Gondor not being there to help the Rohirrim? He recives the red arrow from Denethor and can't wait to set out and ride to the aid of Minas Tirith... but Jackson has him getting all cross about Gondor instead. It's not the little details that bother me - I may be a fanboy, but I know other people find it annoying so I'm not being too much af an anorak here. What gets me is when Jackson changes the actual story. Dropping scenes is one thing. Adding stuff or changing scenes or characters until they are not the way the Tolkien envisioned them - that's where my problem lies.

Anyone who has read Tolkien's biography or the stuff edited by Christopher Tolkien would know that Toklien was hardly ever satisfied with his work, and was constantly revising stuff to get it exactly the way he wanted it.He spent the best part of a century perfecting Middle-earth, and the then this Jackson dude (talented as he is) comes along and changes stuff to suit his own idea of what Middle-earth should be like.

Another question I have - if Jackson was so intent to spell out to people just what kind of effect the Ring had, why did he leave out Deagol? Could have been done using under a minute of footage, I'm sure. If he'd have explained that Smeagol had become so evil partly becuase his possesion of the Ring had begun with bloodshed, people would have perhaps looked on it less like a 'simple' addiction (which is how Jackson portrays it) and undertsand more that the Ring has part of Sauron's actual personality within it, which responds to its user's actions...

[Thor]

Another question I have - if Jackson was so intent to spell out to people just what kind of effect the Ring had, why did he leave out Deagol? Could have been done using under a minute of footage, I'm sure. If he'd have explained that Smeagol had become so evil partly becuase his possesion of the Ring had begun with bloodshed, people would have perhaps looked on it less like a 'simple' addiction (which is how Jackson portrays it) and undertsand more that the Ring has part of Sauron's actual personality within it, which responds to its user's actions...

Now that is something that I can agree with:D .

[Ryder P. Moses]

He probably did, but it got edited out. It happens with a lot of important things in movies- wait for the DVD and I'll bet it'll be there.

[diamondgeezer]

Probably right, there...


Sorry, I can't help this:

*points at Stryke and laughs*