BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!

Subject: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:48 AM

Only kidding! Got 9 hours to go before I can realy make that statement. Did have a weired dream last night though. Somehow involved ringwraiths and pelicans...

Do you think something is playing on my mind? Or was it the surfeit of Chinese food?

Fell free to beat me to it if you realy have seen it btw:)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: black walnut
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 07:08 AM

My 16 year old and her friend are skipping school to see it this morning - a 9:45 AM showing. Too bad I have to work or I'd be joining them.

~b.w.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 07:21 AM

Can't wait!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Peg
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 08:42 AM

Click www.witchvox.com to read my review if you want...there are spoilers!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 08:51 AM

I trust you are just keeping us from the spoilers. Peg..;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 10:33 AM

I think I'll wait till the rush is over. In the meantime there are the first two parts to catch up on on DVD. And the book. Not exactly any need for Ring-starvation.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 03:38 PM

I went to the 12:01 AM opening day screening. Didn't get home until 4:30 AM. No, I'm not that big an LOTR freak - daughter's visiting and it was her idea.

It was (go to an online thesaurus, find as many synonyms for "stupendous" as possible, and insert here->)_______________.

The visuals are incredible. The orcs are uglier than ever. The Nazgul are much more menacing than in Two Towers. Minas Tirith is so stunningly realistic that you'd swear they actually built the place. The dead are cool too.   

The pacing is superb. Frodo and Sam's journey through Mordor to Mt. Doom is not tedious as it is in the book. The post-ring-destruction denouement is also gratefully shortened.

Minor complaints: Saruman's fate is left in limbo. Faramir & Eowyn's romance is only hinted at.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 04:04 PM

"The post-ring-destruction denouement is also gratefully shortened.
"

If that is so, it's a right bugger! And the same goes for cutting down too much on the "tedious" trek of Frodo and Sam. But of course that's an example of how people differ when it comes to what we think is exciting or important.

I hope the DVD when it comes will restore much of that. (Though I know the Scouring of the Shire was excised, because there's a thread about that. And I deplore it. If they had to cut things, I'd sooner they cut down on the big battle sequences. Still, I'm not making movies.)

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 04:27 PM

Kevin, just a quick example... In the book, Frodo and Sam, disguised in orc armour, were press-ganged by a bunch of orcs traveling through Mordor, right? That particular bit was omitted from the movie and I didn't miss it a bit.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 05:14 PM

I can now tell the truth! I shall change my comment from brilliant to just...

Wow!

Probably the best film I will ever see. Apart from the extended edition in November...;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:02 PM

Oh - and my admiration for the works Annie Lennox has gone even higher. I shall say no more...;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:10 PM

And you confirm my point, Bee-dubya-ell, becuase that's be something I'd hope to see reinstated in the DVD.

Horses for courses.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: mouldy
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 02:56 AM

We knew about the haunting end-theme, sung by Annie Lennox, cos we got the cd a few weeks ago, and Ruth has been playing it non-stop! As soon as the dots are released she'll be putting the piano through some overtime again.

We are off to see it tomorrow night. Can't wait!


Andrea

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Sarah
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 04:32 AM

Saw it last night.

Can't find the words!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Larkin
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 06:17 AM

Me Too and I have to say I was a bit dissappointed and felt that a lot of the depth of the individual characters storylines was missing and some weird introductions to the plot . The fate of Arwen being tied up with the Ring?? Sam being sent back by Frodo??? The Eowen/ Faramir romance ? The Hands of the King are the hands of a healer ????

The set pieces were fantastic- Pelennor fields superb. Legolas and Oliphaunt -best thing in it.

Probably not helped by booking late and sitting at the front.

Larkin

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From:
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 03:47 PM

Well, if television commercials are to be believed (hey, they wouldn't lie to us, would they?), all the adventure and excitement of Lord of the Rings: Return of the King can now be found at KFC.

Maybe we have to fight an orc or cave troll or Nazgul to pick up our chicken? And I hear with a 3 or 4 piece dinner, you get a lembas roll.

If only the Fellowship had known, Frodo and Sam needn't have made the arduous trek to Mount Doom to dispose of the One Ring in the Fire. All they needed to do was walk into their local crispy chicken outlet and toss the thing into the fat fryer. The pimply kids in the back would have been a pushover compared to Sauron and his minions.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 07:00 PM

I think I'd sooner head for Mount Doom than walk into a Knetucky Fried Chicken place. Or Macdonalds, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:53 PM

My children (as children are wont to do to their 'poor auld da') absconded with my copies of the books. The nicely bound and boxed copies. The lovely volumes I've had at hand for... well... a long time. I wanted to re-read the Hobbit and then the trilogy. I watched my two VHS tapes instead. Felt myself lucky to have those. Went to Borders and almost had a heart attack when I saw the $115 price of that exact same boxed set! I KNOW I never paid anything near that much for my copy since I was a poverty stricken student at the time.

I'm planning a raid. I'll wait 'til my daughters are otherwise occupied and I'll slip my copies into an old San Francisco State College book bag I have... wait a minute, where did I put that bag? It was just over there right next to my copy of Nosferatu (the Murnau version) Yikes!

We're going to go Christmas eve (actually early afternoon) when there is no one about.

CB

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: mouldy
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 02:50 AM

As I sit here, Ruth is getting up for college, and Annie Lennox is once again blasting down the stairs!

(We go tonight).

Andrea

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Nerd
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 11:16 AM

I agree that the cuts were painful. I have read that the "houses of healing" scenes, in which Aragorn uses his healer's hands and Eowyn and Faramir fall in love, were filmed and than cut, so they should be in the extended version. Other stuff...who knows? I expect some discussion of Denethor's Palantir will make it into the extended cut, as it was hinted at mightily in the theatrical release.

I thought the complete absence of Aragorn's people, the Dunedain or descendants of Numenor, was sad. In the book they rally and accompany the heroes on the paths of the dead and in the corsair ships. In the movies they seem to have abandoned Aragorn entirely, as you never see another Dunedain at all. In Tolkien's universe they were an important symbol. The Woses were also eliminated, so that Gondor and Rohan are completely alone.

I also thought that Arwen's fate being tied to the ring was weird, and that they didn't have to go through the whole "now you are becoming mortal because you've finally made the decision to stay" scene. This last was unnecessary especially because they already explained in the first movie why she will not go to Valinor but Frodo will, at least to those who were paying attention: "whatever grace is given me, may it pass to him." I hate it when films decide you're not smart enough and invent dumb explanations for things (midochlorians, anyone?)

But there were also some great scenes that were not in the book, or only hinted at. Pippin lighting the first signal fire, and then the others slowly igniting, one by one across the mountains, was very inspiring. A scene between Eowyn and Theoden after the latter has been wounded and she has killed the Morgul king was also a nice addition. Some scenes in the book that would have looked silly on film, like Gollum leaping around triumphantly and simply falling into the cracks of doom, were changed as well.

In all, I thought it was a good adaptation and a great movie. The battle sequences were astounding, the human (or hobbitish) drama with Frodo and Sam and Gollum was riveting, and the acting in general outstanding. Good Job, Jackson!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 06:51 PM

Just seen it. I suspect the bits I thought best were the bits the people who like the big battles thought were a drag. I could have done with less of those, too much like the kind of computer games I don't go in for. From that point of view I think the first film got the balance best.

But the slower bits were magic, especially the scenes with Sam and Frodo. And I was surprised to find that on balance I found I agreed with cutting out the Scouring of the Shire - the scene with the four back in the pub knowing where they'd been, and what they'd been through, and nobody else there could ever understand, that was eloquently done. I think Tolkien as a survivor of the Western Front would have liked that.

I tried to get to see it when there wouldn't be too many kids around, but didn't quite manage that. Still, that was interesting enough, because it wasn't a riot, just lots of voices in the dark really getting involved. "Oh no!" "Behind you!" And towards the end there's a scene when everyone on the screen applauds the hobbits - and just before they started clapping, spontaneously half the audience did the same.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: mouldy
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 02:46 AM

I went last night.
Ruth said that at the end a big hairy biker bloke next to her was crying his eyes out, but she didn't dare offer him a tissue!

I agree about the scouring of the Shire not being necessary. In the mirror of Galadriel it was only hinted at as something that may come to pass. Also, if you look as Frodo is completing his writing of Bilbo's book, there is a reference to Sam becoming mayor in the paragraph above the last one. Maybe that will make it into the extended edition.

I think that given the magnitude of the project, Peter Jackson has done a wonderful job. With something like this, you can't keep everybody happy all the time, but somebody has to be brave enough to make cuts and adaptations. Let's face it, you are dealing with cinema, and not everything makes a direct transfer from the page, and good cinema. It is also going to be viewed by people who have never been near any of Tolkein's works, and so it can't get too involved, otherwise it would lose its audience.

I was pleased to see that the Pelennor fields were almost exactly as my mind had seen them. I haven't read the book for about 3 years or more, and I purposely kept off it while I was waiting to see the films, because I wanted to take them at face value and not be too picky. Now I will go and read the book again and see whether it's me or Peter Jackson who provides the imagery!

Yes, we enjoyed the film. I daresay it won't be long before we go again and look at it in a bit more depth. I didn't notice Peter Jackson's cameo in this one, although he got his kids in 3 times by my count! They even get a mention as "featured children" on the credits.

Andrea

Anyone else think Billy Boyd's song rather good? If I remember from one of the pre-release interviews on TV, he wrote it too.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 12:26 PM

I agree, Andrea. The complaints I hear most are "they cut THIS out" or "It's too LONG!" and "I didn't understand ___" or "they didn't need to explain ___!" Personally I would have preferred 18 hours or so to complete the whole book, but you can't always get what you want.

All in all I think Pete has done a marvelous job. The movies don't begin to replace the books, but the trilogy certainly stands on it's own as a piece of cinema.

Off to take a shower -- we have tickets for a matinee. With any luck we'll get a lively LA audience that boos and cheers and contributes to that magical difference between watching a movie and sharing a movie in the dark with a lot of other people.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Peg
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 01:10 PM

Going to see it again   tonight. I was   happy to have seen a press screening with only a few people; tonight will be packed!
Ithought Billy Boyd's song was one of the best moments   of the film...that is very cool he wrote it   too...

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 01:49 PM

Right on, Peg. I'm off to see it today. You gonna dress up as Arwen? That would be cool. How's it going with the flood?

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Peg
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 02:30 PM

ceiling is high and dry thanks for asking. It will repaired early next week before we get more weather, I am told.

I would love to dress as Arwen! I have a cloak just that color, but alas it is not silk velvet like hers! Maybe I will wear it tonight and pull my hair back like hers...except now I have a slight fringe of bangs so it will be tricky...
now to grow six inches so I am as tall as Liv Tyler!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 09:25 PM

Well, I didn't go today, cos it was all sold out. Figures. They are gonna make a well-deserved fortune on this movie. Will try the matinee tomorrow. Just wear really tall high heels under a long gown, Peg, and no one will know the difference. I didn't know Liv Tyler was that tall, but she looks like she is, all right.

I wouldn't mind looking like either Legolas or Aragorn, but it's gonna have to wait till my next incarnation! :-)

I love Elves to utter distraction. They are even cooler than the Teton and Oglala Souix (Lakotas).

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Ethereal Purple
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 11:31 PM

If you ever do look like Legolas or Aragorn (the latter especially).. do tell me *grin*.

It's so unfair... it hasn't come out here yet!! *sob*.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 11:54 PM

At present, I look more like a combination of Bob Dylan, circa 1977 and George Harrison, circa about 1985...which is okay...but I'm no Aragorn. If I see a suitable candidate, though, I'll pm you as to his whereabouts.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: mouldy
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 02:32 AM

Our Ruth, being very dark haired and slender, has been told she's like Arwen. This has pleased her immensely. She'll have to tidy herself up a little bit first - the "lived-in" jeans and black fleece jacket a la dog hair doesn't quite have that Rivendell touch!

Andrea

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 12:46 PM

Saw it last night, finally... and I have to admit... after 5+ years of following the development of these movies, I'm feeling a little.. umm... I guess maybe postpartum is the word.... I don't know what I'll do with myself now... especially online...

But that aside... the movie...

Well, I said it when I came out of Fellowship, and it was trebly true when I came out of Return... "Man oh man do I ever wish the book was half that good!" From start to finish, I was roped in... I was half way out of my seat with Theodin's "A sword day, a red day"... I bawled for love at Sam's "I may not be able to carry it, but I can carry you!" (If Sean Austin doesn't get Best Supporting Actor, I'll burn down Hollywood!) I've never felt so good as to hear Ian's "Gandalf Laugh" when frodo awakens in Minas Tirith...

I absolutely cannot wait to see the extended Ed... (So far the rumour is that it'll be 4 hours and 50 min long!) To watch it all as one long movie...

I'm having a tough time thinking of ANYTHING I didn't like in it....

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Cluin
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 12:54 PM

Tried to get in to see it a couple of nights ago, but both evening shows were sold out in the afternoon. A first around here. Could have taken in another flick that night since there are a couple of other interesting things at the local multiplex, but our hearts were set on "The King". So we went Xmas shopping instead. Now I have to wait until another night my girlfriend is off, since I've been threatened with dire things if I go see it without her. Next time I'll pick up the tickets in the daytime.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 01:21 PM

"Man oh man do I ever wish the book was half that good!"

And there's me thinking - "Isn't it great that the book is even better". The strange thing is, I've found that there are things in the book that I can distinctly remember from the films. Except that they weren't actually there in the films. My mind has translated the memory from reading into a memory from seeing.

One thing, especially in the Return of the King - if you hadn't read the book, I think it might have been awfully hard to understand what was going on some of the time. I don't regard that as a signifcant flaw though. Just encourages people to read the book.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 01:25 PM

"And there's me thinking - "Isn't it great that the book is even better"

I won't sully this thread with petty, subjective debates MGoH...

I'll just say, what a dull world it'd be if we all thought exactly the same thing all the time eh!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Arnie
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 02:03 PM

Saw it a couple of days ago and it's absolutely riveting. I'm about half way through the book as well but this is slow going as not much time to read it. Orlando Bloom makes a great Legolas the Elf - I find the elves fascinating, shame there are none around in reality (at least I don't know of any!) Not many elves in ROTK but the elf archers in the Battle of Helms Deep were great - they were the WMD of Middle Earth!! Their quivers never seemed to run out of arrows despite them firing at a rate of about 1 arrow per second.....

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 03:03 PM

Difficult to say too much until we go and see it for the second time. Spent too much time on the very edge of my seat - smiling, and holding my breath in wonder and admiration.....Just like a rollercoaster ride only better. A truly staggering vision!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: NicoleC
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 04:24 PM

I'm going to have to digress from this lovefest and admit that I was a little disappointed. It's pretty good movie, but maybe expectations were too high. The pace is plodding and it much harder to get involved with the story than the last two. The changes Pete made from the book were much more intrusive than the past ones (which really didn't bother me) and the climax was downright hokey and completely out of place. I really felt left down when it was over.

Well, anyway, still glad I saw it and overall I still think the movies were good adaptations of the books... but ROTK is merely good, not great.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Peg
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 04:35 PM

i just saw it for the second time last night. I don't suppose it's flawless, but who is making films of this scale and scope and intensity and beauty these days? No one. Who is telling such inspiring stories that will reach so many? No one. I think we are most fortunate to have Mr. Jackson's vision and that of his colleagues to warm our jaded hearts and surprise our dead eyes for a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 05:02 PM

I havn't seen it yet but I am worried. Clinton Hammond says he loves the film. Clinton Hammond (on another thread) thinks that Tolkien's prose style is dull (Strewth!!) Oh dear - I hope it isn't dumbed down to moron level for American audiences like the first one was.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 05:11 PM

Ooh-aah...

Chew me for the inferance that I'm a moron... especially simply because I side with Tolkiens critics when it comes to Lord Of The Rings...

Nor do I see anything 'dumbed down' in PJs version of Fellowship...

What did Peg say above about "warming our jaded hearts and surprising our dead eyes?"

And about nothing ever being 'flawless'??

It's a damn good piece of film, PJ's Lord Of The Rings...

"The changes Pete made from the book were much more intrusive than the past ones"

Interesting considering that it was Two Towers that PJ said was furthest from the book...

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Ooh- Aah
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 05:56 PM

No one expected the films to be 'flawless', but Jacksons teatment of the first film made me so angry that I nearly walked out of the cinema. The overwhelming feeling was that the breadth and depth of Tolkien's vision had been utterly trivialised. Two main things - Tolkien's marvellous dialogue and use of language was changed to a bunch of primary-school cliches, presumably so the lowest common denominators in the audience could follow the plot - certainly it had to be cut back enormously, but something of the richness of the language could have been retained - at one point one of the characters says something like "Let's go hunt some orc" - pardon me while I throw up! Secondly the first film avoided a treatment of the difficult moral choices made by the characters, particularly in Lothlorien - to take one example, the fact that the destruction of the one ring will lead to the decay of all the Elves have worked for in Middle-Earth. Without this moral seriousness the whole thing was more like an extended round of Dungeons and Dragons than a story for grown ups. Furthermore many of the incidents in the story were utterly trivialised - the absurd all-in brawl at the council of Elrond, the sado-masochistic treatment of the death of Boromir (how many arrows in the gut can one man take) the WWF wrestling for wizards between Saruman and Gandalf - Tolkien's evokation of the smouldering menace in this encounter was changed to the absurd sight of two old men clawing each other on the floor, completely destroying the dignity and gravitas that is such a vital part of Gandalf's character.I will leave it there, but could go on, and on!

Glad to have got that off my chest...

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 06:13 PM

Yeah, Clinton...saw it this afternoon, and I agree with you in every way. A truly grand and marvelous movie, bringing great dignity to most (if not all) of the characters. This trio of films has shown how to really do a trilogy...film all 3 parts in one go, while the actors are still young-looking (or whatever age they are when it starts). Then it retains its full vitality and freshness.

This is the first time I've seen a part 3 of anything that was even better than parts 1 and 2.

And Ooh-Ahh...I agree wholeheartedly that the "Let's go hunt some Orc" line in #2 was utterly dreadful...but I can live with it. These were the finest movies ever done on a subject like this, and there's no way any set of movies that isn't collectively about 40 hours in length can possibly do justice to everything that's in the books. Simply can't be done.

Complaining about trivial flaws here and there in LOTR is like having a girlfriend who is sweet, beautiful, intelligent, idealistic, and courageous...and breaking up with her because she has a mole on her left cheek and burped once at dinner...

The guys who played Frodo and Sam...they have nailed those roles for all time. Couldn't be better, in my opinion. And I've read the books, oh, about 15 or more times. Truly stupendous!

Annie Lennox's song is great too, and very appropriate.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 06:16 PM

"Tolkien's marvellous dialogue and use of language was changed to a bunch of primary-school cliches"

Which book is this again?? Caue one of the things LOTR is most criticised for is it's overuse of cliche... And Tolkien may have been a professor language... but he wasn't much of a creative writer...

So big deal... you didn't like the film... Why post to a thread of people who did?

Troll...

"so angry that I nearly walked out"
Don't go away mad... just go away...

*Sorry folks... I just did with this self-centered goof exactly what I said I wouldn't with MGoH... If the powers wanna clean this thread up, I for one will NOT object...*

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 06:45 PM

"...a creative writer" is surely exactly the kind of writer he was. Someone who uses their writing abilities to sub-create a world.

Yeah, and I know that the kind of people who get jobs teaching "creative writing" might use the term to mean something very different, probably something to do with using language in ways it hasn't being used previously.

Tolkien wasn't a novelist; border ballads aren't lyric poetry; Jane Austen didn't write stream of consciousness. They are all examples of language being used to do certain things superbly.

And the same kind of thing is true about film, and Peter Jackson achieved something quite remarkable in these films.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: smallpiper
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 08:19 PM

I saw it yesterday and I was dissapointed.......... but I'm going to go se it again just in case!

PS I think that Peter Jackson did a fantastic job

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 11:40 PM

He sure did. Compare this film to a piece of tripe like "Titanic" (which was a technical tour de force, but a dreadful piece of melodrama in terms of the apparently obligatory modern love story). Compare it to Star Wars...darn good, but LOTR is better. Compare it to the Matrix trilogy...Ah...Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

No one will ever make LOTR in a way that pleases everybody. It's doubtful that anyone will ever do it better than Peter Jackson has in these 3 movies.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 11:43 PM

Good set of films. Good set of books. Limited amount of correlation between them. Movies that exactly recreated the books they were allegedly based upon went out in about 1935.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Cluin
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 12:18 AM

I agree the "Let's hunt orc" line was the nadir in an otherwise excellent movie, but like LH, I can forgive that one. The first two movies were excellent, and I am looking forward to seeing the last one, based on all the favourable comment I've heard on it. Long time waiting for these films and I haven't been disappointed.

And I also love the books. I can appreciate the books and movies as two separate but related works.

By the way, Tolkien was among those who invented the things now called cliché. One of the things I admire in LOTR is the way the tone of language was maintained over the whole work which was years in the writing (and developing/fleshing out). J.R.R. Tolkien never dragged us through the dirt. The man created a whole world and history. If bits of silly poetry (which, in that context, were supposed translations from his own mythological languages) were part of it, so be it. There have been far worse literary transgressions published.


p.s. I thought the slaying of Boromir was pretty close to the book version; It take a lot of uruk-hai arrows to bring him down.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Cluin
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 12:21 AM

Dammit! Should have read...

...It did take a lot...

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: NicoleC
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 12:28 AM

[i]Interesting considering that it was Two Towers that PJ said was furthest from the book... [/i]

Technically true -- the whole thing about Aragorn falling off the cliff was entirely made up, but it didn't bother me because it didn't fundamentally change the story. And the battle for Helm's Deep made a good movie climax even if it wasn't so important in the book.

But the smaller changes made to ROTK were more incompatible, IMO. Maybe it was this whole idiotic Arwen/Aragorn love thing coming to it's nauseating and predictable end despite it's utter irrelevance. Or, while the ring's destruction the way it occurs in the book would be lousy on the big screen, the alternate they used was worse and has been done SOOOO many times. Perhaps it was the sudden collapse of Sauron and... er... all that stuff (for those who haven't seen it)... that was just too cheesy. I felt the ending was the antithesis of Tolkein's message (oft repeated in the movies) that evil never dies. And if they were going to do that much postlogue, couldn't Eowyn get her happy ending? Nah, cause of the other "love story," I suppose.

Enough nitpicking. I can come up with lists for the other two, too, but their issues didn't bother me for whatever reason.

Glad ya'll loved it, but I thought it the weakest of the 3 by far. Still better than a lot of movies that get made, though.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Ely
Date: 27 Dec 03 - 11:42 PM

I haven't read any of the books, I never cared much for fantasy, and I generally avoid action films, so I'm probably not the person who should have anything to say about it all. I also know not to trust screenplays to represent the original literature, so anything that didn't make sense to me I'll assume was lost in translation.

Nevertheless, I did like the movies for sheer entertainment. I liked the first two better. I didn't think the third one was bad, I just got way overloaded on battle scenes and sort of went numb. I don't think I have the capacity for suspension-of-credulity required to really *love* them but I knew that going in so I won't complain.

(Of course, it didn't help that they went and killed off Sean Bean in the first one. *Sniff*)

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Dec 03 - 08:30 AM

I wouldn't call Anne of Green Gables a Domestic Goddess. More of a sleuth, if anything, just came up agaist different types of puzzles.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Chris B (born again scouser)
Date: 28 Dec 03 - 03:34 PM

Des, I tend to agree about the Frodo and Sam characters. Personally, I'd have let same carry the ring as he seems to at least know what he's doing. Frodo keeps putting the damn thing on and nearly getting them all killed. I think Frodo's a bit crap, personally.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Julia
Date: 28 Dec 03 - 10:21 PM

Haven't seen ROTK yet... I have to get into the right space for these things as the first one left me a complete basket case. My son had to guide me out of the theater as I couldn't see..
Tolkien's original work is a truly epic achievement- read the Silmarillion, the Lost Tales and all of his other "out-takes"and publications, and you will truly appreciate the scope of what he did. Jackson HAS done an amazing job with it and has had to make decisions in much the same way Tolkien himself in order to present a coherent final product. I don't approve of all the decisions Jackson made, but perhaps we might have preferred Tolkien making different choices in his creation if we had knowledge of his original intentions and processes?
My BIGGEST objection to Jackson's interpretation is the lack of music as an integral part of the characters' culture.Tolkien based his people on the Northern Europeans, all of whom have passed down history and mythology in musical form through the oral tradition. In the books, they naturally respond to their environment or a particular situation with a song or dance. Perhaps Jackson didn't want it to seem like a "musical" but, really a song around the fire, or as encouragement, or as a battle cry would have been appropriate! The scene where the Rohirrim sing as they go riding off was tremendously stirring in the book and felt like "just another battle" in the Two Towers movie. My son tells me it's much the same in ROTK.
   I'm really surprised that, on this forum for folk music, nobody else has said anything about this glaring omission. Perhaps I am more sensitive because my interest in Tolkien as a teenager is one of the reasons I make my living as a folk musician today (sources and all that)
Best- Julia

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Robin2
Date: 28 Dec 03 - 10:42 PM

OK, what is the name of the song Annie Lennox sings in the film?

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 28 Dec 03 - 10:43 PM

anyway=i saw it off a dbd, off dodgy dave, he lent me it, because i know him. and i think its a big loads of shit, and i dont know waht you all going on about, its crap,
its boring abd rubbisgh.
i glad i didient buy it,
= if you want to buy it, jusrt see dodgy dave, but its crap, dont waste you moneyey.
i think its 5 quid on dvd, but crap.john

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 28 Dec 03 - 10:46 PM

it is shit anyway, and i not know coninc geious, is just shit and boring, theres no guns in it, and no killings in it, its crap.johjnn

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Peg
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 11:02 AM

Annie Lennox sings a song entitled "Into the West" over the final credits (well worth watching for the fine watercolor   drawings).

It seemed to me there was a great deal more music (diagetic, in other words, occuringon screen as performed by characters)in the third film than in the previous two; and very fine music it was.   The scene where Pippin (Billy Boyd)sings a song he apparently wrote himself (the tune anyway, I heard) is simply stunning and I think it's an emotional centerpiece of the film...

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 12:09 PM

No killing? Dodgy Dave must have palmed you off with a different movie, John.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: DonMeixner
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 01:06 PM

Just for grins John what in your view are some great movies? I'd bet you'd be surprized what I think are great films. (eg: The Bishop's Wife w/ Cary Grant, Wee Willie Winkie w/ Shirley Temple, Alien and Aliens, The Sea Hawks w/ Errol Flynn, The Little Mermaid and The Lion King.)

Don

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Cluin
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 09:20 PM

LOL

Stop it, jOhn, please! You're killin' me!


ROTFL

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Hollowfox
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 05:18 PM

Yeesh, everybody's got to gripe. If people go to the movies expecting a major life transformation, they're bound to be disappointed.
Half the critics say it was too long, and half say the good bits were excised. Myself, I'm blessed with an opera-goer's butt. Four hour performance? No problem!
I have yet to see a movie that I wouldn't have tweaked a bit somewhere, but I can see why decisions were made regarding all sorts of things to keep the story flowing smoothly. The attention to detail just blows me out of the water.
And anything that brings folks to read the books, that gets somebody to think about honor and doing the right thing even if it's going to be hard and hurt you...well, that's a good thing as far as I can see.
My favorite little thing - when Aragorn is crowned, the first thing he does is give a little sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: AllisonA(Animaterra)
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 06:46 AM

Thanks for pointing that out, Mary- I caught that bit, too.

I have to confess I "watched" more than half of it with my eyes closed- I'm the world's worst movie companion, too overwhelmed by visual images, especially bloody, violent, or horrific. But I have to agree that as a film, ROTK is magnificent in scope.

I have been a LOTR fundamentalist for most of my life, so went to these movies deciding to take them on their own merits, not as gospel. They are as well done as they could possibly be, and there are some brilliant moments. Expecially in ROTK, the scenes between hobbits- Frodo and Sam, Merry and Pippin, all of them together- show the depth of friendship and bonding between them. I think I heard that when the initial work on the films began, the first thing Jackson did was have the four hobbit actors spend 3 months together in NZ developing that bond. It worked!

My favorite scene was Frodo's waking up and being greeted by the members of the Fellowship. The lingering look between him and Sam was priceless.
As I said, most of the "noisy" scenes I only saw from between my fingers, so can't comment on those!

Namarie,

Allison

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Hollowfox
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 01:48 PM

Guest Oo-Ah, if you didn't like Boromir's death scene, don't ever watchthe death scene in Kurosawa's Throne of Blood. You thought Boromir took too many arrows... And speaking in my capacity as a bloodthirsty viewer, that first shot (upper lobe of the left lung) wouldn't have killed him instantly. and he had enough adrenaline to keep him going longer than otherwise. Likewise that second arrow (too low). But the aggregate of the three is feasable, IMHO.
Julia, The lack of music and declamation is understandable, given the choices that must be made for the flow of the plotline and the overall viweing time. Myself, I'd love to have it all in, but I love opera, Beowulf, Shakespearean plays, etc. But if these movies lead some folks to try out the books, and some of those folks go on to try the "real" stuff that Tolkien loved andd drew from, then I am content with the sacrifice of my preferences.
I can't find who was interested in non-Swann Tolkien music CD's, but for what it's worth, I found one at Borders Bookstore (chain store in the USA). It's called At Dawn In Rivendell: selected songs and poems from The Lord of the Rings. It's performed by the Tolkien Ensemble and Christopher Lee. The music is by Caspar Reiff and Peter Hall. Apparently it is part of a series (An Evening in Rivendell and A Night in Rivendell have been produced already). It's published by L.A.G. Records, a subsidiary of Decca Records. I bought it mostly for Christopher Lee's readings (love that voice!), but the music isn't too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 01:58 PM

I'm ging again tomorrow:-) Can't wait! Interesting point about the death scene Hollowfox. Reminded me of the death scene of Umslopagas in, possibly Kings Solomans mines or She? Did that only happen on the written page or did someone turn it into film? Or was that in a different book alltogether?

Ah-ha! Quest for the new year:-) Dig out the old Rider-Haggards!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Ely
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 02:31 PM

A coworker of mine was out hunting and shot a deer in the chest. He could see *large* amounts of blood spurting from the wound but the deer ran a good eighth of a mile before it collapsed. Adrenaline can do that.

I'm not a connoisseur of death scenes but I thought the end of Boromir one was probably one of the more believable.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: GUEST,Julia
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 08:44 PM

Thanks for the message, Hollowfox- I appreciate the reply and you are probably right...sigh. Just a song or two intead of one more orc- killing? Perhaps? oh well.
I'll check out the Tolkien ensemble- I have heard that they at least have some integrity - as opposed to Leonard Nimoy or the Gothic /death/ thrash/gnash metal groups or the wussy new-age nebulae that seem to populate the Tolkien Music sites.
Best- Julia

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: LadyJean
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 01:07 AM

As a girl I owned a copy of "Down to Middle Earth" by the Hobbits. "Down to Middle Earth I mean. You and I could make that scene I know." I have a horrible feeling it's now out on CD, and I'll get a copy from my sister.
Despite their faults, I loved the LOTR movies, and I cried buckets during the last one.   
Their Gollum didn't scare the hell out of me. The gollum I imagined, when I first read "The Hobbit" did. But I really didn't care. I am re reading the books. It is good to see old friends again. I have a serious case of the hots for Vigo Mortenson. And it's nice to be reminded that I was once a girl who wrote FRODO LIVES! anywhere I could.



































FRODO LIVES!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: darkriver
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 04:02 AM

I've tried to avoid joining in the fray, but ... I ... can't ... resist ... the ... overwhelming ... power... drawing me ...

Anyway, I've read the books and enjoyed them and have respect for Tolkein as a scholar and a writer. Having said that, I've enjoyed the movies immensely, too. They're just different things.

I went to Gallaudet College, a 4-year liberal-arts school for the deaf in Washington, and when I wrote papers for classes, I wrote them in the best English I could. But when I had to get up and read those papers to the class, I would never sign what I had written (as most students did); instead, I would re-conceive of them in American Sign Language and sign that, which meant that the two versions were not very like each other--yet I considered them to be the same paper. In the same way, movies are too different from books to expect to see a book filmed. Jackson's achievment here was to take the Ring material and from them create some dazzling films.

Not that the movies are consistently good. As others have pointed out, the casting of Frodo was a mistake (and I like Elijah Wood in other roles he's been in). (It could've been worse--they might've picked Marlon Brando as Gandalf....) I wasn't as bothered by the "Let's hunt some orc" as others were--to me, it's the dwarf-tossing jokes that were inexcusable. (BTW, the "let's hunt" line was at the end of the first movie, not the second.)

I see nothing wrong with the addition and simplification of dialogue. The death scene of Boromir was nothing like the book at all, but much better; the dialog between Aragorn and Boromir moved me very much. The addition of a song sung by Merry during the last cavalry charge raised the hair on my arms. The scene with the hobbits in the tavern at the end, as Animaterra points out, covers so much emotional ground. So I think that most if not all of Jackson's choices were really good ones.

must... stop ... driveling ...
now

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 06:26 PM

I saw it today. I loved it on the whole but I have mixed feelings about some bits of it.

I would gladly have restored Christopher Lee's 12 minutes and lost the schmaltzy goop in the last 10 minutes.

The camera work was stunning, several times I had to reach for the armrest as vertigo struck.

The beacons were amazing.

But most amazing of all, Pippin's song, whilst around him battle raged and his liege stuffed himself with squirty tomatoes.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: LadyJean
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 11:32 PM

This doesn't have a lot to do with LOTR, but I thought you'd like to know that Sarah Zettel's book, "Shadows Of Camelot", will be out in May of this year. I have an uncorrected proof of the British Edition, (She sent me the Brit edition because the cover art is so beautiful.) and it's pretty good.
It calls itself "An Arthurian Romance". But it's no bodice ripper.
I thought I would mention it, in that last May, I posted a thread asking for pre Arthurian ballads, for Sarah's book. Thanks all you mudcatters.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: LadyJean
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 11:21 PM

Songs that should not have been written:

The Tune is, The Ants Go Marching.

The Ents go marching one by one Hurrah! Hooray!
The Ents go marching one by one Hurrah! Horray
The Ents go marching one by one to Isengard to have some fun
The Ents go marching "Though Isengard be strong and hard and cold as stone and bare as bone. We go, we go, we go to war to hew the stone and break the door.
Ents go marching two by two, Hurrah Hurray! The Ents go marching two by two Hurrah Hurray
The Ents go marching two by two, and Sauruman's days will soon be through. The Ents go marchint "Though Isengard, etc."
The Ents go marching three by there Hurrah Hooray!
'Cause it isn't nice to hurt a tree.
The Ents go marching four by four Hurrah Hooray!
To hew the stone and break the door.
The Ents go marching five by five Hurrah Hooray!
And Isengard will not long survive.
The Ents go marching six by six Hurrah Hooray!
'Cause somebody turned their friends into sticks.
The Ents go marching seven by seven Hurrah Hooray!
And I don't think orcs go to heaven.
The Ents go marching eight by eight Hurrah Hooray!
They're breaking down old Isengard's gate.
The Ents are marching nine by nine Hurrah! Hooray!
And Merry and Pippin are feeling fine.
The Ents are marching ten by ten Hoorah! Hooray!
To the aid of the Rohan men.

With appologies to all former Girl Scouts, Ants, Ents, and lovers of good music everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Art Thieme
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 12:52 AM

Just saw it.
Please forget all my ranting above about Gray Havens not being there and/or the "Scouring of the Shire". No matter. It's all done brilliantly. Even better than the books in many ways.

I give it a 9 out of 10----maybe an eight and a half for the orcs being way too over the top (I thought) and the Ents being a rather silly creation of Tolkien's. Tom Bombadil was a bit too too---and was better tossed away.

Leaves me wondering what might be added in the extended version later. It seems they arrived at the Crack Of Doom rather suddenly--after not being shown to be "right there"--as they seemingly were.
But again, no matter. It is a stunning motion picture.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 02:28 PM

Well, I went to it with my girlfriend who hadn't read the books and she thought the movies were great, but should have ended after the crowning and reunion of Aragorn and Arwen.

But I was glad to see the pub scene back in the Shire. I thought that was an excellent Jackson addition/alteration... the 4 hobbits come back home to the Shire being just as they left it and their neighbours ignorant of what they had done. But the knowing look between them as they clinked mugs in full silent knowledge of what they had gone through just to keep things exactly the same as they had loved them. I thought the movie could end there; I didn't need the big melodramatic farewell at the Havens after that.

But, as Uncle Art said above, no matter. The movie was fantastic and I'm still blown away that it was finally made at all. Gotta give Peter Jackson credit; it took guts, vision, and love to take on and finish that project. Here's to him!

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Cluin
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 08:38 PM

ROTK Extended DVD release set for December, they're still saying. I know what I'm getting myself for Xmas.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 08:59 PM

Definately be on my list.

Pity the Scouring of the Shire was missed out in the final part. I thought it an important part of the story as it did show that the Shire (an idylic setting) was not immune to the ravages caused by the Ring.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Pogo
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 09:15 PM

I agree, really hit it home for me in the book, it made Frodo and Sam's struggle and suffering all the more poignant.

well I had some small gripes...so far as books-to-movies goes I'll always love the books. However I was pleased beyond measure to see one of my favorite books come to life on the big screen. I believe the first movie was the one that was most elegantly done...this last one felt a bit rushed, put together hurriedly kind of thing but that may have also been due to all the cutting of scenes and so forth. Still I enjoyed it and I'll definitely be getting the extended DVD. The scenes that really hit me were Faramir's suicide charge (although interspersing Denethor's sloppy eating habits was a bit of overkill for me IMO), the beacon lighting of course and the Rohirrim just slamming into the enemy.

and was the emergence of the Witch King in the second or third movie? I can't remember it all just sort of blurs together :)anyways I thought the special effects for that scene was outstanding as well

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 03:56 AM

I am looking forward to it as well. Glad it is out for Christmas - Over the holidays I can have a day watching all three extended editions:-)

Anyone for 12 or so hours in front of the screen...

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 04:12 AM

I daresay that when they say 'December' they are well aware of 3 days holiday and the major spendfest that Christmas has become. Personally, I'm happy to wait. It was a great film and I'm sure the extra 50 mins or so can only improve it (especially if it restores Christopher Lee's missing bits), but I've waited so long, another few weeks isn't that much more.

Be wary of where you buy it though - the price of the last extended (with the statue of Gollum) varied greatly from £45 to £95. Amazon had the best deal.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 05:33 AM

I do not know where the exhibition is now but two years back I was in NZ visitng my son and in the Tepapa Museum in Wellington they had an enormous LOTR exhibition.

It was superb, big displays of all the armour and clothing used (never replaced just repaired so it got tattier as time went by)as well as a lot of video on how the film was put together and how the actors were trained in their roles.

If it come to a city near you it is well worth the effort to go and see.

Subject: RE: BS: LOTR ROTK - Just seen it. Brilliant!
From: Cluin
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 07:29 PM

Liz, you don't have to get the collectible(?) statue with the package. Save some bucks and buy the 4 DVD set alone; It should be packaged like the 1st two, this time in blue.