Author |
Message |
Webkitty
| Friday, December 20, 2002 - 2:49 pm
Lol Herm! We have decided to take the plunge and go Christmas Eve Day. We are hoping everyone will be running around doing last minute Christmas stuff and it won't be too crowded, yeah, right We will get home around 5:00 and start the roast beef and yorkshire and I will have visions of sugarplums and Aragorn all through my head
|
Hermione69
| Friday, December 20, 2002 - 2:51 pm
"I will have visions of sugarplums and Aragorn all through my head." I love it! Happy thoughts! All you need is some fairy dust and you could fly!
|
Ocean_Islands
| Friday, December 20, 2002 - 5:22 pm
I would go, Hermione, because they don't talk all that much!
|
Sage
| Friday, December 20, 2002 - 6:45 pm
I saw it lastnight, and thought it was great, although for some reason, I wasn't completely fulfilled by it. The end just ended to quickly where the characters in Helm's Deep were concerned. I really liked the ending with Sam and Frodo though. Its obvious the 3rd installment is going to be THE one to satisfy. I have one complaint, and that is I could hardly understand much of what Treebeard was saying. Perhaps it was because the sound wasn't really blasting in the theater. I also found I struggled with hearing quite a bit of the other dialog. It was a great treat as always to watch Viggo/Aragorn. 
|
Webkitty
| Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 9:24 am
I understand how some could be a little lost or disapointed that this second part of the trilogy wasn't done as a stand alone movie. Peter Jackson is playing to the fans who have read the trilogy over and over and over, lol. This won't disapoint me, having no real start or finish to the movie. I take it the very end of the movie ends with Frodo and Sam, probably as they are starting out toward Shelob's lair? But how does it start out? With Frodo and Sam or with the rest of the fellowship going after Merry and Pippin? (figures, we are supposed to have heavy rains here Tuesday and we have to drive down to Sarasota for this looong movie, its the only theater around that has foot rails and we both need them for our bad backs)
|
Sage
| Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 12:55 pm
Webkitty, the movie started out with a sort of 'flashback' to when Gandalf supposedly died while facing that demon - don't know his namme - while in Moria. It showed how he didn't really die, and how he defeated the demon. I won't say anymore so I don't spoil it for anyone else who hasn't seen it yet.
|
Oregonfire
| Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 1:42 pm
Saw it last night, loved it, have read the books a few times, but found my memory faltering in all but the biggest plotlines. I have to agree with Yankee about Gimli being the butt of the jokes--he was a strong fighter in the books and not one to trifle with. There was quite a bit of "injected" humor in this second movie that I found somewhat distracting. I remember in the book when Gollum meets up with Sam and Frodo, but I believe that he stayed more slimy and loathsome than the movie portrayed. He still had that interior struggle between "Precious" and "Master" in the book, but Gollum wasn't so cutesy if I recall. Oh well--maybe it was my reaction to the character from "the Hobbit" and the earlier animated movie from years ago--Gollum was really slimy and gross and not to be trusted. Another part I'm having trouble recalling, for those of you who've read the books: I don't recall Aragorn's love life having such a major role in the books. Did they play it up for the films? Otherwise, loved the Ronin part--they got the Griml Wormtongue and spellbound king part down perfectly. The battle at the Keep was very well done and climatic. The books are said to loosely parallel World War II, though Tolkien himself has denied that reading of the trilogy, but it does seem to be there and can add an interesting dimension to the films as you watch. Many hotties abound the the film--whoo hoo! Aragorn the main hottie as usual, not much of a Legolas fan myself, but liked the King's nephew and the leader of Gondor. Hot hot hot! Guess I like a bit of hair, grime, and armour on my men. Hoo-haa!
|
Moondance
| Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 2:21 pm
>Guess I like a bit of hair, grime, and armour on my men. Hoo-haa!< Me too OFire! I get the CD next week (nominating committee rocks!) but I might go see it before so I can see it on the big screen
|
Ryn
| Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 12:56 am
Possible 'spoilers - so skip mine if you would be mad Possible 'spoilers - so skip mine if you would be mad Possible 'spoilers - so skip mine if you would be mad is that enough warning??? hmmmmmm Just got back from the late show. Sorry to say I was not as pleased as some of ya I LIKED it - don't get me wrong, but a few things bugged me. And only because I have read the books and so the deviations from the story seemed bigger this time. The 'ambush' where Ar. went off a cliff - huh?? Never happened unless I am losing my mind. Elves at Helms deep - whaaaaa?? I guess the Elf took the place of "Hammer" from the book with his death during the fighting. The Elves were really a non-factor in LOTR with the exception of Legolus after Book I. And of course the end of Book III where they are a bit involved. Yes - I think they put more elves in so we could see some more of Liv Tyler (ok - I am NOT gonna complain about that - lol). (ed - oh oh oh - what the heck is this with Liv appearing to be leaving Middle Earth? Now THAT bit of storyline was waaaayyy off base, i guess it was to add to the suspense). And then what the heck? Why did they make Borimire's (sp) brother out the way they did? He was much nobler in the novel and turned down the ring and didn't drag Frodo off to Osgiliath (again sp) actually no one was there in the novel, not 1st-hand anyways. And did anyone else wonder where Golum was when Sam yelled out about them destroying the ring? In the novel Frodo was very careful to keep his plan from Golum so that he would continue to help them. The Ents - not bad, I wondered how that storyline would be treated and it was done pretty decently, although making the hobbits out to be the ones that got treebeard to 'go to war' was a bit far-stretched for a creature that is the oldest living thing in middle-earth. annndddd one last thing... the ending, I guess they couldn't end it where the novel ended without spending another hour so it makes sense, but I was kinda looking forward to the parts in both storylines that were not addressed, oh well, next year I guess ;) Anyways, I am sure to many those things are minor, all I know is that I have a feeling the last movie will not end like the book, the climax of book 3 is 2/3 of the way through the book, I can't see how they will do that and then resolve the other things that happen after (trying to keep it a bit muddy for those that have not read the novels). All in all though, I guess it was good, yes I will be buying the DVD, although I will wait for the special DVD this time if there is one - don't need two copies of LOTR II as I now have of LOTR I. And forgive me if I am a bit hard-core about it, I walked out happy, there were just a few places I shook my head. I read the books back in the late 70's and have them un-abridged on CD as well. A reccomendation, check your local library and see if they have the un-abridged audio books, each book is about 14-16 CDs and the narrator is amazing!!!! After I got them I listened to all 3 books twice in a row (in the car to/from work).
|
Neko
| Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 2:57 am
Orlando Bloom got the two best(Well, two of the best) scene's in the movie to me. The mounting a gallopping horse was one. After that, everyone in the audience started to whisper LoL And the slidding down the stars on a sheild. That, was snazzy.
|
Strawberry
| Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 4:49 am
I'm with you on that one Neko - I was impressed when he slid down the stairs on the shield! That was awesome! But, I still like Aragorn more...lol
|
Neko
| Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 1:44 pm
Oh well, you like Aragorn. That'll just mean I have Legolas all to myself..
|
Ocean_Islands
| Monday, December 23, 2002 - 7:42 am
I agree with Ryn and noticed the same things. I don't see the reason for the Aragorn cliff episode at all... maybe to introduce some tension? As if there isn't enough already! I was shocked about the explosion in the battle, because I didn't think it was in the book but it was. The Osgiliath episode was irritating and unnecessary but little harm done. I seem to remember Treebeard carrying the hobbits instead of their riding on his shoulder. And O-fire, Gollum was hardly cutesy, though he was more hobbit-like than I expected. I always pictured him more amphibian-like. But he is, after all, a hobbit. I must add that the Dead Marshes episode was poorly done, with the exception of what took place underwater. It looked like a movie set to me. I have to say there are many fine nuances to the Legolas character. First view of FOTR, I didn't like the portrayal, but after watching it so many times, and now with TTT, I think the character is well done and he does many things consistent with his character that are not evident in a single viewing.
|
Oregonfire
| Monday, December 23, 2002 - 11:44 am
Cutesy as in likable, not cutesy as in cute looking. Gollum singing that little song about the fishes was cutesy. It bothered me because I had always pictured him as more devious and not so likable. It's all perception and expectations anyway. What I think of as "upping the cute quotient" someone else may not.
|
Ocean_Islands
| Monday, December 23, 2002 - 12:51 pm
It's interesting because while I wouldn't call him cute, the vulnerable side of his character is precisely what Frodo has a conflict about. I think Tolkien intended this response to Gollum.
|
Oregonfire
| Monday, December 23, 2002 - 2:05 pm
That Tolkien intend Frodo to react to Gollum's vunerability, and feel a kind of kinship over both being ringbearers, was surely Tokien's purpose. But how Jackson chose to *portray* Gollum's vunerability in certain points of the plot is what rings false to me. A character can be vunerable and conflicted without necessarily being cutesy. It feels to me as if Jackson is "selling" the character of Gollum to the audience with his cute little antics--his verbal sparring with Sam, for example. You could tell by the "ohh, isn't Gollom sweet!" reaction from the audience--at least from where I was sitting. I wonder if a flashback segment where Smegel (Gollom) kills Dregel for the ring had been shown, if the audience would've had a different reaction. My reading of Tolkien was always that he was not excessively sentimental--except maybe in his exploration of Frodo and Sam's strong friendship. That the LOTR series could be so engrossing without being maudlin is what I found so engaging both times I read it.(of course JMO--others may have read it differently.) BTW, this criticism can be lumped in with my feelings about Grimli's portrayal as a bit of an oaf. In Jackson's need to create some comic relief, there is a bit of pandering and assuming that an audinence won't be able to be engaged in the story without it. I felt the same about Arwin's teary interlude in the middle over Aragorn. A tad cloying and oversentimental, and not in the book anyway. It seems to me that our disagreement is over whether or not Gollum was overly "cutesy" in the movie. I think he was. It's just a matter of perception, so no definitive right or wrong answer here as far as I'm concerned.
|
Calamity
| Monday, December 23, 2002 - 2:56 pm
I understand the reservations some of you have about the film. Quite a few of the characters are nearly unrecognizable from their book selves. And many events were juggled, omitted, created, etc. Practically speaking, I think everyone realized that changes would have to made when transferring Tolkien's epic tale to the screen. I guess it just comes down to how much change you can tolerate . Even if the book was filmed word-for-word (can you imagine sitting through all those darn poems & songs in FotR?), it still wouldn't be the same because film and print are two different mediums and evoke different reactions in people. To put it in a far too simplistic way, reading dazzles your imagination and film dazzles your senses. (Hey, I said it was simplistic - I know movies can affect your imagination! It's just that in most books, how a character/place looks or sounds is pretty much left up to the reader.) Sorry, I'm getting off-topic here. I didn't care for how Gimli was reduced to comic relief either. But on the other hand, I loved the horse chase scene with Arwen in FotR. It was so exciting and a welcome break from the battle scenes. Who cares if it wasn't actually she who rescued Frodo in the book? Merry Christmas, everyone!
|
Ocean_Islands
| Monday, December 23, 2002 - 3:43 pm
I didn't like the Gimli stuff either. I see what you are saying O-fire. One thing I did not like is when Gollum was portrayed as two different 'people' when he was arguing with himself. I thought that was hitting the point a little too hard. I did think, though, that Gollum's first scene was much more violent than I would have expected. Also, is it just me or didn't Gollum's eyes seem different from the brief glimpse we got of him, in FOTR, in the Mines?
|
Hermione69
| Monday, December 23, 2002 - 5:23 pm
Okay now, I am kind of glad I haven't read the books yet as I am a purist. My brother and I discussed this after we saw "Fellowship." We are both big readers, but neither of us has read the trilogy, only "The Hobbit." We both decided that since we have started the movies, we should wait until we have seen all of them before we try the books. I'm glad I read "The Hobbit" because it put a lot of characters and places in context for me for "Fellowship," but I think if we had read the trilogy after seeing "Fellowship," it would have created expectations. I got irritated with the movie "Chamber of Secrets" for the same reason some of you are disappointed with parts of "Towers." Too many unnecessary changes. BTW, my BiL told me he thought I would have a hard time following the movie without captioning so I guess I am going to have to wait. It is not even going to be released in OC (open caption) until mid-January. If any of you want to do an act of kindness, I am pasting the email address below of the company that distributes the caption version of films. If you are so inclined, please drop them a note and ask them to include Richmond, Virginia on the itenerary for the OC version of "The Two Towers." They don't always come to Richmond and I will be SO UPSET if they don't bring "The Two Towers" here!! info@insightcinema.org Thanks!
|
Oregonfire
| Monday, December 23, 2002 - 6:39 pm
There were added bits that I liked too--the Elves marching on Helm's Keep to help out was a stirring moment. I found out later that it never happened in the book, and I certainly didn't remember from reading it! The film was definitely enjoyable overall, and I'm very glad that all of them were made.
|
Neko
| Monday, December 23, 2002 - 7:10 pm
I like the fact I havn't read the books. But then again, it probably wouldn't bother me anways. For the Harry Potter movies, I can pick out what was done differently in the book and want was done exactly, but usually, when I go. I pretend like I've never read the book in my life, or, aleast in the nit-picking way that is..
|
Webkitty
| Monday, December 23, 2002 - 7:28 pm
I just saw it and I loved every minute of it! There was nothing that disapointed me. I went with an open mind, knowing that it would be impossible to film Tolkien's work exactly. I put aside the trilogy in my mind so I could just enjoy the movie, and enjoy it I did, wholeheartedly. Gollum was so riveting I could barely breath. Treebeards voice was SO much better and awesome than I imagined it. I loved how PJ didn't skimp over the story line of Aragorn and Arwen. (which is told in appendix A ~tale of Aragorn and Arwen~ including Elron's objection to their union) I loved how Galadriel teletransported her thoughts to Elrond, and conviced him honor their age old allaince with Men. I know this wasn't in the book, but it was cool anyway. And the scene where they showed up at Helms Deep was the best. (I could care less which army it was, the elves were just fine with me) Faramir looked just how I pictured him, and the LOOK on his face when Gollum was having that dual personality meltdown in from of him was genious. I could just feel the mixed emotions he had racing through his mind. I didn't think the dwarf humor over the top at all, it was much more subtle than I feared. (go back to the Hobbit, dwarves are humorous at times in their own way) The huge trolls at Mordor were wicked scary. (the Nazgus weren't as scary this time) Eowyn was better than I thought she would be from the clips I've been seeing of her. The cimematography was breathtaking. The story snapped right along, and didn't drag like it sometimes does in the book. Lets face it, Tolkien could be a bit of a windbag at times. All that witherist thou, and ditherest hail ye stuff was, well, a little stuffy.(especially toward the end of the trilogy, he laid it on thick) I'm glad PJ left out most of the singing and poems, I tended to skip over those in the book. ~taking breath~ It was SO nice to go back to Middle Earth again! PJ did an excellent job in bringing it all to life. I have no complaints and am a very happy camper right now My advice is, go for the show, get into it and don't hold the triogy so dear that you will miss out on the magic.
|
Ketchuplover
| Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 6:51 am
I'm glad you liked it webkitty
|
Webkitty
| Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 6:55 am
{{Hermione}} I sent an email Could you explain the difference between OC and CC? ****SPOILERS***** Some more scenes that I liked: ~every one with Aragorn in ~how Aragorn talked elvish with Legolas ~Legolas mounting the horse ~Legolas surfing down the steps ~Aragorn's powerful cry of grief when he thinks Merry and Pippin have been killed by the Orcs ~Sam's moments of tearful hopelessness and doubt, it was touching seeing it come from the usually stoic Sam ~The end when Sam and Frodo are talking about being put in the legends and stories of Middle Earth, even though they didn't expect to come out of this alive (it worked just as well in the forest as the steps of Mordor, imo) ~When Arwen would come to Aragorn in her elvish way to give him strengh to carry on when he needed it ~How they talked elvish with each other ~When PJ showed us the distant future, and the end of Aragorn's long life, and Arwen's despair. I actually cried. (no making fun of me! lol) ~How PJ would tie in Aragorns longing and memories of Arwen when he caught Eowyn looking at him and knew she was in love with him ~Gimli talking about dwarf women ~Gimli belching ~Gimli telling Aragorn to throw him, and then telling Aragron to ~not tell "the Elf"~ (loved that one!) ~Gollums heartwreching innner turmoil ~The Ents destruction of Isengard ~The sun shining off of Gandalf when he came to the recue at Helms Deep, and the way the sparks came off of Shadowfax's hoofs. ~The way Gandalf appeared to Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas in the forest after he had been reborn as Gandalf the White ~When Gandalf whistled for Shadowfax (much better than my imagination) ~The armies of Saruman marching on Helms Deep, the SOUND of it was scary! ~How this movie was perfectly cast (can you tell I dreamed about Middle Earth last night? lol) MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!
|
Hermione69
| Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 7:46 am
Really, Webkitty, you liked "every one with Aragorn"?? I never would have thought! I'm not really sure the difference between OC and CC either. I would guess that CC is coded so it only comes on when it is set to come, such as by a television, but OC I'd guess is actually be scripted onto the film so it is there, period. Kind of like a title or the credits. Does that make sense? Thanks for sending the email! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone.
|
|