 |
|
|
|
 |
Dj Smitty20
Supreme tranceaddict

Registered: Nov 2002
Location: your toilet
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by crazedcanuck
Dude, your such an idiot, insinuating tons of things not even posted here. No one has stated they haven't read the books, and as for it being the 'cool thing" to bash it, I wasn't aware it was neccessary to agree with you that it was deserving.. considering the $$$$ it pulled in, and the awards and acclaim, wouldn't the popular thing be to lay more conformity-esque praise upon the film?
As a representative of Tolkien I'd agree Two Towers was the worst, but it was the best FILM out of the three for cinematography, pace, and acting (Fellowship was a snails pace with lots of cheese, but I still loved it). The only reason it lacked the Tolkien feel is they rammed most of TTT in the bloated piece of hollywood junk that was ROTK... it was simply TOO MUCH MOVIE.
As for reading the books, I hadn't read them in HS, saw Fellowship, thought it was ok but slow, read the books, loved them, and started HATING the movies for the amount of change lol. the biggest sacrilege committed had to be omitting the ENTIRE ENDING FROM ROTK.
Honestly, who the fuck erases the end of a book? |
no need to call names little johnny.
Anyway...whatever...we just don't agree. I've been a fan of LOTR since I was 11 and have read it 7 times. The cuts in Fellowship (Bombadil, Barrow Downs) make filmic sense, as does cutting the Scouring of the Shire in ROTK, though it should have been filmed and put on the marathon extended edition. It bothers me they cut Saruman though. But they didn't cut the entire ending...only one chapter really...but they had to cut the scouring and all the ewoyn-faramir stuff, but that will be on the DVD probably.
The Two Towers is still the worst in my opinion. The editing was the poorest of the three (quick cuts back and forth to the ents, then to frodo, then to aragorn...too many quick scenes). Story choice fuckups aside, The Two Towers is a very rushed film...I prefer the pace to Fellowship which has a very nice buildup and better acting. Ian Mckellen was much better in Fellowship and in my opinion, the best actor of the whole trilogy who SHOULD have been Aragorn...Sean Bean, was only in Fellowship. He delivered the best performance of the whole trilogy.
___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"
|
|
Mar-02-2004 21:11
|
|
|
 |
 |
mezzanine
tranceaddict

Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto
|
|
|
Mar-02-2004 21:24
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Dj Smitty20
Supreme tranceaddict

Registered: Nov 2002
Location: your toilet
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by LAYLA-KEKET
It was good for what it was, but not for what it was suppose to be. |
By that, I take it you mean it was a good film, but a poor adaptation of Tolkien? I've heard that a lot and agree and disagree at the same time. I think in many ways, they absolutely nailed most elements...but failed miserably in some others (Faramir in TTT, reversing the Entmoot, too much Arwen, not enough Eomer, the whole Aragron dying thing, Denethor was botched, cutting Saruman and Scouring, etc.)
But I feel sorry for people who can't seem to realise the scope and majesty of the films. I've heard more bitching about ROTK winning than I ever heard for Titanic or Braveheart and any LOTR movie owns those two hands down.
___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"
|
|
Mar-05-2004 00:15
|
|
|
 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:49.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|