• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

*** Lord of the Rings POLL - please vote! ***

V

VBboy

Diamond Member
So many threads about the Lord of the Rings, yet so difficult to find out how many of you actually liked/disliked it... Let's vote, then!

P.S. If you like, add a short explanation, e.g. "I loved the movie - that boy sure was pretty!" 🙂

Please bump this so everyone gets a chance to vote..
 
VBoy,

You remind me of the sort of person that complains about a movie with subtitles because you "didn't go to a movie theater to read." The movie didn't end with a concrete, Hollywood resolution because, in all honesty, it wasn't that sort of film. Your complaints are without merit at best. I loved the movie; it followed, as closely as could be expected, without ever feeling that it was entirely borrowing the text (a la Harry Potter). Any shortcomings of the film were, IMHO, shortcomings of film in general, and were not specific to Jackson's adaptation of LOTR.

Rob
 


<< You remind me of the sort of person that complains about a movie with subtitles because you "didn't go to a movie theater to read." >>



Bwahaha!!

Right on Entity!
 


<< I personally didn't like it because it was 3 hours without a real "ending" - but that's just me. >>


Might have something to do with it being one story seperated into 3 movies, with films 2 and 3 not even released yet. 🙂

I think I'll see if this fits into my sig..,...so many people don't know this and it's one of the biggest complaints about it!
 
Entity, yeah, ok, I'm not going to start any wars on this subject, so I just removed my personal comments. Just vote - less talk, more action =)
 
Err... VBboy, you do realize that this is part 1 of 3 don't you? 😉

What had the most impact on me was the grand, epic feel the movie had. The huge, sweeping outdoor shots really made you feel that they were traveling a great distance, and that Middle-Earth really existed. The whole film just felt big. And the shots that "flew" down thru into the mines and you could see orcs laboring, and the giant, wooden wheels turning... there was such minute detail in everything. The cinematography was just brilliant.

I've only been able to see the movie once, but I'd love to see it 2 or 3 more times so I can analyze it more 😀


Lethal
 
You should add another option to the poll:

"I haven't seen it, but I think anything that has hype or is even remotely popular sucks no matter how good or bad it actually is. I want to have a false sense of individuality, so I will not go with the flow."

😀
 


<< You should add another option to the poll:

"I haven't seen it, but I think anything that has hype or is even remotely popular sucks no matter how good or bad it actually is. I want to have a false sense of individuality, so I will not go with the flow." >>



Damn, that was good. 🙂

Rob
 
CStroman,

Exactly! They should've had the first part split into 2 parts, 3 hours each - that would let me go home, sleep, pee, eat, and come back to see another endless 3 hrs 🙂
 
Well i would love that, no doubt about that. 6 movies...6 months apart, how about that? 🙂 But the point is...it is NOT economically feasible. Good luck finding a studio that wants to fork out $600-$700 million dollars to make some movies. I am pretty amazed what they are doing with the time and money they had.
 
<<"I haven't seen it, but I think anything that has hype or is even remotely popular sucks no matter how good or bad it actually is. I want to have a false sense of individuality, so I will not go with the flow.">>

Killbat's post is a perfect example of that.

"I haven't seen it, but I know it sucks." - Well guess what, I've never met you but I know you suck.
I guess since your brilliant estimation w/o any evidence must be true, so must mine be.


By the way, I loved the books and the film and I've never read anything else that would be categorized as 'Fantasy'. So before all you geniuses vote "It sucks" just because you think you are too cool to go see a movie that requires a little imagination, why not actually SEE the movie and then tell us why you didn't like it. I bet all 3 of the people who said it sucked haven't even seen it. Don't want to waste money you say? Well why not put off buying that Survivor t-shirt for a week and spend the money on something better.

I mean, it's not like the movie is Glitter or something.

 


<<

<< I personally didn't like it because it was 3 hours without a real "ending" - but that's just me. >>


Might have something to do with it being one story seperated into 3 movies, with films 2 and 3 not even released yet. 🙂

I think I'll see if this fits into my sig..,...so many people don't know this and it's one of the biggest complaints about it! >>



at the end of the movie (around 2AM), i remember this guy who sat behind me was telling his friends 'wtf is this, 3 hours yo, and they didnt' even destroy the ring'...or something to that effect..

that was hilarious...DUH...maybe cuz this is only the first of three movies?
 
on a side note, to those who have read the book, is the book really as good as the movie? i love fantasy. i've read eddings, dragonlance and am now reading storm of swords (only up to the beginning, but great all ready).

i did read the HOBBIT (thought it was really childish, especially in the beginning, and that was years ago. i'm 19 right now). i read up to page 159 (i still have it bookmarked) in FOTR and stopped. The part when Frodo is at Bombadil's. I just couldn't keep myself reading any further, i'd have to say it was too childish for lack of a better word. maybe i have been spoiled by george rr martin?

anyhow, i'm contemplating finishing it since it's a rather short book. Since i'm going to see FOTR again this month, i thought it would be nice to compare it with teh book. the beginning of the movied seemd to do the beginning of the book very well.
 
Christ, I've lived to see that too!

Someone who reads David Eddings says LOTR is "too childish"...

Wow, that IS deep.

Leaving aside that it was Tolkien's books that almost single-handedly resurrected the majesty of the fantasy genre, bogged down by too many Conan-like stories, what kaymin says, basically, is that the dense, intricated world painstakingly created by J.R.R.T. - a doctor in philology, no less - is subpar compared to the prose of an obscure American writer, who is one of the best examples of what's wrong in book publishing today: endless series with no literary value. The irony is that Eddings was taking his first and only degree, a B.A. in Arts, at the precise time when the Tolkien fever was at its peak, follwing the publication of LOTR.

Next in the series of reviews by the same critical reader, we will probably have Lev Tolstoy demolished by Anne Rice, and James Joyce fingered by Raymond Fayst.

O, what a beautiful world this is, where stucco imitations are considered better than polished marble statues!
 


<< You should add another option to the poll:

"I haven't seen it, but I think anything that has hype or is even remotely popular sucks no matter how good or bad it actually is. I want to have a false sense of individuality, so I will not go with the flow." >>



LOL...oh how true.
 
SORRY if this is way of topic!


first of all this is a hot deals forum, i should not have to think things through before i write or write anything deep for that matter...

In no way did i say that eddings has any literary value or that it is better than Tolkien. And in no way is every day life an english class. Does everything we read have to have literary value? people read comics, play redundant rpgs, do they have any literary value?

i read things for entertainment purposes...if i read a book and it's entertaining then to me it's good...please forgive me if i fail to read into the intricacies of what's deemed as books with literary value...i am by no means an english major or even claim to know much about literature.

maybe it's just me but as i was reading through the hobbit and FOTR, several times i thought about just putting the book down...maybe it's the writing style...maybe childish was the wrong word, like i poined out in my original post...

i asked an honest question about the book, which from what i have read, many people agree with me...u could have just answered it. am i wrong in reading eddings and the ilk and liking it?
 


<< did read the HOBBIT (thought it was really childish, especially in the beginning, and that was years ago. i'm 19 right now). i read up to page 159 (i still have it bookmarked) in FOTR and stopped. The part when Frodo is at Bombadil's. I just couldn't keep myself reading any further, i'd have to say it was too childish for lack of a better word. maybe i have been spoiled by george rr martin? >>

You stopped reading to soon. FOTR up to the point they arrive in Bree after they leave Bombadils i found to be the slowest reading in the series. After that point things tend to pick up considerably. Finish reading it you will thank yourself for it. As far as the Hobbit being childish i agree but that was always Tolkeins intent with the Hobbit. He wrote that specifically as a childrens story unlike the LOTR series which is definately intended for adult readers simply by virtue of it's complexity. Falcon: My wife and youngest son never read the book and had no trouble at all following the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top