Lord of the Rings Sequel
18 December 2007, 11:37 PM
#1
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Passing ...............
Posts: 13,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lord of the Rings Sequel
19 December 2007, 08:57 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dull White BMW
Posts: 5,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 December 2007, 08:59 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
19 December 2007, 09:07 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackson is only on board to produce rather than direct these. Although I think that might actually be a Godsend.
Personally I think Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy was a very poor adptation of a classic book. It removed all the clever bits from the book and tried to make up for it with special effects and lavish sets. Essentially all you are left with is lots of characters running around and fighting. Yawn. But hey that's just me as nearly everyone else seems to hold it up as a masterpiece of film making.
Personally I think Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy was a very poor adptation of a classic book. It removed all the clever bits from the book and tried to make up for it with special effects and lavish sets. Essentially all you are left with is lots of characters running around and fighting. Yawn. But hey that's just me as nearly everyone else seems to hold it up as a masterpiece of film making.
Last edited by f1_fan; 19 December 2007 at 09:37 AM. Reason: Hands and brain not in sync
19 December 2007, 09:14 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 December 2007, 09:46 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dull White BMW
Posts: 5,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me too.
I'm holding judgement on the "made up" middle film. Some of the bits that Jackson made up for the original trilogy were good (warg riders, most of the battle sequences).
Steve
I'm holding judgement on the "made up" middle film. Some of the bits that Jackson made up for the original trilogy were good (warg riders, most of the battle sequences).
Steve
19 December 2007, 09:50 AM
#12
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The budget for the Hobbit and whatever the other one's called is an impressive £350Million... not bad considering the first 3 were £400Million, and the effects engines would be easily adaptable to the new films, assuming that the original actors would return.... 
ORIGINAL ACTORS = Keeeerching!!
ORIGINAL ACTORS = Keeeerching!!
19 December 2007, 09:59 AM
#13
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackson is only on board to produce rather than direct these. Although I think that might actually be a Godsend.
Personally I think Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy was a very poor adptation of a classic book. It removed all the clever bits from the book and tried to make up for it with special effects and lavish sets. Essentially all you are left with is lots of characters running around and fighting. Yawn. But hey that's just me as nearly everyone else seems to hold it up as a masterpiece of film making.
Personally I think Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy was a very poor adptation of a classic book. It removed all the clever bits from the book and tried to make up for it with special effects and lavish sets. Essentially all you are left with is lots of characters running around and fighting. Yawn. But hey that's just me as nearly everyone else seems to hold it up as a masterpiece of film making.
The films brought the story to life as it should hav been.
Surprising really, as the Hobbitt is a much better written story and the story is better too.
Be interesting to see what the film is like.
Geezer
19 December 2007, 10:00 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The budget for the Hobbit and whatever the other one's called is an impressive £350Million... not bad considering the first 3 were £400Million, and the effects engines would be easily adaptable to the new films, assuming that the original actors would return....
ORIGINAL ACTORS = Keeeerching!!
ORIGINAL ACTORS = Keeeerching!!
Only three though - Gandalf, Bilbo and Gollum, I don't think there is any other returning character. I suppose you might get away with John Rhys-Davies playing Gloin.
19 December 2007, 10:02 AM
#15
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 December 2007, 10:13 AM
#18
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isnt the other called Simallion or something? Never got round to reading that one but think it followed AFTER LOTRs
Hobbit is the best book by a country mile though so definately looking forward to this
Hobbit is the best book by a country mile though so definately looking forward to this
19 December 2007, 10:24 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought The Silmarillion was actually before both Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, but this page seems to suggest it isn't. The Silmarillion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How ever I wouldn't recommend it as a good book, it is very very difficult to read, as it is more a facts book about histories and races.
I prefer all of the books to the films, that's not to say the films are not good. They are excellent films in their own right, but the books are far better. So much was missing from the films for me. But I enjoyed both forms for different reasons.
How ever I wouldn't recommend it as a good book, it is very very difficult to read, as it is more a facts book about histories and races.
I prefer all of the books to the films, that's not to say the films are not good. They are excellent films in their own right, but the books are far better. So much was missing from the films for me. But I enjoyed both forms for different reasons.
Last edited by Anderooo; 19 December 2007 at 10:28 AM.
19 December 2007, 10:28 AM
#20
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 December 2007, 12:59 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The budget for the Hobbit and whatever the other one's called is an impressive £350Million... not bad considering the first 3 were £400Million, and the effects engines would be easily adaptable to the new films, assuming that the original actors would return....
ORIGINAL ACTORS = Keeeerching!!
ORIGINAL ACTORS = Keeeerching!!
)
20 December 2007, 08:52 AM
#30
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The budget for the Hobbit and whatever the other one's called is an impressive £350Million... not bad considering the first 3 were £400Million, and the effects engines would be easily adaptable to the new films, assuming that the original actors would return....
ORIGINAL ACTORS = Keeeerching!!
ORIGINAL ACTORS = Keeeerching!!
I can't imagine those two are gonna push the wages bill up much!
Geezer