Hey, saw this last night/this morning in a marathon, i thought it was pretty good, but they sort of threw all the new characters in too fast without explanation. Has ne one else seen it what are your thoughts?

i thought it was great, yes there were a whole lot of new characters, what do you mean without explanation though??

also let me make this very clear

DON'T POST SPOILERS. You can quite easily critique a movie without discussing the actual events of the plot.

There are no spoilers. Everyone should know what's going on.

i've read the books about 6 years ago so it's all new to me (i've seen the movie too) but i think there are plenty of people who don't know what the story is

I guess so. I couldn't get through the second book so it will be cool to see the ending for it.

i thought it was excellent. there's only one or two things that bothered me, but that's me being picky.

a) with the assault ladders of the army, in a 'real' castle, they would have used poles to push them back
b) when they brought up the battering ram for the gate, they would have used hot oil or pitch/tar and poured it on the attackers

like i said, that was just me being picky. and i hardly doubt u could consider those spoilers

If people dont want spoilers they cant simply not click this thread title.

my last post was made by general specific...

b) when they brought up the battering ram for the gate, they would have used hot oil or pitch/tar and poured it on the attackers

maybe they were fresh out...

a) with the assault ladders of the army, in a 'real' castle, they would have used poles to push them back
b) when they brought up the battering ram for the gate, they would have used hot oil or pitch/tar and poured it on the attackers

- or -
c) there would be no hobbit or elves or other fantasy characters cause its not real.

yer, cause they like had boiling pitch there... incase you forgot, that place was just a keep they ran too if they were going to be overcome by the enemy. A desperate last stand place. They don't have the "pitch a boilin'" 24/7 just incase.
They only use poles to knock back ladders, when there are poles there. It's sorta a prerequiste...
Your not being picky, your being idiotic.
"Why didnt they use tanks to blow up the castle walls?"

I consider that picky, not idiotic at all.

I liked it. Though I feel they took maybe a bit to much creative license with the story maybe? Haven't made up my mind yet. I just finished the books, and all through the movie I was like 'Wait, shouldn't that guy be there?', and 'Where is that guy?', and 'Why is he doing that, and not that other guy?'.

It just felt that by the end I was thinking 'man, they are going to have trouble putting all that is left into ROK.

Get over the whole "OMG the book isn't an exact translation of the movie" thing, it does justice to the book, and its an awesome movie, thats all that should matter.

draxy, i wasn't being idiotic, the things i mentioned were actual defensive tactics. and yes, i said i was being picky, and i also said the movie was excellent. no need to be like that. i was simply saying what occured to me while i was watching it, not going off my nut cuz it wasn't real.

think first, then post.

I dunno if I liked it as much as the first one.

The first one was a journey film, they were all together and constantly going to new places an s***, and there seemed to be a lot more action.

In the second its kinda focussed on 3 different groups, two of which werent doing anything particularly exciting, and the fight at Helms Deep, epic as it was, didnt have the in-depth action you get with 7 dudes vs one giant monster or 50 orcs.

Still a damn good flick tho, sifnt Ents f***in s*** up with water.

Nah, I am go into the movie assuming that it will be different from the book. I mean to actually capture everything Tolkien wrote, you would have to split it up into ten movies. So ofcourse it will be different, but that doesn't mean you can't be annoyed if they are. Not that I am, just that I felt a little stranded while watching it occasionally.

There were a few scenes I was hoping would be present and weren't. *crosses fingers for the extended edition*

Still people who haven't read the book will possibly have a hard time understanding some aspects. Like why that happened?, or why they are making a big deal out of this? etc. I didn't enjoy the fellowship that much when I first saw it, but I then read the books and watched it and it was so cool.

One thing though. Gollum f***ing rocked.

yeh smegal was f***ing cool

I was chatting "Action!, Action!"

Everyone's a critic ffs.

If you want it to be exactly like the books .... READ THE BOOK ! It's a movie ffs. So many ppl going on about the character differences n s***... If it was exactly the same, there would be little point in watching the damn thing other than viewing what you have already read. The movie is a cinematic depiction based on the directors view. Smile and be thankful it f***ing exists, then kindly remove the pole from your ass and move on.

There are books out for this stuff?


:)

So i've heard, but apparently NOTHING like the movie - what an outrage !!!

see how this one is called the twin towers the next one is called ground zero

GIANT SPIDER!??!??

books ey, theys for fancy folk.

I have to disagree with a few of you fellas...CBF quoting ;)....i mean the books are soooo successful...and most people go to see the movie becuase they know the basic plot or they have heard/know the books are fantastic.

Then why THE f*** should the change the story line....really s***s me to tears...you read a book and go see the moive and its totally different!!

I refuse to read the Harry Potter books becuase i know they cut alot out of the 1st moive...and the books only get longer and longer from then on (which means more and more to cut out) :(

the only thing that I didn't like was *spoiler* how the elves just showed up from nowhere, nobody had sent for help, people were all supposed to know who the legolas lookalike dude was etc etc. other than that is was a great movie.

other small things i didn't like.

1) same s*** as other guy said, its a castle they built to defend themselves with, they know that attackers are going to try and belt down the door and send ladders up, so I think its fair comment they shoould have had soem kind of poles to block ladders and something to drop on dudes at door.
2) the slowness of the tree scenes
3) that the next one doesn't come out tommorow along with episode 3 so I can go watch them both ;)

PS: GREAT MOVIE!

Then why THE f*** should the change the story line....really s***s me to tears...you read a book and go see the moive and its totally different!!

I think saying its totally different is a pretty ridiculous call. Try converting a novel to a screenplay one day, then you'll see how certain elements of the story dont work in a visual medium such as film the same way they do when read off a written page and you'll see why its necessary to cut some non-essential scenes out so the movie does go for 6 hours.

I think Peter Jackson has more than done justice to the book, and I dare anyone to do better, because really, I dont think they could. Of course its not a word for word rendition of the book, and thats not really what I (and I'd think most people) went in there expecting, or even wanting. I wanted to see this epic tale and the world of middle earth brought to life on the big screen, and he more than delivered on that score. So some minor details aren't the same, so what, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't even matter and the tale as a whole is still complete. Its just the people who want to be overly anal that pick it apart scene for scene comparing it to the book, like others have said already in this thread so far, if you love the book so much go read it and dont watch the movies!

I refuse to read the Harry Potter books becuase i know they cut alot out of the 1st moive...and the books only get longer and longer from then on (which means more and more to cut out) :(

thats a pretty stupid reason not to read the books. surely you'd like to know what is getting cut out.

on back on topic, i reckon LOTR would work better as a tv mini-series rather than 3 movies. (ala band of brothers) of course the budget would suck, and you'd lose the cinema appeal, but the format ( say 24 one hour episodes would give it a lot more depth ).

I frankly think that LOTR should have been further broken up
(anyone thats read them would know each is like broken into two sections)
maybe 2 to each, both 2 hours long
though that would be like a 6 year long project at least

Damn it Khel beat me to it, but meh.

but they sort of threw all the new characters in too fast without explanation

...

Though I feel they took maybe a bit to much creative license with the story maybe?

...

Then why THE f*** should the change the story line....really s***s me to tears...you read a book and go see the moive and its totally different!!

The movie went for 3 hours, if they added all the stuffs you want it would go for much longer and cost more money to make. From what I saw that movie was very detailed and any extra scenes would cost a bundle to make. It is very cheap to pay for a few words on a page, it is much more costly to create whole scenes and charactrs for movie screen.. think about it.

2) the slowness of the tree scenes

Hmm, maybe they were trying to get a point across ;)


Also someone said not enough action in the movie, well movies would get pretty boring if they were always action orintated.

I havn't read the books, and the movie made compleate sense to me. Somehow, the movie dirctor has to give me the feel of the world, the characters, the monsters, the scenery, the politics, the history, the book... all within movie length time, to do this he has to do things such as rearrange the plot a little, or add little scenes, such as when the dwarf is talking about his female kin, describing how they are often mistaken for male a dwarf, so that I can understand some of the history of the world.

I'm sure the dirctor knows the books better then most of you (almost all I'd say), and he/she/they knows what is really important in the overall story and what isnt, I'm sure they have spoken to hundreds of people about what should be and what shouldnt.

In the end, the movie was great, the story was awsome, the characters felt real. Job Done.


Also if you wanna be picky about the movie, move away from the obvious stuff like lack of castle wall defence, and move towards things such as Where did the refugees get apples from? (you see them pack apples into their baskets before they leave for the keep. Or when Angloes (or whatever his name is) takes a decent puff from his pipe it didnt glow at all, not a bit. I'm sure there are a few little tiny things like this all through the movie ;P

I refuse to read the Harry Potter books becuase i know they cut alot out of the 1st moive...and the books only get longer and longer from then on (which means more and more to cut out)

The movies are actually getting longer too ( I should never have seen the 1st one, gotta see the lot now :( )

I think it comes down to two thoughts:

1) AHH!! Why did they do it like that!?

2) Well, Peter Jackson and co probably know there LOTR s*** better then me, so I have to assume that whatever changes they made were for the best.

I guess I feel both. One one hand I think in sort of a 'if it's not broken, why fix it?' fashion in regards to the plot. Then I think about thought #2.
We'll never know if the movie would have been better if they did or didn't do some things, and don't forget about the extended edition coming out. There are scenes like Merry and Pippin drinking from the Ent Draught that will probably be added for example. yay.

****IF YOU HAVN'T WATCHED IT YET MAYBE YOU SHOULDN"T READ THIS (ALTHOUGH I"VE TRIED TO KEEP IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT THE MOVIES OUT)****


Well I've read the books and I was very dissapointed at a few of the things that have been changed.

a) Faramir is supposed to have the same qualities as Aragon, although he isn't a Dunadan he has great strength and is very noble. He helps Frodo from the start because he has the strength and the will to refuse the rings pull.

b) Eomer and his forces help DEFEND helms deep, but a large portion of the Rohirrim forces were fighting the wildmen in the west, those are the men that Gandalf rounds up to come and help the battle weary men at helms deep. Also the elves do not leave the shores to sale to the undying land for almost 2 years after the battle with sauren is over. Nor do they come to the aid of the Rohirrim. This battle was no where near as lobsided as the books tell it.

c) The tree ents are truely good creatures who agree to go to war at the entmoot not after being tricked by the hobbits. Also the sheapards use the forrest(huorns - basically ents who have almost turned into trees) to kill a large number of sarumans orc forces, after the battle they see the forest on the ouskirts of the dyke and don't know why its there until gandalf explains. (I imagined like the forest moving kinda like a ghost would float and just demolishing anything evil in its wake). (page 187-189 of the two towers.

d) Still no mention anduril, aragons sword, the sword that cut off the finger of sauren, reforged for Aragon to use.

e) book two doesn't finish where the movie did, The fellowship = theoden and his best knights ride to Eisengard to talk with Saruman, they pass through the forrest that helped destroy the orcs (taking revenge for the trees they fell for saruman).

Everyone's a critic ffs.

Thats the entire point of the f***ing thread!
As for the movie, I thought it wasnt bad, but a tad too long for my liking. Also, I despise the guy who plays Merry with every bone in my body, I hate that f***er.

makes me wonder if the creators of the warcraft series (3 in particular) read the lotr series and thought it was make a cool game..
orcs, trees, elves, humans

haha the trees were amusing :D

I just got back from watching it in Gold Class :)

I thought it was better than the first in a "sequel" kind of way.

the CG were amazing!

d) Still no mention anduril, aragons sword, the sword that cut off the finger of sauren, reforged for Aragon to use.

actually, they mentioned it in the first movie, but u only see it if you buy the uncut extended DVD's (like i have :)

Nah, its in the non uncut one too. Nothing about it being reforged yet though.

goa'uld: stealing jokes since 1985

If anything, Dobby was ripped from LOTR.

Also, the Ents didn't just casually stroll into Saruman's fortress and flood it by breaking a dam wall. They spent hours making a river-like thingy so they could flood everywhere. And also Gandalf was meant to go in there after the Ents has f***ed the place over and take away Saruman's power. I wonder why they didn't show that piece?

Anyway, the movie was pretty good. No where as boring as the first one.

Dear Teen,
I found your blatant trolling amsuing. Please forward me your address, so I may subscribe to your newsletter.
Sincerly,
Moridin

Moridin - Sif we could be classed as critics. What background do we have ? Do you have an honors degree in Literature ? I don't ...

Do we really know the full story as to why they did this, why they did that .... Unless you have all the facts, all the budget information, how the actors themselves felt about the script etc ... you cannot make a complete judgement about how the movie "should have" been better. They had their OWN goals. My point is, movie exists for people to enjoy it as a movie based on someone elses book. It's impossible to please everyone so, enjoy it if you will, or quite simply f*** off.

you cannot make a complete judgement about how the movie "should have" been better

Jesus f***ing christ, I seriously hope you arent telling me that because I dont have a degree I cant express my opinion of the movie. f***ing hell thats bulls***! You liked the movie? Fine. Other people didnt. I enjoyed it, for the most part, but I dont have a f***ing cry because others choose to compare it to the book. Its their right to do that, so either present a valid counter argument or f*** off yourself!

Jesus f***ing christ, I seriously hope you arent telling me that because I dont have a degree I cant express my opinion of the movie. f***ing hell thats bulls***!

I'm not saying that at all. My point was, they obviously did the best they could with the timeframe/actor's and resources. It just annoys me when pissants think they can do a better job, when under the circumstances, they might have done it exactly the same. I don't mind opinions, i'm all for them but, when people think they're gods gift to the movie world, it s***s me.

Firstly, it was a keep not a castle.
Secondly, it was a friggin keep carved in a mountain in a valley filled with no vegetation and alot of rocks, surrounded by barren lands. Where the f*** do they get/make these mystical poles?
Thirdly, Boiling Pitch/tar is a great counter measure, as is a drawbridge and moat. Ofcourse, since they were FLEEING FOR THEIR LIVES!!!!!!! they didn't seem to have enough time to grab that pitch and a giant pot.
Surrounded by rocks in a valley, with tired hungry farmers and a few elven archers... Now think of what they had and what the situation was.

Try to make something out of that and you come close to what they achieved.

The movie is based on the books. The thing isnt the Books Made Flesh!

draxy, if this is a keep that they flee too in times of need, and they have an armoury, which means there's been some thought to defenses, it kinda just f***s over your whole argument.

i'm not going "omg, that's so fake!" i'm simply commenting that it occured to me, end of story! i liked the movie, i thought it was excellent. jeebus...

I'm not saying that at all. My point was, they obviously did the best they could with the timeframe/actor's and resources. It just annoys me when pissants think they can do a better job, when under the circumstances, they might have done it exactly the same. I don't mind opinions, i'm all for them but, when people think they're gods gift to the movie world, it s***s me.

Firstly,

"Do we really know the full story as to why they did this...etc."

and

"My point was, they obviously did the best they could with the timeframe/actor's and resources."

implies you do have the full story after all. That's awesome! Oh wait maybe not, I guess it was pretty obvious they did their best. I mean, they have a disclaimer and all, saying they really did the best they were able to do.


That in mind, you mean the film came out exactly as the LOTR crew intended? You mean, trying your best and creating something as intended, is enough so that no one else (unless qualified) can express their negative opinions on that something, no matter how flawed it is?

Also the argument of, "but could you do better?" is silly anyway. If this were the case then hardly anyone would be 'qualified' enough to make a judgement/opinion on a wide variety of issues. Most people are rational beings with a fair amount of knowledge and common sense, let alone emotion and a sense of what is/feels right and wrong. Who are you judge them as inadequate to be able to formulate a valid opinion/criticism?

Are you one who tends to scream at your monitor or television set whenever a reviewer reviews the latest game, or when a movie critic expresses their opinion on the latest movie against your point of view (or even just any old negative opinion)? I can't say many critics would be 'qualified' according to 'your' criteria... (whatever that may be).

I don't mind opinions, i'm all for them

except when the individual is a pissant

but, when people think they're gods gift to the movie world, it s***s me.

Yes God's gift to the movie related QGL forums.

Just because one couldn't do better, doesn't mean one can't/isn't qualified to criticise and possibly tread it into the ground.

(All revoked and apologies if you are God or if you are truly the master of cinema and/or infallible judge of person)

implies you do have the full story after all. That's awesome! Oh wait maybe not, I guess it was pretty obvious they did their best. I mean, they have a disclaimer and all saying they really did the best they could do.

The first was a question, the second was an inference.

That in mind, you mean the film came out exactly as the LOTR crew intended? You mean, trying your best and creating something as intended, is enough so that no one else (unless qualified) can express their negative opinions on that something, no matter how flawed it is?

I cannot speculate if the movie came out exactly as they had planned, I wasn't there.

Also the argument of, "but could you do better?" is silly anyway. If this were the case then hardly anyone would be 'qualified' enough to make a judgement/opinion on a wide variety of issues. Most people are rational beings with a fair amount of knowledge and common sense, let alone emotion and a sense of what is/feels right and wrong. Who are you judge them as inadequate to be able to formulate a valid opinion/criticism?

You obviously haven't been exposed to or had to support Americans before :)

except when the individual is a pissant

This is true.

I'm not going to apologise for anything here. You guys are the ones fighting for opinions well, that's mine :P

saw it today, and i loved it

Obviously some points were missed or strategically avoided on your part :)


As i'm in an arguing mood...

The first was a question, the second was an inference.

Yes it was intended that way. Your point is?

I cannot speculate if the movie came out exactly as they had planned, I wasn't there.

Well that's pretty obvious. Why not address the point instead, or perhaps even the point that point was based on? (That came out right i think %\) Leave out the references to intention in that paragraph if you have to.

You obviously haven't been exposed to or had to support Americans before :)

I do sometimes and it is quite difficult in Australia ;)

I'm not going to apologise for anything here. You guys are the ones fighting for opinions well, that's mine :P

Well then you are obivously not qualified to express your opinion :)

Obviously some points were missed or strategically avoided on your part :)

Correct :)

Yes it was intended that way. Your point is?

I don't have all the information available to me to give a completely factual arguement for or against the movie. Other than it was very entertaining. That is all.

Well that's pretty obvious. Do you like stating the obvious? Why not address the point instead?

You asked the question.....

Aside from this, yes, people are entitled to their opinions, however, I would rather read something informative opposed to mere hypotheticals. It's probably best not to ask for my view on who is "qualified" and who isn't.

I do on a regular basis and it is quite difficult in Australia ;)

Oh really ? You support Americans for a job do you ? How bout AOL users huh ?

Well then you are obivously not qualified to express your opinion :)

How would that statement make me unqualified to express my opinion? If anything, your saying that everyone else here doesn'y deserve to post either ...

shutp
k thx.

Heh, AOL ay... :(

Yeah the last comment was for kicks. Nothing serious.

This argument is now over!!! Damn it was diffused way too soon. :)

(By the way, I tend to edit for 1 or 2 mins after posting. Bad habit sorry.)

Heheh, np Tree, no hard feelings mate.

I enjoy a good arguement too, just a bit of fun really :)

What tolkien said about the book itself:

Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer. But even from the points of view of many who have enjoyed my story there is much that fails to please. It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved. The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short.

So, tolkien himself didn't think the book was perfect. Get over it. The book isn't something given to humanity from god, its a f***ing book. Peter Jackson obviously knows he can't please everyone either, and has done what Tolkien would have done, and made the movie like he wanted to. He's made a movie (well two) that can appeal to a lot of people, and made the story told in the books accessable to a lot more people. Quite frankly the books are a bitch to read, unless of course you're the sort of person who re-reads them once a week and wacks off to every word. I personally don't want to have to watch 30 minutes of some faget hippy in the woods singing songs and hugging trees, just for the sake of keeping it as Tolkien wrote it. If he said himself the books didn't turn out exactly as he wanted, then the whole arguement about the movies changing stuff is totally void. Get over it.

aaah well I still feel my points were valid.

The sword being the sign of his birth right and essentially the proof that his is the king is kinda important. All i can assume is that when he meets with the dunadain after they ride to orthanc, they will have it with them then, along with the sceptre wrought by Gladrial.

When I read the books I loved the ents, and I was truely looking forward to seeing how they did the huorns because to me that was something difficult to picture.

Book 2 ends shortly after they ride from orthanc and merry looks into the palenthia. The nasgul flys over head and Gandalf rides with merry to Gondor. Merry falls asleep on the horse, book 2 ends.
I can only assume that they didn't finish it that way because they wanted to leave the Aragon/Gimli/Legolas/Gandalf side of things after the huge battle at Helms deep so as not to remove some of the power of the battle scene on the viewers (if u know what I mean - tired couldn't find better words).


but if they skip the paths of the dead, or if aragon go's this entire movie series without Aragon getting to wield Andruil I'll be pissed.

oh and how many of you actually realise that Aragon is about 70-90 years old in this movie?

He moisturises daily.

I hear he exfoliates as well

wasnt that good.

Fade2Black - oh and how many of you actually realise that Aragon is about 70-90 years old in this movie?

Pfft don't confuse the issue with fact. If he wasn't in it, why else would the women go???

why else would the women go???

Legolas

True...... But what if you want a guy older than 12??? :p

Chicks go for Gimli and Gandalf.

Ever seen a picture of Gimli naked and holding a battle axe? Hmmm, very sexy indeed.

Sunbird you obviously havn't read the books.

Being a Numenourian, the Dunadian live almost 3 times the life of a man (about 250 years old). Thats why he still looks young but is inmfact 70-90 years old.

Yeah aragorn is 87 at the forming of the fellowship, frodo is 50 (which makes him 10 years older than boromir). Gandalf has been in middle earth for about 2000 years.

Fade2Black - Sunbird you obviously havn't read the books.

Why do you say that? Because I have. All three and the Hobbit

Well I saw it on Saturday and I'm not sure if I've made up my mind about it. I think I enjoyed the first movie more which had more character development etc and therefore I found it more interesting rather than this second installment which is obviously primarily focused on the impending battles. I think also I was pretty hyped up about the movie and probably was expecting alot.

I read the books so long ago I can't really recall too much detail from them and whether or not they left out much. Anyways it was a good movie nonetheless. I'm looking forward to watching it again when the extended version comes out on dvd.

If the second movie had been the first, people would be going on about how good it was (very much like people did with the first). It is the simple fact we know the characters and story that there isn't as much 'mystery' as the first.

You need to realise that before you blow your horn.

surrounded by barren lands. Where the f*** do they get/make these mystical poles?

hmm, I'm guessing they'd probably get them the same place they got the thousands of arrows, swords, sheilds and bows?

just a thought...

yeah spidz, i was just thinking that about 30min ago. where'd they get the wood for the houses, weapons, etc. just cuz they don't show a forest, doesn't mean there isn't one. there must be cuz of their civilization.

one thing that bothered me, was WHERE THE f*** DID THEY GET THE FRESH FRUIT?

if u saw the back of a cart when they're leaving the city, there is a basket of fresh red apples sitting on top.....

BTW I'd assume that a fortress built into the side of a mountain designed souly for the defense of there entire civilization would have all the necessities there and ready to go. Armorey, defenses etc. So yes they should have the fat and the vat to boil the oil and they had a few hours to heat it up so shouldda been all good.

coulda, shoulda, woulda..

I have just seen lotr tt and i enjoyed it)))) .....i heve read the books too so it made it easy for me to follow there is a lot left out and it makes it hard to follow the story 4 tolkien noob,s...7.5 outta 10 ( gave the first installment 9 outta 10 ) next one should be better imho....

I watched TT pretty much straight after reading the book...

Gotta say I was dissapointed, but i had just finished the book so it wouldve made things s***ter for myself - spent the whole movie thinking "wtf? whats he doing there - that didnt happen - that guy is good not bad" etc etc. Made the movie very confusing for me - i'll have to go watch again.

seems like they took the enormity of middle earth and squashed it down to a few villages like someone said. They made everything simple and convenient so dumbarse large audience could follow better.

Only problem I have with the conversion is that they changed the personality of some of the characters. Foromir in the book is gifted in wizardry powers and is a good guy, when in the movie he is a slapnut. and the ents are good and decide to help destroy isengard from the start.

They depicted gollum and the ents very well graphically though I thought. Exactly how i had pictured them in my head. Gollym was done extremely well - audience could sympathise,pity, and yet see him as wretched all at the same time, just like tolkien had made us picture him in the book.

Seemed like a lot of the sets in TT looked really fake to me though...especially osgiliath.

Who the f*** cares how old aragorn is, its a movie, get over it. How do stupid little facts like that make ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL to the movie.

Fagets.

yeah, i noticed that they got the enourmity right for the battle of helm's deep, but for the rest, the "city" was a village, etc. but it would be kinda hard to do, but that was a disappointing note

oh i expected rohan to be more of a village anyway.

what i meant was that they only ever really mentioned rohan and gondor as places of man dwelling...which brought middle earth down to 2 good villages and the evil mordor : )

although another i found funny - when legolas gimli and aragon were surrounded by the rohan horsemen. arogon later reported them to be like 2000 or so, and there was only like 50 of em :)

the only gay thing about LOTR moofies being made is the number of people who haven't even read the books, but won tickets to see a preview screening of the movies and now consider themselves LOTR experts.

I totally agree!!!!!!!

sif ents didnt bust isengaurd up. btw was it just me or the bit when legolas was running down the hill to shoot the urukai bull look too fake (his size was too big for where he was in the shot) and also looked too blue screened.

not a real whinge, just something i didnt expect from a movie of this calibur.

what i meant was that they only ever really mentioned rohan and gondor as places of man dwelling...which brought middle earth down to 2 good villages and the evil mordor : )

Rohan and Gondor are realms, not cities. Theres lots of cities in Rohan and Gondor. Also, theres all the places the elves, dwarves and hobbits come from, as well as all the bits in between and the bits we dont know about (I assume all those soldiers being called to mordor come from somewhere...)

well it's a plothole cos they weren't on the map!

I assume all those soldiers being called to mordor come from somewhere...

They come from Halibrad among other places if memory serves? (/me Waits for a LOTR expert to add to/correct me)

"Rohan and Gondor are realms, not cities. Theres lots of cities in Rohan and Gondor. Also, theres all the places the elves, dwarves and hobbits come from, as well as all the bits in between and the bits we dont know about (I assume all those soldiers being called to mordor come from somewhere...)"

i know that khel, thats my point. and i didnt call them cities.

the movie made it out to be like 3 areas of civilization in the whole middle earth, rather than people all over the joint. Obviously to make the plot simpler and easier to follow -> gayness.

the people called to mordor are from the south and east. one of the group's names starts with H...Harads or some s***...
mean black c***s in the book, but in the moofie they're white with masks...f***ing political correctness :P

my above post now refers to the majority of people posting in this thread.

The halflings-being-carried-by-the-trees scene kinda gave me the s***s..

It's a half billion dollar film. You'd think Jackson could mesh the foreground and the background so it doesn't look so fake. It reminded me of those 50's movies where the blue infinity screen is behind the driver and passenger as they race about the roads.

well about the population thing...um id say they showed enough people considering many times they refer to an army of 10 000 as being huge, that kinda implys there arent 3 million people hanging round doesnt it?

Saw it today...
and it was f***en awesome prolly even better than the first

it cost 500 mil to make the trilogy, not each film. i thought Peter Jackson did a good job. It is impossible for the films to go anywhere in depth as the books did. The only bit i was annoyed at was the way faramir was portrayed, he is very strong willed in the book and helps frodo straight away. I dont see any reason why they portrayed him differently but i spose it may make more sense when the ROTK is released.

the special effects were dodgy you must admit... same problems as Harry Potter (flying car scenes) and Die Another Day (2nd surfing scene, and hovercraft fight).
I don't know how they get away with some of this dodgy s***.
Star Wars Episode II did not have this problem, and it's harder to key out blue in digital apparently.

That's because episode 2 was very ghey and they needed to cover up the extremely lame character lines with good visuals.

OWNED

aotc special effects seemed really blurry to me...hard to notice it looking bad when its all grainy

the film transfer was grainy, yeah. but no one has to see that version ever again

There is not a shot in the movie that doesn't have a visual effect. Most of the time you'd never know. Often as subtle as moving characters around so they'd seem closer to each other, or just getting someone's eyes to look in a different direction.

10,000 soldiers is nothing by today's standards.

north korea has 1,000,000 troops ready to invade the south once the united states starts imposing sanctions for their nuclear reactor activity.

someone might write a book/make a movie about this next year when it happens.

plus north korea has icarus

10,000 soldiers is nothing....except 1/3 of our defence forces.... :(

10000 is a f***ing huge army for back in medieval/lotr ages, but for these times it is tiny

Star Wars Episode II did not have this problem

Yeah, it had a whole different problem, it was s***.

Also, I found most of the effects in ep2 looked really fake and plasticy and obviously cg, whereas lotr to me was much more believeable.

The only dodgy part in the effects that stood out was the lightning bolt that hit Gandalf's sword. Couple of people have pointed out how dodgy the hobbits on the ent were, but I never noticed it. Legolas' jump onto the horse could have been slightly better too though :o

I think legolas's jump onto the horse was just another of Jacksons attempts to show how nimble elves are.

how dodgy the hobbits on the ent were

Up close they were pretty f***ing good, however at a distant they did look a tad on the dodgy side. What I think really f***ed it was the tony hawk rip off when legolas rides that orc shield down the stairs

plus north korea has icarus

I wonder if they also have a gay englishman running everything in secret as well?

i reckon osgiliath was absolutely s***. from far off, and then when they were in it - it looked hideously fake.

also when the ents had their meeting and merry and pippin were on the side, whenever the cam looked down on them it just looked s***. dunno why i remember such an insignificant bit but i do.

and when gandalf showed up at the end of battle. looked f***ed too.

people laughed in the cinema when legolas did that horse grab/jump thing hah.

I also disliked the way Faramir was portrayed. However I am assuming it was done so because if he was all noble like and strong willed, then he would have come of like Aragorn. Then you would have two competing characters. Besides in the end he did let them go, I believe in the TROTK he will be more 'noble' like and respectable (so as to contrast with his father most likely aswell).

whats the last one called again

the return of the king

lotr2 = leet kthnx :D:D

test