BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,chip2447
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 02:13 AM

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,chipagain...
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 02:17 AM

Oops... just had an all day marathon, FELLOWSHIP and Two TOWERS on tv, followed by a merry jaunt to the theater...Loved ROTK, cant wait for extended dvds to come out...although, I mite suggest that 10 hours of Lord of the rings might be a bit much for some folks to deal with in one day.

Chip2447

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Bex McK
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 04:04 AM

Does anyone else think the thing is just a little bit undermined by Elijah Wood's Frodo? I like the casting of all the other characters, but Wood just isn't the Frodo I imagine from the book. I agree, though-- Sean Astin was brilliant as Samwise.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 04:58 AM

It would be nice if the film -v- book arguments could finally be put aside and each equally brilliant individual achievement - distanced by more than 50 years - can be just taken both on their merits and for the age they are being introduced into.

I thought that all the films and especially the last one were like being plugged directly into a person's imagination. That itself was a wonderful feat but I have to accept that the imagination I was plugged into was Peter Jackson's and not Tolkien's.

Tolkien's writing had fired Jackson's immagination to produce the visual treat that will hopefully fire someone else's imagination in another 50 years or so - in some future medium that has yet to come along.......Then two great creators can be joined by a third and so on.

It is about creation - about filling that empty page or empty screen with written or visual images to fire our imaginations. My thanks go to both of them for their efforts.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 05:26 AM

Saw this yesterday. The mulled wine hangover meant I couldn't give a shit about the fate of Gondor for the first half hour, but when I saw the beacon-lighting scene - wow! Hooked from then on in. The trolls looked crap though.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 01:31 PM

"Tolkien was among those who invented the things now called cliché."

Tolkien didn't invent anything...

Everything in his middle earth writing is derivitave... the names... the plots... the characters... Even the languages he 'invented' according to some folks are just Anglo-saxon, rearranged...

Just about eveything except the basic geography of ME was ripped off from myth, legend and folk-lore... JRR couldn't even be bothered coming up with his own character names...

It's an important book... Cause it was more or less first... and up to then, no one had done world building on that scale for a novel... But I have a tough time calling it a good book...

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 01:58 PM

"Ripped off" - no. "Based on", yes. But that's a different thing.

The shops are full of books which can resonably be termed, "ripped off" from Tolkien. We've all seen them - they always have a bit on the cover saying "Not since Tolkien" or "In the tradition of Tolkien" or something like that. No real grounding in folklore or anthropolgy or whatever, they've just read Tolkien, or maybe not even that, just other books written by people who have read Tolkien.

But Tolkien had never seen any books like that, because they didn't exist.

"JRR couldn't even be bothered coming up with his own character names..." That's to miss the point of what he was doing there, which was to provide roots on the real world for his fiction. I always remember the delight I felt, on a trip to the Czech Republic, to find a statue of "Radagast" half way up a mountain, and an excellent beer called after him. He's a local legendary character, sort of nature spirit, who's been honoured around that part of the world for the past few thousand years, before Tolkien found the name and decided he'd made a good wizard.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 02:19 PM

"Ripped off" - no. "Based on", yes."

That's a matter of interpretation... you see it one way, I see it another...

Neither one of us is wrong...

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 02:25 PM

Kipling put it well:

When 'Omer smote 'is bloomin' lyre,
    He'd 'eard men sing by land an' sea;
An' what he thought 'e might require,
    'E went an' took—the same as me!

The market-girls an' fishermen,
    The shepherds an' the sailors, too,
They 'eard old songs turn up again,
    But kep' it quiet—same as you!

They knew 'e stole; 'e knew they knowed.
    They didn't tell, nor make a fuss,
But winked at 'Omer down the road,
    An' 'e winked back—the same as us!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Kim C
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 03:38 PM

I haven't read the books yet - Mister has, for many years. Anyhow, I've really enjoyed all three movies. I did think the ending of #3 was a little too drawn-out, and I did have to look at my watch once, which is usually not a good sign, but I was curious how long I'd actually been sitting there.

I thought the giant spider was great, and I especially appreciated the opening scenes that explain how Smeagol became Gollum. Gollum is one of my very favorite characters - I can't help feeling terrible sorry for him. Plus, Andy Serkis is just plain awesome.

Action sequences were great, especially the cavalry charges!

I still maintain, though, that the greatest action scene ever in a major motion picture is the chariot race in Ben Hur. Those guys didn't have the benefit of CGIs, and did a remarkable job with what was available at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Cluin
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 11:54 PM

"Tolkien didn't invent anything..."


Did too!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 12:02 AM

Well, THAT'S certainly convinced ME!

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 12:31 AM

Yeah, it's hard to pick apart that argument. :-) (something to be said for simplicity).

I thought Frodo was great...the only character (and scenes) I wasn't quite satisfied with was Boromir...but he was pretty close to what I envisioned. I think the Orc arrows should've been individually smaller and less deadly in that scene, and the Orcs themselves should've been smaller too (but a lot of them) in that fight scene, as described in the book. In the book, they eventually filled Boromir full of arrows because his swordplay was too much for them to handle at close quarters. But no big deal.

They also did not show the retreating Orcs getting swallowed up by the forest of Huorns at their backs at the battle of Helm's Deep in movie 2, and that would have been very spooky and memorable. Can't figure why they left it out.

But these are very small points to quibble about.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 12:33 AM

Clinton,

you're wrong about Tolkien's languages. The common language of men and Hobbits, or Westron, is represented by English throughout Tolkien's writings so that we can understand it. Therefore, an older form of Westron, the language spoken in Rohan, is represented by Anglo-Saxon; thus we find out that Hobbit derives from "Hol-Bytlan," or "hole-builders." This was, in a sense, Tolkien's little private joke, for as a scholar of Anglo-Saxon he was back-deriving a word he had really invented spontaneously, with no thought of its etymology. In my book, this makes him more brilliant and clever and, yes, humorous, not less.

Fair enough about Anglo-Saxon, but the main language invented by Tolkien is not Westron (which you rarely glimpse in any case, because as I said it is represented by English). The main language invented by Tolkien is Elvish. And although he used some elements of Welsh and Finnish (both of which he could read) as models, the vocabulary and grammar of this language (or three languages, actually: Quenya, Sindarin, and the Black Speech of Mordor) are mainly original. In other words, he DID invent them. Beyond that, he also invented a language for the Dwarves. So to attack his credibility as a creator of languages reveals your own ignorance, not that of his admirers.

I think it's funny that you object to his not having invented the names of his characters. Almost all authors use real names that they did not invent themselves. Otherwise we'd have books filled with characters called "Rominghot Snarnomy" and the like. Why not instead use names that exist, like "Bob Cratchit" or "Elizabeth Bennett"? Is this a sin?

Then having observed this, didn't Tolkien invent some of his names? Is Aragorn a character in some country's folklore? I know the Dwarves' names and "Gandalf" come from Norse Eddas, and Eomer is mentioned in Beowulf, but I believe Eowyn is original, and Saruman, and Glorfindel, and Legolas, and Denethor. I may of course be wrong about some of these, but I have a wide knowledge of folklore and literature and doubt that I am wrong about all of them. So why this odd complaint about Tolkien?

I'll finish by saying, I absolutely understand that Tolkien's style can be hard to take, and do not suggest that anyone is dumb because they don't want to read it. But to dislike it and then complain about issues like "he didn't really invent languages" or "he took the names of characters from mythology" is petty. If you're going to not like it, don't like it for real reasons!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 01:16 AM

Each film had a small disappointment for me. I didn't like Galadriel. She should have been so beautiful that it hurt to look at her. I didn't think much of the Ents, and I wish they'd marched off singing "Though Isengard be strong and hard etc."
I as annoyed that they just left Saurman in Isengard among the Ents. I would have liked a little more of Eowyn. It annoyed me that they clapped when Aragorn was crowned. (Small, I know, but there you are.) I wish Jackson had spent a little less time on Mt. Doom.

AND THEN I found myself torn apart as Frodo sailed to the Gray Havens. I lived and breathed those books when I was a girl, and the ending tore me up. I don't know if I was mourning the passing of the age, or the passing of my youth.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Santa
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 04:33 AM

Saw it last night - and think it the best of the three. I didn't mind the plot shortcuts as much as some do, though miss the confrontation at Isengard. I thought it much closer to the theme than the earlier two.

However, it is interesting to see how different parts have affected people differently. For example, the beacon scene I thought typical of the worst parts of the movie - overdone for size and spectacle at the expense of credibility. Beautiful scenes across NZ mountains, but it was only supposed to be 3 days ride away - how many mountain ranges is that? Who lives all their time at the top of these peaks, just awaiting the word?

On the other hand the arrival of the corsair ships was very poorly done, in comparison with the rest of the film. Tolkien's image of the black flag changing to silver - I thought that was very cinematic, but it was ignored in favour of hokum.

And one recurring question - how are all these cities fed? NZ is full of farms, so would Gondor and Rohan have been. Minis Tirith surrounded by wasteland - I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 04:55 AM

They also did not show the retreating Orcs getting swallowed up by the forest of Huorns at their backs at the battle of Helm's Deep in movie 2, and that would have been very spooky and memorable. Can't figure why they left it out.

You need the extended DVD of The Two Towers, LH. It's in that! There is also a lot more about Boromir, Faramir and Denathor which makes a lot of sense about Faramir behaving as he does.

Trouble is I now have both versions of the first 2 films and can hardly wait for the standard and extended editons of ROTK. When I get all 3 extended versions I can see myself having a 12 hour film session and emerging from the living room with square eyes:-) I can save all the interviews and 'making of's' for the next day...

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Ethereal Purple
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 06:15 AM

My brother's very indignant about the accusation that Tolkein didn't invent his own names. He asks about the Elvish names... didn't he invent them (from words of Elvish)?

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Kim C
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 10:45 AM

Whether or not Tolkien invented names or languages - he did create an entire world, composed of several different cultures. To me, that's a pretty amazing feat.

I did think Galadriel was beautiful.

Dave, that's probably what we'll do when we have all the movies. I move we have a big sleepover somewhere and we can all join in!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Santa
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 10:59 AM

She was (is) beautiful - but she wasn't Galadriel. Galadriel should be more mature, more queenly, with more presence, not just simpering about. I think an older actress was needed. But that's not "Hollywood" enough, I suppose. One of the problems with cutting the Scourging of the Shire" was that it also damages the present giving in Lothlorien - to my mind the scene where Galadriel is offered the ring and refuses it is perhaps the finest part of the whole trilogy. Not in the film. (Not in the earlier one, either...)

This is evidence of how tightly plotted the Ring really is - you cannot hack one setpiece away without affecting several other events. Obviously Tolkien was a much better writer than some ciritics allow.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Peg
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 11:04 AM

I loved the beacon lighting scene. I think it added to its grandeur and thrill-factor, to imagine that there were indeed men whose sole duty it was to camp there and wait for the signal to light the fires...

Can anyone suggest someone more beautiful than Cate Blanchett to play Galadriel? We may just be talking about personal preferences here. One might suggest, say, Jennifer Garner or Gwyneth Paltrow, but their qualities as actresses would simply not be right. Even among English actresses I think one would be hard-pressed. Rachel Weisz? Jennifer Ehle? Kate Winslet? I think Blanchett's slender build and enigmatic face were just right.   Even the lovely Miranda Otto was better as Eowyn than she would have been as Galadriel.

I think the casting of this film was nearly perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 11:46 AM

Yep. That's what I'd say too. Nearly perfect. Elves have never been better served than in this film. Since the Elves all sailed away to Westernesse...could they be the forerunners of the American Indians? (hmmmm) Quivers that simply never run out of arrows are a darn handy thing to have in a battle, I'd think. Gotta talk to Legolas about that and find out how it works.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: EBarnacle
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 12:00 PM

"I didn't like Galadriel. She should have been so beautiful that it hurt to look at her." When they were looking for someone to play Scarlett O'Hara, they discovered someone who was not a classic beauty but who came alive for the camera. I believe Galadriel was one who worked with the camera beautifully. Blanchett was right for the role.

Further above, "The Hands of the King are the hands of a healer ????" This is presaged in Book I, where Aragorn insists on Kingswort to help heal Frodo of his initial wound. As mentioned above, a large part of the brilliance is tying all the threads of the story together.

"Let's hunt some Orc" is not as written but is an accurate lead-in to the next book. It could have been more flowery but that would not have been Gimli's style as presented in the movie.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Alice
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 12:18 PM

Saw it Sunday night. Awesome. My dreams as I slept Sunday night were about the movie, like I was in the story.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 01:39 PM

For most of the main characters they hunted round and came up with faces and names people aren't familiar with, and perhaps that was the way to deal with Galadriel. Cate Blanchett is beautiful enough, but maybe a little too human looking. There's probably some totally unknown actress around who'd be perfect.

...................

"Woe to them if we prove swifter. We will make such a chase as shall be accounted a marvel among the Three Kindreds: Elves, Dwarves and Men. Forth the Three Hunters"

"Let's go hunt some Orc" is more succinct, I grant. But...

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Grab
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 02:10 PM

Hmm. I was surprised, in that I was less taken with this one than with the others. Maybe it was just that it was a bit rushed - I might be spoiled though from the extended DVD versions (which contain the missing plot elements). And maybe I was just expecting too much! :-)

The change to Denethor really annoyed me though. Instead of being a great man broken by his mental fighting against Sauron (via the Palantir), he became a toddler throwing a tantrum. And the scene of his death, instead of being the great tragedy from the book, is changed to just be an accident. Not impressed.

I was left wondering where the elves went after Helm's Deep - no elves apart from Legolas in the whole thing, but surely some must have survived to ride with Rohan? And correct me if I'm wrong, but there were dwarves somewhere in there in the book as well? And then in the attack on the Black Gates, it's all Gondor and no Rohan - again, *some* of them must have survived. A bit odd really. The army is a bit damn small at the end too, unless the intention is to show how many of them were killed.

The half-assed assault on the Black Gates was a bit odd as well - very little setup for that, and once they get there, the army just sits there like cabbages waiting for the orcs, instead of preparing for a proper battle (plenty of terrain to be used around there, for sure). You're a small army and Frodo might not make it, so at least do your best to even the odds a bit, right? And if you even the odds, although you lose, you'll fight a bit longer and give Frodo more time to get there.

I also agree with Santa - the beacons thing left me cold. You only ever get one beacon at a time, so it didn't work for me - no sense of the message passing on. Now what *would* have been a good shot after the first one or two would be to pan out to the whole of the mountains and see beacons lighting one after the other along the mountain range. That'd establish the scale of Middle Earth as well. If they were clever, they could even have included a sight of the massed orc armies in it. But as it was, it just looked like a New Zealand tourist board advert. After a few shots of the same thing happening on different mountains (and this went on for *minutes*) then you do start wondering when the film's going to start again. I'm not surprised Christopher Lee was livid, when they cut 3 minutes of his acting but left all that beacon stuff in.

It was still a good film. But it's annoying that there's details which stop it being a great film. And I've got an unpleasant feeling that these details are inherent in the film's structure, rather than being something which could be improved with another half hour of character development and plot (like the other two Extended versions).

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Peg
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 02:18 PM

huh??? they DID show more than one beacon lighting in proximity, that was the whole point, that this sequence showed the message being passed from one hilltop to the next. In at least a couple of shots more than three beacon lightings were visible...some were far in the distance, but they were there....

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 02:18 PM

"I didn't like Galadriel. She should have been so beautiful that it hurt to look at her."

That's the problem with having humans play non-human characters... they are hamstrung by being human... All the elves look like bad 80's dye jobs... with blond blond hair and dark eyebrows... But it could have bene a LOT worse I guess...

And well as far as Cate B goes, I can take her or leave her... As Galadriel, I thought she just looked goofy... something about what the ear prostetics, combined withthe elf-wig, did to the shape of her head...

Like C.S. Lewis, I've kinda always hated JRRs elvs, so really, what PJ did with them on the big screen, I really didn't care about one way or the other... Electric Gladariel from Fellowship was pretty goofy... but as with that, the wizard duel, Gollum jumping on Invisible Frodo, and a few other scenes I can think of... they are gonna look pretty hokey no matter how they were visualised... I think PJ did, for the most part, the absolute best he could have with such scenes...

Too bad his cave troll (in Moria) looked as bad as the Centaur in the first Harry Potter movie...

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Kim C
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 02:33 PM

Maybe it's because I haven't read the books, but I thought Cate Blanchett was just fine. Why an older actress for an immortal character? I don't think Galadriel would have necessarily looked "older." And Cate is an adult actress, well over 30, not one of these little teenybopper girls.

It worked for me. But as Peg said, it's probably just personal preference.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 03:08 PM

Ebarnacle, it was Aragorn, not Gimli, who said "Let's go hunt some orc." It might have been better coming from Gimli, actually.

Grab, I think the half-assed look of the assault on the Black Gate might have to do with the way the film was cut. In the book, when Aragorn rides up and bangs on the gate, one of Sauron's lieutenants emerges and negotiates with them. He shows them Frodo's mithril shirt, Sam's sword, and another artifact (can't remember which...his elven cloak?) and claims that he has Frodo in captivity. He threatens to torture Frodo to death if Gondor does not capitulate. In the meantime, of course, Frodo has escaped leaving those artifacts behind, so the lieutenant is bluffing.

In the movie, they went to some trouble to show Frodo's stuff, including the mithril shirt, being taken away by Orcs, which is mostly significant as a set-up to this absent scene. So I suspect that this scene was filmed and then cut, and will be restored for the extended DVD. What PJ was left with, then, was footage of an approach to the gates for a parley, not an attack. In this version of the film, the parley never occurs and the battle begins immediately.

As for the rest of the army, including the elves and the rohirrim, they might in fact be just over the next rise waiting for the proper moment, which does not come because Frodo destroys the ring in time.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 05:51 PM

Grab,

I noticed the same thing about the battles in ROTK -- all men. I *think* the point was being made that this is the beginning of man's dominion. It's hammered home repeatedly in the stacks of original prose, but there's only so many times Pete could have a character say it in the movie. I thought this was reinforcing that.

The last battle seen... yeah, kinda pathetic.

Having already said a bunch of the stuff I didn't like, perhaps I ought to mention some of the stuff I thought was really well done. The special effects were spectacular -- even better than the other two. With the exception of the ghost army (which was going to look like an effect; no getting around it), you could only tell the effects because you knew they must be there. The oliphaunts were extraordinary.

Really, all of the battle for Gondor is good.

The soundtrack and soundeffects were much more effective in this movie. If you notice the music playing in the background, that's soundtrack badly done -- both bugged me in FOTR and TTT. It's excellent in ROTK. All the technical aspects are over the top in the trilogy, which IMO is entirely appropriate and used well. The sound effects in ROTK are particularly outrageous, but it works magnificently. The technical aspects serve the story; they aren't an entity in themselves.

And Pippin's song during the last charge of the cavalry of Gondor was positively eerie, and it probably is the most emotional scene in American cinema in... well... a really long time.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Cluin
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 06:17 PM

The "Let's go hunt some orc" line just sounded like some D&D nerd's in-joke to me... maybe cause I played a bit of that game some 23-odd years ago. Too hokey. I preferred the higher language of the book myself, but maybe it would seem too stilted on the big screen.

Then again, I liked those old epics Hollywood used to produce, and that sort of dialogue worked then.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 06:47 PM

"and that sort of dialogue worked then."

That was then... this is now... I suspect the 'stilted' assessment is correct...

"American cinema"

New Zeland cinema maybe? I think it's fair to at least recognise the mutual effort...

heh

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 09:22 PM

New Zealand provided some fine scenery and no doubt hordes of technicians and extras, but it's not New Zealand cinema any more than practically every non-sitcom TV show on the air is Canadian just 'cause they film it there.

Isn't practically ever film requiring scenery shot in NZ now? It's a country truly blessed by some fantastic vistas.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 09:35 PM

"That was then, this is now" always makes me add mentally "but not for very long..."

There's a lot more "then" and "yet to be" than there is "now", by definition.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: DonMeixner
Date: 24 Dec 03 - 02:28 AM

Such whining. Tsk, I paid my money and was entertained for 3 1/2 hours. I ignored the little missing details from the books I liked from high school and just watched a good tale told well.

I find it more fascinating to learn that Tolkien was a Leut. in the signal corps at The Battle of the Somme. He saw battle and death in quantity. Also in the the signal corps, also an Leut. also at The Battle of The Somme was A. A. Milne. Interesting how they are remembered and the books they wrote after this harrowing experience.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Dec 03 - 04:30 AM

"Winnie the Pooh and the Balrog..."

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Dec 03 - 12:12 PM

The Uruk Hai Guide To Playing Pooh Sticks?

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 24 Dec 03 - 01:51 PM

I didn't love it, but then I haven't loved any of the films. That said, there were some great things: I thought most of the battles
were fantastic, Minas Tirith was amazingly cool, and as always the scenery was just breathtaking.

Galadriel's casting I can take or leave; as noted above, some things will inevitably seem hokey when translated from page to screen--the whole final 20 minutes of the film felt very corny to me; Gandalf riding on the eagle springs especially to mind. In the first film I was most nonplussed by the fact that the Rivendell scenes were
appeared to have been filmed in the Tavern on the Green in Central Park!

My main problem in all 3 films has been with what I feel is the very poor casting of Frodo---Elijah Wood struck me as all wrong from the very first frame he appeared in. He's too young-looking, for one thing, and seems capable of only 2 facial expressions, to wit: insipid wistful yearning or insipid terror...the apparently obligatory (and insipid) pseudo-Celtic pennywhistle music that wells up each time he & Sam share a special moment just added to my annoyance with him.

I also felt that Sam's character was woefully reduced to that of
well-meaning & loyal but ultimately blocklike and stolid sidekick, when he is in fact one of the most "solid" characters in the story...having him appear reluctant to return the ring to Frodo after taking it for "safekeeping" was all wrong: as I recall things, Sam was always aware of the ring's evil & yet was essentially unaffected by its pull.

But again: it is a bit like comparing apples & oranges to quibble in too much detail, and it's best to look at the film and the book as 2 separate but related entities. It was an enormously ambitious project, and it would have been impossible to please everyone. It will be very interesting to see the extended edition DVD when it appears (probably just in time for next Christmas!).

D.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Dec 03 - 05:01 PM

Couldn't disagree more with Desdemona about Elijah Wood as Frodo. Or about the quiet ending of the film.

The amazing thing is that, with all these people running around with their own ideas of how it should be, Peter Jackson and company managed to produce something that mostly agrees with most people. People like me see the battles as flavouring, to add to the main dish, for other people it's completely the other way about, but both sets of people appear to have been basically pretty pleased with what was achieved.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Naemanson
Date: 25 Dec 03 - 06:28 AM

Well, I finally saw it and it isn't wonderful. It is amazing, great, mind-blowing, magnificent, staggering, grand, and if I could find my thesaurus I would use a few more words. Maybe I should say it wasn't JUST wonderful. Sorry to disagree Desdamona.

One thing I caught myself doing was trying to pick out where they cut the story and where the expanded parts will go. For instance... but no, I don't want to spoil it for anyone. Let's just say I kept seeing places where there was obviously more story filmed but not included in this release. And now I have to wait so long for the expanded version...

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Dec 03 - 09:01 AM

A lot of people see different things...or miss different things. The Riders are mixed in with the soldiers of Gondor during the attack on the Black Gates-watch for the guys with the round shields. It is not, BTW, tactically sound to mix troops who haven't trained together. Galadriel's refusal of the Ring was in the Fellowship-it may have been an added scene.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 25 Dec 03 - 08:17 PM

Actually, I'm not typically a person who cares one way or another for battle/action scenes in films, so it's funny that I point to them as amongst the best bits of this last installment. That said, I did think these were impressive, especially as I felt there was so much lost in terms of the "quieter" parts of the book, especially the sense of fellowship amongst the group as they travelled on the road...that sort of thing is subtle & difficult to show on film, and to my mind was one of the major casualties in these movies (particularly the first one).

Again: difficult or impossible to please everyone, but I do feel it was a respectable if deeply flawed effort. I will say that I'm in serious doubt whether this story "needed" to be made into a film at all, considering the very personal impressions so many people have of the former.

D.


PS--Merry Christmas; hope everyone's had a nice holiday!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: DonMeixner
Date: 25 Dec 03 - 10:02 PM

Hi Des,

Well I have to admit that I disagree with you about a lot of your
critique with the film. But thats what makes great conversation and shared pints. You made one statement that fascinates me tho'.

"I'm in serious doubt whether this story "needed" to be made into a film at all"

I can't think of a single piece of lit'ratoor that needs to be anything but the book. Movies are made to be an entertainment and nothing more. Certainly some of it becomes art but by and large its an exchange of two hours in the dark hopefully having a good time and trading cash for the experience.

The Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Sam Jaffe film of "Gunga Din" is great film making, close to art in of it self but it ain't Kiplings poem. Not even close. But still great film making and entertainment.

Be sure and watch the extended version of The Return of the King when it comes out and see if it clears up some sticking points.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Dec 03 - 04:57 AM

I've just come back from seeing it. (re - saw parts 2 & 3 wednesday)

I thought it was beautifully told, artistically presented, and archetypal in its message.

when i came out I was glad to see hundreds of young people (20s & 30s) queued up to see it -

I'm glad tales of valour and honour are being re told for the next generation.

freda (underhill, as per prancing pony!)

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 26 Dec 03 - 04:59 AM

in saw this on DVD last week, it was shite, load of people dressed in old fasioonded costumes, shite.johhn

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Dec 03 - 05:58 AM

Live long enough jOhn, and you'll realise you've been wearing old-fashioned costumes all your life.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Dec 03 - 11:46 AM

jOhn from Hull: the most cunningly subtle comic genius of our times.

Let's hear it for him!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Dec 03 - 05:30 PM

..The Thread goes ever on and on
Down from the web where it began.
Now far ahead the thread has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
Pursuing it with hairy feet,
Until it joins some larger way
Where many threads and catters meet.
And whither then? I cannot say.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 03 - 11:01 PM

I was 12 when I first read LOTR. Until then I had read about two kinds of females; Domestic Goddesses, ( Laura Ingalls Wilder, Anne of Green Gables, even, though she deserved better! Jo March.) and sleuths. (There were any number of stories of clever girls finding hidden treasure, and solving mysteries.)
Then I read "The Trilogy"
First there was Galadriel. She was incredibly beautiful, and she held absolute power in her hand, literally! and rejected it.
Then there was Eowyn, riding against the forces of Mordor, sword in hand! Wow!
I knew I could never aspire to be Galadriel, but I figured, if I really worked at it, I might be Eowyn.
Well, I'm not, but it was still something special.
By the way, I'm not a guest, I'm LadyJean, but I can't seem to convince the cat.