Toonbots message board: Lord of the Rings - I need never see a movie again

mouse Wed Dec 19 18:02:17 2001 Re: Lord of the Rings - I need never see a movie a wow- _that_ was fast. i don't know that i am actually 'steeped' - but i'll let you know what i think (it will take a little while)

Michael Wed Dec 19 19:33:07 2001 Re: Lord of the Rings - (spoilers) (a little) > wow- _that_ was fast. Like Dr. Who, I am a Timelord. As you know. I actually waited two hours for logistical reasons and saw it at the 1 PM matinee, which would be 10 AM your time. I don't think it's going to beat Harry Potter for first-weekend gross, but given that it was 1PM on a Wednesday, there were quite a few people there. I'm basically emotionally drained. Particularly the mines of Moria, and Gandalf's demise and the Balrog and all, were so well done. Well. The whole *movie* is climactic. But since I didn't have the car, after it was over I slipped into the 2PM showing and watched that particular scene again, and it was just as good the second time. But there were some aspects of the film which actually made me understand the book *better* -- for instance, when Gandalf visited Saruman (during the time he was absent from the Shire), it somehow escaped me that Isengard was still green and leafy; the next time we see it, of course, it is *not*. In the movie, we actually see him pulling the trees down to build his arms factories (which, of course, is what the Ents were all so mad about, but it never really dawned on me when reading the book that the destruction of the trees was due to Saruman's war effort.) I also believe I understand Boromir's character better from the movie; at first, I thought, "This isn't right" -- but after thinking on it, it was -- I had simply not really put it all together when reading the books. Visually, the film is simply astounding. Just .. astounding, I can't say it any better than that. Wouldn't it be a better world if *every* movie were made to be as good as it could possibly be, like this one? If you actually had the feeling that the producers and directors weren't chortling that you were so stupid as to give them money no matter what tripe they put before you? This movie is just plain what movies are *for*. It's what George Lucas almost was, could have been, thinks he is, but (let's face it) isn't. Someday some distant descendant of Soderbergh is going to remake Star Wars and it will be as good as the Lord of the Rings.

Emsworth Wed Dec 19 21:45:44 2001 Re: Lord of the Rings - (spoilers) (a little) > Like Dr. Who, I am a Timelord. As you know. I now have a vague mental picture of Jon Pertwee (or possibly Sylvester McCoy) writing code in the basement of the Tardis. Never did finish reading Tolkien's sagas (Wodehouse and Dickens and Dame Agatha were usually more apt to occupy my time), but may see the film version when it comes to video, or possibly to the second-run cinema. (Seldom have an opportunity to see a film in a theatre these days, and would rather see Monsters Inc. over the holiday break. Particularly as it has a short and Frank Oz.) Still glad you enjoyed it, though. (Did see the 1978 Bakshi version of "Lord of the Rings" a couple years ago. It did have a few fairly enjoyable moments with Smrgol, but otherwise was decidedly muddled, partially as it had no definite ending, since Bakshi had hoped to continue it in one or two more films, and the animation relied too much on rotoscoping at times. John Hurt was a competent Elrond, though.)

Jenn Thu Dec 20 08:55:03 2001 LotR Virgin I have never read the book(s). I didn't see the last movie. I never played D&D, even. I am as unsteeped as they come. We're going to see the movie this weekend in Ohio, where theaters are large and not packed with people. I'm sure I won't like it as much as Dune (*duck, before I send Michael off on another Dune bashing spree*). That's that mild sarcasm thing, just in case we were thinking about a spree anyway. > I now have a vague mental picture of Jon Pertwee (or possibly Sylvester > McCoy) writing code in the basement of the Tardis. Ooooo. Is that the one with the long scarf? I immediately thought of the one with the long scarf, cause if you slap a beard and glasses on him, it might kind of look like the self portrait in the toon. If you squint your eyes up. And look from across the room. Monsters, Inc. That looked like it might be an enjoyable afternoon of slack jawed fun if you disconnect your reality monitor and portions of your brain. I didn't realize it was still in theaters. Woohoo! Something else to do while in Ohio!

Michael Thu Dec 20 13:57:30 2001 Re: LotR Virgin > Ooooo. Is that the one with the long scarf? I immediately thought of the > one with the long scarf, cause if you slap a beard and glasses on him, it > might kind of look like the self portrait in the toon. My wife made me a scarf like that once. > Monsters, Inc. I liked it a lot.

mouse Thu Dec 20 16:10:09 2001 Re: LotR Virgin ohio? i thought you were off to hawaii or was it florida...someplace warm. oh - right - he said 'miami', and you lept to conclusions....oh well, enjoy the moviegoing! anyway, you are now committed to going to the movie and posting a review, as the control (non-ringist) group.

Michael Thu Dec 20 23:30:00 2001 Re: LotR Virgin > anyway, you are now committed to going to the movie and posting a review, > as the control (non-ringist) group. Does it strike anyone else as somewhat suspect to have Jenn as a control group for *anything*?

Jenn Fri Dec 21 09:30:45 2001 Control Groups R Us > Does it strike anyone else as somewhat suspect to have Jenn as a control > group for *anything*? Sheesh. The /abuse/ I get! I'm exceedingly normal. Heartbreakingly normal. Completely run of the mill. It's you freaked out elf lovers that are the oddities. Yeah. I think it might be time to turn in the 'One Escape from Wolverine Mauling' card that I got with my latest McToonbots Meal. Oh, yeah. The point to this post: I'm going to Ohio for three days, /then/ we're going down to Florida. You both win! Get those two a prize from the grab bag! So this is my last day on the forum for a week or so. Have a Merry Christmas/Hannukah/Kwanza/Winter Solstice/whatever other holiday I missed, everyone!

Eric Schissel Fri Dec 21 14:24:15 2001 Re: Control Groups R Us > So this is my last day on the forum for a week or so. Have a Merry > Christmas/Hannukah/Kwanza/Winter Solstice/whatever other holiday I missed, > everyone! And you, Jenn. ;)

Eric Schissel Thu Dec 20 08:31:46 2001 Re: Lord of the Rings - (spoilers) (a little) Please do not take the following comment wrong. Please don't. And I do _very much_ intend to see all three LotR movies, and I expect I shall enjoy them, and might even be transported to seventh heaven. But when I think greatest movie ever made, I do not think - say - Spielberg. I think Malle, or Tarkovsky (I've seen *one* movie (twice) of Tarkovsky's so far, _Andrei Rublev_, and it is the best thing I think I have ever seen in cinema,) and Wenders, and a few selected US equivalents, and some others, not all of them "independents", either. Nor have I seen, really, all that much cinema (I have limited "expertise", and it's concentrated in classical music, where I suppose I probably can carry a conversation for a good while- it's -been- a good while since I've had the opportunity *g* ...) But... certainly not Spielberg (was about to say Coppola or Spielberg, but I don't know Coppola's work enough to say, so let's leave him out of this)... and not George L., either! So. I guess I've obfuscated my own "point" enough. Grmbl. *chuckle* I think some of the movies I've enjoyed most these last few years have included Bulworth, Election, You Can Count on Me (oh yes, especially!!!!), Amelie, to name a few. And "Good Will Hunting" wasn't half bad... others will come to mind, sans doute, viel sans doute, once I've pressed send. Immer vrai.

Michael Thu Dec 20 14:22:43 2001 Re: Good cinema. > Please do not take the following comment wrong. Please don't. Yeah, yeah. I've seen some good movies, too. But my taste runs to Hollywood blockbusters, mostly. And most of them suck -- not because they have to, but because the idiots who make them are talentless hacks who don't know it because they get so much money no matter *what* they do. I like popcorn movies. I just think that people could make much better popcorn movies. > But... certainly not > Spielberg (was about to say Coppola or Spielberg, but I don't know > Coppola's work enough to say, so let's leave him out of this)... and not > George L., either! You didn't here *me* say Spielberg. Yeesh. I think E.T. established that. I mean, the guy can occasionally make a good movie when he bothers to, but otherwise .... > I think some of the movies I've enjoyed most these last few years have > included Bulworth, Election, You Can Count on Me (oh yes, especially!!!!), > Amelie, to name a few. And "Good Will Hunting" wasn't half > bad... Election I saw. Didn't care for it all that much. It was OK. Good Will Hunting I saw and liked, although its portrayal of genius was facile. (Finding Forrester was better, and more or less along the same lines, with a funny fourth-wall joke in it too!) Haven't seen the others you mention. I know what you're saying, Eric, but I still think that given the tripe which passes for blockbusters lately, most higher primates should be able to do a better job.

Eric Schissel Thu Dec 20 15:05:41 2001 Re: Good cinema. > Yeah, yeah. I've seen some good movies, too. But my taste runs to > Hollywood blockbusters, mostly. And most of them suck -- not because they > have to, but because the idiots who make them are talentless hacks who > don't know it because they get so much money no matter *what* they do. I like to think that there's some economic dynamics at work here too, otherwise I run a serious risk of (pardon Bush-I-ism) misanthrope city. (Not to shift the burden from the hacks who make the movies to the people who watch them, mind, nor to deny that just as large a proportion of independent movies, I imagine - as I said, I don't get to see all that much, though I try to be fairly diverse in my sampling when I do see things - also suck. Sturgeon's Law having been propounded out of a good understanding of human nature, economics, and much else, I figure...) > I like popcorn movies. I just think that people could make much better > popcorn movies. You are, despite what I tried and failed to just say above (this here Wittgensteinian should practice what that master preached- clarity!... he didn't succeed too well at it either, did he?), probably right at that. > You didn't here *me* say Spielberg. Yeesh. I think E.T. established that. > I mean, the guy can occasionally make a good movie when he bothers to, but > otherwise .... *snicker* Well said. Though at the time I _saw_ E.T., I admit, I enjoyed it. > Election I saw. Didn't care for it all that much. It was OK. Good Will > Hunting I saw and liked, although its portrayal of genius was facile. Hrm. Agreed in retrospect... I'm a sucker for movies that have good things to say about Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, and which have good long speeches about the IDA (which I once (ashamed admission alert) applied to work at, if memory serves- hrm. Not IDA? Or maybe IDA's the public branch of it... Whatever that three-letter acronym one is that does crypto work. I'm an acquaintance of someone they brought suit against and lost, but that's another story.) (I should keep in mind that this stuff is google-archived- do I really want to keep that in here? Ah, why not. Actually, the fact that he and I know each other is already on the web...) > (Finding Forrester was better, and more or less along the same lines, with > a funny fourth-wall joke in it too!) Haven't seen the others you mention. Missed that one. Will keep it in mind, thanks. > I know what you're saying, Eric, but I still think that given the tripe > which passes for blockbusters lately, most higher primates should be able > to do a better job. No disagreement then in both of us "pressing our points" as it were... we fence and find that we're not even fighting each other, but someone else les deux. Just as it should be, just so. Good. :)

spinclad Thu Dec 20 17:42:43 2001 Re: No Such TLA > ... the IDA (which I once (ashamed admission alert) applied to > work at, if memory serves- hrm. Not IDA? Or maybe IDA's the public branch > of it... Whatever that three-letter acronym one is that does crypto work. ...) (( A-hrm. Pardon. There is No Such Agency. Never mind. Move along. )) ... (( What are you looking at? ... Go on, beat it, kid! *grmblgrmbl* ))

Michael Thu Dec 20 23:26:27 2001 Re: No Such TLA > (( A-hrm. Pardon. There is No Such Agency. Never mind. Move along. )) Oh *sure* -- that's what they *want* you to think, of course... You just go ahead and wear those rose-colored glasses and we'll wait for the black helicopters to show up at Eric's place (if that is his real name) for letting slip the existence of the IDA. Who are, this very moment, reading all your email *and this post*. *As I type it*.

Brother Emsworth Fri Dec 21 00:40:03 2001 Re: No Such TLA > Oh *sure* -- that's what they *want* you to think, of course... You just > go ahead and wear those rose-colored glasses and we'll wait for the black > helicopters to show up at Eric's place (if that is his real name) for > letting slip the existence of the IDA. Who are, this very moment, reading > all your email *and this post*. *As I type it*. ::wolverines eagerly and helpfully devour the evidence and the government files concerned:: Awww, good wolverines! Better?

Eric Schissel Fri Dec 21 01:20:50 2001 Re: No Such TLA > ::wolverines eagerly and helpfully devour the evidence and the government > files concerned:: > Awww, good wolverines! Better? *Good* wolverines!! Horsey needs sleep now... NSA. *That* was it. Right. Hrm? And as to my college acquaintance (and gaming partner) and his continuing tiff with the NSA, siehe bitte http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoJ/ for example.

Jenn Fri Dec 21 09:24:20 2001 Yuletide Singing For some reason, the ending of this little portion of the thread makes me sing: Have yourself a paranoid little Christmas, Make the helicopters black, From now on our files will be under attack. Have yourself a paranoid little Christmas, Encode all your email, From now on our privacy is up for sale.

mouse Wed Dec 26 23:36:55 2001 lotr (maybe more spoilage) ok, i have seen it....and.....i think i need to see it again to decide how well i like it. i have _just_ finished rereading the books, so i started out hypersensitive to differences therefrom....although actually, for the most part, i think they did a good job of trimming. for example, i couldn't see dropping tom bombadil with out causing some problems, but once one sees how they handled it, one can see that, while colorful, the episode really wasn't that central.....except. the one grouse i think i might have is, i think it simplifies the whole good/evil thing to our guys/sauron. for example - from the book, my recollection was that the whole storm-on-caradhras thing was an evil that was inherent to the mountain itself - _caradhras_ made the storm, at no one's bidding. whereas in the movie, saruman made the storm, and he was already in service of mordor (again, my recollection was that he was _unintentionally_ sauron's pawn - he had plans to set up on his own (hence his orc-army) - and sauron was able to manipulate that. so... to me the old forest bit was another reminder that there is a fair amount of free-floating evil in the world, which may (sometimes) fall in with the plan of larger evil beings - and sometimes is just nasty on its own. but this is maybe too messy to attempt in a movie. anyway - i think i need to forcably set aside my expectations and see it again, so i can better assess the story-telling. visually, i agree, it was _astounding_. ever since _the hobbit_, i have wanted to live at bag end - now i'm like, looking for frodo's realtor. lorien i would have liked a little more green (grouse, grouse) - but the balrog was _perfect_, and the ringwraiths were excellent. and i thought the treatment of the white hand symbol on saruman's orcs was quite interesting -- somehow much more expressive of orcishness than merely a hand painted on a shield (i had always pictured sort of a delicate, semi-art-deco hand on the shields) as to viewing by people of differing tolkien experience - i went with my mom, who has never read the books, and confessed she was rather lost (but she had some trouble hearing the dialog) and my brother, who read the books but many years ago, and _loved_ it. so now i'm going to be totally impatient for two more years until the whole thing is released.

Michael Thu Dec 27 21:34:04 2001 Re: lotr (maybe more spoilage) > ok, i have seen it....and.....i think i need to see it again to decide how > well i like it. Ah, mouse, I like you. > the one grouse i think i might have is, i > think it simplifies the whole good/evil thing to our guys/sauron. That's a good point, but I'm not sure if cinema could greatly address that and still be understandable. > for > example - from the book, my recollection was that the whole > storm-on-caradhras thing was an evil that was inherent to the mountain > itself - _caradhras_ made the storm, at no one's bidding. Yes, that irritated me as well. The point is that Caradrhas is pretty willful in the best of times, but now that Sauron is out and about, all kinda-bad things have a tendency to serve evil, and thus are stronger as well. Like the mountain is an ally of Sauron, right? Like the birds. > whereas in the > movie, saruman made the storm, and he was already in service of mordor > (again, my recollection was that he was _unintentionally_ sauron's pawn - > he had plans to set up on his own (hence his orc-army) - and sauron was > able to manipulate that. True. I hadn't noticed that, but you're right. I reread the books a couple of months ago, so some of the details of the first were still a little fuzzy. > anyway - i think i need to forcably set aside my expectations > and see it again, so i can better assess the story-telling. On its own, I think it's a strong story. That it's not as strong as a book doesn't disappoint me too greatly.

spinclad Sat Dec 29 01:58:50 2001 Re: lotr (maybe more spoilage) i just saw it on the 22nd for my wife's birthday. (we used to call this a sidesaddle in my family, a present more for the giver than the givee. because i'm Just That Nice.) > ok, i have seen it....and.....i think i need to see it again to decide how > well i like it. me too. a bunch more times. crying every time at how much was left out. > i have _just_ finished rereading the books, so i started out > hypersensitive to differences therefrom....although actually, for the most > part, i think they did a good job of trimming. for example, i couldn't see > dropping tom bombadil with out causing some problems, but once one sees > how they handled it, one can see that, while colorful, the episode really > wasn't that central... yeah, tom's an outlier, and the story recognizes this -- `we can't send the ring back to him, his nature just doesn't interact with the ring's'. do i miss him less, just because he's so far out of the flow of the world? > ..except. the one grouse i think i might have is, i > think it simplifies the whole good/evil thing to our guys/sauron. for > example - from the book, my recollection was that the whole > storm-on-caradhras thing was an evil that was inherent to the mountain > itself - _caradhras_ made the storm, at no one's bidding. whereas in the > movie, saruman made the storm, and he was already in service of mordor > (again, my recollection was that he was _unintentionally_ sauron's pawn - > he had plans to set up on his own (hence his orc-army) - and sauron was > able to manipulate that. so... to me the old forest bit was another > reminder that there is a fair amount of free-floating evil in the world, > which may (sometimes) fall in with the plan of larger evil beings - and > sometimes is just nasty on its own. (full agreement) and tom's a bit of free neutral-good in the world. (where does his theme enter, in the great song of ainulindale?) > but this is maybe too messy to attempt > in a movie. i'm not at all convinced. i stand defiant -- the film could and should have preserved much more of the moral/cosmological texture that is to me so much of tolkien's world. it would not come into as clear focus, of course, in this small frame of three films... so my utopian demand on this our world is to produce, sometime in the next fifty years (so i'll be gone by then -- what matter?) a cycle of six: one per book (with appendices! oops, there's another dozen or so), faithful and more to tolkien's massive dream, to build on this first worthy attempt on the mountain. and then for all the earlier ages... > anyway - i think i need to forc[i]bly set aside my expectations > and see it again, so i can better assess the story-telling. it's hard. i want to rant. and see it again. and rant some more. and.... damn.

Michael Sun Dec 30 00:03:48 2001 Re: lotr (maybe more spoilage) > me too. a bunch more times. crying every time at how much was left out. Ah, come on -- you've got nine hours to play with. If you put everything in, you'd get a kaleidoscopic mess like Dune, with people (Duncan Idaho, anyone) tossed into a single two-second cameo just so they're not left out. Best to leave old Tom Bombadil off singing to his river daughter, out of it and happy. Though the scene where Tom sticks the ring on and laughs, fully unaffected, was a pretty darn powerful one in retrospect. BUT the book had had lots of time to establish the basic evil alignment of the Ring by that time, and the movie hadn't. It would have weakened the movie. > i'm not at all convinced. i stand defiant -- the film could and should > have preserved much more of the moral/cosmological texture that is to me > so much of tolkien's world. Well, I'm in agreement with that, anyway. I do approve of the script changes, by and large, but Saruman is too simple now ("I think I'll follow Sauron cause he's gonna win" is just not as good as "I'm tricking Sauron because I'm that cool" whilst being totally wrong.) And the Saruman-Gandalf conflict is much larger, while the Frodo-Sauron conflict, subtle as it is, is nearly lost in the movie. But -- frankly -- I don't care. It's still the best damned movie adaptation of a novel I've ever seen. In fact, of books I liked, it's basically the *only* movie adaptation that didn't stink royally (with the barely possible exception of the Postman, which didn't stink *royally* -- although it really kills me to see it as "Kevin Costner's Postman," as though he wrote it or something. If I were David Brin, that'd be somewhat bittersweet. I suppose the money was good.) > it would not come into as clear focus, of course, in this small frame of > three films... so my utopian demand on this our world is to produce, > sometime in the next fifty years (so i'll be gone by then -- what matter?) > a cycle of six: one per book (with appendices! oops, there's another dozen > or so), faithful and more to tolkien's massive dream, to build on this > first worthy attempt on the mountain. I like that plan.

mouse Tue Jan 1 15:53:49 2002 Re: lotr (maybe more spoilage) ok, i saw it again - and i really like it. i think they did do a good job of telling a coherent story, consistent with the book. and while it would be nice to have something more complete....i am, at heart, a reader -- and my best hope is that this will encourage people to actually go read the books - where, for once, they will discover that the message is not completely different, but that there are _lots_ of extra goodies. and jrr's worldview is complex enough that i think it is better comprehended when read - gives you time to put the book down, and think things over for a bit, before you race on to the next thing. [totally off-subject - anyone know how they managed the height issue? i was really worrying about seeing hobbits at like 5'8", and 'big' people at 6' - but the proportions were just right - and i _know_ ian holm is taller than that] > Though the scene where Tom sticks the ring on and laughs, fully > unaffected, was a pretty darn powerful one in retrospect. BUT the book had > had lots of time to establish the basic evil alignment of the Ring by that > time, and the movie hadn't. It would have weakened the movie. yeah, what he said. > Well, I'm in agreement with that, anyway. I do approve of the script > changes, by and large, but Saruman is too simple now ("I think I'll > follow Sauron cause he's gonna win" is just not as good as "I'm > tricking Sauron because I'm that cool" whilst being totally wrong.) yeah - and christopher lee could _certainly_ have carried off a deluded i'm-going-to-be-a-big-evil-guy-on-my-own sorta characterization. > And the Saruman-Gandalf conflict is much larger, while the Frodo-Sauron > conflict, subtle as it is, is nearly lost in the movie. although i have to say- the s-g thing did remind you that these are _wizards_....although it's real purpose in the movie may be to keep up with people's current expectations of wizards, a la harry potter. as to frodo-sauron...1) the Eye was a _great_ effect, absolutely perfect, but 2) - it didn't give one the sense that it was still _searching_ for frodo - it seemed more like it already had him pinned. and (since most of frodo's struggles are internal) - they don't play out real clearly. > In fact, of books I liked, it's > basically the *only* movie adaptation that didn't stink royally (with the > barely possible exception of the Postman, which didn't stink *royally* -- now _this_ surprises me - i actually liked the movie version enough that i read the book - and it struck me as being a _completely_ different story. i think if i had read the book first, i would have been pretty annoyed at the movie (i mean, wasn't there a whole supercomputer thing in the book - which does not in any way appear in the movie? - it's been a couple years) but with _fellowship of the ring_, i am satisfied. now i want ents.

Jenn Thu Jan 3 09:14:10 2002 And Now For The Virgin View Hi, I'm back! Did everyone have a wonderful holiday? We went to see Lotr in Ohio, where movies are deliciously cheap and there's also nothing else to do. Since I'm the only person in the universe who didn't read the book, I take it upon myself to speak as promised. We really liked it. The hobbits were really likable and the set was beautiful for them. Such adoreable little doors! In fact, the sets and costumes for everything seemed really well done, detailed but not distracting. Heow says (dunno how true this is) that they used computers to shrink people proportionately, mouse. He swears the dwarf is actually a really tall guy in some other movie the name of which unfortunately escapes me at the moment. When that scary wraith thing popped out, Heow shrieked like a girl (don't tell him I said this out loud) and grabbed at my arm, causing me to shriek like a girl. His brother, sitting on the other side of me, just looked at us and shook his head. We're so uncool. My final word on the movie, however is: I WANT CLOSURE! Now, I'm sure all the rest of you just sat there with your smug 'read the book' smiles and know what's going to happen. (And if you tell me, I'll hunt you down and kill you slowly with stuffed wolverine animals) But lemme tell you, they've got the ring, they come over the border into creepy land and...it just ENDS. Leaving me shrieking in the movie theater and having to be forcibly removed. Course, it guarantees that I will go see the next one. Possibly before reading the books, cause lemme tell you. It was pure enjoyment from beginning to end. Not once did I consider the inclusion or exclusion of this or that scene. I didn't spare any mental moments to set, plot or characterization. I just sat, absorbed, and liked.

Michael Thu Jan 3 12:46:10 2002 Re: And Now For The Virgin View > Hi, I'm back! Did everyone have a wonderful holiday? Hi, Jenn! > Heow says (dunno how true this is) that they used computers to shrink > people proportionately, mouse. He swears the dwarf is actually a really > tall guy in some other movie the name of which unfortunately escapes me at > the moment. They used CGI some, and tricky angles in other shots, and really big props in others, and that kind of thing. I was overall pretty impressed. The dwarf is Indiana Jones' friend from Cairo. Hee. > My final word on the movie, however is: I WANT CLOSURE! Say it with me, now: "trilogy". Not a George Lucas "I made a buncha money and so I'll make some sequels" but "this story is nine hours' worth of movie even when we leave stuff out." You'll get some closure in December, but you'll have to wait for 2003 for real closure. Trust me, though. This movie -- good as it was -- was JUST THE SETUP. > they've got the ring, they come over the border into > creepy land and...it just ENDS. Heh. Not nearly as abruptly as the first book.

mouse Thu Jan 3 15:26:21 2002 Re: And Now For The Virgin View > Hi, Jenn! welcome back! > They used CGI some, and tricky angles in other shots, and really big props > in others, and that kind of thing. I was overall pretty impressed. that makes sense - and i'm guessing maybe child stand-ins for scenes where some characters are carrying others around. > The dwarf is Indiana Jones' friend from Cairo. Hee. the arab head-digger one - aka john rhys-davies - he's been in a lot of things, and he _is_ a big guy (also a good actor - but gimli and legolas should get more screen time in the second one). > but you'll have to wait for 2003 for real > closure. look at it this way - it's only 2 more years, vs. 6 for star wars, and 12 or something for the actual books (which _must_ have made people crazy - the few who actually read them at that time) > Trust me, though. This movie -- good as it was -- was JUST THE SETUP. yeah - ents. i'm telling you, i really want ents.

Michael Thu Jan 3 20:39:53 2002 Re: And Now For The Virgin View > yeah - ents. i'm telling you, i really want ents. Treebeard is gonna rock. I'm really looking forward to this.

Jenn Fri Jan 4 09:01:21 2002 Re: And Now For The Virgin View > Say it with me, now: "trilogy". Not a George Lucas "I made > a buncha money and so I'll make some sequels" but "this story is > nine hours' worth of movie even when we leave stuff out." You'll get > some closure in December, but you'll have to wait for 2003 for real > closure. Bah. I'm an American and I demand instant gratification. I did sit through three hours, after all, when everyone knows that every story can be told in 30 minutes, with commercial breaks. An hour if it's a drama. > Treebeard is gonna rock. I'm really looking forward to this. What did I tell you people about dropping hints about what's going to happen? Don't make me go all wolverine on you. As to comparisons to Star Wars...yeah, but. Star Wars doesn't make me want to come back to see the next one.

pv Fri Jan 18 14:13:53 2002 Re: And Now For The Virgin View > Treebeard is gonna rock. I'm really looking forward to this. I don't know. Climactic battle scenes where part of the army is a bunch of pissed-off trees? That's going to be hard to pull off with snickering. I'm late to this dicussion (besides not seeing much activity on TB, until Mouse recently came in and did a perfect mind meld with Michael) because I waited to see the movie until I had a chance to reread the book (This is my fifth reread - and the first in ten years). I was extremely pleased (and not a little awestruck) by the faithfullness to the book. A lot of the reviewers made fun of Cate Blanchett's ACTING! as Galadriel, but her speech at the mirror was word-for-word quoted from the book. Elves, especially ring-wielding elf queens, are the prototypical drama queens. What is it about the crossing of the Ford of Bruinen that makes adapters keep changing the characters? Does Glorfindel have some unsightly wart or something that makes him unphotogenic? Ralph Bakshi did the same thing. But I think I do approve of putting Arwen there - besides eye candy value (Liv Tyler makes a gorgeous elf), it gives the character some face time, which doesn't happen much in the book. In fact, you have to wade through the appendixes to even know how her story ends. I wonder if we're going to see her wedding on-screen in 2003? PV

mouse Fri Jan 18 18:00:41 2002 Re: And Now For The Virgin View > I don't know. Climactic battle scenes where part of the army is a bunch of > pissed-off trees? That's going to be hard to pull off with snickering. as i recall, the battle at isengard pretty much takes place off-camera (but then, there are a lot more battles in the movie than i remember from the book) - what _i_ want is just to see what he looks like, up close and personal (especially since we didn't get old man willow engulfing hobbits). > until > Mouse recently came in and did a perfect mind meld with Michael) ok, that image frightens me (especially since michael seems to have abandoned us - you ain't makin' _me_ responsible for his brain!) > A lot of > the reviewers made fun of Cate Blanchett's ACTING! as Galadriel, but her > speech at the mirror was word-for-word quoted from the book. i remembered the words from the book, but frankly did find that scene a bit overwrought (but perhaps more for the special effects than the acting per se) > Elves, > especially ring-wielding elf queens, are the prototypical drama queens. (as, apparently, are special effects types) > But I think I do approve of putting Arwen there - besides eye candy value > (Liv Tyler makes a gorgeous elf), it gives the character some face time, > which doesn't happen much in the book. In fact, you have to wade through > the appendixes to even know how her story ends. I wonder if we're going to > see her wedding on-screen in 2003? PV yeah, in the books she's sort of the typical cardboard reward-to-hero figure - pretty face, but nothing apparent behind it. (even in the appendix aragorn's only spark is apparently her beauty (you guys can be sooooo _shallow_) - but at least she has some emotions). i'm sure the wedding will be a _huge_ scene in the finale - especially as the true ending is rather bitter-sweet. (gotta have _some_ emotional high point)

Michael Sat Jan 19 12:15:22 2002 Re: And Now For The Virgin View > (especially since michael seems to have abandoned us - you ain't makin' > _me_ responsible for his brain!) mouse, mouse -- you wound me. I posted an episode yesterday only minutes after you posted this, you faithless minion, you. > especially as the true > ending is rather bitter-sweet. I predict that the wedding scene will be quite big -- but that the end of the movie will be *exactly* as the ending of the book. And I'm looking forward to that ending: "Well, I'm back."

mouse Sat Jan 19 13:52:48 2002 Re: And Now For The Virgin View > you faithless minion, you. AAAAAAAAAAAaaaauuugggghhhh! ::collapses sobbing in a heap, wounded to the core:: what can i say - i was just checking in on the forum (where, you must admit, you have been scarce -- DESPITE the fact that I SAW YOUR POST on a whole _different_ forum (which i will decline to name (mostly because i can't remember now which one it was))-- which left me .... confused, and, yes, a tad hurt (but i didn't mention it here because i didn't want to upset anyone else))[i know, i know...you were sick, and could only manage less intellectually stimulating fora] i keep forgetting that you tend to put things up at the _end_ of the day....besides, after the day i had yesterday, you are lucky i was civil at all (i was ready to bite the heads off badgers). > I predict that the wedding scene will be quite big -- but that the end of > the movie will be *exactly* as the ending of the book. And I'm looking > forward to that ending: "Well, I'm back." oh yeah - because they get back to the shire _after_ the wedding, and you have to show that bit. yeah, the movie ending should be exactly like the book - but you gotta admit, the end does have a certain sadness for what has passed away - even as it returns to solid everyday comforts.

Tirdun Wed Jan 23 13:17:50 2002 Re: And Now For The Virgin View > the movie ending should be exactly like the > book - but you gotta admit, the end does have a certain sadness for what > has passed away - even as it returns to solid everyday comforts. Actually, I'm hoping they include a lot of the stuff in the Appendix where Sam marries Rosie, becomes mayor and eventually leaves the shire for the Grey Havens. But I'm a fanatic.

Michael Wed Dec 19 20:46:20 2001 IMDb on top of things ... as always: http://us.imdb.com/Sections/Languages/Elvish/