egafd.com

Having just seen the last of the trilogy allbeit on the small screen
I've got to say I've developed arachnaphobia(spelling?)

That daddy long legs that I used to whisper sweet nothings to in my shower has now taken on a whole different complexion

My order of the three chapters as the best to worst remembering that I haven't seen the extra footage in the DVDs

1/2 draw with the 3rd last(far to much reliance on special effects)

Personally I think this film should have been 2 films not 3

Feel free to disagree

cheers
B....OZ

Tolkein had arachnaphobia. ( speling???)
Even with 3 films they left a lot out . Contrary to popular belief LOTR is not a trilogy , it is just usually published in 3 volumes , and in fact is one novel consisting of 6 books . So several other ways to carve it up are technically possible , however with the public ownership felt for the work it would be braver man than I am who did this .
A couple of other interesting factoids , Sauron was a better racing driver than Schumacher , there are no moths mentioned anywhere in LOTR.

If memory serves me correctly Tolkien wanted the book published as ONE Volume and fought long and hard for this before finally admitting defeat

i think there are similarities bewtween LOR & Star Wars in that th e chapters/books don't match up with the films in a big way

A friend of mine studied LOR for 4 years and refuses to watch any of the footage as its complete CRAP according to her

I agree in part but putting aside the obvious deficiencies in the story/book this films sets & costumes are second to none

The battle scenes for mine in the third film were an anti-climax even given their grand scale compared to the brilliant Helms Deep(until the Cavalry charge of 5 horsemen through god knows how many thousand orcs)

Having said all that I'll quite happily watch hem again and again on a $AUS20,000 dollar home entertainment centre because visually they are good even if the story is alittle bit contrived

cheers
B....OZ

I've got a Denon AV Amp . About the same price range as yours ( if the Aussie dollar is still about where it was when I was there ,) it's a nice piece of kit .it works well on music and has a 1uV sensitive FM tuner as well . I would say to anyone getting a system yes whatever it costs if you like it in the demo room it is worth it .
I think LOTR went well onto film , precisely because of the flaws it has as a book . Although it is flawed , you have to acknowledge Tolkein for giving the whole world access to the legend of Beowulf , even if the genre is a bit mined out now. I also must say that knowing the end , and every twist and turn of the plot by heart , I sometimes wished they had made some substantial changes , it was bit liking watching the football when you have read the final score by accident .
Sorry to go on , every thread lately seems to hit a nerve with me .

No its not my system just a dude I know who had craftsmen,builders & sound engineers set up this one room to mimic a picture theatre

Awesome is a word I don't use lightly but in this case I'll use it 3 times

Cost a fortune to soundproof the room but was worth it

Waiting for another invite

I purposely didn't re-read LOR before seeing the films
Not that it would have made any difference as I have a swiss cheese memory

The only thing with this genre is that is always predictable is that good beats evil and to balance that up they sacrifice a few of the goodies along the way

cheers
B....OZ

Peter Jackson originally pitched LOTR as two films to the major studios, oddly. Personally I couldn't see that happening and I'm glad it didn't - they'd probably have insisted on as slick a product as possible and they may have ended up like Lynch's Dune: two hour trailers for a film we never get to see. A weighty trilogy it needed to be.

I disagree with your thoughts on ROTK, Deuce. Jackson faced an immense challenge: by now the audience had grown used to middle earth and dishing it up afresh was far trickier than with Fellowship. Two Towers struck me as the weakest, though the extended version is notably better than the theatrical cut. The problem I had with it is that Frodo's predicament formed the central narrative thrust of Fellowship, but he seemed lost and sidelined here, probably due to the new focus on Aragorn. Thankfully Jackson dealt with these two threads with masterful balance in ROTK, which, unlike so many films these days, actually seems better on repeat viewing.

p.s. I understand from a previous post you're a fan of Dr Who. Yes? No?

If so, rumour: new series - BBC1 Christmas Day.

Fair enough

Having watched ROTK over 4 days a bit at a time might have impaired my judgement some what

I do agree that these films do look better 2nd time around

I'd never admit to being a Dr Who fan(I've no videos or paraphenalia of anysort)but i've probably watched the odd 1000+ episodes....currently watching that over dressed ninny Pertwee with his sidekick katy Manning...the martial art antics are hysterical....even less believable than Roger Moore as OO7

Now all i have to figure out is how to get access to BBC1 from Australia
before X-mas day....emigrate?...holiday?...or get some unsuspecting innocent Brit to tape it for me...more likely wait until it appears on our ABC
in 2005

cheers
B....OZ

Without viewing my DVD of the Fellowship, I stand to be corrected about moths. Doesn't Gandalf send a moth for the eagle to rescue him from the Tower or Orthanc?
Ok, I agree it isn't in the book.

Mart

A Moth it was

What books are ever translated directly onto the screen word for word scene by scene...I'd venture none

cheers
B....OZ

This does not alter my views on Sauron.