Powers of ultimate evil are supposed to be tall, I think it's in the rules. How else can one loom effectively?

I'm going to tell Clovis you said that ...

The tall conflicts with the sneaking, though. Also, it's a bit of a tell.

Powers of ultimate evil are supposed to be tall, I think it's in the rules. How else can one loom effectively?

I'm going to tell Clovis you said that ...

I suppose you can also loom if your owner holds you up really high...

I suppose you can also loom if your owner holds you up really high...

You've met Jilli, right?

In Jilli's case, I'm using "high" as a very relative term. As in "higher than Clovis would be able to loom on his own."

Aha.

And, he can be lobbed, which is more than you can safely say for Mr. Lee.

Yes, with lobbing, I'm sure Clovis can acheive quite a great, if very temporary, looming height.

... I just don't understand why film critics are any more or less worthy of contempt (again, your word) than you, or me, or anybody else who reviews a film.

Just a quick step through this one on my way to talking about evil and looming and stuff, but IIRC the contempt came from the prevalence of a specific kind of negative review. Namely, the 'I don't get it, so there must be nothing to get' kind which, as attitudes go is a pretty reprehensible one. Maybe it just comes down to how much or little of that sort of thing a given person perceives, and how much it rankles. KaPWING!

So, about this evil looming thing, while I'm pretty sure that CL is taller, I wouldn't say that equates automatically to bigger. I think it's possible to loom wide as well as tall.

Man, I'm so getting the stomping suspicion that Arwen is going to bug the holy hell out of me this time out.

Well, we saw it last night. And? I don't know. I'm inclined to say, "What Jess PMoon said in her first post after the film," but I forget her particulars, so I'm not sure that'd be an accurate assessment. I do remember she expressed some dissatisfaction, and so I think how she described her emotional response might match mine, but I've no recollection whether or not the same things bothered us.

Dh adored it. He just came in the room and said, "Are you telling them how great it was?" That's not what this is going to be. He then asked, "You didn't like it?" That's not it either. I loved it, but I may have loved it because I love the story. I'm not so sure on the execution. Now my I'm-no-so-sureness must be taken in this context: I need (and want!) to see it 2 or 3 more times, and I can't wait 'til the EE DVDs come out, and know it's just going to be a torturous 9 (or whatever) months 'til they're released. So, you know, the love is there--it's just not what I expected/wanted. A few more viewings ought to let me figure out if it's what I needed.

I was underwhelmed by EW's Frodo. I felt like I was watching a display of acting technique. Wood usually becomes any character he plays, so this startled me. I thought--more than once--of some people's assessment of JM's Spike. Boyd's Pippin and Astin's Sam were the highlights for me, and Dom's Merry--this was the first time he was more to me than that-other-one-that-isn't-Pippin.

I think FotR remains my favorite of the three. I liked the feeling (I don't know if that's what I should be calling it) I got in FotR about each of the different Peoples of Middle Earth, and what they wanted, needed, and what ideals brought them to battle. I thought that was continued relatively well in TTT, but not so much in RotK. I can understand that, somewhat. In RotK, we're in the middle of it all. But something was missing for me. FotR made me care about the fate of the elves, the dwarves, the wizards, the Hobbits, and the Men--care about the fate of each group of the Peoples of Middle Earth. I missed that in this movie.

I started to get annoyed by the technique used in filming the various legs of the battle. At first I thought it was brilliant. War--particularly more primative forms of warfare--is supposed to be like that. You are in the middle of a whirlwind. You're caught up. You're disoriented. You can't get the big picture, because your caught up in it. I appreciated--at first--that Jackson brought that feeling home to me. By the end, I was bored with it. Peter, you'd already made me feel like I too was in the battle. I'll keep that feeling. Now please, let me actually watch it. I was too disoriented given that I was not in the battle. I paid 10 bucks to see this movie and I can't tell what the hell is going on. After you've gotten me *there* emotionally--and you did--I should be able to get the big battle picture when I'm sitting in an upholstered seat. In short, I thought that haze-of-battle effect was overused.

I also felt like I do when I have to skim a thread here--one that I would really rather read word-for-word, post-for-post. I felt like Jackson was giving us a meara of the story.

Ah well, that's all I have time for right now. I hope I get to see it again, soon.

* I'm pretty positive the pumpkin stroker was Andy Serkis.

...

I loved it, but I may have loved it because I love the story. I'm not so sure on the execution.

That sums up my reaction to a T.

So, you know, the love is there--it's just not what I expected/wanted. A few more viewings ought to let me figure out if it's what I needed.

This too.

[eta: And if you did want to check point-by-point, my initial reactions are here. I'm curious, anyway.]