| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Randwick Sydney
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Fri, 26 December 2003 01:57
|
 |
Got tickets a few days back going at 5 hope its good. 
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Fri, 26 December 2003 02:09
|
|
Mate said the first 3 hours were awesome but they dragged the ending out a bit too much. Bastard saw it last Wednesday!  He said it was unbelievably awesome though regardless 
We were going to go tomorrow, but will wait till after we get back home after New Years cos girlfriend got Gold Class tickets for Christmas.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Fri, 26 December 2003 08:20
|
|
|
im going sunday, i could allmost jump up and down in excitement
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Fri, 26 December 2003 13:18
|
|
|
Yeah, I just saw it. The end does drag on a bit, but it's awsome regardless.
|
|
|
Location:
melb
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Sat, 27 December 2003 01:21
|
|
up to the standard of the first 2.
battle scenes are absolutly awesome.
the huge elephant things kick ass...
audience was getting impatient at the end, after sitting for over 3.1/2 hours.
I think the editors just let peter jackson include whatever he wanted...they didnt cut anything..
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Sat, 27 December 2003 06:32
|
|
Awesome movie . Best of the 3 for sure, and thats saying something as the other 2 were damn good.
The fight scenes are HUGE. 
I really think most of the things Peter Jackson included were necessary, he actually didn't leave a lot out of this one that was noticable as it was jam packed action.
Yeah the Oliphants were very cool, especially their armour and spikes etc. Love the quote from Gimli "That still only counts as 1".
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Sat, 27 December 2003 07:50
|
|
|
Yeah, I have to go see it again as I was in a cinema with lots of people from a University fan club for Tolkien, so they where very loud and geeky, and it didn't help the experience.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Sat, 27 December 2003 08:20
|
|
F@CKING AWESOME
Fight scenes were great,
yeah the ending was long but it gives great closure to the movie unlike the matrix long ending and still no closure.
Going to see it again on monday!!!
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Sat, 27 December 2003 10:28
|
|
|
besides being LONG it was awesome
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Sat, 27 December 2003 11:52
|
|
longer is better where this movie is concerned.
I walked out thinking, "I will never see another movie like that again". Truly spectacular. the White City blew my socks off
|
|
|
Location:
1st street on the right
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Sat, 27 December 2003 12:07
|
|
|
Wait for the extended version to come out.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Sat, 27 December 2003 15:39
|
|
haven't seen it yet.. no spoilers please!
although I already know it's going to kick arse, and be one of the best movies I ever see... but that really goes without saying.
and comparing it to the matrix..... well, I'll quote Mr Cranky (www.mrcranky.com) in saying "The third installment of "The Lord of the Rings" could match this for disappointment only if Frodo stops mid-quest to perform an impromptu karaoke set to the greatest hits of ABBA. "
|
|
|
Location:
Ballarat, Victoria
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Sat, 27 December 2003 16:09
|
|
ive read the book
cant wait cant wait cant wait cant wait cant wait cant wait cant wait cant wait cant wait cant wait cant wait cant wait cant wait cant wait to see the moive
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Sun, 28 December 2003 22:35
|
|
It was truly awesome. And no it wasnt too long. I found that by the end I was like "that's all" :'(
And no the producers didnt just let him put in anything. The first edit was 8 hours long.
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Mon, 29 December 2003 01:36
|
|
|
i wanna see the directors cut !!
|
|
|
Location:
Brisvegas
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Mon, 29 December 2003 05:30
|
|
good flick...3.5 hrs a bit long
too many 'bold & the beautiful' moments ie: 30 sec poignant (sp?)stares
|
|
|
Location:
Ballarat, Victoria
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Mon, 29 December 2003 12:44
|
|
| Classique71 wrote on Mon, 29 December 2003 12:36 |
i wanna see the directors cut !!
|
me too....... 4 hours 50 minutes.... yes thats right....  awesome
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
 Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Mon, 29 December 2003 13:01
|
|
I always felt that the novel should've ended at Aragorn's coronation.
The last bits were just being faithful to the book. Just be glad that he didn't stick the Saruman scene in at the end.
Only a few annoyances when major things were changed like:
* everything to do with Arwen
* how Aragorn carries a sword
* when Faramir tries to take the ring
I could be here all day I suppose....
Other than those grievances, I loved everything about the movies. They were everything I hoped for.
Did anyone else find it strange that Sting finally glowed blue in the third film when it never did that in the first two? 
Also, Anduril is supposed to flame when Aragorn weilds it. I was kinda looking forward to seeing that.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Mon, 29 December 2003 14:31
|
|
it glows in the first one - in the mines and at the end, warning peoples that orcses are comings
and I just saw it tonight.... I was blown away
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Mon, 29 December 2003 14:47
|
|
| Nark wrote on Tue, 30 December 2003 00:01 |
Only a few annoyances when major things were changed like:
* everything to do with Arwen
* how Aragorn carries a sword
* when Faramir tries to take the ring
I could be here all day I suppose...
...Did anyone else find it strange that Sting finally glowed blue in the third film when it never did that in the first two?
|
* I liked the inclusion of Arwen. I think it added to the story, although, it wasn't at all faithful to the book.
* Aragorn carries a sword in the book, doesn't he?
* Yeah, the bit with Faramir kinda pissed me off as well. He was supposed to be greater than his brother, not just the same. I dunno why they put that in the movie.
And sting does glow in the first movie. Watch it again.
--- WARNING: SPOILER TO FOLLOW ---
I'm kinda annoyed at the killing of the Nazgul king. It would seem that "No man can kill him". In the movie it seemed that 'cuz Eowyn was a woman, she could kill him??? However, in the book Merry is carrying a sword specifically designed for killing Nazgul. Merry's sword is described as follows "No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."
I would draw from this that Merry's sword broke the spell that kept the Nazgul's body from harm, and then Eowyn killed it.
So I'm kinda annoyed that they left the whole "Merry has a sword that kills Nazgul" bit out. Even if they wanted to drop the bit with Tom Bombadil, they still coulda left in the finding of the swords.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Mon, 29 December 2003 14:49
|
|
and I agree max - I reckon skip the fade to black where sam & frodo are lying on the rock. instead cut to gandalf hopping on an "eagle" or some such.
aragorn's coronation. then maybe the boat trip out.
as for the other stuff - poetic licence. Would be impossible to completely recreate the books, and jackson did a bloody good job.
mmm - work tomorrow ... sleep time
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Mon, 29 December 2003 23:24
|
|
| Shraka wrote on Tue, 30 December 2003 01:47 |
| Nark wrote on Tue, 30 December 2003 00:01 |
Only a few annoyances when major things were changed like:
* everything to do with Arwen
* how Aragorn carries a sword
* when Faramir tries to take the ring
I could be here all day I suppose...
...Did anyone else find it strange that Sting finally glowed blue in the third film when it never did that in the first two?
|
* I liked the inclusion of Arwen. I think it added to the story, although, it wasn't at all faithful to the book.
* Aragorn carries a sword in the book, doesn't he?
* Yeah, the bit with Faramir kinda pissed me off as well. He was supposed to be greater than his brother, not just the same. I dunno why they put that in the movie.
And sting does glow in the first movie. Watch it again.
--- WARNING: SPOILER TO FOLLOW ---
I'm kinda annoyed at the killing of the Nazgul king. It would seem that "No man can kill him". In the movie it seemed that 'cuz Eowyn was a woman, she could kill him??? However, in the book Merry is carrying a sword specifically designed for killing Nazgul. Merry's sword is described as follows "No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."
I would draw from this that Merry's sword broke the spell that kept the Nazgul's body from harm, and then Eowyn killed it.
So I'm kinda annoyed that they left the whole "Merry has a sword that kills Nazgul" bit out. Even if they wanted to drop the bit with Tom Bombadil, they still coulda left in the finding of the swords.
|
Yeah I agree. I was a bit annoyed to begin with about Arwen, but in the end it actually adds to the movies I think.
Aragorn does carry a sword and I loved that one. It was "fully sik bro".
Faramir did annoy me too, but after watching the extended version of the Two Towers, it all falls into place and you actually see him in a totally different light. Makes a HUGE difference.
------------SPOILERS--------------------
I was a bit frustrated at the killing as well, but I was still in awe of his weapon.
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Tue, 30 December 2003 00:35
|
|
| Shraka wrote on Tue, 30 December 2003 01:47 |
Aragorn carries a sword in the book, doesn't he?
|
AFAIK, the only sword that Aragorn ever carried and used was the hilt end of the shards of Narsil.
I remember looking out for the glow of Sting and not seeing it. I'll have to watch it all over again now.....
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Tue, 30 December 2003 00:53
|
|
|
No. They did reforge the sword just like they did in the movies, and gave it too him. It's just that it happens in the Two Towers and not the Return of The King.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Tue, 30 December 2003 01:00
|
|
|
It's when they are in the mines or Moria.
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Tue, 30 December 2003 04:48
|
|
| Caledwvech wrote on Tue, 30 December 2003 11:53 |
No. They did reforge the sword just like they did in the movies, and gave it too him. It's just that it happens in the Two Towers and not the Return of The King.
|
Was this directed at me?
If so, I'll expand on what I said.
Aragorn only ever carried the broken Narsil until it was reforged as Anduril. From what I remember, he only drew Narsil once in Bree (maybe once again on Weathertop).
In the movie, you see him weilding a variety of swords before he was given Anduril (much later than in the book, but we won't go there).
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Tue, 30 December 2003 04:57
|
|
|
Ah yeah. I had forgotten all about that. Good point though. But I think this way made a better movie.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Tue, 30 December 2003 05:08
|
|
exactly - he needed to have a sword, and if he was carring arounda sword and the broken hilt, would be a little strange.
not to mention him trying to avoid being the heir to the throne, yet carrying around the sword of the king.
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Tue, 30 December 2003 05:17
|
|
There are a variety of weapons other than swords... Maces, axes, staves, polearms...
He carried the sword because it was his heirloom. He never used another sword because of the fact that he was haunted by his demons (the weakness of men) of which Narsil was a constant reminder.
Although I could be totally wrong about all of this. It's just what I remember.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Thu, 01 January 2004 07:07
|
|
None of those Weapons you mentioned have the same... feeling about them as a sword.
A mace is for breaking armour, but not any better than a club against someone who isn't in plate armour.
A battle axe is more of a barbarian (or in LOTR, Dwarf/orc) kind weapon. Not elegant or precise like a sword.
A Stave is okay, but it's not realy a killing weapon. It's more the weapon a peasant would use, not a Ranger.
Polearms are a little rediculous for a ranger to be carrying around. Polearms are millitary weapons for use in the field or on guard duty, not for being a ranger.
The only weapon that suits Aragorn is a Sword, and perhaps a Staff. What weapon does he use in the book? I thought he had a sword the whole way through.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Sun, 04 January 2004 22:40
|
|
Yeah. The only weapon that Aragorn could have used was a sword.
An excerpt from "Lord of the Rings: Weapons and Warfare"
| Quote: |
A sword has always been a prestige weapon; and it's been a symbol of rank because there's something special about a sword. It is only designed for warfare: where a spear or bow can be used for hunting the sword is one of the few weapons designed purely to kill. Anyone who owned a sword demonstrated that they had the money to spend on a weapon that had no real secondary function. While not being a utility weapon it was a very efficient combat weapon: the very fact that you were having to draw one meant that you were already in close combat - not an ideal situation - so it needed to have been forged, shaped and cared for to the highest possible standard: if your sword failed you for any reason during this stage of combat you would be dead. For this reason, a warrior's sword was treated with the same love and respect as he showed to one of his family.
|
So in reality, Aragorn only had one choice. The sword.
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
 Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Tue, 06 January 2004 02:52
|
|
It doesn't matter what weapon is more suitable to him. He has an heirloom which is a sword and is also a constant reminder of his perceived weakness.
The sword is a symbol of the inherent failing of his bloodline, that's why he only has one sword.
You guys have forced me to pull out my copy of LOTR.
| Pg 168 (when they first meet Strider) |
He drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt.
|
I also checked the Weathertop section and he fought off the Nazgul with two flaming brands.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Tue, 06 January 2004 03:06
|
|
Yeah, I realised that, but for movie purposes it served them better to have the sword reforged in that way. I mean how dramatic was that scene of deciding to reforge it and then doing just that.
But those are just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Tue, 06 January 2004 05:45
|
|
|
I agree. The way it was done in the movie was much more dramatic. I quite liked it.
|
|
|
Location:
Ballarat, Victoria
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Thu, 08 January 2004 05:51
|
|
seen it twice now, pretty damn sweeeeeeet...
although i missed the bit at the end-
spoilers....
but....
the whole thing to do with "sharky" and the raiders and shit all over bree and the shire, i hope that is in the extended edition...
um, where were the dunedain? didn't a few of them tag along in the book? i seem to remember so....
and yes, i hope they explain somewhere that merrys sword is a nazgul killer- i missed it when i read the first book, and i hope they have him offering his services to theoden as well.... ala the book....
and the mouth of sauron????? where was he?!?! i think he's in the extended edition, so yippie yay....
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Thu, 08 January 2004 22:00
|
|
| Quote: |
and i hope they have him offering his services to theoden as well.... ala the book....
|
They will have it. I dont know if you remember, but go have a look at the trailer. That scene is in there.
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
 Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Thu, 08 January 2004 22:35
|
|
| Evil_Foetus wrote on Thu, 08 January 2004 16:51 |
um, where were the dunedain? didn't a few of them tag along in the book? i seem to remember so....
|
There were many players that were left out, like Elrond's sons and the Dunedain...
I suppose it just simplifies the story. Too many characters can get confusing.
|
|
|
Location:
Ballarat, Victoria
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
Re: Anyone gonna see LOTR ?
|
Fri, 09 January 2004 06:43
|
|
|
hmmmm yes. i hope that they put some cool cool thingies in....
|
|
|
