It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
From what I heard that is not the case @0013, in fact some reports are far scarier than that.
Those who watched the event live in a theatre had the chance of watching 20 min new footage. There is a description on The One Ring, but be ware it is spoilery stuff.
- Elves arriving at the Battle of Helm's Deep
- Aragorn believed to be death for a while
- the ghosts helping to clean out orcs at Minas Tirith
Also, some of the distances between Mordor and the surroundings seems shorter than they should be.
The same can be said of The Hobbit, though it's more like a two part movie and an interlude between that and LOTR.
- I like the Elves arriving at Helm's Deep simply because I like that lead Elf (who's name escapes me). I wish he was more of a main character, because his actor was awesome in Legend of the Seeker.
- That was pretty much just tacked in to have somebody see how many Uruks are coming (I seriously expected someone to say "The Uruks are coming! The Uruks are coming!" while pointing out a lantern in a bell tower).
- The Army of the Dead in general was just useless. Peter Jackson didn't even want to include them. Though it did start out with that cool scene of Aragorn and co. jumping out of the boat seemingly to attack a group of Orcs single-handedly.
I chalk up the distances to trying to cut down the timeline a little. In the book didn't it take months for Frodo and Sam to get to Mordor? I get why they'd want to reduce some of that time.
Of course. I'll never say The Hobbit is a trilogy. The thing is that Tolkien himself complain against people who regard LOTR as a three part book.
Yes, I like that scene too!
I feel that Two Towers was the more modified of the three. But, for example, the speech of Galadriel in which she summs up the story was much needed and it doesn't bothers me as it doesn't change the story. But the thing with the Ents about not going to war until they see Isengard and the ruin around it wasn't necessary, in my opinion.
One difference between novel and movie that I like is the fact that Elrond gives Andúril in Return of the King. It gives it more impact and importance to Aragorn claiming the title and "becoming who you were born to be".
I just always felt, in my American way, that that was pretty much Elrond going to Aragorn and saying "Look, if you're so damn insistent on marrying my daughter, then I want my son-in-law to have the best chance he can, here's your ancestor's sword."
That's seems about right. I wonder if, as both Arwen and Aragon could claim immense treasures, they signed a prenup...
That's a curious thought. I say abandon the child and avoid such a trip every weekend.
@RogueAgent, I've heard little nitpicks from the trailers, but all in all, things are shaping up to be really good.
Sounds quite nice! I'll probably watch the blu-ray the night before/the day of the film's release (if I go to see it then), unless they have some cheap tickets to see the first and then the second. I've always wanted to do that, just not sure if I have the energy to stick around a movie theater for roughly six hours.
:-)) That would certainly take some committment my friend! I would like to attempt a cinema Bond marathon with fellow fans but i know what my boss would say to that idea! :-q :))
I take you never read the books @Agent00739 so let me tell you you're not far from the truth. Elrond thought his daughter was not worthy of any man except the King of Arnor and Gondor. Aragorn was the heir to the throne but he is not the king so everything he does from that moment on is thinking of becoming the king or die trying. I found a transcript of the Tale of Arwen and Aragorn online (it's one of the Appendixes of LOTR), it is well worth reading.
I would have prefered that they would have kept most things unaltered and Aragorn having his sword from the start was one of them.
I can't say I've finished the book (The Hobbit, yes, Fellowship, yes, bits and piece of The Silmarillion, and "Book III" in The Two Towers), but no, the entire thing has escaped me, and I have, like, three copies of each.
I have the extended editions, I think they are much superior to the theatrical releases. I have watched them many times and last year I unfortunately couldn't make it to a marathon in my local theater to watch them in a straight row. I would say more than 10 hours but I have to confirm.
Really?? That's insane. Congratulations to you for managing such a feat. At least it's a great way to spend a free day, though.
But I prefer the theatrical version for its slickness. True, the extended version offers a lot of things one could argue are missing from the theatrical version, but the arc of tension in the theatrical version is exemplary.
I guess one could easily watch the extended version like a tv series, one or two hours a day, and it would also be fantastic.
"You wanna see crazy?"
Great films.
Anyway, what is everyone's plan for this film? Trying to look for a double feature at a theater, watching the DVD/blu-ray at home, skipping the movie entirely?