[Kornbread]

Saw Return of the King Last night. Being a die-hard original trilogy fan my whole life...I must admit that Rings is the best written, best special effects best Trilogy...Ever.


Peter Jackson has now set the bar for battle scenes/CGI and how to do movies now. Just like Lucas after the original trilogy...Jackson now has the throne.

[looktothesky]

I very much agree, but LOTR is not an original story like Star Wars is... and, uh... I dunno where I was gonna go with that.

Anyways! I hope the third movie is good, because the book sure was.

[Despondent]

I very much agree, but LOTR is not an original story like Star Wars is...

well everything has to come from an original story. be it a known known (lotr) or an unknown known (sw, released one chapter at a time.)

the fact that the screenwriter and the director are not the author has proven to HELP bring a quality product to screen. even in the sw series (empire)

the fact that the work behind the screenplay is known and revered ought to make little difference in the comparison of the final product. some of the most popular and well received films are based on books.


Remember the scene from jurrasic park where they're on the tour, and the announcer explains how they make dino-sores. they "take the dna from amber, patch it together with dna from a frog and poof. a dino-sore!" (misspelled i know. I'm trying to imply the enunciation)

If someone made a movie on, say, the creation story from genesis, that would be a known piece of work. and the film would have to support it. (yes i realize there are inconsistancies therein so maybe it's a bad analogy) the battle Lucas faces is, NOBODY, (apparantly,including himself) knows what his basis is. So his film doesn't have to meet the scrutiny of an audiences' prior knowledge. (except that his inconsistancies are readily apparant. he settled on those before postproduction so they can't change) So, his writing can be like the Jurrasic park creation story. "take a little of this, paste it with some of this and poof. Your next favorite movie (run amok.")

what do people usually say about a good book turned into a good movie? "it wasn't as good as the book"

If anything, (or maybe entirely by design) Lucas avoids this comparison.

[civilian_number_two]

what do people usually say about a good book turned into a good movie? "it wasn't as good as the book"

THERE WILL BE SPOILERS:

Exactly. You've got it dead right there. Lucas had the easier job. He could do whatever he wanted, nobody could scrutinize whether he'd got the story right or cut out Tom Bombadil, and he made at least one terrible prequel and a second I'm sure is terrible from whate everyone says.

So THE LORD OF THE RINGS is the better series of films, and certainly has the greater chance of repeated viewing, but I won't sell out the OT ever. Great fun there still, especially if you refuse to associate it with Lucas's latest monsters (don't see the next one, don't see the next one).

Comparing the trilogies directly, my impression is that to EMPIRE I had a better gut reaction than to THE TWO TOWERS (of course, I was nine years old), but STAR WARS and JEDI don't stand up to FOTR and ROTK. The special edition of TT is a lot better than the theatrical release, since it tells more story, and everything that was cut out seems to have been important for character. I hope the same will be the same for ROTK as it was for FOTR (The special edition of FOTR is in my opinion the best film in the trilogy by far).


SPOILERS:

I was disappointed by the semi-villain Denethor. We should have seen that he had a Palantir, and so had some glimpse into the source of his madness. Maybe Jackson was seeing the weakness of Tolkien's story (every bad guy has been seduced by Sauron or by the ring), and he wanted to mitigate the damage, but in that case I would have made Denethor more simply distrustful and less obviously insane. And for his big finish, I'd have had Gandalf close the door on him and deliver his line in a poignant close-up (like the book), rather than so comically at the image of a man on fire leaping off a cliff. It was action ramped up to the Daffy Duck level.

And speaking of ramped-up action, more over-the-top heroics from Legolas is something we did NOT need. In my mind, his single-handed attack on the AT-AT made Eowyn's face-off with the Witch King seem less important. And anything that makes me think less of Eowyn (hubba hubba) is just wrong. Shame on you Legolas. Shame on Peter Jackson before you.

All other details I liked. Really. Wow. Great ending. It takes a dedication to story to spend that much time on closing details when many filmmakers would want to end when the action stopped. And frankly I wanted more. More info on the future of Faranir and Eowyn, please. The scouring of the Shire I could have handled, anticlimactic though it may have been. Keep it coming; I've got a bladder of steel!

Now hiring: Beacon lighter of Gondor. Must be willing to spend entire life on top of God-forsaken mountain, maybe never to be called on to do duty of lighting signal fire. Food scarce, hours long. Most work sites are without roads or nearby settlements, so be ready to make your own fun. Hovels at select locations. Energetic self-starters only.

[barend]

LOTR is not an original story like Star Wars is...

actually...

SW ripped off Lord of the Rings. there is alot of roll swapping, but it's all there! especially the way Empire Stikes Back finishes. and the way Obi-wan is killed by Vader but becomes more powerfull in ANH! the list goes on but i don't want to have to type it all.

i need this mouth with these eyes :angry:

[Jordan]

TOLKIEN is the father of modern fantasy

It was he who took the short retarded elf and turned them into beautiful mytic beings. He created the orc, and he also invented the idea of trolls/orcs turning to stone in the day time.

He created the whole Idea of Dwarves being these iron forging, treasure hungry people who live in mountains.

I dunno why I'm even comparing Starwars with LOTR. They both are on different levels.

[artoo1121]

I was kind of dissapointed in ROTK. Jackson cut so much important stuff out of the movies. Here's the list of things I really missed
-Sauruman
-Houses of Healing
-Mouth of Sauron
-the crossroads
-Denethor and the Palantir
-Beregond and whatever his son's name is from Gondor
That's all I can think off of the top of my head, I won't even mention the scouring of the shirt because they didn't even film that, and the stuff i listed above will probably be in the EE.


And lol, civilian_number_two, I thought the oliphants looked a little like AT-AT's. I was actually waiting for someone to climb up on its belly and slice a lightsaber through it.
And I was wondering about the beacons. Who in their right mind would sit on top of a snowy mountain top and wait for a beacon to light that hasn't been lit in god knows how many years?

Anyway, it was a good movie, but I am holding my breath for the EE. The ROTK:EE will possibly be the best movie ever. EVER.

[barend]

the scouring of the shirt because they didn't even film that,

yeah, no trilogy is complete without a little laundry.

[artoo1121]

the scouring of the shirt because they didn't even film that,

yeah, no trilogy is complete without a little laundry.

hey, don't be mean. it was just a typo, give me a break.

[civilian_number_two]

I was kind of dissapointed in ROTK. Jackson cut so much important stuff out of the movies. Here's the list of things I really missed
-Sauruman
-Houses of Healing
-Mouth of Sauron
-the crossroads
-Denethor and the Palantir
-Beregond and whatever his son's name is from Gondor
...
And I was wondering about the beacons. Who in their right mind would sit on top of a snowy mountain top and wait for a beacon to light that hasn't been lit in god knows how many years?

SPOILERS EXIST:

Saruman, as I understand it, was cut because he seemed anti-climactic. Others I know wanted to see the mouth of Sauron. My dentist, especially (no, really!). I'm not sure whether the Palantir was cut because it made too much of how everyone was corrupted by Sauron, and maybe Jackson thought that was going too far, or whether it was just cut for time. Personally, I'd have liked its inclusion, and would also have liked it had Denethor died on his pyre rather than in the crazy looney tunes way he did.

As for the beacons. Yeah, I don't know what was up with that. They were supposed to be on high hills on the way from Gondor to Rohan. There just isn't a mountain range in the area with peaks that high. I love the movies, but my complaint all along has been that from time to time Jackson just took the action and the spectacle up to levels unjustified by the material.

I think they might have filmed the scouring of The Shire, and we had a hint of it in Frodo's vision in Lothlorien. But I may be wrong. Anyway, I agree (with Jackson) that it is anticlimactic, and I say if we can do without the Old Forest and without Tom Bombadil, then we can do without Saruman's come-uppance.

The only thing I really missed was any mention that Sam becomes Mayor of the Shire.

[Jordan]

I m still mad that Jackson used prissy nancy boy's for the lead hobbit roles instead of real midgets. Hobbits are supposed to be about 3 feet tall, they look about 5 feet tall in the movie. I ranted and bitched about this at LandE on the message board.


here is the post i did couple months ago.

I’m a huge Lord of the Rings Fan. I've read the Trilogy, hobbit, etc… dozens of times and even went as far as create my own little expanded universe based on the men of Gondor. I thought the movies were awesome too. I’m one of those fans that wished Peter Jackson made a special 10 hour version of each film for us losers, packed with all the missing scenes and gory detail that Tolkien has in his books. Those 3 hours seemed like 3 minutes cause it took me like a week to finish each book (I read slow). Nevertheless I still enjoyed the movies, save one small problem that really bugged me. I was never fully convinced that the hobbits were actually 3’0 feet tall. In fact after watching the movies numerous times I noticed that they actually grow and shrink through out each film. One scene that shocked me even on the first time viewing it in the theatre was the introduction scene of Gandalf and Frodo. It’s the part when Frodo sees Gandalf and is over come with joy. Frodo leaps off a small bluff and lands on Gandalf while he’s riding on a horse pulled carriage. It’s during the leap that Frodo grows from roughly 3’9 to about 5’5. I figured whatever not a big deal. But as the movie carried on the hobbits size was still in an everlasting permutation. In wide angle shots that included hobbits with men or elves the reverse took place; the hobbits looked as if they stood 5’0 to 5’5 and the men and elves looked about 7’0 to 9’0 tall. Gimli also had the same issue. Why didn’t Jackson just cast midgets? Hobbits are pathetic in stature and should look awkward in everyway. This could have been a career booster for Warwick Davis (star of Willow). Instead the poor bastard is succumbing to minor roles like that in Star Wars Episode 1. The scene where Watto looks all distort after losing the bet on the pods. Warwick is in that shot as some guy who is also seemingly distort that Watto lost. I needed to get that off my chest. Does anyone also feel the way I do?

I think Jackson's biggest mistakes were as follows
1) cramping the story into 3 movies
2) Hobbit casting (elijah wood has creepy eyes)
3) stryder/aragorn was the worst casting job I have ever seen in my life, the guy was a total shputz and should have been fired. I read on CNN he was a last minute replacement for Staurt Townsend, some other horrible aragorn guy.



The saruman thing i can understand. Watching a movie drains the shit out of you, so unless you are a BIG LOTR fan you would have thought the whole Saruman/shire thing to be overdoing it.

One thing I was really amazed with was Balrog. I never imagined him to me that tall!


PS----------- has anyone looked at chris tolkien's work? is it worth while to pick up the lost/forgotten tales book?

[Kornbread]

I think Jackson's biggest mistakes were as follows
1) cramping the story into 3 movies
2) Hobbit casting (elijah wood has creepy eyes)
3) stryder/aragorn was the worst casting job I have ever seen in my life, the guy was a total shputz and should have been fired. I read on CNN he was a last minute replacement for Staurt Townsend, some other horrible aragorn guy.



The saruman thing i can understand. Watching a movie drains the shit out of you, so unless you are a BIG LOTR fan you would have thought the whole Saruman/shire thing to be overdoing it.

With Michael Keaton as Batman and Jake Lloyd as young Anakin, I cannot believe you think Viggio was the worst casting job ever. I thought he nailed the part and was a great Aragorn. I will admit, that I am not a Tolkein Scholar. I read the books numerous times but i am not as versed in the history as some. Personal opinions I guess. Liv Tyler I thought from the beginning was a bad cast. That would be my small complaint.

A lot of the scenes that were not in the film like the Healing, Sauraman's fate, etc will be in the extended edition DVD. Three movies was enough. As cool as Bombadil was in the book...in actuality his scenes did not advance the story anymore.

The scrouring of the shire would have been a cool scene just to show how these once timid hobbits were now hardened warriors. I always loved that part. But that would have added another 30 minutes to the film. 4 hours would have been a tad much.

[civilian_number_two]

I'm glad Jordan did not cast these films.

Viggo as Aragorn was essentially ideal casting. The guy just embodies the role. 'Nuff said.

The hobbits are just fine. You need to accept the limitations of technology. My pet peeve is when people are confronted by something that is state of the art and they complain that it is not better. Gollum is currently fantastic, but in twenty years he'll look as convincing as old King Kong. That's the way of things (Lucas take note: noone hated the STAR WARS special effects; noone's embarrassed by them now). Meanwhile, Jackson did not limit his casting choices to height-challenged actors when he selected people based on acting ability and used technology to modify their height. Hobbits are supposed to be proportionately like men, but smaller. Midgets tend to have short arms, as they are not perfectly developed. Sorry; it's the case. Also, you were only able to name one actor, and he's like, way too old to play Frodo, and Peter Jackson had already cast one of England's finest actorts to play Bilbo. So I'm sure the pickings are slim. And if you feel their representation was inconsistent, well get over it. It didn't distract me, even though I'm sure in twenty years it will all look silly in comparison to what they have then.

Elijah Wood brought as much as he could to a role that is actually rather limited in action. He had to do a lot with those "creepy eyes" of his.

I think Liv Tyler was fine in her part, but mostly so in the first movie. Her expanded role was just silly. I understand that wasn't supposed to be Arwen in the first film, but Glorfindel, but they rightly found it silly to give a big heroic moment to a character we'll never see again. There is some precedent for this: in the Ralph Bakshi cartoon they made that charater Legolas, and it is common in biopics to amalgamate real individuals into singular and prominent characters. Shakespeare did it too. Anyway: back to Arwen. She had too much screen time in THE TWO TOWERS, and adding the notion that she was "dying" because of the spread of Sauron was just too much. But I think the actress is fine for what is really a small part; it's the writing that could have been better.

THREE MOVIES! of THREE HOURS APIECE! and more in the special editions! is just plenty for this story. If you want more detail you need to read the novel. That's the bottom line. Honestly, anyone can say that he wants more, but in fact he would have been bored by a much longer film.

And yes, it is worth it to look at the various books of lost tales, if you really want more. That is JRR Tolkien's work, compiled by Chris Tolkien, so it's source material, not pastiche. Warning, of course: it is not all about Frodo and company. There are poems and stories not even related to Middle Earth, but - get this - to the fantasies that exist in the minds of the Middle Earth denizens. Tolkien lays out their mythologies, and their legends, a great epic poem of the second age (?) and even little songs about children who play in the woods, and a story or two about The Man in the Moon (and variants of the same poem that appears in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING). It's not all good, and it's often repetitive, since Chris offers several versions of the same unpublished work, but if more is what you want, there's volumes of extra stuff there.

And if you really like Balrogs, read THE SILMARILLION.

[Jordan]

OH come on! I know at least 4 other people in this world that feel as I do, there is something to be said about that.

You need to accept the limitations of technology

my thoughts exactly just cast little people

[civilian_number_two]

my thoughts exactly just cast little people

All right; you win. Who did you have in mind?