Welcome to Kikizo's Forum Archives. Login and user functionality is no longer available -- this is now a permanent archive of forum content.
|
Author |
Message
|
Jennifer K
-
Total Posts
:
24
- Joined: Feb 26, 2003
|
LOTR Trilogy
-
Mar 12, 2003 13:10
I' m actually a firm believer of some classic sequels being the best one out of the bunch SOMETIMES. For instance (I' ll probably get stoned by rocks for this), these are actually better than their predecessors: Back to the Future II The Godfather Pt 2 Scream 2 (come on, you only have to look at that scene in the police car!!!) Aliens T2, for example.... I love the LOTR films... it' s no doubt complete cinematic history in the making. As it was an adaptation of the book (and therefore not much room for change), I don' t think I' m with John G in saying that the second one was better than the first. The special effects were better - yes. But as a standalone film, i think I was way more excited after the first one, maybe it' s because it wasn' t like anything I' ve seen in such a long time. The first one set such a standard... and to follow The Fellowship of the Rings is a tall feat. Obviously I' m prolly talking crap and The Return of the King will kick all of its asses and mix the two together and be the best film ever made. What does everyone else think on this? I' m hoping i' ll have the earlier opinion about Matrix Reloaded in that it' ll be better than the first chapter... and that the game isn' t as easy as it sounds.
|
|
fathoms
-
Total Posts
:
1060
- Joined: Feb 23, 2003
|
RE: LOTR Trilogy
-
Mar 12, 2003 13:27
Believe it or not, I haven' t seen the second LotR yet. I wrote up the review for us on the first one (not sure if it' s posted yet), and I loved it. I' ve heard that the second one was a bit too much action for a Tolkien book, but I' m still looking forward to seeing it. Just a few things with your little list there: first of all, there ain' t no WAY the second BttF was better than the first. NO WAY. Back to the Future is an absolute classic. I also don' t agree about Scream either, although it' s closer. Scream 2 was good, but not as good as the original, IMO. The Godfather Part II and T2, yes. :)
|
|
Toast
-
Total Posts
:
134
- Joined: Mar 08, 2003
- Location: London
|
RE: LOTR Trilogy
-
Mar 12, 2003 14:26
Oh I think your right about the films above. I just wonder if we ask too much of a sequal these days. Even if its as good as the first there will never be that sense of something new. I feel the Matrix 2 will be different, bigger, grander but as a story well its more of the same and thats no bad thing. Terminator 3 however, looks like poo...
|
|
Jennifer K
-
Total Posts
:
24
- Joined: Feb 26, 2003
|
RE: LOTR Trilogy
-
Mar 12, 2003 14:41
Yes. There is no reason for Terminator 3. No Cameron, no Hamilton, no Biehn, no Furlong... no film. I love Schwarzenegger and grew up with his films so i would love for him and the screenwriting team to prove me wrong!
|
|
Olorin
-
Total Posts
:
16
- Joined: Mar 12, 2003
- Location: Chicago
|
RE: LOTR Trilogy
-
Mar 13, 2003 16:13
Back to the Future II better than the original? Ain' t no way. You' ve got an argument on the rest of those (although Terminator and T2 are both equally great, the difference being 7 years of cinematic and special effect progress between the two). As for the Two Towers, its hard to judge it as a stand alone film, because ultimately its not. I would rank it the same as the Fellowship of the Ring simply because to me it is just a continuation of the same movie. With that said, I thought the first two films were outstanding, considering the amount of detail this undertaking requires. And I have to disagree about the adaptation not allowing much room for change; Peter Jackson changed a lot from the book to the film, but what' s important is that he made it work. For those who' ve read the book, you know that there is still a ton of stuff to be covered in Return of the King, and if the cast and crew provide the same dedication to the third film as they have for the first two, the finale is going to blow us away. I cannot wait.
|
|
Alkyne
-
Total Posts
:
39
- Joined: Feb 23, 2003
|
RE: LOTR Trilogy
-
Mar 13, 2003 17:51
Being a big tolkien fan, I was disappointed at a lot of the changes Jackson made in the films (especialy the second). That said, if the LotR was to be done exactly as the book, Five or six movies would need to be done. If you read the second book it is broken into two storylines-The first is Merry, Pippin, Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas, and what happens to them, and Frodo and Sam is the second storyline. What' s interesting is Tolkien specifically stated that if it was ever made into a movie he wanted all of one storyline showed in entirety before showing the other, not jumping back and forth as Jackson did.
|
|
Alkyne
-
Total Posts
:
39
- Joined: Feb 23, 2003
|
RE: LOTR Trilogy
-
Mar 14, 2003 15:59
Obviously youv' e read the book, Olorin, judging by your name;)
|
|
Icon Legend and Permission
|
-
New Messages
-
No New Messages
-
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
-
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
-
Locked w/ New Messages
-
Locked w/o New Messages
|
-
Read Message
-
Post New Thread
-
Reply to message
-
Post New Poll
-
Submit Vote
-
Post reward post
-
Delete my own posts
-
Delete my own threads
-
Rate post
|
|
|