Fellowship Collectors Ed Page 2

  • Nemesis 12 Nov 2002 12:13:39 19,742 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Easter Eggs
  • Nemesis 12 Nov 2002 12:17:08 19,742 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Anyone wanting a real in depth look at whats on this SE version check out the 16 pages review at IGN...

    IGN Review
  • sam_spade 12 Nov 2002 12:19:38 15,745 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    God I hate Easter Eggs.
  • Mr_Sleep 12 Nov 2002 12:20:00 23,487 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Feersum Boundah wrote:
    Television movie is a description that I nearly used in my previous post. Like Besson, and Verhoeven before him, Jackson lost his spark when he took Hollywoods coin.

    Personally I thought they would have been better getting a "proper" director in like Ridley Scott.

    I have issues with interpretation across the whole film and at all levels. This is not indirectly related to use of time.

    I have never read the books so interpretation wasn't a problem for me, I watched the film on it's own merit alone, just as I did for AotC; it came up wanting.
  • sam_spade 12 Nov 2002 12:28:19 15,745 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Ridley Scott isn't a proper director anymore, he's a 'turn up and follow the storyboard' hack.

    He used to be brilliant, but I don't think Hannibal is worth anything, and even Gladiator is a bloated piece of work when compared to Aliens or Bladerunner.
  • UncleLou Moderator 12 Nov 2002 12:33:53 40,158 posts
    Seen 60 minutes ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    but I don't think Hannibal is worth anything

    Watched this the first time at the week-end, what an awful movie! A good cast, and yet such a lousy movie, lacking any sophistication The Silence of the Lambs had. And don't get me started on Gladiator, just a very mediocre action flick really. In fact, Ridley Scott hasn't made a decent movie in years, or rather decades.

    Edited by UncleLou at 12:34:15 12-11-2002
  • Mr_Sleep 12 Nov 2002 12:35:59 23,487 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    sam_spade wrote:
    Ridley Scott isn't a proper director anymore, he's a 'turn up and follow the storyboard' hack.

    He used to be brilliant, but I don't think Hannibal is worth anything, and even Gladiator is a bloated piece of work when compared to Aliens or Bladerunner.
    I'll give you that, he isn't as good as he used to be, however even that would have been better than Jackson. Who would you have recommended. I think David Lynch's interpretation would have been magnificent :D
  • Deleted user 12 November 2002 12:50:46
    Mr Sleep wrote:
    I have never read the books so interpretation wasn't a problem for me, I watched the film on it's own merit alone, just as I did for AotC; it came up wanting.

    Same here, although I've bitten off a large chunk of the book over the past month, and had seen the mixed live action and cartoon version a decade ago. LotR failed as a standalone work.

    Interpretation is also related to style, and that is something I have a seriously big issue with. In both respects the first LotR film is superior and was a far deeper experience to boot.

    That's another complaint I have with LotR, it never really invited the mind to imagine. Everything was laid out as if the audience were simpletons.
  • Khab 12 Nov 2002 13:06:04 6,583 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    sam_spade wrote:
    Ridley Scott isn't a proper director anymore, he's a 'turn up and follow the storyboard' hack.

    He used to be brilliant, but I don't think Hannibal is worth anything, and even Gladiator is a bloated piece of work when compared to Aliens or Bladerunner.

    Aliens? That was John Cameron, not Ridley Scott...
  • sam_spade 12 Nov 2002 13:29:21 15,745 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Apologys for the mistake, still two great films.
  • Gestalt 12 Nov 2002 13:30:43 98 posts
    Seen 5 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    FB - "Like Besson, and Verhoeven before him, Jackson lost his spark when he took Hollywoods coin"

    Eh? For starters, all of Besson's "Hollywood" movies were actually produced by a French company - Gaumont. But even ignoring that, IMO at least Besson's best movie was his first American effort - Leon. Much as I love Subway, The Big Blue and Nikita, Leon is my all-time favourite, and even The Fifth Element is a blast to watch.

    As for Paul Verhoeven, I've not seen any of his early Dutch movies, but of his Hollywood productions RoboCop is a minor classic and Starship Troopers is a lot of fun as well. It's also surprisingly subversive for what initially appears to be a brainless gung ho sci-fi action movie.


    Mr Sleep - "I think David Lynch's interpretation would have been magnificent"

    LOL! Now that I would pay good money to see, although the dwarves would probably spend half the movie talking backwards and dancing around in strobe-lit red rooms to a bizarre Angelo Badalementi score. ;)
  • otto Moderator 12 Nov 2002 13:32:36 49,322 posts
    Seen 4 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Post deleted
  • Deleted user 12 November 2002 13:44:25
    Gestalt wrote:
    all of Besson's "Hollywood" movies were actually produced by a French company - Gaumont. But even ignoring that, IMO at least Besson's best movie was his first American effort - Leon. ... As for Paul Verhoeven, I've not seen any of his early Dutch movies, but of his Hollywood productions RoboCop is a minor classic and Starship Troopers is a lot of fun as well.

    I was being brief. But, I'll give you that. After going to Hollywood both lost momentum and the spark sputtered out. The Fifth Element and Starship Troopers are testament to that fact. The odd thing is that Roman Polanski produced his best work while he was in Hollywood.
  • UncleLou Moderator 12 Nov 2002 14:05:06 40,158 posts
    Seen 60 minutes ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    The odd thing is that Roman Polanski produced his best work while he was in Hollywood

    Hardly. Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown are great, of course, but I'd also rank A Knife in the Water, Dance of the Vampires and other early works as equal, while a lot of his later movies he made in the USA(Frantic, Bitter Moon, Pirates, Ninth Gate (title?)etc.) are not especially great.

    edit: And the best movie he has made in years, The Pianist, is a European production.

    Edited by UncleLou at 14:09:43 12-11-2002
  • Deleted user 12 November 2002 14:20:58
    UncleLou wrote:
    while a lot of his later movies he made in the USA(Frantic, Bitter Moon, Pirates, Ninth Gate (title?)etc.) are not especially great.

    Roman Polanski can't return to America because he has a prosecution hanging over his head. The Ninth Gate was not made in Hollywood. It is a post-Hollywood film.
  • Pirotic Moderator 12 Nov 2002 19:23:23 20,642 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    With the easter-eggs, i can get the two towers trailer working but not the MTV out-take, anybody know if its there on the UK region 2 discs or not ?
  • Gestalt 13 Nov 2002 09:10:30 98 posts
    Seen 5 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Well, it just arrived - my precioussssss... ;) And only three days to get here - that has to be some sort of record for Play.com I think.
  • JabbaDaHut 15 Nov 2002 10:11:15 651 posts
    Registered 18 years ago
    Did anyone else did the stupid thing of buying the 2-disc DVD when it first came out and are now lamenting over the 4-disc DVD for a fiver more - Boohiss! I can see a 'sorry my mum/gf/mate bought this for my birthday and they 'Thought' it was the 4-disc one' special at woolies...Actually I can see alot of people doing this!!
  • terminalterror 16 Nov 2002 16:19:44 18,931 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    JabbaDaHut wrote:
    Did anyone else did the stupid thing of buying the 2-disc DVD when it first came out and are now lamenting over the 4-disc DVD for a fiver more - Boohiss! I can see a 'sorry my mum/gf/mate bought this for my birthday and they 'Thought' it was the 4-disc one' special at woolies...Actually I can see alot of people doing this!!


    I almost did that, it required a lot of will power to hold out for the 4 disc set. However, apart from the financial reasons, there is no reason not to own both, very little of the extras overlap, and you get a different cut of the film.
  • Khab 16 Nov 2002 23:52:16 6,583 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    I've just watched the Extended version, and I must say I'm pleasantly surprised - it fares much better when compared to the books. Tom Bombadill sadly isn't in, but most of everything else gets at least a passing nod. I partcularly enjoyed the 'Green Dragon' scene. It and a few others made the film much less gloomy, which was one of my major complaints about the theatrical version...
  • MrWorf 16 Nov 2002 23:53:31 63,835 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Bombadill would never work... not even if they did a remake in 40 years time
  • Khab 17 Nov 2002 01:42:12 6,583 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    It would be a lot of fun though. :)
  • Deleted user 17 November 2002 01:56:21
    Errol wrote:
    I think John Woo's interpretation of 'The Lord of the Rings' might have been exceptionally interesting.

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggghhhhh!

    John Bloody Woo. Anyone else with me that he is to cinema what the Emperor's new clothes were to habidashery?

    OOOOH! Look! A gunfight in slow motion. Oh goody! Now he's showing me the bit I've just seen again and again from different angles!

    My opinion (for what it's worth) - if a director has to show action in slow motion or from several angles it's because he couldn't get his ideas across in real time and in one shot. He's therefore failed as a director.

    Crap like that just pulls you out of what your watching, shakes you about and screams "it's only a film - stop suspending your disbelief!"

    *rant over*
  • Deleted user 17 November 2002 03:07:08
    Fozzie_bear wrote:
    John Bloody Woo. Anyone else with me that he is to cinema what the Emperor's new clothes were to habidashery?

    No, you're not the only one, and the majority of people I know think the guy can't make a decent film to save his life. Hollywood isn't about films, it's all about marketing and sucking the money out of your pocket. That's why twits like John Woo are allowed to make films and are hyped so heavily.
  • sam_spade 17 Nov 2002 03:26:07 15,745 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Some people think David Lynch doesn't make great films, some people think Spielberg doesn't make great film, some people think Mike Hodges doesn't make great films, some people think Tim Burton doesn't make great films. And some people think they do make great films.

    OOOOH! Look! A gunfight in slow motion. Oh goody! Now he's showing me the bit I've just seen again and again from different angles!

    An appreciation for action is not a bad thing and John Woo directs action superbly in his own style. My particular beef is the shaky-camera work that doesn't show any of the action clearly, I'd prefer someone show me something that good again and again; than someone flick by it without a single decent shot.
  • Khab 17 Nov 2002 03:32:25 6,583 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    I don't suppose you appreciate the dogma films then, sam? :)

    Me, I think they're pretentious pieces of shit, but what do I know?
  • Deleted user 17 November 2002 03:37:43
    sam_spade wrote:
    Some people think David Lynch doesn't make great films, some people think Spielberg doesn't make great film, some people think Mike Hodges doesn't make great films, some people think Tim Burton doesn't make great films. And some people think they do make great films.

    Fair point - but the people who think John Woo makes great films are wrong. :)

    An appreciation for action is not a bad thing and John Woo directs action superbly in his own style. My particular beef is the shaky-camera work that doesn't show any of the action clearly, I'd prefer someone show me something that good again and again; than someone flick by it without a single decent shot.

    Appreciation of action not bad - complete lack of appreciation of anything else to the point where there is only action is bad (imho).

    I'm with you on shaky camera-work though. How many times have you sat through an action scene and then thought 'what the hell happened there?'. That's one extreme - John Woo is the other.
Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.