LoTR *many spoilers*

Remove all ads!

If you have not seen it see it ! the only down side was the shreek of the dark riders was to loude. *****

 

Good that means that i may get an adrinaline rush!

One question, does arwen feature in the 1st movie, cos if she does then i'll be majorly pissed off cos she doesn't feature until the second book!

 

Sniper... surprisingly enough... Arwen didn't have a major role in the movie. I was very concerned that they would play up her role for public appeal but it wasn't NEARLY as overwhelming as I had feared it would be.. No need to be pissed

Gollum: There are two other threads on this subject. You shouldn't open a new one when there is already 2 of the same topics already open.

http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001382.html
http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001407.html



[This message has been edited by Xenecor (edited December 21, 2001).]

 

Sniper, I think you are a little confused. Arwen is not in the second novel at all. Or did you mean book as in part 2 of 6. I was worried she would have a large role and I love Glorfinal, so I was upset they cut him out. She shouldn't be in the second movie at all and only at the end of the third. i.e. she doesn't appear until book 6 and only at the end. I hope the movies reflect this.

As for the cry of the dark riders it was great. A real wale.

 

Voltric it was good but very loud

 

Gollum: I would blame the cinema volume.. not the movie itself

 

Going to see it tommarow night! Goin to see it tommarow night!!

 

Voltric, i have the trilogy as in
Book 1 = The coming of the fellowship
Book 2 = The twin towers
Book 3 = Return of the king (or somethign like that)

And Isn't Arwen Theodens daughter? and doesn't she fight and kill the black rider? Hell, i havn't read the book in acouple of months so my memory is weakened...

 

Arwen? Theoden's daughter?!

Sniper... somebody's gonna snipe you someday if you keep this up

But seriously, Arwen is the daughter of Elrond. Theoden didn't have any daughters. I think you meant Eowyn, Theoden's niece, or sister-daughter.

 

Who, by the way, didn't kill the nazgûl, she only fought it.

 

We are going to see LOTR in January.(we live in Estonia,that means in Europe)*sniffs*My dad told that when they visited his restaurant they saw few guys sleeping near the cinema to get LOTR tickets.

When i saw Harry Potter, i were totally disappointed. They SCREWED it up.

 

Umm, Eowyn did kill the Witch-King, not Merry, I believe. To quote from the book:

But suddenly he (the Chief Nazgul) too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee...

...Then tottering, struggling up, with her (Eowyn) last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her... ...and a cry went up... ... a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up, and was never heard again in that age of this world.

This statement clearly states that Eowyn dealt the final blow to the Witch-King, Chief of the Nazgul, and not Meriadoc Brandybuck, he just assisted her.

[This message has been edited by Rhythm (edited December 22, 2001).]

 

Ah! but without Merry stabbing the nazgul with the sword that Tom (the funnyiest one in the whole story) gave him, she would not have been able to kill him/it, so technicaly Merry killed him/it

[This message has been edited by Spudsquisher (edited December 22, 2001).]

 

I have to disagree there, the one who dealt the last blow killed it.

So, I looked it up in my Swedish translation, and it goes like this: "...raglande rätade han upp sig och med uppbjudande av sin sista styrka drev han sin klinga mitt mellan kronan och manteln..."
which would be "...then tottering, struggling up, with his last strength he drove his sword between crown and mantle..."

It's obviously a translation error, and therefore no wonder that I got it wrong. Eowyn does indeed kill the nazgûl.

[This message has been edited by Namuras (edited December 22, 2001).]

 

I have to agree that they both killed it.

I thought the film was amazing and it was nearly all how I pictured it.

But what happened to Bilbo in Rivendell when he tried to take the ring from Frodo was a bit of a shock...
... especially when he grew sharp teeth and his eyes popped out of his head.

The screech of the Dark riders was a bit too loud.

By the way what was Lurtz all about?

Boromir was found by the rest, dead, with goblin arrows in him, (not shot a point blank by an oversized bald gorrila) and his horn was cloven in two (it was still in one piece when they put him in the boat).

Otherwise it was a masterpiece and everone should see it!

 

Yeah, the changes that come over Bilbo and later Galadriel when tempted by the ring are great bits of cinematography.
And one reason why the film is unsuitable for most under 8s, who like good people to be always good and not get killed.

 

My Thoughts on this movie was the effects were great, the casting well done, but for someone like me who has never read the books, it felt like stuff was missing.

*spoiler*
*The Black Riders and the water was not really explained hubby had to explain to me.

He also noted several other peices of plot that i had to ask about. I think if you have read the book it makes the movie a bit easier to follow.

 

Erran: The vision of Bilbo in Rivendell is exactly why it's only meant for certain audiences. I took my daughter, who is 4 years old and familiar with the Hobbit... and she was not pleased about Bilbo looking "Scary". She was content on believing that it was just NOT the same guy as the one in her cartoon who is Sweet and nice (except "when he plays with the spiders and Sting" )

[This message has been edited by Xenecor (edited December 23, 2001).]

 

There were some other things in the movie not totally in line with the book.
For instance the "incident" at the broken stairway in the mines of Moria. Why would they have made that up ?
Secondly, the ending with Frodo, after fleeing from Boromir, speaking with Aragorn before heading unto the boats. Baffled me.
It's just not that I would prefer a complete exact translation of the book into a movie, but I have always thought the "running away" of Frodo without letting anyone know (except for Sam who figured it out Frodo heading for the boats) was quite essential.
Thirdly, the opening of the doors at the Mines of Moria, with Frodo "accidently" saying Mellon, while in the book Gandalf after calling himself a fool and laughing about his idiocy opened the stone doors by saying Mellon. Why they would have changed that ?

Don't get me wrong, if really really enjoyed the movie, seen it thrice now. Hell after the first time I saw it I even dreamed about it. I Think they've done an especially terrific job on the Balrug () and the transformation of Galadriel after Frodo offered her the Ring.
It's just that I wonder why they would have changed or added to the original story.


[This message has been edited by Asmodeus (edited December 23, 2001).]