I actually wouldn't mind a Lord of the Rings Television series... though given the theatrical nature of it all, it would be a loss not to have them in theaters. I think the Matrix would have done better as a series, I never really got that much of a kick out of the specail affects anyway.

I can't say there aren't changes I would have wanted them not to make, (the Scouring is IMO the equivelant of Eva TV episodes 25 & 26 for the Lord of the Rings story), but really I think they did a fantastic job. As far as accuracy, there are things that are not completely accurate, but they did very good with their recreation of it all. They seemed to take a lot of the movie inspirations from art and things that was made inspired from the books, I remember this time last year looking at a page of Two Towers art to see what it was going to be like to see the movie. All in all the movies are incredible, even breathtaking, and while not at all essential to the Lord of the Rings, an outstanding complimentation.

But.. weren't we suposed to be talking about EVA?

Originally posted on: 13-Dec-2003, 03:35 GMT

NakedEYE666 wrote:I think the Matrix would have done better as a series, I never really got that much of a kick out of the specail affects anyway.

I agree. The slow-motion camera-spinning gimmick was interesting in the first one, but by the second it had me yawning.

All in all the movies are incredible, even breathtaking, and while not at all essential to the Lord of the Rings, an outstanding complimentation.

I suppose it would be difficult to consider anything not by Tolkien himself to be "essential", wouldn't it?

But.. weren't we suposed to be talking about EVA?

I know, I know... LotR seems to have a bad habit of coming up again and again in this thread. On the one hand, there's the WETA association. On the other, it's a prime modern example of a cinematic adaptation, so it's inevitably going to be used as comparison.

Originally posted on: 13-Dec-2003, 03:59 GMT

I might point out that more is happening with LOTR than with the live action EVA movie that never will be

Originally posted on: 13-Dec-2003, 04:08 GMT

So Caine what would you want to see added on the 3 minutes you mentioned, and what do you mean here?

"Don't give me detail. Details, unimportant ones, are where the mistakes that i don't care about are. The arrows could not have existed in the Middle-Earth that I know. If you pay careful attention, they do have plastic. I don't care, but you apparently do and you happen to be incorrect."

RARARARAR

Originally posted on: 13-Dec-2003, 06:16 GMT

Some details don't matter. As I said, the Middle-Earth that I know cannot have arrows that involve plastic. The arrows in the movie do. I don't care. That was directed at Reichu, who noted how much attention they payed to detail. I care about the fact that The Sword That Was Broken has barely been mentioned. Aragorn was supposed to argue about whether or not he should let Theoden's guards take it. As far as I know, he doesn't even have it in the movie. I would maybe add that in. Other things I would like include Samwise being given the soil, and people going back to the Shire. Stuff like that. Maybe put in Tom Bombardil for five minutes. That's the type of stuff that I want.

I don't care about the arrows, I really don't.

Originally posted on: 14-Dec-2003, 00:14 GMT

Did not meant to argue with you, I was just curious cause I did not understand your point. Now I get it RARARARAR

Originally posted on: 16-Dec-2003, 03:34 GMT

K, first I hate to get into these things but their is something I would like to know/ inform. Alright, Caine, you said you dont own the DVDs, neither do I, but you must have heard about the exstended versions of both films. I mean the second is almost what like 4 hours with all the extended footage. So your 15 minutes does add, a lot. Again you must consider, its a movie, movies are made for money, and most of america wont sit for a 4 hour movie. SO taking your 5-15 minutes adds onto more and more of ameica falling asleep in their seats, exspecially if its not filled with action. Yah this has been said a million times before, and some are bound to misunderstand what I mean, so dont start a vendeta against me, after all I could have misunderstode you.

Originally posted on: 16-Dec-2003, 19:00 GMT

As very true as what you said is, Radio, pretty much everything is made for money. If Tolkien didn't think there was any commercail possibilities for The Lord of the Rings I doubt he would have spent the extensive ammount of time that he did to perfect the whole thing. Granted, I don't know Tolkien, it may have been something he would have done no matter what (and the same way), but atleast if he didn't see any sellability in it he might have worked on something else to get a cash flow to allow him with security enough to do it.

Originally posted on: 17-Dec-2003, 08:15 GMT

Radio_Free_Mars


Did you say what i think you said? I think i misunderstood you. I hope i did. I said 15 minutes. 15 minutes. that's an average of 5 minutes a movie? 5 minutes will put how many people asleep? Or sid I misunderstand you?

Originally posted on: 16-Dec-2003, 23:27 GMT

The sword is very important in the movies and is mentioned several times and shown in the first movie as its talked about.

Its in the 3rd movie a lot but I digress and wont put in any spoilers.

Seriously you can cry about all the details in the book that he left out but praise a book that was written without any clue of pacing and that requires serveral appendices just to get the whole story.

I know a ton of people including myself who found the books tedious. The movies saved the story they didnt ruin them. O no Tom Bombadil isnt there .... SO WHAT he wasnt anything and did nothing. His part of the book was filler and could have disappeared without affecting the themes or plotline.

Anyway how bout those Evangelions ....

Originally posted on: 18-Dec-2003, 06:03 GMT

yup I know what you ment by 15 min, and yes it would ADD to the total length of the films. Im just saying that plus the exstended versions of the films, 5 more minutes IS asking for a lot.

Originally posted on: 18-Dec-2003, 19:05 GMT

The sword is mentioned.
ARAGORN DOES NOT HAVE THE SWORD YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

I repeat, how many people would fall asleep or become bored with 5 extra minutes?

From what i've heard, i haven't seen it yet, the sword gets in but in a horribly wrong way.

That filler added a lot to the book.

Evangelion doesn't seem to be happening, if it does, it will probably be special effects and no plot.

I didn't find the appendixes to be necassary.

what has been added into the extended versions?

Originally posted on: 19-Dec-2003, 00:56 GMT

http://lupf.sepwich.com/rei_scan.jpg

That is NOT Unit-00. Unit-00 didn't have no teeth or toes.

Originally posted on: 20-Dec-2003, 01:38 GMT

oh yuck...

where'd that pic come from btw?

Originally posted on: 20-Dec-2003, 02:25 GMT

*sigh* the first bit of news I've seen lately about the movie and it's bad (very bad) news, not only is that not unit 00 that is defiantly NOT Rei Ayanami

And they proudly state that "How everything is being redesigned" don't they know the old saying not to fix something when its not broken. This will only further resolve that this movie will fail.

Originally posted on: 20-Dec-2003, 02:32 GMT

Pepperidge wrote:That is NOT Unit-00. Unit-00 didn't have no teeth or toes.

Well, technically she DID, you just never saw them. As far as a redesign goes... yeah, that's pretty icky. And "Ayanamiare"? WTF?

Originally posted on: 20-Dec-2003, 03:36 GMT

I fail to see what's so horrible about that Eva Unit 00 design. The only significant differance I see is in the head armor. You guys are gonna die early deaths if you let little things like that bother you.

It does seem odd that WETA's Rei design would appear to have dark hair and skin as opposed to the albino look I would have gone with.

Ayanamyare? I hope that's some sort of typo.

btw, Is that a scan from the last issue of Anime Insider I've been hearing about?

edit: I just now noticed the feet. OK, that's weird.

Originally posted on: 20-Dec-2003, 11:30 GMT

It's from Anime Insider. And the problem is... why do they have to bother redesigning the Evas at all? I mean... don't they look enough like threatening biomechanical robot-thingies already?

Originally posted on: 20-Dec-2003, 22:00 GMT

Something has finely happened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

So his this actually real, will this be in the movie? Will her name really be changed?

Originally posted on: 21-Dec-2003, 01:27 GMT

actually... I like the whole toe thing on Eva 00...

Originally posted on: 22-Dec-2003, 14:55 GMT