DescentBB

Took amy daughter and went and partook of the visual splendor that is ROTK. The scenes from the upper portions of Gondor looking down onto the plains was simply inspired. In a sense it was spiritual in that there was a cathedral like effect presented by the lofty perspectives. Sky and weather combined with the stupendous open field battle scenes made me wish it would not end. Now I'll have to buy the complete set when it comes out in dvd.

Going to see it tomorrow.

by far the greatest movie I've ever seen. If THIS one doesn't win Best Picture at the Academy Awards you'll bee seeing me in the news shortly thereafter.

And to think when disney was presented with the LOTR movie concept...they laughed it off.... They must be so very pissed now!

How original, Bubba...

last post

simply stunning, I've never seen anything that can compare to the LOTR movies

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106818,00.html

top story only

STUPID FIKKIN PPL cant they just enjoy a Good movie for what it is?

uh...that writer needs to get his head out of his ass.

Sure, the books were written in a time where racial differences were much greater then they are now but the path to racial equality leads through not bringing it up EVERY FRIGGIN TIME one skin color is portrayed more so then others!.

I seriously doubt if he ever read the books....

If you are good natured you're rooting for the good guys regardless of what skin color they have.

These are the same people who watch the movie and never read the books and go "Why couldn't Aragorn have been cast as a *insert minority here* guy?"

*BOOT TO THAT GUYS HEAD*

Sauraman was white. The Nazgul when seen in "ring vision" were white. Many of the goblins of Moria were pale-lizard-skinned creatures. Gollum was pretty pasty. Isn't it more offensive that this guy sees grotesque, evil monsters on the screen (orcs, goblins, and Urak-hai) and instinctively thinks of black, asian, arab, and native American people? In attempting to display his enlightened PC sensibilities, he shows what a condescending bigot he is. Funny how that works these days. Is it really so controversial that a British writer drew upon his own culture, traditions, and folklore when deciding on the protagonists for his epic story? I guess the source of the complaint says a lot ... the wailing dorks at Indymedia will indulge just about any talking jackass that comes along.

I'm going to be brutally honest here

Dark has ALWAYS been associated with evil. Dark skin, dark sky, dark clothing, etc... This is nothing ****ing new. Therefore, when some idiot bitches about it being racist towards Blacks, don't lump all Blacks into one "race card pulling group". Most of us see it as it is. A friggin movie!! Nothing more!!!!

This is mainly a reply to the other thread about this that was closed. Once some idiot says something like this, a lot of Whites go on a tangent as if ALL Blacks are thinking like this. I think Jeff said it best when he said "Why don't you just ask them". I don't give a rats ass if some other Black guy across the country pulls a race card on some stupid ****, but don't think that we're all complaining whining bitches about everything and looking for any excuse to pull the race card.

Holy gaytard Batman.

Yes, because having dark skin automatically makes you DARK!! Their orcs numbnuts...they're black skinned monsters, not supposed to represent blacks or arabs. Oh my God someone remove this guy from our genepool. (BTW, I'm Arab and I'm not offended so nyah)

I'm surprised I haven't heard anything about the sexist chauvinism in this movie. It's all about men using their "swords" to destroy a "ring". The Freudian imagery could not have been more vivid! (jk)

I personally found the homoerotic imagery of wizards swinging their 'staffs' around very offensive

i wanted to see some penetration

Thrawn, I think you just pulled the race card

The rest of us were just saying how stupid this guy was and nothing more. We weren't lumping blacks into any group, he wasn't even talking about blacks specifically. Calm down dude

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Darktalyn1:
<b> I personally found the homoerotic imagery of wizards swinging their 'staffs' around very offensive

i wanted to see some penetration</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO!

Am I the only one that found the third one to be the least interesting? Watched it last night but I can't say I liked the third better than the firs two. I thought this would be the best because it tied things up, but it really needed to end after they destroyed the ring. I was snoozing and waiting for it to end during all the post destroying chumming/goodbyes. Maybe it was cool if you read the books, but I found it extremely cheesy and unnecessary.

*SPOILERS BeLOW*

I had some trouble remembering who pippin and the other guy were from the last movie, and the whole castle defense on this one STUNK compared to the last one. In the 2nd one the siege was practically the most amazing battle scene ever. This one was very lackluster, the dead looked very out of place and just kind of took over and la la the battle is won.

There was also the wizard's orb, which I hoped gandalf would somehow wield. He just hit orcs with his staff which was pretty boring.
I expected mordor to be more creative than just a bunch of troops lined around the eye and the humans draw them out, frodo runs in, and the same tired smiegel charade plays out. The ending would have been really good if the only way the ring was destroyed was if smiegel and frodo fell in together, or if sam had tackled them both into the lava to make sure it was destroyed.

But, I didn't read the books, so I guess my opinion won't count here ;p

Birds, perhaps so, but I think Tolkien is a better writer than you are The thing I was most disappointed about was that after the ring was destroyed, the movie didn't go on long enough -- they skipped a huge sequence involving Saruman and the Shire...

The armies of the dead *were* a bit out of place, though, you're right -- I think they overdid it in the movie. They turned the tide of the battle in the books, but not like in the movie. The Rohirrim made as big of a difference as the army of the dead did.

The wizard's orb isn't actually a wizard's orb -- it's a palantir of Gondor. It's Aragorn king of Gondor, not Gandalf the wandering wizard, who should have it and use it. It's treated much better in the books -- Aragorn actually does use it to see Sauron's plans (he's the only one who can use it without Sauron being able to interfere) and that's what prompts the final offensive -- he realizes Sauron thinks Pippin has the ring, so they decide to draw all of his attention to Pippin rather than Frodo.

In conclusion, you should read the books.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Birdseye:
<b> The ending would have been really good if the only way the ring was destroyed was if smiegel and frodo fell in together, or if sam had tackled them both into the lava to make sure it was destroyed.

But, I didn't read the books, so I guess my opinion won't count here ;p</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha! I thought the exact same thing... especially since Sam and Frodo had that conversation about there being no return journey. I thought for sure they would fall in with the ring and I was disappointed that they didn't.

What Lothar said. I expected the return to The Shire would not be depicted (in the movie) as Samwise was not given the vial of special soil by the the Lady of the Woods as a parting gift upon leaving Loth Lorien. This soil helps restore The Shire upon the hobbits return.
And Birdy, I too vote you should read the triolgy (I have...3 times).

Hey, I never said I was a better writer than anyone...where did you get that haha

The movie should be able to be judged on its own without having to read the books. That's what my review was.

And the new 'main villan' added in the third movie was a joke. They barely played it up at all.

I was also expecting aragon to slay saurmon with the sword or something... I dunno, the third one just seemed really lackluster and dragged out. I liked the other two though, even if they were a bit long.

To those that had read the books, the movie was probably too short, but for those that hadn't, it was too long

And what the heck happended when frodo and bilbo left? It was extremely ambiguous.

If i remember correctly the main characters of middle earth were mostly northeners. The books state that men of the SOUTH were allied with Sauron so then naturally they would be dark skinned if Tolkiens world is anything like our own. Also the elephants and hyena things would imply a rather tropical or arid environment compared to the horses and other temperate regioned beasts of the norther lands. Abosolutely ridiculous to try and find reasons why everything is racist.

I liked 2, 3, 1. I havn't read the books, but the third movie, to me, seemed increadably long, and too packed at the same time. There was just a whole bunch of snips at the end, one after another after another. The movie ended like 5 times it seemed. It seems like they definitely catered to those who have read the books. Nothing wrong with that though.

All in all, the movie certainly wasn't homophobic!!!!

personally, I think I liked the first one the most...
but they were all good, and as one movie they were great

I'm glad they left out the Scouring of the Shire, that would've been tremendously anticlimatic (and you thought the ending was already drawn out, heh). I wish they hadn't put the Army of the Dead on the Pelennor Fields. They should've done it just like the books, which would've been great on film.

*Spoilers*

Aragorn leads the army of the dead to the ships, and gains their help in defeating the pirates. After this, he holds the dead's oath fulfilled, and lets them go. Instead of leading the dead to the main battle, he leads [edit: can't believe I didn't remember this, but it was rather late. Aragorn takes the Sons of Elrond and the Dúnedain through the paths of the dead and takes them on the ships] . Now you have the ships coming in, and the men of Minas Tirith go into despair (they so should've put this in) and then a minute later, Aragorn raises the Gondorian flag on the ships, and then leads them to battle.

That is much better than the dead army mopping up 200,000 orcs like a toilet bowl cleaner. It's also probably too big of a change to hope for in the extended edition. Oh well, still a great movie! I have too many favorite parts to count... so I'll just leave it at that.

I agree with Plague that Aragorn's arrival at the big battle could have been better. In the book, when the ships are seen sailing up the river, the men despair because they think more enemy are coming making their situation hopeless. Then, they see Aragorn's new flag catch the wind and their courage is renewed as they witness the "return of the king". This is a major turning point in the battle and in the story (not to mention one of my favorite parts), so I was disappointed they changed it.

I read the books about 25 years ago and didn't want to reread them before seeing the films so I wouldn't be tempted to nitpick. But Jackson's version made the end of the battle a little too quick and easy. It seemed anti-climactic. As for additional scenes in the extended edition, I hope they include the part where Aragorn uses the palantir to reveal himself and the reforged sword to Sauron -- a little psychological warfare.

Yeah that's a pretty important part because it made Sauron focus on Aragorn...and it prompted the attack on the gates or Mordor.

Anyway, definitley my favorite trilogy next to the ORIGINAL Star Wars trilogy.

It would take an act of god to satiate the lot of you

I believe in miracles.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Tyranny:
It would take an act of god to satiate the lot of you </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh, I dunno...having the Victoria Secret girls at my beck and call might suffice.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by woodchip:
<b>
Oh, I dunno...having the Victoria Secret girls at my beck and call might suffice.

</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I was saying....

I thought the army of the dead thing was kinda lame too, and I agree it would have been much better had they done it like Plague says they did in the books...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Birdseye:
Am I the only one that found the third one to be the least interesting? Watched it last night but I can't say I liked the third better than the firs two. I thought this would be the best because it tied things up, but it really needed to end after they destroyed the ring. I was snoozing and waiting for it to end during all the post destroying chumming/goodbyes. Maybe it was cool if you read the books, but I found it extremely cheesy and unnecessary.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seeing that this movie is a saga along the lines of starwars and matrix,

I felt the ending was fitting. It brought complete closure to a long journey.

where as you have matrix ending and return of the jedi where it makes the story that was told look like sex then bam ya bust a nutt , THE END.

i guess the best word to say is ABRUPT, but anyway

good movie.

spoilers

Although I enjoyed this movie a lot, I agree that it was somehow anti-climactic - although I'm having a hard time understanding why. I can't pick out anything particularly wrong with how the film was made, or the plot presented; the dead army thing didn't bother me that much, and the Saruman finale in the Shire would have been out of place.

I think the problem is that there just isn't much that happens! By the end of the second movie, the LotR plot has been fully revealed, and there's nothing left to do but play it out. You know two things, that the ring must be destroyed, and that Gondor must be defended... and guess how the movie ends. Maybe having read the books in advance spoiled it for me.

And to those urging people to read the trilogy, I'd say save your time and read something else! I remember feeling much the same way about the third book as I did its movie - and the book starts after the Shelob part.

All in all, a very nit-picky review on my part. Everyone should really see the entire series. I'll definitely own it on DVD.

Oh, and as for the silly racism charges: Tolkien was a British foot soldier in WWI, that probably accounts for the "heroes from the West" ideas. It's strongly argued that his war experience influenced a lot of what you see in the books. He fought in the Battle of the Somme, probably the bloodiest battle in history, which might have inspired some of the imagery of the Marshes of the Dead (there was a heap of rotting corpses between the two front lines).

Cheery stuff! In any case, the racism thing is just stupid. Those orcs were sporting very British accents.

I thought the movie was pritty good, and did'nt think the ending was too long. In fact I think it was perfect. There are too many movies out there with abrupt endings. In fact all of them are copycats of each other. I hate it. Its nice to see a movie with a decent closure that tells the story.

I dunno, I'm not homophobic or anti gay, but I found the whole last 30 minutes to have such strong gay allusions that I could not help but laugh during the film. To me the ending goodbyes seemed more sappy and alluding to some gay friendships between charactors (especially pippin and mary) rather than touching and fitting.

I do see topwop's point about the different style ending. I agree sometimes it's cool to tie things up, but the cheese in this movie was just so over the top it felt almost like intentional comedy at times. I guess I just wasn't as into it as those who read the books when they were younger.

Of course, I am ignoring hundreds of positive things I could be saying about the movie, and just focusing on the negative

well birds, tolkien wrote in and about a time where friends could "love" each other in an entirely non-sexual way, and for better or for worse, peter jackson decided to keep that viewpoint strong in the films.

I see nothing sexual about any of the Hobbit relationships, If I had just spent 13 months going throught the HELL that they went through the bond that you would form with your friends would be stronger than your own lifes worth you can look at Aragorn, Sam wise, Pippen, Merrick and all the others they put themselves in in Very life threatening situations just to save friends, friends can be close love hug and even kiss one another WITHOUT it being sexual its the d@mn gay and lesbian alliance making us think its homosexual

YEA, damn that gay-lesbian alliance!

.

.

.


wait... what

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3"><b> I dunno, I'm not homophobic or anti gay, but I found the whole last 30 minutes to have such strong gay allusions that I could not help but laugh during the film. To me the ending goodbyes seemed more sappy and alluding to some gay friendships between charactors (especially pippin and mary) rather than touching and fitting.

I do see topwop's point about the different style ending. I agree sometimes it's cool to tie things up, but the cheese in this movie was just so over the top it felt almost like intentional comedy at times. I guess I just wasn't as into it as those who read the books when they were younger.

Of course, I am ignoring hundreds of positive things I could be saying about the movie, and just focusing on the negative

</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately we live in a sick society where people think about these kinds of things. Not everything has to be gay or have sexual connotations to it, ect ect ect.

Now dont go off spinning this thread into another discussion, if so we ought to make a new thread.