Who here thinks...

[mhillary]

I do too!

 

[Frodolives]

His vision was different in tone than mine would've been, but a very well done fantasy, given the time restraints and such. I'm glad that it enlivened interest in the story to a larger group than might've otherwise known it in this generation.

This success even makes future productions more likely.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Frodolives
His vision was different in tone than mine would've been, but a very well done fantasy, given the time restraints and such. I'm glad that it enlivened interest in the story to a larger group than might've otherwise known it in this generation.

This success even makes future productions more likely.

:beer:

 

[BespinReactorShaft]

Don't really care either way, but it's definitely not as bad as what Lucas did to his own trilogy.

 

[Merlyn3D]

I think the real question here is: who here thinks quizzelsnatch is a m0ron!

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Considering that I don't have the patience or the skill to read each book all the way and somehow manage to do it in 3 hours, I think he did a great job.

 

[zerocool84]

books awesome, movies awesome, cartoons awesome, leonard nemoy singing LOTR songs....PRICELESS

 

[Landroval]

Well, I agree that people should read the books! They are not that long or difficult - certainly anyone in high school should be able to manage it. Of course some things are not exactly as they were in the books, and it is difficult to understand why certain characters were changed (e.g. Faramir or doubtful Theoden). But the movies stand on their own. It is amazing that they could pull it off... I can't think of any other team that could have come close to doing it well. <3

 

[dug777]

PJ is gay

 

[datalink7]

Somehow, this should have made it into the film


But seriously, I thought he did a great job.

 

[meltdown75]

Jackson is making the Hobbit right?

You know, when I was a kid and read the books (along with a bunch of other Tolkien mythology ie. Unfinished Tales, Silmarillion, etc) - a friend and I never thought that movies could be made that would do trilogy justice. I think Jackson did a pretty amazing job though - the question is: who could have done it better?

edited for clarity

 

[jjones]

Anyone who has seen Ralph Bakshi's attempt to do LoTR would say Peter Jackson did a phenomenal job with the movies. I waited 25 years for these movies and Jackson's work exceeded my best expectations.

 

[Tom]

I was just watching the ROTK extended version and thinking that all 3 of these movies are incredible.

I think the changes from the book made them better movies than any alternative would be. And listening to the commentaries of the creators and performers gives a lot of incite into why this is the case.

 

[FrustratedUser]

I think LoTR ruined itself by svcking so much.

 

[CPA]

Not a huge LOTR fan, but I did enjoy the movies except for the half hour ending in RotK.

 

[loup garou]

Both the books and the movies bore me to tears. Not a genre I enjoy.

 

[Tom]

"but why have faramir take frodo to osgiliath? That was a pointless thing to do, and i believe it even added time to the movie.


edit: or when gandalf meets the witch king and the witch king breaks his staff... wtf?

edit2: and saruman's cut from the movie, and when they just CUT OUT the entire end of the book where frodo comes back to the shire. that was an important part of the book."

I think you left the theater before the movie ended !

the witch king question- this established how powerful the witch king is, and why his demise is so impressive. Also, since Sauron is a bit of an enigma, the movie needs more tangible enemies to defeat than the book does.

Saruman question- it is the extended version. and in a very well done way that follows a lot of the story from the book, just that it doesn't happen in the shire. In the theatrical version, it doesn't fit anywhere very well.

 

[RandomFool]

I was expecting the worst when fellowship first came out, because it always seems like books get hacked to bit when the movie is made but they did a really good job of keeping the books relitivly intact and doing things right.

 

[Vic]

I do.

IMO the 1978 Ralph Bakshi cartoon version was better, and I think every LOTR fan knows what a POS that was...

 

[vood0g]

Originally posted by: Tom
"but why have faramir take frodo to osgiliath? That was a pointless thing to do, and i believe it even added time to the movie.


edit: or when gandalf meets the witch king and the witch king breaks his staff... wtf?

edit2: and saruman's cut from the movie, and when they just CUT OUT the entire end of the book where frodo comes back to the shire. that was an important part of the book."

I think you left the theater before the movie ended !

the witch king question- this established how powerful the witch king is, and why his demise is so impressive. Also, since Sauron is a bit of an enigma, the movie needs more tangible enemies to defeat than the book does.

Saruman question- it is the extended version. and in a very well done way that follows a lot of the story from the book, just that it doesn't happen in the shire. In the theatrical version, it doesn't fit anywhere very well.

i will go out on a limb and say that you did not read the book. either that or you are being sarcastic.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: vood0g

Originally posted by: Tom
"but why have faramir take frodo to osgiliath? That was a pointless thing to do, and i believe it even added time to the movie.


edit: or when gandalf meets the witch king and the witch king breaks his staff... wtf?

edit2: and saruman's cut from the movie, and when they just CUT OUT the entire end of the book where frodo comes back to the shire. that was an important part of the book."

I think you left the theater before the movie ended !

the witch king question- this established how powerful the witch king is, and why his demise is so impressive. Also, since Sauron is a bit of an enigma, the movie needs more tangible enemies to defeat than the book does.

Saruman question- it is the extended version. and in a very well done way that follows a lot of the story from the book, just that it doesn't happen in the shire. In the theatrical version, it doesn't fit anywhere very well.

i think you did not read the book.

I've read the books several times. I love the books and I love the movies.

 

[vood0g]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: vood0g

Originally posted by: Tom
"but why have faramir take frodo to osgiliath? That was a pointless thing to do, and i believe it even added time to the movie.


edit: or when gandalf meets the witch king and the witch king breaks his staff... wtf?

edit2: and saruman's cut from the movie, and when they just CUT OUT the entire end of the book where frodo comes back to the shire. that was an important part of the book."

I think you left the theater before the movie ended !

the witch king question- this established how powerful the witch king is, and why his demise is so impressive. Also, since Sauron is a bit of an enigma, the movie needs more tangible enemies to defeat than the book does.

Saruman question- it is the extended version. and in a very well done way that follows a lot of the story from the book, just that it doesn't happen in the shire. In the theatrical version, it doesn't fit anywhere very well.

i think you did not read the book.

I've read the books several times. I love the books and I love the movies.

i think he meant the part that was cut out was how the hobbits retook the shire. not literally frodo returning home.

 

[Tom]

"i think he meant the part that was cut out was how the hobbits retook the shire. not literally frodo returning home."

well, my telepathic powers are not as great as yours; so I rely on the written words.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: quizzelsnatch
was ruined by Peter Jackson?



EDIT:


i mean, the movies. who here thinks peter jackson ruined the movies?

I would have preferred that he had stayed closer to the books. But he did a very good job.