LOTR: Return of the King
Dec 19, 2003 at 12:56 AM Post #31 of 99
Quote:

Originally posted by Rizumu
Just because a story is "real" doesn't make it moving. Just because a story is fictional doesn't make it not moving.


Ditto, I agree.
 
Dec 19, 2003 at 5:55 AM Post #32 of 99
Quote:

Originally posted by warubozu
Ditto, I agree.


I didn't mean that to be taken that you can't be moved by a work of fiction. You know as I reread that statement I misunderstood it myself. I for some reason read that as the people in the theatre bowed to the screen when they saw that. My apologies.
 
Dec 19, 2003 at 7:41 AM Post #33 of 99
Quote:

Originally posted by Mcrmouse30
I for some reason read that as the people in the theatre bowed to the screen when they saw that. My apologies.


That was quite a funny misread. Now I understand your incredulity. The people in the theatre did not bow at that scene, nor at any other scene in the movie. But at the end of the movie there was a deserved round of applause for the movie. Thanks for clarifying, Mcrmouse30.
 
Dec 20, 2003 at 4:38 AM Post #34 of 99
Quote:

Originally posted by lan
My friend went to watch all 3 yesterday in the theater. 12 hours + is insane! I rather watch the 1st two at home as my video and audio is not too shabby. I think I'll wait out the crowds a but before watching this one.



NICE!!! I'll probably be having a marathon viewing with my old man but i'll wait until I have the DVD of ROTK before doing that.

Don't fancy sitting 12+ hours in the local cinema. It's far too uncomfortable for that.
 
Dec 20, 2003 at 4:40 AM Post #35 of 99
Quote:

Originally posted by Dweebgal
i doubt i'll get to see it at the cinema, becuase my friend (the only one out of any of my friend's who likes going to the cinema) went to see it today on his own on his day off without me!

so i am slightly pissed at him. but i saw him earlier, and i cant stay mad at him, he's too much of a sweetie. lol.


Awww... never mind. If I lived a little closer i'd take you!
 
Dec 20, 2003 at 4:45 AM Post #36 of 99
Haha, I can't wait for the "Special Extended DVD" to come out...4 HOURS!!

Haha, imagine a LOTR viewing session with all 3 extended versions, it'd take all day.

I completely agree with that "Gender thingy"...I was like...watch this coming...and IT WAS THERE, it completely ruined the moment.
 
Dec 20, 2003 at 5:02 AM Post #37 of 99
went saw the movie today...i really have to say it's wayyyy toooo longgg..
great story n all, but when a movie pass the 3 hour point, i just cant sit still anymore
 
Dec 20, 2003 at 5:06 AM Post #38 of 99
That's weird that you mention that. My dad asked me, was there an intermission??...I was like...no, I didn't think there needed to be one either, it wouldn've ruined the mood. All-In-All, I thought it flowed really well, except for the last few minutes with the 59.5 alternate endings...lol.
 
Dec 20, 2003 at 6:42 AM Post #39 of 99
there are no alternate endings guys. when you see how long both the books and first two movies are, you can understand how much stuff they are forced to wrap up, in the right way too. also, based on how faithful the movies were to the books (sure they left out and changed some things, but many were for the better) it would have been a BIG, no gigantic mistake to either not include all that happened after the ring was destroyed, or simply throw together everything that was there in a crappy, undone way. think about it, how many characters were there? a lot! how many sub plots were there? more than the average movie! everyone's story/ending of their part in the tale should be told...it's only right. the only reason why many people think these movies are too long is because 99% of movies are never this long, obviously. why aren't more movies this long? i can say that quite a few movies would have been way better if they were longer. it is just the norm to accept a movie for being only 1.5-2.0 hrs long. but when a wonderful, awesome movie, that flows seemlessly through 3+ hrs, it is wrong? not in my book!
 
Dec 20, 2003 at 8:16 PM Post #41 of 99
Quote:

Originally posted by zeplin
the only reason why many people think these movies are too long is because 99% of movies are never this long, obviously. why aren't more movies this long? i can say that quite a few movies would have been way better if they were longer. it is just the norm to accept a movie for being only 1.5-2.0 hrs long. but when a wonderful, awesome movie, that flows seemlessly through 3+ hrs, it is wrong? not in my book!


When Marty Robbins' song, "El Paso" came out a number of years ago everyone said it would never be popular. It was a 5 minute song in an era when all the songs were 2 minutes long. Needless to say, it was a HUGE success, and helped revolutionize the song industry. Hopefully Pater Jackson's vision and courage to come out with three straight movies in the 3+ hour department in theaters will help others see that if, and that's a big IF, they can provide a well told story, people are willing to sit for the three hours necessary to take it in.

I personally believe some movies can't hold an audience for the mere 1.5-1.75 hours most take up now, but some movies needed and need more than that amount of time to properly tell their story. I for one hope that there is a new trend in movies that give us more background, character building, and story telling instead of shooting for some abstract time of less than 2 hours.
 
Dec 21, 2003 at 12:43 AM Post #42 of 99
Finally saw it (I hate you, work!)

Overall, I'm quite pleased, my two biggest disappointments (nitpicks ;D) being the path of the dead and shelob's lair. I almost imagined the lair as having an atmosphere somewhat like how the wraith-world was portrayed, but with almost completely black tones and less movement (a place where all other lights really go out).

To me, TTT and RotK don't seem nearly as long as they actually are while I'm watching them. Neither makes me once look at my watch or have a feeling of "how much longer?" Then again, I've never watched more than one in one sitting.

and just to say, yes, I've read the books (including The Silmarillion, a very exciting, opposite-of-watching-paint-dry read ;D) many many times.
 
Dec 21, 2003 at 12:46 AM Post #43 of 99
Quote:

Originally posted by fierce_freak
Finally saw it (I hate you, work!)

Overall, I'm quite pleased, my two biggest disappointments (nitpicks ;D) being the path of the dead and shelob's lair. I almost imagined the lair as having an atmosphere somewhat like how the wraith-world was portrayed, but with almost completely black tones and less movement (a place where all other lights really go out).

To me, TTT and RotK don't seem nearly as long as they actually are while I'm watching them. Neither makes me once look at my watch or have a feeling of "how much longer?" Then again, I've never watched more than one in one sitting.

and just to say, yes, I've read the books (including The Silmarillion, a very exciting, opposite-of-watching-paint-dry read ;D) many many times.


What didn't you like about how the Paths of the Dead was portrayed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top