LOTR film - responses (SPOILERS)

My own response: I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, congratulations for making the story exceedingly pleasant to watch, and for distilling such a long book down to three hours whilst retaining a semblance of the original plot. On the other hand, plot is all there is now - there are no explanations for anything and what would usually take a good ten minutes of token character development in most films is distilled down to one-liners, and yet it's still too long (an audible sigh went through the cinema when the credits finally rolled).

It's not a matter of them failing to live up to the book, but rather that the book itself makes it difficult for the film to be of the standard worthy of it. At some point getting the right director, right script, right actors etc. only gets you so far, because trying to make a film out of such a long and laborious tale is foolhardy from the get-go.

I'm confident that the two follow-ups will be better because if I recall less actually *happens* in them (or at least, more stuff can be slashed without compromising the integrity of the piece), so maybe they can put in more character development there. As it stands only Gandalf (and Saruman! - they're really setting him up as Darth Vader, aren't they?) got more than about twenty lines in the whole thing, so I can't see how anyone who hadn't read the books could feel that strongly about them.

The only insignificant fan-gripes I had were when they would make small changes to the plot for no discernible reason - like making Gimli and Aragorn pro-Moria and Gandalf anti-Moria. Cutting out the old forest, Tom Bombadil and the barrow-downs was a necessary move, but these little changes are distracting to a fan because it's hard to work out the reasoning for them - they're just puzzling.

Other thought: the film really does bring out the whole male-bonding-through-violence aspect quite strongly, doesn't it? If I wanted to write a review skewering the film that's probably what I'd focus on.

i loved it, seeing it this morning, even tho i accept it heightens a lot of the things that are wrong with the book (i sort of want to pull a what's wrong with it is also what's right with it, but while i think that's ABSOLUTELY TRUE in the case of nevah mind the bollox, i'm not prepared to elevate LoTR up that high noway)

i wanted it longer and more dwelling on tales told within tales told (i realise this was unlikely to happen): i was a teeny bit irked by the scene-setting at the start

spoilers: eep. it kinda nevah occurred to me that SOME PPL DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. Even if the two ppl i was with were all, "Blimey I really hoped the dwarf got it, not Sean Bean".

what did YOU think of the fiery vagina tim!?

(fv as discussed here)

What did YOU think I thought, Mark?

Actually, it's not nearly as scary as the one you can make with your hands. More lifelike = more scary.

Perhaps I didn't note strongly enough that I really enjoyed the film and thought it was as good as it could be. With these sorts of EVENT films it's hard to do anything *but* note their shortfallings.

Also: My reference to Spoilers is more to do with the film's changes to the plot - like Saruman's sudden elevation to Dark Lord's Evil Henchman Number The First. Actually a lot of the Saruman stuff I thought was a bit unnecessary. Do we really *need* to know about his genetically created Orc-Stud? Granted it was hella cool looking, but in a film so starved for time, it seemed a strange emphasis (unless Jackson et. al. were worried about needing a human face for the evil).

i am sort of working up a Big Theory which will encompass goth before tolkein and goth after, faery and buffy and metal and xena and gor and D&D and Tombraider: also robin of sherwood and arthur rackham no doubt, and the link between Art Nouveau, radical 1890a sexuality and goofy elven shit

(anthony will hate it)

there was a good-ish made-for-Brit-TV King Arthur twofer on last xmas: actually the acting and plot were lamentable, which is poss.why it was buried on two afternoons and only i saw it, but the CHI and design was fantastic, and the elven-witch stuff genuinely beautiful-frightening

the film slipped pretty adeptly between tweeness, prettiness and harder stuff, i tht (what else did pj make apt from heavely creatures?)

i was kind of assuming the orc-stuff and the saruman stuff are set-ups for pt two: book two is all orcs and saruman (+ horses and denethor)

the inimitable mark s asks: What else did pj make?

Bad Taste (ie lo-budget gore fest)
Meet The Feebles (ie lo-budget Muppet gore fest)
The Frighteners (hi-budget Michael J Fox ghost story

Time & being at work precludes me from elaborating further, I'm afraid. Still - check 'em all out if you can!

You owe it to yourself to see Meet the Feebles at least (some don't like Bad Taste).

Meet the Feebles just might be in my top ten list, though you might think it very odd of me.

and of course the brillant and inestimable heavenly creatures.

i might watch this this weekend .

I screwed up and put the feebles link on jess' eating disorder thread, I am a drunken eedjit.

the frighteners was the funniest-in-a- good-way horror film since the bride of frankenstein.

My own response: I'm ambivalent.

You are in a different universe from me, Tim. Not even the basic laws of physics apply.

Just got back.

*shakes head in astonishment*

I cannot, I *CANNOT* find the words. I have been trying, I have been trying for almost half an hour now.

Look, relatively sane perspective, fine: I know the books, duh. I know the story cold, down to the last line, duh. Going in, I thought I couldn't be surprised by anything other than necessary contractions for time's sake, the various extrapolations on the elements of the story glided over in the original but not fully explored, and the cinematic shorthand necessary to establish points with brevity. Turns out there were more, but nothing to me disturbed the interpretation of the text as set up. Yes, this is not quite _LOTR_ as it stands.

But...

I CAN'T FIND THE WORDS. I CAN'T FIND THE FUCKING WORDS.

Okay, take this however the hell you want, but I'm standing by this right now and we'll see where I think on it in future, but here's all I can say and all I will say:

For me, for myself alone, the experience of seeing this film is the equivalent to when I heard "Soon" by My Bloody Valentine for the first time.

That is all.

Meanwhile, to backtrack, Meet the Feebles can't be praised enough. And Nicole even quoted my favorite song!

I'm actually thinking that I'll enjoy it a lot more upon second viewing, when I know better what to expect and am prepared for the film's eccentricities - it didn't help that I saw it at a morning session with a lot of professional film critics - there was that whole 'critic' vibe in the air, and I was sort of wincing on behalf of the film at points that I knew they would dislike.

I doubt that it could be a lifechanging event for me though, Ned.

Re. PJ former work: don't forget: Braindead. Essential stuff. [Of course Heavenly Creatures contains the hatching of LotR -so to speak- in their castle fantasy.]

--------- i am sort of working up a Big Theory which will encompass goth before tolkein and goth after, faery and buffy and metal and xena and gor and D&D and Tombraider: also robin of sherwood and arthur rackham no doubt, and the link between Art Nouveau, radical 1890a sexuality and goofy elven shit (anthony will hate it) -----------

I will love it though. On the double then.

--------- there was a good-ish made-for-Brit-TV King Arthur twofer on last xmas: actually the acting and plot were lamentable, which is poss.why it was buried on two afternoons and only i saw it, but the CHI and design was fantastic, and the elven-witch stuff genuinely beautiful- frightening ---------

Is this the one with Isabella Rosselini and bloody Sam Neil as Merlin? Saw bits & pieces, alas not the elven-witch stuff.

Haven't seen the film yet and suddenly got a bit wary of seeing it. Hard to explain, but it's not so much about somebody defining characters on screen you could so strongly fantasize about, but more with giving away the fond memories I have of reading the book as a kid. Ah well, let's do the job!

MERLIN - classic tv - played it to yr8 pupils and it went down great - especially ubergothic miranda richardson wiv sxy vox - sam neill is brill as usual. isabella r = yr racer lost for words!

It was wicked. Much much much more enjoyable than the book (though when I got home I dug up the book and enjoyed IT more too - a virtuous circle yay!). Made me feel 12 again, and in a good way.

In fact I want to see it again, so if any London kids are interested, I'm game.

Isabel had never read the book and followed it OK though could guess the plot easily enough - she thought it too long but very much enjoyed it, gave big props to Christopher Lee and was annoyed by McKellen, to the extent that I didnt have the heart to tell her he's back in part 2.

More comments to follow.

The half-hearted love scene, and the creation of the Uber-Ork, both stuck out like a Playstation in Galadriel’s wood, but I suppose they were the necessary familiar multiplex motifs in what as a book (IMHO) had a creepy, slightly autistic lack of feeling going on….

But there were some amazing scenes, the black riders hunting the Hobbits at the start was terrifying, I really wish more of the monsters had had this kind of carefully sustained / edited menace, rather than just being extras from Hellraiser. And from Sarumans castle to all those ad-agency style Epic Camera Sweeps, unintentional (?) camp was lurking everywhere. Which I thought was quite charming. I’m looking forward to seeing it again.

Emma wuvs Elijah Wood so you might be able to convince her with a trip, if she was well enough.

I liked it. But more on that later. It had a tough game though trying to be more entertaining than me actually pulling a ladies wig off with a button from my coat in the cinema.

i want to see it again too, but must wait i spose till new year (yes robin there are cinemas in shropshire, they are just a bit rubbish)

i think there is something interesting going on with the camp and the sweep and the FX and hellraiser stuff: jackson is THINKING abt the meanings of these, and digging away at material in the books which is buried by their rep, and by tolkein's own [fave word alert] evasions. PJ has rubbed thru the carapace to some of the mythic reasons for the backstory (which is after all JRRT's actual never-finished project), but is then putting torque on this mythos, rather than just laying it out pat. (I assume this is what Ned is respnding too...)

the birth of the uber-orc = the ONLY BIT OF ON-SCREEN SEX in the movie (ie the OPPPOSITE of the aragorn/arwen snorebore: yes yes liv tyler = rowr w.pointy ears, but sam&rosie actually means more, to pj AND to jrrt, and thus the elf-glamour => beauty is a trap not a solution (and as since milton's satan, demonic = deepsexy)

Also ORCSEX = "you will taste manflesh....do not spoil them", and the come-on-big-boy spear self-impalement in the orc's deathscene.

Happy Christmas Mark S., by the way!

I thought the art direction was magnificent in more than just a special effects way. The colours used in Rivendell and just the whole autumnal ambience of those scenes really suggested that the age of elves had passed, similarly with Galadrials bits (and how scary was her vision of having the ring - yowsa - I didn't expect that).

The film did manage to get across the danger of the ring, and the temptation it must be. However the ring probably got a bit more time of characterisation than any of the actual characters (but then what foolish scriptwriter would plump for a cast of nine good guys...)

Agree on the visuals Pete but blimey -

and how scary was her vision of having the ring - yowsa - I didn't expect that -

that was the one weak bit for me. As Isabel said "It looked like when someone gets electrocuted in a cartoon". But I always hated the Lothlorien chapters - least favourite bit of book.

The scariest ring bit was snarling Bilbo I think.

predator has nine good guys surely pete: tho they are picked off more ten-green-bottles-ish

There's not nine left after about ten minutes even in Predator - plus there are No Other Charcters (cept the Predator hisself).

Bill doesn't get enough screentime, which is a pity though he is at least acknowledged. The sweeping shots I though were a very good device to try and suggest the scale of the jourwas impossible to do that otherwise). Yes, they get a bit silly on the lake and occasionally the film falls into an almost computer game like selection of levels (with end of level bosses too). But it worked, and it appeared to work in the cinema for those who did not know the book, and its cultural progeny.

Yeah, definitely with Pete on the sweeping shots - looking (quickly) through the book last night what struck me was how much of it was are- we-there-yet? stuff*, and this more so than the Tom Bombadil sequence is what the film really had to chop. The way they did chop it worked very well.

*which Tolkien actually does much better than the set-pieces as it means more conversations about LORE, dark hints etc. and less of the action-writing he wasn't so good at. Pretty much every fantasy writer since though has been godawful at the journey stuff but feels obliged to stick it in since JRRT did.

My overall impression boils down to - "Goodness, I'd forgotten, LOTR has a plot! And a quite good one!"

the computer-game thrill-ride angle - eg levels etc as an emergent creative potential in movies - is an increasingly fascinating aspect to me: S&S under P.Dodd did stuff on this but under N.James not so interested sadly. Of course LoTR is one major genesis of D&D fantasygame world in first place: cf Orcworld off Cambridge Circus.

David , the motherfucker, loved the books ( he is perfect aside from this) and is dragging my sorry ass to see the film on sat.

one of the reasons my dad (= a botanist) i think loves tolkein is his scenic nature-writing is pretty good

It is incidentally impossible to do are-we-there-yet stuff in D&D too. As a long-time 'dungeon master' in my early teens I was perhaps more sympathetic to Peter J on this front than some purists might have been.

i was thinking last night of the recurrent event in the Chronicles of the Years appendix: "2nd anniversary of Frodo's morgul wound on Amon Sûl"/these anniversaries happen in the course of the quest... ie it takes them MONTHS to get from North to South

also the way frodo looks when the ring calls him = abt to vomit = excellent

I though Elijah Wood was fantastic at conveying both the uncomfortable bruden of responsibility and the constant doubt - not to mention the rings pull on him. Previously I had thought his stress ball-esque face would look silly and grate, but that strange ricktus he is pulling on the posters makes an awful lot more sense when you see it int he film.

I also thought the Pippin & Merry were rather good as comic relief (which they don't really do in the book) - and it will be interesting to see how their characters develop via The Two Towers - as theirs is one of the hardest stories.

The only thing that really grated was Sam's constant crying of "Frow- dow", as it sounded too American - which was odd because apart from that his accent was pretty good. Indeed the whole accent thing for demarking different parts of the Shire, dwarves etc I'm a bit torn on. It just avout worked for me (though it did seem a bit crude in places - daft hobbits are Irish, hard, dour dwarf was Scottish) but it might confuse the cold viewer.

Note that I am using the word grate in the above post in the non- Molesworth sense.

When my dad read me the first book (aww!) he gave Merry a welsh accent.

(I got impatient round abt reaching Rivendell and asked if I could read it myself instead. He said yes. Later I found he had been looking forward ever since I was born to reading me the whole lot. Um.)

That's odd, the girl I wentwith last night tells an almost identical story vis a vis being read LotR and via it bonding with her father with whom she has very little else in common. He refuses to see the film because Tom Bombadil has been taken out.

I used to make my Dad read the same chapter of LOTR to me again and again, according to him. He got totally sick of it as he knew full well I could read the whole thing myself. We bonded over the triffic BBC Radio Adaptation (which was big on cliffhangers! and had an awesome theme tune).

Ian Holm = Frodo in radio adaptation.

Anyway proof prositive that reading Lord Of The Rings is not an act of rebellion. We suggested infact that its enduring popularity is due to it being a grown up sequel to a kids book which is nevertheless pretty easy to read if very long. Hence kid who reads is very impressed with himself for reading such a long book, thinks himself more clever or grown-up: therefore LotR is inticately intertwined with coming of age.

Having had a night's sleep (which almost wasn't one, I kept waking up, thinking about it, then nodding off again) my opinion is essentially unchanged if only because I still can't find an easy way to describe the whole dang thing to my own satisfaction. But to grab at points -- good call, Mark S, about my responding to PJ's own spin, such as building out of the hints of the sheer psychic power of the high elves, Sauron, etc. to create a world of entrapped tension. Frodo seems and looks at points to be not just crushed by the burden of the Ring but torn to pieces by both bad and good powers making their feelings known. I liked that.

Gotta get ready for work, more snippets of thought later.

as i've said before my jump from narnia etc to punXoR was less far than cliche supposes

---------

But I always hated the Lothlorien chapters - least favourite bit of book

---------

One of us must be a total crackhead because that's by far my favourite bit in the book. But then I am a sucker for "elf glamour". ;)

omar it's a trap!!

Oh I've been trapped forever, so you get used to it. ;) Is this something you're going to deal wit in Zee Very Beeg Zzheory?

yup

I love the way Mark S and a few others talk about me as though I was still a regular poster. I wouldn't be seen dead in any Dorset cinemas, so no problem there.

My jump from mid-English mid-class children's lit *generally* to everything that led me to her was less far than cliche supposes, likewise.

But I've never discovered Tolkien. Oasist cousin loved his work, you see, so there was the five-year curse (which is just about up now).

"led me to her" = "led me to here"

Don't forget that PJ also made Dead Alive and Heavely Creatures!

Fkn' ACE! film. I had the book on in my bookcase for years but I never could get the inclination to plough through it, so it remained a housebrick of paper taking up space on a shelf..
But, yeah, it's like all the best bits of Heavenly Creatures - but lasting forever!
Didn't really like Cate Blanchett's charecter though, she kept speaking in that Mystic Meg / I'm a bit spooky me, undulating tone.
Still, what a flippin' movie!

Ha Katie, stop biting your lips already :) I know what they ommited from Galadriel's mirror. ;) ;)

CTHD? hm i think you may have a point. there was a similar lack of happy ending in that film too, for certain characters. needless to say i blubbed like a baby at that too (but pretended i didn't!)

No irony? NO IRONY?

What about the line "No one tosses a dwarf"??

only ppl with their minds in the gutter tittered at that one. like me.

It's actually a not-so-smutty reference to the antipodean sport of dwarf-tossing, n'est-ce pas?

but of course! mind in gutter = you are v small like a dwarf!

The irony of course being, dwarves are extremely well hung. It's all that iron in their diet, or something.

LOTR picks up AFI award as best picture. Weird. I'm pleased, but I'm still surprised. Oh well, Golden Globes next, I guess!

I saw it on Saturday and thought it a fine film. Was mildly distracted by snivelling brat to my left in the cinema, but I enjoyed it. Did Lucas not rip off the whole thing for Star Wars? Frodo = Luke, Gandalf = Obi-Wan, etc, etc? I still think it gets away with it as a kid's film, (sorry Katie!) because I have not read the book and I think the film as it stands is simple enough for kids to get and enjoy.

the scene in excalibur where arthur spears mordred is exactly ditto'd by aragorn's man-on-man spear action with the lurtz: obv no way did jackson not know excalibur backwards anyway

ps i had forgot how hilarious nicol williamson's post-dubbed accent as merlin is (sadly he doesn't lose it and beat fellow thesp on bum with flat of his sword as per famous psycho moment on broadway some yrs back)

Just because a kid can understand it (or see it) does not mean it is a kids film. Its all about the tonality. It made a kid cry in the cinema of Saturday, so I still maintain that it is not a kiddie flick.

Its not a particularly adult film either by the way. (Would you say Independence Day was a kids film, because that certainly has very simple narrative).

It is also too long for kiddies as evidenced by amount of running around and uncomfortable shifting in seats on Saturday. Whilst a small minority of child prodigies may like sitting still for 3 hours it seems the young hoodlums of Upper Holloway would rather be scampering about selling dodgy fags than watching goblins.

Hi Pete, a lot of people upthread remember 'bonding' with their parents to the story, so it obviously has an appeal to children. With its nostalgic other-worldly feel - and with its fairy tale, quest storyline structure (albeit a lot more complex) and setting, I do think it is a kid's film, that adults can appreciate, as opposed to an adult film that kid's can appreciate. I remember you saying 'would you call 'Casablanca' a kids' film?'. No, I wouldn't, because the main characters desire each other sexually and are torn away from that by responsibilty, within a world that is more recognisable to adults than to children. A big reason why 'LotR' is more like a kid's film than an adult film is because it takes place in a (as far as I know - please excuse my ignorance of the saga as a whole) sexless environment. The personal relationships - even the close ones between men and women (and I'm talking about the FILM here - with all the adaptions of the characters that necessarily accompanies it) are more of a fairy tale Prince/Princess affair. Even in medieval quest literature (Gawain, for example, which I think Tolkien translated?) there appears to be a more 'adult' acknowledgement of sexual desire.

What do you mean by 'tonalit

y? Apparently, also, the average age of LotR readers (according to today's Metro article) is 12 years, as opposed to 25 when the books came out. Actually, the guy who said that was from Otago University. Can this man be trusted, Menelaus?

i think the book and the film work on many levels. i think it is an adult's book though. the concepts that it embodies - indeed, was meant to embody - are all v. grown up. it's the beauty of LOTR that you can read it at pretty much any age and any level of academic understanding, that's why it's endured so long.

Question - maybe I missed something, but how did Gandalf get his staff back after making his daring escape? Did they goof?

I thought it was a goof, but they had made mention about how Gandalf can make a replacement staff or have another one lying -- McKellen's said as much in a few interviews. I'm guessing there's a cut scene where he specifically talks about getting his new one in Rivendell.

Tonality - the tone in which the film is made. Some kids films may play for high stakes - the saving of the world etc - but rarely will they deal with the ideas of trust, treachery, responsibility and death in the heavy (or if you will po-faced) way The Lord Of The Rings does. Harry Potter touches on nearly all those themes very lightly and within a safe bubble. LotR is very much about responsibility and the darkness within everyones soul. Frodo, no-one can use the ring (their superpower) because power with LotR necessarily corrupts. I think this is a very dark theme and one which is not aimed at children. Perhaps it is a childrens book which deals with some adult themes (and some more the staple of childrens fiction like loyalty and friendship).

I think actually the best solution to this is to say that LotR is a adolescent book, and hence possibly the suggestion that rabid fans are in some kind of arrested adolescence might follow.

There is the sexual undertone to Casablanca, but sexuality does not make a film adult (Beauty & The Beast - Disney - is a very sexual movie). Equally there are a lot of adult films which have no sexuality in them at all.

I like that description of it as adolescent. One of the major themes of the book is the coming of age of the entire world, with the age of immortals (ie elves, Sauron, Nazgul and Istari) and their magic being replaced by that of men and their mundanities.

Did anyone think the scene where Boromir died was a bit tame. I mean I had always imagined it as much more frantic, with far more orcs and by the time he died he was like a pin cushion there were so many arrows in him the way the book seemed to tell it. Film part didn't really cut the mustard.

It probably would have come off as too cartoonish onscreen if Boromir were to be hit by dozens of arrows.

Then he would have looked like Boromir the Hedgehog.

Does that make Aragorn an echidna?

To be fair, them orcs a rubbish at the bow & arrow thing. In the mines they bounce all over the shop but never get hit. Legolas = can't miss man.

It looked cartoon the way they slowed it down for each shot. I was like if they slowmo another arrow hitting him I'm fucking leaving. Platoon with arrows or something as opposed to valiant frantic battle scene involving Boromir killing loads of orcs and then eventually falling after being riddled with arrows. If they had him with loads of arrows in him they wouldnt have had to slow each one down. I don't want gore I just think it would have been better. I'm surprised actually that this is the only part I take issue with, maybe I should read the book again and then go to see the flick again.

If this thread ends up longer than the bras when then ILE has gone to shit.

i appear to have turned into N.

Which must mean that a real life Mulholland Drive is happening right now.

So has anyone else actually been on said drive? It's just a street.

Are you trying to turn this LOTR thread into an MD one in some kind of homage to the film? If you are, I applaud you.

Saw it today (never read any of the books). Enjoyed it BUT I wanted to know these charachters more. It's just too rushed. Never really got under thier skin which was a pity cos they were interesting esp. loved badass elf guy with arrows (whatever his name was). Found it very touching in places and a good movie about friendship which I wasnt expecting. Fav. charachter:Gandalf but I always enjoy Ian McKellen. 2 hobbit friends of Frodo=Jar jar binks....nononono..'They come in pints?' heheh. Never really felt the ph33r of the evil horsemen although they looked pretty awesome, I'll give em' that. It was the best looking (beautiful) film I have proabably ever seen and a very good reason to watch again (if I have the time)..

loved badass elf guy with arrows (whatever his name was).

Legolas, played by Orlando Bloom, who my mom has now claimed as her loveslave. The age difference matters not to her.

Ned: Heard this section of the series is weakest. True?

Well, it's not so much a series as it one novel split up in three parts, but anyway. Weakest? *searches for answer* In terms of the book, no -- if anything is 'weak' it might be the last part, but even that is packed with plenty, it just happens to be the shortest section. But in terms of the movie adaptation, we won't really know until all three are available for viewing.

Orlando Bloom, who my mom has now claimed as her loveslave. The age difference matters not to her.

*shudder* but has she seen his real-life HAIR!?!??!?!??

"The age difference matters not to her"

Isnt Legolas 250?

*shudder* but has she seen his real-life HAIR!?!??!?!??

She knows it's shorter and darker. It did seem to have a front-guy- from-Travis look about it.

Orlando just turned 25, but Legolas is thousands of years old, I gather, so maybe she can figure out a happy medium.

but mohawks are well just bad. bad bad bad. unless you are one of those '80s punks on London postcards. also, because of a v. bad uni in joke, i cannot get over this chap being ACTUALLY called Orlando. his mam must have been either a huge Virginia WOolf or Marmalade Cat fan!

Or, a la Brooklyn Beckham, he was concieved in Orlando on a rollercoaster.

Posh knocked boots on The Cyclone? THE MIND BOGGLES.

Posh knocked boots

I initially read this phrase as an adjectival description, ie 'velvet flocked wallpaper.'

Well they are the most gut-wrenching couple in Britain! Hm no.

Yeah I know about Becks' stamina ON the field, but I bet they didn't need that discounted "ride again" deal that you can...! Wait, wait I got it!

HOME OF THE EGG CREAM

Some observations:

I think Legolas in the book was sad that the leaves were not golden as well. The problem was that it was the wrong time of year for golden leaves so that wasn't Peter Jacksons fault.

"Let's hunt some orc" is almost word for word what Aragorn says to the Riders in the middle of TT. "We're wondering around hunting orcs". Aragorn also spent a lot of his time as Strider hunting orcs. So it's not out of place at all.

Bombadil didn't have anything to do with Sauramans downfall, that was the Tree dudes, not the Tree Lover dude.

(Incidentally, I think PJ's knocking off of Sauruman is better than Tolkiens one. Far less likely to be copied by stupid idiots in real life).

Best bit in movie: too many to say, but the bit where the hobbits have to do the dishes as punishment is priceless.

Funniest bit: Gimli yells "and my axe" after just destroying the axe of his dwarf mate sitting next to him. It's funny no matter how you look at it. If it's his own axe, that makes him stupid (but it's not). And you still end up saying under your breath "ahh, but is your axe any better than your mates axe?"

I think it's MEANT to be a funny line. But the context is so serious it ends up sounding like a mistake.

The first time I saw the movie the music was just right. The second there were parts that were way too loud. Probably just the different theatres.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay! So the DVD/video of LOTR: The Twin Towers is available.

UK residents who can manage to manage to spend >£30 in Tescos can get hold of the DVD for £11.99.

but remember, the expanded versions will be out mid-Nov.

Then there's me, who's going for BOTH DO YOU HEAR ME BOTH!

My order of the DVD should arrive Tuesday or Wednesday. :-)

Ned, you so crazy!

Well yes.

3 more months was too long to wait. I was going to borrow the video now & buy the extended version in November, but I am a sucker for a bargain.