Yes, my precioussss
Printable View
Yes, my precioussss
A well made sharacter (Gollum) but IMO could the story follow the original books better. It was a great movie adventure though.. Wish I could have stopped myself from raise and leave the cinema after half the movie, I was a bit angry when they had changed the story and left out important parts. I was not the only one who left after half the movie so Im not the only one to be upset ;).
It's a hard life to be addicted to fantasy and Tolkiens masterpiece but someone has to be that aswell :D.
~micael
a movie is a movie, and thats what it is. compared to the books the movie itself was a masterpiece of a different kind. although id like to see an exact rendition of tolk's books, i liked the movie a lot, it was well worth the time and money
Hehe, pretty good movies, but like micael said, they could've followed the book a bit more thoroughly.
I personally pictured Gollum being a bit different-looking... feet just weren't big enough, and I kinda imagined him being green-ish (not sure if I read that, or if I just made up that color for some reason).
All in all, though, pretty good movies. I'll be seeing the next one.
yeah... if the movie followed the books preciesly, they'd be about 10 hours each :P
but i think Gollum was in fact green. my uncle has some porcelain or some type of material figures of a bunch of characters, and, although Gollum looks more or less like the figurine, he was green.
regardless, i really did think the movie was good, apart from a lot of things being cut, or changed. a couple of things i noticed of this one:
Treebeard didn't show the hobbits to Gandalf to decide whether they were orcs or not. he figured that on his own by hearing their voices. and no orc chased them through the woods.
the entmoot decided that they wouldn, in fact, attack sarumon. then the hobbits were introduced to Quickbeam for the duration of the entmoot, so they wouldn't be completely bored.
that's all i can really think of off the top of my head. but i still liked the movie :)
Guys,
I really love the movie. Think this way: Peter Jackson (LOTR's director) is a really smart man, he have made a master piece with this movie. 3 episodes of around 3 hours each (i suppose the third one too) full of adventure and really fantastic special efects. Besides, no one knows more than him about Tolkien so he must have had his own ideas and thoughts to not putting some Tolkien passages in LOTR movie. Any director wants to have his own imagination sometimes and not going strictly by-the-book.
Ah!!! one more thing, i don't know how is Gollum exactly but here you have a really nice picture of him. It's 521 KB but it's worth waiting to see it.
Bye.
Man, isn't he beautiful?
:cool:
Hey Micael, have you checked out the collectors edition box set? I got it for my father, who by the way loved it, and it is supposed to be an extended version....30 minutes longer to my knowledge...Not sure if this covered parts in the book that were left out in the cinema presentation, but none-the-less, still an awesome movie!!! I'm seeing the 2nd one this sunday.
Yes I have the Extended version of the first movie and it's a better movie. The first movie was a bit better compared to The Two Towers since it did not change the story as much, both movies do leave out big parts and that's ok. But I dont like when they change the story to much it's better if they leave out details instead :).
Dont missunderstand me, both movies are masterpieces and I will see the Two Towers again in time when my first dissapointment is gone.
And as SarinMage said
This is true I have to see it as a movie not a extension of the book :).Quote:
a movie is a movie, and thats what it is. compared to the books the movie itself was a masterpiece of a different kind.
~micael
nice movie ... though i didn't read the book :)
gollum was green in ralph bakshi's cartoons. maybe thats what you were thinking?
peter jackson is a brilliant director. apparently he is a huge lord of the rings fan and is trying to stay as close to the book as possible. i give him credit for even attempting the feat.Quote:
From http://web.umr.edu/~gdoty/classes/fa...s/tlor-4-1.PDF
Gollum's physical appearance
This topic is important because (1) some critics find racism in TLOR and the associations of "black" with evil can be used to support such a charge; (2) how one visualizes Gollum affects how one conceives the character. (I once met a woman who thought hobbits "looked like moles" because they live in holes in the ground; the mutant toad version of Gollum in the animated Hobbit can distort a reader’s perception).
278: This paragraph presents Gollum as he appears at night under specific lighting conditions ("pale moonlight"). (Note also the simile with an insect or spider).
319/320: Gollum is described as he appears in full daylight—like a starving human child and bone-white.
We think of a thing's color in full daylight as being its "real" color, but of course color is not a
property of the thing but of the visual process. Thus whatever color is seen is the "real" color.
Tolkien’s descriptions of Gollum are thus phenomenologically accurate, although readers might
remember only one description and think of that as Gollum's real color.
anyone who followed peter jackson's older work will realize this is not one of his typical movies. a couple of my favorites:
1. braindead or dead alive (notably the bloodiest movie of all time) in which zoo acquires a rat monkey, ignores the warnings of evil revenge and displays. our hero's wicked mother accidentally gets bitten while the hero gets smitten with a spanish tart. mom starts popping out zombies and of course everyone bitten becomes a zombie as well. culminates in a fantastic scene with our hero weilding a lawn mower against the onslaught of zombies. blood everywhere.
2. meet the feebles: muppets gone horribly wrong. lead singer is a hippo, having a fling with the producer, who is in the mob. knife thrower addicted to heroin, rabbit star with aids, porno movies created in the basement, etc. its a beautiful thing.
also by jackson: bad taste, the frighteners, heavenly creatures, forgotten silver and of course, lotr
If you read the book carefully, you'll find that the movie people have actually rendered Gollum faithfully. The only reason you tend to think of him as green (yes, me too) is because Tolkein keeps mentioning the green light in his eyes. I tend to think of Gollum as a green, gremlin like creature, though I know that that isn't an accurate picture at all.
Cheers,
cgkanchi
I have just seen the Two Towers and realized that Peter Jackson have made a major change with the Arwen role. She's normally not in the second book! She has nothing to do in this movie.
And I really don't understand why all the characters have blue eyes. I'll search in LOTR but i'm sure that Tolkien can't have described ALL his characters with blue eyes!
Why did they go through all that trouble of making this character with computers graphics and animation, when all they had to do was to put Michael Jackson in there and make him say preciousss? Think about it!
loved the movie and the book equally. gollum is so cute! awesome thread idea rcgreen. :)