Lord of the Rings movie poll

[on:]

Vote here what did you think about it after you've seen the movie. There are other threads to talk about it, just vote here.

Lord of the Rings discussion:
 http://www.peelified.com/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?Forum=14&Thread=000175

Reviews:
 http://www.peelified.com/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?Forum=14&Thread=000003

[Reply #1 on:]

Its a good move and the SFX are amazing, but I read the books a few times and there are too many omissions and changes for it to be as good as the book

The visuals will come in handy the next time i read it though, I always thought of the cartoon when reading it before.

But I dont think it should have been a PG though, too frightening at times for 8 year olds.

OOOHH NOOO! The Nine have found me! I must flee, for now

[Reply #2 on:]

Oddly enough I have no feelings about this movie one way or the other.  Well, it did seem long, and very drawn out.  I'm sure people who read the books (i haven't) will disagree.  sorry dudes

[Reply #3 on:]

Saw the cartoon LOTR it sucked because it was so hard know what the world they were talking about and it seemed like it was a long boring movie.

[Reply #4 on:]

I guess I'll vote average. The movie didn't impress me very much, but it didn't piss me off ala Dungeons & Dragons. I'd say it's more of a Willow.

For all you nerds who think this movie will give mainstream audiences a better appreciation for fantasy, think again. Even though this is supposed to be the best most mature fantasy movie ever, it still seemed kinda goofy and kiddyish to me. Hobbits are the fruitiest little guys ever, I mean just look at them. The creatures and scenery and some of the special effects were cool, but I would be surprised if non-nerds like this movie.

[Reply #5 on:]

yea and we (jeff and i, for those of you not keeping up) brought several friends with us and they didn't seem very hot about it either.  so take that nerds! ::kicks sand in everyone's face::

I read somewhere that the whole "homosexual" subtext was left out of the film, but Sam and Frodo seemed pretty homosexual to me...  Legoman was classy and hot though.  The visual effects to make the hobbits look small was really scary, i didn't like it at all.  Not that it was poorly done, but they should of just used little people, not shrunken normal people.  geesh.  Another thing I didn't get, was gandolf supposed to be old and senile, or all powerful like?  because he seemed pretty senile to me.

[Reply #6 on:]

Well, hobbits are just supposed to be miniture people, and do you really wanna see Warwick Davis again?

[Reply #7 on:]

I wanna see Mini Me!

[Reply #8 on:]

If they used little people for LotR they'd use midgets, not dwarves, you bleeping...... Why do I try. My quest to bring understanding of midgets and dwarves is a failure. ::sobs::

[Reply #9 on:]

Wow, it's a three-way tie right now. I can't wait to go see it this afternoon.

[Reply #10 on:]

 

Originally posted by TheMadCapper:
Why do I try.

My question exactly

[Reply #11 on:]

I liked it.But then maybe i'm just wierd.My friends will kill me for reccomending it...

[Reply #12 on:]

 

Originally posted by KENNEDY:
I liked it.But then maybe i'm just wierd.My friends will kill me for reccomending it...

Then you can show them this: http://www.imdb.com/top_250_films

[Reply #13 on:]

 

Originally posted by Nova:
 Then you can show them this: http://www.imdb.com/top_250_films

haha
key words here
"Top 250 movies as voted by our users"

What a shocker! Movie nerds on the internet rated it #1!  Well with credentials like that!

[Reply #14 on:]

I'm a nerd. A non wimpy one, but a nerd nonetheless.  I really really enjoyed this movie. The scenery was awesome, and it was especially cool for me since I read those books like 6 times when I was little so I was anticipating lines before they were said, and really loving seeing the visual interpretations of these places I'd read about.

Imagine watching Princess Bride for the first time, while being familiar with it and loving it beforehand.

[Reply #15 on:]

"oooo! lookit all the scenery!"

[Reply #16 on:]

Well yes. The scenery ruled.  The movie was basically everything I'd expected. You just didn't like it because you're not a dork. : :points and laughs::

[Reply #17 on:]

:hugs TMC: thanks! that's the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me! 

[Reply #18 on:]

             

Originally posted by VelourFog:
haha
key words here
"Top 250 movies as voted by our users"

What a shocker! Movie nerds on the internet rated it #1!  Well with credentials like that!                   

My point was just to show that also other people than LOTR-freaks like the movie, so that someone who likes the movie is not same as a LOTR-freak/nerd. And if you look at the specific rates for the movie, you'll see that regardless of gender or age, people have mostly given it 9+ votes.

I'm not saying that you can't criticize the movie, everyone has their own opinions, but don't categorize people according to their like/dislike of the movie, like "everyone who likes this movie has to be somekind of a nerd".

           

Another thing I didn't get, was gandolf supposed to be old and senile, or all powerful like? because he seemed pretty senile to me.

Show spoiler

Gandalf isn't a human. He is a maia (somekind of an angel-type creature), who was sent to the Middle-Earth by Valar, with 4 other maiar, in a body of an old man to aid the free nations of Middle-Earth in their fight against Sauron. And another thing: Gandalf isn't dead. He dropped to the bottom of the Abyss of Khazad-Dum, and there he fought with the Balrog victoriously. His body burned, but Valar didn't call him back to Valinor. Instead they gave him a new body. He becomes Gandalf The White, to replace Saruman who betrayed the Valar by becoming the Saruman of Many Colors.
I read that there was a scene in the movie about Gandalf's true nature, but it was cut out of the movie (original length was 3:40, and the movie will later appear, in full 3:40 length, on a DVD).
And Gandalf didn't use a lot of magic. because (if I remember correctly) Sauron could sense it and locate them. In the book, when Gandalf uses magic to light a small fire after the avalanche at Caradhras, he says something like "I've written 'Gandalf is here' with marks that everyone can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin".

btw, if you think I'm a LOTR freak (I've read it three times), you don't know what that term means.
------------------
Nova - Pekka Saarimaa
Webmaster of LiC.

[Reply #19 on:]

 

Originally posted by VelourFog:
:hugs TMC: thanks! that's the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me!   

ewwwww girl germs. Now you have to sponge bathe me clean.

[Reply #20 on:]

 

Originally posted by Nova:btw, if you think I'm a LOTR freak (I've read it three times), you don't know what that term means.

dude, denial is the first sign.

Show spoiler

I'm not trying to fight you though, ok?  It's cool.  You are cool, ok?  Tell all your friends some girl on the internet said so.

Just your source that names it top movie, is mostly nerds (maybe nerds in general. I'm not saying that I'm not a nerd either (not a lotr nerd though))  Think about the types of people who rush out to see a movie when it first comes out, they probably have at least read the books, and you usually don't read books and go see the movie if you hated the books (unless you are like me). 

[Reply #21 on:]

   

Originally posted by VelourFog:
 dude, denial is the first sign.

Hehe, go tell people who have made their wedding-invitation in elvish that reading LOTR thrice qualifies as a LOTR-freak.   
 http://www.elvish.org/gwaith/boris_and_olga.htm

I know people who loved the books hating the movie because the chages (like dropping Tom Bombadil. Yes, people are THAT fanatic), and people who certainly are not nerds and haven't read the book, like the movie very much. And at least 8 in 10 reviews at finnish newspapers have given it very good reviews (even from those sources that usually give 5/5 for maybe 1-2 movies a year).

The movie is not perfect. Now that i think of it, the close up battles were too chatotic to my liking (mostly due to the way they were cut) and some scenes were way too short (like Lothlorien, not counting the mirror-scene), still 5/5 though. Best movie of all time? Probably not. On par with Star Wars? Definately, although you never know until the last part has come out. Though Two Towers and The Return of The King will feature massive battles (like the one in the beginning of FotR, maybe the most memorable scene of the first movie) and it looks good thus far.
------------------
Nova - Pekka Saarimaa
Webmaster of LiC.

[Reply #22 on:]

From a totally unbiased, never-read-the-books POV: I liked it, heck I loved it. Amazing visuals, good fight-scenes although a bit confusing due to the quick cuts, a bit predictable at times, but never boring in any way. Only major drawback, it's so damn long 'til the next movie premieres.

Okay, so I'm a bit biased. I like fantasy-type films and computer-games

[Reply #23 on:]

Gosh-darn-frickin' good movie.  The only problem I had with it was Agnt Smith as Elrond.  He is now the world's creepiest elf.

[Reply #24 on:]

I thought it was great, but maybe not the "best" film I've ever seen.
It was very well done but while some cuts did make it seem slightly confusing it would have gone on for even longer than 3 hours and sitting down for just 3 hours can be a real pain in the ... lower part of the back, yeah that whole region.   

The only problem for me was that I've read the books so I know exactly what's going to happen.

Oh and the thing about Frodo and Sam's homosexuality - I did sort of come over to me as I read on through the books.

Show spoiler

But in a complete history of Middle Earth written by Tolkein at the end of ROTK, I know for a fact that Sam goes off and gets married to some female hobbit he's fancied most his life and has kids. Just so you know.

[Reply #25 on:]

Show spoiler

She's Rosie. The girl who Sam dances with in the beginning of the movie.

To me the Frodo/Sam relationship appeared more like the way brothers love each other. And Tolkien was a strict catholic, so he never intended it to be a homosexual relationship.


------------------
Nova - Pekka Saarimaa
Webmaster of LiC.

[Reply #26 on:]

It was great, but not the best possible movie to be made from that book.

One question: How many Wizards are there? Saruman says in The two Towers that there are five. Was that including himself and Gandalf?

Ooh, one more: Why didn't they include Tom Bombadil and the tree that ries to eat the hobbits? Why?

[Reply #27 on:]

 

Originally posted by Nixorbo:
Gosh-darn-frickin' good movie.  The only problem I had with it was Agnt Smith as Elrond.  He is now the world's creepiest elf.

I got that impression too. It's the one movie where a major good guy is scarier looking than the main evil dude.

Something is wrong with the Balrog as well, it looked a lot.... .....cuddlier.... ......than I expected.

[Reply #28 on:]

This probably won't make sense, but I think in a way it was a really good movie, and in a way it seemed too short, but in a way it also seemed too long. It also seemed a bit straight-forward, in that the "quest" seemed like a platform game compared to an adventure game (told you it wouldn't make sense). Also (I know he's not), but Gandalf seemed actually quite evil. In a way. Maybe

*Edit*"In a way" seems to be my new phrase

[Reply #29 on:]

 

Originally posted by totalnerduk:
One question: How many Wizards are there? Saruman says in The two Towers that there are five. Was that including himself and Gandalf?

Five. Gandalf (also known as Mithrandir or Olorin), Saruman (aka Curunir), Radagast, Alatar and Pallando.

 

Ooh, one more: Why didn't they include Tom Bombadil and the tree that ries to eat the hobbits? Why?

Let's ask it the other way. What scenes would you have dropped in order to fit Old Forest and Bombadil into the movie?

[Reply #30 on:]

I read The Hobbit a while ago, and it didn't do much for me.  My LOTR-loving friend told me that the triology is much better, so I expected the movie would be great and inspire me to finish reading the series. 

The movie wasn't terrible, but it wasn't too good either.  I thought it was overly long and rather boring.  The plot seemed very disconnected... there never seemed to be a logical reason why one event followed another.  There didn't seem to be any character development... I couldn't remember any of the characters' names and didn't care when some of them died.

I did think some of the special effects were very cool... especially the hobbits.  I thought the actors were midgets until I read a review.  Also, the scenery was beautiful.  When I was bored with the movie I kept staring at the scenery and wondering where the movie was filmed.  Europe maybe? 

I suspect LOTR is much better in book form.  One fun thing about watching this movie was looking for the parallels between it and the Wheel of Time series.  It seems that me that series takes a lot from the LOTR, but then makes much more of it.

[Reply #31 on:]

filmed in new zealand, home of peter jackson, director guy

[Reply #32 on:]

Mitsui - how on earth did that movie seem short to you?

[Reply #33 on:]

didnt see it nix, and i dont intend to  my friends wanna see it though 

[Reply #34 on:]

 

Originally posted by Nixorbo:
Mitsui - how on earth did that movie seem short to you?

It also seemed long, but in a way it seemed to skim things a bit, when I look back at it. When I was there I thought it went on a bit, but looking back on it it didnt seem nearly 3 hours. Again that probably won't have made sense.
 

[Reply #35 on:]

I liked Lord Of The Rings...

[Reply #36 on:]

 

By Mitsui
the "quest" seemed like a platform game compared to an adventure game (told you it wouldn't make sense).

Actually that does kinda make sense. Kinda. The movie had an "action scene - exposition - action scene - exposition" type format. The action scenes are sort of "get from one place to another, killing any bad guys in your way" like a platformer videogame level. And then I guess the expositional scenes would be like the videogame cutscenes.

 

By scottbot
There didn't seem to be any character development... I couldn't remember any of the characters' names and didn't care when some of them died.

I agree one million percent. The movie was three hours long. Considering how little plotting there was, you'd think we would at least get to know the characters a little. Frodo was "wide-eyed", I guess. And Gandalf was supposed to be "wise"(although I thought he seemed kinda senile myself). But what about the rest of the fellowship? I can't think of a single character trait of the dwarf or the elves. I didn't know anyone, I didn't care about anyone, and the slow-motion "get hit with five thousand arrows and still have enough strength to deliver some moving last words" death scene had me shaking my head.

[Reply #37 on:]

By "five thousand arrows," you mean like 2 or 3, right?  All I know is, is that in the book he got hit with a buttload more arrows than they showed in the flick.

P.S. Can you say, "berserker?"

[Reply #38 on:]

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks.

[Reply #39 on:]

Elijah.....
SORRY!!!!!
It´s the best movie I´ve ever seen!