>> ^marinara:

IIRC, LOTR did win some oscars tho.
But i know exactly what you're saying, character actors never get oscar love


Definitely got best movie, maybe even best director, but I do think his performance was out of this world. Not that that makes any difference on oscar planet

IIRC, LOTR did win some oscars tho.

But i know exactly what you're saying, character actors never get oscar love

Beim ersten Clip hatte ich keine 100 Sekunden nach'm Reinstellen schon zugeschlagen, aber vom zweiten halte ich gepflegten Abstand -- wie von allem, was mit LOTR zu tun hat.

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
http://videosift.com/video/Blind-Guardian-Mirror-Mirror-1



and furthermore: http://videosift.com/video/Blind-Guardian-Wacken-Lord-Of-The-Rings-Live
:

Damn... I'll do the honors *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Garden-Spider-versus-Huge-Wasp

I'll have to copy over my comment because I thought it was kind of awesome, you know, with the LOTR reference and all

>> ^KnivesOut:

2 of my favorite things: LOTR, minecraft. Yes, I'm a nerd stfu.
Skip to 30 minutes to see moria. Impressed. quality

Make that 3: Jesse Cox is hilarious and awesome. He voiced so many good video games!
Also check out him and TotalBiscuit play Terraria. Its pants-pissingly funny!

2 of my favorite things: LOTR, minecraft. Yes, I'm a nerd stfu.

Skip to 30 minutes to see moria. Impressed. *quality

>> ^Enzoblue:

The bad: the scaling I think, the hands tourney was no bigger than a Ren faire sideshow as was the Dothraki wedding. In the book they were epic. Also that wedding was done during the day and so was the birth of the dragons, which was off-putting. I didn't feel Drago's army was anywhere near 30k.
All in all I was hoping for a breakthrough in cinematic skill, (like the Rings), but got the budget restrained version.


It's television, and you should compare it to other television shows, not movies. They don't have $300 million to spend on 10 hours of footage like LOTR. Scenes like Tyrion getting knocked out and missing the fight are there so that the producers don't blow half of the season's budget on a battle that wasn't even important.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The bible is a valid source for all kinds of information, including historical information about real people and civilizations, and is frequently used as a source by historians and archaelogists. The Lord of the Rings is a known work of fiction. There is no comparison between the two, and your statemet is a fallacy to begin with.
>> ^gwiz665:
Quoting the Bible as source invalidates whatever point you want to make. It is not a valid source of information, just as Lord of the Rings isn't either.



@gwiz665, allow me...

LotR wasn't the best example, so take Homer's Iliad: a valid source for all kinds of information, including historical information about real people and civilizations, and is frequently used as a source by historians and archaelogists. And it's not a fallacy. Plus, both books are works of fiction. (But the Iliad is way better, both with historical fact and it's mythological claims... guess thats what you get when the book was written by someone who understands story telling)

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^criticalthud:
does anyone else think peter jackson made a soggy mess out of LOTR?

Well, to be fair the source material is a bit soggy to start with. Don't get me wrong, I love the books, but they do have a lot of padding (Tom Bombadil, the battle of the Shire) that the movies wisely cut. Also the pacing in the movies is better. PJ was clever in moving the encounter with Shelob to the third movie as Sam and Frodo really don't have a lot do in book six.
As for the film version, it had moments of absolute brilliance. Theodren's speech before the battle of pellanor fields still gives me goosebumps. I watched Return of the King at an outdoor cinema and half the audience stood up and cheered at that scene.


yeah you're right. lots of singing too..
hard for any movie to live up to such colossal and subjective expectations. but fuck me sideways if staring into frodo's eyes for the gazillionth time wasn't somewhat suckingly annoying. ahh...i'm such a nitpicky dick

>> ^criticalthud:

does anyone else think peter jackson made a soggy mess out of LOTR?


Well, to be fair the source material is a bit soggy to start with. Don't get me wrong, I love the books, but they do have a lot of padding (Tom Bombadil, the battle of the Shire) that the movies wisely cut. Also the pacing in the movies is better. PJ was clever in moving the encounter with Shelob to the third movie as Sam and Frodo really don't have a lot do in book six.

As for the film version, it had moments of absolute brilliance. Theodren's speech before the battle of pellanor fields still gives me goosebumps. I watched Return of the King at an outdoor cinema and half the audience stood up and cheered at that scene.

I didnt think much of LOTRs, but Im also in NZ. Here LOTRs is this weird movie where local low quality soap actors walk round our backyard with guys in costumes.

>> ^EMPIRE:

no. I love the LOTR trilogy, and the man had a gargantuan task.


Ditto!

no. I love the LOTR trilogy, and the man had a gargantuan task.

does anyone else think peter jackson made a soggy mess out of LOTR?

But the magic in the LOTR made more sense.>> ^jmzero:

- so complaining about it is kind of like complaining about the magic in Lord of the Rings.