Did anyone see Lord of the Rings last night?

Although
Boromir resists for several weeks, and then he only fails at the end, and then only for a few seconRAB. Where-as no good character goes as far as Faramir does in the film, and Faramir succumbs almost instantly. For me it reverses the characters, making Boromir now the strong, wise, resilient one and Faramir weak and foolish. It's the opposite of the book.
As I recall, he'd already read about it in his studies, and so was forewarned. In addition his exposure is very low and he keeps it that way. It takes time to have its effect.

Well, that's partly why they did it, and also partly why they dropped Bombadil (who was completely unaffected). As darthbibble says, the books are about the characters, and the film sometimes sacrifices the characters to emphasis the ring.

However, I believe the main reason was timing. They had to delay Frodo's journey to make the breaks between films work out, so they could cut between concurrent scenes.
 
You really need to see the 'extended' versions, they are so much better, can't believe a lot of what they cut out for the cinema, it's so important!!!
 
The extended versions are the way to go, no doubt about it.

And the Arwen business could've been a hell of a lot worse in those films. I'm sure she was orginally meant to be filmed in the Helms Deep battle kicking serious Orc ass, but apparently the fan-boys went ballistic and the screenplay was altered. :eek: That may be an Urban Legend...
 
I seriously hate the
Warg attack
in the second film, it's my lowlight of the entire series. I understand The Two Towers was the hardest to film and it's certainly my least favourite part.

Fellowship is my favourite, I absolutely adore the scenes in The Shire, I often just watch Fellowship and leave it at that.
 
Like the gifts from Galadriel (cut from the Theatrical version of FOTR), without which their appearance in the later (theatrically released) films was very jarring.
 
I watched the Fellowship last night, for the first time in ages, the Theatrical Version anyway.. and I couldn't believe how much is "cut" from the Extended Editions, (which I have), its like a totally different film!

The EE are soo much better :)

The TE last nite, just seemed a bit rushed (daft I know with it being 3+ hours already, but it is, in my opinion), maybe because I've so used to the EE, but I felt it jumped so much, and made it seem a bit hollow

So I'd definitely recommend you watch the Extended Editions, before you make your mind up on the whole things, cause as I said there like different films, and there's a lot more to the Extended versions, and you'll get more out of it! :)
 
Brilliant, brilliant tio of movies. I'd never criticise anybody who doesn't like the Lord of the Rings movies/books though as it's a very complex storyline (especially the books), and not for everyone.

I can remember sitting watching Fellowship of the Ring for the first time in the cinema and being completely awestruck. I'm not a fanboy of the books either, I find them incredibly hard going, but I think the world itself is fascinating and Jackson did a superb job of making them into the movies he did.
 
I have a couple of problems with the Extended Edition:

1) I don't care too much about seeing the characters being given gifts by elves (ie boring, pointless rubbish).

2) The three-hour version should be the extended edition (I know the books are long and all that, but please.).

3) I don't think a movie is a movie when you have to get up off your arse to put another disc in - it's a mini-series.

4) Most of the content in the Extended Editions are ideal for massive fans of the films and the books, but normal people, in my opinion, need not see it.
 
Sorry but what actually happens in the book then? Love the films but yet to read the books. I have started reading the Fellowship twice and cant get past a few chapters as it gets bogged down in lots of detail and after several chapters you haven't even got to the wraith attack on the brandywine bridge. I just think i need to be inthe right state of mind to give the books another go as i do adore the films.
 
Book spoilers re: Saruman...
In the book he remains imprisoned in Isengard. Later we learn that Treebeard let him out, presumably succumbing to Saruman's Voice. At the end of the trilogy, he turns up in The Shire and is waiting for the hobbits when they return. The scenes Sam sees in Galadriel's Magic Bird-Bath are part of what Saruman does to The Shire. Saruman is weakened on account of losing to Gandalf, having his staff broken etc, but the hobbits are back on their own without help from Gandalf, Aragorn etc. These final parts of the book are about them completing their growth and being able to stand alone (or not), and so are an integral part of the story, and many fans were dismayed the film left them out.

My least favourite parts of the second film include:
[*]The Warg attack.

[*]Aragorn's pseudo-death.

[*]Faramir turning evil, seizing the ring, and carrying it to Osgoliath, only to change his mind again for no clearly explained reason.

[*]The Ents being stupid and hasty, rather than slow and wise, and so needing to be tricked into attacking Saruman.

[*]Saruman's death.

[*]Various bits cut out, including the cliff-hanger ending we should have had with Shelob.

[*]The introduction of the Ents is clumsy, because certain key sequences were cut from the first film involving the Old Forest and Bombadil.

[*]Little things like Aragorn and co actually attacking the white stranger they think is Saruman, where in the book they realise it would be unethical to do so.
(Apparently you can't do lists in spoiler tags.)
 
Started watching it as there was flip all else on but couldn't handle more than 20 minutes, so I put Shaun Of The Dead on instead, much better. :D
 
As people have mentioned before if you can handle the running time, your better off with the extended versions as they make a lot more sense than the theatrical versions.


I'd also add that a main difference between the books and the film is that the ring was more of a McGuffin in the books than the film. The main theme of the film being about getting rid of the ring, and the books being more concerned with the personal journeys taken by the characters.
 
Yeah, but the ring WAS evil, and Jackson showed their journeys brilliantly, I reckon. I thought the film got it spot on. It hinted at boring shit from the book, like mentioning what they ate every couple of hours and all that bollocks, but kept it bearable throughout.

Helm's Deep has to be one of the most impressive things I've ever seen. It still blows me away to this day.
 
Personally I also thought the cutting of Saruman from the third film's theatrical release was pretty bad from a narrative PoV, as it left a main plot thread from the first two films 'stopped', rather than giving it a satisfactory ending. I'm sure spendleb, who made the comment, could add more.
 
Apparently so.

I have to say I've never watched it on TV because I have the extended editions on DVD and hence would just watch it wondering why they've left big chunks of it out! :)
 
Back
Top