Everybody please make some time to go see this movie.  It is extremely well made.

At a time when it seems that stupid and pointless movies get all the awards, Lord of the Rings is a breath of fresh air.  It is a story of how absolute power corrupts the hearts of men.

It follows the book very well, and will certainly inspire someone who has not yet read it to give it a chance.  I know that I will go read it again this Christmas holiday.

It is long, about 3 hours, which is just about enough time to give this grand legend justice.  I expected far less, and I was happy to be suprised.  Best $6.00 you will spend in a while.

Cheers.

I'm going tommorrow....can't wait.

I went last night....my face still hurts...I smiled for three hours....incredible

I loved it, long but well worth the wait, a warning however, the friends I saw it with didn't care for it, but they had never read the books.

I just saw this today.

What was it that Gandalf said when he was falling?  He yelled something.

Damn, had a few other questions but can't remember them now. [:)]

I liked the movie, and I didn't even read the book.  In addition the photography is very spectacular.

It was well made but I thought it was BORING. I am sure they could have cut at least an hour off the damn movie.

I saw it Wenesday. I thought it was great. My only dissapointment was they left Tom Bombadil and Goldberry out of the movie.

Remembered another of my questions.  Were the Ranger and that other guy (king) actual brothers?  I'm a little confused.  During the counsel the sniper elf heh said the ranger was a king.  

Can anyone explain more clearly?

Maybe I should go pickup the books and read.

Reply-

First, I couldn't hear distinct words as Gandalf fell, and there are none in the book, other than "Fly, you fools" before he falls.

The other guy, Boromir, is not Aragorn's brother, or a Ranger. He is one of the sons of the Stewards of Gondor, which has been kingless for years, as only an heir to the past king, Isildur (hell of along time since he was killed) can be king there(note that Boromir wishes this otherwise). Aragorn(Strider) [i]is[/i] a Ranger, and heir to the throne.

Juggernaut

Saw it the day after it came out. I wounder if they will release the DVD in six months or so, or wait till after all the movies are out.

I enjoyed it.  It ended pretty abruptly though. Hate the fact that I have to wait till next Christmas to see part 2. I guess I could always try to find time to read the books.

Gandalf says "fly, you fools!" .

Teh deal with Aragorn and Boromir is complex.

Basically, to explain things as best I can for the movie audience: Isildur had two kids. One of them (the younger) was king of the southern kingdom, Gondor. The other was king of the northern kingdom, Arnor.

About a thousand years ago, the nation of Arnor collapsed due to internal & external strife. The royal line survived, however, and Aragorn is the heir to the throne of Arnor (and, hence, the 'heir of isildur.")

About 900 years ago, the nation of Gondor lost all surviving members of the royal line (in battle and a few other bad things that happened simultaneously.) For a variety of reasons, one of which being that the final king disappeared/was captured  rather than simply dying, rather than choose a new dynasty, they (or, rather, the last king, shortly before he vanished) appointed a steward to "hold the throne" till the king got back. This Stewardship became an inherited office. basically a de facto kingship. Boromir's father, Denethor, is the heir in direct line to that first Steward, and Boromir is his heir.

 So, basically, Aragorn is a king without a kingdom, and Gondor is a kingdom without a king. Both king and kingdom trace their heritage back to the same legitimizing authority, Isildur's establishment of the two kingdoms.

Aragorn has a somewhat-legitimate claim to the throne -- since no lineal descendant of isildur's younger son survives to rule Gondor, and Aragorn is the direct lineal heir of Isildur's eldest son, and, therefore, Isildur himself too. However, the Ruling Stewards in Gondor don't much like this idea, for obvious reasons.

 It's a bit complex and you have to dig around inthe appendix to the last book in the trilogy to figure it all out. So, all things considered,  think they did a fairly good job of presenting a relatively complex situation in the movie.

Oh!  I just thought they were butt-buddies or something.

Gandalf says "Fly, you fools!"

The first time I saw the movie, I couldn't understand some of the dialog because they had wrong settings for the audio track. I saw it again at another theater and I could hear eveything fine.

But I've read the book several times so I already knew what everyone was going to say.

I have to agree, I was really amazed at how well the movie was done.

The ubergeeks will probably piss-n-moan about how certain things weren't *exactly* like the book, but it's absolutely impossible to convey nuances from a book into a movie format. Particularly one with such a detailed back-story as LOTR. I'm also really glad they didn't edit it down to 90 minutes or try to cram the whole trilogy into one movie.

Ever since the never completed Bakshi animated version, I've been wanting to see LOTR done well on the big screen. This one is certainly well above expectations.

Besides...like it or not, I don't see anyone making another version for 20 years.

The true test? My wife went with me to see it (she's never read any Tolkein books and doesn't even like sci-fi/fantasy) and not only did she enjoy it, but even after drinking the large Mountain Dew she wouldn't leave until the movie was over.

But ymmv.

I thought the movie did a great job sticking to the book (I just saw it today with my God daughter)  If you thought the movie ending was bad, imagine being a reader when it was posted bit by bit in a newspaper/magazine.  Most of the scenary was just as I'd imagined it reading the books (over and over again)  The one thing I didn't like as how the new hybrid Orcs looked like the vampires of Buffy (the TV series)

I enjoyed the movie immensely.  The only part I was really disappointed in was when Galadriel refused the Ring when Frodo offered it to her.  The speech she makes is my favorite part of the first book and they ruined it, I thought, by using those special effects on her as she makes the speech.  She looked like a Poltergeist or something for cryin out loud.  Also, I thought they should have stuck to the book for the ending and have Frodo slip away without talking to Aragorn about it.  Other than those two bees, I thought it was great.  Bummin that i have to wait a year for the next one.  Wonder what they are going to do about the Ents!!

i thought it was the DM saying wizard fails saving throw [:D]

j/k

I just saw it last night. Coming from someone who had never read the books, I thought it was good movie overall. It was long, and kinda of dragged on at parts. I didn't understand everything, and got lost at some parts. I didn't get that lady of the woods part. And it ended apruptly. Didn't like the ending at all. They also did a terrible job showing the hobbits next to real people.
The fight scenes were awesome though. the elf with the bow was the best.
I do want to see he next one, and I do want to get the books and read them. A map would be helpful too.

From what I remeber the maps and the book were a little off due to the editors messing with Tolkien's origional work.  I've loaned out my copies I've had since high school and am planning to pick up a nice hard covered Set version.

I was expecting to be disappointed in the movie but actually thought it was good.  The background scenes of the cities were incredible.  One thing I didnt care for was it seemed a little too melodramatic at times and really seemed to slow the movie down.  My wife who never read the book was totally confused in the movie and didnt care for it at all.  I expected the movie to kind of end in a dud as it is following the book.

I'm curious how many of those ranting and raving about the movie were already loyal fans of the books to begin with?  I'm not really into the whole LOTR/D&D thing, but still liked the special effects of the movie, the rest was hit and miss.  There were so many references to different names and places that they all started sounding the same, and a giant question mark appeared over my head at many points throughout the movie..."ummm, okay, so what the hell just happened?"  Again, I liked the effects but the storyline just didn't adapt well to the bigscreen, JMHO.  Perhaps the book should be required reading before seeing this one.

AAAAAAGH!!!

Please dont lump LOtR in with DandD. DandD is a very confused conglomeration of "stuff" lets just say. Like putting JRRT novels into a blender with a bushel basket of bad fantasy novels and voila.... instant..... ummm... "stuff".

Dont want to irritate any D&D guys... I just am not a fan of it. Def diff between the two.... public at large please dont confuse the 2.

Dram out

Well, I have seen LOTR twice now.  I enjoyed all 6 hours! [:D]  Altho, I do wish they could have gotten Tom Bombadill into the film.  As for those who thought that the ending sucked, well thats the way the book ended.  Well, not really, the death of Boromir actually takes place at the beginning of the next book, "The Two Towers".  

 I can't wait for the next movie!!!!


  Vulcan94

Went and saw the movie today.  I thought it was great.  I'm reading the books now, had already read the first book before the movie.  
can't wait till the next.
GUNSHOOTER

I agree that I missed Bombadil.  The actual character has little impact in the overall picture, but a couple of items he picks out for Merry and Pippen prove rather useful later on.  But they'll probably find a way to work around that.

Arwen gets way more time on the screen than presence in the book.  It seems they were trying to get their money's worth out of Liv Tyler.

Interesting quote from later in the series: (the Return of the King...)
"Those who have not swords can still die upon them."

Pro-gun (or at least anti gun-ban)?

Perhaps...

Viper Out