Lord Of The Rings - Page 2 - Simply Maya User Community

# 16 18-12-2003 , 03:58 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Jun 2002

Location: Texas

Posts: 374

I love all three movies. Went to see the trilogy Tuesday, phew that was a long day. The first two were the extended versions, so it came out around 3 hours 45mins, 3 hours 56mins and 3 hours 20mins. We did have close to 40 minutes between each movie though. The best thing was the free gifts given out by Newline cinema. Three original film frames, one from each movie. Attached an example pic.

Attached Images

Quote

# 17 18-12-2003 , 04:18 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003

Location: New York, USA

Posts: 1,945

Kevin: Although some seens were longer than they shoudl have been, it did have incredibly more actions than the previous two in my opinion. The first one i half watched on dvd while doing other things, and the second i got so bored watching it i think i started counting hairs on my arm. But this one had more action to entertain, and the battles were enthralling at points. But some scenes, you knew what was going to happen, you know how, you knew why... you just didnt know when...

Ide say its worthy to go see, but if you can wait ide wait untill it comes to dvd so you can watch it in the comfort of your own home(and skip a few dozen scenes so it flows better.

They could easily have fit this movie into 2:30 but nope... had to drag it out an extra hour because they need closeups of every characters reaction every 20 minutes...

See, you might be bored once in a while, but you will be entertained. And very good CG in majority of it(the flaming head going through the main door looked like special effects Army Of Darkness wouldnt even use. But thats about it.

________________________
AIM: SublimeDragon33
Catch me if i'm on. Always up for a chat.
e-mail: sublimedragon33@gmail.com

Quote

# 18 18-12-2003 , 10:05 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Apr 2003

Location: Borovnica, Slovenia

Posts: 434

Originally posted by mtmckinley
hmm, funny how people can have such a broad range of opinions on something. Guess that's what makes the world interesting, I suppose.

Matrix? Sucks.

But I was totally enthralled in both previous LotR movies, and I'm looking forward to seeing RotK tonight.

Originally Posted by

That's excatly how I fill about it. I don't like Matrix,but reallly like LOTR.

Quote

# 19 18-12-2003 , 10:07 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Mar 2003

Location: with PonysGirl

Posts: 2,573

I haven't seen the 3rd one yet.. but just thought I would toss in my .02 about the length of the cuts.

They made these movies, because they loved the books.. The books were not wrote with the 10 sec cut of the MTV or heavy action movie in mind.

Personally I applaud them for having the nerve to leave in all the cuts they felt would help it be truer to the books. I can not count how many movies they cut seens out of that piss me off.

I know, some movies get way to long. And for thoughts that feel this one to long.. just think though, at least in this one they give you some good eye candy and cinematography to look at while your waiting..

oh well to each his own. But if you have ever watched the cartoon versions, these suck only 1/100 of thoughs.. LOL

Quote

# 20 18-12-2003 , 10:19 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003

Location: USA

Posts: 658

I also like the long version of movies. It is kind of neaded now with fantasy or sci fi IMHO. Now that they do not have t cut out the special effects anymore they, cut out the acting instead to keap the runtime down to two hours. Think of the older movies. We would sit though hours of storie for a bit of special effects. To keap the storie and charature development as well as special effects, you almost nead more time.

Quote

# 21 18-12-2003 , 10:29 PM

Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: Plantation, Florida

Posts: 1,568

Well the thing about making books into movies is trying to get all the pertinent information on screen. To take a 3000 page novel and compress it down to a 120 page script (the average length of a movie script with each page amounting to one minute of screen time) then you can see the delima where not everything can be put on screen. Even at three hours and twenty minutes I'm sure Jackson couldn't get it all into the last movie as well.

I never read the books so I can't judge what should have been in or not from the books. But from what I saw, I think Jackson did a damn good job. user added image

mrmacca: You mean to say you sat thru almost twelve hours of movies in a theater? Wow! Talk about stamina! user added image

Dave Baer
Professor of Digital Arts
Digital Media Arts College
Boca Raton, Florida
dbaer@dmac.edu

Quote

# 22 18-12-2003 , 10:36 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003

Location: USA

Posts: 658

Originally posted by dave_baer

mrmacca: You mean to say you sat thru almost twelve hours of movies in a theater? Wow! Talk about stamina!

Originally Posted by

I did not look at it that way. Damb. I cannot get my girlfriend to stay awake through two hours. I do not know if I could handle it either. You would almost be warn out before you get to see something that is new.

Quote

# 23 18-12-2003 , 10:44 PM

Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: Plantation, Florida

Posts: 1,568

Originally posted by mrmacca
Went to see the trilogy Tuesday, phew that was a long day. The first two were the extended versions, so it came out around 3 hours 45mins, 3 hours 56mins and 3 hours 20mins. We did have close to 40 minutes between each movie though.

Originally Posted by

Rick: Read it again. user added image

3 hours 45mins
3 hours 56mins
3 hours 20mins

equals

11 hours 1 minute.

Dave Baer
Professor of Digital Arts
Digital Media Arts College
Boca Raton, Florida
dbaer@dmac.edu

Last edited by dave_baer; 18-12-2003 at 10:47 PM.

Quote

# 24 18-12-2003 , 10:48 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003

Location: USA

Posts: 658

My god man. Are those number right?:wow:

Quote

# 25 18-12-2003 , 10:54 PM

Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: Plantation, Florida

Posts: 1,568

That's what he said. :p

Dave Baer
Professor of Digital Arts
Digital Media Arts College
Boca Raton, Florida
dbaer@dmac.edu

Quote

# 26 19-12-2003 , 12:34 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Jun 2002

Location: Texas

Posts: 374

Yeah those numbers are right. Shame Return of the king wasn't extended also. I did doze off during the first two movies, only for a few secs at a time but then again i've seen both of them quite a few times. Didn't miss a single second of the return of the King though. First movie started at 1pm and the last finished at 1.20am.

I agree about how difficuilt it is to compress the books into movies and not leaving out important parts. I think Peter Jackson has done as well as anyone could have. I know his first cut for The Return of the King was almost 7 hours long. I think the extended version will probably end up a little over 4 hours though.

Quote

# 27 21-12-2003 , 02:02 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002

Location: London

Posts: 1,292

Originally posted by mtmckinley
I'd have to say I like the First one best, RotK 2nd, TTT 3rd. All are fantastic, though.

Originally Posted by

My fav: All of them, and since there all one film, i can say that.

Originally posted by Pony
I haven't seen the 3rd one yet.. but just thought I would toss in my .02 about the length of the cuts.

They made these movies, because they loved the books.. The books were not wrote with the 10 sec cut of the MTV or heavy action movie in mind.

Personally I applaud them for having the nerve to leave in all the cuts they felt would help it be truer to the books. I can not count how many movies they cut seens out of that piss me off.

Originally Posted by

Agreed totally. They didn't want to get caugh in the holywood 'rules'. 'It's the most expensive indy film ever made' was a quote by Perter Jackson about the film.

Also, re: book to film. A straigh page for page adaptation of the book would = a mess. They basicly took the core story and left out all the parts that were fine on the book, but wouldn't work on film.

Yeah, but no but yeah but no....

Quote

# 28 21-12-2003 , 02:21 AM

The Maya Mountain
Join Date: Aug 2002

Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 8,245

Yeah, the journey chronicled in the book easily feels like it was a 13 or 15 month (I forget) journey, while in the movie, you don't necessarily get the feeling that that much time has passed, seeing as they sped through most of the stuff that happens, for example, between Hobbiton and Bree, etc.

Having just seen it again (in a good seat this time... first time was in front row and straining my neck! LOL), I still say it was a phenominal film. I went with my Art Director at work who agrees. user added image

-Mike
The Maya Toolbelt

Quote

# 29 21-12-2003 , 07:29 AM

Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: Plantation, Florida

Posts: 1,568

I guess thats why they had to have Sam narate it at the end and tell us it was "14 months to the day"... or something like that. user added image

Dave Baer
Professor of Digital Arts
Digital Media Arts College
Boca Raton, Florida
dbaer@dmac.edu

Quote

# 30 21-12-2003 , 02:52 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003

Location: New York, USA

Posts: 1,945

Even if they were tring to keep the context from book to moeive alive. It was still ungodly long. Most movies should not last past 2:30. 3 hours is alot. Many times when no diologue was going and people were just walking endlessly they could have easily cut them out and not sacraficed anything. Except maybe an hours sleep.

________________________
AIM: SublimeDragon33
Catch me if i'm on. Always up for a chat.
e-mail: sublimedragon33@gmail.com

Quote