Return of the King

[Flayer]

They say it is 'such an emotional movie that will make you cry'.
That makes me worry because all emotional scenes in the last two movies were boring as hell. After the two towers (big disappointment) i really don't expect much from this one

[Richie987]

I can't wait for this movie! The Two Towers in my opinion was better than the Fellowship (due to more action and deeper look into characters emotions and motives) and the Return of the King will be a excellent way to top it all!
I'll be queueing up for this one!!

[Super]

I only liked the bit about the battle with Sauron at the beginning of the first film. That was cool.

Oh and the Balrog.

[Zar]

so gay that they had to leave out sauraman

he was one of the best and most interesting chars in the movie

oh well

Zar

[Dante Hicks]

I don't really see how The Two Towers was a disappointment. I don't see how anyone could have realistically expected anything radically different (after seeing the first one I mean).

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Zar

so gay that they had to leave out sauraman

he was one of the best and most interesting chars in the movie

oh well

Zar

in the movie

in the movie

in the movie

in the movie

in the movie

in the movie

in the movie

in the movie

in the movie

in the movie

in the movie

WHATS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

[deerbarn]

Originally Posted by Richie987

I can't wait for this movie! The Two Towers in my opinion was better than the Fellowship (due to more action and deeper look into characters emotions and motives) and the Return of the King will be a excellent way to top it all!
I'll be queueing up for this one!!

Yes however they did hange most of them to suit

[Intrepid00]

I hear its been leaked in book form.

[deerbarn]

i hear people said that two years ago

[Rids]

Unfortunately, The Two Towers was a never-ending pile of arse.

I understand that 'The Lord Of The Rings' is an epic saga, and I fully intend to getting around to reading it one day. However, they didnt need to make the film a never ending pile of shite, which built up and built up to a huge fight, only to have the aforementioned fight be completely shite.

[LHC]

I saw the first film, found it boring, and didn't bother with the second. I haven't read the books on the basis that there are too many of them for them to possibly be good.

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by deerbarn

i hear people said that two years ago

I hear your observant.

[Tactitus]

I was pretty disappointed with The Two Towers when I first saw it, but I thought the extended version was substantially better.

I expect The Return of the King to be quite emotional, as they have 2.5 movies worth of plot lines to tie up.

(I'm half-expecting Peter Jackson will have the Entwives show up at the end of the film :lol: ).

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Flayer

They say it is 'such an emotional movie that will make you cry'.
That makes me worry because all emotional scenes in the last two movies were boring as hell. After the two towers (big disappointment) i really don't expect much from this one

Considering HOW MANY ****ING CHARACTERS DIE or come within inches of death in the book , its fair to say that youre going to see just the tiniest smidgens of emotion in the film, and it may make a lot of people cry.

Im just saddened that the whole Wormtongue / Saruman thing wont play out because hes out of the movie.

[Deepflow]

i really preferred fellowship... tt was still a fantastic film... but i guess i preferred the fear and tension in the 1st (that you dont really get in 2) to the more action orientated approach of the 2nd.

plus the dwarf tossing bit was better in 1

i wonder if they are gonna have a joke in 3?

[I am Idler]

I read the book. I watched the 2 first film. I still got a hard on. I bought the "extended hugely overprized version". I'm going to cry all way through the third film just because I know it'll all be over soon

[Kurashima]

All 3 are ****ing great films. None of them do justice to the book, but then again , thats just something thats impossible anyway.

If the third one instill even a fraction of the emotion in me that the Third book did, its a ****ing winner in my eyes.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by LHC

I haven't read the books on the basis that there are too many of them for them to possibly be good.

Three? (Or one actually)

[SomeOneYouKnow]

hm, the 2nd ( two towers) really surprise me,
what a great film that is,
i only hope the 3rd one would be same good as the 2nd

[I am Idler]

All review's I have seen have got sperm stains on them

so I assume it's the best of the three

[Tietäjä]

I can tell you Flavius. It eventually starts to taste like poo. You can maybe read it twice or thrice and see the movies before you are just sick of it.

[Flayer]

know what would be cool? Hugo Weaving dressed up as elrond saying "Hi mr Anderson" to gandalf

:/

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Flayer

know what would be cool? Hugo Weaving dressed up as elrond saying "Hi mr Anderson" to gandalf

:/

I think Hugo Weaving dressed as Tic would be better. In the Matrix films too.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Flayer

know what would be cool? Hugo Weaving dressed up as elrond saying "Hi mr Anderson" to gandalf

:/

Congratulations on being the 2,834th person to make the "Elrond saying 'Hello Mr Anderson' joke"

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

All 3 are ****ing great films. None of them do justice to the book, but then again , thats just something thats impossible anyway.

I disagree.
I doubt you can name ONE film that is better than the book it is based on. So LOTR in film version was never going to be better than the book. It/They are still amazing films though.

The only things I don't like are:
Where is Tom Bombadil? He was the best character in the entire saga
Arwyn and Aragorn... so boring. Less love and "sacrifice" plz ;o
Saruman being taken out. What about when the hobbits go back to the Shire? It added on so much more to the book!
Gimli being used as the "comic" part. It's like every film these days needs someone with wise cracks and lighthearted humour. Unnecessary.

[Work_Child]

lolz bilbo baggins.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I disagree.
I doubt you can name ONE film that is better than the book it is based on. So LOTR in film version was never going to be better than the book. It/They are still amazing films though.

The only things I don't like are:
Where is Tom Bombadil? He was the best character in the entire saga
Arwyn and Aragorn... so boring. Less love and "sacrifice" plz ;o
Saruman being taken out. What about when the hobbits go back to the Shire? It added on so much more to the book!
Gimli being used as the "comic" part. It's like every film these days needs someone with wise cracks and lighthearted humour. Unnecessary.

Tom Bombadil was entirely worthless.

Arwen and Aragorn was included to flesh out the characters somewhat (I believe); it is included in LotR, but not in the main text.

Saruman being taken out is a poor decision. As is the Comedy Short People (Merry and Pippin have it worse than Gimli).

Oh, and as for a film better than it's book... American Psycho.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Tom Bombadil was entirely worthless.

Lies. He freakin' rocked. And he had a cool christian name ^_^

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Arwen and Aragorn was included to flesh out the characters somewhat (I believe); it is included in LotR, but not in the main text.

I can't believe you corrected me on the spelling of a fictional ELF. She wasn't in the books so she gets nil respect from me. Dappy bint.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Saruman being taken out is a poor decision. As is the Comedy Short People (Merry and Pippin have it worse than Gimli).

Ahh yes, forgot about them.
I did like the Ents. Although I noticed something. You know how it takes them about a day to get all the Ents together? Then when Treebeard notices Isengard, he goes "BRAAAAR BROOO BRAA" or whatever. And all the Ents are mysteriously 10 seconds away. That deserves a hearty wtf.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Oh, and as for a film better than it's book... American Psycho.

Never read or seen it actually.

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

All 3 are ****ing great films. None of them do justice to the book, but then again , thats just something thats impossible anyway.

If the third one instill even a fraction of the emotion in me that the Third book did, its a ****ing winner in my eyes.

Fully agree with Kura

However, my tolerance of some of the mistakes and innaccuracies the film makes wanes somewhat when i re-read the book for the 4th or 5th time. They are still two (and obviously three) of my favourite films ever, but there was so many little things that would have taken two, maybe three seconds to mention or correct that would have made it a whole lot better.

Plus choosing an elrond that didnt suck would have helped

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I can't believe you corrected me on the spelling of a fictional ELF. She wasn't in the books so she gets nil respect from me. Dappy bint.

She was in the books.

[Deffeh]

Not at some of the points Jackson chose to throw her in

Plus the elves werent at the frickin battle of helms deep

And for someone who said he left a lot of parts out because of time restraints, throwing the extra part where aragorn falls off the cliff for no apparent reason was ****ing stupid

Plus he left out all the gifts they were given at Lothlorien

need i go on?

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

All 3 are ****ing great films. None of them do justice to the book, but then again , thats just something thats impossible anyway.

If the third one instill even a fraction of the emotion in me that the Third book did, its a ****ing winner in my eyes.

I agree with Kura, you can't really explain it any better than this.

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I disagree.
I doubt you can name ONE film that is better than the book it is based on. So LOTR in film version was never going to be better than the book. It/They are still amazing films though.

Did you read AND comprehend Kura's post before you quoted and replied with that, because you are saying exactly the same thing, in a slightly different way. Is English your native language? If it isn't I'll forgive you.

[Work_Child]

I think we are missing the point here that for the point of making a film, they could not have done a full adoptation from the books, the majority of the population will not have read the books, so they're hardly gonna give them selves a hernia if theres a scene missing, on their own they make fine a series of films, they were far too long to be enjoyably watchable by the majority of audiences as it is, unless your a hardcore LotR fan, or a fantasy buff. They have to sell it to the general public and the general public dont want to sit through three, 23 hour films.
Its called Editing, go look it up.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Plus he left out all the gifts they were given at Lothlorien

need i go on?

He didn't, it's in the extended edition.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Plus the elves werent at the frickin battle of helms deep

Jackson says in the commentary that he added them because in the books Legolas wishes for a contingent of Elven archers, and he decides to give them to him.

Originally Posted by Deffeh

And for someone who said he left a lot of parts out because of time restraints, throwing the extra part where aragorn falls off the cliff for no apparent reason was ****ing stupid

That bit is a bit stupid.

Originally Posted by Work_Child

I think we are missing the point here that for the point of making a film, they could not have done a full adoptation from the books, the majority of the population will not have read the books, so they're hardly gonna give them selves a hernia if theres a scene missing, on their own they make fine a series of films, they were far too long to be enjoyably watchable by the majority of audiences as it is, unless your a hardcore LotR fan, or a fantasy buff. They have to sell it to the general public and the general public dont want to sit through three, 23 hour films.
Its called Editing, go look it up.

They said that the public wouldn't have say through 3 3 hour films either.

Also, most of the additions that are being mentioned (Saruman, etc) are a matter of minutes rather than hours. Perhaps if he didn't spend half the films on things like Helm's Deep, he'd have time.

[edit]

Hell, they said that people wouldn't sit through films of an hour.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer

Did you read AND comprehend Kura's post before you quoted and replied with that, because you are saying exactly the same thing, in a slightly different way. Is English your native language? If it isn't I'll forgive you.

It is I'm afraid.

[I am Idler]

how pld would it be if all heroes are killed 20 minutes into the third film?

VERY

[MrL_JaKiri]

Not really, as there wouldn't be much to do after that, given that Sauron will have the Ring and thus the power to destroy Middle Earth.

[I am Idler]

But what a destruction of Epic proportions?

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer

He didn't, it's in the extended edition.

Now, ive not seen the third film yet and i doubt you have either, so i dont think either of us can fully answer this yet; but

How does that work? Are the gifts just going to magically appear when the heroes need them most? Surely them being given the gifts is more important than an extended scene?

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer

I agree with Kura, you can't really explain it any better than this.


Did you read AND comprehend Kura's post before you quoted and replied with that, because you are saying exactly the same thing, in a slightly different way. Is English your native language? If it isn't I'll forgive you.

Not at all. He said it didn't do justice to the book. I said there was no way it'd be regarded as good as the book, so it was never going to do justice to it.

For someone who calls themselves "Belgarath the Sorcerer", I'll let the snide remark about me not understanding English go.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Now, ive not seen the third film yet and i doubt you have either, so i dont think either of us can fully answer this yet; but

How does that work? Are the gifts just going to magically appear when the heroes need them most? Surely them being given the gifts is more important than an extended scene?

In the extended edition of the first film as I recall, some sort of dream sequence, plus the characters talk about what they got as well.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Not at all. He said it didn't do justice to the book. I said there was no way it'd be regarded as good as the book, so it was never going to do justice to it.

For someone who calls themselves "Belgarath the Sorcerer", I'll let the snide remark about me not understanding English go.

It's all about semantics isn't it.

[Flayer]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Congratulations on being the 2,834th person to make the "Elrond saying 'Hello Mr Anderson' joke"

wow i must be a genious, I have never heard it before

I'll also point out that rotk is 3,5 hours.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Now, ive not seen the third film yet and i doubt you have either, so i dont think either of us can fully answer this yet; but

How does that work? Are the gifts just going to magically appear when the heroes need them most? Surely them being given the gifts is more important than an extended scene?

I think the fact that it was in the first film and the first book might put a stop to it being in Return of the King.

[KoeN]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Not at some of the points Jackson chose to throw her in

Plus the elves werent at the frickin battle of helms deep

And for someone who said he left a lot of parts out because of time restraints, throwing the extra part where aragorn falls off the cliff for no apparent reason was ****ing stupid

Plus he left out all the gifts they were given at Lothlorien

need i go on?

who cares? it's just a movie fs.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by KoeN

who cares? it's just a movie fs.

That's just, like, your opinion man.

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by KoeN

who cares? it's just a movie fs.

wrong. Its a book

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

wrong. Its a book

I'm pretty sure that Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, which you were commenting about, was in the medium of film.

Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I disagree.
I doubt you can name ONE film that is better than the book it is based on.

About a Boy