Geezer

tiggers,
How can you say it won't be? What utter tosh! Just because you don't like a film does not mean it isn't good! In your opinion it isn't, and that's fair enough, but in the opinion of millions of people (and many critics too) they are.

OK, they might not be, but to say categorically they won't is crass to say the least.

Geezer

tiggers

I am crass then, I can live with that!

Mark my words when the hype dies down and people look back in the cold light of day these films will be seen for what they are - very very average.

I'm not saying people shouldn't enjoy them - I just get a little hacked off with all the talk of them being cinematic masterpieces - they are not and time will prove me right!

Remember this post when you are staring at the list of All Time Top 100 films in 2030 and LOTR is thankfully missing!

tiggers.

Geezer

haha, well if Scoobynet is still going in 30 years, one of us can say "told you so!"

Geezer

tiggers

It's a deal if I'm still alive of course

tiggers.

MATTeL

Which you won't be because you get stressed about things like films!

I like the comment about not going to see the fim becuase you know it will be rubbish... it puts all the other arguements in persepective.

tiggers

Normally I would agree with you over the stupidity of that statement, but it is rather different in this case as the film in question is the third film of a trilogy made by the same team with the same actors continuing the same story.

I didn't enjoy the first film, gave the second a try in case I was wrong about the first, but didn't enjoy that either. Am I therefore likely to waste my time watching the third - no I'm not am I?, nor would any other normal person.

In perspective enough for you

tiggers.

mart360

I thought the films were superb,

however and i believe this is where the issue is..

as we are all individuals, and we each interpret? our own feelings and imagination into the books... it would be impossible to bring every subtle nuance or character referance into the films

both for reasons of time and cost...


there are many other films where the original book was subperb but lost loads in the translation to the film version, and vice versa.

what was mr jackson to do?? make a film so faithfull to the books that it viewed like a geeks guide to middle earth??

look at titanic, a ficticious character was created with an actual name the same as a member of the passenger list, and you had hordes of people placing flowers on his grave..


The film brought the book series to life, and probably has done much good to revive the current book market, which has stiff competition against the likes of computer games etc.

Having read the trilogy, and the hobbit, i can see why some parts were ommited,, and likewise think other parts should have been included..

but the biggest factor was what the end result to be?? how would you have felt if it turned out to be a flop?? given that the genre has now proved itself, i believe some of the more non mainstream titles (forgotten realms) may now make the translation to the big screen..

starwars has been revamped given the advances in technology,, it may be that the lotr series is given the added parts that were ommited.

i cannot complain it has keept me entertained for the last 3 years

Mart

Muffleman

I think making the LOTR films was a great idea, why ? The missus has read the books loads of times, but me ? Everytime I just look at the size of those bad boys I IMMEDIATELY think of 4 million other things I could do with my time !

So the films have saved me HOURS of my life, I always felt I was missing out on something by not reading the LOTR books - but could never quite be arsed

However, 3hours is a LONG time in the same seat, so I think the LOTR DVD's is the best way to go. Watch an hour - grab a beer take a pee - watch another half hour - pee, snack - watch a bit more.....

Yours sincerely


Mr. Averagecinemagoerthatcantbearsedtoreadlongbookswit houtpictures

SJ_Skyline

I have now seen all 3 films, I enjoyed them all. No, they didn't follow the books to the letter - No Tom Bombadil, No scourging of the shire but so what? They made a good film that makes the story more accessible to people that wouldn't read an 1100 page book - 300 million americans for starters!

So they didn't name Gwahir by name... so bloody what! Take a film at face value and not what you think it might be and you will probably enjoy it more and bitch about it less. To me these were 3 lengthy films based on the lord of the rings, if I wanted the definitive article then I would have read the books again.

anyway - my 2p worth.

Rich

dba

look,Father Ted Xmas special is just starting,lets all watch that and appreciate real class

P1Fanatic

I gotta agree with muffleman. My missus has the books also, after watching the Fellowship I tried reading the books but got bored after about a chapter. Being able to watch the films means I now know the story without having to read the books.

That said I dont think the films are amazing either. Special effects are good and they do have some good points but not a film I would think about going back to watch.

Return of the king was to similar to the last. A massive battle in a fortress on the side of the mountain, getting whooped and then saved at the last minute by an army of helpers.

As for the comment about Liv Tyler being a munter - please confirm your contact lenses are in????

Simon.

dba

she looks like a vulcan

STiwrc

Saw it last night.. loved it..... she was fit!


________________________case closed_______________________________