The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Absolutely stupid. They're supposed to be critics?
Donnie Darko - 21. Ridiculously high.
Casablanca - 46. Ridiculously low.
Oh, and number one and two? Drum roll please...
1. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
2. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Someone needs to be shot.
Donnie Darko - 21. Ridiculously high.
Casablanca - 46. Ridiculously low.
Oh, and number one and two? Drum roll please...
1. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
2. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Someone needs to be shot.
Page:
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> "Agreed, Fellowship is by far the best of the three."
>
like hell it is.
> "Agreed, Fellowship is by far the best of the three."
>
like hell it is.
I thought that the fellowship started the story with amazing class. It was a brilliant way to start the trilogy no doubt however it was SO good that it loses points simply because it had to stop where it did.
The Two Towers was good enough in it's own right but I always feel that the one in the middle is often just a way of filling up time before the trilogy you know? Apart from the Alien Quadrilogy in which each film follows a different plot just with the same enemies and Sigourney Weaver that's normally how I feel. It was good though so it scores some pointsi n my books.
The Return Of The King dragged on, there's no doubt about it. I felt it was longwinded. It was a very good film but when Frodo and Sam finally got to Mordor and they had the panning shot of the thousands of troops and mount doom I nearly wept because I knew the film would still have ages to go if they had to travel all that distance.
If I had to pick and order of preference I'd say the fellowship, return of the king and then two towers. Of course this is just entirely my opinion without actually thinking about it at all. This is me just giving it a quick think over and typing.
The Two Towers was good enough in it's own right but I always feel that the one in the middle is often just a way of filling up time before the trilogy you know? Apart from the Alien Quadrilogy in which each film follows a different plot just with the same enemies and Sigourney Weaver that's normally how I feel. It was good though so it scores some pointsi n my books.
The Return Of The King dragged on, there's no doubt about it. I felt it was longwinded. It was a very good film but when Frodo and Sam finally got to Mordor and they had the panning shot of the thousands of troops and mount doom I nearly wept because I knew the film would still have ages to go if they had to travel all that distance.
If I had to pick and order of preference I'd say the fellowship, return of the king and then two towers. Of course this is just entirely my opinion without actually thinking about it at all. This is me just giving it a quick think over and typing.
Return dragged? Sure, it did at the end, when the ring was destroyed, but I almost lost the will to live during Fellowship. It went on and on and on and didn't pick up until near the end.
cookie monster wrote:
> o.O No way, i think a number of LOTR fans would tell you that
> Fellowship is the best.
Indeed. Even the makers of the film say that Two Towers was the most difficult of the films to make, mainly since its bridges a gap between the two novels. But the best way to view the films is as Tolkien intended, not as three seperate entities but as an entire whole.
I couldn't BELIEVE it after the Fellowship when people were leaving saying 'oh, it didn't have an ending' ... obviously finding the concept of a triology hard to grasp. Almost irritating to the point where I wanted to smack their head against a wall chanting 'It. Is. The. First. Part. Of. Three. The. Story. Is. Not. Over. Yet. You. Pillock.'
The biggest shame, and even bigger since I hear that it isn't coming to the extended DVD version, is the omission of The Scouring Of The Shire. Fellowship has a LONG intro, but this is part of Tolkien's genius, first of all he establishes the passing of the time. Bilbo leaves his ring to Frodo and over many many many years he comes and goes between the Shire. It gives the story a sense of reality, an idea that something is being worked away behind the scenes. Once you delve deeper into the world you can discover whats going on while Frodo is guffing about in the Shire. Also, the long long intro helps firmly establish the quaintness of the Hobbit folk, the simplicity and gentle life that they have, and the almighty struggle they have which is practically a chase down the road to Rivendell. Once you reach the end of ROTK, you find that this pleasant world has been utterly destroyed by Sauraman. The memory of protecting the Shire and getting back home is what motivates the Hobbits, and then to return to have to clean up the Shire afterwards too, it provides a fantastic book end to the story. The idea that its not a story for the hell of it, that it has a place in the history of a realm, that there has been life before the ring came about and that there is a consequence to everything that stretches beyond the end of the battle. Poor old Frodo spends the entire film wanting to get back home, but by the time he does, he finds he doesn't fit into the Shire at all, and is in fact quite ill after all his trials.
What I'm trying to get at is that without the Fellowship, why the hell do you care what these people are up to and why they're fighting. Its like playing Metal Gear and skipping ALL the movie/talkie sequences just to have the action points. Surely we're all not at a state where we have to be fed action as opposed to dialogue to get a kick out of a movie?
> o.O No way, i think a number of LOTR fans would tell you that
> Fellowship is the best.
Indeed. Even the makers of the film say that Two Towers was the most difficult of the films to make, mainly since its bridges a gap between the two novels. But the best way to view the films is as Tolkien intended, not as three seperate entities but as an entire whole.
I couldn't BELIEVE it after the Fellowship when people were leaving saying 'oh, it didn't have an ending' ... obviously finding the concept of a triology hard to grasp. Almost irritating to the point where I wanted to smack their head against a wall chanting 'It. Is. The. First. Part. Of. Three. The. Story. Is. Not. Over. Yet. You. Pillock.'
The biggest shame, and even bigger since I hear that it isn't coming to the extended DVD version, is the omission of The Scouring Of The Shire. Fellowship has a LONG intro, but this is part of Tolkien's genius, first of all he establishes the passing of the time. Bilbo leaves his ring to Frodo and over many many many years he comes and goes between the Shire. It gives the story a sense of reality, an idea that something is being worked away behind the scenes. Once you delve deeper into the world you can discover whats going on while Frodo is guffing about in the Shire. Also, the long long intro helps firmly establish the quaintness of the Hobbit folk, the simplicity and gentle life that they have, and the almighty struggle they have which is practically a chase down the road to Rivendell. Once you reach the end of ROTK, you find that this pleasant world has been utterly destroyed by Sauraman. The memory of protecting the Shire and getting back home is what motivates the Hobbits, and then to return to have to clean up the Shire afterwards too, it provides a fantastic book end to the story. The idea that its not a story for the hell of it, that it has a place in the history of a realm, that there has been life before the ring came about and that there is a consequence to everything that stretches beyond the end of the battle. Poor old Frodo spends the entire film wanting to get back home, but by the time he does, he finds he doesn't fit into the Shire at all, and is in fact quite ill after all his trials.
What I'm trying to get at is that without the Fellowship, why the hell do you care what these people are up to and why they're fighting. Its like playing Metal Gear and skipping ALL the movie/talkie sequences just to have the action points. Surely we're all not at a state where we have to be fed action as opposed to dialogue to get a kick out of a movie?
On a side note, Jackson's original cut of Return Of The King was 6 1/2 hours, howsabout THAT for film!
I've always enjoyed going through the timeline thats in the appendix of Return Of The King, it stretches back to the beginning of the Second Age, which began with the overthrowing of Sauron's master. Tells about the forging of the rings of power, all the battles that are going on in the interim, how after the massive battle, Saurons essence flees to the Mirkwood. That in turn explains that when Bilbo goes through the Mirkwood in The Hobbit that its quite nasty in general. In fact it all could have ended there since he was wandering with Saurons ring right under his nose. Also in The Hobbit, at that point Gandalf leaves the party and you find you that he goes off to attack an evil force in the Mirkwood which he then discovers to be Sauron, driving him out. He then goes back to Mordor to rebuild his power.... and there is SHED loads more. It kinda makes me wish that Tolkien was still alive to finish creating his world. I've read short accounts of how the Nazgul journey up to the Shire, how they can't cross water without their lead Nazgul and how in daylight hours they tend to wander off if left to their own devices. Which irritates Sauron no end. He uses them as a secret weapon, but since ,even when invisible, wherever they go they spread a sense of fear, he couldn't unleash them until he found out from Gollum the location of the ring. After that, they have to find the Shire, and even though the witch king of Angmar's old realm is up there, times have changed and they can't find the place. Plus having to cross rivers annoys them. So they troop of to Isengard to natter to their new supposed ally Sauraman, who is in a FOUL mood when they arrive because Gandalf has literally just escaped his grasp. He's angry, yet knows that a showdown with all 9 riders would be a bad thing, so uses information about the location of the Shire to his advantage to 'prove' his loyalty to Sauron and tells them where it is. That in turn doesn't please them because, yes, more rivers to cross.
And he's come up with masses of stuff along the lines of this. How Middle Earth was created in the first age by the 15 gods, the battle against the one evil god and his Lietenant Sauron, which in turn brings the doom of the Elves.
Jackson apparently wants to carry on the franchise. This could mean a rendition of The Hobbit, but that has nowhere NEAR the epic scope of the Rings triology. Since he's got such talented scriptwriters, it would be grand to see the Simarillion realised as a film!
I've always enjoyed going through the timeline thats in the appendix of Return Of The King, it stretches back to the beginning of the Second Age, which began with the overthrowing of Sauron's master. Tells about the forging of the rings of power, all the battles that are going on in the interim, how after the massive battle, Saurons essence flees to the Mirkwood. That in turn explains that when Bilbo goes through the Mirkwood in The Hobbit that its quite nasty in general. In fact it all could have ended there since he was wandering with Saurons ring right under his nose. Also in The Hobbit, at that point Gandalf leaves the party and you find you that he goes off to attack an evil force in the Mirkwood which he then discovers to be Sauron, driving him out. He then goes back to Mordor to rebuild his power.... and there is SHED loads more. It kinda makes me wish that Tolkien was still alive to finish creating his world. I've read short accounts of how the Nazgul journey up to the Shire, how they can't cross water without their lead Nazgul and how in daylight hours they tend to wander off if left to their own devices. Which irritates Sauron no end. He uses them as a secret weapon, but since ,even when invisible, wherever they go they spread a sense of fear, he couldn't unleash them until he found out from Gollum the location of the ring. After that, they have to find the Shire, and even though the witch king of Angmar's old realm is up there, times have changed and they can't find the place. Plus having to cross rivers annoys them. So they troop of to Isengard to natter to their new supposed ally Sauraman, who is in a FOUL mood when they arrive because Gandalf has literally just escaped his grasp. He's angry, yet knows that a showdown with all 9 riders would be a bad thing, so uses information about the location of the Shire to his advantage to 'prove' his loyalty to Sauron and tells them where it is. That in turn doesn't please them because, yes, more rivers to cross.
And he's come up with masses of stuff along the lines of this. How Middle Earth was created in the first age by the 15 gods, the battle against the one evil god and his Lietenant Sauron, which in turn brings the doom of the Elves.
Jackson apparently wants to carry on the franchise. This could mean a rendition of The Hobbit, but that has nowhere NEAR the epic scope of the Rings triology. Since he's got such talented scriptwriters, it would be grand to see the Simarillion realised as a film!
Widge wrote:
> What I'm trying to get at is that without the Fellowship, why the
> hell do you care what these people are up to and why they're
> fighting. Its like playing Metal Gear and skipping ALL the
> movie/talkie sequences just to have the action points. Surely we're
> all not at a state where we have to be fed action as opposed to
> dialogue to get a kick out of a movie?
I know exactly what you are getting at, but I have to commend Jackson for his genius and passion for getting the films made in the first place. If it were a straight adaptation of the books, it wouldn't have worked on the big screen for a cinema going audience. What he has done, and quite astoundingly, is made a quite frequently embarrassing subgenre (Fantasy) marketable, and most of all *exciting* and *believable*
Think about it, some of the elements in the movies are cringeworthy (I’m a fantasy read BTW too)
Talking trees, Shakespearian dialogue, little people, dark lords, “Mount Doom” (snigger), orcs, elves (snigger), magic rings (although the german epic “Der Ring des Nibelungen” uses this token, wizards (snigger), the balrog, giant elephants, golumn, etc etc etc)
Much as I’d like to see different versions of the movies more faithful to the books, the ability to actually watch live action, and bloody good versions of a major part of my childhood and upbringing (My father is a big reader, and encouraged me to read. I thank him utterly for that) far outweighs any problem I have with the movies.
Hell, I’ll even forgive the “dwarf tossing” New Zealand cultural jokes.
And just think, if Jackson hadn’t got the green light for the movies, the only version we’d be able to watch on the screen is the appalling Ralph Bakshi “animated” Version *shudder*.
> What I'm trying to get at is that without the Fellowship, why the
> hell do you care what these people are up to and why they're
> fighting. Its like playing Metal Gear and skipping ALL the
> movie/talkie sequences just to have the action points. Surely we're
> all not at a state where we have to be fed action as opposed to
> dialogue to get a kick out of a movie?
I know exactly what you are getting at, but I have to commend Jackson for his genius and passion for getting the films made in the first place. If it were a straight adaptation of the books, it wouldn't have worked on the big screen for a cinema going audience. What he has done, and quite astoundingly, is made a quite frequently embarrassing subgenre (Fantasy) marketable, and most of all *exciting* and *believable*
Think about it, some of the elements in the movies are cringeworthy (I’m a fantasy read BTW too)
Talking trees, Shakespearian dialogue, little people, dark lords, “Mount Doom” (snigger), orcs, elves (snigger), magic rings (although the german epic “Der Ring des Nibelungen” uses this token, wizards (snigger), the balrog, giant elephants, golumn, etc etc etc)
Much as I’d like to see different versions of the movies more faithful to the books, the ability to actually watch live action, and bloody good versions of a major part of my childhood and upbringing (My father is a big reader, and encouraged me to read. I thank him utterly for that) far outweighs any problem I have with the movies.
Hell, I’ll even forgive the “dwarf tossing” New Zealand cultural jokes.
And just think, if Jackson hadn’t got the green light for the movies, the only version we’d be able to watch on the screen is the appalling Ralph Bakshi “animated” Version *shudder*.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Talking trees, Shakespearian dialogue, little people, dark lords,
> “Mount Doom” (snigger), orcs, elves (snigger), magic rings (although
> the german epic “Der Ring des Nibelungen” uses this token, wizards
> (snigger), the balrog, giant elephants, golumn, etc etc etc)
Oh maybe cliches, but I suppose Tolkien did invent them all in the first place! Just about ever fantasy has come from his template.
I think Jackon and the writers did a terriffic job, I had many a moment where I was thinking 'Why did they do it that way?', 'Why did he change it from the book like this?' ... and you watch the documentaries and they justify themselves perfectly. Usually its done from the perspective of making the film a watchable one. Such as Two Towers should have finished with Frodo being carried off by Orcs after getting stunned by Shelob. But Jackson and writers said that after the 'climax' of Helms Deep, having that would have been one climax too many for the film. So it gets carried over into ROTK. They did well I have to say, I bet it wasn't easy.
> Talking trees, Shakespearian dialogue, little people, dark lords,
> “Mount Doom” (snigger), orcs, elves (snigger), magic rings (although
> the german epic “Der Ring des Nibelungen” uses this token, wizards
> (snigger), the balrog, giant elephants, golumn, etc etc etc)
Oh maybe cliches, but I suppose Tolkien did invent them all in the first place! Just about ever fantasy has come from his template.
I think Jackon and the writers did a terriffic job, I had many a moment where I was thinking 'Why did they do it that way?', 'Why did he change it from the book like this?' ... and you watch the documentaries and they justify themselves perfectly. Usually its done from the perspective of making the film a watchable one. Such as Two Towers should have finished with Frodo being carried off by Orcs after getting stunned by Shelob. But Jackson and writers said that after the 'climax' of Helms Deep, having that would have been one climax too many for the film. So it gets carried over into ROTK. They did well I have to say, I bet it wasn't easy.
Widge wrote:
> Oh maybe cliches, but I suppose Tolkien did invent them all in the
> first place! Just about ever fantasy has come from his template.
He didn’t invent but he amalgamated them from existing folklore and legend, but I know what you mean if relating to the fantasy (particularly books) in creating the genre. As I’ve mentioned “Der Ring des Nibelungen” featured a lot of “fantasy” elements (and an all powerful magic ring), and the Wagner operas based on the legend were written between 1848-76.
I always laugh thinking of Jackson pitching the movies.
“right, now he’s gone, lets check his back catalogue”
“what are they?”
“’Bad Taste’ ‘Brain Dead’ ‘mmet the feebles’ ‘heavenly creatures’”
(a number of hours later)
(collectively) “………………….ooohhhhhhhhhhh, fu…………..”
> Oh maybe cliches, but I suppose Tolkien did invent them all in the
> first place! Just about ever fantasy has come from his template.
He didn’t invent but he amalgamated them from existing folklore and legend, but I know what you mean if relating to the fantasy (particularly books) in creating the genre. As I’ve mentioned “Der Ring des Nibelungen” featured a lot of “fantasy” elements (and an all powerful magic ring), and the Wagner operas based on the legend were written between 1848-76.
I always laugh thinking of Jackson pitching the movies.
“right, now he’s gone, lets check his back catalogue”
“what are they?”
“’Bad Taste’ ‘Brain Dead’ ‘mmet the feebles’ ‘heavenly creatures’”
(a number of hours later)
(collectively) “………………….ooohhhhhhhhhhh, fu…………..”
I bet he lied on his CV and said he directed Lawrence Of Arabia or something...
He was lucky though, the publisher was only going to give the licence to do TWO movies. So the entire thing would have had to be crammed into two showings. Luckily they opened up to other publishing giants to see if they wanted to release part of it and the duties got split between two producers. One got one movie, the other did the other two. Or something like that.
The entire Arwen thing could have been a downfall, since Hollywood DEMANDS a love interest thing, she almost got scripted into helping out in Helms Deep ... which was a MASSIVE departure from the book (featuring Arwen to that amount was enough, her main showing is in the bloody appendix!). Liv Tyler was getting trained up for battle in Helms Deep when news of the script was leaked to the net and the Tolkien community went MAD. So they had to withdraw it. Thank god I say too.
The entire Arwen thing could have been a downfall, since Hollywood DEMANDS a love interest thing, she almost got scripted into helping out in Helms Deep ... which was a MASSIVE departure from the book (featuring Arwen to that amount was enough, her main showing is in the bloody appendix!). Liv Tyler was getting trained up for battle in Helms Deep when news of the script was leaked to the net and the Tolkien community went MAD. So they had to withdraw it. Thank god I say too.
Page: