I really don't think people really realize how good this movie is going to be. Supposedly a member of the MPAA saw a screening, and said it was the best movie he's ever seen. And he HATED the first one. Go watch the new trailer at apple.com It's, ridiculous.
I HAVE to go out and get the DVD. Having grown up on the books, I was mostly irritated with the movie because of the amount of cutting, although I understood the necessity of it. I'm very glad to hear that Galadriel is further developed. That mirror scene in the movie particularly bothered me because you can't possibly understand what's going on if you're not familiar with the books. And it would have been so good, if properly developed. I agree with everyone that Bombadil is the most pragmatic cut, and while I like Bombadil, he contributes very little to the plot (although I don't mean to diminish his importance to the mythology that MacBeth understands much better than I do). One more criticism is the conversion of Merry and Pippin in the movie to comic relief. Not a big deal, I guess, and not terribly inappropriate, but just not an interpretation that I cared for. Did anyone else have trouble adjusting to Hugo Weaving (from The Matrix) as Elrond? Throughout the Rivendell portion, I half-expected him to clench his teeth and grumble about "Mr. Anderson." Looking foward to The Two Towers.
You have no idea how many times I've sat and watched this movie and STILL waited for Hugo to break out a "Mr. Anderson". Shows what the character he's going to be known for for the rest of his career. Of course, when one of his most famous roles before Elrond and Agent Smith involved him running around the screen dressed as a woman (see Priscilla, Queen of the Desert for that frightening image), I imagine that'd be a relief for him.
sorry, i thought it didn't give anything away,but now i look at it maybe to much. i didn't even notice it. i read the books and i liked the two towers the most, i thought it was the best book,so i'm ooking forward to seeing the movie
I didn't enjoy the first two books that much. I thought The Silmarillion was his best work. And Return of the King was the best in the trilogy by far. So you can imagine my anticipation of December 18th, 2003.
Nomar, just curious... How can you like one book of the trilogy and not the others? I mean they are so intertwined I don't see how you can dislike the beginning of the story and like the end. I could see having a favorite or something, but not just disliking the other two...
rimbaud, that is actually my point. I mean Tolkien wanted it to be just one big book, he just couldn't get it published that way...
Well, its sort of like this...have you read "Lonesome Dove"? Great novel, but the first 150 pages are so friggin slow you want to kill yourself. You find yourself yelling "Get off the ranch already!!!" Then they get off the ranch and the book becomes epic. I can see if they broke it up into three smaller novels how I could say I didn't like the first third of Lonesome Dove. However it had necessary character development so I read it. Actually, twice, cause one time I quit on page 115 and tossed the book away for 4 years. "Fellowship" is slower than the other 2 but still a great book. "Towers" could actually be perceived as two books; (1) the two major battles and (2) the Ringbearers head to Mordor. "King" wraps it all up in amazing fashion. What blows my mind is that people who liked Fellowship and havent read the novels (shame, shame, shame) are going to go NUTS over TTT and ROTK. We're talking serious action and drama. One question w/o being a spoiler: Shelob in TTT / Shelob in ROTK -which one is it? I always liked how TTT ended, so much like Empire, but if you move Shelob....well.....
It's the same story, but ROTK is just so much ****ing better than the first two. I mean come on, Rohan riding to Gondor, Aragorn in Gondor, the healing hands of the king, Denethor's madness, and of course, my favorite character in the book: Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth.
Can you imagine if Peter Jackson had stuck with his original choice for Aragorn, Stuart Townsend? Disaster! Viggo makes these movies work.
Check this out.....Andy Serkis (Gollum) may be up for an Oscar Nomination! Story: NEW YORK (Variety) - There was never any Oscar buzz for the performances of Jar Jar Binks or Dobby, but New Line is hoping that Gollum will be up for an acting Academy Award in March. Andy Serkis is the British actor who performs the centerpiece role of Gollum in Peter Jackson (news)'s second installment of the "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Only you might not realize it, because his personage has been painted out and replaced with a CGI creation. Other CGI characters were purely figments of the imagination, like Jar Jar Binks and Dobby. The 20 minutes of "Two Towers" footage shown recently by New Line indicates a breakthrough with Gollum, who looked as real as a blue-tinted, bent and gnarled creature could look. And Jackson went back and subsequently improved the character, which the media observed. New Line will push Serkis for a supporting actor nomination. And the actor has just signed with the Gersh Agency, hoping that his cyber-work in "Two Towers" and next year's "Return of the King" finale will propel him into regular Hollywood film work. "This all started with an offer to do three weeks of voiceover work as Gollum," said Serkis. "I remember thinking, a voiceover? Why can't I get offered a decent acting role in a major movie? I'm known for being chameleon-like as an actor, and I've played a lot of quirky, physical roles in Mike Leigh (news)'s movies. This didn't seem that involved." Serkis soon learned from Jackson and his screenwriting-producing partner Fran Walsh that vocal skills would be only part of the Gollum job. "Peter had the idea to do something unprecedented," Serkis said. "Even though Gollum would be computer-generated, Peter wanted all the emotion and the physicality to come from a single performance." Instead of three weeks, Serkis worked the better part of the last year, logging more hours than any other actor in the "Rings" ensemble. First, Serkis acted the scenes with Frodo (Elijah Wood (news)) and Sam (Sean Astin (news)) as they carried the ring toward Mordor. Serkis repeated the entire performance, clad in a skintight bodysuit, wired to capture his every move and transfer it to the computer. Serkis did the role yet again, both to supply Gollum's slithery rasp of a voice, and to transfer his facial expressions to every enunciation. He spent countless more hours with the 40 animators who refined Gollum. The performance is signature Serkis -- even though the actor was erased from every scene. "In a way it's a bummer, but I honestly feel strongly that the essence of what I've done is up there. Much the way that John Rhys-Davies (news) hardly looks like the dwarf Gimli after being shrunk and wearing heavy prosthetic makeup, I feel like I'm wearing CG prosthetics. There is a satisfaction in playing one of the great literary character creations, being able to play Gollum without being pinned down by him for the rest of my life. Some anonymity is the actor's greatest weapon." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How cool would it be if he won. I can see Jar Jar Binks in the audience...."Meeesa didna win no Academy Awards..."
OK since this is related to the trailer I'm posting it here since I can't find the more appropriate topic that used to be somewhere around here. I've downloaded the trailer off Kazaa, but I can't play it. It's DIVX 5.0 encoded and my Windows Media Player (ugh) can't/won't play it. Anyone know where I can find the right codecs for it. I REALLY want to see the trailer and don't want to wait for another 2 hour dowload (stupid dialup...).
www.apple.com then quick time then movie trailers Also, I just bought the extended DVD. It's pretty hardcore.
I loved almost all the extended scenes, especially the gift-giving, and also the scene right before Moria where Gandalf pulls Frodo aside... that added a forboding feeling. I'll have to watch it again, but on first viewing I wasn't crazy about the new intro, with Bilbo reading. Don't know why... maybe it was just a little too much exposition right after the prologue. Another thing that bothered me, even in the theatrical release, is that Gandalf seems like sort of a wimp as a wizard. In the books, his great show of power is at the Ford... in the movie, that effect is given to Arwen. Gandalf is left with some fireworks and lighting his staff. If Gandalf was supposed to seem really powerful, they didn't do too well. Lastly, I definetley noticed Hugo Weaving. I went on opening day, and everyone in the theatre said all at once "Mr. Anderson..." He was good, but I would have liked to see him have more archaic speech, like he did in the book, since he's the oldest one there. Anyway, FOTR is still my favorite movie ever, at least until December 18.
Gandalf IS a bit of a stoner, but I like that about him. He's just mellow unless he has to kick some ass.
In the book, Glorfindel (an Elf from Rivendell) finds Frodo and the others near the ford. He puts Frodo (who has been stabbed by the morgul blade) on his horse, and the horse runs to Rivendell. As soon as Frodo crosses the Ford, and the Ringwraiths touch the water, Elrond senses their presence on his land. So he causes the flood, Gandalf just had a hand in making the shape of the water look like running horses. Arwen really isn't mentioned until Return of the King. I think Gandalf was made to look 'weak', so we can see his true power in The Two Towers. I think also that in FOTR, he was seen more as a wise person, his power was in his knowledge of Middle Earth, whereas in TTT he really kicks some ass!
