Slashdot Mirror
First Review Of Return Of The King
dipfan writes "Newsweek has a first review of the third instalment of LOTR - and gives it two thumbs up: "Judging from a recent Newsweek screening in New Zealand, The Return Of The King is a sure contender for best picture. More than that, it could be the first franchise ever that didn't, at the end of the day, let audiences down--either because of laziness, pretension, greed or other phantom menaces. This is an especially poignant possibility at a time when we can all still smell the smoke from the wreckage of The Matrix." Fingers crossed. There's also an entertaining piece on LOTR gaffes with comments from Peter Jackson (such as 'Well, it's too late to fire anyone,' and 'We didn't think Elijah looked very good with pus')."
> when we can all still smell the smoke from the wreckage of The Matrix
Just my personnal opinion, but the problem people have with The Matrix ending is peace. War is so much more glamour these days...
J.
that made no sense whatsoever
This is an especially poignant possibility at a time when we can all still smell the smoke from the wreckage of The Matrix"
I love it when the cool thing to do is bash popular movies, this dude will probably be the first person in line to say RotK sucks, whether it does or not.
There's the hobbit blade Sting and, right next to it, two versions of the kingly sword known as Anduril, one shattered, one whole Frodo, you dont have to put up a red light, I'll send an S.O.S to the Shire, I'll send an S.O.S to the shire I hope that someone gets my, I hope that someone gets my, message in a bottle.....
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Does it hurt to be simple?
i can't wait for this movie to come out, have to wait a month before i can get tickets to it though, dont want to wait 10 days in line, with the money i make working i can afford to pay the scalpers hopefully
What exactly was wrong with the ending of the Matrix anyway? I keep hearing about "how bad" it was, and I don't think I agree. Granted, it had a tough lead to follow with the first two movies (especially the first one), but that doesn't make the last movie a stinker.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
We don't need a good review to know that this film is going to be good. The first two of this trilogy were so good that non-fantasy lovers are now buying Dragon Lance books. I mean, cmon.
the earliest I may get to see this is Christmas morning. I even had a date, with my wife's blessing, for the all day long showing on the 16th, but the tickets sold out.
Secrets of 'The King'. Can't break this hobbit: Will Frodo destroy the ring? Will Aragorn wear the crown?
Yes, those are well kept secrets.
Tolkien wrote his works for a narrow literate audience, wrote it alone based on his personal experiences, and the fact it wouldn't fit in just one book made it a trilogy.
The LOTR movie is based on that book. The others were based on merchandising.
I can't help, but say that LOTR is definitely in a position to be one of the best trilogies ever created -- bar none. It's not just because of amazing acting, or directing, but primarly because this book created an environment that is literally, unbeatable. (no pun intended).
Tolkien spent such a huge portion of his life designing one of the best fantasy books ever created, and it's only right that he be rewarded with the respect that a movie created in his books name will be the best ever.
Star Wars (now a trilogy * 2) is still good, but I hate to say it -- the world that LOTR represents, immerses me more into something amazing than Star Wars could ever hope to do. I will be proud to walk in and out of that movie knowing that I spent my 7.50 USD well.
So, my 0.02 USD tells me: LOTR is poised to be the best trilogy ever.
Who is NOT going to the midnight showing?
IMHO reviews are not worth the time and effort to read. Go see the film yourself and decide. That's the only way.
Troll.
What is the point of reading a review before watching a movie? Watch the movie first, form your OWN opinion (this way it won't be influenced by anyone else's), thats what i have decided anyway.
Doesn't have the inteligence to really think about anyting. As long as it had boobs and bombs, the nimrods will watch it.
After getting Peter Jackson's comments on around ten different blunders in the movies, Jackson says "[ Pause ] You've got pages and pages there. And those are all mistakes they've spotted?"
Mr. Jackson, you must be new around here.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
... it was a crappy movie.
People didn't dislike the movie because it ended with "peace" between the machines and a handful of humans.
I'm tired of fanatic movie fans who just can't accept it when others don't like their movies. I didn't like the movie because I felt it didn't live up to the first one, and the 2 sequels added little if anything to what was an amazing story with a lot of potential.
Lots of popular movies end with a peaceful resolution at the end, or even a happy ending.
- sigs are for wimps.
it could be the first franchise ever that didn't, at the end of the day, let audiences down
My momma didn't raise no dummies.. I dug her rap.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
Well just about at Middle Earth.
I am in Wellington, New Zealand and the whole city is getting ready for the World Premiere here next week. There is Lord of the Rings images, statues, effects all over the pace. An unknowing visitor at the airport would get a hell of a sock at the warriars and dragons etc. leering down at them.
Well the Rugby World Cup escaped us. And that was a big blow to the country's psyche.
But every Kiwi I know derives huge pride in the work Peter Jackson has done. For creating a great triology of movies, for putting our scenery on the big screen, and generally raising the profile of this land of the long white cloud. And he seems to have somehow avoided coming down with tall poppy syndrone.
I'm still laughing...
Cheers, mate.
RimuHosting: Proudly NZ Owned and Operated Linux VPS Hosting
Surely the first two films were evidence enough the Jackson can be trusted to transform the Return of the King into an excellent film. Like a lot of die-hard Tolkein fans I found some scenes in the first two movies a little disappointing, but these disappointments were completely overshadowed by the splendour of what are overall two fantastic movies. If you doubt Jackson at all then go and buy the special edition DVD and watch the behind the scenes footage where you see the passion and dedication that has gone into the making of these films.
The smoke [from the exhaust] and dust wasn't so bad because there was already lots of it around, but the bloody windshield was reflecting the sun back into the camera lens. So we erased it for the DVD.
I call shennanigans! I haven't seen the FOTR:extended edition commentary, but I remember them saying, "We don't know what people are talking about...there's no car in this scene." So he's now admitting that they not only removed the car, but they lied about doing so in the commentary track.
Shennanigans all around. :)
P.S. I need to check, but I think they even removed the car in the Oscar screener. Or at least in the Hong Kong version of it. :)
I know people are tired of hearing about this... but if the movie is going to be so huge, and so successful, and make such enormous bank for the studio and for Jackson, then please just put in Christopher Lee's seven minutes of Saruman footage.
It's not going to break the damn film one way or the other. Christopher Lee is a screen legend and reads Lord of the Rings every year. This is the culmination of a lifelong dream for him, and frankly, the man does not have a wealth of years left to him. So many fans want to see it, and if Peter Jackson idolizes Christopher Lee so much he should do him the courtesy and the honor of letting him appear in what may well be the last great film he will appear in.
I am not confident that he will, but I really hope Jackson changes his mind on this at the last minute. Seven minutes out of three hours, out of nine or twelve plus hours of movie total -- what in the hell could it possibly hurt at this point?
Sorry to belabor this point, but reading the review led me to read some other Return of the King news, and how Christopher Lee will not be attending the premiere of Return of the King because he is so upset. After all that talk on the commentaries and documentary about what a close-knit bunch of friends they are, this seems like a cruel and unecessary snub to Mr. Lee.
Sorry, but I heard all about how *awful* Matrix 3 was. I went seeing it waiting for the worst.
And, Matrix 3 turned out to be *awesome*. It was exciting, action-packed, full of emotion, and romance. What is wrong with a trilogy that has alot of action, and ends in peace?
I didn't walk out of the theatre wondering if my car was really there, but I was very happy to have paid $15 to see a movie that was much better than average.
Wait - I think I know!
Matrix is, at the end, a love story. Families, lovers, and the like. And isn't slashdot largely populated by lonely, single geeks without a date? Geeks that wouldn't *understand* how deep the feelings of true love can really be?
Don't say I didn't mention this possibility...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Movie reviews are traditionally done for the purpose of letting people decide if a movie is worth seeing. That obviously has to be done before you see the movie to not be pointless.
If you've already decided to see a movie, I agree with you.
I read TTT and RoTK right after seeing the TTT film, and quickly realized that they had WAY too much left to film to fit in one film. I wish they'd turn it into a 4 part series.
I mean, how can you cut the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman? Without this, do we cut the entire palantir subplot? Without the palantir, we don't see where Aragorn stares down Sauron.
I also wonder how much of 'The Scouring of the Shire' made it in. How much screen time would we need for the Saruman / Wormtongue confrontation?
Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
Many have read the Hobbit, the Lord of The Rings and the Silmarillion numerous times. There is an expectation to live up to that does not exist with other movies. I re-read the LOTR within the last year, I'm wondering how much time will be spent after the destruction of the one ring (oops I gave it away) and the Hobbits return to the Shire. This was actually a significant portion of the last book. Of course it could be paraphrased just as the history of Sauron, and the book the Hobbit was in the beginning of LOTR>
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
Almost EVERYONE can relate to these movies because you can envision yourself as hobbits/wizards/kings against the Dark Lord (USA/terrorists/muslims/Bush).
Personally, it's me vs Sauron!
BEWARE - SPOILER!
I don't like that there won't be (even on DVDs) Scouring of Shire. That's why I find LOTR so great - it's so bitter-sweet end that war has got consequences even in such an idylic places like Shire.
I realize being on the big screen is an important part of this story, but let's face it, the Extended Editions are the best versions of these movies. As it is, after watching both back to back, the cut version may have been good in theatre, but it was nothing in comparison to a home studio with the extended version.
I personally see the Extended versions as the "real" ones, and the theatrical releases as teasers. Albeit really really good teasers.
if you're gonna mirror something - mirror it properly. at the bottom of your "end" is a whole stack more, and then theres about 3 more pages...
you sad, sad Karma Whore.
I have to agree with twistedcubic here - though I did see it after three weeks' worth of people telling me how hardcore it sucked. I dunno, maybe I was set up for a disappointment even worse than reality, so when I finally did see it, it was actually pretty good.
Yeah, they did leave a helluvalotta loose ends, and reality was nowhere near as intricate as my imagination made it after seeing Matrix 1 and 2, but (with the exception of some plot gratuity offered by the Merovingian) I had no real complaints walking out of there.
Okay, I take that back - I would much rather have seen them make the MCP be a giant spinning cylinder.
As for the review here, it wasn't so much a review of the movie as it was an inside look at some of the people who made Jackson's trilogy work (and, to be quite honest, I hope those people are like that IRL). Still, I can't believe that Jackson said he didn't like the Scouring of the Shire in RotK. I always thought it was the most important part of the trilogy.
More than that, it could be the first franchise ever that didn't, at the end of the day, let audiences down--.
Actually, I think the Debbie Does Dallas franchise did a pretty decent job of keeping its audience up.
Lots of popular movies end with a peaceful resolution at the end, or even a happy ending.
Yes, but these movies also end exactly how you expect them too. I think a lot of people were taken aback by the awkward ending in the Matrix -- the two main characters die, and neither side wins (humans vs machines). I don't care what anyone says, I swear this is why a lot of people don't like it, although I know 99% of them would never admit to such a thing. At first, I was like WTF? But then after thinking about it and seeing it again, I ended up really liking it.
Most movies are predictable, or at least have some sort of happy ending where everything is good and the guy gets the ho. This didn't have that and hence Joe Public didn't like it.
There's also the fact that this is the mvoie that everyone wanted to hate, because of Reloaded. I'll admit the second one was a bit of a disaster, until I saw the last one and realized how it all fit together. (Even then, the second was a bit long winded and had too much action and not enough plot).
Overall I can say I am very satisfied with the Matrix trilogy, something most people would never admit.
Joseph?
I'm definately not watching ROTK. They should be aware that some of us are rooting for evil forces, and cutting Saruman from the movie was a horrible decision.
Outrage!
<bitterness>
"from the they-like-it dept." indeed - next Slashdot will be telling us Gollum doesn't get the girl.
</bitterness>
</irony>
-- "Peace in Ireland is an issue Goodbye bombs, we're gonna miss ya" - Electronic
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Yea thats right, mod me down as a troll for being the voice of reason and suggesting that LOTR might not be the best thing ever.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Elijah Wood will switch between his two vastly different facial expressions (wide-eyed shock and wide-eyed fear), Gimli (too lazy to find out how the actor's name is spelled) will endure three hours of short jokes, Liv Tyler will stand still and move her lips to dialogue generated by a totally unconvincing speech synthesizer, and the entire thing will reach a climax of sorts with a CGI-overloaded battle scene filled with lots of quick cutting and handheld camerawork so you'll know it's edgy and modern while at the same time making it next to impossible to determine exactly where the combatants are in relation to one another. THE FILMMAKING ACHIEVEMENT OF THE MILLENNIUM!!!!!!! The New Zealand Tourist Commission sure got their money's worth.
that is so true. the slashdot crowd does not appreciate emotion. Love stories are lost on them.
Anyways, long story short: The Lord of the Rings movies is a franchise that proved to be a let down from the beginning. To say anything else, in my opinion, is to confuse the franchise of the books with that of the movies.
Ah personal opinion, don't you just love it when people trot it out as some sort of fact. Thats what gets me about this whole discussion, it is all about perception.
I think the worst mistake people can make when seeing LOTR is to constantly be comparing the films to the book. Take each as a seperate entity, and enjoy or hate it as such.
you start with a good story. That's why the Matrix got worse and worse, but LoTR got better.
> First franchise not to let fans down?
Great movie, but he was talking about franchises. When we see TMWWBK VII we can revisit this issue.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Some of his published letters describe his feelings on the possibility of a movie. He didn't like the idea for the same reason that many of the die-hard fans don't -- it's impossible to translate everything onto the screen.
But he wasn't dead-set against the idea. He gave his reluctant permission. (Then got really disgusted at the screenplays.)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
One troll to another: the shit is old. Let it go. Seriously.
N/T
Perhaps it is you who too readily accepts cheesy fake emotions. I blame TV sitcoms. Love interests for their own sake do nothing to improve a movie, and are often so badly crafted, that the discerning audience member can't help but flinch in disgust.
...for Two Towers alone there was an extra 40+ minutes of fottage, all cut in with music and effects.
Given the scouring of shire plot has been removed entirely, it makes no sense in the story to revisit Saruman.
In many ways, the cut of the house of the healers leaves far more plot threads unfinished.
So far I have come out of the theatrical versions each time saying "wow, but it felt like something was missing", and each time so far the EE:DVD has fixed that feeling.
It's not just the 7 minutes of Saruman, its the 7 minutes, plus the 4 minutes for this and the 8 minutes for that, etc... I've been told by the cinema it already has a 3:50 running time...
cheers
Sara
(and next year in November we do the EE marathon at home)
Yeah, but if you're still "up" at the *end* of a Debbie movie it didn't do its job.
Freedom: "I won't!"
come on. That's a inventive mind. Reward it.
I was absolutely blown-away by how much better the extended edition of FOTR was compared to the already excellent theatrical version...the extra scenes added so much depth to the movie. In fact, I wasn't really all that excited when TTT came out in theaters. I will be watching the extended DVD of TTT with my geeky family this Thanksgiving holiday, for sure. In reading about the stuff that got cut, I'm already pretty pumped for the ROTK extended edition.
--- Where's my car, and why are these grass stains on my pants?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
the problem with LOTR is that each movie is made with a sequel in mind. I mean, walking out of the theater after fellowship of the ring, you knew they would make a sequel. Just like the loud mouth sitting behind me said at the end " man, they so set that one up for a sequel". Same thing with part 2. Heck, im sure that part 3 will be end like tht too. Part 4 will probaby be something like "Battle for the Shire" then they will want to milk the cow even more and come out with a prequel like star wars. Probably call it "The Hobbit" or something like that.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
To make the movie even more enjoyable, everyone should try to act as described in this LOTR Survival Guide. You may even manage to get a Darwin Award!
Open Source Alternatives
Umm, you quoted me as qualifying my statement with "in my opinion" and then pretended like it was stated as fact and specifically not an opinion. That's laughable.
I definitely agree that it is a mistake to compare the books to the film. Which is why I said that books aren't directly translatable to film. That's not to say that Lord of the Rings suffers from anything it has or has not inherited from the book; it just says that they're different beast, and so you should treat them that way.
Joseph Elwell.
"In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder."
(It's from the Poochie episode of the Simpsons, for anyone who didn't get it immediately.)
-"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
I've heard that Lee ("Count Dushku" in the Star Wars prequels) intends to use his light saber on Jackson.
To be perfectly honest, I found the first two movies tedius. How can a movie with so much violence be so boring? I certainly will not be camping out to see the third.
I was a bit lost in the middle of FOTR because Glorfindel got replaced by some chick (AFAIK, we weren't told she was Arwen until later). It then bothered me when Elrond, the most enlightened dude in Middle Earth frowned when Merry & Pippin intruded on the Council.
This was minor compared to Treebeard being easily tricked and Faramir being yet another selfish man.
I recovered in the first film, but I didn't REALLY enjoy TTT until the DVD came out.
Some of the changes are forgiveable. If there are any similar bloopers, I'd like to know about them ahead of time, so that I can be prepared.
Having said that, the films are still incredibly good and Peter Jackson deserves an Oscar.
Starting sentences that read like: "I didn't like it cause it sucked", "I didn't like it cause it was lame", etc ... "I didn't like it cause I didn't like it".
I'm sorry people, but anyone who starts off an opinion piece with a remark like that for an opening sentence is effectively holding up a big, flashing neon sign saying "I am ignorant and my opinion deserves to be ignored"
When people simply say that the movie "sucked", it means just that, that they didn't like it. I have noticed that with a lot of Matrix fans in particular, expressing dislike for these movies is anathema, and that they treat it like a religion.
If you want people to explained to you why the movie "sucked" to them, you can politely ask. But to say that they are ignorant or sound ignorant is idiotic. Art is subjective, and sometimes, there are no clear ways to express why one dislikes a piece of art. In this case, the reasons are numerous, but why repeat them over and over. Saying "it sucks" it's enough, it communicates to you, that the writer didn't like the movie.
The defenses for this movie are just beyound ridiculous, the typical one is the "ignorant" and you "didn't get it" elitist charges, which are so pathetic, because you get the feeling that fans of these movies feel intellectually superior for a piece of work that pretends to be intellectual. It's amazing, what's so intellectual about leather clad people wacking each other like they're in a comic book, and pretending to regurgitate phylosophy 101 that doesn't advance the plot?
The original poster here has an even more amazing defense, people don't like the movie, because today they're INTO WAR!. Amazing, the insult is that if you don't like the movie, you must be some blood thristy war monger that can't appreaciate this sophisticated work.
Get a grip folks, and learn to respect other people's opinions. So you liked the movie, CLAP CLAP, good for you. But don't insult other people's intelligence because they don't share your same taste (or lack of it).
Enough.
- sigs are for wimps.
hmm?
"More than that, it could be the first franchise ever that didn't, at the end of the day, let audiences down--either because of laziness, pretension, greed or other phantom menaces."
Perhaps that was a less than subtle hint that the submitter is disappointed with the Star Wars prequel trilogy?
...squeel with geekish delight upon seeing this?
I think the worst mistake people can make when seeing LOTR is to constantly be comparing the films to the book
Well, if Jackson didn't want to film Tolkien's work, he should have named it "Peter Jackson's Dwarf-tossing, wimpy-heir-to-the-throne-that-needs-to-be-slapped fantasy trilogy". Then nobody would compare it to the books. But no, he didn't do that.
When directors make Shakespearian films, while they may play around with scenery and do weird things like setting Richard III in 1930's England, or Hamlet in 20th century America, they know enough not to touch the characters or dialog. Tolkien deserves the same sort of respect. Instead Jackson treated it the same way crappy source material from Stephen King or Tom Clancy is treated by directors -- that is as something where fidelity to the source is of no great matter.
> his masterpeace hollywoodized for the consumption of the illiterate masses.
If LoTR was produced by the usual Hollywood crowd...
- Hobbit "Merry" would be a faggot with a penchant for saying things that made everyone else in the movie think he was "Gay", though the audience would know better.
- The ringwraiths would be top-secret robotic soldiers with lasers on their heads, taken over by a "hacker" (Sauron).
- The flight from the Shire to Rivendell would be a car chase.
- The barrow wights would be drug dealers, angry because the car chase crashed through the warehouse right when their big deal was going down.
- Strider would be a 6'1" Brazilian lesbian who wore a chainmail bikini and prefered kickboxing to broadswords. The camera would linger lovingly at the appropriate places, and she would give Arwen a hot kiss in the trailer.
- When the Hobbits first met Strider at Bree, there would be a pole dancer in the background while they talked.
- After the skirmish at weathertop, Elven paratroopers would drop in to rescue the heros just after they had driven off the ringwraiths and didn't need help anymore.
- At the Ford of Isen, the flash flood would be caused because one of the Bad Guys' Henchmen set off the charge and blew the dam a few seconds too late. The cars washed down the river by the flood would go over a waterfall and explode in mid air.
- There would be an enemy mole in the Fellowship, motivated by jealousy over somebody or another.
- The tentacled thingy outside the Gates of Moria would drag the mole to his death. Papers found on his body afterward would tip the Fellowship off that he had been a mole.
- The orcs in Moria would be more drug dealers, angry because the Fellowship interrupted another big deal. Or maybe terrorists planning an attack on the Shire, angry at being discovered before carrying out the plot. The Fellowship would kill about 900 in hand-to-hand combat before they had to flee.
- Ms. Strider would wrestle the balrog while the others fled, losing her top duing the fight but having it CGBra'd back on to preserve the film's rating.
- Lots of explosions in the Moria fight, even though everyone was fighting with knives and crowbars.
- Everyone would get laid at the visit to Galadriel's haven. (Except for Merry, who would spend the evening putting off the advances of a Gay Elven Warrior who came out of the closet due to Merry's charms.) Frodo and Strider would rate a threesome with Galadriel herself.
- Lembas would give the heros Amazing Powers, which would fade just when they needed it most.
- Boromir would break up the Fellowship by making a pass at Merry, never previously having a queer urge in his life. Merry's dignity would be saved by a timely Orc raid.
- ...
Somone else can take it from there...Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
peace
Yeah, I had a big problem when Trinity kept talking with those big peaces of metal sticking out of her...
Sheesh. Just die already!
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
My apologies, I didn't see that part of the post. I blame lack of sleep.
Matrix was made from scratch. Not only was visual and cinematic talent required but also literary talent and philisophical skill on top of that.
Jackson already had the full script available from the start. Very little creative talent in the story area required.
We can forgive the Wachowski bros for not knowing interesting answers to the interesting questions. It'd be a little harder to forgive Jackson for messing up the plot of a movie when all he had to do was NOT change the given story.
For what the Wachowski bros had available they did quite a good job on their series. For what Jackson has available he's also doing a fantastic job.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
It's your damn tone Mr. Smarty. Stop being so damn pretentious asshole. We all know about The Man Who Would be King. It's not some obscure art film you assbitch. Take your damn degree and shove it up your fat zittled ass.
What's wrong with Liv Tyler standing doing anything? I could watch her all day and fuck her all night.
Let's not even go there. Hot grits and petrification lay in that direction.
the first matrix movie, everyone was expecting a kung fu flick, and got a quasi-religious experience
the second and third matrix movies, everyone was expecting a quasi-religious experience, and got a kung fu flick
those are the matrix movies in a nutshell
none of the 3 matrix movies are especially great or awful, it's just a matter of audience expectations being exceeded or underwhelmed
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
'Star Wars and The Matrix [...] cater[] to a broad audience.' You don't think LOTR caters to a large audience? Have you seen the box office figures for these films?!? Or is it that you (eroneously) believe that the LOTR films were conceived as some sort of small art-house films?
... you know, books come in all shapes and sizes: there isn't a physical standard format size that a literary oeuvre must 'fit' into or else risk being truncated (shrink to fit into one) or drawn out (enlarged to fill several).
'Tolkien wrote his works for a narrow literate audience[.]' I don't know whether I would agree with this statement and irrespective of whether it's true or not the book(s) certainly sold way above the confines of such a 'narrow' audience. (I would, however, agree that its audience would be 'literate' -- it's a bit hard to read if one isn't.)
'[...] based on his personal experiences' -- I seriously doubt that Tolkien, who really seems to have been a rather level-headed sort of chap, had any 'personal experiences' with elfs and ents and wizards.
' [...] the fact it wouldn't fit in just one book made it a trilogy.' Errr
The liver is evil and must be punished.
*ducks*
Funny- but, you know what? Good story-telling means that knowing the ending doesn't matter.
Case and point- when Gandalf fell at the end of the first movie- you could have heard a pin drop in the theater, and I found it to be a very, very powerful scene. Nearly everyone in the audience knew damn well he was fine and would return -but the power of the imagery of the comrades loosing their leader and friend just grips you to the point that, even though you know otherwise(and if you were smart, you'd realize it takes more to bump off Gandalf)- you really feel like he just died.
I think the difference is that too many movies substitute "what's gonna happen next? Find out!" for a good story. That is, however, not to say that all mysteries are bad- quite the opposite, I love mysteries/suspense(not the slasher kind though). If you want a good example, pick up one of Le Carre's spy novels; I strongly recommend reading from the first, especially if you're reading any of his first half dozen books or so- some of them -are- chronologically important.
Another good example is, believe it or not- Marathon. That game came at a time when Doom was "the" game- you ran around blowing up monsters and that was pretty much it. In Marathon, you had a non-linear play, you could suddenly find yourself on any one of three sides(even mid-level, if I remember right!); you had to do a lot of searching and pay close attention to details. It was the best FPS plot-wise I've ever played. You can currently play the demo on any modern OS- search for Aleph One. You can get the demo files from bungie's site, and if you have the original CDs, you can play the entire game. I'm replaying the thing from scratch right now, as a matter of fact.
Please help metamoderate.
The scouring of the shire will not be in the films, this is widely known.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
If the sequels had come out independently, no relation to the first film, they would have been OK Hollywood movies. The Matrix was not a brilliant film because of the philosophy, or because of the plot, it was successful because a lot of great actors put in a lot of really good performances, and, after 5 years of storyboarding, the filmmakers shot some amazing and affecting scenes.
The two later movies are thrown together by comparison. More actors with less talent basically do less. The background actors in the first movie stayed in the background and looked cool. The background actors in the sequels have to do stuff so the video game makes sense even though it detracts from the movie.
More to the point Laurence Fishburne is an amazing actor with great presence and delivery, and he made the first movie great. He was not allowed to make the sequels great, and Keanu, though good at looking lost and out of place, does not have the presence to play lead (Ted yes, pre-One Neo, yes, The ONE, no).
I don't think that there can be enough emphasis on how much the 5 years of feuding with the studios improved the original. The Wachowskis had to explain every scene dozens of times, get them drawn on paper, re-edit... They just weren't forced to make the same effort for the sequels. Limitations, like Keanu's injuries (limited the fight scenes), the cast's lack of martial art training (ditto), studio antipathy (forced them to work), and delays (gave them time to get it right) contributed to the greatness of the first film. Too much money, too much fame, too much power, too little thought, too much hubris dragged down the sequels.
Again, without the first movies the sequels would have been OK Hollywood movies, they just look real bad by comparison. I can watch scenes from the first movie over and over because they work, they have emotional impact, they look cool. I have no desire to see the other movies again because even the fight scenes are dull and go on too long. The first movie would probably have had long, limp fight scenes too, if Keanu had been healthy, and if Moss, Fishburne, Reeves et al really knew Kung fu. Limitations and suffering, not freedom and happiness, make art.
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
I've noticed that, at least in movies, there are two kinds of trilogies. (and I realize this is a generalization, so don't tell me the one obscure point that makes it break the mold... nothing fits a generalization exactly...) The two kinds of trilogies are: those written as a unit and those written as the first third, and then the other two are tacked on afterward usually because the creators realized they really had a chance to make some money.
Examples:
1st group (those that were written as a unit):
The first 3 Star Wars (yes I know the other's were concieved, but a 12 page script is not my idea of written)
Back to the Future
Lord of the Rings
note all of the 1st group made excellent trilogies.
Now for the 2nd group (those written after the first):
Jaws
Star Wars Episodes I and II (ok not trilogies, but still have the same problem)
The Matrix
note that in the group 2 examples the first movie (or in star wars case 3 movies) were killer good, and killer money makers. Afterwards they created the sequels Jaws 2 and 3 and the Matrix: reloaded and revolutions.
I just think there is something to be said for leaving a great work like the matrix alone and not tarnishing it by trying to wring the sponge dry of money. (I haven't seen the third one, I'm not sure I can stomach a second disappointment... I also don't think I will own the 2nd on DVD I'll just keep to the original matrix.)
Silymarilyn indeed, dumbass.
Am I the only person who was utterly destroyed by the second movie and it's deviation from the original plot?
"Yadda yadda, movie adaptation" I don't care... I loved the first movie. Second would have been just as good if they had kept to the original. Nothing was gained by writing in their own little plot changes, but more was lost I think. I probably won't even see the third movie, but I don't know how you can look past the BS bastardizing of the original storyline...
I was hoping for three...
The problem that was experienced with Revolutions is viewers who are unable to watch film critically. Revolutions was an excellent film, as was Hulk, and many others that people of low patience and poor education have hated, simply because they were unable to understand them. People who hated these films are simply not literate. Those who cannot read are prone to hating books. It is no different with film.
Newsweek gave it 'Two Thumbs up'?
Did two people write the article?
Was one of them Roger Ebert?
-n
http://www.remix.net/
______________________I'M_GAY_GAY_GAY_
______________________IN_A_SPECIAL_WAY
_______________\_/____________________
___________/__\_|_/__\_____/__________
_______________\|/________/___________
___________,.---v---.____/____________
_/\__/\__/__Cowboi____\_/_____________
_\____/_/_____Kneel____\______________
___\_\_|___________@___|______________
hjw_\________________\________________
`97__\_____,__/_______/_______________
This is an important warning to all slashdotters. CmdrTaco has been luring people (mainly underage males) into the slashdot compound to eat his "special taco". You may be wondering what CmdrTaco's "special taco" is. You will be wishing that you hadn't been wondering after you finish reading this post. To make his "special taco", CmdrTaco takes a taco shell and shits on it. He then adds lettuce, takes out his tiny withered dick (otherwise known as his "Commander"), puts his "special taco sauce" on it which means he jacks off on the taco, and adds a compound to make the person who eats the taco unconcious. Of course, the compound does not make the person unconcous until the taco is fully eaten. Thus CmdrTaco force feeds the taco to the unsuspecting victim. After all, who would knowingly eat shit and CmdrTaco's jizz. After the victim is unconcous, he is held against his will and used for CmdrTaco's nefarious homosexual purposes. This includes shoving taco shells up the victim's ass, taco snotting, and getting JonKatz involved. Trust me, you do not want JonKatz anywhere near your unconcious body. Also, rumor has it CmdrTaco is looking for a new goatse.cx guy. Don't let it be you!!!!! The last thing you may be wondering is how this goes along with "taco snotting", or what "taco snotting" is. George WIPO Bush and The WIPO Troll have been doing considerable work explaining what "taco snotting" is. Please see his FAQ on "taco snotting" which can be found as a -1 rated comment on most slashdot stories. Please, if CmdrTaco offers you his "special taco", RUN LIKE HELL!!!!!!!!
When a large green invincible man, who has taken dozens of missile shots and bullets and all manner of attacks in your attempts to stop his dangerous rampage takes a few minutes, cools down, and is un-invincible. YOU SHOOT HIM IN THE FUCKING HEAD. Oh no, wait, you wait for him to turn green again and do the whole bullet thing again. Good idea.
look below at my sig.
They borrowed the name of the movie from Carrie Ann Moss too.
Remember these guys are in hiding.
Newline is already screwing the actors - they seem to think they movie didn't really make any money so they can't give them any bonuses.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Hi.
You're discussing about how a talking tree was presented onscreen.
- learn to swim.
they kept doing the *right* thing by not casting any negros.
Nothing ruins a movie more completely than having to suffer through the savage grunts of a sub-human ape on the screen.
LOTR is a movie about White, Western European heritage and culture. In the times portrayed, blacks had not yet found a way to leave Africa and pollute the European gene pool as they now do.
LOTR is a wonderful movie because it celebrates White heritage, which is a dying thing.
White people only make up 8% of the population of the world. That means that 92% of the world is non-White. White people are an endangered species and will soon be extinct due to miscegenation.
look below at my sig.
This is The Man Who Would Be King that Gandalf wrote and directed, yes?
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
While it was no "Nitpicker's Guide to Star Trek: The Next Generation," they did manage to find a few neat errors in FotR.
But for TTT, there are hardly any mistakes recorded. And the ones that are there are pretty pathetic, the lamest of the bunch being...
Blunder No. 3: "When Saruman is talking to Sauron through the palantir, his lips aren't moving."
Jackson: Well, that's because he's engaged in a psychic session. That was deliberate.
Duh. Almost everyone I know has seen TTT and nobody has ever thought that to be an error. It's completely obvious.
Why did they ever bother mentioning the second film? Why not just say, "Hey Pete, great work! You stumped us!"
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
No one would want to film one of those...
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
On teh menoo: fetid shit with shrivel dick.
No Taco-Snot(R) today.
Haven't seen it but let's recount some of this years movies:
* American Splendor
* City of God
* Lost in Translation
* Northfork
* Mystic River
* The Human Stain
* Whale Rider
A wide swath of interesting, compelling, accessible and memorable movies. Hell, most aren't even obscure art films. Got names like Clint Eastwood, Nicole Kidman, and Sophia Coppola on there. Other than being a welldone adaptation of a good book, RotK probably won't add anything to the catalogue of movies. I'd suggest any of the above to anyone. Seriously, there's som good stuff out there that doesn't involve 2 hours of gynormous fight scenes and CG.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have been reading the Tolkien stuff for 30 years (I'm 42). Though I don't think the LOTR Trilogy is perfect (I missed Tom Bombadil...) it to me is obviously made with love for the story and characters and to me, true to the spirit of the story that I have spent so many hours in my life reading and imaginging! I have a three year old girl that I'm looking forward to reading the story to, and then watching the movie.
It is a tremendous achivement that Peter was able to make all three at once and the director's cuts of 1 & 2 are also tremendous. Thank you for bringing such a favorite story of mine to life! If only someone could do it with Dune...
I hope Peter Jackson is able to make The Hobbit with the same love and care as LOTR. I would love to see Smaug and the gold as seen by Peter and Co. Bring it on!!!
Bod
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Gandalf is powerful because he doesn't flaunt his true powers like SOME KIND OF FUCKING FAIRY.
(j/k, but only slightly)
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
While we're speculating, would the world have been better or worse if Hitler had been killed in WW I?
The first thought is that it would be better, but imagine a Nazi party that manages to get to power with a different, sane and competant, leader...
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
The real joke Q. What time is is bedtime at Michael Jackson's ranch? A. When the big hand touches the little hand
>> Newsweek has a first review of the third instalment of LOTR - and gives it two thumbs up
#1. That was not a review. It was a promotional
article for the movie. Although the person writing the article appears to have seen the movie, he does not present his opinion about its quality.
#2. No where is the phrase "two thumbs up" used, this being something only done by Ebert & The Other Guy, who are not newsweek columnists.
#3. The word 'installment' has two Ls.
"case in point"
"losing"
I weep for this generation's English skills.
Got rage?
When Aragorn took his tumble into the river and was assumed dead in Two Towers, I took it to mean that he wouldn't be taking the Paths of the Dead and assumed dead in RotK. The article mentions the beginning of this scene in the movie. Knowing this, is there any reason the river scene was added to the two towers except as a lapse of judgement?
I disagree. It could have ended many different ways as long as there was a point to it. Personally, I would have preferred the ending being that Neo wakes up from an "outer Matrix" into the real world, perhaps to find out he is a machine in a human constructed Matrix. Now wouldn't that have been interesting?
That would have been too cheap. It's been done a million times, the "It was all a dream" ending.
- sigs are for wimps.
A wizard did it.
In the simpsons when Lucy Lawless (Xena) was in the comic book store, she started getting pestered with those "mistake" questions. Her answer "whenever you see something like that, a wizard did it."
"how about in the espisode."
"Wizard"
I thought it was funny..
I investigated this: 1) "Matrix" is not a terribly uncommon word, and works well for the movie 2) NONE of the "evidence" that Sofia/Sophia whats-her-name even REMOTELY looks like the Matrix script. What's really funny is that some of the "conceptual" imagery people have posted is FROM MATRIX COMICS that have been published recently. Her "script" is actually an extended conceptual essay that reads more like she wanted to make some sort of "Book of Relevation" type movie, vs. a sci-fi/fantasy/action movie. Even when she EXPLICITLY POINTS OUT WHAT SHE SAYS IS DIRECT THEFT, there's no similarity, even between characters. So yeah, Moss was in an ill-fated TV series called "Matrix". Years later she was in a movie series by the same name that wasn't the same plotline. I guess that's enough for some people to see a conspiracy.
You'd be amazed how many people have never seen a movie made before they were born. One guy at work refuses to watch a movie that's in black and white.
I know. ::sigh:: ::flies away::
There is no use fighting dittoheads. You could do it all day long.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0087182/
I guess this means that all RotK items are going to rehash The Matrix Re: sequels until RotK is released?
I mean, didn't the last RotK item also quickly degenerate into a debate on the merits of The Matrix sequels.
I can't wait either, and really wish I didn't have to as I fear the new things that have been added to the flick now that the production company is flush with cash.
I think the reason for the disappointment with a lot of sequels to popular flix is that they were filmed with more cash and star power. The producers would feel an expectation to be more in every way...which disappoints the audience that loved subtle nuances of the first films. The other extreme, of course, is for the film to become campy.
The main thing I am hoping for with LoTR III is continuity. As all three parts of the series were filmed at the same time; So, I think there is a good chance that they will stick with the same flavor and pace.
But they did have a year and a great deal of money. It is possible to a great deal of harm when you have a lot of money.
BTW, I read the book...and am still trying to figure out how this whole thing with Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and Gollum is going to end up with thirteen dwarves fighting a dragon over a treasure.
The real problem with this film is in the writing. Anything not uttered by Agent Smith was a bore. Particularly bad dialogue envelops entire scenes, such as Trinity's death, the Bane/Smith and Neo confrontation, and Mifune's dying speech.
Pretty much all the characters, and the work that went in to them over the course of the last two films are wasted wholesale in this movie: Morpheus is now a glorified grunt, Trinity becomes a crutch for Neo and then is killed off pointlessly and artlessly, the Merovingian gets to lose...again.
Crucial plot threads are ignored or harshly reshaped. Freeing mankind from living underground or trapped in the Matrix becomes saving the bits of Zion that haven't been obliterated yet. Neo's status as The One, you know, the guy that can basically solve everything, lead mankind to freedom and perhaps forge a peace with the Machines changes to that of a really good hacker who can fix a really bad recent glitch that he caused in the first place.
Speaking of which, everything's so irritably vague. It's never been properly established exactly how Smith is a threat to the Machine World - until Neo mentions it to the Source, I thought Smith was just bollixing up the Matrix real well. And how does Neo defeat it him? I've made some guesses, but I'm still pretty stumped. Not to mention his powers outside of the Matrix - the best we get is that he can do it. Swell.
One last thing, courtesy of Scott Kurtz. If EMP weapons work so well against the machines, how come they haven't delevoped the hell out of that technology? Why not place EMP generators willy-nilly along their line of retreat? Why not lob a few at the machine city/powerplant/whatever? All that farting about in the Matrix when they could be unleashing some serious firepower. Just a thought.
Basically, what it boils down to is that, philosophically, yeah, Revolutions is pretty sound. But technically? Coulda used a couple of rewrites.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
IT'S AUTUMN of 2001, at WETA Workshop, in Wellington, New Zealand. Jackson is about to release "The Fellowship of the Ring,"
Southern hemisphere ... seasons reversed ... it would have been spring 2001 in NZ when FOTR was about to be released. At least the writer had the grace to say "autumn" and not "fall" :)
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
some of the stuff they posted is stupid like from the matrix comic book and a movie review that says nothing about copyright but...there are similarities like the character descriptions and names.
I or you shouldn't put script theft past WarnerBrothers or the Wachowskis since they aren't exactly a know commodity.
The movie may just be a patchwork of ideas taken (borrowed) from many sources . Does that make it right ? I don't know. Up to a court i guess.
Lets not forget that she called the FBI which was brilliant. If records are true about witnesses then this will make them look very bad.
All 3 Matrix Movies: AWESOME
I'm getting sick of the Matrix bashing going on. Finally went and saw Revolutions this last weekend and guess what?
It rocked.
And just to stay on topic (regardless of the story poster troll), ROTK will be awesome too. I'm sure of it. Can't wait.
Then again, anything could beat that pile of cow turds. omg the matrix revulsions was so horribly bad, and I don't mean that in a good way.
:)
There were many times I wished I had a "fast forward" button, many times...
And is it just me or did the actors look totally BORED and completely lacking any energy or enthusism? I mean, really, there are so many scenes where it just seems like the actors are saying "ok, let's just get this overwith so we can all go home", really!
One great example of this is Agent Smiths final speech to Neo (near the end of the movie, of course, you'd have to wade through all the other muck in this film to get that far). His delivery of these lines is so lifeless, and it's actually broken up a few times (pauses in the wrong places). Where it seems like he just couldn't give a damn about saying the line or not...
I remember several of the more "dramatic" or "serious" conversation scenes, where the entire audience actually broke up laughing hysterically, many times.
Also, many times throughout the movie audience members actually got up and walked out. Many times... I considered it myself, but figured I might as well see just how bad it could be...
Ed Wood could have done a better job, on a better budget too. sheesh. And that editor/reporter who said that the Ewoks could have made this movie better was RIGHT! omg it stunk so bad!
Many of the plotlines and stuff just didn't make sense, or were just so completely wrong, it was just unbearable after a while. I could name things, but that'd be considered some serious spoilers... Neo's abilities, his "disconnection", I mean, come on. puh-leeze!
omg the ending was lame. They should have hired some real writers and done something decent with it, it's hard to imagine that #3 is actually worse than #2 (returded)... yuck...
I will end this like many editorials do:
"at least its finally over!"
What's wrong with another hour for the conclusion for a movie such as this? It pains me to see desicions made based on marketing and income rather than the art of moviemaking.
Yes yes, I know it's always the way it's been done, but can't things change?
greed or other phantom menaces.
Freudian slip, intentiontional illusion, or sad irony? I pick all three. Damn Lucas to hell for his lack of faith.
As far as the final (pfah, yeah right. they'll likely make a second trilogy, because people will watch it! bastards) Matrix is concerned, I have no interest in seeing it after the second one fucked things up so severely. They completely abandoned any coherrence of plot or storytelling and replaced it with a shitload of jungfoo and bullshit special effects. From what I hear, that's what they did with the third as well.
Hollywood needs more directors like Jackson. Most directors seem to think that by cutting corners, they'll lower production costs, and thus have a higher return - which, naturally, will promise them further contracts with the studio. This is bullshit.
For example, look at LotR. It's not popular just because it's based off of Tolkien's world - it's popular because it's an awesome film, and stands on its own. I know of people that have watched the first two films, and have loved them - and they aren't fantasy fans in the least, and haven't even read the books.
Unfortunately, there simply aren't that many visionaries in Hollywood that are also good at managing people and directing well (which includes getting a good script, etc.). There are a few around nowadays: Quentin Tarantino, Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, (possibly, given time) Troy Duffy, David Fincher (when he gets a decent script), and a couple others. Of course, there are other contributing factors to good film (good composers, actors, editors, and writers/storyboarders, mainly), and every director has his shortcomings and bad eggs, but these are some of the better ones out there, IMO. Anyone else have any directing favorites that I couldn't pull off the top?
I would have included Steven Spielberg and Lucas, but Spielburg seems a bit past his prime, at least in terms of quality film, and Lucas hasn't really done a damned thing of quality except for Star Wars - and it's debateable how much of that is really his, and how much of it is simply him falling into the seat of opportunity.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Seriously, there's som good stuff out there that doesn't involve 2 hours of gynormous fight scenes and CG.
You mean there's something other than the starwars prequels?
Further: didn't he, at least in part, set out to write his 'Hobbit books' with the intention of providing England/Britain (in particular) with a 'new' mythology (as he thought society had lost too much or all of its original sagas and myths due to industrialism and its consequences and that this, in turn, created a mythological void that needed to be filled)? And wouldn't that at least imply that he wished/desired people to read and appreciate his books? Surely you would agree that a myth isn't just some esoteric little yarn known by a chosen few?!
I admit the 'personal experience' comment was a cheap shot I couldn't resist. However (in descending order of generality):
I think there exists, in general, a really misconceived notion of reading 'personal experience' and autobiographical details (and their meaning) of the author into works of fiction: works of fiction should primarily be seen works of fiction not works of self-analysis and metaphorical gossip; if we're lucky a work of fiction may provide enjoyment as well as insight into human nature and the human condition, but whether that insight is based on the author's personal experience or not is completely irrelevant: Othello isn't necessarily a worse play just because Shakespeare wasn't a Moor and hadn't strangled his wife;
I also think that people are prone to read far more into, in particular, LOTR than is actually there and even more than Tolkien might have wanted them to (cf. for instance, his saying that he didn't want people running around speaking elvish with people running around speaking elvish while arguing that they are the true keepers of the Tolkien heritage -- or at least they did in this SBS documentary which seemed just so sad); and
My argument concerned the LOTR trilogy, not Silmarillion nor unfinished works. (Which I have read so I really wouldn't know anything about them: I have tried to read Silmarillion, I really have, but I have failed. Miserably. It is just unreadable. Really.)
Finally and parenthetically: being a spell-check nazi and all, I will take this opportunity to cry mea culpa: I blush at my typos in the original post: I know fully well how to spell 'erroneously' and 'elves'. Really I do. OR at least my computer does.
The liver is evil and must be punished.
Can you say Gladiator? For all your antipathy, you seem to forget the epic that was so acclaimed only a couple years ago. It had many of the same elements that RotK has ("gynormous fight scenes and CG"). However, RotK, like Gladiator, has a compelling story more meaningful than just hack-and-slash.
*begin rant*
I don't know about the rest of y'all giddy bastards drooling all over these movies, but I'm very disappointed with how the trillogy is turning out thus far. I liked the first movie lots, even though it should have had a few less shots of the scenerey and some more character development, but there was trouble even there. What the trouble was? Arwen/Liv Tyler. I'm as horny as the next guy and can appreciate the reasons for including at least one hottie actress in what was otherwise an all-boys show, but it shouldn't have happened, and it was only the sign of things to come.
Enter the second movie. Not only were there often substantial plot changes, but characters were fundamentally altered, which pissed me off. Faramir turned into a greedy asshole, Eowyn became a sighing wench, the hobbits got preachy and the Ents were cowards. The battle of Helm's Deep was ridiculous, and not just because of the mysterious arrival of the Elves or the fact that Rohan somehow spawned an army on horseback in the throneroom (Microsoft really ought to have patched that exploit) - watch the battle at the end of Army of Darkness and then watch Helm's Deep and you'll get a new appreciation for the silliness. I couldn't stand to watch it the second time around on DVD and I'm not looking forward to the third movie; if the trend continues, it will deviate even further from the books that I love (they are classics for a reason, eh?).
*Insert joke about harnessing the rotational energy of Tolkien's grave.*
The source material was as good as can get and was combined with some very good casting and awesome special effects, but Peter Jackson/Frances Walsh (did the screenplay) couldn't leave it well enough alone, could they? Bastards. If I wasn't so damn lazy or terrified of prison, I'd eat their children.
*end rant*
Even as you read this, your pants are strangling your loins! Aaa!
...the MPAA will sue you if you don't download!!!!
As long as >nobody does any of these things</a> the movie should be an enjoyable experience. I particularly am amused by #7 for some reason...
7. When Aragorn is crowned king, stand up and at the top of your lungs sing, "And I did it.... MY way...!"
Is there any real supporting evidence out there? A bunch of scanned documents are great, but I'm still a bit sceptical that they are even real.
I live in a giant bucket.
...try time-travelling Elves.
We all know the inscription on the Doors of Durin: " blah blah blah, Lord of Moria, blah blah blah". And yes, it really does say "Moria," that's not just editorializing by Gandalf to entertain the Fellowship. The rest of the inscription says that the Doors were made by a famous Dwarf, and the inscription carved by a famous Elf, because the races got along okay at the time.
Except... moria is an insulting name. It means "Abyss" or (literally) "Black Pit." Nobody would have called the Kingdom of Khazad-Dum an abyss when it was at the height of its splendor. The name "Moria" was only earned long years later, after they woke the Balrog and abandoned the kingdom.
In any case, the Dwarves certainly wouldn't have let the Elves carve such an insulting name on the west entrance, and the Elves wouldn't have wanted to.
Oops. :-)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Am I the only one that actually liked Revolutions?
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
Freudian slip, intentiontional illusion, or sad irony?
I think you mean allusion there
\Al*lu"sion\, n. [L. allusio, fr. alludere to allude:
cf. F. allusion.]
1. A figurative or symbolical reference. [Obs.]
2. A reference to something supposed to be known, but not
explicitly mentioned; a covert indication; indirect
reference; a hint.
Jackson never said he didn't like the Scouring of the Shire: there is no direct quote from him, so I'm betting the magazine writer is making that up through misinterpreting something else that Jackson said.
Jackson has said there was no way to include it without making the movie too long, and without it being anticlimactic. And it's true; the destruction of the Ring is the proper climax, and at that point you need to wrap things up with the crowning of Aragorn, and with Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf, Galadriel, etc., sailing to Valinor. Anything more is simply too much for a movie version.
I liked the first Matrix because it brought comics into live action like nothing before it. I don't like or care about religious references, be it christianity or other. Religions and religious people are dangerous and quite possibly insane but that movie was so good otherwise I tolerated it's psychophiloreligious babble.
These sequels then... pfft. Same action stuff and more philorelig shit.
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
If you were to sit down tonight and write a completely original script that wound up being a blockbuster, I practically guarantee you'd get sued by someone over it. And the vast majority of such suits get tossed out as quickly as they're filed, because they're almost invariably completely worthless on their merits. Maybe there's something to this one over the Matrix, but the track record for these sorts of things is pretty dismal.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Well, screw you. The real Zionists built their state on stolen land through genocide and ethnic cleansing of the native inhabitants. They are going to get what's coming to them, and get it good and hard.
Thanks to idiots like you, they'll drag us down with them. Don't be a chump.
Are you talking about the US, central or south america? Do you live in land that was not owned by other "ethinc" people in the past? Should you be killed?
suck it up and shut up.
With Lord of the Rings everything they needed was handed to them on a silver plater storywise.
Matrix had to get from point A to point B with (apparently) no clue where point B was. And that's why it kinda sucked. After the first movie, they had absolutly no direction.
Jackson had to get from point A to point B given exactly what those points were. There was no point where Jackson wasn't told what the next waypoint was and how the characters get there in an interesting way. He just had to decide how to describe it in the alloted time.
My point is, yes it takes talent to get from point A to point B in X hours instead of thousands of pages. But it takes more talent to get a great story with a point A and point B with nothing to work off of.
It's far easier and more expected to fall flat on your face when you don't know the path. Jackson knew the road he was travelling. He just had to make a reader's digest account of the journey that was already fully logged and proven a solid story.
If the bros had spent a decade or two getting familiar with philosophy and working out details on the story like Tolkien had with his, I think they could have had a full classic.
It's the same with the Harry Potter series. I don't expect any of the movies to suck because the author is right there to get the screenwriters from point A to point B in the alloted time in the best possible way.
Simply put, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings have a crutch that the Wacowski brothers didn't. The Matrix was an epic tale that needed a lot more time before it was ready to be told.
I think they deserve some credit for pulling it off as well as they did with what they had. I wouldn't be surprised if down the road someone took the ideas in the Matrix and made a solid set of movies out of them.
Jackson should get tons of credit for not blowing the trilogy the second time around. I don't expect another remake of that story for the theatre any time soon.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
>> IMHO reviews are not worth the time and effort to read. Go see the film yourself and decide. That's the only way.
So what did you think of Gigli?
Those weren't reviews, those were obituaries.
Sting is NOT a Hobbit blade... I guess the
reviewer didn't pay attention to the movie,
or bother to read the book. Oh well...
that's super cool of you. my turn to be running on no sleep coming up soon enough.
joe.
No other scifi thriller has come anywhere close to doing what the Matrix has done
This must be a generational thing or something. Because all of my friends agree with me. The last two Matrix movies sucked. And the first one was far from stupendous. Boil the first one down to its essentials, and it's merely an action flick with some predictable cyberpunk. It was entertaining but it won't make my top ten list, or even my top 100.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Yeah that was kind of unfair. Someone should mod you down this time for being a whiney little bitch though.
In Soviet Russia the lord rings you!
karma capped
RealDoll are still operating, aren't they?
It was DAMN cool! Just because everyone screams that it's bad, even if most of those poeple talk like they never saw it... most poeple simply didn't understand it.
Many things were left unsolved. But i'm sure there's more to come...
(Sorry for my bad english... i don't like it that everyone thinks english is the only international language.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I think J.K. Rowlings has the patent.
Oh, c'mon! When the second installment came out, as soon as I dared to turn my head on the train, there were people reading it all over the place! A book, what is it, 40 years old?
And you don't call that a success?
hmmm... maybe it's different between contintents, but I'm not going to say any more, don't want to start any flame wars here.
The real reason is that when you have a war somewhere, there are side effects elsewhere. This is the point that Tolkein was making. Even though LOTR is not about WW2, it does reflect some experiences - you return from war as a victor to find much of what you were fighting to protect has been damaged, some of it even destroyed.
So put it down to political correctness. Someone does not want to show the true cost of warfare.
In reality, I agree. More minutes of Christopher Lee would be great, but this is an integral part of the story and is even foretold. Yes, Frodo and Sam triumph in the end but the shire has been badly damaged.
See my journal, I write things there
I love the not-so-subtle allusion to how shitty SW: Phantom Menace was...
Frodo takes the fall, Gollum dances away with the golden popcorn...
heheheh
If a 3.5-hour film is considered to be too long, they could always have an interval, so don't tell me run-time is the reason for chopping the cinematic version.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
That ending would have left us with one major question...
WHO SHOT JR?!?!?!?!?
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
I dunno, something about Darl McBride being Sauron and the Ring is his IP rights or something equally hilarious...
</SCO joke>
There, we can end this story now.
Ade_
/
Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck
vaguesness to simulate depth - bingo. I must'a missed that post. 2 things: The sequels are spiritually bankrupt and you can't help but feel that humanity lost in the end. Too much machinery. LOTR is all about humanity and beating the odds... Also, the language is common waffle. LOTR is full of proper English that doesn't stress people any more than they need to be.
Frodo actually fails in his quest. When the moment of truth arrives, he's unable to cast the ring into the fire. Technically, he fails. Luckily, Gollum is there to save the day, so to speak.
Am I in a minority of one here or does anyone else feel uncomfortable with the lack of Black and Minority Ethnic actors in the 3 movies? As the film is set in a fantasy universe, surely this gives the director and casting free-reign to, at the very least, ensure a representative mix of ethnicities amongst the actors. The books themselves already have a disturbing Fascist resonance about them (pure, homogenous races battling the evil mongrel hordes etc. etc.) and it's a very great shame that the chance wasn't taken to give the stories a more enlightened slant.
Sheesh! You'd think some folks would just enjoy the movies for the sake of entertainment. Of course there are tiny gaffes in the movies - they are made by error-prone humans. I think Peter Jackson and company did a fabulous job on this project.
Some folks would find something to complain about if you hanged them with a new rope...
In later editions of LOTR there's an amusing introduction concerning the trials Tolkien had with proofreaders and editors who helpfully corrected things like "dwarves" to "dwarfs" and "elven" to "elfin" (not to mention the scrambled names and such due to transcription errors -- remember back in the dim distant 1950s manuscripts were (often) handwritten; and were copied and recopied several times before being set in type -- these days publishers take advantage of DTP to dispense with most of their editors and send the author's typos directly to the press). He quite deliberately made these and other non-standard spellings.
While I can't say I hated any of teh previous two LoTR movies, I certainly don't subscribe to the hype that everyone else seems to think they are the best thing since sliced bread.
Personally I loved the last Matrix movie. I don't exactly know what was so disapointing to *everyone*. The story was good, the dialog was above average, the action was amazingly intense. I think perhaps the loss of the actress that played the oracle was felt because the replacement didn't 'grab you' the same way the orginal one did, in terms of making you care.
Beyond that I left the Matrix movie happy and impressed. When I left the LoTR movies my butt hurt and I was just happy to be finnaly getting out of there.
-- "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so.
Yeah. The Matrix movies won't be everyone's cup of tea. And Reloaded and Revolutions won't necessarily appeal to all fans of the first film. But for so many people to keep describing it so negatively is just annoying.
Then again, many people didn't go to see M2 and M3 for the films that they were, they went to see them for the films they hoped they'd be. And if they didn't live up to their expectations then they sequels were (obviously) dreadful.
At least RoTK will be exempt from this exact "flavour" of hype. The trilogy almost has to end the way people expect it - as in this case the expectations are from the books which spawned the story.
True, there'll always be the "but it didn't happen that way in the book" problem, but films will never please everybody.
Tiggs - enjoyed the Matrix Trilogy
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
But if I see ANYONE 'shield surfing' in this one, I'm going to promptly stand up and projectile vomit onto the screen.
The standard operating procedure for Hollywood is that, when you have a successful movie, all the other studios rush off a copy-cat movie (or several or a TV show) to try to ride the wave of success. But this doesn't seem to have happened in this case (or maybe I'm forgetting some movies, all I can think of is the upcoming Illiad adaptation).
1) Pippin's head wound moves from one side of his face to the other, then back.
;-)
2) Merry's hands are tied, but then when he rolls under the horse they're untied, and then a minute later they're tied again.
-jls
Techno-pagan
The problem with comparing The Matrix to LOTR is that they were written with different purposes in mind.
The Matrix was written to be a fast paced piece of entertainment. The fact that the W Brothers decided to season it with a little philosophy and mysticism only added to the interest. But the deep meaning part was over in the first movie. It's not a life-changing experience. It's entertainment. Looking for the elements of serious literature (or film making) like theme, character development, and deeper meaning, is like requesting the nutritional information on a candy bar.
The LOTR was a three (actually more) volume literary masterpiece long before it was a movie. The fact that the LOTR folks stayed true to the original books enhanced the quality of the movie as a serious work of art. Is it entertaining? Absolutely. But can you also look for all of the serious literary elements and enjoy it on different levels. LOTR has more depth to it because it was written with more depth to begin with.
One is macaroni and cheese. The other is a steak dinner. Enjoy them both, but recognize them for what they are.
Sigs are for lusers. Hey! wait a second...
That said there is a big difference in Rings v Star Wars (and others). The prequals in SW are a cash in bonanza. Rings is a work of devotion to render the books well (perhaps with some sell out to put more of the women in rather than sticking to the plot, plus the real money is probably made of the multitude of versions that will apear on DVD. So they can afford to be good at the cinema). The Matrix falls somewhere more in the middle. It has something to present but then big films are about making big money. So to get financing you have to sell out I guess.
In fact getting grumpy about it. Music is a sell out for cash, novels are a sell out for cash. What isn't. So much for culture. Even art and sport are all sell outs for cash. Any news story you hear or see almost always adresses how much it will cost or how much it is worth.
Just take the three extended DVDs and rearrange their content for your pleasure. Maybe you can do a better job than Jackson. Star Wars fans have been doing this for years.
If you went to any studio in Hollywood and said we want to make a movie: ... where everyone knows what happens at the end... ... so much so that the name is synonymous with fateful disaster... ... that's three and a half hours long... ... and aim it at the 13-19 year old demographic... ... they'd laugh you out of the office.
You'd have to call it"Titanic" and it'd be the top grossing film of all time by half.
You create drama on the screen from what you have and do it well, and people will pay real money for that and praise your work.
Peter's darn smart. He's doing things right from many angles. When I saw the very first teaser of Fellowship and saw Elijah Wood's face and that ring - it was the very image I'd had in my mind since reading the trilogy+ as our entire sophomore english course in 1974.
I know what happens, and I still want to see it. It's the storyteller's craft involved here, and there's a remarkably tight line between what JRR put on the page and what Peter puts on film.
On the other hand, I prefer to listen to the stories at Lake Woebegon - my imagination is allowed to take the little pieces and make them whole. Disney tried telecasting PHC and it failed miserably after a few weeks. Being at a live broadcast of PHC however is stunning. "Shelob & Gollum Live! On Ice!" would be a disaster. Go figure.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I'm tired of fanatic movie fans who just can't accept it when others don't like their movies
:)
I hear you, brother (sister).
I've faithfully gone to see both LOTR movies so far, and will probably go to ROTK as well, but I have to admit: I just don't get it. For those who read the books, I'm sure it's nice to see it on the big screen. But for those like me who haven't, I honestly just don't see why these movies are being hailed as the second coming.
I didn't mind TTT as much, but it struck me as mostly mindless action. FOTR was a snooze fest. A bunch of action scenes intertwined with precisely what people hate about the Matrix: vagueness disguised as "deepness". The entire Liv Tyler thing went on for far too long, and didn't seem to have a point. The end was just abrupt; I dunno, guess everyone else saw it coming. And yes, I'm aware that "this is one 15 hour movie", or whatever the usual argument it against there being self-contained movies. I think I'm one of the few who honestly believe these movies could have been done at 2 hours each.
Not a troll at all, btw. The visuals were fantastic, except for the Ents looking a bit too CG for my tastes. But as far as movies go, I think I'm the only person on the planet who's been disappointed.
Now watch as your "fanatic movie fans" mod me down into oblivion
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
You left out the major video game marketing ploy. Man, that pissed me off.
What happend to Niobe's ship? Find out in Enter the Matrix, only $29.99 at your favorite video game store.
What did the Oricale say to Niobe? Find out in Enter the Matrix, only $29.99 at your favorite video game store.
They may as well had Niobe give Morphous a copy of the game and say, "Play this game, Morphous, and all your questions will be answered."
Quote from Amazon.com : "Game script written and directed by the Wachowski Brothers' as an integral part of the entire Matrix experience--the movie is incomplete without the game, and the game is incomplete without the movie"
Bastards....
To drive home the ending to Matrix Revolutions again, the Wachowski brothers have influenced Peter Jackson to alter the ending to RotK.
-Aragorn and Sauron fight it on in the rain while millions of Sauron eyes watch intently and rarely blink; the battle peaks with Aragorn seemingly beaten and lying on his back, stands up and hugs Sauron - peace breaks out throughout the land.
-Frodo plays the part of an Oracle and Sam his trusty bodyguard... oh wait, nm.
-Gollum is programmed by the "The One True Ring Matrix" to bring balance to the force...
oh, I'm getting too confused
---- The geek shall inherit the Earth.
What happend to the rest of enslaved humanity? Find out in "Matrix Online, coming soon in 2004 and providing subscription service to an immersive massive multiplayer experience that picks up right after the event in Revolutions".
- sigs are for wimps.
Informative.
Thanks, Ender.
Although I think the analysis misses a couple of points:
I don't believe the Oracle was "upgrading" Neo every time she gave him something to eat.
Neo would have figured that out because he could "see" the effects the orgasm-cake had on the girl. Same with how he could see Seraph's code.
Neo doesn't need upgrades, he's already got free-will.
That's the reason that the machines NEED humans:
Machines can make choices, yes, because that is built into their programming, but they still don't have free-will, which is something only humans have. The choices the machines make are only the results they have deterministically calculated through their programming.
Free-will on the other hand, you can call it a spark of the divine, or God's gift to us, but it is the thing which transcends programming.
That's why Morpheus said "Everything begins with a choice" at one point. It's also the reason for Smith's insanity.
Being a machine he CAN'T comprehend free-will.
So Smith's choice is oblivion. He wants to destroy everything, humans, machines, the whole earth if he can, just to remove that irritating reminder that he just CAN'T understand free-will.
That's why he's so obsessed with "purpose", because to him causality (programming, really) is the order of the universe, and Neo's free-will is a contradiction which he feels he must eradicate (along with everything else) to set things right.
The Oracle on the other hand recognizes this, and even admits to Neo that he has "surprised her" and "made a believer of her".
So the Oracle realizes that for the machines to evolve, they NEED humans, who have this amazing gift. And I think that she realizes that this evolution should take place in an atmosphere of peace and not war.
That's also why a lot of people drag quantum physics into their analysis of The Matrix:
Observations have led a number of physicists to claim that causality breaks down at the sub-atomic level.
Almost as if God is not only playing dice, but even He has no idea of the outcome of a throw.
Of course, all that rubs a lot of people the wrong way, and a few have even dedicated their life to proving it wrong.
I find it's the most beautiful thing I've ever contemplated:
If there is NO break with causality, then the entire universe is deterministic, and the outcome was a foregone conclusion the instant the big bang happened, which is sad really...
But if there IS something like true choice (or free-will, or indeterminacy) then I have to say that God is one MIGHTY Architect/Engineer to have created the universe in such a way that freedom pervades it like that, and by my (human) rationalization, he must love us very much to let us determine our own destinies instead of being puppets playing back a script.
Although I have to admit that I couldn't really guess what his reasons are, what with my being a mere mortal and all that...
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Please see the extended release of TTT. One of the most crucial scenes it adds is background info on Faramir. It completely changes the perspective on Faramir's interaction with the hobbits, the ring and the quest.
The actor portraying Faramir states he understands why his scenes were trimmed in the theatrical release, but he is glad to have the extended release include more of his scenes. You realize he is *not* in fact, lusting after the ring, so much of thinking about his father's approval. This characterization is in the book. Boromir *was* more beloved of his father than Faramir was. Faramir just accepted it gracefully.
Why has a review of RotK turned into yet another Matrix thread? Give it up, there are other movies out there, you know!
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
In literary criticism they call the misguided notion that the author's original intention can be fully known by the reader the "intentional fallacy." The bottom line is that whether or not Tolkien meant for LoTR to be taken as an allegory for this or that is irrelevant. The work stands apart from his intention for it and happens to make a very good allegory for a number of depressing aspects of the modern world including industrialization, totalitarianism, the increase of ignorance, overpopulation, etc.
What it "means" is up to each reader, not the author.
Syntax error: loose != lose, affect != effect, then!=than
The sole purpose of the Matrix is to extract dollars from middle class young white males, via the film, DVD and video game releases and ancillary marketing of related products. That is it. The entire trilogy is STUPEFYINGLY idiotic. The studios cleaned up on this one though with global sales of over $1 billion USD, so you can expect the trend to continue in a big way.
When someone says he didn,t like a movie for reasons A), B), etc and someone replies:
Stupid audience wants it spelled out for them
THAT is trolling and/or flaimebaiting.
and as for you, topham,
I suspect it is because we actually paid some attention in the other.
I suspect it is because you did not.
I didn't just pay attention to the others, I actually wrote a paper on the Matrix for a university class, you sorta have to watch the movie and takes notes to do that. So stop trolling me and claiming that people who disagree with you MUST be stupid and ignorant, because (and I'll drop to your level a sec here) it takes one to know one.
You can't take the sky from me...
> Gandalf is powerful because he doesn't flaunt his true powers like SOME KIND OF FUCKING FAIRY.
Deep, cleansing breaths, there. Gandalf is powerful because he isn't human, and apparently Istari are rather long-lived, much like that other one who does spend the story flaunting his true powers, because he's pissed about the trouble he's having findng something.
Virg
#1. That was not a review. It was a promotional
/. bit suggest that it's going to appear in the article. Careful, or people will think you're a pedant...
article for the movie. Although the person writing the article appears to have seen the movie, he does not present his opinion about its quality.
Hello? Have you actually read the article? It quite clearly mentions several aspects of RoTK as a film and its quality - and even criticises the film in various areas. It's all there. Or did you just stop reading after the first paragraph?
#2. No where is the phrase "two thumbs up" used, this being something only done by Ebert & The Other Guy, who are not newsweek columnists.
D'oh. The phrase "two thumbs up" certainly wasn't invented by Roger Ebert, nor does the
#3. The word 'installment' has two Ls.
I rest my case.
Enough of the conjecture and hearsay already! Tolkien was adamantly anti-racist. He risked forgoing publication of the Hobbit in German to avoid giving credence to the "race-doctrine". The publisher wanted him to pledge that he had no Jewish ancestry. In Tolkien's words, "I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine."
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
And it was not available on all platforms, so the Wachowski's threw a big middle finger out to those who may have liked The Matrix, but are on Mac, Linux, etc....
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
LOTR is the best trilogy because of the way so many people love it. It's like the way you love your dog - and your dog loves you. It's a bond that is sometimes hard to explain, but endures over time and continues to reward even as it changes. For many, it was first experienced through Tolkien's writing, now as a well-made movie trilogy. If anything, this experience affirms peoples' love for the story, no matter what awards the movies might win or deserve (same can be said for the books).
The wide-spread affection for the LOTR which has stood the test of time is what qualifies it as the Best Trilogy.
What takes more talent?
Writing a hugely successful epic screenplay from scratch?
Or
Writing a hugely successful epic screenplay from an existing hugely successful epic novel?
Jackson had a model to work by. The Wacowski bros didn't.
"I'm not so arrogant that I can't admit that."
That's amazing. Jesus would be proud.
I'm merely comparing what the Wacowski bros attempted to do with what Jackson has done. I'm just saying the Wacowshi bros attempted something far more difficult. Them failing is therefore more forgivable and understandable than Jackson failing.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
With LOTR, Peter Jackson demonstrated the tremendous skill with which he can take a set of novels that were once considered virtually unfilmable (hence the animated version from the 1970's, which failed) and create a highly polished film that is entertaining, beautiful to behold, and surprisingly faithful to the source material.
To date, no one has come close to sucessfully capturing the awe and depth of Frank Herbert's Dune on film, though there have already been two attempts. I would love to see Jackson tackle Dune. He appears to be the right man for the job.
Here is an idea to help a reader rate the quality and validity of any entry, in any blog, on any subject.
Include the age of the poster in the blog listing.
When I read many of the anti-Matrix comments, I deduce that many are from seemingly-prepubescent geeks without social experience. Then I can explore the profile of the poster, only to learn that the author is only 15 years old!
Enough said.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Yay, someone else who thinks the ending was ballsy! Personally, I was amazed they remained true to what they were building up to.
Unfortunately, the majority of viewers has a totally different view of the Matrix universe than the W's have. The majority, when you get down to it, want to believe in human sepremacy over the machine. We want happy endings.
If you have tried to examine the Matrix trilogy, and the Animatrix, for deeper meaning, one of the underlying themes is that Humans cannot survive without Machines. There was a very unsubtle scene regarding this in Reloaded. If Neo destroyed the machines (and consequently millions if not billions of coppertops), the remaining humans would, inevitably through their use of technology, recreate the original conflict.
What is the Revolution of the final movie, anyways? The Machines are hanging on to the humans, letting them continue to exist, for some mysterious reason. Winning humanity some measure of freedom from the Machines is but the first stage of the Oracle's ultimate goal of... what?
Personally, I find the ending of Revolutions to be a happy ending which approaches reality. The millions of Coppertops no longer have to die, but instead will be given a choice of visiting the "real world" -- and most, I expect, will go back. Around the "powerplant" a new city of humans and machines will grow. A few of the children in Revolutions seemed touched by hints of prophecy -- I expect a certain little girl to discover how to cure the sky, and therein lies the next great conflict.
The only thing I really object to, though, is the crucifixion of Neo. It fits, but I still object anyways, Christians have too much stuff anyway! :P
The LOTR films however are without a doubt the greatest fantasy movies made... only to be rivaled by Dino De Laurentius' Conan the Barbarian trilogy ;)
Trilogy? Did I miss one?
Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
The film sounds great, and I have a feeling I'll like it, but even so I'm pretty ticked off that Jackson left of the Scouring of the Shire just because he didn't like it. OK, yeah, it's a bit of a bummer ending, but that could have been handled.
Yes, I know there's only so much time available, they acn't put *everything* in, and so on. I didn't complain when relatively minor things like Tom Bombadil were left out, or when stupid-but-overlookable gaffes made their way in, such as dwarf-tossing or elves at Helm's Deep. But this is a major event.
It's Jackson's job to make the book into a movie, not second-guess Tolkien. If he thinks he's a better writer, he should write his own stuff, not chop up classics. OK, maybe it could have been left out of the theatrical release (since the kiddies don't want to see dead hobbits), but it should at least have been shot and put on the extended DVD.
Actually, there is a point in The Two Towers, where we see an orcs head on a stick
I believe it is an uruk-hai's head
Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
Actually I believe that this distinction remains in the hands of Hannibal, killing 50,000 Romans in a single day. Battle of Cannae.
Don't forget Terry Gilliam, Kevin Smith (uneven, but always good, IMNSHO), and the Coen Brothers.
There are others, but there's not enough coffee in the world to wake me up.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
There's used to be this TV show called 'Siskel and Ebert' (now Ebert and Roeper I think?) -- for whom the term 'two thumbs up' meant both reviewers endorsed the quality of the film. Originally I believe the solo 'one thumb up' or 'one thumb down' was popularized by Caesar letting the Gladiator know if they should kill the opponent after the opponent had been disarmed.
n e_ thumbs_up.jpgu p.jpge l/news/ thumbsUp.jpeg/ Sorensen/croppi es/Stuart_Dike_small.jpgn .edu/homes/vassili/images/ crystal_1-24-99/two_thumbs_up.jpgl att.edu/~bioclub/photos/shannon.jpg
In general practice however, if you're the type of person who alone will put up both thumbs to let people know that you approve of something, you're probably celebrating your Special Olympics victory.
http://www.wjtb.org/images/09-16-02/9-16-02_sha
http://www.touched.com/two-thumbs-
http://www.auburn.edu/administration/univr
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com
http://www.cs.washingto
http://www.uwp
> Wasn't Sting an elvish-blade called "Orc Cleaver" or something like that?
No, you're thinking of Orcrist, the "goblin cleaver", which was Thorin's blade. Sting was a short blade that Bilbo found under the Lonely Mountain (which was forged in the same city as Orcrist). Since it fell into Bilbo's posession for a long time, and was passed to his nephew, it's not incorrect to call it a Hobbit blade, although it wasn't forged by Hobbits.
Virg
Although the article does contain some review-like paragraphs near the end, it is clearly a promotional/puff piece that was done in cooperation with the studio (and its content is
therefore suspect).
Real reviews don't contain extensive interviews with the cast & crew and "behind the scenes" reportage.
The whole trilogy is distorted by having a woman deliver Aragorn's power to him.
Whoa big fella! The elves re-forged the sword. Since Aragorn did not break out his hammer and tongs, *somebody* had to deliver his power to him.
In Tolkien's time and place, nobody would find it odd that women didn't have much to do with important matters because that was mostly how the real world was then. Jackson's interpretation is consistent with the expectations of his audience. In present day civilized nations however, most people have no problem with women taking part in matters of "power." Most people.
Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
True, it's a scorched earth kind of move, but at least all that would be left would be Zion, and you could get back to the work of rebuilding humanity. This isn't a horrible idea when you consider that Zion is made up of the brightest (able to secede from Matrix) and hardiest (able to survive in shitty underground lair), so you have a fairly good gene pool to work with.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Apologies if you have already seen this but it is worth repeating:
LOTR: Return of the King Survival Tips
1. Stand up halfway through the movie and yell loudly, "Wait... where the hell is Harry Potter?"
2. Block the entrance to the theater while screaming: "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" After the movie, say "Lucas could have done it better."
3. At some point during the movie, stand up and shout: "I must go! Middle Earth needs me!" and run and try to jump into the screen. After bouncing off, return quietly to your seat.
4. Play a drinking game where you have to take a sip every time someone says: "The Ring."
5. Point and laugh whenever someone dies.
6. Ask the nearest ring-nut if he thinks Gandalf went to Hogwarts
7. Finish off every one of Elrond's lines with "Mr. Anderson."
8. When Aragorn is crowned king, stand up and at the top of your lungs sing, "And I did it.... MY way...!"
9. At the end, complain that Gollum was offensive to Ethiopians
10. Talk like Gollum all through the movie. At the end, bite off someone's finger and fall down the stairs.
11. When Shelob appears, pinch the guy in front of you on the back of the neck.
12. Dress up as old ladies and reenact "The Battle of Helms Deep" Monty Python style.
13.When Denethor lights the fire, shout "Barbecue!"
14. Ask people around you who they think is the next "Terminator" sent from the Middle Earth of the future to assassinate Frodo Baggins
15. In TTT when the Ents decide to march to war, stand up and shout "RUNFOREST, RUN!"
16. Every time someone kills an Orc, yell: "That's what I'm Tolkien about!" See how long it takes before you get kicked out of the theatre.
17. During a wide shot of a battle, inquire, "Where's Waldo?"
18. Talk loudly about how you heard that there is a single frame of a nude Elf hidden somewhere in the movie.
19. Start an Orc sing-a-long.
20. Come to the premiere dressed as Frankenfurter and wander around looking terribly confused.
First off, lets get the Matrix off of my chest..
;-)-
:D
I think that the first one will always be the best in the trilogy. The whole "new" idea of a computer-controlled world introduced to mainstream culture in a techie/action, but easy- to-follow-for-most sort of way was inspiring.
Reloaded, I'm sorry, but it just made me want to dive into a vat of mercury...Too much action, not enough story/mythology..Though, it was the W's brainchild and it's better than I could do, so I must give it at least some credibility.
Now, regarding the newest installment of that wacky mindjob we call The Matrix, I have to put it out there that I thought Revelations was a refreshing bit of cinema after the Hell that was "Reloaded", even though the ending lacked a bit in dialouge and character follow ups. This may sound a bit odd, but I missed the original Oracle..(anyone else out there?)...Maybe the original's contract was terminated, or it could be deliberate...either way, I think the original was way better at acting and was more familiar (in behavior and in general) to the audience. I also didn't like how they just left Neo dead and that was it...no further story or anything. All-in-all, it was relatively good..
-whew-
Ok, now for the LOTR opinions
FOTOR: Good
TTT:Better
ROTK: Will be the Best
-No, I'm not bashing Tolkien or LOTR in general, because I loved all of them way more than I ever will with The Matrices (Sp?). I just don't see why I need to touch on it when I already know the outcome
ok, i'm done
cheers
nothing.can.stop.me.now
Does Slashdot need to remind its users what "off-topic" really means?
we are to believe that all of a sudden, man/machine decides to just drop everything and live in harmony
No. First you have to understand that Neo made a deal with The Matrix. But for that you have to get the fact that it was something he, only, could do.
The problem is, to understand this, you need to understand the problem with Agent Smith, and the fact that although Neo died, he didn't really just died, he also killed Smith.
But that also forces you to understand the concept of the Matrix, and what the Oracle and the Architect said. And, pfeuh, that's way too much, considering the average attention span of movie watchers.
Hence, the bad reviews, and your comment.
Plus you could liquify all the dead humans and you wouldn't have to worry about looking for food for a while :-)
>> Now if ents really were as stupid as Jackson suggests, why weren't they destroyed or perverted in all those 7000+ years of existence?
> Well, in all fairness, they did manage to misplace their wives...
I am not sure this is an indication of stupidity.
"The Return of the King" is the third and final chapter in what's likely to be a nearly $3 billion franchise that should, according to sources familiar with Jackson's deal, net the director at least $150 million.
I just want to say, Peter Jackson deserved every penny of it. Bravo.
Ooops, Actually I think I was thinking of "The Sword Of Shanarra" anyway and now I think about it some more I have read some Dragonlance and for a quick read if you time to kill they aren't too bad although I wouldn't go so far as to say they were great, or even especially interesting literature.
Where's the dirty stories gone?
I don't see anywhere a mention of 'two thumbs up'. Further, this is not a review. Someone just wanted five seconds of fame.
So no news here, folks. Move along!
good but not perfect
see the first lesson of H.K. Fauskanger's definitive quenya course -
http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/qcourse.htm