|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NewsfromBree
spymaster@theonering.net
Dec 19 2016, 8:23pm
Post #1 of 3
(1477 views)
Shortcut
|
|
FOTR 15th anniversary - a compilation of articles
|
Can't Post
|
|
A number of other sites around the internet are also celebrating the 15th anniversary of the opening of The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring this week, and/or The Lord of the Rings movie franchise in general. For the convenience of our readers, we put together this one-stop shop for a stroll down memory lane. We'll bring more to you during the week as we find them. Enjoy!
The Hollywood Reporter published their original review from 2001 here - "Quite masterfully paced and one of those rewarding movies that seems to get better and better as it progresses, Fellowship justifies its long running time. The real pain that Frodo feels at causing his friends to be in danger, his doubts and his fears are the central drama in a tale with many outlandish and beautiful moments."
The Inquisitr put together a recap of some of the major actors in the trilogy, then and now, most of which the fans who frequent TORn will be familiar with - "Strider/Aragorn: Viggo Mortenson was a lesser-known character actor prior to starring as Aragorn. Since then, he has starred in multiple films, gaining him critical acclaim and numerous Golden Globe, Saturn Award, and Academy Award nominations for best actor. He recently starred in the comedic drama, Captain Fantastic, for which he has received a SAG nomination, and his third Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor."
Variety bets there are: 16 Things you Didn't Know About the Making of The Lord of the Rings. Yes, they're talking about our own TORn Oscar parties in point 16 here; although we have a point 16 1/2 that they didn't mention: cast and crew showed up for the Two Towers party as well - "Fans were key: "During our whole process of production on the film, we would stay in touch with the core fans all around the world through these Internet sites, even involve them in the process as casting ideas arose, getting feedback from them," said New Line's Michael Lynne. "Peter was one of those crazy, goofy fans, so he understood that." To the delight of hundreds of devoted fans, Jackson and several cast members showed up at the Oscar night fan celebration down the street from the Oscars at the parties for both "Fellowship" and "Return."
Huffington Post adds to their LOTR-related articles this week with the scoop on The Real Reason David Bowie wasn't in The Lord of the Rings. - "HuffPost spoke with casting director Amy Hubbard in honor of the 15-year anniversary of the release of "The Fellowship of the Ring," and she finally revealed the real reason Bowie wasn't in the trilogy: he was just too busy. Hubbard confirmed Jackson was interested in Bowie possibly taking on the role of Gandalf."
The Wrap.com has a nice photo expose entitled: 15 Facts About The Fellowship of the Ring. "It remains a landmark series that revitalized fantasy in pop culture and introduced J.R.R. Tolkien to a new generation. In celebration of its 15th anniversary, TheWrap has teamed up with IMDb to give you 15 facts about "The Fellowship of the Ring."
Last, but not least, Bustle features an interesting read on: Why the Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring's Female Characters are Just as Important as the Males. Note that the link in the article below leads to an archive of TORn's own message boards! "When the highly-anticipated first movie of The Lord of the Rings trilogy was released in theaters on Dec. 19, 2001, it began with voiceover narration about the origin of the ring by none other than Blanchett's character Galadriel. This was a decision that Jackson had to make since no such narration exists in the book. Beyond Blanchett being an incredible actor and starting the movie off strong with a commanding tone, the choice to have Galadriel do the narration made sense from a storytelling perspective as her character was alive when the rings were forged. However, in that same vein, fans have argued that Jackson could have had Sir Ian McKellan's Gandalf or Hugo Weaving's Elrond provide the narration. Yet, Jackson chose to feature Galadriel for the opening moments of the film -- showing that this female character is massively important to The Lord of the Rings world."
(This post was edited by Altaira on Dec 20 2016, 4:48pm)
|
|
|
mcmojo
Bree
Dec 20 2016, 7:50pm
Post #2 of 3
(1437 views)
Shortcut
|
|
An article a group of friends wrote about the anticipation for FOTR
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Here is the link - http://ramblingeveron.com/...fifteen-years-later/
It's been so long since I posted on here, I don't know what the protocol is. I just wanted to share this with The One Ring audience. I checked this site probably 20 times a day back before the release of the films. Who am I kidding? I checked it closer to 50 times a day. I devoured every scrap of news I could find. This was always the best place to go for news. Thank you guys for that.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Dec 20 2016, 9:04pm
Post #3 of 3
(1427 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A movie by Austrailian director Peter Jenkins
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As someone who has never read any of the books, I cant say that I was enthused to see this 3 hour "epic". As a matter of fact, my expectations going into this movie were pretty low and the movie didnt do anything to change my initial opinion. Ill start by saying whats good - Elija Wood Really does hold this movie together. Hes really good. The Bow Guy (dont know the actor or the character name) He doesnt say much but he kicks butt when hes fighting. At 3 hours long, it does manage to hold your attention. I only checked my watch about 5 times and went to the bathroom once. Whats Bad? Everything else, the music, the story, the pacing, the directing, everyone else, (why the hell was Cate Blanchet in this movie? Shes a horrible actress and looks like death warmed over), etc. This film had no emotional pull, drive, or core until the last 1/2 hour, it was a dark film - meaning most of it was shot at night, a lot of the sets looked really cheesy (think 3 hours of The Mummy Returns meets Tomb Raider), the fighting sequences where badly edited and the end? Dont get me started on the non-ending, end that just left me feeling really pissed off. This movie was hollow and was nothing more than one 3-hr long exposition (although there was no real story there) or sales pitch for the next film or part 2 and 3 of the books. I would give this film a C- and Im being generous.
-Michelle Alexandria, Eclipse Magazine, December, 2001
1) The Bow Guy - He really didnt say that much in the film, so I didnt catch his name. He had a really good presence, a "my fighting speaks for me" type of thing happening. And when he did go into action, it was really cool. 2) I admit, I need the Press Kit to figure out who was who because of all the makeup, the lack of use of names in the film and there was something wrong with the Print I saw because the music sounded scratchy. Which is why a more formal review wont come until later this week. Overall, I would say everyone was adequate, most of the acting wasnt bad, but it wasnt good either, it was just there. Liv Tyler, whom I generally kind of like, was tollerable, only because she was only on the screen for about five minutes. Cate Blanchet was simply laughably bad, mercifully she was only on screen for about five minutes as well. Elija Wood was really good, had the kind of presence a role like that needed. 3) For a change the camera work was actually really good, it didnt do a lot of the shaky camera stuff. The camera work was dead on for this type of film. The cinematography during the initial daylight scenes looked gorgeous, only problem is about 2/3rds of the film take place at night, and the sets again, looked very cheesy. Think the tombs in Tomb Raider and Mummy Returns. 4) What did I like about the story? I dont want to be a spoiler and go into specific detail. Hmmmm.... The basic premise I liked, but the film lacked heart, and an emotional core. It relied on character "die-ing" multiple times and as I said, the film was one long exposition without any kind of conclusion. I was actually finally starting to get into this thing doing the last 10 minutes when it ended. I found the character names confusing to remember and the film strangely enough seemed to lack dialog to move the plot along. The only thing they drumed into our heads for 3 hours was, one ring rules, get the ring, prevent the evil guy from getting the ring. This movie would have been a lot better at 2 hrs, with more of an ending. I realize this is a trilogy and therefore isnt going to get wrapped up in a neat little bow, but the ending could have and should have been better and more "conclusive" leaving enough of a thread for a sequel. It seamed like someone was watching a clock and decided to just chop of the movie. So on the one hand Im complaining that the movie was way to long and not long enough (go figure). 5) Fight scenes I didnt like. Lets see, off the top of my head, I didnt like the mountain sequence or the mine shaft, the forging of the Ogre stuff I thought looked cheesy.
-ibid
******************************************
I find so much joy in covering my cat with a blanket and watching the lump move around.
|
|
|
|
|
