Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

What you think

  • It grate the CGI rocks

    Votes: 24 77.4%
  • To long to boaring

    Votes: 5 16.1%
  • GO see Ban Manners insted

    Votes: 2 6.5%

  • Total voters
    31
Ok. LotR is a massive project as a film and Peter Jackson deserves a huge amount of respect for tackling it.

Technically speaking the films are excellent. But sorry, I find them boring.

However TFofR is the least boring of the three.
 
I thought they were quite good, not as good as they're made out to be but enjoyable all the same. :)
 
Really? Personally I prefer the films to the book, but I love the scouring - it's all about how war affects everywhere. It's a bit odd how they come back to hobbiton in the film and everything's completely normal.

I just found myself wanting to finish and feeling like I was ploughing through 50 odd pages just waiting for the end. But obviously different perspectives are what makes the world interesting. :)
 
Oh dear :D :D

Yes, Left Turn Clyde is a textbook example of a modern, ADD kid obsessed with superficiality and fast cuts. :)
no, just someone who couldn't understand what was happening at the end of the return of the king.

wasn't complicated at all.
 
no, just someone who couldn't understand what was happening at the end of the return of the king.

wasn't complicated at all.

Just because he clearly feels that Tolkien's need to tie up every single character's storyline is somewhat overdone doesn't mean he didn't understand it.

Look, I disagree with El Jefe, LTC and the other LoTR naysayers in general but it doesn't mean they don't have valid reasons for not liking the books or films. I suspect that if I hadn't grown up with the mythology of Middle Earth ingrained into me from quite a young age I may well feel the same.

No need to try and imply they're stupid just because they don't like the way it's done.
 
tom bombadil can fuck off, quite frankly
great movies. this generation's starwars.

Horrible horrible boring bloated toss.


It fall between this. We can love it because it's so very true to the book (yeah, yeah, but if you wanted three films per book then you should have said, They done the best in a short timeframe).

Horrible bloated toss is an arguement that can be levelled at the books as much as the films, but it is a view that has essentially missed the charm of the story. It's a book/film that rests on a bedrock of mythology, written by a man who knew the roots of english mythology and created myth that drew in the early elements and served as a metaphor for the times he experienced.
The detractors are those whon would piss in Santas glass of sherry, those who lie awake for the tooth fairy with a rock in thier hand. People who hear about the easter bunny and start thinking about how much stew you could do with a man-sized rabbit.
 
no, just someone who couldn't understand what was happening at the end of the return of the king.

wasn't complicated at all.

Earlier on you were saying it was 'in depth', now you're saying it's not complicated - make your mind up.
I understood what was going on perfectly well.
 
It fall between this. We can love it because it's so very true to the book (yeah, yeah, but if you wanted three films per book then you should have said, They done the best in a short timeframe).

Horrible bloated toss is an arguement that can be levelled at the books as much as the films, but it is a view that has essentially missed the charm of the story. It's a book/film that rests on a bedrock of mythology, written by a man who knew the roots of english mythology and created myth that drew in the early elements and served as a metaphor for the times he experienced.
The detractors are those whon would piss in Santas glass of sherry, those who lie awake for the tooth fairy with a rock in thier hand. People who hear about the easter bunny and start thinking about how much stew you could do with a man-sized rabbit.
:cool::D
 
I don't think he intended it that way. He quite specifically said it wasn't iirc

Our Tolkien said a lot of things, some of them contradictory.

But his hatred of industrialisation and the way the wider conflict of his time influenced his writing, well these are fairly obvious. Sod the mans repudation of later interpretations. The authors text is not the author, the writing is not the man and that bartez cunt had it right when talking about the death of the author and how the text stands independent of the man.
Tolkiens vision of industrial hell ruled by twisted, once-pure creatures was aligned with an ideal of Britain that was fading before his eyes. He was a lover of old English and middle English mythology. He did not specifically align his industrial hell machine with any political ideology. The machine itself was hell enough in his eyes.
Despite this the events of the time moved him, we can still see Nazi Germany in his Mordor, just as we see it overtly expressed in Adams Efrafra, where Woundwort-Hitler reigns
 
tbh theres more than just elves\dwarfs etc in LOTR. there are hints and insights into various other real mythologies.

yeah its a bit up itself but the attention to detail and the "history" and background is what makes it attractive to me. I did grow up with it and have lost count of how many times I have read LOTR and the other books. Tolkeins claims that the events happeing in the world had no infulence on his writings to me sound silly. there are easy comparisons to be seen - if its co-incidnece then its a big one. .I am a huge fan of historical fiction and the world that tolkein created is deep enough to allow geeks like me to read more than just the surface story.

I enjoyed the films. it was hard supressing the geek in me that wanted to pick at all the bits that differed from the books but I watched them as, I think, they were meant to be watched and have watched them a few times. yeah I would ahve liked to see Bombadil and the scouring of the shire and all the other bits but unless they fitted those aircushion things in the cinemas it would never happen. peoples arses would have died and the national debt due to having to buy cinema food would have increased to south american levels.
 
Cate Blanchett's femdom power orgasm as Lady Galadriel was worth watching. Not a big fan of Tolkein, having mixed feelings about LOTR even as a kid, but Jackson's films are obviously a labour of love on his part. Imagine how mainstream Hollywood could have fucked things up.
 
tbh theres more than just elves\dwarfs etc in LOTR. there are hints and insights into various other real mythologies.

yeah its a bit up itself but the attention to detail and the "history" and background is what makes it attractive to me. I did grow up with it and have lost count of how many times I have read LOTR and the other books. Tolkeins claims that the events happeing in the world had no infulence on his writings to me sound silly. there are easy comparisons to be seen - if its co-incidnece then its a big one. .I am a huge fan of historical fiction and the world that tolkein created is deep enough to allow geeks like me to read more than just the surface story.

I enjoyed the films. it was hard supressing the geek in me that wanted to pick at all the bits that differed from the books but I watched them as, I think, they were meant to be watched and have watched them a few times. yeah I would ahve liked to see Bombadil and the scouring of the shire and all the other bits but unless they fitted those aircushion things in the cinemas it would never happen. peoples arses would have died and the national debt due to having to buy cinema food would have increased to south american levels.

extended dvd versions for the win
 
It comes down to something really simple. If you can unhinge your head long enough to be entertained by 'epic' storytelling then you like these films, if not they're overblown toss in the same way the The Iliad and most of Greek mythology and classical writing is overblown, characterless toss.

I think they're great -well shot, the CGI is great (I have enough of a life not to spend it freezeframing scenes to note that '3rd wargrider doesn't bounce correctly with warg' and all that kind of bollocks; there's some decent acting in it and some really awful stuff; the ending of the last film is hysterically funny, altho it's telling that what's now seen as being 'homoerotic' was, by the standards of the time JRR was writing, the way close male friends would talk to each other which in a way is a little bit sad and posisbly a measure of how most male bonding behaviours are now considered 'homoerotic', but I digress...
 
It comes down to something really simple. If you can unhinge your head long enough to be entertained by 'epic' storytelling then you like these films, if not they're overblown toss in the same way the The Iliad and most of Greek mythology and classical writing is overblown, characterless toss.

not a bad analogy.
 
It comes down to something really simple. If you can unhinge your head long enough to be entertained by 'epic' storytelling then you like these films, if not they're overblown toss in the same way the The Iliad and most of Greek mythology and classical writing is overblown, characterless toss.

I think they're great -well shot, the CGI is great (I have enough of a life not to spend it freezeframing scenes to note that '3rd wargrider doesn't bounce correctly with warg' and all that kind of bollocks; there's some decent acting in it and some really awful stuff; the ending of the last film is hysterically funny, altho it's telling that what's now seen as being 'homoerotic' was, by the standards of the time JRR was writing, the way close male friends would talk to each other which in a way is a little bit sad and posisbly a measure of how most male bonding behaviours are now considered 'homoerotic', but I digress...

yeah and nobody thought owt dodgy about morambe and wise sharing a bed. I grieve for those innocent times when everything was black and white and casual bigotry was acceptable;)
 
Back
Top Bottom