Jolly good - best work yet. Almost every point made has some validity. So, what are you doing about it? After all, anyone can set up a website and show the world how to do it right.
I hope you were joking about EH. I went to see it with a group of people and about an hour in I wanted to leave (I've never left a film yet) but stayed since I wasn't on my own. At the end it emerged that every single one of us had felt the same way!
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this was an honest attempt to film the Lord of the Rings as a story. It was in fact an attempt to string together a series of very well photographed scenes of the book Jackson had noticed while skimming through it. This it does very well.
The effect is spolit by the fact that it was a movie and the director clearly had no idea what to do once the characters in these nice pictures had to move and talk.
Perhaps in the DVD the Fellowship might actually notice the three huge stone trolls the have a break in front of but never mention in the movie. Perhaps a real director will be brought in to fix the film. Perhaps it'll turn out Gandalf is the baddie. Who cares, franky. I'd rather have my money back than have to spend more to find out if Jackson ever actually bothered to film the story.
Gene Siskel complained that one scene (with the Balrog) was extremly short in the book but played out longer on screen.
It was long, silly and plain bad in the movie if he's refering to the entire sequence from the Balrog's distant glow to the fall of Gandalf. The stairway scene was plain crap.
My question is who cares as long as the movie tells the story.
It failed to tell a story, or at least a good story. The characters were barely sketched in and since LotR is a book about characters - there are a lot of them - this really knackered it both as an adaptation and as a film in its own right.
when presented with a conflicting view, become all too defensive
I liked some of the vision: seeing Orthanc denuded was a good addition but the bottom line is that is was a POOR FILM. It suffers more than other poor films, of which there are many, due to the hype and the quality of the source material, but bad direction is bad direction.
The movie is simply one person's description of the taste of the story
I don't think the director has ever read the book from start to finish. It was pretty obvious that anything that involved characterisation or subtlety would have bored him to death.
I enjoyed the movie for all it's flaws and omissions because what it presented was clear and complete within iteself.
Actually, it wasn't complete within itself and had several continuity errors and confusing loose ends, particularly Narsil.
Lets face it, you're looking at a 10 hour miniseries to avoid 'gutting' the characters.
Oh, come on. Surely three hours to cover less than 400 pages is not that much of a strain? Especially once all the songs and side-stories are cut out and the weight of all the descriptive passages are taken by the visuals.
I've read each of the Middle Earth Trilogy once each, I did like them though. I had also seen the animated version and heard some of the BBC version. I did read LotR recently, so it was fresh in my mind.
the greater majority of the exposition and character/story development from the LoTR simply doesn't make for a good movie.
I don't think that's true. There is a lot of "colour", partularly the songs, poetry and detailed history, which could not be used but story and character development can always be used, and three hours is ample space to do so. But, certainly, not everything can make it in even in three hours.
The movie that you desire is simply not possible.
Give me the money and I'll prove that wrong! The movie I had hoped to see is certainly possible.
You can only have so many sequences where characters talk about things (so that the audience may understand them) in an un-natural manner before people begin to fall asleep.
This is true but ignores the amount of action from the book which was dropped too: the fight with the Wargs, the bit with Merry (or Pippen, I forget) encountering the Nazgul in Bree, possibly showing Aragon capturing Gollum (something only touched on in the book), Saruman misleading the Nazgul, Gandalf's race back from Orthanc to the Prancing Pony, more time buliding an atmosphere in Moria (Moria and Lorien were wasted in this version; moreso Lorien).
Frodo is allowed a number of scenes with both Bilbo and Gandalf where he gets ample opportunity to act on his own.
I meant act as in "act as his own agent", ie to determine the course of events. The ford is particularly damaging to Frodo's character as it is the first time he demonstrates to others why Gandalf has faith in him: alone, wounded and at bay he refuses the call of the Nazgul and their Lord. To be rescued without the chance to defy the nine is to remove the single most important step in Frodo's journey, the one where he stops simply running and starts choosing.
While the CG in that scene was overdone, the scene itself still retained all of its emotion.
Compare it to the version in the animated film; there's no question to me which one had more emotion. The sight of Bilbo literally shaking with desire for the Ring combined with Frodo's clenching fist is a much more powerful scene.
Ian Holm's acting was GREAT.
I'll not hear a bad word about Ian Holm's acting, his "I have come, but I do not choose now to do what I came to do" on the edge of Mount Doom is spine-chilling.
No. He mentions names of places. He takes over from Gandalf in a convincing manner.
I don't mean his geography was poor; Frodo could name places! He is never given a chance to show skills like tracking and "wood lore". He does take over quite well, but that's not really being a Ranger.
Simply not possible. Any exposition of that would have left the audience going "What the Fuck!".
Particularly since I was wrong: the strain was between Faramir and his father, not his brother. Either way I think Boromir should have mentioned his brother and his patrols against Mordor.
Gimli acts exactly like a strong willed, simple minded dwarf in that scene. The scene is also necessary to show the power of the ring.
At that point we've been told several times that the ring can only be destroyed in one place and we've also seen that a normal fire can not even heat it. We've also been told that seven rings were given to the dwarves. Apparenty Gimli has not been told about their properties. Or perhaps he's just simple minded. In either case why would he be sent to the council as the Dwarf representative?
The mistrust was aptly featured in two scenes. You must be blind!
Interesting that you should say that. The elves did not require Gimli's eyes to be blindfolded going into Lorien. There is a brief mention of dwarves being noisy and someone says something like "oh, look a dwarf and an elf together" at some point but I don't know where you get "aptly" from.
Perhaps the later battle scenes where Gandalf's magic plays an important role will unconvince you of this delusion.
What part are you thinking of? Gandalf's actions are almost always to bolster the morale or courage of others. He sets fire to some wolves in the Hobbit and does some illusions but generally he only makes powerful moves against those on his own "level" such as the Balrog, the Nazgul (rarely) and Sauron himself. Certainly his magic is important later, but it is not directly violent.
Again, another film-making necessity.
A film making necessity!?! What sort of talk is that? Spoiling the suspense is "film making necessity"? Catch a fucking grip.
Besides, Saruman never explicity mentions that there is a Balrog in Moria
No, he just shows us a sketch in a book instead.
Death Machines? Again, have your vision checked. They put up ZERO resistance against the orcs following Boromirs death.
Yes, you are right, the film is inconsistent too. The same Hobbits that fully engage in the Weathertop and Moria combat, killing several orcs and jumping onto the cave troll to stab it, do also just stand by during Boromir's death. Perhaps they were tired after all that fighting.
And I never even got around to mentioning the continuity errors of the re-appearing staff and the magical dancing mountains of the Shire!
Other than that, many (professional, respected, established) critics
Would these be the same critics who thought Titanic was a great film?
Question: You are spending 300 million dollars on a series of films. What percentage of that would ensure good reviews in the right places? Supplimentary Question: what percentage of the profits would ensure good reviews?
I've posted a long answer to Jorrit explaining the problems with the film that I feel have been ignored by "professional" critics.
My advice is go and see it! And don't bother reading this unless you've read the book - big spoiler alert!
Frodo is particularly undermined by the writing, he never gets to act on his own; he is not allowed to defy the Nazgul at the ford and even when he leaves the Fellowship we have an added scene of him debating about it with Aragon.
What had been the saddest scene in the first book - Frodo, Bilbo, and the Ring - is played for a cheap shock effect instead of developing both Frodo and Bilbo's characters.
Aragon only once displays any knowlege of the outdoors - looking for herbs - and never gives any impression of being 90 years old, much of that time having been spent in the wilds fighting Sauron.
Legolas has no character at all. His character is weak in the book, but not this weak.
If Boromir mentions his brother and their strained relationship I missed it.
The council of Elrond is a shambles with no rhyme or reason to it unless you've read the book. It is a hard part to film interestingly, but even so Gimli acts like an idiot for no obvious reason. And was Bilbo having a nap during it?
Lothlorien is dire beyond belief; Galadriel does not mention that she bears one of the great rings or that Frodo's quest will undo all that he sees there, nor do we even see her giving the gifts out, even though they leave Lorien with them (we do see Frodo's vial in a flashback). Sam doesn't get to look in the mirror which sets up important material for the third book/film. We do get treated to the worst special effect in the film when Galadriel goes a bit mad during her 'Queen of darkness' speech.
Only minor mention is made of the rivalry and mistrust between the elves and dwarves, even in Lorien. This negates the importance of Gimli and Legolas's friendship.
Saruman forgets to mention that he has become "many colours"; an important symbolic development for when Gandalf the white appears later. Radagast is never mentioned; Saruman's distain for him being an important character point in the book. This could have been done quickly and easily in a three hour film.
The flight to the bridge in Moria is interrupted by a long and very silly bit of action involving a multi-ton block of masonry and rock being carfully balanced by two people leaning around on the top of it. Presumably the Balrog was standing at the top patiently waiting for them to finish so he could duck around to meet them at the bridge (in the book the Balrog can't follow because the tunnel has collapsed after his magical struggle with Gandalf). This last point also brings up the issue of Saruman and Gadalf's break-dancing scene. Seeing Gandalf resort to violent magic so easily undermines everything important to his character. It's a bit like seeing a film about Jesus kicking Pilot's arse - it's simply not his approach. It also waters-down the scene with the Balrog which in the book is the first (and only) time we see him reveal his true power.
The direction is very poor. The director has no sense of tension or suspense at all. The audience is told that the Balrog is in Moria before seeing it; Gandalf simply states that Gollum is following them, there is no strage footsteps or lights behind them; we are told, rather than suspecting, that the weather on the mountain is not natural; we know what the significance of the White Hand is before the characters encounter it; the birds are spies and not normal birds - no room for doubt here; All issues of tension that do exist are dealt with in the scene they arise in, making every scene a little film in itself with little reference to what follows or proceeds in terms of building atmosphere.
The fight scenes are so over-done that the Hobbits have to become little death machines just to support the idea that the Fellowship could survive against such numbers. This in turn undermines Merry and Pippen by losing any slow development of them to the point where they return to the Shire as heroes - they are already great (and thin) fighters when they set out.
The Nazgul themselves are presented incorrectly at Weathertop and in such a way as to make them look even less effective than the orcs which the hobbits later mince. In the book they had discared their physical forms for their 'holes in the sky' look which would have been much more chilling. They then proceed to do a keystone-cops routine with Aragon.
There is a scene with the stone trolls from The Hobbit in the background but they are never refered to, even though the characters have a rest in front of them!
We see Narsil's shards but it is not clear what the imporance of it is and we have no mention of its re-forging. Does Aragon have it with him? It it of any significance at all? We'll never know.
And look: the Argonath! Very impressive. What is it? Oh, don't worry about that, it's not important enough to explain when there's another ten minute fight scene up ahead.
The animated version did a better job of covering The Fellowship of the Ring in an hour than this does in three (the animated version then disintegrates as it moves into The Two Towers). Interestingly, there is an entire scene and bits of other scenes which are copied from the animated film even though they do not appear in the book.
And...as Sam and Frodo walk away, down towards Mordor and their destiny, what director would neglect to fade to credits just as a certain bent, almost reptilian form creeps into view, following the Precious? Well, apparently this one would.
Utterly inept direction of the first class.
The scenery and the effects (apart from Galadriel) are very good and there are many moments which would make great illustrations to the book, but the characters and plot are thin and uninteresting.
If films like Titanic and LotR can get the sort of takings they have with their lousy scripts then frankly Lucas could make the entire film about Jar-Jar and his family going to an N'Sync concert and people would claim it was the greatest film ever made.
Cinema as anything other than elongated MTV is dead; marketing to kids is all that matters.
I went to see LotR on New Years Day and it stunk - badly written, very badly directed, with ZERO characterisation. Yet kids in the cinema were applauding at the end. People on/. rave about it and the IMDB has it as the best film of all time. Why? Because it had very good special effects.
So, keep all your crap about Lucas selling out, he's only going where the audience are leading.
I hope that they have a better animation than that of the cave troll in the Lord of the Rings.
And a better script!
TWW
Re:Nightmarish "Progress"
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
it is a currency that now has a market as large as the US market
But that market is fragemented between economies as diverse as Germany and Portugal. The only way to make this work is to unite Germany and Portugal into one economy/country. Any other system will result in runaway infation in the weaker economies. The gamble the EU is taking is that a United States of Europe can be forged before this happens (perhaps 5 years?)
It depends on which end you approach it from, you could just as easily argue that copyright is not a "right" and all it does is limit fair use by others of your work.
At the end of the day the only rights that exist are those which you can enforce - ultimatly using force, in which case "might makes right". The government generally has the most force and so gets to decide what rights everyone has via the Law.
Remember that when Jefferson wrote that line about how self-evident a truth equality is, that he had slaves out back! There simply are no "natural" rights.
I don't think point 2 is minor at all. After Frodo's various failures in front of the others (mainly the debacle at Bree and then putting the ring on at Weathertop) the ford is the first time he shows why Gandalf placed so much faith in him. Alone against the Nazgul, including the Witch-King, he defies them. This is a spectacularly important moment of character development/establishment not just for the reader but for the other characters (esp. Aragon) and I would suggest that putting in an extra character to "rescue" him is a sign of someone who has little interest in the structure of the book.
The structure of LotR is very strong, even the language develops from the start to the end and all the Hobbits' characters change quite radically, and we do all like character development, don't we?
While Jackson's effort is very,
very good, it (through necessity) betrays the book in many ways
resulting in a superficial version of the story.
With 9 hours to play with why does the movie have to betray the book as opposed to abridging it with care?
I'm really getting tired of people saying what a great version the new movie is and then going on to say what a mess of the books it's made. What's going on (I haven't seen it yet)?
Note also that Campbell was as nutty as a fruitcake when it comes to interpretation of myths and folk stories; the introduction to "Hero with a Thousand Faces" is still laugh-out-loud funny even though I've read it four or five times. In the rest of the book, however, the joke wears a bit thin and you really wonder how an adult could ever have written such transparent tripe in all seriousness.
A real blast from the Victorian age of Freudian mumbo-jumbo "psychology".
Titanic, a great flick (despite all you naysayers), is 3 hours 20 minutes, has solid character development
I'm stunned! Titanic barely had characters at all, never mind character development! They all start off as cliched stereotypes and end up as (mostly dead) cliched stereotypes. Live->dead is a sort of character development, I suppose.
Slashdot Mirror
TWW
TWW
We've got big orcs, little orcs, orcs that climb walls and orcs with white hands. Whataya mean you don't like orcs?
TWW
I doubt that the director even read those bits never mind filmed them. I'd give good odds that his copy only falls open at the fight scenes.
The effect is spolit by the fact that it was a movie and the director clearly had no idea what to do once the characters in these nice pictures had to move and talk.
TWW
TWW
It was long, silly and plain bad in the movie if he's refering to the entire sequence from the Balrog's distant glow to the fall of Gandalf. The stairway scene was plain crap.
My question is who cares as long as the movie tells the story.
It failed to tell a story, or at least a good story. The characters were barely sketched in and since LotR is a book about characters - there are a lot of them - this really knackered it both as an adaptation and as a film in its own right.
when presented with a conflicting view, become all too defensive
I liked some of the vision: seeing Orthanc denuded was a good addition but the bottom line is that is was a POOR FILM. It suffers more than other poor films, of which there are many, due to the hype and the quality of the source material, but bad direction is bad direction.
The movie is simply one person's description of the taste of the story
I don't think the director has ever read the book from start to finish. It was pretty obvious that anything that involved characterisation or subtlety would have bored him to death.
I enjoyed the movie for all it's flaws and omissions because what it presented was clear and complete within iteself.
Actually, it wasn't complete within itself and had several continuity errors and confusing loose ends, particularly Narsil.
TWW
They get arrested under the DMCA.
TWW
Lets face it, you're looking at a 10 hour miniseries to avoid 'gutting' the characters.
Oh, come on. Surely three hours to cover less than 400 pages is not that much of a strain? Especially once all the songs and side-stories are cut out and the weight of all the descriptive passages are taken by the visuals.
TWW
I've read each of the Middle Earth Trilogy once each, I did like them though. I had also seen the animated version and heard some of the BBC version. I did read LotR recently, so it was fresh in my mind.
the greater majority of the exposition and character/story development from the LoTR simply doesn't make for a good movie.
I don't think that's true. There is a lot of "colour", partularly the songs, poetry and detailed history, which could not be used but story and character development can always be used, and three hours is ample space to do so. But, certainly, not everything can make it in even in three hours.
The movie that you desire is simply not possible.
Give me the money and I'll prove that wrong! The movie I had hoped to see is certainly possible.
You can only have so many sequences where characters talk about things (so that the audience may understand them) in an un-natural manner before people begin to fall asleep.
This is true but ignores the amount of action from the book which was dropped too: the fight with the Wargs, the bit with Merry (or Pippen, I forget) encountering the Nazgul in Bree, possibly showing Aragon capturing Gollum (something only touched on in the book), Saruman misleading the Nazgul, Gandalf's race back from Orthanc to the Prancing Pony, more time buliding an atmosphere in Moria (Moria and Lorien were wasted in this version; moreso Lorien).
Frodo is allowed a number of scenes with both Bilbo and Gandalf where he gets ample opportunity to act on his own.
I meant act as in "act as his own agent", ie to determine the course of events. The ford is particularly damaging to Frodo's character as it is the first time he demonstrates to others why Gandalf has faith in him: alone, wounded and at bay he refuses the call of the Nazgul and their Lord. To be rescued without the chance to defy the nine is to remove the single most important step in Frodo's journey, the one where he stops simply running and starts choosing.
While the CG in that scene was overdone, the scene itself still retained all of its emotion.
Compare it to the version in the animated film; there's no question to me which one had more emotion. The sight of Bilbo literally shaking with desire for the Ring combined with Frodo's clenching fist is a much more powerful scene.
Ian Holm's acting was GREAT.
I'll not hear a bad word about Ian Holm's acting, his "I have come, but I do not choose now to do what I came to do" on the edge of Mount Doom is spine-chilling.
No. He mentions names of places. He takes over from Gandalf in a convincing manner.
I don't mean his geography was poor; Frodo could name places! He is never given a chance to show skills like tracking and "wood lore". He does take over quite well, but that's not really being a Ranger.
Simply not possible. Any exposition of that would have left the audience going "What the Fuck!".
Particularly since I was wrong: the strain was between Faramir and his father, not his brother. Either way I think Boromir should have mentioned his brother and his patrols against Mordor.
Gimli acts exactly like a strong willed, simple minded dwarf in that scene. The scene is also necessary to show the power of the ring.
At that point we've been told several times that the ring can only be destroyed in one place and we've also seen that a normal fire can not even heat it. We've also been told that seven rings were given to the dwarves. Apparenty Gimli has not been told about their properties. Or perhaps he's just simple minded. In either case why would he be sent to the council as the Dwarf representative?
The mistrust was aptly featured in two scenes. You must be blind!
Interesting that you should say that. The elves did not require Gimli's eyes to be blindfolded going into Lorien. There is a brief mention of dwarves being noisy and someone says something like "oh, look a dwarf and an elf together" at some point but I don't know where you get "aptly" from.
Perhaps the later battle scenes where Gandalf's magic plays an important role will unconvince you of this delusion.
What part are you thinking of? Gandalf's actions are almost always to bolster the morale or courage of others. He sets fire to some wolves in the Hobbit and does some illusions but generally he only makes powerful moves against those on his own "level" such as the Balrog, the Nazgul (rarely) and Sauron himself. Certainly his magic is important later, but it is not directly violent.
Again, another film-making necessity.
A film making necessity!?! What sort of talk is that? Spoiling the suspense is "film making necessity"? Catch a fucking grip.
Besides, Saruman never explicity mentions that there is a Balrog in Moria
No, he just shows us a sketch in a book instead.
Death Machines? Again, have your vision checked. They put up ZERO resistance against the orcs following Boromirs death.
Yes, you are right, the film is inconsistent too. The same Hobbits that fully engage in the Weathertop and Moria combat, killing several orcs and jumping onto the cave troll to stab it, do also just stand by during Boromir's death. Perhaps they were tired after all that fighting.
And I never even got around to mentioning the continuity errors of the re-appearing staff and the magical dancing mountains of the Shire!
TWW
TWW
Hey, don't knock it - it did wonders for Alien!
TWW
I disagree, my main complaint is the gutting of the characters and surely it's characterisation that makes a really good movie?
It's not utterly terrible, it just not anything like as good as people are saying.
TWW
Would these be the same critics who thought Titanic was a great film?
Question: You are spending 300 million dollars on a series of films. What percentage of that would ensure good reviews in the right places? Supplimentary Question: what percentage of the profits would ensure good reviews?
I've posted a long answer to Jorrit explaining the problems with the film that I feel have been ignored by "professional" critics.
TWW
My advice is go and see it! And don't bother reading this unless you've read the book - big spoiler alert!
Frodo is particularly undermined by the writing, he never gets to act on his own; he is not allowed to defy the Nazgul at the ford and even when he leaves the Fellowship we have an added scene of him debating about it with Aragon.
What had been the saddest scene in the first book - Frodo, Bilbo, and the Ring - is played for a cheap shock effect instead of developing both Frodo and Bilbo's characters.
Aragon only once displays any knowlege of the outdoors - looking for herbs - and never gives any impression of being 90 years old, much of that time having been spent in the wilds fighting Sauron.
Legolas has no character at all. His character is weak in the book, but not this weak.
If Boromir mentions his brother and their strained relationship I missed it.
The council of Elrond is a shambles with no rhyme or reason to it unless you've read the book. It is a hard part to film interestingly, but even so Gimli acts like an idiot for no obvious reason. And was Bilbo having a nap during it?
Lothlorien is dire beyond belief; Galadriel does not mention that she bears one of the great rings or that Frodo's quest will undo all that he sees there, nor do we even see her giving the gifts out, even though they leave Lorien with them (we do see Frodo's vial in a flashback). Sam doesn't get to look in the mirror which sets up important material for the third book/film. We do get treated to the worst special effect in the film when Galadriel goes a bit mad during her 'Queen of darkness' speech.
Only minor mention is made of the rivalry and mistrust between the elves and dwarves, even in Lorien. This negates the importance of Gimli and Legolas's friendship.
Saruman forgets to mention that he has become "many colours"; an important symbolic development for when Gandalf the white appears later. Radagast is never mentioned; Saruman's distain for him being an important character point in the book. This could have been done quickly and easily in a three hour film.
The flight to the bridge in Moria is interrupted by a long and very silly bit of action involving a multi-ton block of masonry and rock being carfully balanced by two people leaning around on the top of it. Presumably the Balrog was standing at the top patiently waiting for them to finish so he could duck around to meet them at the bridge (in the book the Balrog can't follow because the tunnel has collapsed after his magical struggle with Gandalf). This last point also brings up the issue of Saruman and Gadalf's break-dancing scene. Seeing Gandalf resort to violent magic so easily undermines everything important to his character. It's a bit like seeing a film about Jesus kicking Pilot's arse - it's simply not his approach. It also waters-down the scene with the Balrog which in the book is the first (and only) time we see him reveal his true power.
The direction is very poor. The director has no sense of tension or suspense at all. The audience is told that the Balrog is in Moria before seeing it; Gandalf simply states that Gollum is following them, there is no strage footsteps or lights behind them; we are told, rather than suspecting, that the weather on the mountain is not natural; we know what the significance of the White Hand is before the characters encounter it; the birds are spies and not normal birds - no room for doubt here; All issues of tension that do exist are dealt with in the scene they arise in, making every scene a little film in itself with little reference to what follows or proceeds in terms of building atmosphere.
The fight scenes are so over-done that the Hobbits have to become little death machines just to support the idea that the Fellowship could survive against such numbers. This in turn undermines Merry and Pippen by losing any slow development of them to the point where they return to the Shire as heroes - they are already great (and thin) fighters when they set out.
The Nazgul themselves are presented incorrectly at Weathertop and in such a way as to make them look even less effective than the orcs which the hobbits later mince. In the book they had discared their physical forms for their 'holes in the sky' look which would have been much more chilling. They then proceed to do a keystone-cops routine with Aragon.
There is a scene with the stone trolls from The Hobbit in the background but they are never refered to, even though the characters have a rest in front of them!
We see Narsil's shards but it is not clear what the imporance of it is and we have no mention of its re-forging. Does Aragon have it with him? It it of any significance at all? We'll never know.
And look: the Argonath! Very impressive. What is it? Oh, don't worry about that, it's not important enough to explain when there's another ten minute fight scene up ahead.
The animated version did a better job of covering The Fellowship of the Ring in an hour than this does in three (the animated version then disintegrates as it moves into The Two Towers). Interestingly, there is an entire scene and bits of other scenes which are copied from the animated film even though they do not appear in the book.
And...as Sam and Frodo walk away, down towards Mordor and their destiny, what director would neglect to fade to credits just as a certain bent, almost reptilian form creeps into view, following the Precious? Well, apparently this one would.
Utterly inept direction of the first class.
The scenery and the effects (apart from Galadriel) are very good and there are many moments which would make great illustrations to the book, but the characters and plot are thin and uninteresting.
TWW
Cinema as anything other than elongated MTV is dead; marketing to kids is all that matters.
I went to see LotR on New Years Day and it stunk - badly written, very badly directed, with ZERO characterisation. Yet kids in the cinema were applauding at the end. People on /. rave about it and the IMDB has it as the best film of all time. Why? Because it had very good special effects.
So, keep all your crap about Lucas selling out, he's only going where the audience are leading.
TWW
And a better script!
TWW
But that market is fragemented between economies as diverse as Germany and Portugal. The only way to make this work is to unite Germany and Portugal into one economy/country. Any other system will result in runaway infation in the weaker economies. The gamble the EU is taking is that a United States of Europe can be forged before this happens (perhaps 5 years?)
TWW
At the end of the day the only rights that exist are those which you can enforce - ultimatly using force, in which case "might makes right". The government generally has the most force and so gets to decide what rights everyone has via the Law.
Remember that when Jefferson wrote that line about how self-evident a truth equality is, that he had slaves out back! There simply are no "natural" rights.
TWW
The structure of LotR is very strong, even the language develops from the start to the end and all the Hobbits' characters change quite radically, and we do all like character development, don't we?
TWW
With 9 hours to play with why does the movie have to betray the book as opposed to abridging it with care?
I'm really getting tired of people saying what a great version the new movie is and then going on to say what a mess of the books it's made. What's going on (I haven't seen it yet)?
TWW
A real blast from the Victorian age of Freudian mumbo-jumbo "psychology".
TWW
Do you mean "visual" masterpiece?
Titanic, a great flick (despite all you naysayers), is 3 hours 20 minutes, has solid character development
I'm stunned! Titanic barely had characters at all, never mind character development! They all start off as cliched stereotypes and end up as (mostly dead) cliched stereotypes. Live->dead is a sort of character development, I suppose.
TWW
Tired...