The Lord of the Rings

Skateboarding elves, very funny actually....give Jackson the benefit of the doubt on that one-he has never been one to pander to a mainstream audience! I think you are being unnecessarily picky Mr Lee.

Blade Runner and The Shining.?

Remember the strange, tacky ending in the original (voice-over) version, when Deckard and Rachel are driving away in the countryside.Well, that sequence is taken from actual unused footage from The Shining and has nothing to do with Blade Runner at all!

Worth the wait?

 

Edited by Reed Lover

William Burroughs. Oddly he wrote "Blade Runner-A Movie" which has no connection to The Movie-Blade Runner, other than they nicked the title.

Link between Tom Cruise, Arnold Schwarzeneggar,Ben Affleck and Harrison Ford?

easy-peasy.

 

Not that obvious!

Ok, Adonis, the answer is :

They have all played Philip K Dick heroes.

IE screenplays based on Dick's novels.

Blade Runner (Ford)
Paycheck (Affleck)
Totall Recall (Arnie)
Minority Report (Cruise)

Soooo simple.

Vincent D'Onofrio

Impostor!

c'mon you gotta try harder than that!

Edited by Reed Lover

James Lee wrote: (*cough* skateboarding elves *cough*)

Indeed.....

And not to forget.... Dwarf Tossing "don't tell the elf"

*splutter*



Still love it, though.

Arioch wrote: The Return of the King was a friggin 3.5 hours long. If they would have placed in the Scouring of the Shire bit I shudder to think how long it would have been. Especially my bladder!!

Don't drink too much during the extended version, then, as it's just over 4 hours long - still no scouring

Edited by Jim Garten

James Lee wrote: [/QUOTE]

There's no doubt that there was way too much to cram into three films (even long-ass ones ) but there are certain things that are essential, and other things that aren't. I think it would have been a decent series if it had been a completely original creation, but you simply can't judge an adaptation on its own merits alone. What would you say if they'd made a succesful film version where the ring wasn't destroyed but used to win the war? Or one that eliminated Legolas and Gimli (they weren't all that necessary to the plot, even in the book)? Or took the same story and set it in outer space? Some basic consistency has to be maintained.

And for all that was cut, a lot of non-essential things were added...mostly for mainstream viewers, which is a lot closer to 'jumping the shark' territory than the filmmakers' understanding of how many Tolkien fans were waiting to see the films. It's funny that some of the things that have been mentioned as favorite elements are some of the silly things that made me want to leave the theater in disgust (*cough* skateboarding elves *cough*).

What is the connection between Blade Runner and The Shining?

[/QUOTE]

 

I can understand your feelings James.  I absolutely loved these books and have read them more times than I care to admit.   

Skateboarding Elves and Dwarves as comical relief made me wince seeing them.  As did the Return of the King Two Towers edition as Argorn fell over a cliff in a battle that never happened in the books. The one that got me was no army of Rohan at Helms Deep and yet they can gather 7000 in a couple of days in the Return of the King. Then there is Faramir's  character change and Merry and Pippin talking Treebeard into attacking Isengard instead of the Ents independently coming to the conclusion their forest was in danger. Gandalf having to knock Denathor out.  Greatly missed was the Barrow Downs to find out why Merry's sword could pierce the Nazgul Lords armor and I did miss the scouring but I also understand why it wasn't put in. 

I look at this movie and my first thought is  I am completely stunned it was even attempted. This story is so epic and the recreation of this world that never existed is daunting.  But in that attempt the man never deviated to the spirit of Tolkien and what he was trying to say or let the effects so take over the movie the heart of the story was lost.  I look at an added scene in the Battle of Minas Tirith where Gandalf comforts Pippin with the narrative at the end of the book as to what Frodo sees going across the sea to the West word for word.  The scene added with Treebeard to give a nod to Tom Bombidil. The arrival of the Riders of Rohan to the Pellinor fields. Grond, the hammer of the underworld and Morgoths weapon,  smashing the gates of Minas Tirith. The Eagles at the gates of Mordor. The army of Minas Morgul leaving the city.  The Cry of the Nazgul in the Shire. The set designs in Hobbitown and Bree.  So many more I could mention that was great and filled me with what I felt when I read these scenes.  This film was incredible in it's scope, its design, it's attention to detail in it's spirit.  Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh and Philipa Boyens deserved every single cinematic award they received.   I also was disappointed with The Two Towers the first time I watched it.  Then I watched the extended version when it came out on DVD and I just cleared my mind of preconceived notions and I liked it much better.  The Fellowship being linear in it's story was much easier to do cinematically and much easier to keep faith to the plot as the TT and ROTK jumps around to so many different events.  I thought Jackson handled them masterfully.  Anyway just my two cents.

 

Arioch wrote: To nit pik about such details really shows your nerdiness. If I were you, I'd keep these thoughts to yourselves.

 

When it comes to LOTR I am very proud of my nerdiance!!!!!!

As I do for Prog Rock!

Edited by Garion81

I'm a nerd; no doubt about it. We all have to accept our basic nature sometime!

For what it's worth, I'm well aware of many faults in Tolkien's writing. You didn't even mention his stiff dialogue or annoying repetition. I disagree with your view of his treatment of magic (much more in keeping with the myths he drew from than the modern 'magic as arsenal and fireworks' usage), but there's no way to deny that the end of the war was a huge anticlimax. Still, I'd rather love something with faults than feel nothing for a more respectable work.

I'd take offense at your first few statements, but (given what I've written on this thread) it doesn't apply to me anyway. Although it does seem the general consensus that I'm nitpicking...despite the fact that I've talked almost exclusively about the 'big picture'. It's very true that if I'd never read the books I would have enjoyed the film more...but things like dwarf-tossing and skateboarding elves would still have irked me. It's the kind of thing you find in saturday morning cartoons and by-the-numbers pulp fantasy paperbacks, not in Tolkien.

Arioch: would you enjoy a film version of Elric where Stormbringer was making trendy wisecracks? How about a portrayal of Fafhrd as simply a Conan-like barbarian, ignoring his personal (and essential) conflict about civilization? 

It does kinda seem that way, doesn't it?