A Conversation for Ask h2g2
Lord of the Rings film - triumph or disaster?
Uncle Heavy [sic] Posted Dec 28, 2003
i thought the third film was a bunch of arse, quite frankly. the plot was warped, it was incredibly cheesy and sentimental and the fight scenes were, dare i say it, dull. ah well.
Lord of the Rings film - triumph or disaster?
Teasswill Posted Dec 28, 2003
Each to their own. Overall I enjoyed it. Apart from the omissions, I thought it reasonably faithful to the book. I've sat through shorter films which seemed much longer, but there were a few occasions when I would have preferred the action to speed up.
I'm looking forward to the whole set extended version on DVD being available!
Lord of the Rings film - triumph or disaster?
There is only one thing worse than being Gosho, and that is not being Gosho Posted Dec 28, 2003
Jeez... I wonder what the asking price for that's gonna be
Probably not as much we've already laid out after having seen each of the films, then bought the DVD set of each of the films, and then bought the extended DVD set of each of each of the film, not to mention the collectors set including bookends.
Lord of the Rings film - triumph or disaster?
puppylove Posted Dec 28, 2003
Loved the books twenty years ago, and love the movies, just the best! Ok in the order 2>3>1, the only plot I was missing is how Eowyn and Faramir come together... other wise than that, just wonderfully put.
Return of the King
Gingerlover Posted Dec 29, 2003
Hi y'all.
Having just seen ROTK for the second time I can conclusively say it is a masterpiece.
As a lifelong Tolkein fan this is difficult for me to say, as it is very rarely that, for me, any film or films can ever do justice to a book that I love.
Therefore I completely admire Peter Jackson's vision.
But, the main problem I have with this last film is the last half hour... oh, the dragging out.. the CHEESE.
surely it could have been kept a little shorter and more subtle? the gray havens, yes, but more concise? opinions please??
Return of the King
Queex Quimwrangler (Not Egon) Posted Jan 7, 2004
I guess there has to be a lot of ending- three times as much as usual if you consider the project was envisaged as one film in three parts.
I think also there are so many strands that need to come to an end- the hobbits, aragorn's marriage and coronation, the aftermath of the ring's destruction, the departure of the elves and ringbearers. The temptation to leave out some of the endings, or to compress one of them into a couple of lines (So, I hear Frodo and good old Bilbo have sailed off with a bunch of elves! Capital!) must have been large, but I think it was right to resist it. For everyone I've spoken to who has seen it there's a different bit of the ending that really touched them.
I guess if the film wasn't an adapatation of such a thoroughly realised book then you could leave it with Sam and Frodo walking off with difficulty, or even dying on the mountainside. But it would fly in the face of the sense of history that makes LOTR what it is if that happened.
Key: Complain about this post
Lord of the Rings film - triumph or disaster?
More Conversations for Ask h2g2
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."