If I could change the LotR movies...

My rating for each of the LotR movies in the trilogy, on a scale of 0
to 10:

1) RETURN OF THE KING (9.
If I had to change one thing...
I would've had a proper send-off for Saruman. His absence doesn't
hurt RotK at all; in fact, he was inconsequential to that one movie.
However, Saruman *was* the most visible villain in FotR & TT. For
this character to simply disappear without a proper sendoff GREATLY
hurts the trilogy as a whole.

2) FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (9.2)
If I had to change one thing...
I would've kept the original river-crossing scene where Frodo
defiantly challenges the Nazgul, "You shall have neither the Ring, nor
Me!". That was always my favorite scene in the entire LotR series
because it was the first time (a delirious) Frodo showed some guts.
In LotR, they diminished Frodo's big scene by having him being a
simple hobbit in distress being rescued by Arwen. He literally didn't
do anything except whimper and cry the whole time. Another change I
would've made is to cut the scene where Aragorn defeats a bunch of
Nazgul with one hand tied behind his back. That one scene seriously
castrated the Nazguls. I mean, they were supposed to be some sorta
scary unstoppable demigods. They weren't supposed to fall down one
after another like bumbling orcs. As for Tom Bombadil, I don't miss
him one bit. I've always disliked him, sorry! I'm glad he wasn't in
FotR.

3) The Two Towers (8.0)
If I had to change one thing...
I would've severely toned down on all the melodramatic fake death
scenes. That was a little too Hollywoodish. There was the Gandalf
isn't dead scene, the Merry & Pippin aren't dead scene, and of course,
the Aragorn didn't die falling down a cliff scene. The Gandalf scene
was ok, the Merry-Pippin scenes should've had the melodrama toned down
significantly, and the Aragorn fake death scene shouldn't have
happened at all. It was just too much of the same thing.

Overall, I'm more than happy with the LotR trilogy. It's far from
perfect, but it's still very good. When I first read the books all
those years ago, I thought the trilogy had a scope that was FAR too
big to be properly translated into a movie. Peter Jackson has proved
me wrong, and my hat's off to him.

Opticreep

The Two Towers had several stupid scenes. You mentioned the fake
death of Aragorn. This didn't bother me much although it wasn't true
to the book.

Other dumb ideas included the horses charging almost straight downhill
into a bunch of pikemen. You have to assume the director is an idiot,
at this point (pun intended), about combat.

An charging out the city with horses onto a bridge.

Frodo going to the city and almost giving the ring away was likewise
ridiculous.

The elves return. Ugh they're suspose to be going to the new world
(or whatever) but in any event leaving middle earth.

Oddly enough they did quite well with what I would think was the
hardest part - Gollum. Parts of this film were painful to watch, but
overall still a good flick.

haven't seen Return yet.

On 1 Mar 2004 03:17:37 -0800, (Opticreep) wrote:

>My rating for each of the LotR movies in the trilogy, on a scale of 0
>to 10:
>
>1) RETURN OF THE KING (9.
>If I had to change one thing...
> I would've had a proper send-off for Saruman. His absence doesn't
>hurt RotK at all; in fact, he was inconsequential to that one movie.
>However, Saruman *was* the most visible villain in FotR & TT. For
>this character to simply disappear without a proper sendoff GREATLY
>hurts the trilogy as a whole.
>
>2) FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (9.2)
>If I had to change one thing...
> I would've kept the original river-crossing scene where Frodo
>defiantly challenges the Nazgul, "You shall have neither the Ring, nor
>Me!". That was always my favorite scene in the entire LotR series
>because it was the first time (a delirious) Frodo showed some guts.
>In LotR, they diminished Frodo's big scene by having him being a
>simple hobbit in distress being rescued by Arwen. He literally didn't
>do anything except whimper and cry the whole time. Another change I
>would've made is to cut the scene where Aragorn defeats a bunch of
>Nazgul with one hand tied behind his back. That one scene seriously
>castrated the Nazguls. I mean, they were supposed to be some sorta
>scary unstoppable demigods. They weren't supposed to fall down one
>after another like bumbling orcs. As for Tom Bombadil, I don't miss
>him one bit. I've always disliked him, sorry! I'm glad he wasn't in
>FotR.
>
>3) The Two Towers (8.0)
>If I had to change one thing...
> I would've severely toned down on all the melodramatic fake death
>scenes. That was a little too Hollywoodish. There was the Gandalf
>isn't dead scene, the Merry & Pippin aren't dead scene, and of course,
>the Aragorn didn't die falling down a cliff scene. The Gandalf scene
>was ok, the Merry-Pippin scenes should've had the melodrama toned down
>significantly, and the Aragorn fake death scene shouldn't have
>happened at all. It was just too much of the same thing.
>
>Overall, I'm more than happy with the LotR trilogy. It's far from
>perfect, but it's still very good. When I first read the books all
>those years ago, I thought the trilogy had a scope that was FAR too
>big to be properly translated into a movie. Peter Jackson has proved
>me wrong, and my hat's off to him.

G Baker

I give all 10/10

sorry but they are my most afv trilogy and films of all. I watched return
of the king and the film was just out of this world.

Well done Peter Jackson for all three and i dont think there will ever be a
trilogy of films that would ever beat them


"Opticreep" <> wrote in message
news: m...
> My rating for each of the LotR movies in the trilogy, on a scale of 0
> to 10:
>
> 1) RETURN OF THE KING (9.
> If I had to change one thing...
> I would've had a proper send-off for Saruman. His absence doesn't
> hurt RotK at all; in fact, he was inconsequential to that one movie.
> However, Saruman *was* the most visible villain in FotR & TT. For
> this character to simply disappear without a proper sendoff GREATLY
> hurts the trilogy as a whole.
>
> 2) FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (9.2)
> If I had to change one thing...
> I would've kept the original river-crossing scene where Frodo
> defiantly challenges the Nazgul, "You shall have neither the Ring, nor
> Me!". That was always my favorite scene in the entire LotR series
> because it was the first time (a delirious) Frodo showed some guts.
> In LotR, they diminished Frodo's big scene by having him being a
> simple hobbit in distress being rescued by Arwen. He literally didn't
> do anything except whimper and cry the whole time. Another change I
> would've made is to cut the scene where Aragorn defeats a bunch of
> Nazgul with one hand tied behind his back. That one scene seriously
> castrated the Nazguls. I mean, they were supposed to be some sorta
> scary unstoppable demigods. They weren't supposed to fall down one
> after another like bumbling orcs. As for Tom Bombadil, I don't miss
> him one bit. I've always disliked him, sorry! I'm glad he wasn't in
> FotR.
>
> 3) The Two Towers (8.0)
> If I had to change one thing...
> I would've severely toned down on all the melodramatic fake death
> scenes. That was a little too Hollywoodish. There was the Gandalf
> isn't dead scene, the Merry & Pippin aren't dead scene, and of course,
> the Aragorn didn't die falling down a cliff scene. The Gandalf scene
> was ok, the Merry-Pippin scenes should've had the melodrama toned down
> significantly, and the Aragorn fake death scene shouldn't have
> happened at all. It was just too much of the same thing.
>
> Overall, I'm more than happy with the LotR trilogy. It's far from
> perfect, but it's still very good. When I first read the books all
> those years ago, I thought the trilogy had a scope that was FAR too
> big to be properly translated into a movie. Peter Jackson has proved
> me wrong, and my hat's off to him.

Dragon

"Dragon" <> wrote in message
news:cmH0c.3478$X%....
> I give all 10/10
>
> sorry but they are my most afv trilogy and films of all. I watched return
> of the king and the film was just out of this world.
>
> Well done Peter Jackson for all three and i dont think there will ever be
a
> trilogy of films that would ever beat them
>
Dragon,
I think you forgot about that little four hundred pound Gorilla called
the "Star Wars" franchise <ggg.> I don't keep up on fanboy stats but I
suspect that the LOTR trilogy may well have quite a ways to go to catch up
to Lucas' plans on world domination. LOL.
I'll give chops to Jackson for the effort involved, but you have to
remember the three films have very limited appeal. My own seventy plus year
old Mother loves Indiana Jones and would sit through a Star Wars film, but
didn't last five minutes before turning channels when they first aired LOTR
on satellite. The fantasy genre is supported by fanboys who see the same
film multiple times in the theater, generating huge ticket sales. Then they
watch the same thing over and over and over on DVD, often buying multiple
editions of the same film with slighty different suppliments and extras.
Most _normal_ folks simply don't have those types of viewing habits. Those
same habits are what drive up the film and DVD revenue, not the average joe
six-pack's viewing habits.
All the best, Mike

Mike Davis

Mike Davis wrote on [Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:46:34 -0800]:
>
> "Dragon" <> wrote in message
> news:cmH0c.3478$X%....
>> I give all 10/10
>>
>> sorry but they are my most afv trilogy and films of all. I watched return
>> of the king and the film was just out of this world.
>>
>> Well done Peter Jackson for all three and i dont think there will ever be
> a
>> trilogy of films that would ever beat them
>>
> Dragon,
> I think you forgot about that little four hundred pound Gorilla called
> the "Star Wars" franchise <ggg.> I don't keep up on fanboy stats but I
> suspect that the LOTR trilogy may well have quite a ways to go to catch up
> to Lucas' plans on world domination. LOL.

The new Star Wars trilogy has nothing on the LOTR movies. They're even
harder to watch.

> I'll give chops to Jackson for the effort involved, but you have to
> remember the three films have very limited appeal.

Yeah. Really limited appeal. The last movie has only made a billion or
so dollars.


> My own seventy plus year
> old Mother loves Indiana Jones and would sit through a Star Wars film, but
> didn't last five minutes before turning channels when they first aired LOTR
> on satellite.

Yes. They are a little hard to get into if you have no attention span.

> The fantasy genre is supported by fanboys who see the same
> film multiple times in the theater, generating huge ticket sales. Then they
> watch the same thing over and over and over on DVD, often buying multiple
> editions of the same film with slighty different suppliments and extras.

Right. That's exactly it. Nobody who isn't into fantasy, or hasn't even
read the books, has gone and seen these movies.

> Most _normal_ folks simply don't have those types of viewing habits. Those
> same habits are what drive up the film and DVD revenue, not the average joe
> six-pack's viewing habits.

So, explain Titanic?

Justin

"Opticreep" <> wrote in message
news: m...
> My rating for each of the LotR movies in the trilogy, on a scale of 0
> to 10:
>
> 1) RETURN OF THE KING (9.
> If I had to change one thing...
> I would've had a proper send-off for Saruman. His absence doesn't
> hurt RotK at all; in fact, he was inconsequential to that one movie.
> However, Saruman *was* the most visible villain in FotR & TT. For
> this character to simply disappear without a proper sendoff GREATLY
> hurts the trilogy as a whole.
>


You wouldn't have filmed the Scouring, then?

Mark W

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:46:34 -0800, "Mike Davis"
<> wrote:

>
>"Dragon" <> wrote in message
>news:cmH0c.3478$X%....
>> I give all 10/10
>>
>> sorry but they are my most afv trilogy and films of all. I watched return
>> of the king and the film was just out of this world.
>>
>> Well done Peter Jackson for all three and i dont think there will ever be
>a
>> trilogy of films that would ever beat them
>>
>Dragon,
> I think you forgot about that little four hundred pound Gorilla called
>the "Star Wars" franchise <ggg.> I don't keep up on fanboy stats but I
>suspect that the LOTR trilogy may well have quite a ways to go to catch up
>to Lucas' plans on world domination. LOL.
> I'll give chops to Jackson for the effort involved, but you have to
>remember the three films have very limited appeal. My own seventy plus year
>old Mother loves Indiana Jones and would sit through a Star Wars film, but
>didn't last five minutes before turning channels when they first aired LOTR
>on satellite. The fantasy genre is supported by fanboys who see the same
>film multiple times in the theater, generating huge ticket sales. Then they
>watch the same thing over and over and over on DVD, often buying multiple
>editions of the same film with slighty different suppliments and extras.
>Most _normal_ folks simply don't have those types of viewing habits. Those
>same habits are what drive up the film and DVD revenue, not the average joe
>six-pack's viewing habits.
> All the best, Mike
>

I think fastest movie to " 1 Billion Dollars" (of only 2 to do it)
says a lot about the popularity of LotR

As far as niche. LotR has a wider appeal than SW, especially amongst
those people lacking a Y chromosome.

GK

grant kinsley

In article <> ,
says...
> Overall, I'm more than happy with the LotR trilogy. It's far from
> perfect, but it's still very good. When I first read the books all
> those years ago, I thought the trilogy had a scope that was FAR too
> big to be properly translated into a movie. Peter Jackson has proved
> me wrong, and my hat's off to him.
>

If a director were to take on making a movie from R.H.'s "Stranger In
A Strange Land" I would HOPE it would be Jackson.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Larry

Opticreep wrote:
> As for Tom Bombadil, I don't miss
> him one bit. I've always disliked him, sorry! I'm glad he wasn't in
> FotR.
>

You evil vile demon.

--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost

Grand Inquisitor

Mike Davis wrote:
> Dragon,
> I think you forgot about that little four hundred pound Gorilla called
> the "Star Wars" franchise <ggg.> I don't keep up on fanboy stats but I
> suspect that the LOTR trilogy may well have quite a ways to go to catch up
> to Lucas' plans on world domination. LOL.

Jackson's trilogy already made a lot more in less time than the original
Star Wars trilogy. Besides, they are directly tied into the novels,
which will forever be the ultimate fanboy franchise.

> I'll give chops to Jackson for the effort involved, but you have to
> remember the three films have very limited appeal. My own seventy plus year
> old Mother loves Indiana Jones and would sit through a Star Wars film, but
> didn't last five minutes before turning channels when they first aired LOTR
> on satellite.

Well, they said rock and roll had limited appeal because older people
didn't like it. Just wait fifty years and *everybody* will like fantasy.

The fantasy genre is supported by fanboys who see the same
> film multiple times in the theater, generating huge ticket sales. Then they
> watch the same thing over and over and over on DVD, often buying multiple
> editions of the same film with slighty different suppliments and extras.
> Most _normal_ folks simply don't have those types of viewing habits. Those
> same habits are what drive up the film and DVD revenue, not the average joe
> six-pack's viewing habits.
> All the best, Mike
>
>

I'm sorry, the fanboys alone cannot account for the 2.7 billion in
moolah these movies have made. We're not talking about Red Dwarf or
Hitchhiker's Guide here, this is a serious mainstream hit.

--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost

Grand Inquisitor