logo Sign In

Rebel Scumb

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Mar-2003
Last activity
18-Dec-2005
Posts
618

Post History

Post
#29159
Topic
Lord of the Rings...what's the deal?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29159/action/topic#29159
Time
Well both Ian Mckellan, Peter jackson and my Middle Earth dictionary say he is a demi-god. He's the same thing as the Balrog, only he is good instead of evil. Gandalf, Saruman and the weilders of the flame of ar-nul chose to take benevolent human forms to show humility. The balrog being a servant of the flame of Udin and the others like him (aprently there was a time when the skies were filled with balrogs) chose more menacing forms to match their dark and arrogant wills.

What little we lern of Gandalfs past in the books is just Frodo musing on how or when Gandalf might of stolen into the world, he thought it hard to imagine Gandalf ever as a young boy, and it seemed he had been old all his life. Which is kinda cool.
Post
#29158
Topic
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: Return of the King (spoilers)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29158/action/topic#29158
Time
So your saying if there had abeen an army of elves fighting with the rohan riders in the battle of the pelenor fields you wouldn't have liked ROTK? lots of things in the movies go against the books, and the movies are all the better for it.

I'm not suggesting the dundedan or the sons of elrond should come to Helms deep (though actually they came a long time after Helms deep if you remember)

I'm suggesting that NOBODY came and it was just the rohan there to fight off the Uruks until Gandalf and Eomer arrived. Bringing the elves took away from the plight of the men, and in the end they all died so it felt pointless.

And as a fan of the books I can't help but be struck by the lack of logic in their arrival. The Uruks left before the elves and only had to go from Isengard to Helms deep, while the elves came from Lotherlien which is 20 times farther (check out the maps) and left after the uruks had been deployed, yet arrived ahead of the Uruks? Not to mention that Haldir brought word from Elrond, yet he lives with and serves Galadrial, and would likely have no knowldege of what Elrond was up to. It all just seems silly to me, and doesn't really add anything to the story.
Post
#29145
Topic
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: Return of the King (spoilers)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29145/action/topic#29145
Time
I think it made sense to do it the way they did. In the books Half of why they set out was for Aragorn to reclaim the thrown. In the movies he doesn't want to be king.

What I would of changed is not have the elves come to helms deep, and instead have them come in ROTK when Elrond arrives with the sword. Theoden even said that they did not have enough riders, and that would of played off of the last alliance thing a lot better, then the elves coming to Helms deep which was stupid and made no sense.
Post
#29131
Topic
Beautiful Women
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29131/action/topic#29131
Time
I wondered if it was Mandy Moore. She's kind of growing on me.

Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
And for good reason.

Strange though it may seem, I hold a special place in my heart for Franka Potente.

and then, as my wife would say, I have a thing for Kates... Kate Beckinsale, Katie Holmes, Kate Winslet (and, ironically, my wife's name is Kate)



I'm a firm believer that you can judge a lot about a person by their name. And Kate is a good name for a hot girl.
Post
#29103
Topic
Lord of the Rings...what's the deal?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29103/action/topic#29103
Time
Its mostly little things like Gandalf and his powers, stuff that isn't even explained very clearly in the books (like the fact that Gandalf isn;'t human, but rather a demi-god who has assumed human form). But for the most part I agree, it certainly won;'t impair someones ability to enjoy the films if they haven;t read the books. However if you see the movies first the books must seem pretty slow and boring by comparison.
Post
#29083
Topic
Lord of the Rings...what's the deal?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29083/action/topic#29083
Time
Quote
I feel these movies do stand alone and you do not need to read the books. It does help for the sake of comparison or supplemental information, but there is absolutely no need to read them to know what's going on.


I don't fully agree, in that I've shown the movie to some people who had not read the books and they found alot of the politics and cultures to be a bit confusing and hard to absorb on first viewing. My wife was a bit confused by some of it but upon repeat viewings has gained a strong udnerstanding of middle earth (what is it in the middle of?????)

I do think the movies stand on their own, but I also think some stuff is a bit confusing for those unfamiliar with the source material.
Post
#29033
Topic
Beautiful Women
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29033/action/topic#29033
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
NILEQT HAD A TOPIC THREAD LIKE THISS. SHE ALSO HAD THE HOTTEST GUY THREAD. HOWEVER, I FORSEE THIS BECOMING THE GREATEST OF ALL THREADS.


They use to have a thread like this in the rottentomatoes forum, and it truly was an amazing site. Ten pages of just beautiful women.
Post
#29032
Topic
EVERYTHING HARRY POTTER
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29032/action/topic#29032
Time
Well I had this batman book out from the library out a few years back, it was published in 1988 right before Batman went into production and the end of the book talks about how Batman will live forever because Tim Burton was making a Batman movie and he wanted Jack Nicholson for the Joker and either Michael Keaton or BILL MURRAY to play Batman.

It certainly would have been different. I kind of would like to see that, mainly for Murray's Bruce Wayne. I'd just like to see him say "Because I bought it in Japan" while flirting with Kim Bassinger.
Post
#29027
Topic
Worst Movies of 2003
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29027/action/topic#29027
Time
Hulk really was the worst, because it was long, and it was bad but it paraded itself as something deep and so a lot of pretentious people claim its the best superhero film because its got so much depth (which is bull) when this is a very shallow straightforward story told in an extremely overly complicated and silly way. he only thing i found middly amusing was the wacky transitions, but not in a good way, I admire at least what they were going for with those, even if it was horribly miscalulated and distracting.

Like I said before this should of been a 90 minute action film, instead we got a 2.5 hour kids movie that no kid in the world would like.
Post
#29026
Topic
Lord of the Rings...what's the deal?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/29026/action/topic#29026
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
Did anyone else who saw ROTK notice the sudden overreliance on rear shots of Hobbits walking with humans/wizards/elves and notice how awkwardly they were shot? Especially with regards to all the scenes of Pippen with Gandalf. You can tell it's a stand in and it just doesn't look right. Almost like PJ was too ashamed to show the two together from the front. I know that it's easier from the back because you can use a stand in as opposed to paying for the SFX to "shrink" Billy Boyd. But instead of using this awkward shot, why not just eliminate it entirely and just cut back and forth to close ups of Gandalf and Pippen as the move, for example, into Denethor's throne room?


I would say quite the opposite Bossk. ROTK was the first of the trilogy where i noticed a lot of composite work done as compared to the other two films, with less reliance on scale doubles.

I'm embarrassed to admit it never occured to me when I saw FOTR that they would use scale doubles and could not for the life of me figure out how they achieved some of the shots they did (ie Pippin and Merry tackle Boromir, Frodo leaps into the cart to hug Gandalf)