Grex Agora47 Conference

Item 226: The "Lord of the Rings" item.

Entered by twenex on Sat Dec 20 01:54:41 2003:

Well, I haven't seen The Last Samurai, but I'm quietly confident that
if it's good enough to have an item all to itself, then Lord of the
Rings is good enough to have at least five items all to itself for
each of the films. But it's ten to two in the morning and I can't be
bothered, so yu'all will just have to make do with one.

I can't actually express how good this trilogy is. The last film is
either as stunning as the other two, or even more so. Certainly the
scale of the thing is verging on the majestic. PJ and the crew have
done *such* a good job of this. Sure, I can criticise details here and
htere - things they left out, some things that not be explained
clearly enough if you're not familiar with the books - but, most
importantly, this trilogy *exceeds* my expectations for the films *so
much* that I'm not going to complain.

Let this item be a witness to one of those rare times that I'm left
(almost) speechless.

I hope everyone involved in the films lives happily ever after. That's
how fairy-tales are supposed to end, isn't it? 8D
33 responses total.
#1 of 33 by bru on Sat Dec 20 03:27:43 2003:

I plan to see it with my wife Tomorrow morning.

#2 of 33 by aruba on Sat Dec 20 05:33:27 2003:

We saw it tonight - it was spectacular.

#3 of 33 by scott on Sat Dec 20 14:18:28 2003:

Saw it opening night (midnight!).  Very cool scenery and beasts, but I was
disappointed in the characters.  Even putting the book characters aside, the
ones in the movie were pretty two-dimensional.

Still, it was worth the $8 to see Minas Tirith fully rendered.

#4 of 33 by furs on Sat Dec 20 21:12:42 2003:

We are re-watching the first two this weekend before we go down to 
Florida for the holiday to go see it with my inlaws.  Can't wait.  
Glad to be reviewing the other ones first as I forget a lot in my old 
age. :)

#5 of 33 by bru on Sun Dec 21 01:23:08 2003:

saw it.  It felt different than the previous two, like it was filmed
differently.   decided it may be because there were more tight scenes, not
the wide open panorama of the [previous two.

#6 of 33 by twenex on Sun Dec 21 01:27:39 2003:

I agree.

#7 of 33 by willcome on Sun Dec 21 02:51:46 2003:

http://www.peoplecanchange.com/

#8 of 33 by lk on Sun Dec 21 13:24:44 2003:

I can't believe no one entered an item sooner (I actually checked
earlier this week). Sometimes Grex is such a disappointment....

I also saw it opening night at the Michigan.
I was mostly disappointed in the garb worn by people who were dressed up.

But seeing drea for the first time since the dinosaurs left middle
fourth street was nice.

#9 of 33 by remmers on Sun Dec 21 13:37:39 2003:

Drea?  Who's that?  :)

#10 of 33 by furs on Sun Dec 21 14:21:45 2003:

WOW!!!

#11 of 33 by twenex on Sun Dec 21 14:51:21 2003:

What disappointed you about the costumes, lk?

#12 of 33 by remmers on Sun Dec 21 14:59:27 2003:

Oh and by the way, who's this "furs" person?

#13 of 33 by willcome on Sun Dec 21 15:22:55 2003:

AHAHa, sHE"S STUPId, even for a woman

#14 of 33 by mynxcat on Sun Dec 21 17:26:12 2003:

I have avoided watching the last installment of LOTR so far. I watched the
first part in a friend's house at a "let's watch a movie" party. The second
instalment, we went with a friend who was very enthusiastic about the series.
So far, we have avoided people who would want to drag us to this movie. And
I'm assuming that they've all seen it by now, so I'll come out of hiding at
the end of this weekend.

I personally though th the series very boring. Couldn't read mucho f the book,
and suffered through the first two parts.

#15 of 33 by mcnally on Sun Dec 21 22:26:25 2003:

  There's no law that says you can't skip it.  You'll have to lay low for
  a while this holiday season and avoid conversations with family and friends
  but after a time you'll be able to return to living a perfectly normal life.

#16 of 33 by remmers on Mon Dec 22 00:40:34 2003:

My question is:  What's Peter Jackson going to do next?

#17 of 33 by twenex on Mon Dec 22 01:06:03 2003:

That's  The Big One.

#18 of 33 by dcat on Mon Dec 22 01:40:22 2003:

what i've read of the books I've found incredibly boring --- tolkein appears
to have had in common with steven jay gould a glaring lack of editing,
although in Gould's case it was self-/ego-inflicted --- but I've quite enjoyed
the movies.  Orinoco & I saw it opening night at the MT and spent several
scenes saying "ooh, i want one of *those*" at some of the battle equipment
and beasts. . . .

#19 of 33 by mynxcat on Mon Dec 22 02:08:36 2003:

Re 15> Luckily my family and most of my friends aren't interested in LOTR.
My ex-boyfriend was, however. But I haven't seen him in years, so that's a
moot point

#20 of 33 by twenex on Mon Dec 22 02:32:43 2003:

dcat - Rayner Unwin, Tolkein's publisher at the time, expressed the
view that "One did not *edit* Tolkien" ;-/

I'm currently enjoying The Hobbit immensely. If his is not the
greatest prose ever written in the English language, he makes up for
it with the action, and the humour (the depth has to wait for LOTR;
thThe Hobbit is a children's book ;-P)

#21 of 33 by mcnally on Mon Dec 22 02:50:09 2003:

  At the risk of being stripped of my nerd cred, I'm going to offer the
  opinion that "The Lord of the Rings" isn't the best place to go looking
  for profundity, either..

#22 of 33 by twenex on Mon Dec 22 03:01:40 2003:

Try looking down into Mount Doom ;-)

(But seriously, you're right, in some ways)

#23 of 33 by bru on Mon Dec 22 04:19:25 2003:

What is he going to do next?  From what I hear, his next movie is going to
be "King Kong."  My advice, leave it alone, you are never gonna do better than
the origina; with Fay Wrey.

After that, probably "The Hobbit".

#24 of 33 by drew on Mon Dec 22 11:47:10 2003:

I'd like him to attempt _Deepness In the Sky_.

#25 of 33 by scott on Mon Dec 22 13:56:59 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.

#26 of 33 by remmers on Mon Dec 22 14:47:13 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".

#27 of 33 by gull on Mon Dec 22 16:43:10 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.

#28 of 33 by glenda on Mon Dec 22 16:59:47 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.

#29 of 33 by gull on Mon Dec 22 17:02:06 2003:

I think it's best experienced on the big screen.

#30 of 33 by janc on Mon Dec 22 18:08:36 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.

#31 of 33 by gull on Tue Dec 23 14:49:45 2003:

So it's sort of like the Bible, then? ;>

#32 of 33 by twenex on Tue Dec 23 15:11:07 2003:

Yes, except the events in LOTR really happened.

#33 of 33 by twenex on Tue Dec 23 15:42:22 2003:

O(h, and by the way, The Silmarillion could be considered the "Bible"
of Middle-Earth.

Again, except that it really happned.

There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: