|
Home > Archive > General Discussion > December 2003 > Problems with Lord of the Rings
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Problems with Lord of the Rings
|
|
| crane550 2003-12-26, 3:31 pm |
| I saw Lord of The Rings: Return of the King for the second time last night. I think that movie is one of the best and most worth while movies I have seen in a long time. I have one problem with it, however.
I don't know if this trilogy can be topped. I am not saying I don't think there ever will or even has been a better movie, but you can look at Star Wars which was filmed in the late 70's and almost 30 years later add some scary monsters and special effects. All that the poducers wanted to put in this new film [LOTR] they did. Considering a quarter of the US population (this is a very low figure) goes out and pays $8 to see this movie they had the $$ to put forth this prodution. How can we re do this and add to it? I would say it would be very hard to do. I don't think the Lord of The Rings will ever made into another movie becuase it will never pass this one. The story is used.
People will come up with new concepts and trends, and I'm sure this will not be the last movie I will rave about. In a few years we will have a film that is even bigger, but what about this one?
As far as special effects go can we pass this up? Gollum looked darned real. It seemed I could have yelled at him and have him heard me and turned to look at me. Sure, we can come up with 3D technology to make it feel like we are there even more, but how will this compare with films another 30 years down the road? I am a straight guy who had my head set firmly on my shoulders, never had my head in the clouds and is very close with reality. But when I was watching that movie I was there. (despite the fact i had jet-leg) It seems I would have to be running along with them for it to seem more real to me. | |
|
| ummmm
2007 or 2008 - look for The Hobbitt - a prequel to the rings. | |
| crane550 2003-12-26, 3:49 pm |
| yes, you can add a sequal or prequal, but the story about frodo and the ring is used. you missed my point. | |
|
| lotr sucks, who cares about hobbits,
give me the 1st/2nd age and let me see sauron whimper in the might of morgoth.
elves + men vs morgoth, that's where the money's at, not little wimpy hobbits telling a feel good story of how the little man can be the hero. | |
| DaDnDe 2003-12-27, 11:18 pm |
| The Return of the King is the crowning achivement of what has become a brilliantly executed adaptation of one the most well known stories of all time. only the bible has been read by more people. To say that this story will not be done again because it was done so well now may not be accurate. i think that it would not have been done again no matter what.
When peter jackson decided to take on this project, many people thought of him as being crazy. it was commonly accepted that to create a middle earth that would be accepted by the movie going public would be difficult if it was even possible.
in an interview in 1997, he admitted that new technology would have to be perfected before he could finish the movie.
to give you an idea of what this project involved.
it was shot in about 447 days. all three movies were shot at one time. there were as many as 7 separate film crews in 7 different locations all shooting at once. jackson used satellite communications to direct all 7 locations at once.
the editing and adding of the CG took over 2 years. the editors had the job of pouring through 11 MILLION feet of raw film. (an average feature length film has about 600,000 feet of film to edit)
jackson was forced to change facts in the movie because the books introduced over 100 main characters. many of the characters we saw were forced to do double duty. for instance, the sword that was reforged and given to Aragorn was actually reforged by people from his own villiage(the Rangers) to the north.
the film rights to the book were first sold in 1973 for 50 thousand. there have been a few pitiful attempts at recreating the story.
one very forgettable example was a movie that included Tom Bombadil (a colorful character that takes up several chapters in the book but was left out of the Fellowship of the Ring)but left out practically the entire journey including the battle of Helm's Deep (the battle at the end of The Two Towers). all he did was leave behind anyone who wasnt very familiar with the story.
so you see, this movie wont be made again for several reasons. and imho, it doesn't need to be. a picture maybe worth a thousand words, but rarely has a movie lived up to the written word. if you have not seen the Return of the King , you should. if you dont see it on the big screen at least once, then you will miss an unforgettable experience. | |
| Tarzanboy 2003-12-28, 2:04 am |
| I was disappointed with the removal of Tom Bombadil, but that would have easily added an hour to the story.
The one of the major things that the movie really lost was the sense of time that went by. From the time of Bilbo's leaving the Shire to Gandalf's return warning Frodo of the dangers was over 20 years. Frodo changed locations and was another 6 months before he left the Shire. All of this seemingly occured within the blink of an eye in the movie.
Another item was when Arwin started mumbling at the side of the creek and suddenly the waters come rushing down. Replacing Glorfindel with Arwin makes some sense, however changing the combined effect of 2 of the Rings of Power into a spell was, in my opinion, a bit lame.
Melkor was destroyed at the end of the First Age. The Second Age was where Sauron starts to make a name for himself, forges the Rings of Power and where the Last Alliance of Men and Elves exists.
As far as a sequel, there shouldn't be one.
If there is going to be a serious attempt at making the Hobbit close to what the book reads.
Cheers,
TB |
|
|
|
|