TTT moments that irritate now, upon multiple viewings

[Sween]

Originally posted by Celebréiel
Yeah the Haldir thing really *really* bugs me too. Its totally beyond me how even the biggest movie fan can be okay with bringing a character back in, just to kill him off!
Putting a real face on all the people dying at the battle... its just very...cheap-news-storyish..
I guess if you want to think of it as two different things and that the movie isnt close to the book but its own separate thing........no, no it still bugs me....slo-motion like Aragorn and Haldir were best pals....*sigh*

I have a bit of Shymphy with PJ on this point. What he was trying to do was explain that really it wasnt the Elves fight they didnt have to turn up but because of what had gone on in the past (admitally the tolkien lover knows that the Silvan Elves had no contact with the Rohamair or there kin apart from when rideing to the feild of Celebrant galaderial cast a cloud about them so they could travel in secreat) so quite why the feel obliged to them i dont know but bless him hes trying to make them do the right thing.

This is where the intricate detail of Tolkien really comes into play if PJ had shown the vision which frodo get when he wears the ring at the end of fellowship then we would know the lonely mountian was under attack as was Mirkwood as was Lorien therefore he would not of needed to put them in there so people didnt say hey where all them Elves got to!

Now as for when he dies i acctually liked that scean quite a bit i think he did a good job of sending the message we should not of come we came to die and dieing is not natral for Elves! Looking at all the other fallen Elves ill admit moved me and related very well with Tolkien theam of Elves been very sorroful and no longer wanting that.

The bit that really ticks me off is When haldir turns up and wont hug Aragorn hes and Elf for god sake he would be a great hugger im not saying that it maybe wasnt approate to be all happy but you know he wouldnt look so uncomftable

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I agree with Lizra - that "what do your elf eyes see?" line just nauseates me! Legolas should answer back "and my elf brain thinks you're a jerk for asking that question!"

I liked Legolas in the first movie, but he overacts even more in the second.

I think too many of the actors over act - I don't blame the actors for it though - I blame Jackson. He's the director and I think he is directing them to be over the top. How many times is frodo going to roll his eyes up into his head? Or go into convulsions when he "dies"?

As for Ruinel - I have way too many things that annoy me. The constant melodramitc over the top use of slow motion really gets on my nerves and the over the top sentamentality. It's so fake.

[Black Breathalizer]

Over-acting? Over the top? Fakey? Cheesey? Have you guys seen the same movies the rest of the world have seen?

There are some points about Jackson's LOTR movies that reasonable people could disagree with. But you guys lose your credibility and look downright silly in this discussion with your own "over the top" commentary.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Over-acting? Over the top? Fakey? Cheesey? Have you guys seen the same movies the rest of the world have seen?

There are some points about Jackson's LOTR movies that reasonable people could disagree with. But you guys lose your credibility and look downright silly in this discussion with your own "over the top" commentary.

Well I mentioned this in the "ignorant fans" thread, but I'll bring it up here - please tell me the movies you have directed since you claim to be so much more of an expert on movie making than us.

Also - as Wayfarer mentioned in the other thread - Titanic made a TON of money, and millions of people saw it over and over again. It wasn't a great movie though. So just becuase millions of people saw Jackson's Lord of the Rings - does NOT make it a great movie. It does not mean that Jackson didn't use cheap hollywood tricks or repeated use of things he must have gotten from his Cinema 101 book. . For instance - it is plain to see that Jackson felt the need of a comic relief character. Those characters were Pippin and Merry in FotR. When Pippin and Merry's screen time was limited in TT - he obviously went to Gimli. Sorry - but to me that is the technique you would find from a hack. A good director doesn't make the decisions so plain for the audience to see.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Titanic made a TON of money, and millions of people saw it over and over again. It wasn't a great movie though. So just becuase millions of people saw Jackson's Lord of the Rings - does NOT make it a great movie.

What I find a little ironic about jerseydevil's comment is that so-called 'Literary Elite' have been making the same claim against Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels for years. They would turn up their noses and say, "Well, yes, the unwashed masses seem to love it, but it is not good literature."

It begs the question, what purpose do movies and books serve if not to capture the interest and imagination of people? Why do the same cliques of know-it-all elitists always question the quality of anything that becomes popular?

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It is plain to see that Jackson felt the need of a comic relief character. Those characters were Pippin and Merry in FotR. When Pippin and Merry's screen time was limited in TT - he obviously went to Gimli.

Merry & Pippin were given comic relief roles (appropriately, I might add) in FOTR. But you saw that their characters change during TTT. They will change even more dramatically in ROTK. We saw Gimli as simply the distrusting 'Elf hater' in FOTR. Then we began to see how his character evolved in the EE FOTR and in TTT. Did PJ emphasize his humorous side? Yeah. But while the jokes were different, the character of Gimli (IMHO) was basically the same as in the books. Looking ahead, I suspect we'll see less comic relief in ROTK and even be treated to some special moments between Gimli and Legolas in ROTK and/or EE ROTK.

One of the characteristics of a great movie or book is that the characters are changed by the events that take place within the story. One of the challenging feats that PJ and Company are accomplishing is that ALL of the dozen or so major characters in LOTR are evolving and growing before our eyes. This is no small feat and a big part of the brilliance of the films.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
What I find a little ironic about jerseydevil's comment is that so-called 'Literary Elite' have been making the same claim against Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels for years. They would turn up their noses and say, "Well, yes, the unwashed masses seem to love it, but it is not good literature."

Oh - is that why it's considered a 20th century classic? I am 99% positive jackson's crap movies will never reach the classic level.

It begs the question, what purpose do movies and books serve if not to capture the interest and imagination of people? Why do the same cliques of know-it-all elitists always question the quality of anything that becomes popular?

See - you are just blind. YOu think that you are the only one who can determine what is good. Do you honestly think that the slash and hack fest jackson gave is any different than a Teminator movie? I mean - granted it has better acting and better scenery - but both are action movies, both use hollywood cliches. I'm sorry if I was expecting a little more to the movies than typical hollywood crap.

Merry & Pippin were given comic relief roles (appropriately, I might add) in FOTR. But you saw that their characters change during TTT.

Actually - you don't see them change - they're basically in 3 scenes. Not much there to show character development.

They will change even more dramatically in ROTK. We saw Gimli as simply the distrusting 'Elf hater' in FOTR. Then we began to see how his character evolved in the EE FOTR and in TTT.

Again - you don't see it - it just happens.
[quote]
Did PJ emphasize his humorous side? Yeah. But while the jokes were different, the character of Gimli (IMHO) was basically the same as in the books.
/quote]
Gimli's character was basically the same in FotR - not TT. In Two Towers he became a comic dwarf.

Looking ahead, I suspect we'll see less comic relief in ROTK and even be treated to some special moments between Gimli and Legolas in ROTK and/or EE ROTK.

Jackson's track record isn't looking good. You seem to have a lot of hopes for Jackson.

One of the characteristics of a great movie or book is that the characters are changed by the events that take place within the story. One of the challenging feats that PJ and Company are accomplishing is that ALL of the dozen or so major characters in LOTR are evolving and growing before our eyes. This is no small feat and a big part of the brilliance of the films.

The majority have just out of no where changed. You make me laugh with your kissing up to Jackson and your "brilliance of the films". You must truly no nothing of good films. I wouldn't ge siurprised if you didn't think that Star Wars was the absolute best film made. Oh wait - that title is reserved for jackson's Lord of the Rings.

[Sween]

BB as allways your complete support for your hero is quite astounding. Its allmost as good as old Blair with his Hero Bush (awwwwwww god bless him).

What you fail to see or do see and are atempting to take the p*** out of us all is that these films are not the faultless masterpeice you put them for. I love FOTR its my favorite ever movie and sticks to the book well. Two Towers just has a few moments that confuse me in there existance. Theres no need for them. Some stuff is just badly done. Some stuff acctually completally contradicts the whole movie and sets up plot holes which Tolkien never left (hell the guy even has a reason for the Egals not helping too much)!

Now as for people opinions on movies ive allways seen this as an area of intrest to me. For example i like Hot Shots! I get the times as a paper the guy that does the reviews for them is never gonna like that movie in a thousand years its like the people that vote things like a beautiful mind to be really good films. Its a matter of opinion. But BB understand this Two Towers isnt faultless nor is it meritless but when compared to the book there are several issue which many of us would like to jusy ask PJ why?

[jerseydevil]

Sween - the US Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787....

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Sween
What you fail to see or do see and are atempting to take the p*** out of us all is that these films are not the faultless masterpeice you put them for.

I never said the films were perfect. But I do believe they will become timeless cinematic classics, warts and all.

But my point is that it strains the credibility of even the most zealous book purist here when this board's Clan of the Wayfarers whine that PJ's LOTR movies are cheesey, poorly acted, poorly written, explotative, and are not true to Tolkien. There certainly could have been different interpretations made of Tolkien's work and different approaches to bringing the material to the big screen. But try as some here might, it's hard to argue with the fact Jackson honored the author's work on film.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I never said the films were perfect. But I do believe they will become timeless cinematic classics, warts and all.

But my point is that it strains the credibility of even the most zealous book purist here when this board's Clan of the Wayfarers whine that PJ's LOTR movies are cheesey, poorly acted, poorly written, explotative, and are not true to Tolkien. There certainly could have been different interpretations made of Tolkien's work and different approaches to bringing the material to the big screen. But try as some here might, it's hard to argue with the fact Jackson honored the author's work on film.

Hey - I was complaing about Jackson's movies before Wayfarer was. I'm not part of a clan.

As for your comment that you think they'll be timeless classics - just you wait. They're going to be as much a classic as Titanic is.

By the way - they are cheesy, over the top, etc. I never complained about the acting really. I think the directing sucked - which screwed up the acting. I can picutre Elijah Wood doing something and him saying - "no no we need more, express it more, roll your eyes into your head, convulse. You know - like you did in the last 20 scenes."

[nessa]

Originally posted by OrnelÃ*rë Mistë
The WHOLE movie irritated me. That's not TTT, that's crap spawned by the realization of how teenage girls faint over Legolas, Aragorn, even the Hobbitses. Maybe even Gollum

I'm with you on this. The whole of the interpretation just has me gnashing my teeth. Shouldn't have been allowed to happen. Didn't C Tolkein have any veto? Should have and put a stop to the whole darned thing!

[Sween]

Rite lets get this thread bk on topic we have a thread to dissuce the merits of PJ in realtion to the book.

Jerseydevil and wayfearer are one end of the scale BB is the other and anyone with half a brain (im not even sure if its even that with me ) is somewhere in the middle

I have to admit i do think Frodo is overacted in TTT he was perfect in FOTR but hes a bit too intrested in the ring allready i dont like the whole what kinda reminds me of Harry Potter scar element getting a sore head everytime Sauron looks at him if he knew where he was his Nasgul would be there faster than you can say 'a hairy Orc is a scary Orc'

[Sheeana]

Jersey, can I worship at your altar? Keep the cause going, man!

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Over-acting? Over the top? Fakey? Cheesey? Have you guys seen the same movies the rest of the world have seen?

One word: Celeborn.

[Gamigar]

lets see......

Elijah Wood's pathetic accent

Everything that Legolas says{Orlando Bloom is not a good actor}

"what can your elf eyes see?"

Faramirs character being totally reversed

Aragorn "dying"

Legolas' impossible horse trick{i dont care if your an elf, no one can do that}

Gandalfs beard being all short and stupid lookin

Osgiliath

Elves coming to helms deep

Eowyns little kung-fu sword moves

Grishnak not dying after having a spear in his back

Eomer

Eomer being banished

The poor film quality when Gandalf is riding down to helms deep

And last but not least, Aragorn on Gimlis little jump.

[Wayfarer]

But my point is that it strains the credibility of even the most zealous book purist here when this board's Clan of the Wayfarers whine that PJ's LOTR movies are cheesey, poorly acted, poorly written, explotative, and are not true to Tolkien.

Well, gee... I suppose it's a dubious honor that you would single me out like that, but I'm not the first or even the most vehement critic of Jackson.

Actually, my favorite critic is the one who, without having read the books, watched FOTR and complained that it was weak, and that he wanted more of the kind of thing seen in the first five minutes of that film- I.E., the kind of the stuff that the book had.

Now, BB, you need to answer a question for me: If you want to insist that jackson isn't just a hack taking advantage of Tolkien's genius, can you point to even one movie he's produced before that was any good?

I won't claim that jackson has produced anything worse than the average hollywood film. The thing that sets me on edge is how typical it is. It's your basic, meant-to-make-money, action film. And that's a horrible travesty when the LOTR could be so much more.

[Laurelindórenan]

Wow, you guys are really quite anal when it comes to comparing the movies to the book.

Personally, I really liked the Two Towers movie. Especially the ents. I absolutely loved them in the book and I was really worried the ents would be completely cheesy in the movie but I think Jackson did a really good job on them! (And I sooo glad they're putting the hurons into the extended edition!)

I guess if I had to say one thing about the movie that I don't like as much as the rest is Faramir's change in character and him taking the hobbits to Osgiliath. Most of Jackson's changes I can understand and appreciate, but this seemed pretty unnecessary to me. It looks like they might ammend Faramir's character a bit in the extended edition, but still.

[durin's bane]

Oh, another thing that irritates me is the "What do your Elf eyes see?" quote. I like making fun of it by pretending to be Legolas and going, "Darrrr, I gots Ewf eyz, Argorn? I thinks I had Dwarf eyz..."

[Gamigar]

"they've turned NORTHEAST they're taking the hobbits to Isengard"

You might want to check the map on that one Pete.

isengard was northeast from where they were.

[Khamûl]

How do you figure? They were traveling across Rohan toward Isengard. They were going in a northwesterly direction.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Khamûl
How do you figure? They were traveling across Rohan toward Isengard. They were going in a northwesterly direction.

I agree with Khamul - if you look at the maps - it's in the NorthWESTERN direction from the river.