Am I the only one that was disappointed with LOTR:ROTK?

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Much like the final Matrix movie I was grossly disappointed. I thought the storyline had set up soooo much more. Kinda like in The Matrix where I thought there coulda been some much better battles, and so many more great fight scenes instead of all the crap... well anyway this is about LOTR....



Is there anyone else whose as bummed as me about not getting to see saruman? (Let alone watch him fight?) Or about the chessy way that the Nazgul dude was killed? I mean come on, I wanted to see him kick some major as$ first. Besides, I thought he couldn't be killed by any man (aka VERY HARD to kill?) A fricken hobbit stabbed him in the angle which caused him to sit there as some chick stabbed him in the face? WTF thats just lame. And what about the king, with his big arse sword. I know someone wanted to watch him use that thing, in a real battle. Why not have one or two of the main evil characters vs. a few of the good ones. Instead all we saw (yes good, but limited) were tons of foot soldiers if you will, massacering each other (sp?). And then the one last thing I have to gripe about is the predictability of it. Ya I know, everyone could have known the ending, read the books. However, I just didn't, I had no clue how the story was going to end. But all the battles in all the movies played out the same. One force is winning, until backup arrives at the last second and turns the tide, yada yada rinse and repeat.



Cliffnotes: No great battle scenes between main good vs evil characters.
Chessy deaths, with no saruman at all.
To predictable
To many uneccessary parts that were to drawn out.



Oh well whatever, sorry for yet another LOTR thread.
 

malbojah

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2000
1,708
7
81
They had to cut the scence with saruman due to time constaints. If Jackson didn't have time to worry about (3 hours 20 minutes), I think the movie would have run closer to 4 hours...which I wouldn't mind
 

Kev

Lifer
Dec 17, 2001
16,367
4
81
isn't there supposed to be scenes in the extended version where:

1) you get to see the part with saruman in the beginning
2) a scene where aragorn confronts sauron when he looks into the palantir (does he fight him at all? that would be seriously cool)
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
It's a fvcking movie for crying out loud. Get over it.



Whats there to get over? The fact that I had greater expectations for this movie? Man, talk about people who are bored and have nothing to do but *ATTEMPT* to act bigger then other people on a fvckin forum. Hey happy, why don't you get off your lazy butt and go do something productive. STOP FRICKEN POSTING, NO ONE WANTS TO READ YOUR NEFFAGE.


Man, whats wrong with you people.
 

Dufman

Golden Member
Dec 29, 2002
1,949
0
0
what came first, the book of the movie?

answer: the book. peter jackson followed the book rather well. - running time of the movie was an issue

read the book
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: amdmang
what came first, the book of the movie?

answer: the book. peter jackson followed the book rather well.

read the book



K, then the screwed up on the book :)


 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
it was a 5 hour movie, cut down into 3.5 hours.

what more did you want?

also they couldnt deviate from the book that much, so i havent read the books, but what your asking may have deviated to far from the book.

MIKE
 

Dufman

Golden Member
Dec 29, 2002
1,949
0
0
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: amdmang
what came first, the book of the movie?

answer: the book. peter jackson followed the book rather well.

read the book



K, then the screwed up on the book :)

i read all of the books about 5 years ago. sorry i forgot some details
 

Kev

Lifer
Dec 17, 2001
16,367
4
81
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
It's a fvcking movie for crying out loud. Get over it.



Whats there to get over? The fact that I had greater expectations for this movie? Man, talk about people who are bored and have nothing to do but *ATTEMPT* to act bigger then other people on a fvckin forum. Hey happy, why don't you get off your lazy butt and go do something productive. STOP FRICKEN POSTING, NO ONE WANTS TO READ YOUR NEFFAGE.


Man, whats wrong with you people.

you seem a bit angry
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
it was a 5 hour movie, cut down into 3.5 hours.

what more did you want?

also they couldnt deviate from the book that much, so i havent read the books, but what your asking may have deviated to far from the book.

MIKE



Did you read my post? I said they had alot of unneccessary stuff. Aka cut that out (the 3 minute hug scene, 3 minute wake up scene, basically the whole ending....) And throw in a few epic battles.





Ok so I understand you couldn't deviate from the book, and I have no clue how the book went so I don't know if any of the battles I mentioned were even possible, but its not neccessarily the movie I am criticizing then. The book had a crappy ending IMO. I was just hoping for something better is all.


 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
it was a 5 hour movie, cut down into 3.5 hours.

what more did you want?

also they couldnt deviate from the book that much, so i havent read the books, but what your asking may have deviated to far from the book.

MIKE



Did you read my post? I said they had alot of unneccessary stuff. Aka cut that out (the 3 minute hug scene, 3 minute wake up scene, basically the whole ending....) And throw in a few epic battles.





Ok so I understand you couldn't deviate from the book, and I have no clue how the book went so I don't know if any of the battles I mentioned were even possible, but its not neccessarily the movie I am criticizing then. The book had a crappy ending IMO. I was just hoping for something better is all.

then i guess your lucky they didnt follow the ending of the book to a T cuz the ending would have been about double the length.

MIKE
 

NorthRiver

Golden Member
May 6, 2002
1,457
0
0
I thought it was a great movie! Probably one of the best I have ever seen. I am a Star Wars fanboy, and this totally kills Star Wars!


George Lucas take note, this is how an epic picture should be!!!!
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Much like the final Matrix movie I was grossly disappointed. I thought the storyline had set up soooo much more. Kinda like in The Matrix where I thought there coulda been some much better battles, and so many more great fight scenes instead of all the crap... well anyway this is about LOTR....

so not true, while matrix revolutions revealed just how shallow and painfully stretched the story of the 2nd and 3rd movie were, rotk was simply incredible.

fx? simply incredible this time, huge battle scenes and stuff didn't look fake. story? pretty good... unlike revolutions where i kept thinking why the hell should i care, its all bullsh*t. the cinematography was simply beautiful, incredible detail.

if rotk doesn't get best picture and best director i'll lose all respect for the academy.

the harry potter/spiderman 2 previews were cool too:)
 

Yossarian

Lifer
Dec 26, 2000
18,010
1
81
I agree that Saruman was missed. He will be in the extended edition though. The Isengard scene felt very abrupt, and Treebeard in front of the Orthanc stairs looked very fake.
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: FallenHero
Read the books you moron.



Another great post. You guys that jump on the hater bandwagon are simply ridiculous. As for LOTR, I guess Im just not all that impressed. The story line could have been better, to predictable, to happy of an ending, and no big show downs between any of the main characters. Fight scenes did look extremely good though.