T
throdgrain
Guest
- Thread starter
- #61
You're just saying that for the sake of it mt. harry potter was hyped far far more than lotr .thats plain to see.
M
Mr B
Guest
- Thread starter
- #62
As a total and utter addict to the book, LOTR was extremely shite - it missed the entire point of the first book by about 2,000 miles (at least).
The liberties they took with Arwen, just to give Liv Tyler some screen time was shocking, and also they seemed to start off with a decent sense of scale (Gandalf in Bilbo's home looked huge), but by the end, the Hobbits were the same size as the rest of them - they even used midgets for doubles - you can tell because midgets always run with a stiff-limbed action - can spot it a mile off.
THAT'S how bored I was with the film, I was picking holes in it, instead of enjoying the journey.
At least the Harry Potter film managed to feel like the book.
It was always going to be hard for the film to live up to how I always imagined the story in my mind - and I'm afraid that no amount of CGI and midget-actor doubles could even hope to compete.
I'm as disappointed with LOTR as I was with Highlander II - and that's going some.
It was too long, too dull and thoroughly shockingly done throughout.
B
The liberties they took with Arwen, just to give Liv Tyler some screen time was shocking, and also they seemed to start off with a decent sense of scale (Gandalf in Bilbo's home looked huge), but by the end, the Hobbits were the same size as the rest of them - they even used midgets for doubles - you can tell because midgets always run with a stiff-limbed action - can spot it a mile off.
THAT'S how bored I was with the film, I was picking holes in it, instead of enjoying the journey.
At least the Harry Potter film managed to feel like the book.
It was always going to be hard for the film to live up to how I always imagined the story in my mind - and I'm afraid that no amount of CGI and midget-actor doubles could even hope to compete.
I'm as disappointed with LOTR as I was with Highlander II - and that's going some.
It was too long, too dull and thoroughly shockingly done throughout.
B
M
Moving Target
Guest
- Thread starter
- #63
I disagree, LotR recieved so much hype the movie got 10/10 (or equivalent) in most reviews.
X
xenon2000
Guest
- Thread starter
- #64
Surely it would get 10/10 (or equivalent) in most reviews by it actually being good, though? Harry Potter was at least equally commercialised/hyped, however; your post didn't really entirely object to throdgrain's statement.
I also don't see why people slam a film and call it shite just because it's different to the book it was based on. It's not exactly a straight conversion, and it's a film in its own right too.
Omissions from the book were, however, most likely just down to time; the movie was pretty long as it is.
S
Sar
Guest
- Thread starter
- #65
The film is a different medium of storytelling from the written word, and certain changes had to be made for the story to work as a film.
Thought that would've been blatant.
And Arwens character was barely changed. Read the appendices, the film is only putting in what Tolkien wrote after finishing the books.
And that's the singularly stupidest thing I think I've heard anyone say on here. And that's quite an achievement tbh
To suggest critics praise films based on their hype before seeing the film in question is daft. And insulting.
I gave the film full marks in my review after seeing it, and that was with minimal exposure to any "hype". So where does that leave your theory?
And I don't think all the staff at AICN, most film mags, tv critics, newspaper critics, net critics etc were all swayed by "hype".
The film is excellent, and most people who see it agree with that. Most people who aren't trying to be deliberately contentious that is.
Thought that would've been blatant.
And Arwens character was barely changed. Read the appendices, the film is only putting in what Tolkien wrote after finishing the books.
And that's the singularly stupidest thing I think I've heard anyone say on here. And that's quite an achievement tbh
To suggest critics praise films based on their hype before seeing the film in question is daft. And insulting.
I gave the film full marks in my review after seeing it, and that was with minimal exposure to any "hype". So where does that leave your theory?
And I don't think all the staff at AICN, most film mags, tv critics, newspaper critics, net critics etc were all swayed by "hype".
The film is excellent, and most people who see it agree with that. Most people who aren't trying to be deliberately contentious that is.
M
Moving Target
Guest
- Thread starter
- #66
Originally posted by Sar
And that's the singularly stupidest thing I think I've heard anyone say on here. And that's quite an achievement tbh
Weren't around when glyN33rs was here heh.
The critics see the movie first and give it high marks because they know everyone else will be giving high marks. I think they mostly were swayed by hype, well the reviews in the newspapers.
'The greatest action adventure of all time!' I think not.
To give it full marks it would have to be a masterpiece, flawless and totally redefine the whole genre. It didn't. It was no better than Gladiator imo.
You may have given it 10/10 because you enjoyed it lots but I don't because I didn't enjoy it, and I knew even before it was released it was going to get excellent, some of the best reviews ever. Now thats hype.
S
Sar
Guest
- Thread starter
- #67
I think if a critic has any self respect, respect for his/her readers/viewers/listeners, and wishes to maintain credibility, then they'll mark it honestly. Which a lot of them do.
And why would most of the people on IMDB.com, the general movie going public agree with the opinion that it's a great film months after seeing it? To go along with the herd? Since when did internet users ever do that?
What would they have to gain from it? Nothing.
People thought HP was going to be brilliant because the books are. But the film turned out to be mediocre/slightly above average at best, with some questionable acting on display.
And why would most of the people on IMDB.com, the general movie going public agree with the opinion that it's a great film months after seeing it? To go along with the herd? Since when did internet users ever do that?
What would they have to gain from it? Nothing.
People thought HP was going to be brilliant because the books are. But the film turned out to be mediocre/slightly above average at best, with some questionable acting on display.
M
MYstIC G
Guest
- Thread starter
- #68
Unfortunatly its far easier to do that these days than it is to try & play stupid & enjoy the film :/
O
old.D0LLySh33p
Guest
- Thread starter
- #69
One can go on about films and how good they are for all eternity but at the end of the day it's down to personal preference.
Unfortunately there are people out there who like Harry Potter et al.
To them these films are good.
To the rest of us... pffft. Drivel.
Unfortunately there are people out there who like Harry Potter et al.
To them these films are good.
To the rest of us... pffft. Drivel.
O
old.ignus
Guest
- Thread starter
- #70
Wasn't the original statement about LotR being the most hyped film last year? Ok movie quality aside which was the most overhyped film out of Harry Potter and LotR?
has to Be Harry potthead
has to Be Harry potthead
S
Summo
Guest
- Thread starter
- #71
I've never read the books but LotR is the best film I've ever seen, and I'm a big film-fan. Superb stuff. Truly awe-inspiring.
Mr.B's criticisms are the first bad words I've heard out of many peeps I know who love the books and saw the film. I'm surprised.
My €2.
Mr.B's criticisms are the first bad words I've heard out of many peeps I know who love the books and saw the film. I'm surprised.
My €2.
D
djpringle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #72
LOTR best film, hmm not really, even though I watched it in dodgyhandicamhookeydvdvision it was very good but not a patch on some of the classics, godfather part 2 blah blah blah.
Though part 2 of LOTR should be a corker if they stay truish to the books, not holding out much hope for part 3 though.
Though part 2 of LOTR should be a corker if they stay truish to the books, not holding out much hope for part 3 though.
S
Sar
Guest
- Thread starter
- #73
You watched the shite quality handicam rip, and you have the cheek to think you can criticise it?
Lol, oh dear.
Lol, oh dear.
D
djpringle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #74
I fully agree it was a shite version missed out on the quality cinematography etc but in the end it still isn't the 'best' film ever. Don't get me wrong its a bloody good film, even with the dubious changes from the books.
missed out on the quality cinematography etc but in the end it still isn't the 'best' film ever. Don't get me wrong its a bloody good film, even with the dubious changes from the books.
S
Sar
Guest
- Thread starter
- #75
I've seen the version you mean, and you can't make out the majority of the dialogue, the music and the colour is completely blown out.
Go see the film in the cinema, trust me, that version you "saw" doesn't do the film any favours.
Go see the film in the cinema, trust me, that version you "saw" doesn't do the film any favours.
D
djpringle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #76
By the time I get back to the UK it'll probably have stopped doing the rounds so I'll have to wait for the real DVD version, remember seeing its release date mentioned here but can't remember where.
so I'll have to wait for the real DVD version, remember seeing its release date mentioned here but can't remember where.
M
Mr B
Guest
- Thread starter
- #77
Not at all, I thought the film started off superbly...it just seemed to me that the director got fed up after the first 1/2 hour.
As I said before, I enjoyed HP immensely, thought it really captured the feeling in the book. LOTR didn't.
...and it's more or less impossible to treat a film in its own right especially when it's based on possibly the most famous middle-earth fantasy book ever written.
Oh and I forgot to mention the cringe-factor of all the hollywood style one-liners.
Some liked it, some didn't - it's bound to happen - rest assured I will go and see the other 2 films - hopefully they will have actually read and understood the other 2 sections of the book before writing the screenplay for them.
B
C
Cod
Guest
- Thread starter
- #78
Originally posted by Jernau
Top 250 films as voted for on IMDB
LOTR was top for about a month but Godfather's now taken it's number one spot back.
Shocking that SW:EP1 and Hairy Potty don't get a look in
J
250 Fucking Åmål (1998) 7.5/10 (7359 votes)
LOL
S
Sar
Guest
- Thread starter
- #79
Jackson is actually a huge Tolkien nerd
The DVDs:
August:
Single DVD version, theatrical version, no extras
November:
2 Disc version, theatrical version & shit load of extras
4 Disc version, as above 2 disc version, & additional extras PLUS 4 hour directors cut.
The DVDs:
August:
Single DVD version, theatrical version, no extras
November:
2 Disc version, theatrical version & shit load of extras
4 Disc version, as above 2 disc version, & additional extras PLUS 4 hour directors cut.
T
throdgrain
Guest
- Thread starter
- #80
I read the books at least a dozen times when i was a teenager, and have read them since then. I read the appendicies, The Silmarilion, the Book of Lost Tales, the Hobbit, all many many times.
Although they missed out Tom Bombadil and that section entirely,I still feel the film captured the spirit of the book very well indeed, and the battle sequences I thought were excellent. In fact Tom Bombadil always got on my wick a bit, if I'm truly honest, he had nothing to do with the rest of the book, and neither is he really mentioned in the other "histories of middle-earth".I appreciate it makes the other hobbits swords arrival a little out of place, but i can forgive that.
I went along expecting to be critical and bored, but was actually enthralled , and didnt notice the 3 hours at all.As people have said, most liked it , some didnt , thats the way of things.For my part I'd say it was certainly one of the best films I have ever seen.Far far better, say , than Star Wars, another film I went to see when it came out .
Although they missed out Tom Bombadil and that section entirely,I still feel the film captured the spirit of the book very well indeed, and the battle sequences I thought were excellent. In fact Tom Bombadil always got on my wick a bit, if I'm truly honest, he had nothing to do with the rest of the book, and neither is he really mentioned in the other "histories of middle-earth".I appreciate it makes the other hobbits swords arrival a little out of place, but i can forgive that.
I went along expecting to be critical and bored, but was actually enthralled , and didnt notice the 3 hours at all.As people have said, most liked it , some didnt , thats the way of things.For my part I'd say it was certainly one of the best films I have ever seen.Far far better, say , than Star Wars, another film I went to see when it came out .
M
MYstIC G
Guest
- Thread starter
- #81
I wasn't actually being specific to LotR m8
M
Mr B
Guest
- Thread starter
- #82
...and that makes a difference, how?
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #83
The IMDB List is a little misleading, if you look at some of the top scorers they have barely 1/4 of overall votes of the others, but even that is a surprize, any "minority" film is going to have a disproportionate number of votes and a widely inaccurate rating simply because those who don't like that genre simply wont see the film and thus wont vote on it.
For example #9 Star Wars gets 8.7/10 on 72,000+ votes, whereas #8 Seven Samurai also on 8.7/10 has 11,000 votes.
Another example is "Das Boot", #42 in the list and just ahead of Toy Story 2 and 2001, yet this was never on general release outside mainland europe, it probably was only ever watched by enthusiasts.
What about Clockwork Orange, a film restricted for twenty years yet it gets more votes than Apocolypse Now which has been re-released three times already !
As to the original list, gross income from movies (= "success") probably includes video sales, promotional items and associated licenced items (toys, etc). As time moves on companies become better at selling the "peripheral" film, in particular for those based on already popular stories (like Harry Potter), not too mention they charge more money for the goods as well
Re: Tom Bombadil - wasn't he in the Two Towers, i.e. the next film ? Its been years since I read the book ...
For example #9 Star Wars gets 8.7/10 on 72,000+ votes, whereas #8 Seven Samurai also on 8.7/10 has 11,000 votes.
Another example is "Das Boot", #42 in the list and just ahead of Toy Story 2 and 2001, yet this was never on general release outside mainland europe, it probably was only ever watched by enthusiasts.
What about Clockwork Orange, a film restricted for twenty years yet it gets more votes than Apocolypse Now which has been re-released three times already !
As to the original list, gross income from movies (= "success") probably includes video sales, promotional items and associated licenced items (toys, etc). As time moves on companies become better at selling the "peripheral" film, in particular for those based on already popular stories (like Harry Potter), not too mention they charge more money for the goods as well
Re: Tom Bombadil - wasn't he in the Two Towers, i.e. the next film ? Its been years since I read the book ...
S
Sar
Guest
- Thread starter
- #84
Bombadil doesn't show up again after the beginning of the first book.
Thank god.
And Minority films are called just that for a very good reason
Thank god.
And Minority films are called just that for a very good reason
M
MYstIC G
Guest
- Thread starter
- #85
In that I don't give a shit about LotR specifically?Originally posted by Mr B
...and that makes a difference, how?
S
Stazbumpa
Guest
- Thread starter
- #86
LotR is fucking fantastic. It beats Harry Potter firmly about the head with a large piece of 4x2. I saw Star Wars at the cinema when it came out, and I prefer LotR any day. Its a far superior film, because the story behind it was written by a far superior writer than George "I'll do what I like even though its shit" Lucas.
Tom Bombadill served no purpose in the first book, and they covered up the "appearance" of the swords by having aragorn give then to the Hobbits. Saves fart arsing about with Mr Poncey Pants and his fucking annoying songs. Sticking Arwen in it when they did, actually made more sense, because she's only ever in the background in the book, and I couldn't help wondering what the point in her being there was.
The death of Boromir was a truly moving piece of cinema and captured a scene that the book failed to. Sean Bean fucking rocks.
I cannot wait for the second film. The battle of Helmsdeep and the Ents kicking fuck out of Saruman will be a sight to behold.
Tom Bombadill served no purpose in the first book, and they covered up the "appearance" of the swords by having aragorn give then to the Hobbits. Saves fart arsing about with Mr Poncey Pants and his fucking annoying songs. Sticking Arwen in it when they did, actually made more sense, because she's only ever in the background in the book, and I couldn't help wondering what the point in her being there was.
The death of Boromir was a truly moving piece of cinema and captured a scene that the book failed to. Sean Bean fucking rocks.
I cannot wait for the second film. The battle of Helmsdeep and the Ents kicking fuck out of Saruman will be a sight to behold.
T
throdgrain
Guest
- Thread starter
- #87
Staz I'm scared m8.
I think we might be clones ...
I think we might be clones ...
O
old.Jas
Guest
- Thread starter
- #88
They explain the weighted ranking system at the bottom, its a bit complex though -
X
xenon2000
Guest
- Thread starter
- #89
It's the attack of the clones!!Originally posted by throdgrain
Staz I'm scared m8.
I think we might be clones ...
N
Nibbler
Guest
- Thread starter
- #90
And it's crap!!