← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · heritagelost
Thread ID: 11516 | Posts: 41 | Started: 2003-12-18
2003-12-18 06:42 | User Profile
Lord of the Rings Part 1 was pretty awesome
Lord of the Rings Part 2 was ok, but the battle scenes were cartoonish
Lord of the Rings Part 3 is boring, korny, cartoonish, and has a poor story line
Part is 201 minutes long and about 100 minutes of it should have been edited out.
When Frodo goes to destroy the ring they drag it out for a half hour repeating the same crap over and over. Then when you finnaly think the movie is over, they go on for another 15 of boring crap.
The battle scenes are too stupid to take seriously. In one instance, Aragon sword fights a 5 ton orge and is somehow strong enough to stop blows from someone that weighs 20 times what he does. I won't even get into the "ghost" army. You won't believe how stupid that was.
The main battle scene was one giant re-creation of the battle scene in part II. Orcs assault fortress. Orcs breach fortress. Another army shows up at the last minute and charges. I felt like I was watching part II only someone turned the fortress white instead of black.
2003-12-18 10:53 | User Profile
The plot of Lord of the Rings III was basically identical to the one of LOTR II. Three ours of film are too long for the story. In the first half of the movie, hardly anything happens.
2003-12-18 16:05 | User Profile
Why do people watch that shit? It's a collection of dips & dorks who go to those things.
It kinda reminds me of Star Wars: cool when I was 10, but at age 30, it's pretty stupid. The little alien-gnome looking thing that crawls around in LOTR.....man alive, what moron thought up THAT character?
-J
2003-12-18 19:44 | User Profile
The Golum was cool in part I. Then in part II they showed the Golum twice as much and it got lame. In part three they show the Golum twice as much as part II and it just gets irritating. Near the end it get's extremely irritating. In order to drag the movie out to a full 201 minutes to match the lenght of the first two, there is a 30-45 minutes period of Golum, Sam, and Frodo fighting with each other and it just repeats the same exact shit over and over. You'll have deva vu many times while you watch this.
I was never all that thrilled with the story line in part I, but the movie had enough good features to make it great.
All the humans, elves, hobbits, dwarfs are lily white even going so far as to have the brown eyed actors where blond wigs and blue contact lenses. The evil monsters all look like Negroes.
Then you had all kinds of drop-dead beautiful women in elegant flowing dresses.
Basically, part II and part III should have been only one movie. However the explicitly stated goal of New Line Cinema was to have THREE hit movies, not just one or two. After several years of nothing but bombs, New Line bet the bank on this trilogy giving Jackson (who looks like a stereotypical fat Nerd) 270 Million dollars up front to make the movies. LOTR may have very well saved New Line from going under and/or being sold off to rivals.
However, it is true that when I saw part III last night to a packed sold-out crowd there were a lot of fat Nerds and Dweebs. However, I saw just as many average looking people and even some hot young girls.
2003-12-18 20:08 | User Profile
The arithmetic is simple: 3 movies will make more money than the 2 would have.
As far as whether LOTR is shit or not, I liked the first two. Don't be so intolerant, jay :lol:
2003-12-18 21:02 | User Profile
I liked the first two movies. I haven't seen the 3rd one but from what I'm reading here, it seems I should spend my money elsewhere.
2003-12-18 21:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]I liked the first two movies. I haven't seen the 3rd one but from what I'm reading here, it seems I should spend my money elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
No, go see the movie, perun. I haven't seen it yet either, but I am anxiously looking forward to doing so. It's not everyday we are treated to such powerful portrayals of White Pagan and Christian-themed myth.
Then go read [u]Out of the Silent Planet[/u] by Clive Staples Lewis.
2003-12-19 03:42 | User Profile
I had an awfully hard time getting into Part 1. I mean, it's a very good movie but I don't generally gravitate towards this type of dense, intricate fantasy. I admire Tolkien as a writer and stylist but elves and gnomes and such tend to lose my interest quick. However around the fifth attempt I really began warming up to the thing. My 11-year-old niece, however, loves these movies (and she's not a fat nerd - sorry, Heritage).
There are very few filmmakers who have mastered the possibilities of CGI, and Jackson is obviously one of them (interestingly, Paul Verhoeven is the other who comes to mind, and [I]none [/I] of his movies are remotely suited for family audiences). Still, I refuse to salivate on cue over this 'event' and I'm perfectly content to see it in January or February, after the hysteria has passed. I mean, Jeez, it's only a movie.
I'm a little stunned that anyone would presume that making LOTR a trilogy would be a studio/moneyman decision, though: the Tolkien work is [I]itself [/I] a trilogy...and, as all three films were shot back-to-back before the first one had even hit box-office paydirt, the decision to commit to a very expensive trilogy was a risk - a longshot, even. (Prior attempts to film Tolkien have usually done lukewarm business...even as animated films with nonexistant special-fx costs.)
Hey, even if you hate LOTR, it's still a nice change-of-pace to see an all-white epic trilogy brought to the screen. Heck, I even enjoy the HARRY POTTER movies for the same reason.
2003-12-19 16:43 | User Profile
I used to read the Dragonlance books in Middle School. While the publisher has since let ten million other authers use the Dragonlance name and write wave after wave of crapy Dragonlance books, the original three book trilogy are the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best novels I've ever read. They are written by two women, and avaliable at all major book stores in a three volume set or as one big book.
If your buying presents for any young Children, I'd recommend these.
There is one other Dragonlance book, written by another author that kicks ass. I forget the name, it had a dude sitting on a red dragon on the cover. There are dozens more that suck, so stick with the ones that say
Dragons of Autumn Something Dragons of Winter Something Dragons of Spring Someting
The two women, Margret Weis and Tracy Hickman made a sequel trilogy that is boring and stupid. I have heard that they have a new trilogy involving children of the main characters from the first two. (Sounds stupid)
The best Novel I've ever read is a historical novel about Prince Dracula of Wallachia, and it is not only awesome but very educational about the region and time period. It is called Dragon Prince and is very rare and hard to find.
2003-12-19 17:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=heritagelost]The battle scenes are too stupid to take seriously. In one instance, Aragon sword fights a 5 ton orge and is somehow strong enough to stop blows from someone that weighs 20 times what he does.[/QUOTE]
Computer animators don't seem to know anything about physics, especially concepts of weight and momentum. So, we get cartoonish action, like a mere man stopping blows from a 5-ton ogre. Or, Spiderman jumping on people's heads and the people responding as if Spiderman weighs no more than a rooster. All movies are guilty of this and I don't understand the stupidity behind it.
I haven't seen part III yet. But, I liked the first two, if only for the visuals and that the creators didn't feel the need to balance "evil white people" with a bunch of non-whites.
Terminator 3 is another good movie from last summer. I liked it also because it wasn't a multiracial fest, an increasingly rare thing these days. There is a chase scene in it. Because it's not computer generated, everything has the mass and oomph that you would expect.
2003-12-19 22:06 | User Profile
You didn't like Legends? I remember enjoying it rather well. I agree that anything in the Dragonlance series besides those is a waste of time though.
2003-12-20 00:25 | User Profile
The film is a near masterpiece, a truly brilliant and inspired piece of work that will be viewed long after its detractors haved passed on, most having left nothing worth remembering.
Both I and II were excellent films; this one towers above both of those. Anyone who skips it will miss a real treat.
2003-12-20 00:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]the Tolkien work is [I]itself [/I] a trilogy...[/QUOTE]
Actually, IR, LOTR was not intended to be trilogy. At first, it was published in three parts for commercial reasons only -- and then the book took off and publishing it in three parts became traditional. Tolkein wanted the work published as one book.
2003-12-20 00:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]Why do people watch that shit? It's a collection of dips & dorks who go to those things.
It kinda reminds me of Star Wars: cool when I was 10, but at age 30, it's pretty stupid. The little alien-gnome looking thing that crawls around in LOTR.....man alive, what moron thought up THAT character?
-J[/QUOTE]
Let me guess -- you're a professional wrestling fan right?
Good grief, it is truly surprising to find such philistine ignorance on Original Dissent.
What moron thought up THAT character?
I'll tell you Jay; his name was JRR Tolkein. He was an Oxford scholar, appointed at age 25, a combat veteran, and a world famous author, one who has inspired millions with his creativity.
Yeah...I'm sure your accomplishments top that.
Or maybe you're just a damn fool.
2003-12-20 00:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Actually, IR, LOTR was not intended to be trilogy. At first, it was published in three parts for commercial reasons only -- and then the book took off and publishing it in three parts became traditional. Tolkein wanted the work published as one book.[/QUOTE]
Altho always referred to as a trilogy it is actually a quartet.
2003-12-20 02:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Actually, IR, LOTR was not intended to be trilogy. [/QUOTE]
I'd heard that...but still, by the time Hollywood came a-calling, LOTR was known universally as a trilogy (if you don't count THE HOBBIT and THE SILMARILLION, which I guess are prequels of a sort).
2003-12-20 02:52 | User Profile
My dad just saw it and said it was excellent. My husband and I will be seeing it on Christmas to avoid the crowds.
2003-12-20 02:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]You didn't like Legends? I remember enjoying it rather well. I agree that anything in the Dragonlance series besides those is a waste of time though.[/QUOTE]
Which series is Legends? Is that the sequel where Raistlin, his brother, and tasslehoff go back in time. It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't nearly as good as the first three books.
2003-12-20 02:57 | User Profile
It's common for proffesional authors to write massive books that are too big to be marketable. The publishers have to step in divide the books up. This happens a lot.
Jackson is working on a proposal to New Line Cinema to make the Hobbit. So that we probably be out in three to four years.
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Actually, IR, LOTR was not intended to be trilogy. At first, it was published in three parts for commercial reasons only -- and then the book took off and publishing it in three parts became traditional. Tolkein wanted the work published as one book.[/QUOTE]
2003-12-20 02:58 | User Profile
Yes, it's the one that came right after Chronicles. I liked both trilogies, but nothing else in the Dragonlance set.
Have you read Wheel of Time? I'm going through that one right now.
2003-12-20 03:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] My 11-year-old niece, however, loves these movies (and she's not a fat nerd - sorry, Heritage). [/QUOTE]
I'm not the one who said LOTR was just for fat Nerds. That was someone else.
2003-12-20 07:04 | User Profile
I haven't read any of them since probably the nineth grade.
2003-12-20 08:35 | User Profile
"...it is true that when I saw part III last night to a packed sold-out crowd there were a lot of fat Nerds and Dweebs."
C'mon - you wrote it, bro!
2003-12-20 14:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=heritagelost]I haven't read any of them since probably the nineth grade.[/QUOTE]
I read the Hobbit and the Trilogy in the junior high.
I was absolutely in love with it then, but I lost interest after that. I then started reading Lovecraft, and just fell in love with all of that. I adored Saki. My parents were worried about me - I was turning into a morbid little cuss.
It's all great stuff. I think that Tolkien's shorter works - like the Smith of Wooton Major - are even better. Lovecraft was a genius, of course.
But then in high school at some point I just lost interest in all of that, and all through high school I really regressed, reading Conan the Barbarian and crappy SF. The only good stuff that I read was Jules Verne and the Hornblower books. Must have had my mind on other things.
My last big fiction kick were the Russian novels that I read in college. I still love them. The works of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky greatly influenced my general outlook on life.
But in general I don't read fiction anymore. Maybe its that I read the law all day. I read a lot of periodicals. Business Week. Atlantic Monthly. First Things. Crisis. Etc.
I need to get out more, no doubt.
Walter
2003-12-20 15:34 | User Profile
That is taken out of context. Someone else said that all LOTR fans are fat nerds. I said there were some fat nerds and some normal people.
[QUOTE=il ragno]"...it is true that when I saw part III last night to a packed sold-out crowd there were a lot of fat Nerds and Dweebs."
C'mon - you wrote it, bro![/QUOTE]
2003-12-21 05:49 | User Profile
heritagelost,
Isn't the word "Sucked" a bit strong? It's not like they had hobbits having sex with orcs or worked some other PC Marxist nonsense into the film.
2003-12-21 09:36 | User Profile
Caught it on Thursday...not quite up to "The Two Towers", but I'll wager Jackson is due his director's Oscar.
The comeuppance of Wormtongue & Saruman would have made for a more effective final scene than Sam's family life. Maybe in the director's cut DVD.
2003-12-21 09:45 | User Profile
Heritage, I'm just teasing you. It ain't no big thing. Doubtless there are PLENTY of nerds on line at the local Googolplex.
Walter, I'm always pleased to find another Saki reader. I hope you will come back to fiction one of these days. As you well know, the great books are always there, waiting for you to discover (or rediscover) them; and the best ones tell the kind of truths that nonfiction cannot. I agree with you that 90% of SF is crappy but there are some real gems residing in that ghetto. And anyone who likes Tolkien, Saki AND Dostoyevsky would probably love Lord Dunsany as well. (Though he tends to be out of print more often than not.)
2003-12-21 15:39 | User Profile
I was very dissapointed. I liked part one so much, I bought it on DVD. When I was watching Part III at the theater, I was bored and anxious for it to be over.
[QUOTE=Faust]heritagelost,
Isn't the word "Sucked" a bit strong? It's not like they had hobbits having sex with orcs or worked some other PC Marxist nonsense into the film.[/QUOTE]
2003-12-21 15:42 | User Profile
I'll tell you what movie was a real Nerd fest. When I saw X-men at the theater, it looked like the cast of Revenge of the Nerds in there. I might have well been watching Monty Python.
[QUOTE=il ragno]Heritage, I'm just teasing you. It ain't no big thing. Doubtless there are PLENTY of nerds on line at the local Googolplex.
Walter, I'm always pleased to find another Saki reader. I hope you will come back to fiction one of these days. As you well know, the great books are always there, waiting for you to discover (or rediscover) them; and the best ones tell the kind of truths that nonfiction cannot. I agree with you that 90% of SF is crappy but there are some real gems residing in that ghetto. And anyone who likes Tolkien, Saki AND Dostoyevsky would probably love Lord Dunsany as well. (Though he tends to be out of print more often than not.)[/QUOTE]
2003-12-21 16:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Walter, I'm always pleased to find another Saki reader. I hope you will come back to fiction one of these days. As you well know, the great books are always there, waiting for you to discover (or rediscover) them; and the best ones tell the kind of truths that nonfiction cannot. I agree with you that 90% of SF is crappy but there are some real gems residing in that ghetto. And anyone who likes Tolkien, Saki AND Dostoyevsky would probably love Lord Dunsany as well. (Though he tends to be out of print more often than not.)[/QUOTE]
I don't know what happened to my interest in fiction. I think that somehow law school killed it - it was as if my aesthetic sense was surgically removed in One-L. Oddly enough, my brother - who is also a barrister like me - went the other way. He eschews all but the English classics. The man can quote Shakespeare all day long.
Maybe when I retire. Hopefully, that will be in a few years only.
Walter
2004-01-25 09:23 | User Profile
I liked it a lot, and I'm not a Tolkien fan, though I do like fantasy films. I only wish I saw the first two in the theater. (had to settle for the dvds)
I liked the scene where the (all-White) Rohan army comes to the aid of (all-White) Gondor, which is under siege by Sauron's forces. The Rohan army gallops at full speed at the Nig...uh...I mean Orc army. The Orc leader thinks they're going to break off, but they just keep on coming, much to his shock. Then the Rohirrim run right over them. :lol:
[FONT=Times New Roman]I'm still amazed they didn't find a way to fit a Negro into these films. I can just imagine the Jew producer pitching the idea to Peter Jackson: "I mean, what's the big deal? It's all fantasy, right? Who's to say there weren't any Black hobbits? I'm thinking Lil Romeo as Pippin. Look, we'll make more money if we include a shvartze or two. The movie will appeal to a wider audience! Isn't that what we want? Maybe BET will do a LOTR special! Besides, what are you, a racist or something?"[/FONT]
2004-01-25 15:45 | User Profile
Interesting that in Part 3 Sauron was edited out completely. I guess his spittin image was just too chewy. :lol:
2004-01-25 23:16 | User Profile
"I liked the first two movies. I haven't seen the 3rd one but from what I'm reading here, it seems I should spend my money elsewhere."
If you liked the first two, there's about a 95% chance you'll like the third installment, irrespective of what's been said on this board. I think the second one was the best, and that the first was a little slow, and that the third is extremely good.
2004-01-25 23:27 | User Profile
First, someone said this:
"Why do people watch that shit? It's a collection of dips & dorks who go to those things.
It kinda reminds me of Star Wars: cool when I was 10, but at age 30, it's pretty stupid. The little alien-gnome looking thing that crawls around in LOTR.....man alive, what moron thought up THAT character?"
To which some else responded thusly:
"Let me guess -- you're a professional wrestling fan right?
Good grief, it is truly surprising to find such philistine ignorance on Original Dissent.
What moron thought up THAT character?
I'll tell you Jay; his name was JRR Tolkein. He was an Oxford scholar, appointed at age 25, a combat veteran, and a world famous author, one who has inspired millions with his creativity.
Yeah...I'm sure your accomplishments top that.
Or maybe you're just a damn fool.>>"
Ordinarily, I don't quote an entire message just so I can add a "what he said" at the bottom, but this time I will make an exception.
BRAVO!!!
2004-01-25 23:30 | User Profile
"Altho always referred to as a trilogy it is actually a quartet."
I assume you are referring to "The Hobbit?" Rumour has it that Peter Jackson intends to film this as a LOTR prequel beginning some time this year.
2004-01-25 23:35 | User Profile
"Lovecraft was a genius, of course."
Along with Jack London, one of the two greatest American fiction writers of the 20th century.
"The only good stuff that I read was Jules Verne and the Hornblower books."
Jules Verne really is good, isn't he? I think most people just ignore him as "really old stuff," but 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and The Mysterious Island are major classics.
2004-01-25 23:45 | User Profile
"I'm still amazed they didn't find a way to fit a Negro into these films. I can just imagine the Jew producer pitching the idea to Peter Jackson: "I mean, what's the big deal? It's all fantasy, right? Who's to say there weren't any Black hobbits? I'm thinking Lil Romeo as Pippin. Look, we'll make more money if we include a shvartze or two. The movie will appeal to a wider audience! Isn't that what we want? Maybe BET will do a LOTR special! Besides, what are you, a racist or something?"
Peter Jackson outsmarted the Jews by shooting all three films at once and then releasing them at annual intervals. Otherwise, you can damn well bet the Jews would have Lando Calrissianed parts 2 & 3. The final scene of the first Star Wars movie was based on Triumph of the Will, after all - and it shows. The damn thing nearly brings tears to my eyes, and its just the ending of a neat but fairly silly movie.
2004-01-26 07:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]
Good grief, it is truly surprising to find such philistine ignorance on Original Dissent.
[/QUOTE]
The Philistines were technologically more advanced than the Hebrews and their other neighbors.
2004-02-08 06:21 | User Profile
I just got back from the IMAX showing of ROTK. God, what a film! It doesn't suck; it's you, my friend. Dragonquest?!? You gotta be f*ckin' kiddin' me!
2004-02-08 07:50 | User Profile
Kurt, [QUOTE]God, what a film![/QUOTE] You are most Right! I just saw it a few day ago. It is Great!