View Full Version : Which is greater... LOTR Trilogy or the Moon Landing?
AnthonyRoundtree
12-17-2003, 04:00 AM
Having just seen The Return of the King....
I was just looking for a general feeling on this one......
I dislike his practice a double dipping
There would be no need for an extended release version of the movies at an expensive price if he had released the entire movie as it was meant to be seen in the theaters like he was paid to do by the audience goers.
Although I have seen random scenes from the first movie due to late-night channel surfing, I have read the books, so I'm not as easy prey as his other victims
If I get these films at all, it will be after the hype dies down and the extended versions are cheap -- possibly even in a box set after theprequel hobbit movie, that is currently in preproductiontalks by him, gets its extended release version on DVD
Osh Kosh B'iotch
12-17-2003, 09:49 AM
I'm guessing 'he' refers to Peter Jackson, the director? Or were you just say 'he' meaning The Man? :)
I think if he could release the extended version as the theatrical release he would have. It's the studio that wants him to cut it down to about 3 hours. They're also the ones that choose to release a theatrical and extended dvd releases. It may seem shady in your opinion, but it's just business.
Oh, if you liked the books, you should check them out on TV. From what I've heard from people that have read the books, it does a good job of adapting them. It's also good filmmaking.
Scrubking
12-17-2003, 09:59 AM
I dislike his practice a double dipping
There would be no need for an extended release version of the movies at an expensive price if he had released the entire movie as it was meant to be seen in the theaters like he was paid to do by the audience goers.
Although I have seen random scenes from the first movie due to late-night channel surfing, I have read the books, so I'm not as easy prey as his other victims
If I get these films at all, it will be after the hype dies down and the extended versions are cheap -- possibly even in a box set after theprequel hobbit movie, that is currently in preproductiontalks by him, gets its extended release version on DVD
3 hours is the max amount of time movie-goers want to be in a theatre - otherwise they won't watch the movie. So far I haven't been able to sit through a LOTR movie without my bladder on the brink of explosion, and I even go to the bathroom before the movie starts. When I was watching the first one I got the urge to go about half way through. I decided to hold it and at the movies end I was sprinting towards the bathroom while wincing from the pain. Not to mention the hordes of other people who constantly get up during the movie to do the same or something else which makes for an annoying movie experience.
Draknight
12-17-2003, 10:27 AM
I dislike his practice a double dipping
There would be no need for an extended release version of the movies at an expensive price if he had released the entire movie as it was meant to be seen in the theaters like he was paid to do by the audience goers.
Although I have seen random scenes from the first movie due to late-night channel surfing, I have read the books, so I'm not as easy prey as his other victims
If I get these films at all, it will be after the hype dies down and the extended versions are cheap -- possibly even in a box set after theprequel hobbit movie, that is currently in preproductiontalks by him, gets its extended release version on DVD
Peter jackson actually stated that the reason he does a theatrical version is because its a movie and the movie needs pacing. The extended edition aren't really paced for an audience that is going to sit in the movies for 3 to 4 hours. They are designed so that all the things that fans want can be seen in the movie. The theatrical editions have the audience in the theatre in mind.
During the second movie I actually held out going to the bathroom for the whole movie. I had to go 30 minutes in but I just held out. Mind over matter if you don't mind it it won't matter. That's teach me to drink a large cup of frosted soda before the movie starts.
elprincipe
12-17-2003, 07:27 PM
Having just seen The Return of the King....
I was just looking for a general feeling on this one......
IMO The Lord of the Rings is the best book ever written. However, I easily went for the moon landing in recognition that the movies are really bastardized versions of the books (at least the first two, especially Two Towers...haven't seen ROTK yet). At least the scenery in the films is breathtaking.
Firebrand
12-17-2003, 07:41 PM
Talk about random. What's worse? Hitler or the Black Plague?
EDIT: The Holy Bible was the first and is still the best book in the Fantasy genre.
guessed
12-17-2003, 07:49 PM
The 1969 moon landing was pretty good for its time, but the special effects just don't hold up over time. Also, The set decoration was a bit too sparse for my taste, and the plot could definitely have used more development. And I didn't really connect with any of the characters. I have heard that they may do a big-budget remake.
LOTR has much better production values.
gamefreak
12-17-2003, 08:43 PM
Ya, the extended versions add about half an hour to 45 min. It's not that bad alone but with another 2:30-3 hours... Some places are auctually playing the TT extended edition in theatres so you can see it before ROTK (I'll be seeing ROTK thursday I hope and I'll post what I think!)
It drives me nuts when people cry about the movies being different from the books.
Yeah, they are, know why? Because they're BOOKS. Tolkien could spend 45 pages talking about how sad Frodo feels - they can't spend 45 minutes in the theater on the same thing.
Everyone knows books are better than movies and the movie never does justice to the book - so why do people STILL cry about it?
SS4Brolly
12-17-2003, 09:54 PM
I have yet to see the 3rd. I usually rent them once they come out on DVD, but I might make the trip to see this one.
But I've had fun today convincing a few dumb people that they might make books based on the movies. I got about a half dozen to believe me, with the other half knowing that there were books in the first place.
GSJaia
12-17-2003, 09:59 PM
>>>The 1969 moon landing was pretty good for its time, but the special effects just don't hold up over time. Also, The set decoration was a bit too sparse for my taste, and the plot could definitely have used more development. And I didn't really connect with any of the characters. I have heard that they may do a big-budget remake. <<<
Guessed gets my vote for CAG post of the day! :D
It drives me nuts when people cry about the movies being different from the books.
Yeah, they are, know why? Because they're BOOKS. Tolkien could spend 45 pages talking about how sad Frodo feels - they can't spend 45 minutes in the theater on the same thing.
Everyone knows books are better than movies and the movie never does justice to the book - so why do people STILL cry about it?
It's even more complex than that
every single edition of thebooks is different, asin they contain radically different texts,at least up until the time of the author's death
The reason being that Tolkien couldn't find the back of his ass with a map, which he self-confessed and seemed to find amusing. after each edition of the books, the fans would once again correct all the directional informationof how to get from one place in the world of Middle Earth another, and then he would publish the corrections in the next edition integrated into the text. Afterwards, even more fans would correct directions, and this was a continuous process over the years.
He wrote about it in the preface to one of the special collectors editions that which I own.
They were used when I got them from a used bookseller who probably didn't know what they were worth.
in other words, the editionis quite old, and I'm not sure they still publish the same preface in the newer copies of the books.
punqsux
12-17-2003, 10:31 PM
the bible dosent seem like a novel book to me, more like a collection of really long short stories. aseops fables are much better, basically the same thing minus about 1800 pages
what with the moon beating lotr? whats the moon ever done for anybody? nothin! damn moon hugging hippies
Akimichi Chouji
03-20-2005, 06:11 AM
Definitely Lord of the Rings.
FriskyTanuki
03-20-2005, 06:14 AM
WTF?
AdamInPlaidum
03-20-2005, 07:14 AM
Whoo! Also, I found the Fellowship to be awesome, Towers to be long, and RotK to be long and boring.
Xevious
03-20-2005, 12:09 PM
This is a strange thread. A very strange thread
Ebraum
03-20-2005, 12:25 PM
This thread is older than a Stegosaurus turd.
bil4l
03-20-2005, 12:32 PM
Anyone remember those idiots who would quit their jobs and move across the country to see all three movies in succesion on the big screen? I like LOTR as much as the next guy, but I would much rather watch a movie in my house then go to the theater. Especially if I needed to quit my job, BOO!
Stoneage
03-20-2005, 12:43 PM
Yeah, they are, know why? Because they're BOOKS. Tolkien could spend 45 pages talking about how sad Frodo feels - they can't spend 45 minutes in the theater on the same thing.
I was hoping a scene like that would be in the movie. I mean, he just didn't make the case that Frodo was sad enough. They could have done sad flashbacks, sad premonitions, sad songs sung over sad-looking women overlayed with Gandalf crying as a youth because his practice wand got bent.
The moon landing, wasn't very sad, either. I mean, they could have brought a dying puppy along or something.
epobirs
03-20-2005, 01:53 PM
Yeah, they are, know why? Because they're BOOKS. Tolkien could spend 45 pages talking about how sad Frodo feels - they can't spend 45 minutes in the theater on the same thing.
I was hoping a scene like that would be in the movie. I mean, he just didn't make the case that Frodo was sad enough. They could have done sad flashbacks, sad premonitions, sad songs sung over sad-looking women overlayed with Gandalf crying as a youth because his practice wand got bent.
The moon landing, wasn't very sad, either. I mean, they could have brought a dying puppy along or something.
Or they could just invoke the names of three men who died horribly and never got to go.
epobirs
03-20-2005, 01:57 PM
the bible dosent seem like a novel book to me, more like a collection of really long short stories. aseops fables are much better, basically the same thing minus about 1800 pages
what with the moon beating lotr? whats the moon ever done for anybody? nothin! damn moon hugging hippies
Must not be a surfer.
There is a theory that the development of complex life on this planet was dependent on the effects of having a large satellite. Since that satellite is very improbable in of itself, that might explain the scarcity of other worlds generating RF noise in discernable patterns.
Ikohn4ever
03-20-2005, 02:05 PM
Well I picked the LOTR trilogy, only for the fact that I believe there is a slim chance we never landed on the moon. I know they made a trilogy, I own them. I dont own the moon so I dont know if there have been people on it. Though I thought about picking the moon because of the craptastic ending in the Return of the King ala nothing like the book.
On a side note, how can we send a man to the moon but we still dont have flying cars, whats the deal with that.
epobirs
03-20-2005, 02:15 PM
Well I picked the LOTR trilogy, only for the fact that I believe there is a slim chance we never landed on the moon. I know they made a trilogy, I own them. I dont own the moon so I dont know if there have been people on it. Though I thought about picking the moon because of the craptastic ending in the Return of the King ala nothing like the book.
On a side note, how can we send a man to the moon but we still dont have flying cars, whats the deal with that.
We have numerous makes and models of flying vehicles. You likely cannot remotely afford one nor are you probably willing to undergo the required training and qualification testing.
There is a vast difference between a project that was the culmination of over a decade's effort with almost unlimited funding and no requirement to return anything other than interesting information vs. bringing expensive functionality to the mass market.
AnthonyRoundtree
03-20-2005, 02:17 PM
This is a strange thread. A very strange thread
This thread is older than a Stegosaurus turd.
you can imagine my surprise when i clicked on it today....
then seeing it wouldnt let me vote...
then thinking... "hey... i didnt vote on this yet...."
then scrolliing down and seeing the name of the user who posted it...
"hey... when did I make this thread!?!?!?!"
needless to say... i gotta big kick out of it.
zionoverfire
03-20-2005, 05:35 PM
Risen from the grave and by a first post n00b. :lol:
the_deej
03-20-2005, 05:41 PM
i hate lotr
eldad9
03-20-2005, 05:46 PM
Well I picked the LOTR trilogy, only for the fact that I believe there is a slim chance we never landed on the moon. I know they made a trilogy, I own them.
You don't really know that the trilogy exists, or that you own it. If you're going to be philosophical about it, you can't really accept sensory input as the absolute truth.
On a side note, how come it's never the intelligent people who question the moon landing?
Greetard
03-20-2005, 05:55 PM
Well I picked the LOTR trilogy, only for the fact that I believe there is a slim chance we never landed on the moon. I know they made a trilogy, I own them.
You don't really know that the trilogy exists, or that you own it. If you're going to be philosophical about it, you can't really accept sensory input as the absolute truth.
On a side note, how come it's never the intelligent people who question the moon landing?
They're all too busy trying to convince the same stupid people that the Holocaust was real too.