LOTR Fan Dissapointed

[brude1]

Is there anyone out there who saw this movie and was upset by an almost complete rewritting of the ROTK? I know a movie should be respected on its own merit but holy shit!! They changed almost every aspect of the story. I understand when certain parts of the book cannot be in the film. Each one would be 10 hours long! I just sat in the theater and felt my heart sink with each passing scene. What did Jackson get RIGHT is a more appropriate question.

[El Duderino Diablo]

It's been a few years since I read RotK so my memory's a bit hazy but I enjoyed Jackson's interpretation of the book. My only quibble is with a couple of shoddy cgi effects and the fact that it was painfully obvious in a couple of places where footage was removed, footage that I'm sure will make it back into the Extended Edition dvd set.
Just wait until next November and the LotR: RotK Extended Edition DVD release, I think you'll be more pleased with that version.

[jbird669]

Yeah the scene of Legolas on the Ouliphant was just terrible. The worst CG I've seen in a while.

[Reverend Ned]

Originally posted by jbird669
Yeah the scene of Legolas on the Ouliphant was just terrible. The worst CG I've seen in a while.

The worst CG character ever used in ANY major motion picture is 'Dobby' in the second Harry Potter movie. It's as if the animators notated everything wrong with 'Jar-Jar Binks' in Phantom Menace, then created 'Dobby' based on those notes. It wasn't a good-looking character, nor was it a character that evoked sympathy (it takes a lot more than having big sad eyes).

[El Duderino Diablo]

Originally posted by Reverend Ned
The worst CG character ever used in ANY major motion picture is 'Dobby' in the second Harry Potter movie. It's as if the animators notated everything wrong with 'Jar-Jar Binks' in Phantom Menace, then created 'Dobby' based on those notes. It wasn't a good-looking character, nor was it a character that evoked sympathy (it takes a lot more than having big sad eyes).

No shit. I watched the second Harry Potter instalment last week and upon the introduction of Dobby found myself thinking two things in regard to that character: What a terrible effect and dear god someone kill that rodent, now!

Actually, the poor cgi I was referring to in my earlier post (for jbird669) was during the final scene in RotK when Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf, et al were preparing to board the ship to Valinor. I just found myself fixating on the boarding plank and it's complete lack of movement in relation to the ship. Like I said, a minor quibble.
If anything the effect of Legolas slinging himself onto a horse in The Two Towers was far worse than anything involving him and the oliphant in RotK.

[Bongwater]

Out of the CGI Legolas moments, the Oliphaunt sequence was probably the best executed (the others being the horse mount in TTT and leaping off the back of the cave troll in FOTR).

I'm with Dude on the chopped bits. For me, it felt much like Two Towers where stuff just got left out. And that's not a book-to-film comparison. Honestly, when I watch the films, the books can go get stuffed. But, the differences in quality between the theatrical and extended cuts of Two Towers is MAJOR (whereas FOTR's was minor). There just seemed to be a lot of character beats in ROTK that just got cut out to serve the economy of the theatrical cut.

All that said though... ROTK pulled my scrotum up over my head and kicked me down a flight of stairs. :D Loved it, and I expect the extended cut will restore a lot of flow to the film.

[The Baron]

Although I've heard more good than ill about RotK, I'm inclined to wait for the extended version dvd rather than plunk down the $9 at the box office. Part of the reason for this is, frankly, my ass is a bit chapped because of the cut Saruman scenes. (OK... I'm a big Christopher Lee fan.) Since those scenes will probably be in the extended version, blah-blah-blah... You get the idea.

[Chris Gore]

Well, the film is spectacular, let's face it. Perhaps the best and most satisfying "third" film in a trilogy ever. Compare it to Jedi, Revolutions, Godfather 3, Lethal Weapon III, Back to the Future 3 -- and Return of the King is the best of them all. But it is not without its flaws. The last 15-20 minutes dragged and dragged and dragged as the film seemed to end seven different times. I think we saw everything but Sam's son's barmitzvah. I felt as if I was watching the extended edition DVD in the theater. I just didn't need to see so many goodbyes, hugs and tears. I needed to take a leak. There is no doubt that the film is brilliant, but get to the end faster please. I wouldn't have minded a 20 minute ending on DVD, but my ass prefers a shorter ending at the theater. Now, I wouldn't care, if the studios would give these three hour plus epics intermissions. Then you wouldn't hear me complain.

[The Baron]

You bring up a good point, Chris. What the hell DID happen to intermissions? Are producers and theatre owners so afraid of losing a buck because they can't fit in another showing of a film if there's a ten-minute intermission? Hey, I have VHS tapes that include the intermissions, complete with entre'act music.

With all the people claiming to have ADD and ADHD these days, you would think intermissions would be more popular than ever... Not to mention how much concession-counter sales would go up.

Of course, this could start a whole new rant thread.

[Bongwater]

By seeing these films multiple times without a break, I'm pretty sure I've risked many kidney ruptures over the past three years. :D An intermission would be great for audiences. However, it probably doesn't work out great for theatres, so fat chance of them being brought back. I guess you could speculate additional concession sales vs. extra film showing... but I'll let you do that. :D

As for Saruman, I was very surprised to realize that I didn't give a shit that he wasn't in the movie. It'll be cool to see him and Wormtongue in the extended version, but I didn't miss them. But I can understand Christopher Lee and Brad Dourif fans might be a little peeved.

Yes, the "endings" were funky, and the audience I was with nearly got hostile. They didn't really taper off well, and each one felt like the movie WAS going to end right there, but kept starting up again. Up to Aragorn's coronation, it worked fine for me, but there had to have been a better way to tie everything up, revealing everyone's fate. I was kinda hoping they'd give a brief montage of everyone travelling home, seeing shots of the places we travelled to like Edoras, Lothlorien, Rivendell, Weathertop, Bree and such. Nothing as detailed like the book, but just enough to remind the audience of the scope of where we've been through the saga. Didn't think Sam getting married was all that big of a deal, nor did I find his "Well, I'm back" moment to be that necessary, even though it's at the end of the book.

[Philo Bedo]

As for Saruman, I was very surprised to realize that I didn't give a shit that he wasn't in the movie

I totally agree. At the beginning of the movie it was a little disappointing, but by the end, it it didn't matter and i didn't care.

As for the endings, they should've left all the fade to blacks & whites out's for the final shot and final shot only. I understand that each one was the end of that character's story. But, at the 3hr 40 min mark the audience is 'red 2go an it ain't right to drag it on.

It reminded me of the first i was forced to listen to Tales From Topigraphical Oceans in high school. Or counting the rolls of neck fat on Marlon Brando.

[AmaiStina]

i saw it today. the first two hrs flew by, but the last hour or so dragged, mostly b/c i kept finding myself thinking "get up! move! move your blooming arse! wheres Aragorn?"

strangely, i didnt have to make a trip to the bathroom til the film ended.

i wasnt too keen on Legolas's, what, 30 minutes of screentime? possibly 7-10 complete sentences worth of dialogue?

my sister really liked the film. i really liked Legolas's hair among other things. ^ ^

[konx]

How incredibly picky can someone be to find fault with the ROTK? These 3 films have been almost entirely flawless and to pick at them only further proves their genius. As always happens with quality films that perform well at the box office, "fans" are left with little original commentary other than pick away negatively at it.

For Peter Jackson and Co. to attempt such an impossible task of putting this story to film with all of the obvious hurdles (including an overwhelming finicky fanbase), is honorable; to do it successfully and make it a cinematic classic that excelled on all levels is divine. What very minor issues anyone may have after considering the overall achievement that LOTR has been should be forgotten in favor of garbage deserving trash talk (i.e. Timeline).

There couldn't possible be any movie in release now or anytime soon, more deserving of my money than ROTK. I'll see it a few more times in theaters and then I'll buy both dvd versions when they're released; there's just too much to marvel at to ever digest it all in, no matter how many times I see it. I challenge anyone to find me any movie that deserves that kind of dedication. I would love to see it. Good luck.

for the love of film,
konx

[michaelellis40]

So you didn't give a shit that saruman wasn't in the movie? Did it bother you that the first hour of the movie was so dull that you could sleep through it. Peter jackson said he cut the saruman scene to help the pace of the film (what pace?). Leaving in the saruman scene would have helped the pace of the movie a great deal.The fact that you could say one of the main villians in the movie wasn't really very important after all makes me wonder if there is anything jackson could do that people couldn't defend. Did you enjoy the jerk running around the film in the goonies mask? I can't believe that jackson could be so stupid as to include that guy. I guess he thought it was funny and the movie was a joke. The film stopped in it's tracks every time he was on the screen. I will always remember peter jackson as a guy who chose to have a idiot in a goonies mask in his film over christopher lee. Maybe after he does the king kong remake he will do a goonies remake.

[The Baron]

Whoa, whoa, whoa... Okay, folks, time for a reality check.

It's only a movie.

There's no Middle Earth, or Hobbits, or Orks.

It's only a movie.

Nothing that happened in any of the Lord of the Rings trilogy means Jack or Shit in the real world, and certainly nothing in the RotK merits tearing off each other's heads. Know why? Say it with me, now:

It's only a frickin' movie.

Okay... Back to the mayhem.

[El Duderino Diablo]

Originally posted by konx
I challenge anyone to find me any movie that deserves that kind of dedication. I would love to see it. Good luck.


/thumbs through Kurosawa catalogue...

;)

[Bongwater]

Originally posted by michaelellis40
So you didn't give a shit that saruman wasn't in the movie? Did it bother you that the first hour of the movie was so dull that you could sleep through it. Peter jackson said he cut the saruman scene to help the pace of the film (what pace?). Leaving in the saruman scene would have helped the pace of the movie a great deal.The fact that you could say one of the main villians in the movie wasn't really very important after all makes me wonder if there is anything jackson could do that people couldn't defend. Did you enjoy the jerk running around the film in the goonies mask? I can't believe that jackson could be so stupid as to include that guy. I guess he thought it was funny and the movie was a joke. The film stopped in it's tracks every time he was on the screen. I will always remember peter jackson as a guy who chose to have a idiot in a goonies mask in his film over christopher lee. Maybe after he does the king kong remake he will do a goonies remake.

Saruman wouldn't have done much in the film of ROTK anyway, so honestly... if you're cutting to serve a tight theatrical release economy... he's gone. Saruman is NOT the enemy in this film; it's Sauron. Doesn't really sound like his presence would've done anything to help you out with the first hour anyway.

The orc general wasn't even in there long enough to bring the film to a halt. Besides, the audience needs to put some sort of identity to the enemy forces, or else you get tedious mindless hordes a la Starship Troopers and it's Playstation cutscene time. Hence, you get the Sloth-Bad Taste guy. Yeah, okay, maybe you give the material to the Witch King, but I didn't mind the material was moved to a character that could manage more facial movement.

And the first hour, while slow to rev up, wasn't what I would call dull. Perhaps you had too many jordan almonds coursing through your system. :D

[Bongwater]

And I'll always think of Peter Jackson as the guy that strapped his piece of brain back in his head with his belt and obliterated a houseful of zombies with a lawnmower. Not necessarily in the same day.

[kevinpmurray]

I'd just like to say that i have been a fan of tolkien for many years and have read nearly every story he has written.

Although this movie was just based on his books, i felt that it was a great achievement for Peter Jackson to pull it off so well. The Sam-Frodo partnership had a lot of homosexual tension which i didnt find in the book, and i would have liked to see how he handled Tom Bombadil, even if it was only a five minute scene. The ending was decent, although im pissed off that they return to the shire and nothing has changed. Thats a big difference in the ending of the book and i didnt appreciate it.

The main thing i LOATHED in the three movies was Liv fucking Tyler. Her character was NOT that involved in the book at all and i agree with the Christopher Lee fans about Saruman for the reason that the traded a great character for a shitty she-elf. I mean she was crap! ollum was amazing, i loved him and i liked watching Denethor run off the end of M.Tirith in flames.

My god though, i pissed for 3hrs 40 mins when the thing ended.
....OH! What the fuck was up with Bilbo being senile at the end?!?!?!...and why didnt it show what happened to Legolas and Gimli...and who actually won their ongoing Body Count Battle?

[Magneticleather]

Ok, so I will start this by saying I have never read The Lord of the Rings Triology. So I don't know how relationships were played in the book.

I started to wonder though... Can two males be very close without it turning in to a "gay thing". What is it about male closeness makes us assume that it has homosexual connotations?

But yeah, on the original thread... I really enjoyed how this movie was owned by the Hobbits. Two Towers was more Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn's. But maybe that's because I have a soft spot in my heart for short guys.

[El Duderino Diablo]

People read into these relationships whatever they apparently wish to. :shrug:
As I understand it the relationship Tolkien created for Frodo and Samwise is more akin to the one that eventualy develops between a British miltary officer (Frodo) and the assistant assigned to him (Sam). I think these assistants were called batboys but don't quote me on that. These traditional professional relationships often turned into genuine friendships that lasted long past their military service and well into civilian life.
What I think Tolkien (and Jackson in his movie adaptation) was really trying to convey was a true friendship. I believe that Tolkien and Jackson did a fine job of conveying that, too. Nothing about the relationship bewtween Sam and Frodo struck me as being rooted in some homosexual atraction. I think the people who do see that sort of relationship developing in these movies either want to see it or are somewhat insecure and/or uncomfortable with such a close relationship between two males.
:shrug: :-/

[mikeysbistro]

I think Peter Jackson should have put the whole Saruman/Orthanc scene at the END of the two towers, instead of taking it completely out from ROTK - it would have been more satisfying and fit much better - then you only have to carry the Palantir into ROTK.

But I understand why they took it out of ROTK - that particular story thread adds another 20-30 minutes to the end of the film (the scouring of the Shire)

Despite the re-writes I loved the movies!!! But like everything in Tolkien's books you wish you could always see more.

Stuff I wish they had shot/included
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Elrond's sons & co. - If Legolas kicked butt, what more these two! Especially in the big battles.
2. The Dunedain rangers (Aragorn's people)
3. Prince Imrahil - another kickass hero with some elven blood
4. The scouring of the Shire + the hobbit uprising/battle
5. Saruman getting his come-uppance in the Shire
6. Ghan-buri-ghan showing the shortcut to Theoden and co.
7. Sam wearing the ring - the only time somebody actually uses the invisibility to kick some ass
8. Gandalf confronting the Witch King right before Theoden shows up

[brude1]

It's nice to see a comment create so much discussion. I've read it all and I have to say it is not nearly as caustic as the responses I got on the LOTR fan site. Final thoughts... Yeah, I know, there is no middle earth/hobbits/etc. I (as I'm sure most who read it) approached LOTR as an escape to another world filled with honor, true right and true wrong.
Anyway, I think Jackson got the look and tone down perfect. Unfortunatly, he sacrificed the MOST important aspect-- the story. Tolkien created huge backstories, histories and lore.
Why not take all his ablity (Jackson) and creat something original? What makes the original Star Wars so great is the story is complete. Whatever Lucas might have left out, we'll never know. It seems complete and there are no assholes in the audience (like me) pissed that they screwed up almost every scene from a near perfect story.
Someone asked me at the fan site if I thought the movies should not have been made. My very selfish opinion is yes. Make original movies!!!! Adaptations are so hit and miss. I'm sure at a site like this, many off you recognize that most of the best and most important films of the last 20 or 30 years have been original.

[Bongwater]

Originally posted by brude1
It's nice to see a comment create so much discussion. I've read it all and I have to say it is not nearly as caustic as the responses I got on the LOTR fan site.

Gee... I wonder why that is. :D


Anyway, I think Jackson got the look and tone down perfect. Unfortunatly, he sacrificed the MOST important aspect-- the story. Tolkien created huge backstories, histories and lore.
Why not take all his ablity (Jackson) and creat something original?

He already has. Many times. Bad Taste and Braindead are films for the ages. ;)

More folk songs. That's what these films needed. And hiking.

What makes the original Star Wars so great is the story is complete. Whatever Lucas might have left out, we'll never know. It seems complete and there are no assholes in the audience (like me) pissed that they screwed up almost every scene from a near perfect story.

Who cares whether Aragorn was in his 80's? Honestly, there were some backstories in LOTR that we didn't need. The lush and detailed backstories of every leaf and rock can be cinematic suicide in a screenplay.

Someone asked me at the fan site if I thought the movies should not have been made. My very selfish opinion is yes.

The books aren't going out-of-print anytime soon, so... you're still covered I think.

Make original movies!!!! Adaptations are so hit and miss. I'm sure at a site like this, many off you recognize that most of the best and most important films of the last 20 or 30 years have been original.

Well, speaking as someone who found Tolkien to be pretty long-winded and skimmed through many a boring part of those books, I'd say Jackson knocked it out of the park. :)

The economy keeps the major studios on adaptations and franchise development, as well as recycling old storylines, unfortunately. It's tough to rely solely on indies though, since they tend to make more bad movies than the majors. Oh well... original stories have their way of cutting through the nonsense and finding their audience, so I'm not particularly concerned. Their death is greatly exaggerated.

[kahiti]

Originally posted by Bongwater
Well, speaking as someone who found Tolkien to be pretty long-winded and skimmed through many a boring part of those books, I'd say Jackson knocked it out of the park. :)

Definitely. We have to remember, for the sake of the general non-Tolkien-initiated audience, Peter, Phillipa and Fran decided to focus mainly on Frodo and the ring. So things like Tom Bombadil were cut, etc. Personally I thought Jackson, the cast, crew, WETA and everyone else involved did a great job bringing the story to life. Though they didn't include every detail (hell there is appendix upon appendix + the silmarillion worth of "backstories, histories and lore") they did their best to make the movies as authentic feeling as possible....to include every backstory is impossible - but sets, costumes, characters and script were designed to reflect the world Tolkien put on paper.

Anyway, the movies were made as an interpretation of the books, not to replace them. They present the main story to a wide audience who may never have considered reading the books, but maybe now have got them interested...Here's one statistic: sales of the book increased about 1000% after the release of the movies.