Cool News
Review from Director's Guild Screening of RETURN OF THE KING last night!
Harry here... need to see this movie now. Beware of spoilers, for you folks that don't know the novel! Here ya go...
Hey Harry --
Big fan of the site, never written before. On this of all days, I am thankful for many things. But what's really cause for thanksgiving is that I spent the afternoon watching The Return of the King at the DGA theater in Hollywood. After the disappointments of of the 2nd and 3rd Matrix (not to mention SW) and given all the expectation built into the capper of this trilogy, I leaned to my wife as the lights came down in the theater and said, I'm so nervous I could throw up. Thankfully, I kept the turkey, gravy and mashed taters down -- ROTK fulfills all expectations. I'm not sure exactly of the spoiler ettiquette here, so I'll just give overall thoughts...
The opening to the third movie is pretty different from that of the last two, but no less perfect for the story. It involves the origin of Gollum/Smeagol and a live performance by the brilliant Andy Serkis. Give that guy a special Oscar please. Ian McKellen is great again, and even though he gives his best performance in FOTR, still think he should get a statue. Merry and Pippen finally get to shine in this installment
(even in the books I found the Treebeard story in Two Towers kind of yawn inducing) albeit in seperate ways. The battle for Minas Tirith is the centerpiece of the film -- it literally takes up at least an hour of the films 3 hour running time -- the highlight for me was Legolas single-handedly taking down one of those huge Oliphants. Seriously, this battle is so kick ass I wonder if Helm's Deep will now seem boring in comparison. It's probably not necessary to tell fans to watch the extended DVD of The Two Towers before seeing ROTK but the deleted Boromir-Faramir-Denethor sequence from that film really serves to enlighten one of ROTK's main plotlines. Shelob is great, wonderfully rendered, absolutely terrifying for those of us with arachnophobia. Loved the Eowyn story (how great are the females in these movies -- Arwen and Galadriel too). I guess my favorite part of the whole movie was finally getting to see Frodo and Sam make it to Mount Doom (I guess we did see a flashback in FOTR with Isildur and Elrond, but...) and the ensuing struggle to fulfil the quest.
Most importantly, this is the end of a nine hour cinematic journey, and that ending is completely satisfying, and also heartbreaking. It's silly, but I feel exactly how I felt when I finished the books -- I actually miss Frodo and Sam and the rest of the characters that are now so close to my heart.
My only real complaint about the film -- the lack of closure to the Saruman story. After all, he's the main bad guy for the first two films, and he only shows for a few short seconds. It's a hole that I hope will be filled by the extended cut, but I can't help but think that the deletion was a mistake. I guess we'll see next November. Also, as I was leaving the theater I heard some folks complain that it was one of those films that had six endings. My feeling is, at least all six were good. I've been through nine hours with these characters -- I want to see it wrapped up well. In fact if Jackson wanted to take an extra ten minutes to scoure The Shire, that'd've been alright with me.
But I can't complain, from Tolkien's incredibly detailed, laborious novels, Jackson's created faithful and fascinating cinema, and in my mind, the first truly seamless film trilogy in terms of quality. I'm gonna spend the rest of my life visiting Middle-Earth again and again. This was a great Thanksgiving.
If you use this, call me Jerry Aldini
-
+ Expand All
-
Wow.... can Dec 17th come any quicker?
-
Very Wibbly
-
Can't wait to settle in with a big ole feedbag and see this film. Jackson is genius.
-
Guess it pays to get up early... hehe
Happy Thanksgiving all -
I am kind of unsatisfied, and not in a not-enough-turkey-and-mashed-potatoes way. It was good, it ended, it was sad... what do you mean, it had six endings? This is a strangely bloodless review.
-
Not Listening.....
-
Well, in the books, closure for his character comes in the "Scouring of the Shire" sequence which Jackson made clear he was cutting. A real shame too, it was my favorite part of the book. I'm still sure the movie will be great...
-
Is really unsettling. If that scene is half as good as the music, it will be creepy as hell. I loved The Fellowship and Two Towers soundtracks, but the ROTK soundtrack is too intense for mere background music. Don't expect to relax to it.
-
Nov 28, 2003 8:45:20 AM CST
So no Saruman resolution but a healthy portion devoted to Gollum
by son of stik
Dull,cheesy movies and a director playing with material thats way over his head. What a puerile mess.
-
In the beginning of the review, this guy said he was so excited he told his wife he was gonna puke thanksgiving up all over the place. What happened to your enthusiasm afterwards pal?! If this guy SAW the movie, I'd expect some more DETAILS!! I can read the book just like the next guy, watch the trailer and come up with my own review too. What of Aragorn and the cave? What happens to Merry and Pippin? Yeah, Shelob looked scary in the trailer too...you got anything new to share? Be my guest! I know enough about the production that there's not much to expect except a probably damn fine finish to a damn fine trilogy. For as excited as this guy was to see it, and for as convinced he was that it met all expectations...HE SOUNDS LIKE A PLANT WOOING THOSE WHO HAVE HAD IT WITH TRILOGIES LIKE STAR WARS AND THE MATRIX TO GIVE LOTR:ROTK A CHANCE. Don't worry pal, you don't have to spoil this site with your blatant lies and pure crapulence. I believe we're in for a better movie than we've bargained for and I don't think we need a PR plant to send out a press release to tell us what we already know: ROTK will kick ass. There's my two cents, don't spend it all in one place.
-
Are they trying to tell me that after going through an entire freaking year of reshoots, they couldn't have the scouring of the shire! HULK SMASH!
-
I could pull better spoilers out of my arse. Cheers.
-
I wonder if this part from the book is the movie. I can't imagine it is.
-
http://www.tolkienonline.com/thewhitecouncil/messageview.cfm?catid=13&threadid=74209
-
It's not there. Apparently it was never filmed, for structural purposes, and the set is now destroyed. We knew there was no Scouring before the first one came out.
-
Yes Alice My Sweet, very bloodless and positively positive. Now according to the latest issue of Newsweek magazine (the one with Aragorn on the cover), Jackson NEVER filmed The Scouring of the Shire so it
-
I am a self-resecting TB'er and must find a reason to dismiss this somehow... anyway, i think that's Moriarty's brain harry is eating, balanced carefully on top of the blueberry muffin he keeps in his brain cavity.
-
1. This pretty much confirms the line we've been hearing about ROTK all along. Those who suspect it's a plant will know soon enough as more reviews trickle out. 2. This who think all this a puerile mess will likely continue to be in an extremely small minority, not unlike the stubborn juror who never met 11 such obstinate men in his life. 3. I tend to think it is not a plant, given the comments about the Saruman storyline. I am also afraid that Jackson made a mistake here; but then nearly all of his calls have been on the money so far, and he has seen the film and I have not. Yet it will seem passing strange to have no resolution of what was, through the first two films, the most tangible and ubiquitous villain in the story. In the EE Two Towers DVD Jackson talks about how he decided against including that 7 minute scene at the end of the movie - "Too anticlimatic" - and decided it would work better at the beginning of ROTK. Well, apparently it didn't work there, either. Or would it have? We won't know for sure until we see the Extended Edition next November. I can only suspect that, as with the first two Extended Editions, we'll find that the longer version is the better one. Perhaps in the end the real culprit is New Line, which has been skittish all along about running times over three hours (note: running time for ROTK is now 3 hours, 12 minutes, exclusive of credits).
-
Sing, ye people of Gondor! Apparently the rain of severed heads is IN!!! Well, that's all of my desires met. Or so says some guy on the link so kindly and delicately posted above. Oh, hi, morGoth!
-
Those who were here back in '99 when Jackson first announced the project and took a couple sets of questions from all of us through the offices of Harry will remembr that even back then PJ was upfront about the fact that the "Scouring" (like Bombadil) almost certainly would not make it into the film; it certainly wasn't in the working script he had at that point. He felt it was too anti-climactic to drag out the movie for another hour or so after the climax (the destruction of the ring) and regrettably he is probably correct. I think in later comments (maybe on the FOTR DVD?) Jackson noted that the vision Frodo has of the Shire transforming into a grimy industrial nightmare when he looks into the Mirror of Galadriel was intended as the one small nod to the Scouring that he felt he could slip in.
-
I loved the raining heads bit! i used that to convince my brother that LOTR was worth bothering with. he has never read the books and he was left soooo cold by FOTR. he's on board now. The Saruman bit would have been better at the end of TTT, and that night attack on Edoras by the wargs would have made everything perfect. it would even have made me accept the whole aragorn fake-death thing. ah, well, I'll just close my eyes during the actual warg attack and dream...
-
Nov 28, 2003 10:24:22 AM CST
Heh, I've always felt that raining heads would have a much bette
by morgoth
...than the "Souring" (as I shall henceforth call it to express fan displeasure :). So with that in mind, I
-
Frackin' fat fingers!!
-
Just to be controversial, it does make a kind of sense to still include Gollum's origins despite skipping over the Saruman thing. Because Gollum is going to be having a *huge* effect on the action still, more than he's ever had, unlike Saruman in a Scouringless world. Still, would be nice to have it all, to go with my chaser of catapulted, branded heads.
-
He was trying to NOT spoil the movie. As he said, he is not sure of the etiquette here. (his own standards are much higher) As far as PJ, he still answers to New Line even though the stuff he has fought for has worked. It's a fine line with tough decisions to make. I doubt he relished cutting Chris Lee's stuff, not only for the reasons it should be in there but that CL has been such a champion and supporter of the series. It will all be good in the end though, I am sure of that.
-
I reckon some of the editing choices have been mistakes, or at least 'best-fix' choices in no-win situations. People! this is the price we pay for three maximum scale movies in three years. i reckon PJ would have put Saruman at the end of TT (or at least TT EE) if he hadn't had the insane deadlines. Oh, and to all those who say that the Scouring is the whole point of the book are missing out on, you know, all the other major epoch spanning themes that Tolkein just happened to drop in to the margins. i reckon he could have dropped some other stuff too. like galadriel: great in the books, gets in the way of the FOTR 3rd act. let Elrond be the 'leader of the elves' character (people who haven't read the books all think that anyway) and get on with it. so there. all of that is to say there's loads of ways to view the book and no single way is complete - if you think the scouring is the whole point then YOU don't 'get' the book. and ROTK will be fantastic. and the EE will be better. and the reviewer is either a boring fuck or a plant. and that's it.
-
Nov 28, 2003 10:56:28 AM CST
I'm sad that Saruman is missing, but given the choice, I'd much
by minderbinder
Sounds like a cool way to start the movie.
-
Although you are entitled to your opinion (the benefit of democratic society), allow me to express mine. Simply put, you haven't a clue what you are talking about!! Jackson dealing with material over his head?!!! He has brought what is, essentially, a language professor's extended mastabatory session in languages into a palatable movie trilogy for a new and future generations. He is brave enough to take full responsibility for what must have been a daunting task, taking into account the legions of Tolkien fans world-wide, to whom he would have to prove that he could faithfully translate their beloved works, but make it sit well with a wider audience. In my opinion (democracy remember?) he has more than succeeded. I don't count myself a Tolkien fan - his novels are far to verbose and self-indulgent for me; however, Jackson's work made me go back to the original source recently, to refresh my ageing memory from the first time I read it when I was 14 (over 22 years ago). Again, I believe Jackson's movie work has succeeded again because it made me see the novels in a different light, and with new-found appreciation. At the end of the day, if the movies make people read the originals, I am all for that.
Just don't say the movies are a mess. They aren't! -
I haven't posted any reviews or snippets of my own yet. However, I just wanted to let you know that I enjoyed your article. Good first try.
-
Not saying I necessarily agree with PJ's decision; but you could make the argument (and clearly Jackson is) that Gollum is in the end more important to the central story of Frodo's Quest than Saruman is - especially after the Breaking of the Fellowship, when Saruman loses his last chance of acquiring the Ring. Nonetheless: we'll get to see it eventually, and, I don't doubt, at the theaters.
-
...that Saruman's end would've been much better stuck on the end of TTT...no question, in my mind. However, we already have a case of a viewer, familiar with the books, whose only complaint was that Saruman was missing. How will those who are only familiar with the movies find this? That
-
I never said one was more important that the other, Sooty One, I merely offered an opinion as to why one might be included in this outing and one not! But anyway, I need more than this review! I need bleeding meat! I need grown men weeping! I need an explosion of geek hyperbole the like of which the virtual world has never seen before! But I'll settle for a spoiler or two, if that's all that's going...
-
Nov 28, 2003 11:48:54 AM CST
I don't care how much you love these movies, you HAVE to admit J
by industrykiller
What director worth his salt would choose to delete what is easily one of the most important sequences. How can you just write off Saruman! An audience who didn't read the books is not going to understand what the hell happened. Also it further perpetrates what I see as one of Jacksons biggest missteps with these films, it further slights the power of Gandalf. I can't speak for ROTK but so far Jackson has made Gandalf seem like a being of mediocre power. I have had several friends who have neevr read the books ask me what is so great and powerful about Gandalf, that's a question they shouldn't be asking. Now we don't even get to see him make Saruman his bitch. I don't care if it will be in the extended edition, the real edition is the one that comes out in theatres. That's the edition that will be up for best picture and the edition that will be archived forever if it wins. What I don't understand is why we aren't angrier about this. Why were there no petitions online? Jackson seems like a reasonable man I'm sure with more a furor we could have gotten this sequence back in. But no we just accept whatever he gives us assuming that it's whats best. Well it's not. He fucked us here.
-
They really fleshed out the ending of TTT on the Extended Edition much better. These theatrical versions are so inferior, I find it frustrating that I can't see a movie that plays better that's over three hours in the theatre. As far as the 7 minute cut Saruman scene, the ending of TTT:EE was kinda upbeat (Sam's speech, Merry & Pippin & Treebeard) and now that I think about it, it might not have played well at the end of TTT. I'm curious as to why the scene is 7 minutes (kinda long) and couldn't have been trimmed a bit and inserted. At least it will be on the Extended ROTK DVD. Sometimes I wonder if these Extended Edition versions will be the last, or will we see yet another version with still more added scenes in the future...
-
They could say that this movie is ass and I'd still see it.
-
This review blows. And we know Moriarty has seen the movie. Type faster, damn it, we need a better review! You have to get your review up before Knowles for a change. I do not want to read your ROTK review on New Year's along with an explanation of how busy you have been. Think it, type it, post it. Thank you.
-
... FYI: There WERE pettions online. But even if PJ were inclined to reconsider the excisement of Saruman, (which I'll wager he wasn't, regardless of how much fan moaning went on) by the time he made the decision, it was too late to change his mind and put the cut scenes back in. They had to get the prints to the 'reproducers' to be in time for the film's scheduled distribution and opening(s).
-
Nov 28, 2003 12:13:27 PM CST
The world premiere is Wellington, on Sunday, I think...
by aliceinwonderlnd
Not that I care because I'm not going, and I wish boils, hives, and itchy chafing privates on anyone who is going, because I hate them.
-
Nov 28, 2003 12:13:27 PM CST
I can see ROTK on Dec 12th, 12h MEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by bilbo skywalker
Yeah!!! Because I
-
Nov 28, 2003 12:15:41 PM CST
I think "The Voice of Saruman" should have been put at the end o
by oberon
Killer - I think Jackson's real mistake was not putting it at the end of TTT as he originally planned (see the EE documentaries). Certainly it belongs there more than at the beginning of ROTK; and Jackson is certainly right in suspecting this seems out of place in ROTK. If I were him: I would release a big Lord of the Rings DVD box set, and I would put the Saruman scene in at the end of TTT - where it fits more naturally.
-
Nov 28, 2003 12:15:55 PM CST
Saruman flees on his speederbike after he fights that little gre
by jaguart
What's the big deal?
-
On the Two Towers:EE commentery they joke about taking all the scenes from the movie and re-edit them in chronological order like what was done with the Godfather series. They also suggest that maybe some enterprising fan will do it for them on a home computer once all the DVDs are released so they won't have to do it themselves. They said that the last scene of that movie would probably be Aragorn's death with Arwen standing at his grave.
-
Nov 28, 2003 12:41:10 PM CST
"What we really wants to do is direct, doesn't we, my preciousss
by yo yo man
It makes me so happy when I return from an exhausting day dealing with premature Christmas shoppers to discover that a) the latest issue of Empire, which had been staring me cruelly in the face from the magazine rack, had arrived in the post, and b) this month it may as well be called Return of the King Monthly, replete as it is with a huge article, brilliant PJ interview and an LOTR celebration booklet. And now, it seems, the ROTK reviews are starting to appear. Could this actually be the most perfect cinematic experience of our pop-culture-informed geeky lives??? A film that we've wanted to see for the better part of our lives, four years of build-up and hype, a last minute hurdle (the Saruman scene) to either falter at or overcome... and in less than three weeks we'll know if it's a triumph of Biblical proportions or merely one of the best movies ever made. As for this first review, it's exactly what I wanted to hear. The seige of Minas Tirith sounds amazing. Shelob sounds amazing. After TTT, I didn't think I could stand the wait, but now I'm going to enjoy it because it sounds like the end result will be more than worth it. This could be like seeing Star Wars for the first time, except we're old enough to remember it!
-
Good news, though. I've heard that the deleted Saruman scenes have been added to The Matrix Revolutions. Now the movie doesn't suck!
-
...I were referring to Oberon's statement, I know ya din't say it. I'm with you on the hyperbolic review thingy! I want uber glowery and flowery yet ridiculously exaggerated claims of greatness! Or, I'd settle for an honest review that "tells it like it is!
-
Hurry up Drew before I have a mental breakdown. Wibble!
-
You mean to tell me there were petitions online about how Jackson was making his movie? There's people starving in the world and you dickwads are doing petitions about movies. What a pack of nerds. And not the cool kind either.
-
What I was suggesting is that next November we'll see an Extended Edition DVD of ROTK; and it will undoubtedly include the "Voice of Saruman" footage. Jackson will get lynched if it does not. Moreover New Line will be more than happy to put all three films back out as Extended Editions in limited circulation again soon after (they can make a nice profit off doing so and don't think the thought has not occurred to them). What I was suggesting is that Jackson has made reference once or twice to a possible future big box set of all the movies, possibly with more footage; and that this might be an opportunity, however belated, to recut the films to correct (among other things) what he seems to imply was a mistake on his part - not leaving the Saruman resolution at the of TTT. The real fanatics will go out and buy it; but the rest won't have to. They'll still have three fine films on DVD, and nearly all of the worthwhile footage anyway. P.S. I don't think this guy is a plant.
-
Hola Alice and morG and Yo Yo! Are you the only ones here? I am particularly thankful for a non-spoiler review and a positive one at that. The reviews should be coming in fast and furious now as the screenings in LA have started. Then New York's start Monday. Gonna try to stay spoiler free just a little longer. I will read the other ones afterwards as I usually do.
But I DID breathe a sigh of relief that this fellow liked it.***Elaine: here's the skinny on "D'oh!" and "duh". There is a good reason they are not spelled the same, because they are not interchangable phrases. I am no linguist but I think my American perspective might help you:
The similarity between "Duh" and "D -
Kiss kiss, hug hug.***Trinity's Gusset: I think you may be over-reacting to those who say that
"The Scouring" is the "point" of the book. I do think it's a shame that not only does PJ not enjoy that part of the book but from comments of his that I've read, he really does seem to not understand Tolkien's reason for including it. If I ever find myself in a room with him I might attempt to explore this topic with him. BUT, speaking for myself, the way the hobbits are able to eject the evil that has come into their land is
"what they were trained for"
and shows the effect of the War of the Ring on both the hero hobbits and the Shire itself. The Shire is saved, yes, but it is not the same, despite the bounty of 1420. In my opinion, The Scouring contains all of Tolkien's themes that have appeared in his great work,
brought home in a unique way that allows them to resonate in a far more profound way on the reader than if it had finished with the climactic end of Frodo's quest. I understand PJ's reasons for leaving it out of his films. But I would indeed take the chance to argue its merits for inclusion in another version, which will hopefully be made in another 10-15 years. ***BTW, the images that appear in Galadriel's mirror that have been termed PJ's homage to The Scouring are more properly termed the messing up of the Shire, or the arrival of Mordor to the Shire, not its "scouring" as my esteemed colleague Miami Mofo has pointed out. The Scouring is the hobbits banding together to keep something green and good in this world "that's worth fighting for". -
Those of us who love the books have already learned to accept changes that shorten the runtime and tighten the narrative. Everyone else will believe the Ents defeated Saruman. No biggie.
-
if they weren't so afraid of long running time, PJ could have put the Scouring in the movie. But, I will enjoy the movie nonetheless. 18 days, and I will be one happy person. :)
-
It probably doesn't make any sense to people who haven't followed the old talkback, but I've got all the information I need now. So they're different exclamations, are they? It all makes sense now. I was only familiar with the sarcastic-retort one, which, as you say, definitely sounds like "duh". I did get the impression that it was sometimes used in a different sense, and I knew it had something to do with "The Simpsons", but I never quite picked up on the "oops" aspect. The world has suddenly become an easier place to understand... Anyway, the BBC are currently re-running old "Simpsons" episodes, so I'll get the hang of the Homer "D'oh!" eventually. In the meantime, thanks a lot for the explanation. I appreciate it a lot! **** MorGoth: "a chartreuse shade of Soot"? Man, I love that. Please tell me where you buy these crayons, 'cause I want some, too! **** Meanwhile, there is yet another "Return of the King" article on the front page! Another talkback to claim! This is going to be confusing...
-
Because this great part of the book is a big anti-capilalist message, and it ends up with a huge communist revolution among the Shire! If you read between the lines, you'll see that what the returned hobbits are fighting against is the tyrannic control of a bunch of mens that stolen everything, raised taxes and sick rules on everything, and exploited the poor hobbits peasants. Now why Peter Jackson would not make it to the theater version? Because he IS a capitalist (although a good one...) living in one of the most capitalistic countries of the world (NZ), and above all, he's financed by Time Warner's New Line! So you you really thought they would've done what's communist propaganda to them on the big screen??? By the way, I've got high hopes about this movie, aside from the greedy editing this film could have (considering the removal of Saruman and the Scouring of the Shire). If it's just as good as FOTR and TTT were, it will just finish its job on killing... no I mean annihilating the new Star Wars trilogy and erasing the terrible Matrix SEQUELS (and I insist on the word "sequels" cause actually these were just cheap sequels of the first one, and not part of a COHERENT TRILOGY) from our minds! The Lord of the Rings trilogy is truly THE second coming of Jesus H. Christ...
-
... there me fine Hobbit lass! I dinna take it as a snub, erm... or would that be: "stub"? Er, 'stump'? ...danged ol' furren languages...
-
Nov 28, 2003 2:31:15 PM CST
"What I don't understand is why we aren't angrier about this."
by minderbinder
"Why were there no petitions online?" There were. I'm sure that they were far too late, and I'm sure that any reasonable filmmaker wouldn't make creative decisions based on a petition.
"Jackson seems like a reasonable man I'm sure with more a furor we could have gotten this sequence back in." Sorry, guy. As far as I'm concerned the books are practically unfilmable, I'm amazed we have seen a production as good and as loyal to the original as we have. -
coz its a funny name and, to my memory, you don't bang on about star trek all the time. yay! (mmmm 7 of 9). anyway, PJ certainly does like his wee beasties more than his thematic arcs, but then he has fran and phillipa to deal with that. the commentary on TT: EE seemed to prove that the girls kept him on at least some kind of leash, albeit a long one, with a 'fido' badge on it. a very funny and warm commentary, which is nice. as for the 'scouring': there are lots of great, important, stories in the appendices too, and that chapter seems like a glorified, and glorious, appendix. the main events will show that the characters have grown and good has conquered evil and the little people can rise up and make the world a better place etc. so, you know, just for the film, it can be left out. the leaving of the ring bearers will be a much stronger end, showing the cost of the struggle, and how all things must pass. anyway isn't there going to be a !!!!SPOILER!!!! WAAAAAAHHHH!!! a party in the shire at the very end, echoing Bilbo's party at the start. so there's still a bit of hobbit fun in the movie after all, showing their indomitability and all that. yay PJ!
-
The scouring can be taken many ways: the nasty mens can be seen as the cultureless working classes trying to take over from the nice hobbitsy landed gentry. anyway: keep it up, it makes the TB more fun.
-
Tolkien was a bit more "than a keen amateur". He was a literature Professor at Oxford, and not just any old Professor, but the Merton Professor of English Literature, the oldest most prestigious Professorship in English Lit. I don't know who would qualify as a "professional writer" in the period, but most other writers, like say Joyce, Hemingway or Fitzgerald, did not have specific training in writing. It's also important to note that Tolkien has written and published "The Hobbit" and written big chunks of "The Silmarillion" and the story "Roverandom" as well as some poetry before he even started to write LOTR. I think it
-
I wonder if the Smeagol origin scene was always meant to open the third film? I suspect that when New Line saw how Andy Serkis' performance in TTT had contributed to its success they wanted to reward him with a cameo. Possibly it is presented as a dream, as Frodo dreamed of Gandalf and the Balrog. The dreadful murder of Deagol has shaped and haunted Gollum for centuries so it's not just a throwaway little scene as some here seem to think.
-
Hold on there Buck-a-roo, didn
-
This was the one film new line gave peter jackson complete control over. So what does he do? He cuts out christopher lee so he can shove more liv tyler down our throats. The only good news is peter jackson is getting so fat he probably won't live long enough to screw up another film.
-
Fair enough. I just wanted to make it clear that Tolkien certainly knew the traditions in which he was working.
-
Your statement:
Shire scouring cut: "Because this great part of the book is a big anti-capilalist message, and it ends up with a huge communist revolution among the Shire! If you read between the lines, you'll see that what the returned hobbits are fighting against is the ***tyrannic control of a bunch of mens that stolen everything, raised taxes and sick rules on everything, and exploited the poor hobbits peasants***".==================================
---You actually are describing a pro-CAPITALIST revolution against communusm. Capitalism at it's core would be the economic system with no taxes or rules...COMMUNISM forces high taxes, and places rules wherin individuality is suppressed for the system...not that your analogy was well correlated anyway...but my point here is that your logic 100% incorrect...Those aspects of The American/NZ systems (which I think you are referring negatively to) that you use above, are actually systems put in place to water down pure capitalism as it can harsh to the poeple on the bottom when applied in its purity).
-
I mean, honestly, are you not getting a bit too bent about the lack of Saruman? Are you Christopher Lee's grandson? Try to think about the choice in terms of the movie and not the books. I think this is something that is important to remember whenever our purist side starts yammering. Can the decision be consistent with the movie's story arc? Perhaps, as for many they probably will figure that Saruman was essentially toast when the Ents wrecked Isengard. Does it really destroy the rest of the movie? No, because for the rest of the story Saruman is out of the picture. Since the Scouring of the Shire is out, there is no big reason to go back to Saruman. He lost. Time to go after the source of evil. In the end he was just an underling. I am sorry to see it pan out this way, but I just cannot be crushed by this. I would be most interested in those who did not read the books, only have seen the movies, and what they think about a lack of Saruman. ***MorGoth, I think you are also among the irritated crowd about this issue (although clearly not to the same murderous rage stage that jeffallee has entered. What say you about the consistancy within the filmic LOTR universe that PJ has created regarding the Saruman issue? What happens if most who have not read the books say that they did not miss Saruman? Not picking nits, I am interested in your response. See, I guess though I have read the books many, many times, I decided from the beginning to try to watch the movies as creating their own identity, and therefore not expecting the book reality. I have found this strategy to be rather positive ( my purist side has not really complained about too much), and made the films some of my favorite.
-
I wants me severed heads...I will forgive the filmmakers for all the changes in the story they made, as long as they give me my catapulted severed heads sequence.
-
Me too. And I don't cry easily.
-
And so it was said in the TTT DVD directors commentary, as the Elves walked into Helms Deep. Note that he said he dosent care about the *fans*... thats to say, he dosent care about the purists of the book IN ADDITION TO the fans of the movie. So in addition to Boyens and Walsh, who claim to be fans of the book but quite obviously know nothing about it if they think that having Faramair appear as he did in the book would be dramatic death on film, the RotK will suck and suck hard. Fellowship was great... but after the travesty that was TTT I cannot help but think that this trilogy represents a massive lost opportunity.
-
Nov 28, 2003 6:37:45 PM CST
I love how people are talking about the movie as if they've alre
by minderbinder
I promise you, once the movie is out your opinions will be deservedly ignored.
-
Nov 28, 2003 6:42:52 PM CST
"Boyens and Walsh, who claim to be fans of the book but quite ob
by minderbinder
No, sounds more like you know nothing about movies. You're living in a fantasy if you think that audiences would tolerate a scene in which the hobbits are captured and then have a lengthy chat and a cup of tea, then released with no argument. This is a movie about the possible end of the world, not My Dinner With Faramir.
-
I hate street theatre.
-
Yeah, its a movie about the book which was about the possible end of the world. I thought this was a film which was trying to bring the story that millions of people around the world loved, and would thus love it just as much on screen. I thought this was Lord of the Rings. Obviously its the 'Jackson, Walsh and Boyens Rewriting the Words of An Author They Only Wish They Were A Micron as Good As' film. You moron.
-
Nov 28, 2003 6:50:20 PM CST
You were close. It's actually a "Nobody Cares What Effigy 2002
by fluffyunbound
But then again, aren't they all? I hope they include a special scene where Faramir cries like a little girl when he gets wounded. And then tries to surrender. And tries to tell the Witch King where the Ring is. Why? Because I hate Faramir whiners, and they deserve to suffer.
-
Nov 28, 2003 6:53:22 PM CST
Effigy, remember when everyone bitched that the HP movies were "
by minderbinder
"You can't just take a book and film everything...etc" I don't know what's funnier, that you think the best way to make a book into a movie is to just film as much as possible with as few changes as possible...or that you think it makes either artistic or financial sense to make movies that would only appeal to the minority that has read the books instead of the general public.
-
Now thats funny. I dont know if you're deluded or just stupid. The LOTR is the second most read book behind that other work of fiction, The Bible, and that in itself should show you that people, indeed the very mainstream you suggest will make this franchise successful, will go see the film and love a film that translates the books faithfully. Open your eyes and stop apologising for Jackson, Walsh and Boyens mistakes. Its because of people like you that they thought they could get away with this travesty.
-
Do you really think that the majority of people who saw the movies read the books? My guess is that about 40% of the people who saw the film read the books, and that may be a bit too high. ***As for your 'look-at-how-clever-and-skeptical-I-am' joke about the Bible. Please, just stop. I know you get your rocks off by making such comments and knowing that you piss people off by making them, but enough. Show your lack of class in a different way. I know that you are just trolling, but is it really necessary?
-
Nov 28, 2003 7:07:19 PM CST
They didn't just "get away with it". Jackson walked away with $
by fluffyunbound
And he will probably win a BD Oscar this year, too. And for the rest of his life he will get to make any project - literally any project - he chooses, at any moment in time. Why will he accomplish all this? Because the movies are GOOD, and because people LIKE THEM. Part of the experience of the film is contrasting it to the book, and observing how the material was translated to the screen. If you can't enjoy that, it's because you lack the one thing Tolkien would have asked you to have: an imagination. Jackson did the work to get these films on the screen: you did nothing. You are trying to act as Tolkien's posthumous mouthpiece, but you have no standing to do so. You're just a pharisee, and you're swimming up Niagara Falls on this one.
-
"The LOTR is the second most read book behind that other work of fiction, The Bible" I know you don't want to hear this, but it's #3 now, the Harry Potter books passed it a couple years ago. But even with a hundred million copies sold, you seriously think that a majority of the billions of people on the planet have read it? "the very mainstream you suggest will make this franchise successful, will go see the film and love a film that translates the books faithfully" Which explains why the Bakshi version was such an amazing hit and they could afford to make the conclusion? Right.
"Its because of people like you that they thought they could get away with this travesty." Well me...and the people who have spent nearly two billion dollars watching these films...and the critics who have been incredibly positive...and the oscar voters...Well, just about everyone except for obsessive Tolkien purists. -
Nov 28, 2003 7:11:56 PM CST
Can't have things like facts get in the way of your rants...
by hildebrand
The last thing Effigy will ever admit is that many people went to the films, and liked them. He will never admit that the films found almost universal acclaim in the ranks of the movie critic crowd. Can't have that kind of information laying around, might get in the way of your own private reality.
-
I think that actually would have to be Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy. It's also one of the few trilogies where each film got progressively better, even though many people sight the plot holes in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. George Romero's Dead Trilogy ended on an extremely bitter note with Day of the Dead, easily one of the most underrated horror films of all time.
-
People did see the films. Lots of them. Many even enjoyed it. Thats great. But the thing about this is, that dosent change the fact that many people who saw the film couldnt understand why the changes that were made to the book were made at all. Now, I agree, stuff had to be cut for time. So losing Old Man Willow, Tom Bombadil etc is no great loss. But, and heres the important part, when the changes you make to the film result in massive plot holes (like Frodo offering the ring to the Nazgul at Osgiliath), the death of brilliantly crafted charicterisations (Gimili as comic relief, Faramir the bad guy) or out and out hated scenes (hate which even the writers acknowledge in the commentary) such as the Elves at Helms Deep, you need to ask, who are these idiots in charge of the films? Will people go see them? Yeah sure... its LOTR after all, and hype as well as massive marketing campaigns will bring in these sorts of numbers. But are the films good? Do they reflect the work of a man who started writing the book over and over and over again until he got it right? No. They preresent the scribblings of a troika of hacks who ruined the greatest opportunity the world ever had at making the books into film.
-
...Faramir actually were depicted as a bad guy. Or if Gimli hadn't been comic relief IN THE BOOKS. Wait until the Pyre of Denethor scene [for Faramir] or the Black Gate scene [for the Legolas / Gimli relationship] and then tell me the characters aren't respected by their treatment in this films. And - exactly what fucking "opportunity" was lost here? The only "opportunity" that existed to get these films made was the one JACKSON MADE BY STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE. No one has made LOTR as a film successfully [the Bakshi version, being incomplete, is a failure by definition] before, ever. The rights have been in play for 30 years. NO ONE MADE THE FILMS IN THOSE 30 YEARS. LOTR could have sat unmade for another 30 years. Or another 40 years. We could all have been dead before these films got made. Why? Because the conventional wisdom was that it couldn't be done, and the one guy to ever try failed halfway through and destroyed his career in the process. And because everyone knew that psychotics like YOU were out there to be dealt with, and who wants a headache like that? It was JACKSON who got the studios to make these films, and he alone. He got a studio to bet $300 million on these films, so they wouldn't look like a pile of rotoscoped shit like Bakshi. You did nothing to assist this process. Nothing. The opportunity never belonged to you. Ever. For even a minute.
-
Nov 28, 2003 7:31:06 PM CST
gee, your argument becomes so much more compelling when you thro
by minderbinder
"many people who saw the film couldnt understand why the changes that were made to the book were made at all" There will always be fans of the book who will complain about changes, no matter how minor. Period. The filmmakers knew that from day one. Hell, studios have known that since before the Bakshi version. Some people will NEVER be pleased, so why cater to a minority? The "plot holes" and other complaints you mention are things only a purist would whine about, they're not flaws of a movie, they're just whinges about deviations from the books. And what do they say about the Elves showing up? I haven't listened to that commentary yet, but I did hear comments saying that the Elves showing up has always recieved a big audience reaction and that even many purists have admitted that it is a great moment.
-
ah well/
-
Nov 28, 2003 7:56:30 PM CST
"hate which even the writers acknowledge in the commentary"
by minderbinder
Actually I just popped it in, the bit of commentary when the elves show up is hilarious. The three of them are basically making fun of zealots like Effigy and laughing their asses off - they're basically saying they put the elves in even though "purists" would probably get all pissed off...and when they did, audiences loved the change. Nice touch trying to take their comments out of context and twist them around, Eff.
-
For all of you out there bashing PJ I want to know, could you do any better? Clearly we all care about this film enough to be here and what made us care? The first two! Don't get me wrong I'll be missing the Scouring of the Shire too but, for the love of God, give PJ the credit he has earned!
-
please, oh please tell me the eagles come to save the day in the movie......its my absolute favorite part of the whole book.
-
If you want details, check out the forums at tolkienonline.com, there's a thread with extreme spoilers (look with care).
-
There's no excuse for not having Saruman and the Foul Mouth of Sauron! I don't see how Saruman's absence makes logistical sense--feels unresolved. Plus his death from the hand of Grima would've been fucking awesome. Oh, well, can't have it all I guess...
-
Tolkien was a devout Catholic. That rules out the communist thing. Tolkien was a Philologist and knew that the very term capitalist was coined by Marx and by that use, biased by its nature and therefore not a valid descriptor. Above all, Tolkien was a luddite and traditionalist. He wrote on the back of a rather large income tax cheque "not a penny for Concorde" in the mid sixties. Tolkien was neither communist, nor capitalist. He just wanted the world to be like the West-Midlands of his childhood. So take your own personal dipshit issues and stop warping them to make one of the greatest imaginations in the last half a millenia your excuse. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
-
The only way I can manage any patience for the day RotK opens is because I know that this is the end of the finest movies I have seen. It is the end of the story. This movie brought the characters to life for me. I don't want it to end...it would have been fine for the movie to be 6 hours long!
I guess the issue of cutting Saruman is settled. No more speculation about his spikey wheel, or about a secret Scouring. -
is the mouth of sauron out?
i heard on a talkback that he would not be in... -
get nominated, it atleast means that the oscar academy thinks it deserves to win, or else they would not have nominated it.
-
i'm just happy arwen was not in helm's deep, and that sam was NOT
a girl, as one rumor suggested... -
saruman ruled, and lee helped him become a great force of lotr.
only gollum could probably compete in popularity -
i think that ROTK will be the most popular of any LOTR film,a nd the most widely watched in the coming years by people
-
Spoiler etiquette? I didn't know there was such a thing...
-
nuff said
-
...who needs to learn to read before typing...
Hey West end, before lumping me in with Robofag in your stupid little attempt at a scolding, why don't you read what both people you are scolding wrote.
A) I was pointing out that Robofag's PREMISE was completely incorrect based on his OWN description, thereby negating his/communist argument (I found it funny that he did not understand the core of his own premise) ...which is a 100% valid argument...NOTE I SAID what HE IS DESCRIBING...NOT WHAT TOLKIEN MEANT.
B) READ further ALSO see that I wrote "not that your analogy was well correlated anyway" ...ie...NOT THAT WHAT HE DESCRIBED (the whole capitalist/ communist subject) CORRELATED WITH TOLKIEN'S THEME and subject... IN OTHER WORDS- I DO NOT BELEIVE THERE IS A HIDDEN Capitalist/ Communist MESSAGE...
C) YOUR premise is ALSO wrong...Tokein being a "devout Catholic" HAS Z-E-R-O correlation as to weather or not he can beleive in Communism or Capitalism... these are economic systems, NOT religous ones... (yes catholicism was repressed in some communist countries, but he did not live in those countries... so that is a moot point).
D) It does not matter whether or not Marx coined "capitalist" or not... it is the WORD about 99.9% of the English speaking world uses to describe that ecomonic sytem...THEREFORE it's root is MEANINGLESS...it is a 100% valid description.
E) I SERIOUSLY doubt Tolkien had NO opinion/Preference on/ between the two sytems (as you imply) ... ESPECIALLY given the political times lived in... I just do not believe that whatever belief he had was represented in LOTR (as you would have understood had you bothered to read my post well).
F) Stop scolding people when you do not take the time to read their posts....YOU should be ashamed of youself.
-
Effigy, I assume you meant "the 2nd most read book in the ENGLISH speaking world." Because I guarantee you that in other parts of the world where the LOTR films have been tremendously popular, your original statement isn't even close to the truth. I've had lots of Japanese friends come over to my place here in Japan to watch the original and Extended Editions, and only two have ever read any of the trilogy. That didn't keep them from enjoying Jackson's films immensely, at the theater or on DVD. Moreover, Jackson's films inspired several friends to read the books (either in Japanese or my English version) on their own. Can you imagine reading the LOTR when English is not your native language? You'd have to like the movies a lot to even try. So far, everyone seems to understand why he made the changes he did.
-
Nov 29, 2003 4:47:27 AM CST
Why should Ian get a statue? he s an actor, he gets paid you kno
by windowlicker74
why always the over-emotional blahblah concerning him?
-
Can't people wait to judge the film AFTER they see it. Saurman's been cut well down, fine, well lets see how they cover that issue before saying it's the worst mistake ever. After seeing The Two Towers Extended Edition I've regained my faith over these movies & whatever faults ROTK may have, the Extended Edition will likely fix those issues, as it did with The Two Towers Extended Edition
-
Yeah, I'm pulling for Peter Jackson to get that gold man next year. I hate to poke at the afflicted but, his Rings films are what George Lucas wishes he could do: Epic adventure with a heart that redefines the genre. It's a rare occurence in today's movie industry- a legitimate phenomenon beloved by fans and critics alike. I say with no exaggeration that it changed my life, earned a place in our memories, and raised the bar as to what can be done in contemporary movies. While we are transported to a world completely different from the one we know, we also have protagonists we can actually relate to. No, it's not perfect, there's lots of distracting eye-candy and way-heavy moments of drama. But Jackson's commitment to bringing the story to life is so passionate, that it's difficult for me to dwell on these points, and simply impossible for me not to look forward to RotK.
-
God, I hope that Jackson can, after a year or so, put together a sort of "ULTIMATE LOTR" set-
Im sure there is enough cut footage to do 4-5 hour versions of each film(at least)-on SE DVD of course-that way we could really revel in LOTR glory-and have something to LOOK FORWARD TO in the next few years. -
Nov 30, 2003 11:37:39 PM CST
PJ has said the excision of Saruman in ROTK was deliberate, not
by truthseekr1488
He felt that Saruman had closure in TTT (implicity/explicitly killed?) and that bringing him back in ROTK would be unnecessary. He's also considering that most of the people who watch the flicks have not read all or any of the books, so the story in the movies has to stand on its own.
-
As far as the Two Towers went, all of the stupid meaningless parts like fighting on the plains where Aragorn falls off the cliff and the stupid Gimly related humor screwed up an otherwise great film. All of that crap that came out of a rhinoceros's ass should have been replaced with the Ossgiliath/Faramir flashback and the Saruman scene so that the artificially injected humor didn't subside the intensity of the helms deep battle and so we could see what we really should, the ultimate showdown, a resolve between Gandalf and Saruman, I mean what the hell was the point of Gandalf becoming greater than Saruman if your not even going to see it in full force. I also believe that Peter Jackson is becoming a hypocrite because he always said that we should go in seeing these films as if they were all one film and not in parts or individually. So why should he care if it "just seems as if it's wrapping up The Two Towers" thereby, it's just continuing where the two towers left off.
As someone who has never read the book and an independent filmmaker myself I can say loudly and truthfully that the deletion of Saurman's defeat is a MISTAKE! PLAIN AND SIMPLE! Trust me. I actually care more about seeing Saruman's defeat than Sauron's because Saruman in all actuality means more only because of the buildup his character endured. I mean, Peter Jackson would have been better off not even having Saruman in the entire trilogy if he's going to do some phony "by the way I guess Sauruman was defeated by the Ents" easy out explanation. "GODDAMMIT"! THAT'S NOT SATISFYING" That's what it all comes down to anyway. Satisfaction. There is not satisfaction without his resolve. I don't want to see it after the fact in a shitty little extended DVD all Mpeg 2 compressed crap on a little TV or a crumby LCD projector. I want to see Saruman's demise on big beautiful 35mm for the first time! BTW- I'm going to copy the whole TTT extended DVD to my hard drive and cut out all the unnecessary Gimly related humor like the stupid "shall i get you a box" crap so I can truly have "The perfect version of TTT". Which would be actualized by my superior editing talents. I'm going to cut out the "NOT THE BEARD!" comic relief crap from the Fellowship while I'm at it. -
Dec 01, 2003 8:34:03 AM CST
If a best picture nom is "no big deal" how come SW, Raiders, ET
by minderbinder
While it looks like LotR will be only the second trilogy to have all three films nominated.
-
Its not about longer is better in this case-it just that many scenes and subplots were left on the cutting room floor -NOT FOR THE PLOTS SAKE, but because Amur-icans cant sit through more than 2-3 hours of movie-and the theaters need at least 2 showings a night to sell the popcorn-so much for the 95-5% ticket sharing ratio.
In some Euro countries, they think nothing of sitting through 5-6 hour films.
Also, at the current +,- 3 hours, you get the feeling that the story is being pushed along for time reasons...and this is a world that NEEDS to take its time-Middle Earth doesnt work by 21st Century Schizoid mans TIME EQUALS MONEY schedule....
I think a 4 hour version of the first 2 films is reasonable, and perhaps a 4.5 of ROTK-hell-there may even be enuff cut footage and sub plots for 5 hour versions of each movie! I'm all for it!
I KNOW ALL FANS would go along with this.
And then theres the matter of getting PJ to film the prequel-THE HOBBIT -
I have not yet seen ROTK but I am eagerly awaiting it. However guess after reading what I have I am going to be severely dissapointed if the confrontation at orthanc does not get a great mention. That part of the Two Towers close to the best part of the entire book but after the very average way in which Gandalf in the Golden Hall was done I will not be surprised if it does not meet my expectations. I think Helms Deep could have been shortened to include the Breaking of the Staff but if it aint in ROTK then the viewer will be poorer for not seeing Gandalf in all his Valarish majesty.
-
No, Actually I am fucking pissed about PJ leaving things out of ROTK. To do the book justice, the movie should include Saruman being thrown down, the scouring of the shire and the mouth of Sauron. I also think that Tom Bombadil should have been included in FOTR (Everyone would've loved Tom and Goldberry). I have not yet seen the new movie but I am getting the inkling that plenty of time will be afforded to the Pelennor Field battle and I am sure we will see Legolas playing Kelly Slater again and probably all the love shit. But if the battle goes for around an hour, couldn't he have reduced it to 50 mins and maybe just gave the viewers the basic jist of the real ending to LOTR.
I couldn't give a toss if New Line Cinema think that the scouring was anti climatic, that is the fucking story, so it should be told as such. But instead we will see endless fucking battle scenes which may be good but I would certainly trade some of that footage for some time on the WHOLE story. What a Jip !!!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts