So I finally saw the Lord of the Rings Trilogy

*smites honeykid*

You know how much I love that elf!

__________________
"The dog is the god of frolic." ~ Beecher

"Exit, pursued by a bear." ~

Yaaay! I'm glad you finally got to see them! ^^ They are amazing movies huh? x3

__________________
"One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them..."

The Lord of the Rings

I don't think stopping trying is necessary

Good story, well made just not really my thing. I've watched all three but don't really remember all that much. Just wasn't that interested.

I will never understand someone who loves movies and doesn't love LOTR

__________________

I can't believe Tiger didn't take you to see them right away. Then again, I suppose he had to keep your existence on the downlow...

__________________
Movie Eagle

Yeah, they were great, but I would have changed alot in the movie.

Nicely made and good performances...but the story isn't my thing at all. I just can't get excited about fantasy.

__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)

Well, I can see how some folks would prefer watching real actors on screen rather than alteratons through forced perspective and computerized images. I mean, it's interesting--but is it acting?

To me the firs " The Lord of the Rings " the best. Because i don't love or enjoy the sequel. I don't know why.

My favorite movie of all time.

And I count all three films as "one" movie.

Rufnek, there is plenty of acting in the films. And to be truthful, Andy Serkis, who "acted" Gollum, actually did an amazing job. It is a combination of that acting and the computer generated image that combines to create this incredible creature.

The other actors -- Elijah Wood's transformation; Viggo's inner turmoil; Sean Bean's fall, redemption, and death are all examples of acting in these films. Sean Astin's Sam in the final film is also pretty darn good.

The Lord of the Rings is amazing. I don't think much more should be said!

__________________
"Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously."

That's true, tramp, but I think ruf meant good acting.

[In character] You know what, honey, that reminds me of a story when I was in boot camp at the orc manufacturing center... I had just had sex with 300 women at the local honky tonk and then I watched Urban Cowboy and threw up. Sorry, I guess I'm not as tough as I thought...

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I fail to see how the actor's have any less value because they're a hobbit or animated, if anything it heightens the stakes.

Not a fan of Rings. I get and see the appeal but it really does nothing for me. Can't explain it. It just doesn't speak to me the way it does to others, I guess. The acting is not bad and visuals beautiful, but I never took anything away from them and they were pretty forgettable, (two towers especially).

That said, I do think that Peter Jackson did a wonderful job bringing such a story to life and for that he should be applauded. Glad you had a better time watching it than I did, Tiger Wood's son.

Agreed,

but anyway for those who doesn't love it, and still wanna taste the full experience of it, I recommend ''green pleasure''

I'm sure many of you would agree,there are plenty of ways to actually get into a movie, but LOTR doesn't need any 'extra substances'. Its magnificence can be seen throughout the entire movie.
Plenty of scenes to be astonished of,with an amazing adventure of a mixture between brightness and darkness.

As some of you mentioned, I'm not into fantasy movies either, but if you see it as some well-created-English-mythology that's a different story.

__________________
You looked but you didn't see

If it's animated, it's a cartoon not an actor; whatever it does on screen is the work of an artist (or a computer programer in some cases) not the performance of an actor. In LOTR the use of false perspective to make the largest cast member appear as the smallest character in the story is clever, but it has nothing to do with acting.

Whoa, tramp, before you stampede this over a cliff, I happened to like LOTR. It had some good actors in it that were able to make people believe trees walked and they really were fighting Orcs and dragons and all those other computer-generated figures. But nonetheless most of the beasts and people and most of the action visible on screen were computer-generated, not actors, and there are some folks who just don't care for that. Not me, particularly--I liked the movie.

As for Serkis, I have no way of knowing from what was on the screen how much was Serkis and how much was computerized animation. The screen image was interesting and certainly lifelike in some ways, but if they gave an Oscar for that role, who would be the one to accept it--Serkis or a computer nerd? I was more impressed with the characters in the original Star Wars that had live actors inside the costume--I think that was a bigger challenge than modeling for a computer image.

I don't think you're as tough as you think either, Mark.