Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

One Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day to rule them all.

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with today’s Behind the Scenes Pic!

So, I originally planned to run a great shot of a Weta guy working on a Gollum maquette to a series of great photos of Peter Jackson making Gollum faces, but then it struck me that I possibly ran it before and I got all paranoid and didn’t want to repeat myself so I went with another Lord of the Rings photo that’s not quite as good, but still has Jackson making a funny face as he’s giving direction to John Rhys-Davies.

Anyway, here it is. Thanks to Pat Barnett for this one. Click to enlargen!



If you have a behind the scenes shot you’d like to submit to this column, you can email me at

You’ll be lost if you don’t see tomorrow’s pic, so make some space for it in your schedule.

-Eric Vespe
Follow Me On Twitter



Click here to visit the complete compilation of previous Behind the Scenes images, Page One
(warning: there are some broken links that will be fixed as soon as I can get around to it)

Click here to visit the complete compilation of previous Behind the Scenes images, Page Two

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Sept. 26, 2012, 2:16 p.m. CST


    by Rob

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 2:16 p.m. CST

    The LOTR films

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Half great, half crap.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 2:18 p.m. CST

    and see right there. thats an interception. game over. green bay wins.

    by sonnyhooper

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 2:18 p.m. CST

    Post the Gollum maquette photo too, Quint!

    by BeanGrud

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 2:22 p.m. CST

    One Finger to rule them all,...

    by Kevin

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 2:31 p.m. CST

    So here is where PJ turns a badass dwarf into a comic-relief

    by Jack Black

    in order to sell more tickets for his commercialized movie adaptations?

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 2:40 p.m. CST

    Gimli: Soon...

    by loafroaster

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Sorry but which one's Jackson and which one's Rhys-Davies? ;-)

    by tangcameo

    If the beard were black and both had glasses they'd be the doublemint dwarf twins.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 2:51 p.m. CST

    These movies have not aged well.

    by Raptor Jesus

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Why does someone always have to say that

    by lprothro

    a film "hasn't aged well" on every talkback? Most of you geeks probably haven't aged well either.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 3:03 p.m. CST

    renetabard Then don't make them.

    by Jack Black

    The stories in the books are fine as they are and i can live without their movie adaptations.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Pastitsios, Then don't watch them....

    by john

    I'm perfectly fine with a slightly commercialized version of the books in cinematic format. If I want the true source material, I can always re-read the books. As for making hundred-million dollar movies - well of course they're going to have to be slightly commercialized in order for the studio to agree to pony up the dough. To simply say, "well than don't make them" - well in that case, that would mean just about every book would never make it to film. That will never happen because people want to see these books on film (albeit with slight compromise) and Hollywood wants to make money. It's just the way the world works. Don't like the movies - don't see them. I love them and I love the books and both can exist on their own merits.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 3:10 p.m. CST

    You can live without them?

    by aTwenty7thLetter

    Congratulations. Fortunately, for the rest of us that franchise can survive without you.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 3:15 p.m. CST

    did they practice belching together as well?

    by cozy

    JRR would not have enjoyed those derivative attempts of his work

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 3:20 p.m. CST

    And they called it a mine...

    by kindofabigdeal

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 3:29 p.m. CST

    and pj's saying, "don't forget to mumble and marble all of your lines"

    by nephilim138

    same goes for him voicing treebeard

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 3:44 p.m. CST

    The dwarf humor wasn't as broad in the books.

    by rev_skarekroe

    The dwarves being rather clownish is an element of The Hobbit though, at least until they all get suited up for the Battle of Five Armies at the end.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 3:46 p.m. CST


    by Kevin

    The Two Towers


  • Sept. 26, 2012, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Tomorrow Matt LeBlanc?

    by jim

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 3:54 p.m. CST


    by shran

    All of your taste is in your mouth. "The films haven't aged well." Neither have you seeing that you're 12. "Half great half crap." At least they weren't half assed. Unlike your opinion. Seriously, aren't you too busy working as replacement NFL refs to be online in a TB?

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:07 p.m. CST


    by Nasty In The Pasty

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:14 p.m. CST

    Tolkien WANTED his stories to be retold and spread

    by glenn_the_frog

    His entire motivation was to create a mythology, a history. (LotR was about showing off the language and world first, and the story second.) He was trying to make something like Beowulf or Sinbad, that would be passed on, retold, reshaped by future writers and storytellers. Rinterpreted, added onto and shaped by future generations, as all mythologies are. He might not have agreed with all the changes in the movie (what author ever does?) but he would have been pleased as punch knowing that "hobbit" is now a common word, when before the movies, only geeks knew what it was. That everyone knows who Gandalf and Gollum are now. seeing so many inspired by it... building upon and shaping it, and it spreading to a much wider audience. He'd also know that presenting it to this generation means that in another 20 or 30 years a generation that grew up on it will retell it their way, and it will change and shape as it goes. (And he's also understand that the times change over the course of 50 or 70 years... culture is going to change so presentation is going to change. Versions of Beowulf or Shakespeare are all reinterpreted and changed. The dialogue might remain the same (to the point most audiences have trouble with it) but the visuals, the timing, the culture, are ever changing. Yes, Tolkien's son is being a real miser who hates any minor deviation from the original text, but I think his father would have been quite happy with it all.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:22 p.m. CST

    These movies aged just fine

    by Beebop

    The elements that don't work didn't work even back when they were originally made. I'm at the end of reading The Two Towers right now, for the first time in 15 years - and what amazes me is how RIGHT the movies really were. They got the tone. They got most of the good dialogue. They got the atmosphere. Above all else, they got the casting PERFECTLY (special mention to Gandalf and Gollum). Whenever I read these books now, I do so with the movie characters and their voices in my mind. Most of the changes from book-to-movie I can understand, too, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. (Specifically, Shelob - in te movie she's just a big spider that's not especially scary, whereas in the book she is an ancient force of malevolence that's lived for thousands of years. Should've made that a LOT scarier than it was, but PJ's schlockiness came through too much)

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Amen, glenn_the_frog

    by seagrass

    I agree, Tolkien would have been (mostly) pleased with the films. I just don't see what the hell is wrong with his son, especially considering that the trilogy is held in such high esteem throughout the world. I mean, it can't be the money, because the success of the films resulted in increased sales for ALL of Tolkien's works. Even a greedy miser can't grumble about that. Stupid people are stupid.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Peter Jackson for Justice League.

    by UltimaRex

    Been saying it right here since 2007. And I'm still right.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:31 p.m. CST

    The younger Tolkiens were pro-movies, I believe

    by Beebop

    Whether that's because they aren't as traditionally conservative as their elders, or because they saw the dollar signs, I do not know.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:31 p.m. CST

    It's not that they didn't age well

    by Mugato5150

    The parts that are lame were lame when it was made. The lack of any thought to editing and the constant deus ex machina (hey here's another army I just pulled out of my ass!) and of course, leaving Sauroman's fate on the cutting room floor, that was a brilliant move. But no, it aged just fine.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Interesting article about Chris Tolkien's son, Simon

    by seagrass

    After reading that, it definitely sounds like Christopher's got some issues.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:36 p.m. CST

    The dwarf tossing line was an abomination

    by BoRock_A_Boomer

    That's "abomination" not "obomanation"

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Here's a quote from Christopher Tolkien:

    by Beebop

    They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:45 p.m. CST

    watched the trilogy recently

    by Pipple

    The only flaw with the films is that they're too bombastic. A little more subtlety would have made them much better. It's those moments when the films stop blowing shit up that actually resonate poignantly. Like that's why I like the fellowship film more than the rest. It's the most normal of them all, no big sweeping ridiculous cgi bullshit. Just story story story... I hope the hobbit's a nice quiet film but knowing jackson it'll probably be even more shitfilled than a constipated oliphant.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:51 p.m. CST

    This Pat Barnett guy...

    by hypnotron

    He was the motion capture actor for Wall-E.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:53 p.m. CST

    mugato5150: the editing was great on all three films

    by seagrass

    well, except for cutting out Saruman and Wormtongue's fate in the theatrical cut of ROTK, obviously. Jackson himself said it was cut because Saruman's story is over with at the end of Towers (since the Scouring was already going to be left out). Having it in the beginning of the extended cut of ROTK is fine, but I think they could have trimmed some fat from the theatrical cut of The Two Towers and included the Saruman/Wormtongue deaths as the finale. It would have also given the middle film a proper ending (and made that sequence a bit more powerful than it stands in the extended cut of King. ROTK could have then started like it already does with Smeagol's backstory, and then segued into the Fellowship's return to Edoras from Isengard. It's probably the only major editing misstep that was made in the entire trilogy.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:53 p.m. CST

    I think Fellowship's the best, too....

    by Beebop

    ...but to say it doesn't have sweeping CGI bullshit isn't true. Heck, look at the Dwarrowdelf, the steps to the Bridge, and the Balrog. (Although the Balrog was perfectly executed) The parts that were bombastic were pretty bombastic in the books, too. The Battle of Pelennor Fields in the book was amazingly bombastic and dramatic, for example. It was translated beautifully to the screen. The recruitment of the undead ghosts...uh, okay, you got me - cheesy and not what it should have been at all. They saved room for the quiet moments in the Two Towers and Return of the King, and they were great. But I don't think the problems were bombast, so much as some obvious CGI work that took you out of the movie (and I blame a LOT of that on only having a year between films - I don't think it's a coincidence that Fellowship seemed the most seamless of them visually, and that's because they had extra time to work on it.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:55 p.m. CST


    by Richard

    It WAS about the money. New Line originally did not pay the Tolkien Estate the millions (several)they owed them for the profits the movies made. A big ugly legal battle ensued. That is why CRT will sell no more of the rights of his fathers work while he lives, depriving us all of many Silmarillion-inspired movies.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Christopher Tolkien has turned into a bitter, clueless old man

    by seagrass

    and his statement is especially ignorant considering that's the exact age group his dad was writing for. There was plenty of action in the books.

  • Or did they all know and just not care?

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 5:07 p.m. CST

    octoburn: so, we've got about a decade or so until that happens

    by seagrass

    I mean, kudos to Chris Tolkien for "finishing" the Silmarillion (a herculean task, to be sure), but in doing so he's just as guilty as Jackson is in taking liberties with his father's work. He's being a bit of hypocrite when he denounces the films. Of course, most reasonable people don't really mind those liberties. Also, think about this: if the Silmarillion had never been published, how would the LOTR movies have turned out? Would they have been made at all? We definitely wouldn't be getting three Hobbit films.

  • I've only seen the 3 LOTR theatrical cuts once each (on opening day). I waited patiently for over a year after each film so I could get the Extended Editions. So, those are the only ones I've ever owned or seen multiple times. I've seen the theatrical version of Fellowship about halway thru recently, and I think it blows. The Extendeds are not overblown. I could actually watch more. The editing is just fine (even the multiple endings of RoK are fine--not necessary, sure, but edited just fine). So, I submit that it's all a matter of what you got used to watching. If you love the theatricals, then yeah, I can see how you may not enjoy the Extendeds. I'm just the opposite, but I get it. But, no, half of the films did NOT suck. They were all masterpieces of cinema. (And, no I'm not a Peter Jackson fanboy. I haven't liked anything else he's done.)

  • I believed that they hadn't aged well. Then upon the first blu-ray release I watched them again and loved them. That was when I realized that films don't age... people do. Where you are in your life and in your head at any given time has far more to do with whether you enjoy a movie than the movie itself ever will.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Christopher Tolkien would have made negative comments no matter how the film adaptations turned out

    by Turd_Is_Floating_Underneath_The_Gravy

    Had each movie been eight hours long, utterly faithful to the books with nothing left out and no new inventions by the filmmakers, and contained every piece of minutiae from his father's work, he still would have found something to bitch about. He's just pissed that they were made AT ALL.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 5:12 p.m. CST

    mugato5150 :

    by Kremzeek

    So, part of your argument is that because they left out Saruman's fate, the movies "haven't aged well". I don't think you know what that phrase means.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 5:14 p.m. CST

    mugato5150 :

    by Kremzeek

    I took your post as sarcasm. If it wasn't, then disregard my previous post.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST

    kremzeek (nice name by the way)

    by seagrass

    Yeah, I hear you on that. I prefer the Extended editions in every way because they let the story breathe, and you also get a lot of added context that the theatrical versions were missing. That being said, I'd still be happy if the theatrical versions were the only versions in existence. I'm not so jaded as to believe that the extended were made only for monetary reasons and milking the cash cow. It really came down to a simple matter of time constraints, both on the production and theater side of things.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 5:17 p.m. CST

    by the way, kremzeek

    by seagrass

    I got the Transformers reference as soon as I saw your name. One of my favorite episodes, actually.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Mystery Roach, good call. I agree. And seagrass:

    by Kremzeek

    Thanks. Youre the 1st to say something about the name. I figured I would've at least gotten a comment in the TF talkbacks by now. HAHA "Kremzeek" was always one of my fav episodes. I'm surprised Bay didn't try to fuck him up too... er, of course, I meant "re-imagine" him...

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 5:22 p.m. CST

    HAH, seagrass. Just saw your post. I responded already haha

    by Kremzeek

  • and taught the craft of ring-making to the elves. You will notice that the men turned evil because the gifts were from Sauron himself. But the elves can wear theirs without turning evil because they created their own. But they were still linked to the One Ring because that was Saurons intention when he taught them the craft. The elves didn't realize this was Sauron and to be honest, he wasn't that huge of a threat at that point anyways. He was the chief commander of Melkor (who was the primary evil but was banished to outer space forever or something). And Sauron had been away from Middle Earth as a prisoner on an island called Numenor (ancestors of Aragorn)for thousands of years. Numenor was destroyed in a flood by the high angels, so the elves didn't think much about this ringmaker with a magical new craft - especially since it was around that time that other mysterious strangers began making their way to Middle Earth from "heaven" (Gandalf, and Saruman are actually lesser angels).

  • in PWSA's Mortal Kombat which happened to be a New Line production. hmmmm.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 5:51 p.m. CST

    The Fellowship of The Ring = ONE OF THE TOP 15 MOVIES EVER MADE

    by GravyAkira

    Maybe top 5. TT and ROTK aint bad either.

  • Thank you Peter Jackson.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Ridley Scott shoulda made LOTR around 1993

    by MustGoFaster

    Just before he started churning out crap. You know he would have made Jackson's films look like Disney crap.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Overall really liked the movies with some caveats

    by GeneralKael

    But I felt in some places Jackson got carried away and didn't let the material or the actors work for him. Example #1 - Galadriel's speech about the fact that the ring would make her worse than Sauron "All shall love me and despair". In the book, this is chilling because she says it so calmly, and there is a hint of the evil she can become - also look at the same lines in the Animated version (YES, the animated version) - the character just muses on what she would become if she took the ring and it has a scary effect. Cate Blanchette is a great actress and can do scary and chilling without green/blue special effects - I could barely hear her lines at this point. He should have let his actress act and she could have more subtlety delivered the point. Example #2 Army of the Dead - in my opinion the weakest element of the trilogy - they should have been used exactly as in the books - they are barely seen(only Legolas can really see them of the three who go there) and they are only used to stop the Sea guys (who's name I forget at the moment) - at least I believe that's what happened in the books. In the movie they are over used and are an unstoppable force that cleans the orcs out of Midas Tirith - which lowers the importance of the victory of Gondor and Rohan in repelling Mordor's armies at Pelennor. Yes they get released so that they don't just win and end the movie, but it just seems a quick way to end the battle.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 6:55 p.m. CST

    kaelomont - Sea Guys = Corsairs of Umbar

    by sweeneydave

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Stoker trailer is director of Oldboy...looks good

    by MJDeViant

  • Never explain science to a Klingon, a dwarf, or an archbishop.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Gimli is possibly the most likable character in the films.

    by FluffyUnbound

    All this nonsense about how the character was raped is absurd. He kills everything that fucking moves, is incredibly brave and loyal, and has the proper arc of developing a friendship with Legolas that hits all the right notes. Jackson also made him A LITTLE BIT FUNNIER than in the books. Not a lot funnier, because he's occasionally used as comic relief in the books, just like Merry and Pippin are. Just A LITTLE BIT funnier. And the character is eminently likable and memorable to the film-only audience. If anybody got raped it was Sam.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 7:32 p.m. CST

    glenn_the_frog PIMP POST!

    by Nichole

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 8:25 p.m. CST


    by HarveyManfrenjenson

    The fact is that a *hell* of a lot of moviegoers went out and bought Tolkien's books as a direct result of Jackson's movie trilogy. I was curious about the number so I googled it. 32 million copies were sold between 1965 and 2001; between 2001-3, when LOTR was in theaters, Ballantine sold an additional 14 million copies. So really, as a Tolkien fan, you should be happy that these films were made.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 9:29 p.m. CST

    Geek Hate

    by Michael Clark

    This site is so weird. It's hard to tell sometimes just what geeks actually LIKE. As in, unconditionally. The site name itself, "Ain't it cool?" would, I guess, imply a kind of sincerity, if not for the fact that it's a reference to a minor-league Travolta/Slater vehicle with nothing all that much "cool" to recommend it. So, maybe, the "cool" in the title of the site IS, in fact, ironic--nothing is really cool, it suggests, and calling things cool, if you are uncool, would show an ironic lack of awareness of the capacity of cool. I guess, to put it another way, I don't understand how geeks can possibly shit all over the Rings movies. If you don't like this--then, for fuck's sake, what DO you like? Don't say Star Wars, ET, Raiders, Alien, Aliens, Blade Runner, The Thing, Batman, or whatever...all of these have been sprayed with liquid geek shit in TBs all over this site, as if the place were populated by a herd of dysenteric hippopotamus. Is there some mysterious movie somewhere that only a certain select group of geeks has seen, and they know better? Is this like the annoying roommate you had in college who had heard of Nirvana before anyone else, and poo-poo'd them when they "sold out?" Is it like that? Or is part of being uncool based in the notion of shitting on basically everything? Do you establish your anti-cool posture by announcing, for example, how "dated" and "slow" and "boring" and (as above) "commercialized" acknowledged classics of geek lore are? Is it a changing of the uncool guard? Or what? Ah. I'm tired. It's fuck this shit o'clock.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 10:07 p.m. CST


    by Andrew

    To answer your question - there are always going to be a bunch of douchebags that hate a movie because they think it makes them look more intelligent/more discerning/cooler than thou. I wouldn't take it too seriously. Most of these are guys who lead very lonely lives and have some creepy tendencies, have massive man boobs, smell like swamp ass, etc. The fact that people will complain about LOTR, Nolan Batman, Bladerunner, et al shows you what they are about. A year ago, you could have just skipped the talkbacks and not had to deal with it. Unfortunately, AICN now has these fuckfaces WRITING the fucking reviews (ala The Kidd).

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Army of the Dead

    by Beebop

    Yeah, I agree that that was by far the biggest misstep in the movies. Instead of making them this scary unseen (or barely seen) malice as they follow Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas....they were green cheestastic overblown invulnerable goofs. I would much rather have had them remain shadowy ghosts that gave off a ridiculous amount of fear. And even if they went to Pelennor Fields, have it be something like each ghost is freed for every one enemy it kills. Then they don't seem like a WMD.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 10:18 p.m. CST

    All three movies are great.

    by frank

    They have flaws, but are still among my all-time favorite movies. Pretty much the best adaptations of the books we could reasonably have hoped for, given that they had to appeal to a wide audience to justify the budget required. I can’t wait for The Hobbit in December.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 10:58 p.m. CST

    Return of The King is my favorite movie period. I don't get

    by SID 8.0

    This revisionist history about these movies. They were great then and still great now. Can't wait to see The Hobbit too.

  • Sept. 26, 2012, 11:43 p.m. CST


    by Balkin Flabgurter


  • Sept. 26, 2012, 11:44 p.m. CST

    ONE TIME***

    by Balkin Flabgurter


  • there was a small collection of free nations that came to gondor's aid before the battle of Minas tirith, with the help of Rohan towards the end of the battle and aragorn and company's subduing of saurons maritime force is how the coalition finally defeats Saurons army at Pellenor. Jackson for some reason left this out and used the undead to fill in the gaps.

  • The war had a profound effect on Tolkien, and brotherhood was a strong point of LOTR trilogy, the small nations that come to help gondor before the battle of minas tirith were tolkiens way of showing what happens when men put their petty differences aside and unite together against what they view as wrong.

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 1:30 a.m. CST

    One of J.R.R.'s complaints was that artists usually

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    interpreted Legolas as too soft and fairy-esque, where he himself had pictured the character to be more athletic and action oriented.

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 1:51 a.m. CST


    by Suolas


  • Sept. 27, 2012, 3:03 a.m. CST

    The hobbit and the drawf.

    by albert comin

    And the dwarf looks at the hobbit as if he finds him delicious.

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 3:04 a.m. CST

    dwarf, dammit!!!

    by albert comin

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 3:05 a.m. CST

    I really liked the first two movies a lot. The 3rd, not so much.

    by albert comin

  • If the books were filmed as an HBO or BBC series, maybe things would have been completely faithful to the book and less commercialized. As it stands, what works in the films far outweighs what doesn't. I still get chills thinking about Gandalf's fall in Moria, or his return at Helm's Deep, or the beginning of the Two Towers, or even just the cast being so close to how I pictured their respective characters when reading the book (for the most part). Just perfectly adapted moments that seemed to be taken directly from my mind and put onto the screen.

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 3:21 a.m. CST

    To claim that Jackson's...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...LOTR movies are anything but a staggering cinematic triumph is utterly inane. Like someone said earlier, any flaws in the films were as present ten years ago as they are today. And as someone else said, the movies have aged just fine -- it's whiny talkbackers that have aged poorly. A lot of the complaints about PJ's LOTR deal with annoyance at occasional "rough"-looking CGI and too much "walking" and "crying". What they seem to want is "flawless" CGI, less walking and no crying. In other words, most of them are fat, torpid, emotionally crippled Star Wars prequel fans.

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 4:25 a.m. CST

    I find ROTK to be a bit over-indulgent

    by albert comin

    And the over-indulgence cames at the exagerate over-prolonged special effects scenes. Let me clarify: There is one sequence that serves as a godo example for what i'm saying. When the winged nazguls attack Minas Tirith, originally they were supposed to be like 3 or 4 of them, tops. Which is a bit like in the book, actually. But Jackson got drunk with his own SFX, so in the movie it gets a dozen or more of those winged nazguls. It's needless overbombing. The problem with such kind of overbombing is that it becames more and more unbelievable the heroes could survive such an onslaught. There is no plausability, even in a fantasy universe where impossible things are possible, that the heroes could had last more then 5 minutes with such odds against them. And that's just one of the many complains i have about the movie. It's a cumulative effect that by the end makes ROTK a far less enjoyable experience then the other two LOTR movies. ROTK is a movie where the filmmakers got drunk of their own sucess and become convinced they could do no wrong. The movie still has a lot of things done right, however, so it's impossible for me to dismiss it. But compared to the other two, it just doesn't compare to how much i enjoy it. I truly loved the first two LOTr movie,s i can watch any of them in an heartbeat and still be enthralled. Not so with the 3rd. ROTK actually bores me. And whatever problems ROTK has, they were magnified in Jackson's next movie, "King Kong". "King Kong" really pissed me off.

  • Get a proper writer, you hack!

  • And some of the dialogues were taken verbatim from the books.

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 6:44 a.m. CST

    This talkback...

    by lprothro

    has not aged well.

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 8:14 a.m. CST

    I miss the old Dead Alive days of Peter Jackson

    by Ricardo

    Whatever happened to that dude?

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 8:26 a.m. CST

    This deserves a caption contest!

    by Broderick

    And that's were I saw Ian steal my eclair on the security footage!

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 8:54 a.m. CST

    Shit... Herbert Lom has gone

    by Denty420

    RIP, sir. Thank you for making me laugh so hard from child to adult.

  • The other changes with the movie, I can see why they were made - more stuff for the love story, for example, because in the books there was no love story, and at the end Aragorn suddenly marries this elf that has hardly been in the books. But they completely changed the character of Faramir to be the complete opposite of his character from the book, and I have no idea why. The book Faramir was known to be a very skillful interrogator, a just man, and one who said something like "I would not take the ring even if I found it at the side of the road". Once he got Sam to slip up and give away their mission, he helped them, knowing he was breaking his father's law. But the movie Faramir tortures Gollum for information, and then kidnaps Frodo and Sam to get the ring. He only sets them free after Sam makes a speech that apparently touches his heart.

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 11:18 a.m. CST

    People that say these movies have aged badly are idiots

    by Amazing Maurice

    I mean for fuck sake, I guess JAWS is a pile of shit too right? I mean that shark looks so fucking fake these days....

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 11:21 a.m. CST


    by DrMorbius

    Way to cut to the quick, pally.

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 11:25 a.m. CST

    big jim

    by DrMorbius

    I'm 'pulling for' Heather Graham, or Lacey Chabert.

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 1:11 p.m. CST

    not sure which writer's son is worse, Tolkien or Herbert

    by Ultron ver 2.0

    anyone read those Dune prequel abominations?

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 1:12 p.m. CST


    by lprothro

    has not aged well. (No, seriously---wasn't kidding that time.)

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 2:26 p.m. CST

    @Mr ultron ver 2.0

    by albert comin

    Christopher Tolkien has not writen anything, he has edited his father's work that hadn't been published at the time of his death. The Silmarillion is mostly due to Christopher's editing of what material his father left, but the words are JRR Tolkien's, not Christopher. As for Dune, Frank Herbert was already declining considerably since the 3rd book, to the point that for me the Dune saga ends there. Herbert's son is not doing anything his father hadn't already started.

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 2:27 p.m. CST

    @Mr lprothro

    by albert comin

    You would still do her, admit it. And she has lost a lot of weight lately.

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 2:30 p.m. CST

    The new Dwarfs in The Hobbit look SHIT

    by FreeBeer

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 2:34 p.m. CST


    by lprothro

    HA! I was just bored. Not sure about Carrie but Jamie Lee Curtis? Absolutely!

  • Sept. 27, 2012, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Where is the caption contest for this one?

    by Sirius_crack

    I can think of some good ones.

  • It wasn't a lie that before his version people called LOTR "unfilmable". Everyone complaining needs to have more realistic expectations. Sure, maybe alot of you complainers would be willing to sit through a 8-hour adaptation of each book if it was exactly like the book but that's never going to happen. Hell, people already complain about the runtimes for the films. Jackson did an AMAZING job with all three movies. He brought Middle Earth to life, when no one said it could be done. And all these people bitching about The Hobbit BEFORE THEY'VE EVEN SEEN IT are even worse.

  • Sept. 28, 2012, 3:10 a.m. CST

    Faramir is too perfect in the book. If he is completely

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    incorruptible and resistant to it's allure, then he should be the one to carry it and dunk it in Mt. Doom. It defeats the purpose of having a hobbit carry it. It's hinted in the books the the hobbits are a metaphorical amalgam of the best parts of all the races, hence they are stronger against its charm, and are also symbolic of the need for the races to put aside their differences,. Their very appearance demonstrates this imagery: short like dwarves, mostly physically and culturally like humans, but long-lived and nature loving and a touch preternatural in their abilities to hide in the wilds, like elves (Tolkien also mentioned them having ears somewhat pointed like the elves, in "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien").

  • Sept. 28, 2012, 7:29 a.m. CST

    I don't know, bedknobs

    by FluffyUnbound

    My reading of Book Faramir isn't that he's incorruptible, it's that he's wise. The Ring can't get him because he's got too much wisdom to ever pick it up. If he saw it lying on the road, he'd keep walking. It would corrupt him if he took it, but he KNOWS that, and so he's not tempted to take it.

  • Sept. 28, 2012, 7:36 a.m. CST

    I hear what you are saying, but the implication on hm being a perfect

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    pure-blooded Númenórean is a bit Mary Sue-ish, so he comes off a bit dull. It was probably necesaary to simplify this for the uninitiated general audience of the movie.

  • Sept. 28, 2012, 7:37 a.m. CST

    of him. Sorry, typing on a phone.

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

  • Sept. 28, 2012, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Mr fluffyunbound is right about Faramir as he's depicted in the book.

    by albert comin

    What makes him resist the ring is not that he's incorruptible, which the book points out not even the near elves are, but that he's so wise as not to go near it because he knew what would happen to him. Faramir is exceptional because he's wise, not because he's above corruption. The Ring corrupts EVERYBODY, regardles of race. The hobbits just happen to be a bit more resilliant. Of the whole Tolkien mythology stotries, the only single character in all of them who shows something close to impermiability to the ring's influence is Sam, perfectly exemplified in the ROTK book where the ring tempts him with a vision of Mordor as a garden under his command, and yet Sam mannages to shake himself out of it, understanding that it would be a folly.

  • Sept. 28, 2012, 10:41 a.m. CST

    It's beleived that the closest thing to a Mary Sue in LOTR is Gandalf

    by albert comin

    By Gandalf's voice passes much of what were Tolkien's own opinions. Tolkien always resisted the notion that there was anything metaphorical in his work, but i do think some did creep in despite his best efforts to the contrary.

  • Sept. 30, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST


    by Jack Black

    where was i? i remember i had some unfinished business here.

  • Sept. 30, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST

    hey scirocco wazup?

    by Jack Black