|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 9 new of 33 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 25 of 33:
| 
Dec 22 13:56 UTC 2003 |
I'd like to see Jackson do some small movie with some really great actors,
and with the emphasis on characters instead of visuals.
Of course I'm a bit peeved with this continuing blockbuster mentality in
movies in general... The LoTR movies and the Star Wars I & II movies will
always be remembered, but not in an especially good way. More like Cecil B.
DeMille is remembered.
|
remmers
|
|
response 26 of 33:
|
Dec 22 14:47 UTC 2003 |
Jackson did such a movie in 1994. "Heavenly Creatures", with Kate
Winslet. His main claim to fame before directing LOTR.
Well, there are also his exceptionally gory horror comedies from ten
to fifteen years ago. "Dead Alive" and "Bad Taste".
|
gull
|
|
response 27 of 33:
|
Dec 22 16:43 UTC 2003 |
I thoroughly enjoyed all the Lord of the Rings movies. I think _Return
of the King_ was excellent. It was also the most emotionally draining
movie I've seen since _Saving Private Ryan_.
I never read the books, though, so I'm oblivious to all the
inaccuracies I see people complaining about elsewhere. I read _The
Hobbit_, but never read the Lord of the Rings trilogy because I find
Tolkien's writing style extremely tedious.
|
glenda
|
|
response 28 of 33:
|
Dec 22 16:59 UTC 2003 |
What he said. I have read "The Hobbit" a couple of times. Tried reading the
Rings trilogy several times but couldn't get more than half way through the
first book. I have enjoyed the movies, and been amused by the rantings of
Damon and STeve on the inaccuracies and what was left out. I have not seen
the movies in the theater, we rented them from Netflix when they came out on
DvD. STeve mentioned that since we bought the 4 DvD sets of both, that we
should veg out with them over the weekend and then go see #3. I am not sure
I want to break my personal tradition and wait until it comes out on DvD.
|
gull
|
|
response 29 of 33:
|
Dec 22 17:02 UTC 2003 |
I think it's best experienced on the big screen.
|
janc
|
|
response 30 of 33:
|
Dec 22 18:08 UTC 2003 |
I've enjoyed the extended edition DVDs of the first two films. Mostly they
add lots of little bits of character interaction that, while not vital to the
plot, flesh out the characters and the world of Middle Earth just a bit more.
I've also read the books many times since I was a kid. Lord of the Rings
is in someways an older style of novel. Modern novels nearly always strive
to keep you wondering at every moment what will happen next. Older fiction
was more leasurely. It didn't assume that the reader's only interest in the
story was to find out how it was going to end. If our hero wanders by a
castle, then why not take the time to discuss the lineage and habits of the
inhabitants of the castle, even if they never come into the plot? Hey,
they're interesting folks. Tolkien was not setting out to write a "normal"
novel. He was interested in language and mythology and certainly didn't
expect to win any mass market with the account he was writing. He also
started it out with very little idea where it was going. He breaks just
about every rule of story telling. No love story. The villian never appears.
Major climax scenes (like the destruction of Isengard) skipped. Characters
who have nothing to do with anything (Tom Bombadill). But at the heart of
all of that is one heck of a story. You have to establish a different mind
set if you are going enjoy reading this book. It's not quite a novel. If
you can manage it, you'll be a step closer to being ready to read and enjoy
some other rock'em sock'em pre-novels, like Ariosto's "Orlando Furioso". If
you get much better than I at it, you might even be able to enjoy the king
of all boring fantasy novels, Spenser's "Fairie Queen". This is boringness
to stagger the mind. "Lord of the Rings" is a Simpson's episode by
comparison, but I'm told there are some great stories in there somewhere.
|
gull
|
|
response 31 of 33:
|
Dec 23 14:49 UTC 2003 |
So it's sort of like the Bible, then? ;>
|
twenex
|
|
response 32 of 33:
|
Dec 23 15:11 UTC 2003 |
Yes, except the events in LOTR really happened.
|
twenex
|
|
response 33 of 33:
|
Dec 23 15:42 UTC 2003 |
O(h, and by the way, The Silmarillion could be considered the "Bible"
of Middle-Earth.
Again, except that it really happned.
|