Who Watched Lord of the Rings?

I watched it and I really loved it, it is such a great movie. Lets hope the second one is even better. I don't read the book yet, but I want to read them when I have a long vacation, maybe this summer.

<b>THGC:</b> before: , after: .

I thought the movie was great. I haven't read the books, but I have read similar books. Mostly DnD Forgotten Realms.

Whatcha gonna do when the trolls run wild on you?!?!?!

The book just made a <i>lot</i> more sense than the movie. So much of the book was either cut out or altered that the movie let me down in a lot of ways. Heck, just about every single scene in the book was altered in some way in the movie, and usually not for the better.

I mean what took them months to travel in the book took days in the movie, and the whole explanation for how the hobbits even joined Frodo on the adventure made no sense at all in the movie when compared to the excellent storyline from the book. A lot of the scenes in the movie just didn't even make sense when comared to the book. (Or should I say books, since the movie did step into the beginning of the second book as well, which was another nuicanse.)

And while putting things into chonological order made it easier to follow what was going on (for those who have bad memories anyway), it also lost a lot of the dramatic effect that way. I thought movies were supposed to add drama, not get rid of it. The whole mystery and suspense of why Gandalf was late was just totally lost in the movie.

And can anyone even explain why Gandalf fell in the movie? That part of the scene was done as pitifully as Darth Maul's death in SW:Ep1. It just made no sense compared to the book and left me sitting there thinking "with the capabilities of special effects by computers these days, was that the best that they could do?" Honestly, if we go by the movies Gandalf should have seen it coming just as much as Darth Maul did. The books did the scenes a lot more justice.

And as usual, how is the lack of content and drama made up? Why, with a ton of eye candy. Ooh. Didn't see that one coming. Nope nope.

Still, they did a considerably better job than was done with the animated movies. Plus the general feel for the genre was done quite well, even if the exact details of the story itself were noticably altered. So I suppose I am willing to overlook the near-crimes against the books and will probably end up seeing the second movie as well. I don't expect to see it more than once though.

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>

Because the Balrog snagged him with the whip, remember?

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft

Well anyone who has read the trilogy knows that the fellowship is [-peep-] BORING, nothing big happens till the two towers, and the final book is epic, considering what the first book gave them to work with, I think the movie is awesome.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

Understand phoenix that it would have been way too difficult to put everything that happened in the book into the movie. You would have had to cut the first movie into three different movies by itself if they would have followed every detail, etc. It would have taken too long. I was a little disappointed with the fact that it did seem to move pretty fast compared to that of the book, but if you have never read the book then the movie probably would have seemed fine. I think they did a good job considering everything about the trilogy...I mean I would have never thought anyone could even come close to getting everything from the Hobbits all the way up to the Dark Lord in a movie, let alone do the entire thing in three movies. I say great job to them, and will count the movies as classics.

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

I would like to agree with you, however considering that the movie also covered the beginning of the second book <i>and</i> put in the love scenes that weren't even in the first book at all (and consequently had to switch around some of the characters in scenes from the book just to even put that in there in the first place) I just can't agree with you. The movie <i>could</i> have put more into it <i>and</i> kept the storyline truer to the books without having to have made it any longer than it turned out to be.

Plus, as I remember, the second book was mostly a snore anyway. (Though it has been years since I've read anything past the first book.) So they <i>could</i> have ended the movie right at the grief of losing Gandalf, which would have been a much more conclusive end than where they left it, and would have given them more time to fit the proper storyline in. Plus, it would have given a little more panache to the beginning of the second movie to start from immediately after that point.

I completely agree here. Further, it would have been a much more secure movie to base if the other movies would be released or not. (Strange that they were all made at the same time, and yet there was no guarantee that the other two would be released until the first one was proven to be a success.) To have used The Hobbit instead would have been just like SW:Ep4 which is no doubt both a conclusively ending story <i>and</i> a story open to further expansion. Plus, it would have laid the groundwork for those who hadn't read the books before, just as Tolkien had intended the book to do.

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>

I don't think Tolkien originally wrote the Hobbit as a prelude to LOTR. He wrote it as a children's story for his son, I believe. He started LOTR later as a way to use his made-up Elven language and then "the tale grew in the telling" as he put it.

<i>Money talks. Mine always likes to say "goodbye." </i>

you're right tlaughrey. In fact he never wanted to have LOTR's published as a trilogy. He meant it for one entire book, which would have been around 1000 pages long. That's why the first book ends the way it does. It really wasn't supposed to end. Probably even more of a reason for the movie to have a more definate ending (by slightly getting into the 2nd book) than the original one.

What I am excited about is how they will make the Ents look in the second movie. That will be a real challenge. I also hope Gollum doesn't look too...well, um CGI, if you know what I mean. The huge cave troll and the CGI sequences with him looked totally fake, but the few scenes with Gollum looked pretty good I thought. The CGI cave troll would be the only gripe I had with the movie.

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

The extra lovie crap?? It was in the book too, just was paraphrased. I'm glad they went into details about that, because she ends up marrying him in the last book and gives up her immortality to be with him. Elrond get's upset about it and all, blah, blah, blah. And why end with Gandalf falling? That would have pissed me off and would have been a terrible ending. Why call it the fellowship of the ring at all if it ended there? The fellowship ends when they all break up at the river, which is why the movie/book ends there too.

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

That was the ONLY lovie stuff in the movie, and I thought it was great that they actually added it. Tolkien wasn't good at writing romance as it was never really brought out in his book (but it was there, you just have to read a little deeper), though the movie does it perfectly.

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

Explain why the party wasn't realistic.

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

But they aren't normal people, they are hobbits, and they have their own way of behaving. I actually thought the party/Shire was the part of the movie that most resembled the book. They did make some slight changes, like with Pippen and Merry causing the dragon firework to go off, but I thought that was fitting because it seemed like they would do something like that anyway (in the book Gandalf is the one who lights the dragon firework to surprise Bilbo). I think the reason they put some information about the Hobbit before the Shire scene was to give people that are not familar with the LOTR trilogy some info to go on. Did you read the books?

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

I think you are a little touchy on this subject. So far no one is really ripping on the movie.

PS they did do a great job on the fire monster thingy. I liked the cute round door hobbit holes too. I was a little confused about the hairry feet. I thought only some types of hobbits had hairry feet and that was one way to tell the difference. I only say the movie once and I don't remember them going into much difference between the hobbits. The movie lumps them into one big group. I get a kick out of the conflict with the slackville bagginses in the book.

Give me fuel, give me fire, give me that which I desire.

Not that this matters all that much but don't some hobbits have far more hair on their feet then others?

At work getting paid to ask you this :-)

Give me fuel, give me fire, give me that which I desire.

Well, yeah, some do. But not to a great extent (all have hair on their feet). Ones that have the most are the Proudfoots (which was in the movie!! I was surprised at that one).

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

Musta been the beards not the hairy feet I was thinkin of. From LOTR FOTR prologue "No Harfoot or Fallohide had any trace of a beard."

Give me fuel, give me fire, give me that which I desire.

ive seen it. nice graphics and special effects..

"...the beauty of the curve, the female anatomy says it all."

I haven't seen this movie.
Personally I go to see a movie about once a year because the ticket prices and the price for popcorn and a pop are so exorbitantly high.
Plus I am 5'9" tall so the odds of a 6'3" person sitting in front of me with a hat on are very good. I get irritated very easily when I spend $18 and my view of the screen is blocked.

I was in one theater a few times where the ticket prices were regular theater chain price but every theater seat was a high back reclining bucket with individual arm rests (not shared). And the slope of the theater floor was such that every seat had an unobstructed view of the screen no matter how tall the person in front of you was.
I saw in the news a couple of weeks ago that theater was closed down because it wasn't handicap accessible. It also happened to be a theater that turned over one hell of a profit because it would constantly sell out every seat.

<font color=red><i>Doctor Hooter</i></font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.page3.com/" target="_new"><b>(·Y·)</b></A>

Whitby ON
The Theater was called the Eglinton.

Link

<A HREF="http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/viewer.php?id=847" target="_new">http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/viewer.php?id=847</A>

<font color=red><i>Doctor Hooter</i></font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.page3.com/" target="_new"><b>(·Y·)</b></A>

Lotr rulez.


I thought the movie was awesome. I'm not sure anyone could do the 'game' any justice, not even the Coastal Wizards.