First of all the guards of azkaban prison suck life out of you the witch king scares the hell out of you with his scream I think the nine kings of men who are the nazgul are awesome characters in the films plus they are more deadly guards of azkaban prison they just don't hover around and that's my opinion.
Right- calm down people.
We all know none of us is the biggest fan on kmc, and we all know the two very sexy very saucy female members who are 😛
Also, even if you lot dont care about each others opinion, its what this site is for, challenging opinions and learning more, maybe widening your narrow little minds 😉
Originally posted by The Inkeeper
We all know none of us is the biggest fan on kmc, and we all know the two very sexy very saucy female members who are 😛
Here here chris, so much dedication. I am honored to call them my friends 🙂
Also, even if you lot dont care about each others opinion, its what this site is for, challenging opinions and learning more, maybe widening your narrow little minds 😉
Discos - how dare you challenge me, i oughta have a fight with you, YOUR MOMMA!!
Re: Why I don't care for Lord of the Rings?
Originally posted by saverain
Just wandering why people think the lord of the rings movies are so great? I like the graphics and the adventure but the dialog seems very empty and dull to me. I read the books and loved them but didn't like the movies. In the movies a lot of the events were down-played from the book. That made the movie seem even duller. People say Tolkien was a genius for coming up with an original language and world and that is why they are obsessed with it but elfs and such were around before tolkien, and anyone can create a world of mythical creatures and create a language of there own. So I don't find it special, the books are just entertaining and the movies are boring.
i respect you opinion but why are you here if you dont like the movies?..........i mean this is kmc (killer MOVIES community) o.k most of us have read the books and the movies dont realy stay true to them but the movies have brought millions of fans to the books however thats just my opinion.
Lmao. Personnaly, because I'm one of those annoying LOTR fans, I think the films would have been better if there were six of them. Yes, six. Everyone whos read the books knows that LOTR is six parts of a story seperated into three books with two parts each. They left too much unexplained, but they were good in general and Tolkien won't roll in his grave because of them.
but the movies have brought millions of fans to the books however thats just my opinion.
Actually, everyone who hasn't read the books that I have spoken too won't read the books because they think the movies are good enough. Damn, I have lazy friends! LOL!
First of all the guards of azkaban prison suck life out of you the witch king scares the hell out of you with his scream I think the nine kings of men who are the nazgul are awesome characters in the films plus they are more deadly guards of azkaban prison they just don't hover around and that's my opinion.
The Azkaban guards were not very impressive in the movie, I am disapointed to say. The books made a better impression.
The reason why there is so much complaint about the Nazgul is because they are pretty much impossible to capture. Tolkien discribes them in a unique way. They are shaped into something that the reader fears the most and therefor are impossible to depict because each persons fears are different then everybody elses.
They did a relatively good job in the movie with them, but they could have been far scarier.
Re: Why I don't care for Lord of the Rings?
Originally posted by saverain
Just wandering why people think the lord of the rings movies are so great?
LOL...all joking aside...😛
I’ll try (try, mind you!) not to belabor points that have been made (and remade), but will endeavor instead to add some fresh grist for the mill. For the record, I thought the movie was an excellent adaptation of a challenging book, one whose virtues far outweighed its flaws. The main point I want to explore has to do with the relationship between the books and the movies. Movie optimists have been saying for years now that the movie shouldn’t be compared directly to the books. We all know the salient points of that argument, which I will not repeat here. Other movie detractors have counter-proposed that the movie, then, should stand on its own, without reference to the books. I admit that this argument has some merit, and indeed when I saw the movie for the first time, I tried to detach myself from my knowledge of the books and experience the movie on its own terms. I’ve tried to analyze how I would view the movie if I hadn’t read the books. Now I ask myself, why should this be so? The relationship between the books and the films is one that is unique in film history. In the case of a movie set in an obscure historical period, moviegoers usually have at least some dim understanding of the period. Only in the case of an LotR movie are you likely to have an audience composed of people who, on the one hand, are intimately familiar with the particulars of the imagined world, and on the other, have no knowledge of it whatsoever. The filmmakers had a mandate to satisfy (as far as possible) both. It seems to me that PJ’s movies can be experienced in three different ways: as one who is completely uninitiated, as one who is somewhat familiar with the conventions of the genre but not specifically with LotR, and as a bonafide fan. The last category is the one that I fall into, and really the only one that I can address. There are the obvious downsides to the last experience – deviations from the story, things they “didn’t get right”, etc. On the upside, though, we get added shadings to characterizations, settings, and scenes, and special moments that non-fans don’t get – the Stone Trolls from The Hobbit in the background of one scene for instance, or the most delightful feeling one gets of anticipated payback when the Orcs deforest Isengard (Solina: “Ooh… I can’t wait until Treebeard hears about this!”).
Having said all that, I am sorry that you did not like the film. What are your favorite movies? What are the requirements of a good movie? What do you consider to be fine acting? Perhaps the answers to these questions will illuminate why you did not like this one. I've read LotR several times in the past few years and during that time, I thought it would make a great but impossible-to-make movie. Peter Jackson, the cast and crew have made a wonderful motion picture that stands on its own apart from the books. And they did the impossible; they crystallized the story and its major themes of love and friendship, loyalty and courage, the battle of hope and goodness versus despair and the corrupting power of evil. This is the only movie where I have sat FORWARD in my seat because it gripped me so hard - it was so real. I was afraid to blink because I might miss something. I find it helpful to consider WHY each change or discrepancy appeared in the film. Consider the most important aspects of the plot, characters and their relationships. Consider both the limitations and advantages of the film medium. Time is at a premium; visual information is its strength. What is the best way to tell the story in pictures? Yes, there were discrepancies. Thank goodness. It would have been extremely boring to watch the story unfold exactly the same as the book. How could the movie hold any suspense for those of us who have read the books? The plotline was maintained. Key characters were kept – minor characters (to the main plot, not necessarily minor in Middle-earth) were eliminated, just as they should be in order to keep the story moving. (I was surprised that Celeborn was kept in the film unless it was to establish that Galadriel was indeed very powerful – she was a ruling Queen and Celeborn was only her consort. Haldir was kept to show that Aragorn had been to Lóthlorien before - important in establishing his life-experience and the length of his exile.) Frodo was perhaps a bit weak physically or awkward or accident-prone compared to how he is portrayed in the books, but his strength of character was revealed in his taking of the burden and his selfless decision to leave the fellowship as in the books. The script was written to increase the audience’s sympathy and concern for Frodo. In film, the best way to do this is to show him physically struggling or in danger. And the scene at the Fords of Bruinen did take his speech of defiance to the Ringwraiths and gave it to Arwen. But to convince us on screen how gravely wounded Frodo was, he almost had to be shown as incapacitated. It would be hard to believe he was close to death or fading and yet able to ride. How do you show that an Elf-horse has the power to keep its rider seated? Arwen’s character was enhanced, but this was required to show that she and Aragorn are well matched. She is his helpmate and equal. Their relationship had to be shown and grounded in a reality that we can understand. Arwen is Aragorn’s support when he is doubtful of his own strength of character and worthiness to be King. He is afraid that he will fail the test, as did Isildur. Instead of Aragorn trying to hide his insecurities by saying things like "Elendil! I am Aragorn, son of Arathorn and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil's son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again!" as he does in the books (and may sound a bit stiff, over the top and obnoxious on the screen,) Arwen can reveal these insecurities to us. It is far more subtle and realistic – he will appear most regal when he is silent. The character of Arwen illuminates the character of Aragorn. In the film, Boromir reveals that Aragorn is a natural leader and not just the heir in name only. Before he dies, he regains hope and pledges his loyalty to Aragorn, his captain and King. The character of Aragorn is VERY important in the trilogy – we need to know all his dimensions – warrior, captain, protector, tracker, wizard’s friend, healer, loremaster, judge, songwriter, lover, etc. Because he is all of these things, in addition to his lineage, he is destined to be King. The acting was incredible. The actors had so thoroughly internalized their characters that they were no longer acting - they just were. Viggo Mortensen was amazing at this. You could read layers of meaning in his eyes; his silences said as much or more than his speaking. The way he carried himself was elegant. He wasn't playing Aragorn; he WAS Aragorn. In film acting, subtlety is key. It is all in the eyes and small movements of the face and body - that's how film reveals what stage acting cannot. Sean Bean as Boromir was also excellent! Again, it was the quiet moments after each arrow pierced him that showed the great acting – you could see and feel the internal struggle to find the strength and courage to continue fighting with the Uruk-hai. He was on the knife-edge of despair, but his promise to protect Merry and Pippin gave him the will to continue and thus restore his honor. Bean was handed one of the greatest death scenes in motion picture history and I felt greater sympathy for Boromir in this movie than in the book. Hugo Weaving as Elrond was wonderful. He portrayed Elrond as aloof and as contemptuous of “Men” as an Elf-Lord should be. After all, Isildur didn’t take his very excellent advice about destroying the Ring, to the detriment of the Elves. And some young man – in fact the heir of that accursed Isildur - has stolen his daughter’s heart and will separate them forever. Again, the movie made crystal clear to me Elrond’s almost love/hate relationship with Aragorn.
Anyway, it's late and I'm getting dozy. If I carry on with this, I'll end up falling asleep in front of my PC. 😐 Anyway, with all the examples I expounded, I think you get the grip of what I'm trying to say. 😉
As you can see, I could go on for a long time, extolling the virtues of the film. I could go on eulogizing my appreciation for the books and movies until the world dies, but I don't think I could ever find all the exact right words to describe each and every single point. I feel overwhelmed with thoughts and emotions (and drowsiness 😛 ), and I can honestly say without a shadow of a doubt that both the book and the movie are masters of their genre. Tolkien is a genius, there's no denying that, and at the same time, we all know that just by the effort alone, Peter Jackson and the crew deserve some credits. 🙂
Love,
s_b 💃