Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring

[IMJack]

I'm probably going to go see Episode II just for the satisfaction of watching N'SYNC get slaughtered by droids. (Don't believe me? Take a look.)

[pritch]

And returning to the original topic of this thread, three of my freinds saw LOTR this avo.

1 liked it, 2 thought it sucked. All thought it was too long and never reached a climax.

Because it was onlt the FIRST THIRD of the story...you have to wait for the rest. Dumbass.

That doesn't mean it can't have a climax! Ever heard of a cliff-hanger, DUMBASS?

[Erik]

Too long? wtf... I think it felt more like 90 minutes than 180. Can't wait until part 2...

[danarchist]

I'm getting first day tickets...again.

[Zaldron]

I have 3 tickets for first day.

Only 3 more days...must resist urge to watch DivX version.

[Hellbent]

I go to see the movie for the sixth time on Thursday. Movie has yet to get boring... so I figure I'll continue seeing it whenever I get an opportunity.

Has anyone see it two or more times yet?

Everyone should see this movie at least two times.

[Prime]

The original Star Wars Trilogy is pretty cool...The new movie was okay, but doesn't nearly live up to the originals.

Also consider that, had The Phantom Menace been released in '77 instead of A New Hope, TPM would have been the classic that we all know and love. However, given the resources that Lucas has, TPM indeed should've been more. Afterall, it ISN'T 1977, and film standards are a hell of alot higher.

[Zigmund]

I live on a hill called Jug End and in a region with rolling hills called The Berkshires.

Hiya from a neighbor in Hillsdale :)

[Hellbent]

I'm 2 or 3 miles from Catamount ski are on the Egremont/Hillsdale town line. How far away from Catamount do you live?

[Enjay]

Has anyone see it two or more times yet?

Yup, I'm on #4 and plan #5 sometime this week.

I totally agree that the 180 mins seemed like 90. Couldn't believe it was finished the first time. Desperate for the next film.

A very, very good movie. Right up there with the "Star Wars" movies for me. Anyone who knows my movie tastes will realise that is the highest possible praise.

No climax? The whole damn thing was 180 minutes of climaxes.

[Lüt]

Has anyone see it two or more times yet?

Yup, I'm on #4 and plan #5 sometime this week.

Sheesh, the way you guys are going on about this movie I just might see it.

[Zaldron]

What was the last movie you saw?

[Hellbent]

It felt like 90 minutes the first time I saw it too. I'm now in the middle of the first book. I love Tolkien's conception of the Nazgûl. I never understood what the black riders (Nazgûl) were seeing--

[Lüt]

What was the last movie you saw?

Me?

American Psycho.

The week it came out.

It forever destroyed my faith in movies and my will to go to a theatre.

[pritch]

What was the last movie you saw?

Me?

American Psycho.

The week it came out.

It forever destroyed my faith in movies and my will to go to a theatre.

and the will to leave the house for any reason, soon after.. :)

[Zaldron]

I didn't even bother to see that thing.

[Arioch]

I've gone to the theaters for this 4 times now. Debating on the 5th.

I'll note this is the very first movie that I've gone to the theaters more than once for.

The DVD ought to be out by August, with an additional 40 minutes of character development and combat scenes that they just couldn't stick into the theatrical release (I bet the theater owners were getting ready to mutiny). I can't wait.

Oh yeah, has anyone else started a countdown until The Two Towers yet?

[Hellbent]

Yeah, this is by far the most times I've gone to the theatre for one movie. I've been wondering when the DVD would be coming out. And I hope it does have additional footage as part of the film rather than extra stuff as a feature of the DVD. It would be great if Peter Jackson made a special version of the movie that included all the stuff he originally conceptualized to be in the film but had to omit to make New Line Cinema happy. A version with more character development, dialogue and more shots of Hobbiton and the whole bit in the Dark Forest and the Barrow Downs. I doubt it would have Tom Bombadil, though, for no doubt Peter Jackson did not enjoy that part of the book. His specialty is bringing to the screen dark things and would not know how or want to do Tom Bombadil bouncing around singing and merrymaking.

I haven't begun counting the days just yet. What's the release date? December something I know that much.

Where do you get your news of the DVD version? Or are you just using your backside as a source of informatoin?

[Enjay]

Well, I'm not even going to go into how often I have seen each one of the original "Star Wars" trilogy in a cinema, it would just be embarassing, but each one would need to be counted using 3 figures. A good many years back now, a friend and I did a tour of the UK. They were showing a triple bill of the "Star Wars" movies and we tried to see it in as many different cities as possible. Racked up quite a few showings IIRC.

Conversely, when talking about LotR today at work, a guy said "It sounds pretty good. I might go and see it. The last time I went to see a movie was 1976." !!!111

[danarchist]

Conversely, when talking about LotR today at work, a guy said "It sounds pretty good. I might go and see it. The last time I went to see a movie was 1976." !!!111

You work with Lut?

A version with more character development, dialogue and more shots of Hobbiton and the whole bit in the Dark Forest and the Barrow Downs. I doubt it would have Tom Bombadil, though, for no doubt Peter Jackson did not enjoy that part of the book.

I never much cared for "The House of Tom Bombadil" either. It would have been cool if he had made it with the whole Old Forest adventure, and the rescue from Old Man Willow. The next chapter could have just been shortened to the part where Tom does his thing with the ring (that part is cool). After that, they could just go on to the barrow downs, etc.

[Hellbent]

Wait, what does Tom do with the ring? As I recall (and I just read it) he puts the ring on but doesn't disappear.

Oh, and thanks for pointing out it was the Old Forest, I knew I had that wrong, but didn't want to rummage through my shabby copy of the book, lest I put on it more age than I need to.

[Zaldron]

No one would get the Bombadil part without Gandalf's explanation, and even then, it's doesn't make that much sense. I'll say it again, Tom was an in-joke.

[danarchist]

Wait, what does Tom do with the ring? As I recall (and I just read it) he puts the ring on but doesn't disappear.

Yeah, thats all he did, but it was kind of cool.
I guess you could add the short discussion they had in Rivendell about Tom to support that part, but then that might confuse the masses, them not knowing what a Maiar is.

[Zaldron]

I would rather see some past history (Silmarillion mostly) recreated on the screen. Even more than what's in the movie already.

[Hellbent]

I thought it was interesting that Peter Jackson said that he didn't want to make a stereotypical fantasy movie where wizards are pompous and pretentious. Gandalf is a bit arrogant. In the movie Frodo says "It's some form of Elvish, but I can't make out what it says" and Gandalf replies, "there are few who can" but in the book he replies with: "No," said Gandalf, "but I can..."

Did anyone find him a bit pompous in the book? I dunno, maybe I misconstrue his words. There was another scene where he was telling Bilbo he had not learned anything he didn't already know at the Council of Elrond: "'You were wrong,' said Gandalf. 'You were inattentive. I had already heard of it from Gwaihir. If you want to know, the only real eye-openers, as you put it, were you and Frodo; and I was the only one that was not surprised."

[Zaldron]

There's a phrase that says it all, damn I can't find my english copy of the book. I don't wanna post it cause I can't translate it correctly.

Something about wizards being short tempered or something like that. It's a pretty good resume of Gandalf and Saruman.

[danarchist]

I thought it was interesting that Peter Jackson said that he didn't want to make a stereotypical fantasy movie where wizards are pompous and pretentious.

If he didn't want to stereotyp fantasy, then why did he have Gimli say stuff like 'No one tosses a dwarf' and 'Not the beard!'. Those are very dwarfish things to say. I always thought of the dwarves in the Tolkien books as a bit less grumpy than normal D&D dwarves.

Did anyone find him a bit pompous in the book?

I always found him to be selfless yet wrathful if provoked, but not pompus. He may have been mysterious, but he was rarely rude. Hmmm...in fact, I think I just found a connection. Gandalf is basicaly Tolkien's version of Jesus. Or maybe I've been spending too much time in my Bible as Lit class. :p

[Hellbent]

No one would get the Bombadil part without Gandalf's explanation, and even then, it's doesn't make that much sense. I'll say it again, Tom was an in-joke.

How/why is Tom an in-joke?

It does make sense that he doesn't disappear. It makes brilliant sense. The ring bends the will of those who wear it to Sauron. They become under Sauron's will. Afterall, the One Ring answers to Sauron alone. Tom is his own master, as Gandalf points out at the Council of Elrond, and therefore he is not easily swayed by the will of others, not even to the power of the ring. It is also the reason that Sauron does not disappear when wearing it. (that, of course is a little easier to understand, since Sauron created the ring) If one disappears when they slip the ring on their finger, it means they are under it's power. Tom is immune to the power of the ring, as he is sorta in his own little bubble, the master of his domain in the Old Forest, impervious to the outside world, but conversely, powerless when outside his bubble. Well, you may say in response to that: are regular people, you and I, then not our own masters? While to myself I understand that regular people do not have mastery over themselves in the sense that Tom Bombadil does, I don't know how to explain it, other than what I've just said. Well, that's how I understand it. So, umm..., you're right Danarchist, it would only confuse the masses. ;) But what is this Maiar you speak of? I don't remember this relic, if I've guessed the right word for labeling it.

[læmænt]

There's a phrase that says it all, damn I can't find my english copy of the book. I don't wanna post it cause I can't translate it correctly.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup." :)

[Zaldron]

YES, that one. Except the blatanty gay part...