MOVIES: The Lord of the Rings & Related Films

[Vibroblade]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Vibroblade, they did a great job of letting the audience know that almost all of the forces were wiped out. Very clearly at the end, when you see the ONLY survivors (save Gimli) storm out on horse to meet Saruman's army[/b][/quote]

I have NOT been disputing the point that they did a great job showing that all the forces where wiped out.

I HAVE disputed the consistency of their portrayal of Tolkien's work. I do not believe they did a very admirable job portraying the last charge. Furthermore, if you could resurrect Tolkien from his grave and get him to post that they portrayed the scene as he envisioned it, I would still say it is poorly conceived.

[Rojo]

I just read the book (oh what a cheat I am) and if it is the same ROTK should be the best of the three by quite a bit.

Can we disscuss it without giving stuff away?

By the way, as far as I read it Helm's deep in the book was defended by more than 300, and Eomer was there from the beginning.

[Mann]

yeah, We, who have read it, know about Eomer. It just saved them form having to create another character that had little importance. The change helped the movie flow. If you change the book, it can go only so far. This was an okay change that didn't affect the overall story. Besides, it makes Eomer a better character to be a save the day guy.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by O-B-GATES@Jan 25 2003, 07:09 PM
Cool pics Bond! Where the hell did you get those this early in the game? And don't give me any of the "I can't reveal my sources" crap. :lol:
Obidoobi supplied the link actually, I saved the pictures on my pc and loaded them on to here. There are a few more, but I couldn't get them, the site allows limited time without a membership.

Apparantly, New Line released the pics, though I doubt it, more like someone from Wingnut Films and/or Weta Workshop sold them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I HAVE disputed the consistency of their portrayal of Tolkien's work. I do not believe they did a very admirable job portraying the last charge. Furthermore, if you could resurrect Tolkien from his grave and get him to post that they portrayed the scene as he envisioned it, I would still say it is poorly conceived.[/b][/quote]

Having read the books well over ten times and currently reading them, I completely disagree, the film presentation of the final charge is far better than in the book, I personnally wouldn't have liked to see 2000 men on foot led by some unknown character (Erkenbrans the name) at the films climax, this change as well as all the others was far grander and better for an on-screen presentaion.

Every change (and most of the additions) has been completely neccessary, not better than what is in the books, but better as it's a visual experience not a written work that exsists only in the imagination.

You have all heard my praise of the final charge. There has never been anything so grand and epic and beautiful on-screen before.

As for the complaining about Elves in Helm's Deep: the reason was not only because it was more realistic then what was in the book (men on horse are not going to do much good on a huge wall with thousands of Urak-Hai coming up on ladders, but arrows will) but because in the book Legolas says he wishes there were 100 good archers from Mirkwood because they would need them.

As a fan of all things Tolkien, I am glad the films are not a carbon copy of the books, the material just doesn't translate directly to film. Film is visual, books give you the ability to imagine it.

Every change was almost completely neccessary, at least in my opinion.

[Rojo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>As a fan of all things Tolkien, I am glad the films are not a carbon copy of the books, the material just doesn't translate directly to film. Film is visual, books give you the ability to imagine it.[/b][/quote]

I agree completely, the films complement the books perfectly and I hope Jackson has done the same with ROTK.

But, I here he has removed the penultimate chapter of the last book from the film (those who have read it will know what I mean, I don't want to give anything away).
This I'm not so sure about, to me it's an important part to complete the story.

[Vibroblade]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Having read the books well over ten times and currently reading them, I completely disagree, the film presentation of the final charge is far better than in the book, I personnally wouldn't have liked to see 2000 men on foot led by some unknown character (Erkenbrans the name) at the films climax, this change as well as all the others was far grander and better for an on-screen presentaion.
[/b][/quote]

If by "grander" you mean ignorant, then we agree completely.

Thanks for sharing the number of times you've read the books.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Every change (and most of the additions) has been completely neccessary, not better than what is in the books, but better as it's a visual experience not a written work that exsists only in the imagination.
[/b][/quote]

This is just flat wrong. And, not just in my opinion. I've explained several reasons why, none of which have ever been even partially refuted by anyone here. ( That includes you Bond ). This patriotic waving the flag of the LOTR is all very nice, but some sound logical argument would be more approproiate. Besides, I'm quite sure the books exist on paper and not just in someone's imagination;)

[Mann]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>This is just flat wrong. And, not just in my opinion. I've explained several reasons why, none of which have ever been even partially refuted by anyone here. ( That includes you Bond ). This patriotic waving the flag of the LOTR is all very nice, but some sound logical argument would be more approproiate. Besides, I'm quite sure the books exist on paper and not just in someone's imagination;) [/b][/quote]

wel then explain it to us so we understand why you are so upset by the changes. None have really ever been that major, and have helped get the effect across. the major changes:

1) Arewen- yeah, she didn't do all that much in the books, but when Frodo was hurt by the nazgul, wouldn't he be too sick to ride? So he would need help.

2) The leader Ur-Ukai- we needed a villian to die in the first movie to give it some better closure. He also scared the pants off of alot of people which is Jackson's specialty.

3) The ending of FotR- It went father, but the movie is actually one big movie, so it's ok to extend it that far. Besides people would have been pissed by the end, cause it's to much of a cliff hanger

4) Eomer- he isn't that important at any real place until the final book. His purpose in the movie was served. They increased his heroism and made him a better character. He also replaced an unnecessary character.

5) Elves- Helped creating a more visually pleasing battle. And it added realism to the film.

6) Gondor- Yeah they never went there, but it helped the audience understand that Faramir discovered the evil of the ring and rejected it, just as the book said.

7) the ending of TTT- Same as the FotR ending. One big movie, ending is a cliff hangar, people would have been mad.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I HAVE disputed the consistency of their portrayal of Tolkien's work. I do not believe they did a very admirable job portraying the last charge. Furthermore, if you could resurrect Tolkien from his grave and get him to post that they portrayed the scene as he envisioned it, I would still say it is poorly conceived. [/b][/quote]

You alk about being arogant, that is the most arogant statement ever made.

[Lord Laviathan]

I dont see why there is argument, the changes were absolutly nessesry for the making of the movies. With out alot of the changes it would have been very difficult to grip an audience that hasnt read these books. They made it more thrilling and more heroic and fast paced, this was not to per say piss on Tolkiens grave. If you ressurected him he would praise the movies for inspiring so many more people to read the books and see the differences, thats what an author trully wants is for it to be read and thus the legacy of his work to be carried through the ages, these movies have now with out argument given a boost to his works. Many more people have read the books now thanks to the movies, Thus the changes were nessesary for a movie concepted from the books.

[Vibroblade]

Mann,

I was only expressing my opinion. When you grow up you may understand the difference in opinion and arrogance.

That last comment was arrogant. See the difference?

One thing I've learned in my time on discussion boards, when you have to post the same point over and over, it's time to give up. I've given valid reasons, many times, none have ever been refuted. Frankly, only Laviathon has even made an attempt to address my points. I've got posters IM'ing me telling me to give it up cause no one is listening anyway. Sadly, I have to agree. This place sure isn't like the old council where you could have a good debate of point and counterpoint and people actually acknowledged they had read your post.

Laviathon you're the exception. You actually read my post, come debate me again sometime.

[Mann]

Sorry you feel that way. But you seem to get pissed when I disagree. You post, I respond. And then you say I'm not reading your posts...sorry for trying to make a good argument, which is what a discussion is about: two argurments and someone arguing those sides. I like to post alot, but that doesn't make me any less knowledgable about this subject. I love these movies. The first one was brilliant, IMO. The changes didn't bother me. YOu complained about changes I listed them and gave you my feedback. You don't feel the same great, but when you make a statement that says you wont listen to others reason, that is arrogant.

[Rojo]

Can we get back to LOTR now that's over?

[Brian]

So, who's excited about Return of the King? Only 11 months away!!!

[JediKeri.]

I want spoilers!

[Mann]

you want spoilers, read the book. Oops, I gave it away...

[Javen]

OK here is some spoilers, people beware if you don't want to know these things.

Frodo will have a ring in his possesion.
Aragorn rides a Horse.
Gimili will swing his axe.
Legolas still has blonde hair.
Merry will eat some food.
Pippin will also eat and drink.
Gandalf will be gone for a few days.
Sam will help Frodo.
Gollum talks to himself.

Sorry if I gave away too much.

[Mann]

wait, I got a bigger spoiler: The place is called Middle Earth

Eeek! I've said to much!

[Lord Laviathan]

Damnit Javen!! The whole movie is ruined for me now, ya just had to say Pippin will eat and drink didnt ya? No but really I still watch it no prob. HAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Rogue_0009]

<span style="color:silver">Here's a Dave Barry column about TTT I thought you guys might like.</span>

<span style="color:limegreen">Why can't they just lose the ring in the sink?
DAVE BARRY

I finally saw the new Lord of the Rings movie, which is entitled Lord of the Rings II: A LOT More Stuff Happens. It's a tad on the long side (three days) but I am not complaining. My eyeballs were literally riveted to the screen, by literal rivets, from the moment I sat down until the moment I lost all sensation in my lower body.

Yes, this is a classic movie, the kind that makes you laugh; makes you cry; makes you wonder, over and over, if this would be a good time to go to the bathroom. Above all, it's a movie that makes you think about the issues raised by the plot, the main issue being: What the heck IS the plot?

I say this because it's a very complicated story, with numerous subplots and something like 11,000 major characters, most of whom have hard-to-remember names like ''Flagodirt'' or ''Grempkin.'' So today, as a service to all of you who were confused by this great movie, I present the following:

SIMPLIFIED SCREENPLAY FOR LORD OF THE RINGS II

(Scene 1)

FRODO: Darn! I still have this darned ring that I got in the first movie!

SAMWISE: The ring with the terrible power that causes everyone who comes near it to over-act?

FRODO: Yes! And to destroy it, we must walk, slowly, in real time, all the way across New Zealand!

SAMWISE: But who will guide us?

FRODO: How about a reptilian computer-generated creature with a bad comb-over?

SAMWISE: Dick Cheney's in this movie?

GOLLUM: Very funny, Hobbitt-breath.

(Scene 2:)

LORD ARAGORN: Well, my two trusty companions -- Legolas, the Strangely Tall Elf; and Gimli, the Comic Relief Dwarf -- in our subplot, we are pursuing Merry and Pippin, who have been captured by Orcs, and now we find ourselves in the Kingdom of Rohan, ruled by King Theoden, whose niece, Eowyn, will become my second love interest once the king is released from the spell cast by his trusted counselor, Grima Wormtongue, who is secretly in league with the evil wizard Saruman!

LEGOLAS: I have no idea what you're talking about.

LORD ARAGORN: Me either. I'm just reading the script.

GIMLI: Well, I'm really short!

(Laughter)

LORD ARAGORN: But enough explanatory dialogue. It's time for one of the estimated 17 big sword-clanging battles we have in this movie with hideous computer-generated monsters who always outnumber us by the thousands, although we defeat them every time, because we are courageous heroes!

LEGOLAS: Also, they have the hand-to-hand-combat skills of alfalfa.

MONSTERS: Arrrrrr.

SWORDS: CLANG! CLANG! CLANG! CLANG!

(Scene 3:)

MERRY: Well, Pippin, we escaped the Orcs, and now we are being carried around by talking trees!

PIPPIN: Apparently, the audience will swallow anything!

TREE: It gets worse! Later on, we engage in branch-to-hand combat!

(Scene 4)

MONSTERS: Arrrrrr

SWORDS: CLANG! CLANG! CLANG! CLANG!

(Scene 5)

FRODO: How come, if I'm the protagonist, Lord Aragorn has TWO love interests, and I'm stuck in a subplot with Dick Cheney?

GOLLUM: Maybe it's because your big hairy feet make you look like you're wearing a pair of dead weasels.

(Scene 6)

LORD ARAGORN: Well, Legolas and Gimli, with the help of Gandalf the White, formerly Gandalf the Grey, also known as Gandalf the Beige, we have defeated the Uruk-hai in a giant computer-generated battle. Now we must make haste to the Really Big Rock of Karambador, before the forces of Ba'Zoot, led by the evil King Weltpimple, conquer the Mullions of Gneep and obtain the Remote Control Unit of Doom!

LEGOLAS: Now you're just making stuff up.

LORD ARAGORN: Well, it's not as stupid as the kung-fu trees.

GIMLI: I'm still short!

(Laughter)

(Scene 7)

FRODO: UH-oh! The movie is over, and I still have this darned ring! Do you realize what that means?

SAMWISE: That ''Weasel Feet'' would be a good name for a rock band?

FRODO: Yes, as would ''Kung Fu Trees'' and ''Combat Alfalfa.'' But my point is that the forces of Evil have been let loose upon the land, which means soon there will be...

SAMWISE: No! Not that!

FRODO: Yes. Another sequel.

MONSTERS: Arrrrrr.

</span>

[kopernikuz]

OMG!!!! I am laughing my darn fool butt off!!!!! That is the funniest thing I've read in a while... Dave Barry is something else...

*<span style="color:red">kopernikuz</span> thinking about starting a band called "Weasel Feet"

[Rogue_0009]

<span style="color:silver">I was thinking more along the lines of Kung-Fu Trees.</span>

[Mann]

that was great. It makes fun of LotR, but it is just great.

[Darth Vegas]

Some good news, god I wish I had a link, Peter Jackson has recently stated that he is considering making 'The Hobbit'!!!

If this really does happen, than I say go ahead and make a film about the War for the Jewels (based on "The Silmarillion"), and keep it going, just don't try to create anything that takes place after "The Return of the King".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I was only expressing my opinion. When you grow up you may understand the difference in opinion and arrogance.[/b][/quote]

Ok, well:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Well then explain it to us so we understand why you are so upset by the changes. [/b][/quote]

So how about it Vibroblade?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Sadly, I have to agree. This place sure isn't like the old council where you could have a good debate of point and counterpoint and people actually acknowledged they had read your post.[/b][/quote]

The point is, you weren't making a point, you were simply saying that you were dissapointed with their accurate portrayal of Tolkien's work (I'll give it 90%), and you don't like the changes. And you said it more than once.

So what exactly is it that you didn't like and how do you think they could have done it better?

[Javen]

If anyone would like to know TTT will out on DVD June 30th.

[Daft Maul]

i will definatily go and see TTT again!!!!!!
FOTR was cool but TTT was way cooler

[Darth Vegas]

As I announced earlier, Peter Jackson is considering to make the film version of The Hobbit, read all about it at IGN Filmforce.

Here's the link!!! (http://filmforce.ign.com/lotr/articles/384/384756p1.html)

[Rojo]

Cool!

You really think he could make a movie of the Silmarillion? It would have to be several (at least three more) films I think. The timescale is massive, especially if you put in all the stuff at the beginning like the creation of the Earth and all that singing business.

[Darth Vegas]

No, the Silmarrillion would be nearly impossibl to make as one film, I was just thinkingg they could go ahead a make a film showing the end of Morgoth and the rise of Sauron.

[Mann]

maybe a T.V. miniseries?

[Rojo]

That'd be OK. But a big screen film would be far better, you could probably pull off the Silmarillion in three movies, if you were selective.

[Mann]

I know a big screen would be better, but I think that if they got it made for a miniseries with the money they made off the Big Screen movies, it could be very very well made. Besides T.V. is better for long stories.

[Mann]

this is cool!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Ian McKellen On Gandalf & Hobbits TV Series

Ian McKellen spoke with Time Magazine about his role as Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings movies, aswell as his hopes to star in a TV series based on The Hobbit.

"Gandalf goes on such a huge journey. The rustic magician is brought back to life, and he's suddenly more vigorous, single-minded. It's very Shakespearean; many of his characters go on spiritual journeys. I was worried that losing [Gandalf's] charm and his naughtiness when he returns from the dead might diminish his popularity, but he's stayed so popular I've been asked to go back and shoot some more scenes for the third film."

If fans can't get enough of the old wizard, neither can McKellen, who refuses to accept that the part ends with the trilogy's final installment. He has a grand idea for the prequel: "I want to play Gandalf again, in The Hobbit. I've asked Peter Jackson if he'll produce the prequel as a huge, yearlong television series. All those different strands to the story seem perfect for TV, and we'd do every scene of it. It could be marvelous."

[/b][/quote]

[Darth Vegas]

Oh very cool, even better than a movie, that'll be great!!!

Hey Mann, could ya' give us a link to the complete article?

[Mann]

that is the whole article. it's at Killer movies, look under Lord of the Rings 3

[Mann]

here's an excerpt form one of the articles I found.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The FOTR extended cut had 35 extra CG shots - the TT extended cut has over 150. Weta are plowing through those, plus starting ROTK. We have a huge TT extended cut sound mix in a few weeks. It's all very complex and we deemed an early ROTK trailer as simply too much to take on this time around.[/b][/quote]


150!!!!!!!!!! YEAH!

[Brian]

Well, Towers got 2 Oscars last night: visual effects and sound editing, both of which were well deserved. Would have been nice to see Clones win the visual effects award, but Gollum was just more superior than Yoda this time around. *even though Yoda would kick Gollum's skinny ass any day!* hehe

[Darth Vegas]

Well, that depends on whether or not he has the ring. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Darth Coil]

Gollem was the first truly realistic character that was CG. Even better than the ones we know from SW. ???

[Jango]

ok geek

[nerfer]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Gollem was the first truly realistic character that was CG. Even better than the ones we know from SW. [/b][/quote]

<span style="color:c1007e"><span style="font-family:comic sans ms">

Actually for me the first realistic CGI character, (I won't say Jar Jar, coz no-one here is prepared to give ILM props for him just coz they hate him.) Was Watto. Astounding achievement, never once questioned whether or not he was there.

CGI Jango and Obi Wan were pretty blinding too. The Kaminoans were absolutely fantastic.</span></span>

[Darth Coil]

Let me rephrase. The best CG character up to now.

[Darth Vegas]

Yeah I agree, no contest there.

Mostly because he wasn't actually animated, it was 100% all motion capture.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007@Mar 25 2003, 07:46 AM
Yeah I agree, no contest there.

Mostly because he wasn't actually animated, it was 100% all motion capture.
Bond, he was animated. That's what CGI is. Sure, he was motion captured as well, but animated.

I do agree that Gollum is the best CGI character to date.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by O-B-GATES@Mar 25 2003, 07:16 AM
Bond, he was animated. That's what CGI is. Sure, he was motion captured as well, but animated.


No no no no no.

He was computer genererated, but he was not animated, motions trackers picked up his movements and translated him to the CG model. There wasn't an animator dictating the movements of the computer model, it was all motion tracking, that's not animation, obviously the model is computer generated, but the movements were not.

[Aurra Sing]

That is why Andy wore a suit with different motion marker spots on it.

Bond is correct I believe.

[Darth Vegas]

Exactly, he was computer generated, (DUH!!) but he wasn't animated.

[nerfer]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>motions trackers picked up his movements and translated him to the CG model.[/b][/quote]
<span style="color:c1007e"><span style="font-family:comic sans ms">

Which is how Jar Jar got his movements. Everytime you see Jar Jar walk anywhere, the way he walks and swings his arms, the way he bobs his head, is Ahmed Best, not animation.

Ahmed Best, created the characters movements, it was motion captured and translated to the CG model.

Gollum's movements may not have been animated but the rest of him sure was, so overall he is a CGI character.

I for one really like Taun We, from her walk, which again was created by the actress playing her, down to her skin texture which was human mapped onto the CG model.

I guess then if your gonna make a distinction, the sw characters are the best animated characters then!</span></span>

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by nerfer@Mar 25 2003, 12:49 PM
<span style="color:c1007e"><span style="font-family:comic sans ms">Which is how Jar Jar got his movements. Everytime you see Jar Jar walk anywhere, the way he walks and swings his arms, the way he bobs his head, is Ahmed Best, not animation.</span></span>


Well some parts were, like when Jar Jar stepped in bantha fodder, but the rest of time the animators were imitating Ahmed Bests movements, that what it shows on the TPM dvd.

[Mann]

well, actually you both are right on the animation. Gollum's movements were done in three separate places: on locataion, sound stage, and a motion capture building. HIs features were captured yes, but the actual facial expressions were animated around Andy Serkis. So, at times his movments are generated, but his facial features are not.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Mann@Mar 25 2003, 03:25 PM
but the actual facial expressions were animated around Andy Serkis
That's not what I heard....

[Aurra Sing]

Yes I heard that the facial expression and the looks were modeled after Andy. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif I thought that was nifty.

[Brian]

Well, hopefully, this will all be explained in a featurette on the DVD. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[nerfer]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Yes I heard that the facial expression and the looks were modeled after Andy.[/b][/quote]
<span style="color:c1007e"><span style="font-family:comic sans ms">

Exactly they were modeled on Serkis, the animators looked at his facial expressions and used those as a basis for Gollums.

Much in the same way that Yoda's animator acted out every scene himself and used his own facial expressions for Yoda.</span></span>

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by nerfer@Mar 25 2003, 08:13 PM
<span style="color:c1007e"><span style="font-family:comic sans ms">
Much in the same way that Yoda's animator acted out every scene himself and used his own facial expressions for Yoda.</span></span>
Yeah and they didn't do too good of a job if you ask me.

They need to make an robotic puppet for Frank Oz to use for Yoda in Episode 3 hooked into the computer, much as how they do the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, they had robotic puppets hooked into the computer and the model would make whatever movements the puppet made.

[Mann]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>That's not what I heard.... [/b][/quote]

Guess you heard wrong

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>They need to make an robotic puppet for Frank Oz to use for Yoda in Episode 3 hooked into the computer, much as how they do the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, they had robotic puppets hooked into the computer and the model would make whatever movements the puppet made. [/b][/quote]

That was for close ups, when you didn't see their legs or stuff. I have the DVD's I've seen what they do. They use computer images for panned out shots of the dinosaurs, like the scenes they are being chased.

[Marbleman]

on the advice of bond i have moved this thread up.
it might be interesting to discuss this and other works with all you tolkien freaks out there (and you know who you are). id like to begin by asking: whatever happened to poor radagast the brown? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif thats all i can think of tonight. . .

[Darth Vegas]

Ermmm, uh, he wasn't important, just like Glorfindel wasn't.

[Marbleman]

no i dont mean in the movie. i mean in the books. it never says. . . did saruman have him killed maybe. . . saruman said he was a fool but had enough wit in him to play gandalf into his hands. i dont know its a mystery.

[Darth Vegas]

Oh I got you.

I don't think Saruman could do such a thing, not that he couldnt morally, but that it's something that the Lords of the West have to decide. Like they did with Gandalf, making him the white and stripping Saruman of his power and title.

[Rojo]

I assume he justlives on in middle earth, being immortal, like the two blue wizards.

[Marbleman]

but recall saruman died, so wizards can be killed. but of course saruman was evil and i got the impression that in the end he was destroyed forever. that will be a great scene in rotk. saruman rises facing the west, he feels entitled, and then his spirit is blown away like nothing. then his body was all decayed. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sly.gif anyway i wish we knew more about the wizards. i have a tolkien book (not the silmarillon) that tells about the Illuvitar (sp?) and whatnot. it was great b/c it showed that even from the beginning saruman (curunir) was jealous of gandalf. doesnt tell much about the other wizards tho. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif

[Rojo]

There were originally five wizards, all originating as Maiar (lesser Gods) from Valinor. Sauron was also a Maia in origin. Gandalf was the wisest of the Maiar but Saruman was the most powerful wizard, to begin with. I think they were all immortal, but they could be killed, like elves. Of the five wizards, Gandalf completed their task (the overhtrow of Sauron), Saruman fell into evil, Radagast settled down in the forest and the two blue wizards went into the east (Rhun) and were never heard of again. The book you have sounds like Unfinished Tales.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by marbleman84@Apr 7 2003, 11:00 PM
but recall saruman died, so wizards can be killed. but of course saruman was evil and i got the impression that in the end he was destroyed forever.
Saruman was not a wizard when he was killed, he was a mortal man. His staff had been broken his title taken, and his powers removed. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Rojo]

Yeah, but Unfinished tales says that the wizards could be slain. Even when they were still wizards.

[Darth Vegas]

To my knowledge it does not. But I'll look into that.

[Marbleman]

wizards can die. didnt gandalf technically "die" in fotr and was sent back by the valar? at any rate, i knew that in the end sarumans staff was broken and even frodo said he had no power anymore. regardless, did he cease to be a wizard or was he just a fallen wizard? sauron was fallen too, but retained his powers. but wouldnt saruman still hold the title, even if it meant nothing? does it say that somewhere in one of the books - that saruman in the end was no longer a wizard?

[Rojo]

I don't know, i don't think it says definitively anywhere.

Sauron wasn't a wixard by the way, just a Maiar, corrupted in the first age by Morgoth.

[Marbleman]

if the wizards arent maiar, arent they illuvitar or something like that?

[Rojo]

The wizards are Maiar, but Sauron isn't a wizard and he never was.

The Valar and the Maiar were sprung from the thought of Illuvatar (God). It states implicitly in Unfinished Tales that the wizards are Maiar.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by marbleman84@Apr 7 2003, 11:59 PM
wizards can die. didnt gandalf technically "die" in fotr and was sent back by the valar?
No the Valar took him and made him anew, he wasn't slain.

Wizards cannot be killed as mortals or elves are killed in battle.

[Rojo]

Unfinished tales says he died though, and then was brought back.

[Marbleman]

Originally posted by Rojo@Apr 8 2003, 03:19 AM
The Valar and the Maiar were sprung from the thought of Illuvatar (God). It states implicitly in Unfinished Tales that the wizards are Maiar.
ah yes. illuvatar and eru, the one, are the same. i got the illuvatar confused with the maiar. at any rate im pretty sure gandalf died in fotr.

[Darth Vegas]

Well Unfinished Tales isn't exactly part of the continuity either.

For a more detailed description, check out the history of Middle-Earth series and the appendices.

As you say Wizards can die, but they cannot be killed in normal battle as elves, dwarves, men, and hobbits can. Someone couldn't kill a wizard by stabbing them or something like that. They can't die by natural means either.

Saruman wasn't a wizard when he was killed.

[Marbleman]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007@Apr 8 2003, 03:27 AM
As you say Wizards can die, but they cannot be killed in normal battle as elves, dwarves, men, and hobbits can. Someone couldn't kill a wizard by stabbing them or something like that. They can't die by natural means either.


agreed. it would take something really really big (like a balrog of morgoth) to kill a wizard. but im almost positive it even says in lotr that gandalf was dead. i think he says so himself, but im not sure about that.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Rojo@Apr 8 2003, 12:19 AM
The wizards are Maiar, but Sauron isn't a wizard and he never was.

The Valar and the Maiar were sprung from the thought of Illuvatar (God). It states implicitly in Unfinished Tales that the wizards are Maiar.
No the Wizards are the Istari.

[Marbleman]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007+Apr 8 2003, 03:31 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007 @ Apr 8 2003, 03:31 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rojo@Apr 8 2003, 12:19 AM
The wizards are Maiar, but Sauron isn't a wizard and he never was.

The Valar and the Maiar were sprung from the thought of Illuvatar (God). It states implicitly in Unfinished Tales that the wizards are Maiar.
No the Wizards are the Istari. [/b][/quote]
thats it! that is why i was confusing illuvatar for istari. why i dont know *shrugs* (they both start with "I" i guess) yea i know sauron was a maiar but i dont recall the wizards being called maiar. might be another name for the istari though, or maybe the istari are a lower class of maiar?

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by marbleman84@Apr 8 2003, 12:31 AM
but im almost positive it even says in lotr that gandalf was dead. i think he says so himself, but im not sure about that.
Nope, the Valar took him back.

SEE: "The White Rider", page 491 (if you have the complete trilogy in one book)

"I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high place and broke the mountain-side where he smote his ruin. Then darkness took me, and I strayed out of though and time, and I wandered far on roads I will not tell. Naked I was sent back - for a brief time, until my task is done."

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by marbleman84@Apr 8 2003, 12:36 AM
yea i know sauron was a maiar but i dont recall the wizards being called maiar. might be another name for the istari though, or maybe the istari are a lower class of maiar?
They aren't related at all.

[Marbleman]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007@Apr 8 2003, 03:38 AM
Then darkness took me, and I strayed out of though and time
sounds dead to me, or at least out of body. but thats dead enough. his spirit might have been travelling those "roads." he MIGHT have been unconscious? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif

[Darth Vegas]

Like I said, the Valar took him back, he wasn't dead.

[Darth Vegas]

DVD news, read all about it, preorder "The Two Towers" starting May 9th: http://www.lordoftherings.net/index_400_hv...hv_presell.html (http://www.lordoftherings.net/index_400_hv_presell.html)

[Rojo]

Kewl.

[Mann]

i hate this. too versions. one in august, the next in november!!! friggin A!

[JediJaina]

I'm only getting the extended version in November.

<span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">I kinda already have the other version</span>

[Marbleman]

Originally posted by JediJaina@Apr 22 2003, 08:31 PM
<span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">I kinda already have the other version</span>
proof that there are more professional leg-booting artists than myself in the world! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Mann@Apr 22 2003, 03:06 PM
i hate this. too versions. one in august, the next in november!!! friggin A!
Well, let view the facts, the one coming out is August is the film as is, the one coming out in November has a good half hour of new footage and new music, it's not like the Extended Version is completed yet, they're still working on it dude.

You should be glad they're nice enough to not make you wait the extra 4 months.

They could just put both versions of the film in one 6 pack dvd set, and it'd cost you alot more, plus as said before you'd still have to wait.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by marbleman84+Apr 22 2003, 05:34 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marbleman84 @ Apr 22 2003, 05:34 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-JediJaina@Apr 22 2003, 08:31 PM
<span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">I kinda already have the other version</span>
proof that there are more professional leg-booting artists than myself in the world! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif [/b][/quote]
I have it too, but It's not nearly as good a' quality as the dvd will be, plus the bootleg doesn't have the special 10 minute behind the scenes preview of Return of the King, only the dvd coming out in August does. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Mann]

Bond, The preview is now 30 minutes!

[Darth Vegas]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Link please?!

[Mann]

May fools! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

sorry. I couldn't read the small print on the official site. I though it was a three. Oh well.

[Darth Vegas]

Yeah I thought that was a little fishy...

No problem, I'll be happy enough with the 43 minutes being added to TTT for the extended edition. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Mann]

Yes, life is good!

[Darth Vegas]

Yeah it is, I was seriously shocked when I heard that, that's alot of movie to add, twice as much as they added to the FOTR e.e.

ROTK is supposed to be the longest of the films in theaters, I can only imagine what they have in store for the dvd.

[Mann]

I hear 4 hours in the theatre (they are trying to shorten it, but how can you?) and like 4 1/2 on DVD.

[Darth Vegas]

That being the case, it'll probably be extremely popular, especially among fans of the book.

[Vibroblade]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>You should be glad they're nice enough to not make you wait the extra 4 months[/b][/quote]

Disagree. I'm with Mann on this one. They could easily wait and release both together and it wouldn't be a problem. Instead, they seek to capitalize on the impatience of their fans and hopefully sell two DVD's. If GL did this, the media ( and most of the fans ) would crucify him. Geez, at least he has the decency to wait a couple years before releasing another version. Still, I don't think there's necessarily anything WRONG with what they're doing. The consumer is responsible for crap like this. If we all refused to buy the original, they'd think twice about such marketing strategies in the future.

[Vibroblade]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>That being the case, it'll probably be extremely popular, especially among fans of the book. [/b][/quote]

It won't be popular with the cheeks of my ass. 4 hours is too long to sit in a theater. I can watch extended edition movies that exceed 3&1/2 hours at home but I can't take it at the theatre.

The ROTK is the smallest of the books, there's no reason for it to be 4 hours ( now the TTT is a different story ). Of course, they did move Sheelob into ROTK and I'm sure that will be a fairly long sequence of film, but still, 4 hours is too long.

[Seanakin]

Yeah, it seems they bulldozed a lot of stuff into both the first and third movies and left Number Two seeming a little empty by comparison. I'm guessing it had to do with the wholesale changes done to the two-film screenplay after New Line authorized making three movies. In a project like this, very few things just sorta HAPPEN, e.g. I-Mac accidentally bumping his head inside Bag End.

[Senator Theant]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, it seems they bulldozed a lot of stuff into both the first and third movies and left Number Two seeming a little empty by comparison.[/b][/quote]

Seriously . . .

The endong of TTT was, in my opinion, very pitiful. Nothing like the way the books set up the ending of TTT for the beginning of ROTK. I mean, I certainly could have restrained myself from peeing in my pants long enough to watch a quick parley with Saruman, palantir being thrown at Gandalf, Pippin takin a peak, and finally . . . Gandalf and Pippin literally flying off to Gondor as the clouds brewed with war overhead. Missing Shelob was a minus, but its excusable. ROTK is going to have to be waaaay long and a little compressed with too much for the average movie goer to really like it, and see it over and over again. Me? Ill see it 8 times (like FOTR and TTT, each) regardless.


Oh yea and to clarify something someone in here said . . .

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> (Rojo @ Apr 8 2003, 12:19 AM)
The wizards are Maiar, but Sauron isn't a wizard and he never was.

The Valar and the Maiar were sprung from the thought of Illuvatar (God). It states implicitly in Unfinished Tales that the wizards are Maiar. [/b][/quote]

No the Wizards are the Istari.[/b][/quote]

The Istari is the name the Valar gave to what humans call "Wizards".

Wizards, or Istari, are Maiar in essence, lesser gods who were taught the ways of the Valar. So both of you guys are right.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>wizards can die. didnt gandalf technically "die" in fotr and was sent back by the valar?[/b][/quote]

Yes, Wizards can die, just like all other Maiar every to grace MIDDLE EARTH. It just those Maiar whose spirit was corrupted and evil in bodily form are sentenced to an eternity of neverending wandering in Middle Earth. Those Maiar who were fair and good, return in spirit to the Timeless halls to be with their creator Eru, or Iluvatar. Just to name a few other maiar who met their fate on the lands of MIddle Earth:

Sauron
Gothmog
Ungoliant
Saruman
The Balrog in FOTR
Smaug

And the only reason Gandalf was restored to MIddle Earth was due to the fact that the Valar has sent him to Middle Earth to perform a task, destroy Suaron, and would accept no other outcome.

If youll remember, Sauron himself perished a number of times (with the destruction of Numenor and his death against the Last Alliance), but his spirit regained physical form due to his spiritual connection with the One Ring, which of couse endured all these events.

Oh yea and this is all extracted from a concise compilation of all of Tolkiens works known as "Characters From Tolkien " by David Day, I suggest you guys pick it up.

[Senator Theant]

Sorry guys didnt mean to post twice, for some reason i didnt see my post the first time. My bad. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Vibroblade]

No problem. I'll fix it.....done

[Mann]

Just want to note, that It's too long of a wait. I wish I could speed up time!

[Justin]

I don't. I'm enjoying the anticipation. It will be kind of sad when there are no more Lord of the Rings or Star Wars movies to look forward to.

And also, I want to read Return of the King before the movie comes out.

[flo fett]

yeah I've just finished rereading the books. Now I don't know what to do with myself. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/eh.gif

[Brian]

TTT DVD anyone?

[Aurra Sing]

When does that come out again?

[Seanakin]

Plain Jane version, August 26.

Super Duper version, November 18.

[Justin]

Originally posted by flo fett@May 5 2003, 02:18 AM
yeah I've just finished rereading the books. Now I don't know what to do with myself. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/eh.gif
LOL!

You know, I was just thinking about how everyone complains that it's not enough like the book; well I'm glad. You know why?

Because if it were exactly like the book, there would be no reason to read the book, would there? For people who have seen the movies, if they go back and read the novels they'll be pleasantly surprised at all the little things in the book that aren't in the movie.

One reason I liked the TPM novelization is that it had things that weren't in the movie. Conversely, the reason I didn't like the AOTC novelization was that there was virtually no difference between the book and the film.

So everyone who has a problem that the LOTR movies aren't word-for-word copies of the books: quit complainin'. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Mann]

Of these people have read the book, they would realize that for all the great visuals you get from reading, alot of the story and plot is really hard to follow and far fetched. They basically get 80 percent of the book in there. That's better then say A Beautiful Mind which left the book and went into it's own story.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Senator Theant@May 4 2003, 11:10 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, it seems they bulldozed a lot of stuff into both the first and third movies and left Number Two seeming a little empty by comparison.

Seriously . . .

The endong of TTT was, in my opinion, very pitiful. Nothing like the way the books set up the ending of TTT for the beginning of ROTK. I mean, I certainly could have restrained myself from peeing in my pants long enough to watch a quick parley with Saruman, palantir being thrown at Gandalf, Pippin takin a peak, and finally . . . Gandalf and Pippin literally flying off to Gondor as the clouds brewed with war overhead. Missing Shelob was a minus, but its excusable. ROTK is going to have to be waaaay long and a little compressed with too much for the average movie goer to really like it, and see it over and over again. Me? Ill see it 8 times (like FOTR and TTT, each) regardless.
[/b][/quote]
Alot of that stuff is going to be in the next movie, the confrontation with Saruman at Isengard, Shelob's lair...most of this will probably be in the TTT Extended Edition however.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Vibroblade@May 4 2003, 10:04 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>You should be glad they're nice enough to not make you wait the extra 4 months

Disagree. I'm with Mann on this one. They could easily wait and release both together and it wouldn't be a problem. Instead, they seek to capitalize on the impatience of their fans and hopefully sell two DVD's. If GL did this, the media ( and most of the fans ) would crucify him. Geez, at least he has the decency to wait a couple years before releasing another version. Still, I don't think there's necessarily anything WRONG with what they're doing. The consumer is responsible for crap like this. If we all refused to buy the original, they'd think twice about such marketing strategies in the future. [/b][/quote]
I think alot of fans and movie-goers alike would still buy both dvds, for the sake of having both versions of the film, and for the sake of the Special Features such as trailers and so forth that aren't going to be on both dvd sets.

Some people don't want a version of the film that almost a whole hour longer.

Plus, the Extended Edition is released in much more limited numbers than the regular dvd, so most people ended up with just the regular one anyway, so your back to square one, why make those people wait another 4 months?

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Vibroblade@May 4 2003, 10:10 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>That being the case, it'll probably be extremely popular, especially among fans of the book.

It won't be popular with the cheeks of my ass. 4 hours is too long to sit in a theater. I can watch extended edition movies that exceed 3&1/2 hours at home but I can't take it at the theatre. [/b][/quote]
Well, if it's that long, I'm sure they'd have an intermission.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The ROTK is the smallest of the books, there's no reason for it to be 4 hours ( now the TTT is a different story ). Of course, they did move Sheelob into ROTK and I'm sure that will be a fairly long sequence of film, but still, 4 hours is too long.[/b][/quote]

About a quarter or more of The Two Towers has been merged with The Return of the King, the rest will be in the Two Towers E.E.

[Mann]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Well, if it's that long, I'm sure they'd have an intermission[/b][/quote]

NO! I will wait. I'm hardcore. I will piss in my seat to see the end.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Seanakin@May 4 2003, 10:54 PM
Plain Jane version, August 26.

Super Duper version, November 18.
Same as FOTR, huh?

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Mann@May 4 2003, 07:52 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Well, if it's that long, I'm sure they'd have an intermission

NO! I will wait. I'm hardcore. I will piss in my seat to see the end. [/b][/quote]
:eek:

Yeah me too. :look:

OBG, same only better. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[spaceman2386]

Originally posted by Seanakin@May 4 2003, 07:54 PM
Super Duper version, November 18.
just get that one you don't need the other one. unless u speak another language.

[Senator Theant]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>just get that one you don't need the other one. unless u speak another language.[/b][/quote]

Exactly. We have got to get some sort of boycott goin on in here. Boycott the first one, so the studio'll learn better . . . release the extended version 12 months after the first release, instead of 3.

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[Marbleman]

i might have said this before, but i hope that sarumans fate is the same as it was in rotk the book! the scouring of the shire was one of my fav chapters!

i dont mind "bulldozing" the story points from one movie to another (boromirs death, shelob), or even the slight alteration in faramir. but i hope they dont kill saruman off at the beginning via a spike on a wheel. i say, let him work his one last mean trick. ill watch the movie no matter how long it is.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by spaceman2386+May 4 2003, 08:39 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spaceman2386 @ May 4 2003, 08:39 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Seanakin@May 4 2003, 07:54 PM
Super Duper version, November 18.
just get that one you don't need the other one. unless u speak another language. [/b][/quote]
Unless you also like to have the movie trailers and the other special features like a real collector, the Extended Edition does not include those. Just make sure to read (http://www.lordoftherings.net/index_400_hv_presell.html) the article for yourself before actually passing a judgement.

For a measely $50 bucks for both dvd's, and the free ticket to The Return of the King (which is a gauruntee, the FOTR Extended Edition had a free ticket for The Two Towers), we shouldn't be hearing any *****ing.

If it's money that's a problem, ask yo' momma. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Vibroblade]

I'm waiting for the second one. Not that I'm necessarily going to boycott the first one; I just want to buy it once and I'd rather have the complete package.

[Vibroblade]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>For a measely $50 bucks for both dvd's, and the free ticket to The Return of the King (which is a gauruntee, the FOTR Extended Edition had a free ticket for The Two Towers), we shouldn't be hearing any *****ing.

If it's money that's a problem, ask yo' momma. [/b][/quote]

I think 50 bucks is a lot of money. I can download the trailers so I don't need those on a DVD.

Cool, I get a free ticket with the extended edition? that makes the decision that much easier.

[Justin]

I will buy the Extended Version brand new when it comes out, but will wait to get a previously viewed copy of the regular version.

I can rent it for free, and for most movies at Blockbuster you can buy it for a reduced price previously viewed if you've rented it, $9.99 for DVDs. Then I get an additional 20% off.

What's 20% off $9.99?

[Leia]

Justin style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif take ten percent (9.99 divided by ten, move decimal place to left) .99 and then multiply by two, $1.98. I think? Anybody correct me if I'm wrong

[Darth Vegas]

The Two Towers is now the fourth hightest grossing film of all time with $921,000,000 worldwide!!!

Read all about it:

http://www.theonering.net/

[Mann]

and they wont stop adding it up til June. It'll beat TPM for sure.

[spaceman2386]

Think of what the 3rd one will do style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Mann@May 14 2003, 02:35 PM
and they wont stop adding it up til June. It'll beat TPM for sure.
Well, I wouldn't count my chickens yet, it's still $4.6 million under, it's average gross is in the mere thousands now, so it might, but if it does, not by much.

I think we can count on a good 3 billion dollars after Return of the King, not including dvd and video sales, right up there with Star Wars and James Bond as one of the most popular film series all time.

[Mann]

Originally posted by TK-007+May 14 2003, 11:58 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ May 14 2003, 11:58 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mann@May 14 2003, 02:35 PM
and they wont stop adding it up til June. It'll beat TPM for sure.
Well, I wouldn't count my chickens yet, it's still $4.6 million under, it's average gross is in the mere thousands now, so it might, but if it does, not by much. [/b][/quote]
you underestimate the fact that the gross is in thousands, in the U.S.!

We are talking world gross, which will go past TPM.

[Darth Vegas]

Might. It's just barely above Jurassic Park, going by your statement there's only about 6 weeks left for the box office until they stop counting, 6 weeks for them to make $4.6 million, they're making money in the tens of thousands right now in the US everyweek, maybe $100,000 a week worldwide, maybe a bit more, not enough to make 4.6 million in 6 weeks.

[Mann]

In the u.s. they are making more than 100,000 a week. go check the box office sites. Last week it was still at 150,000. by your logic, times it by ten. you have 1.5 million there.

[Darth Vegas]

Ahh, well, yeah it's still doubtful that it'll make 4.6 million in 6 weeks at that rate, not that I wouldn't want it to or anything, but it's not possible at those rates.

[Mann]

look at a little film called My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

[Darth Vegas]

Everybody's seen The Two Towers by now, unless the reciepts jump to about ten times the amount, it's not gonna happen, and the film is only playing on so many screens right now.

[Mann]

where's your faith? Why can't you admit that people will shell out 4.6 million more to see a movie. Think about when they rerealsed E.T. and it top TPM by 4 million?

[Darth Vegas]

Hey like I said, it's not that I wouldn't like it to happen, it's just that at the current rate it's not going to, it'll take a miracle.

[Mann]

you;re exaggerating. It will take a few fans to conjure up the money to see it.

[Darth Vegas]

Oh really?

It made precisely $151,733 last week in the states, the gross is steadily decreasinng, it simply isn't playing on enough screens and there aren't enough showings, let alone demand.

[Mann]

Originally posted by TK-007@May 15 2003, 12:32 AM
Oh really?

It made precisely $151,733 last week in the states, the gross is steadily decreasinng, it simply isn't playing on enough screens and there aren't enough showings, let alone demand.
yeah, it's decreasing, no suprise I mean how can a movie that been open for six months go up in revenues so much? Judging from it's current world wide release, I have faith that it will take in the needed 4.6 million it needs to surpass TPM. I'm sure the studio will keep it open until it does.

[Senator Theant]

twenty-six all new images at the LOTR official website, click here (http://www.lordoftherings.net/)

[Luvinna.]

bump

[Mann]

Thank you Threant! I can't hold in the excitment!

[Senator Theant]

It looks like you can now pre-order The Two Towers widescreen edition, to be released on August 26.

Its not yet been determined what will be in this edition, in terms of the amount of the trailers and potential teasers to ROTK.

I read about some pretty outrageous rumors claiming to have insider info about scenes in ROTK. If youve read the book like I have, these might upset you. Click here (http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/2/1052497889) . . . watch for the possible spoilers.

[Mann]

I heard that in order to get rid of insiders, the makers of the films decided to make more than one ending to throw them off. I guess Sauruman has five filmed deaths, and i did see an impaled pic of him. However, wormtongue does slit his throat in the books, but it is Hobbitton, and then hobbits shoot him.

[Darth Vegas]

Like it or not, Saruman is going to die as the rumors have said for quiet some time, he'll fall out of a window in Orthanc and onto a spike, Ian McKellan confirmed this:

http://filmforce.ign.com/lotr/articles/401...1/401047p1.html (http://filmforce.ign.com/lotr/articles/401/401047p1.html)

[Darth Vegas]

Thanks for the tip Theant, nice pics.

I especially like this one of Aragorn and The Sword of Kings:

[Mann]

I like the two pics of the really hot Liv Tyler!

[Darth Vegas]

Oh well that too of course. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/inlove.gif

But I like that one because of the sword, it's probably from the scene where Aragorn is given Narsil, the blade that cut the ring from Sauron's hand.

[Mann]

yeah, even though that scene isn't in the book. Oh well, it's more powerful that way.

[Darth Vegas]

Actually, yes it is somewhere in the books.

After the elves reforge the sword they give it back to Aragorn.

[Mann]

But in the FotR is when they give it to him. It's not in RotK. He has the sword the whole time.

[Darth Vegas]

Yes I know that, but it's better this way. It would have been cheesy to see Aragorn fighting with a broken sword at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring.

[Mann]

well, yeah, but that's one of the complaints that people have had about the movies. I do think it works better though.

[Obi-Wan]

<span style="color:darkblue">I can't wait for TTT! I want to see it, but I'll probably have to wait till aug. 19th. ROTK is gonna rock!</span>

[Mann]

Originally posted by Obi-Wan@May 19 2003, 02:30 AM
<span style="color:darkblue">I can't wait for TTT! I want to see it, but I'll probably have to wait till aug. 19th. ROTK is gonna rock!</span>
You haven't seen TTT yet obi-wan?

[Obi-Wan]

<span style="color:darkblue">Nope. No one wants to set 3 hours and watch it.</span>

[Mann]

Originally posted by Obi-Wan@May 19 2003, 02:45 AM
<span style="color:darkblue">Nope. No one wants to set 3 hours and watch it.</span>
say that again?

[Marbleman]

Originally posted by TK-007@May 17 2003, 04:17 PM
Like it or not, Saruman is going to die as the rumors have said for quiet some time, he'll fall out of a window in Orthanc and onto a spike, Ian McKellan confirmed this:

http://filmforce.ign.com/lotr/articles/401...1/401047p1.html (http://filmforce.ign.com/lotr/articles/401/401047p1.html)
well i wont let it ruin the movie for me. still it wouldve been cool to see the saruman standing in the door to bag end. . . ah well. :bored:

[Seanakin]

Yeah, if it's done well, I don't care WHAT the militant Tolkienistas think.

[Mann]

five deaths were shot guys. We don't know which will be used. perhaps they will use Bag end in the EE of RotK!

[Mann]

oh crap, not again

[Marbleman]

hmm you are right. . . you think maybe theyll have all the filmed deaths of saruman on the TTT DVD: EE? that would be too perfect to believe! saruman getting killed five times. . . itd be like a dream come true!!!

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Mann@May 18 2003, 07:13 PM
five deaths were shot guys. We don't know which will be used. perhaps they will use Bag end in the EE of RotK!
Yeah five deaths were shot, and Ian Mckellan confirmed which one they're using. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Mann]

Originally posted by TK-007+May 19 2003, 12:06 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ May 19 2003, 12:06 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mann@May 18 2003, 07:13 PM
five deaths were shot guys. We don't know which will be used. perhaps they will use Bag end in the EE of RotK!
Yeah five deaths were shot, and Ian Mckellan confirmed which one they're using. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif [/b][/quote]
McKellan doesn't know anything like that. they haven't even fisihed editing yet.

[Senator Theant]

Man, this pic sends chills down my back:

http://www.lordoftherings.net/legend/gallery/images/rotk/image1.jpg

Apparently, theyre lookin into the Path of the Dead of Dunharrow. I wonder how theyll look like--the dead I mean. The book describes them as a pale army on pale horses. Knowing Jackson's affinity for horror films, I have the feeling these guys are going to look a bit more grotesque. Please note the hint of sarcasm at the words "a bit".

[Senator Theant]

http://www.lordoftherings.net/legend/gallery/images/rotk/image4.jpg
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/inlove.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/inlove.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/inlove.gif

[Mann]

^Amen!

oh and Jackson's made the films scary anyway. So the dead army will be no suprise

[Justin]

They're called Extended Versions, not Extended Editions. So EV, not EE, lol.

[Marbleman]

any pics of the little bad mofo: the mouth of sauron - in costume that is, not just the actor who plays him. ive heard that he looks really nasty, though human, and that his mouth is decaying. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wacko.gif

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Mann@May 19 2003, 05:52 PM
McKellan doesn't know anything like that.
You know this how? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Justin@May 19 2003, 07:33 PM
They're called Extended Versions, not Extended Editions. So EV, not EE, lol.
What are you talking about? It says Special Extended DVD Edition right on the cover.

[Mann]

Originally posted by TK-007+May 20 2003, 06:58 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ May 20 2003, 06:58 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mann@May 19 2003, 05:52 PM
McKellan doesn't know anything like that.
You know this how? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif [/b][/quote]
First off, most actors don't even see the whole film until the premiere. second, if they haven't finished editing, then it would be hard to see what ending is used.

I'm not saying you are wrong, you could be right. But he really doesn;t know what they will use.

[Marbleman]

id say that ian mckellan is a good source for whether or not its in the official movie. but if they have all 5 shoots in the ROTK: EE [EV?] then who cares!

any info about how wormtongue bites the dust? i doubt hobbit arrows could reach him up in orthanc.

[Mann]

read the link, it tells you.

[Darth Vegas]

Well regardless of whether or not Ian Mckellan is right about that, The Scouring of the Shire is not going to be in the film, Peter Jackson said so himself, so Sarumans death is going to be quiet different than in the book, Saruman is going to die at the beginning of the movie.

[Rogue_0009]

<span style="color:red">Not to tottaly go off topic here, but did anyone else get the impression that Frodo and Sam were gay?</span>

[Darth Vegas]

No. Especially since Sam to danced with Rosie, flirted with he in the Green Dragon, and he ends up marrying her and having two children in Return of the King.

[Mann]

Originally posted by Rogue_0009@May 21 2003, 12:37 PM
<span style="color:red">Not to tottaly go off topic here, but did anyone else get the impression that Frodo and Sam were gay?</span>
actually, that is debated by literary critics and film critics alike. The looks, the words they say are very much hinting at something. I do thin kthey care for eachoterh, but I know Sam isn't gay. Frodo however, nevers gets with a woman...

[Marbleman]

frodo isnt gay.

he has a gentle spirit but a powerful will to resist the ring. this combination would make it difficult to attract a mate. sam and frodo are close friends, and phrases like "oh sam," etc. is just how frodo copes. he is sensitive ill give you that, but if the events of LOTR hadnt happened he probably would have been a normal hobbit and gotten a family. but his destiny lay elsewhere.

[Mann]

I'm sure he's not gay, but it is hinted strongly that Frodo admires Sam in some light other than friendship. I think they are soulmates, whether or not they are attracted to eachother.

[Seanakin]

Frodo is not gay, he just never gets any.

Proving that even the One Ring doesn't plug a hole, rather it just cuts off the circulation. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[Mann]

Originally posted by Seanakin@May 22 2003, 03:15 AM
Frodo is not gay, he just never gets any.

Proving that even the One Ring doesn't plug a hole, rather it just cuts off the circulation. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
LMAO!

[Marbleman]

Originally posted by Mann@May 21 2003, 06:44 PM
I think they are soulmates
i agree with that. also people should consider the setting - a medieval fantasy setting has more of a romantic, courtly feel to it. people are more formal, etc.

in addition, frodo should be seen as sort of an "elvish" hobbit. he has that air about him. i know a few alpha males of the day who have grunted at each other and said of legolas, "whose this fairy?" :look: appearances can be deceiving; and this is also the case with frodo.

my last point is that at least frodo and sam have never kissed one another. not so with aragorn in a formal fashion on boromirs forehead after his demise. they were pretty close in that scene, but nobody seems to knock on aragorn as being efeminite! ! ! thats because hes got guns, can fight, and has a fine elven girlfriend. again, the setting should be dually noted. this is middle-earth, not the west side story. guys hug and are cordial with one another and its no big deal in the LOTR universe.

sorry, but ive had it up to here from some of my peeps about this matter! im tired of poor frodos masculinity being disparaged! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happy.gif

[Mann]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>at least frodo and sam have never kissed one another. not so with aragorn in a formal fashion on boromirs forehead [/b][/quote]

Wouldn't that be the twist of the literary Century"

Aragorn is just really kinky, so he does it with Elves and Guys, but never with real women.

[Marbleman]

Originally posted by Mann@May 22 2003, 03:23 PM
Aragorn is just really kinky, so he does it with Elves and Guys, but never with real women.
i guess poor eowyn didnt have a chance. well shes a fine human in my book! a fiiiiine human. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/inlove.gif

[Senator Theant]

Here are some potential spoilers about the plot of ROTK:


These are from the "official fan website"--for whatever that means, click here (http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/2/1053622751)

[Justin]

No spoiling Return of the King in this thread.

[BEARlyworking]

I agree that spoilers should not appear in the thread, but...

LOTR is a very well known story, and good number of the senate already know what is going to happen. And for those who have not read the books, by all means, READ them.

If you think the movies are good, read the books. A lot of Tolkien's wit and vision has been left out of the movies (if for no other reason than time concerns).

Don't get me wrong, the movies are more true to the books than I expected, but the books are still by far better.

So if you really want to know what happens...make the trip to your local library and enjoy.

[Leia]

I'm a little late on this, but... Back to Frodo and Sam, I can see why somebody reading the books would arbitrarily say "oh, they're gay" but, if you put their lines into the context of two incredibly close friends who've grown up together, it works! so there. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif And on this journey they've been going through enormous trials together; how could that not form an incredibly tight bond?

[ob2]

people should defenetly read the books before seeing the movies.
the movie is just a giant spoiler for the books

[Justin]

I agree with you ob2, and I intend to read ROTK before the movie comes out, so I don't want to see it spoiled here.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by BEARlyworking@May 23 2003, 01:17 PM
Don't get me wrong, the movies are more true to the books than I expected, but the books are still by far better.
Well, you can't really say something like that, they're entirely different formats.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Justin@May 23 2003, 09:53 AM
No spoiling Return of the King in this thread.
Well the books been out for close to 50 years now, if you havn't taken the time to read them yet, that's your problem.

My advice: just stay away from the thread.

[Justin]

Well, for those of us who haven't read ROTK yet and still want to talk about LOTR, let's keep this thread spoiler free until ROTK hits theaters.

[Marbleman]

hey theant didnt spoil anything. he had a link and said before they were potential spoilers. people, control thy mice. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[Justin]

I just said that to prevent people from spoiling it in the future, not as a reprimand for something in the past.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Justin@May 23 2003, 08:08 PM
I just said that to prevent people from spoiling it in the future, not as a reprimand for something in the past.
Well I think the furthest you could ask us is to include something that says Spoiler Warning in the post, we shouldn't have to make a different thread to suit the few that want to remain "Spoiler free" especially since this is an SW board.

You know you can always come over to my board and talk about it ....

[Marbleman]

ok well i agree no spoilers should be posted, just links if you want to be spoiled. since lots of us have already read the books we want to read about how petes going to do things.

[Justin]

No spoilers for ROTK in this thread until the film is released this Christmas, please.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Justin@May 23 2003, 08:26 PM
No spoilers for ROTK in this thread until the film is released this Christmas, please.
Justin, that's just taking it too far, I think a simple Spoiler Warning should suffice, and whether or not you choose to read on is your own business.

There's virtually no way to start discussing the movie without getting into the plot and so forth, "spoiling" some things, so it might be best that those of you that wish to remain spoiler free simply remain away from the discussion, or take heed when somebody says Spoiler Warning.

[Justin]

Then let's just not discuss the movie here. You can make a Return of the King thread and talk about it all you want if you'd like.

If you do make it, I'll merge it with this one when the movie comes out this Christmas.

[Senator Theant]

I thought I gave enough heads up to people who might not have wanted to read the spoiler, but Ill be more careful in the future.

As a side note, I think its funny to see what the fans are speculating, because we all know that like 99% of fan rumors are untrue anyways.

Honestly, everyone who is reading this post and that hasnt read ROTK, do yourself an enormous favor and read it! Youll enjoy the movie a hundred times more, I guarantee it.

[Leia]

yeah, how can you speculate on the outcome of a movie that's based on a book that's been out for 50 years?? lol. Peter Jackson has been pretty loyal so far I doubt he's going to change anything radically for the third movie!

[Marbleman]

i agree, hes captured the spirit if not always the exact words of tolkien. the people that nitpick about faramirs character course and shelob not being in TTT are so brilliant to attack such a beautifully crafted film. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif

[Leia]

A lot of the lines are exactly the same

[Mann]

Originally posted by Leia@May 24 2003, 07:49 PM
A lot of the lines are exactly the same
Some are the same, but some of those lines go to different characters.

[Mann]

BTW,

has anyone heard what film the trailer will be on?

[Darth Vegas]

Nothing official yet, best guess is Pirates of the Carribean or The Hulk.

[Mann]

Seeing as Orlando Bloom is in PotC, then that is my best guess

[Senator Theant]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Seeing as Orlando Bloom is in PotC, then that is my best guess [/b][/quote]

Thats unlikely. Seeing as Pirates of the Carribean is being distributed by Walt Disney, and ROTK is distributed by New Line Cinema. Rarely do you see previews for a film just cause they have an actor/actress in common.

Besides, Peter Jackson has already stated that he's waiting for the Matrix (Reloaded), Hulk, and Terminator hype to die down before a preview of ROTK is released.

[Jango]

The two towers rocked.

[Mann]

bump

[Javen]

I found out some news for TTT DVD.What is going to be on it and all.
TwoTowersDVD (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/lotr3news.php?id=281)<~~~

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Senator Theant@May 30 2003, 02:02 PM
Besides, Peter Jackson has already stated that he's waiting for the Matrix (Reloaded), Hulk, and Terminator hype to die down before a preview of ROTK is released.
In some ways that's a really good idea, that could help to generate alot of hype for this movie (as if it didn't have alot already) on the other hand, I wanna see a trailer already!

[Mann]

Wasn't June last year the time that the last trailer came out?

Oh did everyone cath the MTV awards with Viggo and Bernard Hill and PJ?

PJ: I taught Viggo everything he knows about swordfighting, I even had to double for Viggo at times, and Bernard Hill, he fights like a girl

Bernard to Viggo: Let this be the hour were we draw swords together.

Viggo to Bernard: let's kill the *******
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

[Darth Vegas]

Hahaha, I missed that damn it.

The first trailer for The Two Towers showed up around March or May last year I think....

[Jango]

I think that was it

[Mann]

Originally posted by TK-007@Jun 19 2003, 01:26 AM
Hahaha, I missed that damn it.

The first trailer for The Two Towers showed up around March or May last year I think....
I remember first seeing it when i saw the Fellowship for the 5th (count em 5) time. It came right after the movie so i was like : GAW!!!!

anyway, Jackson should put it on PotC, just so Orlando gets some exposure.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Mann@Jun 18 2003, 05:31 PM
I remember first seeing it when i saw the Fellowship for the 5th (count em 5) time. It came right after the movie so i was like : GAW!!!!
WTF? When was this!? :eek:

[kopernikuz]

Originally posted by Mann@Jun 18 2003, 08:24 PM
Wasn't June last year the time that the last trailer came out?

Oh did everyone cath the MTV awards with Viggo and Bernard Hill and PJ?

PJ: I taught Viggo everything he knows about swordfighting, I even had to double for Viggo at times, and Bernard Hill, he fights like a girl

Bernard to Viggo: Let this be the hour were we draw swords together.

Viggo to Bernard: let's kill the *******
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif
I thought that was funny... I'm sure I'll get disagreed with here, but I didn't like the Gollum part in the slightest... having him come out and steal the award from Serkis and complain about it being his was a great idea and funny... but turning him into a foul-mouthed ass was not cool... at least the Yoda one was more respectable in its humor.

I'm sure most of you thought it was awesome... but I think Tolkienn is rolling in his grave.

[Mann]

Originally posted by TK-007+Jun 19 2003, 05:58 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ Jun 19 2003, 05:58 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mann@Jun 18 2003, 05:31 PM
I remember first seeing it when i saw the Fellowship for the 5th (count em 5) time. It came right after the movie so i was like : GAW!!!!
WTF? When was this!? :eek: [/b][/quote]
right around the time the movie was about to end it's theatrical run, sometime in June.I was awestruck. It was the first trailer, the one with the fellowship music.

[Mann]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm sure most of you thought it was awesome... but I think Tolkienn is rolling in his grave. [/b][/quote]

Yeah, they went overboard on it. They didn't need to cuss so much, I mean they took advantage of the MTV audience, but to have him cuss every other word isn't very in character. Stealing the award was great though.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Mann+Jun 19 2003, 10:26 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mann @ Jun 19 2003, 10:26 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> Originally posted by TK-007@Jun 19 2003, 05:58 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mann@Jun 18 2003, 05:31 PM
I remember first seeing it when i saw the Fellowship for the 5th (count em 5) time. It came right after the movie so i was like : GAW!!!!
WTF? When was this!? :eek:
right around the time the movie was about to end it's theatrical run, sometime in June.I was awestruck. It was the first trailer, the one with the fellowship music. [/b][/quote]
Damn, I missed that, oh well.

[Mann]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Damn, I missed that, oh well. [/b][/quote]

that's what you get for taking your grandma to the movies! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

[Darth Vegas]

Well, actually, the last time I saw FOTR in theaters was long before the preview was released...but it would've been nice to see along with the movie.

[Darth Vegas]

The Two Towers Extended Edition's new scenes! Some confirmed, others not.

From www.theonering.net (http://www.theonering.net)

- Sean Bean's Boromir, slain at the end of 2001's The Fellowship of the Ring, is resurrected in a lengthy DVD flashback after brother Faramir (David Wenham) finds a boat bearing his body. (Confirmed by USA Today)

- Additional scenes featuring Denethor, the Steward of Gondor, his favorite son, Boromir, and scapegoat Faramir. The scenes help explain why the noble Faramir is rather rude when he meets heroic hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin). (Confirmed by USA Today)

- Rohan horseman Eomer (Karl Urban) finds his mortally wounded cousin Theodred and brings him home, where his subsequent death goes all but unnoticed by his spell-stunned father, King Theoden (Bernard Hill). (Confirmed by USA Today)

- Eowyn (Miranda Otto), Eomer's sister, sings a mournful dirge during Theodred's funeral. (Confirmed by USA Today)

- Additional scene expanding on Eowyn's infatuation with Aragorn, as she watches him tame an unruly horse. (Confirmed by USA Today)

- Expanded encounters between ancient Treebeard the Ent and hobbits Pippin (Billy Boyd) and Merry (Dominic Monaghan). Treebeard's un-hasty conversation makes the two hobbits drowsy. (Confirmed by USA Today)

- Eowyn serves Aragorn a vile-looking bowl of homemade stew, which he politely chokes down. (Confirmed by USA Today)

- Boromir and Faramir sharing some pints, and one declares in beer-ad fashion, "Today, life is good." (Confirmed by USA Today)

- Pippin and Merry guzzle Ent-draughts, adding inches to their wee stature. (Confirmed by USA Today)

- The Huorns at Helm's Deep. (Speculation)

- Additional Gollum scenes.(Speculation)

- Faramir discovers Boromir's boat, triggering the above scenes as flashbacks.(Speculation)

- Eowyn sings a dirge at Theodred's funeral . (Speculation)

- Gandalf and Aragorn discussing the union of Two Towers, seen in the "Two Towers" video game but not the movie. (Speculation)

- Eowyn fighting to defend the women and children in the Glittering Caves.(Speculation)

- Saruman discussing how Gandalf has discovered the lost king of Gondor.(Speculation)

- More exploration of Aragorn and Arwen's relationship. (Speculation)

- Possible reforging of Narsil. A shot has been seen of Arwen approaching the shards in Rivendell, but was not included in theatrical version.(Speculation)

- Elrond in Lothlorien. Haldir tells Theoden he 'brings word from Elrond' at Helm's Deep. The ten-minute TTT preview contains a shot from a possible scene of a face-to-face discussion taking place in Galadriel's realm.(Speculation)

[Darth Vegas]

Well since we were asked to start a new thread about this not to long ago for our discussion that may contain "spoilers" here it is.

And to kick it off.....The Return of the King teaser poster!!!! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/w00t.gif

[Darth Vegas]

And here's the update abut the poster from comingsoon.net :

http://comingsoon.net/news.php?id=439

[Raganork8]

very nice.

[QuigonWindu]

<span style="color:purple"><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">How can you possibly have spoilers for a story that's 50 years old. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif </span></span>

[Darth Vegas]

Some people have yet to read the book *caughjustincaugh* and there are certain things that will be different from the book.

[Mann]

bond, what's a caugh? i thought it was cough style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[Mann]

Lookie here!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-...e=1&rid=1147266 (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-10001722/reviews.php?critic=all&sortby=default&page=1&rid=1147266)

[Rob]

Originally posted by TK-007@Jun 28 2003, 08:40 AM
Some people have yet to read the book *caughjustincaugh* and there are certain things that will be different from the book.
Just goes to prove that some people should really READ the story. I can't stand people that don't read classic literature and rely on other individuals to make movies so that they can watch them, just proves the fact that they are illiterate.

[Jango]

this movie is gonna rock

[JediJaina]

Originally posted by Rob+Jun 28 2003, 11:00 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Jun 28 2003, 11:00 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-TK-007@Jun 28 2003, 08:40 AM
Some people have yet to read the book *caughjustincaugh* and there are certain things that will be different from the book.
Just goes to prove that some people should really READ the story. I can't stand people that don't read classic literature and rely on other individuals to make movies so that they can watch them, just proves the fact that they are illiterate. [/b][/quote]
While I can't argue with the logic, in many cases people who see movies based on books do end up reading them.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Rob+Jun 28 2003, 07:00 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Jun 28 2003, 07:00 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-TK-007@Jun 28 2003, 08:40 AM
Some people have yet to read the book *caughjustincaugh* and there are certain things that will be different from the book.
Just goes to prove that some people should really READ the story. I can't stand people that don't read classic literature and rely on other individuals to make movies so that they can watch them, just proves the fact that they are illiterate. [/b][/quote]
That was kinda harsh, but I agree with you, especially in this case, my parents made me read when I was young, glad they did.

[Jedi Vaapad]

I think that poster looks like crap. I was hoping for a shot of a Mordor or, better yet, Mount Doom.

[Mann]

Originally posted by Jedi Vaapad@Jun 29 2003, 04:54 PM
I think that poster looks like crap. I was hoping for a shot of a Mordor or, better yet, Mount Doom.
The movie is called Return of the King, not Return to Mount Doom.

[Jedi Vaapad]

Originally posted by Mann+Jun 29 2003, 12:52 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mann @ Jun 29 2003, 12:52 PM)<