The Return of The King

S

supervike

Super Moderator
haven\'t seen it but....

Originally posted by Dragonsreach
... and the Breaking of Saruman\'s staff, both of which in my opinion needed to be in the movie.
Click to expand...

drat! I was looking forward to this scene in the movie. One of my (many) favorite scenes in the books was when Gandalf is having his exchange with Saruman locked up in Orthanc. Saruman barks something at Gandalf, and then turns to leave, Gandalf orders him to return, and Saruman does. To me it was a very pivotal point, showing that the true power had passed and Saruman is no longer the head of the order.

I was hoping to see how that was portrayed on film. Oh well, it is still in me little mind....can\'t take that away can you Master Jackson!!!bwaaa haa ahaaa
 
S

slidedog

New member
I wouldn\'t be suprised to see that show up in the extended edition next year. Just the kind of thing that has \"reappeared\" in the other special editions!:D
 
T

Taer

New member
Yeah, Christopher Lee was pissed when they took that scene out at the last minute. :flip::bouncy:
 
P

paintwidow

New member
Originally posted by finn17
What I find sad is when people suggest that they have a view of Middle Earth that is the only view of Middle Earth.
I don\'t think even Tolkien himself is entitled to have a definitive view of Middle Earth..sorry:D
Click to expand...
Oh, okay, I\'m with you on that one!:D

BTW, I swear some where in the extended edition Two Towers DVD, they talk about dressing up Andy Serkis (or however you spell his last name) as Smeagol before he got a hold of the ring, and showing how he acquired it. They said they decided to cut the scene because of time constraints. But when I went to the movie, lo and behold, what\'s the first scene I see? There it is, in all it\'s glory, the genius behind Gollum\'s voice finally got his face on the screen. I wonder if they decided he deserved the screen time after all the hard work he did without anyone ever seeing his face? Well, I for one was very happy for the poor guy!:D
 
K

kevd82

Guest
Originally posted by finn17
Now, we are arguing about whether a fictional film, matches the \'facts\' portrayed in a fictional book???

Am I the only one who finds this strange and a little sad?
Click to expand...

Well, given our history with disagreements, I probably should leave this alone, but ..... lol

My problem with the differences is that Tolkien, not Jackson, wrote the trilogy (which, as its creator does in fact entitle him to a definitive view). If the changes made in the movie (like dropping Tom Bombadil and not shooting the return to the Shire) are made purely in the interest of making a more streamlined, enjoyable movie I don\'t really have too much of a problem with that. I can even deal with Arwen\'s \"enhanced\" role in the movies. But when changes are purely arbitrary, that smacks of ego. There is no good reason the fall of isildur (spelling?) had to be changed, no reason I can think of at all to have the scene where Frodo shows the ring to a ringwraith, etc....

I don\'t want to get into this argument as it has been done already, but being called \"sad\" kind of made me feel the need to speak up....;)
 
K

kevd82

Guest
And one more thing:

Perhaps one day I shall learn to be as laid-back and accepting as Finn is!
 
J

JimG

New member
My new hero

Nice work Kevd82. Finally someone who sees the hypocracy of these films.

Why on earth would Jackson add 15 to 20 minutes of non-existant warg battles that end in Aragorn\'s \"death\" then cut a bunch of other, important scenes to \"save time\".... If all they had done was cut (or mildly change ie Arwen replacing Glorfindel) it would not be as big a problem. But to add ALL that crap then cut important scenes is just silly.

And, to reiterate a ongoing point (and my biggest bugaboo to date) rewriting Faramir and adding the whole Frodo/Nazgul sequence was pure arrogance by someone who feels they \"know\" the story better than the author.

AND, the Author has every right to consider his version as authoritative. I am surprised anyone would argue that.

Actually, to further try to put this in language the people that frequent this site will accept; here is a perfect example. A few months ago a youngster bought one of PITYNOMAN\'s minis. He then CHANGED THE BASE and entered it in a competition. Everyone on this site was LIVID. Listen carefully... He purchased this work of art, changed it with what he perceived as improvements and claimed it as his own. Someone does it with a mini and everyone freaks. Someone does it with the greatest work of fiction ever written and few of us even bat an eyelash.

If I bought the Mona Lisa do I have the right to Paint a Coke Can in her hands?

Did the Taliban have the right to destroy those two huge and ancient Buddahs? The world was in an uproar but they \"owned\" them so I guess they had the right.

Maybe this will help you all understand my point of view. The examples may seem extreme but they are all levels of the same continuum.

Well some of you will agree with me, many will not and many will consider me to be flailing at windmills. I just beleive certain works of art are worth protecting...

Anyhoo, to prepare myself for the third film I have been given a full breakdown of all the changes and I feel that if I am prepared with all his arrogant changes I can enjoy the movie rather than seething inside. My brother is still trying to figure out why Denethor would kill himself out of the blue, with no allusions to his Palantir....
 
N

Nomis

New member
I\'m With Finn on this

Sorry JimG - I could perhaps agree with you if Tolkein had written the book with a film in mind (John Gresham\'s output springs to mind!) but clearly he didn\'t.

A book relies on the reader using his(her) imagination to fill in the gaps - how many people had a very clear impression of a hobbit before the first film? how many were dissapointed with the film versions? and for how many different reasons?

I read the books way back in the sixties and haven\'t read them again so my memories are quite vague and the films fulfill all my expectations.

I don\'t think the example given of Pitynoman\'s mini is appropriate as the media used is the same - here we are talking about shifting from a written work to a visual work.

Also the time frames are very different - with the possible exception of a few \"speed readers\" no one could read all three LOR books in the same time as the films run. This means things must innevitably change to fit the time available and to make the story flow. I would guess this is also the reason for the switching of personalities.

Isn\'t it a pointless exercise to constantly carp on about the bits left in/changed/left out? But then isn\'t it also pointless to respondlol
 
S

slidedog

New member
Wow, I am suprised by some of the comments this thread has evoked. Dogged determination that the movie MUST follow the book exactly, is, at best, unrealistic. As movies these are some of the best movie \"adaptations\" of books I have ever seen. Yes there are things they could have/should have included BUT these are Great films that even someone who has not read the trilogy can enjoy.

Jackson\'s version of Faramir bugs me as well, as he was one of my favorite characters, but after seeing the last film, with the ugliness of Denithor, I can live with it.

This series is great film making, and the films stand alone as great works of fantasy. Jackson deserves Kudos for making Middle Earth come alive for so many and accomplishing things in these films, through excellent cinematography and story telling, that I feel are classic moments.

As with any work of art (even minis) there are those detractors that are more interested in finding fault than seeing what\'s right. As for me I choose to enjoy the films as they are and continue to enjoy the books as well! Ah but those differences are what makes life worth living, if we all thought the same way, what a boring life it would be!:D
 
Chern Ann

Chern Ann

Only when they're green
Staff member
Considering how badly it could have gone (eg placing emphasis on the combat prowess of the big folk without showing the true grit of Frodo and Sam), I think the films captured the essential essence of the story. I\'m pretty sure the extended DVDs will have the Palantirs, the Scouring of the Shire etc for the purists (Christopher Lee was complaining about being cut out from the 3rd film so they must have filmed it), so instead of \"seething\" I\'m glad I\'ve got such an excellent adaptation to watch in the first place, as opposed to the utter tripe animated movie released in the 80s.

No one really complained about the Romeo and Juliet remake with Leonardo DiCaprio and guns. Just like Shakespeare, I think Tolkien\'s work is strong enough to stand up to reinterpretations without being slavish to the original. The essential story is there, the richness of the history of Middle Earth is conveyed as well as can be in NINE hours screen time, or TWELVE hours extended DVD (I don\'t even think there are WWII documentary series that are 12 hours long), so really, complaining about it is to me, missing the point.
 
P

paintwidow

New member
Originally posted by Chern Ann
I\'m pretty sure the extended DVDs will have the Palantirs, the Scouring of the Shire etc for the purists (Christopher Lee was complaining about being cut out from the 3rd film so they must have filmed it)...
Click to expand...
This is a little off of the whole purist discussion, but on the Two Towers Extended Edition DVD, there is a documentary about the choices they had to make about changes in the story line. You get to hear how they decided what to keep, what to change, and what to not even put in the film. It\'s really quite interesting, because once they tell you their thought processes on the changes, they make a lot of sense from the movie making perspective. But anyway, I believe they said that they never even shot the Scouring of the Shire. They realized that another 40 minute story line after a satisfactory ending (destroying the ring), would be anticlimatic for an audience who had never read the book. I think the scene that Christopher Lee is peeved about was the scene with Saruman trapped in the tower talking to Gandalf. They did shoot that, and I\'m sure that will be in the extended edition DVD of RoTK. But I don\'t think we\'ll get to see him as Sharky.:(
 
C

Caelithar

New member
I thought the scouring had been filmed , after all Frodo did see it in Galadriels mirror . Also I noted Andy Serkis in the tavern playing yet another part at the end of the RoTK .
 
borg

borg

Administrator
Well, I loved it. ROTK was well done, the whole series was well done. As someone who paid a few bucks to see the movie, it was well worth it. I will be buying the DVD for sure... overall great interpretation of the books.

Then again, I found ROTK just a little drawn out. I know that there are a lot to cover if you want to include everythng in the book, but the movie to me would have been great if the last 30 minutes was cropped or just added to the DVD. The mushy scenes between Sam and Frodo were kind of wierd and overdone, not sure if it was just the acting or the intention of the director, but they acted more like lovers than friends. Kind of creepy. They should have included more Arwen, yes, more Arwen I say lol

But overall, a beautiful project from start to finish, great use of cgi, and only used when necessary... 2 thumbs up.

Can\'t wait for The Hobbit...
 
K

kevd82

Guest
Originally posted by slidedog
...BUT these are Great films that even someone who has not read the trilogy can enjoy.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to say that even with my criticisms of the films I agree that they are great films, and have enjoyed seeing them. Heck, I even can watch the first Conan movie and enjoy it even though I have huge issues with it, and Conan is something I am a bit more of an expert on. One of the problems with the Conan movies is that nobody involved had a passion for their subject. No matter what I think of Jackson\'s changes to the story, the man is PASSIONATE about his subject and these movies are a testament to that.
 
K

kevd82

Guest
Originally posted by DennisMech
Originally posted by kevd82
And one more thing:

Perhaps one day I shall learn to be as laid-back and accepting as Finn is!
Click to expand...
Laid-back? Accepting? That\'s no talk for a barbarian!
Click to expand...

Good point! Come here Finn I have a nice new battle-axe I would like to show you! lol
 
M

mouse

Member
my two cents worth...

overall, it\'s a great movie...or movies, all 3 of them.

I take my hat off for Peter Jackson in trying to keep to the true genre of the story as written by Tolkien and yet putting certain emphasis for the general populace\'s interest...eg. Arwen\'s part was upplayed for the sake of the lovey-dovey crowd...

A few quiks...it was quite drawn out and some of the speeches were overdone.

As for some of the scenes left out, I believe it\'s in the extended version for the true diehards.

One point to complement PJ. The trek to Mount Doom...it\'s incredible how he managed to capture the essence of trekking up a mountain...the anguish and the endurance of taking every single step is clearly portrayed in Frodo\'s and Sam\'s journey...hmm...kinda reminded me of my own journey to Everest Base Camp and others.

Kudos!

PS: Why didn\'t PJ make a trilogy on Dragonlance....the waiting....will I get to view it in my lifetime....sigh...:(
 
K

kevd82

Guest
Originally posted by finn17
Originally posted by kevd82
Good point! Come here Finn I have a nice new battle-axe I would like to show you! lol
Click to expand...
Kiss my axe!:D
Click to expand...

Awesome - I have elicited a Slaine quote! Just keep that disgusting little dwarf away from me....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back To Top
Top