Quoted for effect

Congratulations on the new arrival. My daughter is almost 3 and I'm still trying to get caught up on sleep...so, I wish many restful nights to you three

Thanks to Dorkman for providing all the wonderful background lore to LOTR. Unfortunately, I only got to see set up and the beginning part before running off to work.
You guys did a crazy amazing job and glad you all survived it

I have to agree with Dorkman. I was thinking about this commentary and the movies and thinking on parts of the book that I wished had stayed, but the scouring of the Shire does not fit with the tone of the film at all. If they let Saruman live and let him go, then I could almost see it working, but that is more fitting with the book, not the movie. So, agree with Trey and Dorkman on this point, and with the above quote that Bombadil did not fit.

Since I am not able to participate in this venture, due to work, I decided to list out some things that I have been thinking on for this discussion. I hope someone in the huge panel will consider discussing the following:
(WARNING-Nerd rant to follow)
1. LOTR is not an allegory! While this discussion is on the film, and the perspective of those making the film, and understanding that Tolkien despised allegory as a story telling motif probably should be stated and realized. Most people put their own interpretations of who Gandalf represents, who Aaragorn represents, what the Ring represents. While some of them represent abstract concepts-such as the Ring being industrialization versus agrarian society-most of the characters stand alone without any interpretation. That was Tolkien's intent.
2. I wonder if anyone realized the Balrog's origin? I didn't while watching it, but reading the book gave far more insight in to the dynamic of that battle. The Balrog was not just some obscure demon that just happened upon the Fellowship. He and Gandalf were the same species, if you will, and the battle between them was close to power against power, but Gandalf's source of power was greater.
3. What parts do you think were added that should not have been-or taken out that should have stayed?
I'm sure this is a long discussion for the movies, but obviously, there is so much to the books that not everything could remain in.

Tis' all for now

He's not?
That changes everything
While Hawkeye is an interesting character, I'm not sure that introducing him in this movie is the wisest choice.

The circle moment was probably the funniest moment, though unintentionally so. It sounds like the beginning of a bad joke-Iron Man, Captain American, Thor and a chick with a pistol walk in to a bar...
Seriously, Samuel Jackson got an RPG and he's the leader...give her at least a machine gun guys

I like the Death Star Basketball idea. That would be a lot of fun
Actually, there is a lightsaber flashlight out there so at least that made it through:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/e79d/

I think the point of the scene is the people who Gotham considered to be scum or expendable (the prisoners) end up making the better choice. But, part of the scene is that the Joker was running out of options. He knows how people tick but he also expects them to think like he does. He pushes Batman to the brink and he expects the city to respond in kind. But one person stands up and decides that he won't let the Joker push them around.
At least, that is what I took away from the scene.

Here's the thing about that scene that works for me. It is the Joker staring Batman in the face, telling him that he has failed, that no matter what, the people will turn on each other in a heartbeat. Yeah, there were going to shoot a guy with a bomb, but later, when the chips are down, and things are really bad, someone rises up and makes the right decision. In my opinion, the scene works because while the Joker may have beat down Batman, he did not completely beat down the people.

Social commentary in any movie is a mixed bag. V for Vendetta is an odd choice, because the original comic was based out of specific time and place, namely Britain and fear of extremist conservatives. Extending that commentary to today is difficult, in my opinion. Likewise, Dark Knight attempts to take on privacy issues, and freedom versus security which is not just a social comment-it is a common tale told throughout history.

The Dark Knight is certainly not childish-I would have a hard time letting my child watch it, while would gladly let them sit through Adam West's Batman. My point being, Nolan's Batman is as much a commentary on society's view of superheroes as it is a commentary on anything else. Heroes are no longer pinnacles of virtue to me admired-now they are law breaking vigilantes, who are just one stressful event away from a psychotic break from reality. The privacy, security and fear mongering is simply trappings in this dystopian world.

You want to discuss social commentary-lets talk society's current view on heroes and villains.

When and did it today

With the whole Batman recording, I came up with a new list of suggestions for our panelists:

• The Original Batman Movie with Adam West

• Sky High, for a more teen take on super powers and I think was mentioned in the chat

• Hancock, for some more crazy Will Smith antics, and antihero fun

Superman was mentioned above, so that might be worth while, but I think that it might not go as well and some might think.

Anyway, that is all

I was waiting for this thread to start.

I want to go see it, only for the sake of the lightsaber battle at the end. Yeah, it may be a poor movie, but I will enjoy that battle a lot and may finally demonstrate to me the worthwhileness of 3D format.

I enjoy Trey's stories as well. I think the creature effects in Species are well done, but I agree that it is a poorly done film.

If those are the two best things of the film, then we need to evaluate our criteria for good film-making 

Even more surprising, they made more of those films...