Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug Wanker · Mar 24, 2006, 12:41 AM

Globe and Mail: Lord of the Rings: Sets shine but this is no jewel

Toronto Star: Why we’re left bored of the Rings

Toronto Sun: Impressive - but with limitations

Associated Press: 'Rings' Lavish Yet Disappointing

Dark Helmet · Mar 24, 2006, 02:04 AM

My friend watched the preview, it was 4 friggin' hours.

They said it was good, but too long.

wdlove · Mar 24, 2006, 12:09 PM

I have the sound track from "The Lord of the Rings." The music is very enjoyable.

olePigeon · Mar 24, 2006, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by wdlove

I have the sound track from "The Lord of the Rings." The music is very enjoyable.

Too bad Steve Jackson f*cked up what could've been a pretty good film.

Dark Helmet · Mar 24, 2006, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Too bad Steve Jackson f*cked up what could've been a pretty good film.

You're the first person I have ever heard say that. The only complaint I have heard is that Wood sucked as Frodo.

turtle777 · Mar 24, 2006, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Lord of the Rings - The Musical: It sucks?

Why am I not shocked...

-t

Dork. · Mar 24, 2006, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Too bad Steve Jackson f*cked up what could've been a pretty good film.

you're right. I don't think Steve Jackson ever came out with a GURPS Middle Earth edition, although some people have apparently improvised one. What does this have to the movie exactly?

Oh, you meant Peter Jackson. Sorry, I've been in a snarky mood lately.

I though the film was pretty good. What did you dislike about it?

edit: I just worked Role Playing Games into my 666th post on this account. Is that a sign of something ominous?

olePigeon · 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

You're the first person I have ever heard say that. The only complaint I have heard is that Wood sucked as Frodo.

With 1/2 the movie surrounded around one of the worse actors on the planet, it's f*cking horrible. That kid has ZERO depth of emotion. NOTHING. Watching the fake tears every other scene as Peter Jackson cried out his (in)famous "Turn to the camera... and cry!" I wanted to kill myself.

They had this HUGE budget to work with, and they get some SFX company that did a half-assed job on the 3D.

I also just can't get past how they butchered Faramir's character in the movie. The entire point was that Faramir was better than Borimir! He DIDN'T fall to the ring's power!

They also completely butchered Gimli, he's not a bumbling idiot. I was hoping that maybe, just maybe, they were doing the whole Clown Act in hopes that during a big battle people would see Gimli kick some serious ass and everyone would go "Ooooo!" But no. He's a dumbass the entire movie.

I can get past the bad special effects, the butchered characters, even Agent Smith as Elrond. What I can't get past is Elijah f*cking Woods. Dear gods, what in the entire universe made them consider that asshat? Sean Astin should've gotten an lifetime subscirption to Supporting Actor Oscars because he carried Elijah Wood the entire god damn trilogy.

At least I got to see five minutes of Cate Blanchett. *sigh*

Dark Helmet · Mar 24, 2006, 01:47 PM

Funny I thought the effects on LOTR were some of the best I have ever seen.

I do agree with Elijah though. all he did was stare with glazed over eyes into the camera but that could have been more the fault of the director.

I don't have a problem with the script changes.

Anand · Mar 24, 2006, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

With 1/2 the movie surrounded around one of the worse actors on the planet, it's f*cking horrible. That kid has ZERO depth of emotion. NOTHING. Watching the fake tears every other scene as Peter Jackson cried out his (in)famous "Turn to the camera... and cry!" I wanted to kill myself.

They had this HUGE budget to work with, and they get some SFX company that did a half-assed job on the 3D.

I also just can't get past how they butchered Faramir's character in the movie. The entire point was that Faramir was better than Borimir! He DIDN'T fall to the ring's power!

They also completely butchered Gimli, he's not a bumbling idiot. I was hoping that maybe, just maybe, they were doing the whole Clown Act in hopes that during a big battle people would see Gimli kick some serious ass and everyone would go "Ooooo!" But no. He's a dumbass the entire movie.

I can get past the bad special effects, the butchered characters, even Agent Smith as Elrond. What I can't get past is Elijah f*cking Woods. Dear gods, what in the entire universe made them consider that asshat? Sean Astin should've gotten an lifetime subscirption to Supporting Actor Oscars because he carried Elijah Wood the entire god damn trilogy.

At least I got to see five minutes of Cate Blanchett. *sigh*

I agree 100% with you. The cast selection was terrible. Elrond? Are you joking. The only good casting was for Gandalf. The rest, terrible. What is worse, the spiritual aspect of the books was removed. The extended version are a little better but still, the forced and silly dialogue which just pulled 5 second sound bites from the book was just plain sad. Read the books. Forgot about the movie.

Personally, I prefer the crappy Ralph Bakshi LOTR version.

ink · Mar 24, 2006, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I also just can't get past how they butchered Faramir's character in the movie. The entire point was that Faramir was better than Borimir! He DIDN'T fall to the ring's power!

I have no idea why they completely re-wrote the Faramir/Borimir/Denethor story. It makes no sense, is boring, and adds a lot of dialog to a movie that is supposedly under time pressure. Couple that with the 4 endings.... and skipping the best one...

I did really enjoy the movies though.

Eug Wanker · Jun 30, 2006, 02:31 PM

It's gone... as of September of this year.

They're gonna shorten it and then move it to London (from Toronto).

Lord of the Rings CANCELLED

Landos Mustache · Jun 30, 2006, 02:38 PM

When it first premiered it was 4 hours but I heard it was shortened down quite a bit.

The reason it was it got mixed reviews and it costs a lot to run, so without 90% capacity shows it isn't making money.

It apparently did bring more tourists to Toronto though.

As much as I love LOTR I cannot sit through a 4 hour play.

aberdeenwriter · Jul 1, 2006, 12:33 PM

I just noticed something. The people who seem to love this movie, for the most part, also have a weird way of looking at politics, too.

Strange, huh?

kick52 · Jul 1, 2006, 05:29 PM

the musical?

the musical?

bloody hell, that must suck.

gururafiki · Jul 2, 2006, 07:58 AM

I hope they can dance. If not, than the musical will suck. It's all about dancing.

JoshuaZ · Jul 2, 2006, 11:24 AM

I'll stick with "Spamalot" and "Avanue Q" if its all the same.

Eug Wanker · Jul 3, 2006, 09:18 AM

Already got tix for Spamalot.

JoshuaZ · Jul 3, 2006, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Already got tix for Spamalot.

Lucky Wanker.....

ort888 · Jul 3, 2006, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

With 1/2 the movie surrounded around one of the worse actors on the planet, it's f*cking horrible. That kid has ZERO depth of emotion. NOTHING. Watching the fake tears every other scene as Peter Jackson cried out his (in)famous "Turn to the camera... and cry!" I wanted to kill myself.

They had this HUGE budget to work with, and they get some SFX company that did a half-assed job on the 3D.

I also just can't get past how they butchered Faramir's character in the movie. The entire point was that Faramir was better than Borimir! He DIDN'T fall to the ring's power!

They also completely butchered Gimli, he's not a bumbling idiot. I was hoping that maybe, just maybe, they were doing the whole Clown Act in hopes that during a big battle people would see Gimli kick some serious ass and everyone would go "Ooooo!" But no. He's a dumbass the entire movie.

I can get past the bad special effects, the butchered characters, even Agent Smith as Elrond. What I can't get past is Elijah f*cking Woods. Dear gods, what in the entire universe made them consider that asshat? Sean Astin should've gotten an lifetime subscirption to Supporting Actor Oscars because he carried Elijah Wood the entire god damn trilogy.

At least I got to see five minutes of Cate Blanchett. *sigh*

What' do you consider a movie with good special effects?

olePigeon · Jul 3, 2006, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by ort888

What' do you consider a movie with good special effects?

In terms of blending CG with live acting/props, it would have to be the first Jurassic Park. The acting was pretty bad, but the CG was/is incredible. Unlike LOTR, during the entire movie of Jurassic Park, I didn't believe for a second that the dionsaurs weren't "real." There wasn't anything about them that reminded me, "Damn it, they messed up the CG on that one..."

LOTR and especially King Kong went back and forth between "That was pretty cool..." to, " *facepalm* How in hell did that get past post?!" Some of the CG effects were so bad, were so obviously computer generated, I've seen better things come out of a high school computer class.

Sh*t, TRON did a better job at blending live acting with CG than Lord of the Rings. TRON wasn't fooling anyone, it was supposed to look like computers. With a budget like Lord of the Rings, it shouldn't be reminding me every 15 minutes that half the movie was done on a computer.

olePigeon · Jul 3, 2006, 12:04 PM

Oh, another awesome movie is the 1963 Jason and the Argonauts. It's one of my alltime favorites. That, and the original Star Wars pretty much set us up with all the techniques used for special effects that we see today.

ort888 · 12:54 PM

I can't debate with that. You just have odd opinions.

When was the last tie you saw Jurassic Park? I think you would be surprised to see that it has indeed aged.

I agree about all three though, Jason and the Argonauts, Jurassic Park and and Star Wars were all incredible. I just think that the LOTR films are incredible as well.

I'm not an SFX snob, I think they have a role to play in a movie and I appreciate good art direction to perfect realism. Very few movies achieve actual realism quality in their SFX. As long as they do their part to make the story better and spark my imagination, they have done their job. I don't go looking for matte lines or obvious CGI. doing that will only serve to take you out of the moment.

Landos Mustache · Jul 3, 2006, 12:50 PM

The play needed more cowbell.

olePigeon · Jul 3, 2006, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

As long as they do their part to make the story better and spark my imagination, they have done their job.

The movie botched the story and too many of the important characters. Where was Radagast? They cut his character completely, yet, as you discover later in the book, he was one of the most pivotal characters!

Originally Posted by ort888

I don't go looking for matte lines or obvious CGI. doing that will only serve to take you out of the moment.

I'm not talking about matte lines, I'm talking about just horrible special effects in parts. There were some just absolutely amazing visual effects in the movie, don't get me wrong. It's just that it was so black and white between the amazing effects and the omg that was just stupid effects.

The parts of the movie I did enjoy (all of which didn't include Elijah Wood) were the mercenary warriors on the oliphants plowing through the armies (until Master Jedi Legolas took over... ugh), and in the first movie, the battle between Sauron and the elf/men army.

Eug · Aug 18, 2006, 11:25 PM

^^^ I rarely judge a movie based on its adherence to the book. I judge it based on its own separate package. On that level the LotR movies succeeded, even if they weren't perfect.

OTOH, the theatrical play was lame. I went in with low expectations, and the show failed to meet them.

Looked VERY nice, and Galadriel had a gorgeous voice, but it just was boring.