But I guess RotK is just as important as people's hatred for Bush. It deserves no less than 5 threads of it's own on the front page. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No Narnia, Mark is just rubbing it in that he is sitting in the theater now, watching the first two extedned editions and going to be seeing the new one at midnight!
AJ
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I'm seeing it at midnight, too, you don't see me bragging!
Errrr.... Wait, was that bragging?
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Ah! I get it AJ.
Well, I've already called him a poophead in the other thread. I just have to keep from reading all his spoilers until I get to see it tomorrow. Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Actually the ROTK started at 10:00PM so we were even more special.
I just got back and it is just past 2:30. We(my wife and I) have been watching movies for the past 13 hours. All I can say right now is WOW.
The Pelanor Fields, the Charge of the Rhohirm, Shelob, Mt. Doom and the Cracks of Doom. All just amazing.
And we got a special gift.
I will write more tomorrow morning before I go and see it three more times.
msquared
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
<SPOILERS>
Becky, Fales, and I also just went to the Trilogy Tuesday showing, and yes, the movie started at 10:00. Peter Jackson did a beautiful job doing the movie! When Mark says "wow" he pretty much sums it up, except, as Becky will also say, I said "SQUEE!!!" in a very fanboyish way. Right now I'm completely in Tolkien bliss because I had the double experience in I hadn't watched TTT-EE either (I was waiting to see it in theater), about that part, was there an added bit (that wasn't in the DVD) right before Eowyn's decleration of love to Aragorn? actually, nevermind that one, we're watching the DVD right now. RotK, hmm....let me post this first and then add, it's gonna take a lot of thought, and I'm still in fanboy bliss.
PETER JACKSON I LOVE YOUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Satyagraha
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Up until the end of the Minas Tirith battle, I was sure that I wasn't going to like it, as a whole. They definitely tied up the minor storylines way too hastily, hoom. I hope this gets cleared up in the EE.
There wasn't a single frame of Saruman (I almost threw my popcorn at the screen when Pippin found the Palantir just lying in the water...I was like, "What?!")
But from the moment Aragorn yelled, "For Frodo!" and charged the Black Gate until about...now, I was/am on the verge of tears. I'm saving them all up for when it comes out on DVD and I can cry good and proper, without ruining everyone else's viewing experience with my wails.
All in all, a finale fitting for such an awesome series.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
I'll second it *wow*
Wow.
Can't wait for EE. Posted by Zevlag (Member # 1405) on :
Absolutely WOW! Just saw it with T_smith, Amka, Pat. WOW!
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
All I can say is this, whoa.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Frisco, that post just heightened my respect for you.
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
I'd like to know if there will be news of complete EE Trilogy showins next December, or when RotK-EE comes out. It'd be great marketing, and we all know that there would be people like so that will just go and eat it all up. I agree with Frisco, Legolas on the oliphant was a little excessive, albiet I understand why he did it...pure and simple fan service, happens in anime all the time, could have done without it though...but, it does get cool points. The white city battle...or in fact the whole city in general....wow, I was completely awestruck when it came on scene...and the trebuches all around the different levels as the city kept going up...and up...and up...just...wow, it was so gloriously beautiful... I loved how they started out with telling Smeagol's story, it really made him a very human character. I missed how they didn't have the Dunedain go with Aragorn, and I don't see any way that'll be cleared up in the EE (btw Frisco, supposidly the minor things will be cleared up in the EE, such as the House of Healing, Peter Jackson just didn't have time in the movie, after all it was already three and a half hours long, that in itself already scares many non-fanatical movie-goers, even though he could make a killing if only the fans go to see it. Satyagrah
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I should have come and see it tonight, but Vincent is sick... Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Do you think that we've seen the final versions of FOTR and TTT, or will Peter Jackson release an Even-More-Extended-Version a year or two down the road, maybe as part of a mammoth, all encompassing LOTR box set?
Posted by Paercival (Member # 1408) on :
When Pippin is singing to Denethor and the charge of Faramir and the knights... blew me away. So beautiful and emotional. Very well done.
AMAZING movie. I'm still stuck on WOW!
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
Oh goodness, I was so happy when Billy Boyd sang. I already owned the soundtrack, so I knew that he did sing...but I didn't figure out why...but oh my goodness...that's one point where the movie just had so much more power than in the books, the books just can't show Pippin singing in the background as Faramir charges the orcs...the look on his face as he was singing...as he's hungry, and sad for Faramir while Denethor is sitting there eating stewing in his own thought, the red dripping running down his chin...it was done so very well...just like Frisco, I was trying to hard to keep from sobbing. Satyagraha
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
<Spoilers> Truly a crowning achievement. Peter Jackson has more than done justice to the Lord of the Rings, he has created a cinematic art equal to the literary art of Tolkien. Incredibly good as they all were, each movie was better than the one before.
I did wonder about the palantier found floating in the water. Like, how could that have gotten there? Did Saruman throw it out the window in a fit of anger? Hopefully this will be explained in the Extended version DVD.
This may seem heretical to some, but I liked Jackson's ending better than Tolkien's. I mean, after the great war between good and evil has been won, what's the point of any anticlimactic conflict in the Shire? It was a nice denouement, or winding down, to see the unspoiled beauty of the Shire as the heroes come home.
It was cool the way Mr. Anderson--I mean, the way Elrond--had tears in his eyes like a father giving away his daughter at a wedding, as Arwen rejoined Aragorn, even smiling through his tears as they kissed.
The death of the ring was interesting, too--cool the way it lingered a little bit. Reminded me of the scene in Terminator II where the bad robot fell into the molten metal. Even inanimate objects have to ham up their death scenes!
I'm really looking forward to the extended version DVD. And to ROTK winning Best Picture Oscar this time. And Peter Jackson Best Director. And Andy Serkis Best Something--they'd better think up a good category for his unprecedented work bringing real life to a computer-generated character.
[ December 17, 2003, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Yeah, I was just waiting for Gollum to pull out the thumbs-up as he sank beneath the lava...
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Sean Astin-Best Supporting Actor
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
You're no fool, Rhaegar, Sean Astin does deserve the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.
After the first two movies, my favorite character was Aragorn. I just love Viggo Mortenson's interpretation. But after seeing the third movie, I have to say now that Sam is my favorite character.
But what about the award for Best Actor in a Lead Role? Do you think Elijah Wood was that good? He was perfect for the role, and played it convincingly, but was he the best? I'm not sure.
Good point, Ryuko--Gollum was slow dissolving in the molten lava, too. It would have been hysterical to see him do a "thumb's up." Someone will probably do a parody for MTV or something, and use that in it.
O-o-o-o! That just made me think of something else to add to the "Things to do during Lord of the Rings" thread!
[ December 17, 2003, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I mean, after the great war between good and evil has been won, what's the point of any anticlimactic conflict in the Shire?"
Ron, I think you missed the point of the trilogy. The War of the Ring leads up to the Scouring of the Shire, which is the final climax -- AND anticlimax -- of the trilogy. Tolkien wasn't writing the convenient happy genre fantasy novel that's in vogue today; he was shooting for something larger, and the Scouring of the Shire was one of a handful of chapters -- along with many others that, inexplicably, Jackson ALSO removed, perhaps because he didn't get 'em, either -- that he used to reach that goal.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Too complicated, too unfocused, too lugubrious. I think Jackson did Tolkien a favor by improving the dramatic quality of the work.
Posted by JaneX (Member # 2026) on :
I saw it at midnight, too. In costume. And I've gotten about two hours of sleep in the past 38 hours.
SPOILERS
It was incredible. It was amazing. For most of the movie I was just sitting there with my hands over my mouth, completely awestruck. And I gasped every time someone got killed in battle or something. And I cried at the end. Several times.
Some of my favorite things about the movie (in no particular order): - The opening scene with Déagol and Sméagol. - The sequence with the signal fires being lit on the mountains of Gondor. Absolutely breathtaking. - Sean Astin. He was incredible. I had my doubts about him as Sam at the beginning, but he really makes a great Sam. He just got more and more Sam-like as the movies progressed. - Pippin singing. Aragorn singing Elendil's Oath! - The Dead. I thought they were very well done. - Gandalf and Frodo laughing at the end. It was a throwback to the beginning of FOTR, when Frodo meets Gandalf driving his cart down to Bag End. - Everyone piling into Frodo's room and grinning like crazy. - The final scene, where Sam comes back to his family. Straight out of the book. - Shelob. She was definitely creepy enough - I was worried about that. - The scene where Sam thinks Frodo is dead, and says one of my favorite lines: "Frodo, Mr. Frodo! Don't go where I can't follow! Wake up!" - Gwaihir and the Eagles. - Frodo remembering the Shire again. - Another one of my favorite lines: "I'm glad you're with me, here at the end of all things, Sam." - The great battle sequences at the Pelennor Fields. - That first shot of Minas Tirith - it was breathtaking. - Gandalf & Co. riding up to Isengard and finding Merry and Pippin sitting there eating and smoking. I loved that part in the book. - After Sam finds Frodo in the Orc-tower above Cirith Ungol, there's a shot of Frodo hanging the Ring around his neck, over his bare chest - and in that shot, Frodo looks eerily similar to Gollum. I thought that was a great touch. - Merry and Éowyn killing the Witch King. - Aragorn yelling, "For Frodo!" before charging Sauron's forces at the Black Gate. And then Merry and Pippin charging right after him. - Legolas and Gimli continuing their body count. - Gimli saying, "I never thought I'd be fighting beside an Elf," and Legolas replying, "How about a friend?" - Merry and Pippin maturing before our eyes. - The camera panning over a map of Middle-Earth to show the path the hobbits took on their return journey. - Seeing the lovely green hills of the Shire, one last time. - Arwen's storyline tends to bore me, but I really liked her "vision" of her son running to Aragorn. - The music after Sam and Rosie's wedding: "Concerning Hobbits" - one of my favorite parts of the whole soundtrack. - The Gondor theme. The Rohan theme. Heck, the whole freaking soundtrack.
Things I didn't like about the movie: - Frodo sending Sam away on the stairs of Cirith Ungol. I understand that they were trying to make a point about how the Ring makes you paranoid and turns you against your friends, but I don't think that was the way to do it. It completely ruined a scene that was very poignant in the book: Gollum watches Frodo and Sam sleeping, and for a moment he just looks like an old, tired hobbit. I think if Sam hadn't woken up and snapped at him, he might have rethought his decision to send them in to Shelob at that point. - That whole "Arwen is dying" bit. What on earth was that all about?
Other highlights of my premiere experience: - Getting there at 8:30 and being the first ones on line! - Talking with the people right behind us in line. We had some great conversations. - Showing off my cool costume, and the cloaks I made for myself and my friend. - Taking pictures with anyone who came by in costume. - Convincing a mall cop to let us into the Trilogy theater to find a woman who was dressed as a hobbit. Everyone had seen her, but no one knew where she was. We finally found her, and then everyone in the theater wanted to take a picture of the three hobbits together.
Overall impressions: - Wow. - When can I see it again? - Peter Jackson. - entire cast. - everyone else who worked on this movie! -
~Jane~
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I choked back tears every time I saw Eowyn on her horse before the Rohirrim started their charge... but then, since the houses of healing were removed, I didn't actually break down when she fought the Witch King. I want more of that in the extended edition -- if it's done right, I'll be bawling my eyes out.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Ron, I feel that the Scouring of the Shire section really is the whole point of the trilogy, almost more than any other section of the book. It carries the theme, the essential mood and the overriding idea of the entire trilogy.
****Book Spoilers****
The four hobbits leave their homes almost on a lark - off to have a bit of adventure like old Bilbo and take a trip to Rivendell. But they can never truly come home again.
Things spiral out of control. They see things they never dreamed of, atrocities they never dreamed of, and grew (both emotionally and physically) into entirely new entities. They are no longer what they were - the world changed them.
And, in their absence, the world changed too. There is no delusion that home will remain always the same when you go away, or that war is always someone else's problem. The Scouring of the Shire section shows that ordinary, every-day people can stand up, stand together, and defeat a threat to their homes. The heroes aren't the only ones who can do it - the common people are just as important, and a powerful force when brought together.
It killed me when I heard it wasn't going to be in the film. Cut Tom Bombadil, sure. The Barrow Downs, no problem. But removing the Scouring of the Shire changes things completely... far more so than the elves showing up at Helm's Deep changed the idea of the elves disappearing from the world leaving man on their own. Even more than the change of Faramir's character - which really burned me up, although the EE soothed things a bit.
As for the ending in Gondor, I haven't seen PJ's version, but it has to be better than Tolkien's. That part of the book was long, drawn out, plodding and pretty dull - they waited almost an entire year before Arwen showed up! Yeesh.
***end spoilers***
Can't wait to see it, though. I'll probably go tomorrow. I can get by the Scouring thing if the rest is good, which I'm hearing it is.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Perhaps we should regard it as Peter Jackson's story, and Tolkien's story--two different versions. I still like Jackson's story better as taut, well-focused drama that tells one big story that ends when it's over, when it's supposed to. It was thrilling and satisfying to me to see the beautiful green and flowering Shire and friendly hobbits, after all the drama and pyrotechnics that had gone before. The quest was completed, the war was won, and it's time to live happily ever after.
Tolkien's story works too, but it's more tedious. Like where he inserts 50 years (I think it was) from Bilbo's birthday to the time when Gandalf returns to urge Frodo to take the ring and flee. Making one event come shortly after the other made a lot more sense, both dramatically and logically. Tolkien sometimes had a tendency to be just a little too pastoral.
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
You just have to remember what PJ called the movies: "A very long, very expensive fan fic." Satyagraha
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The quest was completed, the war was won, and it's time to live happily ever after."
I think you've got it in a nutshell. Tolkien's point was that there WAS no "happily ever after."
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I think the end was just a bit drawn out. A little explanation of Saruman would have been nice. Frodo losing half a finger disturbed me. How can Peter Jackson do King Kong after this?
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
I have yet to see the movies -- and I will hunt down like a dog anyone who doesn't clearly mark their spoilers -- but do they go into the whole Saruman's voice/Grima's murder of Saruman deal? I can't believe Jackson would leave that out, but I've heard rumors...
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
<spoiler on grima> it is removed from the theatrical showing, as PJ said, but will be in the EE</spoiler> Satyagraha
Posted by JaneX (Member # 2026) on :
Just to clarify, those referred to my impressions after the movie, when I came out of the theater and realized it was four in the morning. During the movie itself I couldn't have fallen asleep if I'd tried.
~Jane~
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So, do you think the first half of the next season of "24" will be Kiefer Sutherland watching Trilogy Tuesday?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm in love with Pippin.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
And Aragon. And I want Legolas to feed me breakfast in bed.
The theatre I was in clapped about fifteen times during the course of the movie - especially at the end. There was a wave of oooooo's when Legolas appeared on the screen at the end. I absolutely love experiencing things with passionate people. It was wonderful.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
pooka, it might be better than watching Kim Too-Stupid-To-Live Bauer being stalked by cougars and survivalists, etc.
Javert, I don't think I could POSSIBLY agree with you more. I love Pippin, too.
And the mood/general atmoshere of the people you see a movie with can really make the experience.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Tom, I'm not sure if you've seen the movie, and Ron I think you got it ever so slightly wrong, but the movie isn't happily ever after. Definately a bittersweet ending. And though there is no Scouring of the Shire, we see that they could not go back to a simple life in the Shire ever again.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Amka, you're right, it wasn't "live happily every after" for Frodo, at least. He saved the Shire, but not for himself. Yet, he got to ride on the Elves' last ship to the Undying Lands, and maybe got to live forever.
Sam certainly had a live happily ever after ending. Merry and Pippin had nothing to complain about. Aragorn and Arwen, we presume, lived happily ever after, at least until their child (the one Arwen foresaw) became a teenager. Eowen and Faramir seemed to have something going at the end. Legolas must have done OK, at least no matter what happened, he never seemed to have a scratch on him.
But poor Treebeard and his buddies never found the Ent-wives. (I guess bad poetry was grounds for divorce in Fangorn Forest.) And poor Gimli had to spend the rest of his life pining away with unrequited love for the unattainable Galadriel.
It is also possible that because of their addiction to pipeweed, Merry and Pippin eventually died of lung cancer, but that's not germane to the story.
Despite all such quibbles, it felt to me like a "live happily ever after" ending, and I was glad for that.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I definitely didn't see it as "happily ever after". When Frodo says that they saved the Shire, but not for him--I thought that sentiment carried over to the other hobbits to varying extents. Sam adapts best back to the old way of life, of the four, but even he will be forever torn. Merry and Pippin don't have a Rosie to tear them away from the memories of their adventures, so I think life in the Shire is much less enjoyable to them than before they left.
The ceremony at Minas Tirith is the climax of their lives. I try not to think of the story going on much longer than the Scouring, because it gets sadder by the day. I prefer to convince myself that a meteor hit Middle Earth in the late 1420s. Posted by JaneX (Member # 2026) on :
quote:The theatre I was in clapped about fifteen times during the course of the movie - especially at the end. There was a wave of oooooo's when Legolas appeared on the screen at the end. I absolutely love experiencing things with passionate people. It was wonderful.
Same here. My theatre exploded with applause when Aragorn came on the Corsairs' ships to save the day. And they clapped about fifteen other times during the movie, too. It was great.
~Jane~
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
The audience I saw it with was great. The theater was packed, and people cheered and clapped some, but that's one reason I wish I'd gone to the midnight showing. Because you just know all the really hard core fans were there. And how much more fun would it have been to see it with them.
If they do the marathon trilogy EE thing in the theaters next year, I'm definitely going! Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Frisco, you do know that Merry and Pippin are going to get married and have children, right?
I really enjoyed the movie, but I didn't like what they did to Denethor's character. He was much more dignified in the book than in the movie, I thought.
I liked the scene where Elrond gives the sword to Aragorn, even though it didn't happen that way in the book. It was very effectively done, I thought.
And I loved the multiple endings.
I wanna see it again.
**Ela**
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*restless*
Me, too. I need to see it again.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
"restless" is the best word to describe it. There's just something about this story, these characters that makes me miss them when they're gone. This last time through the books (my second time) was so moving for me and I was honestly depressed for a couple days when I finished RotK. I have inklings of that same feeling now that I've seen the final movie.
So I'll just have to go see it again too. It might make me feel a little better.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
People clapped with Aragorn's arrival, cheered woth Eowyn's victory over the Witchking, and cried over Frodo leaving for the undying lands. Frankly, it was annoying. Its a movie people. Frodo and Aragorn and Eowyn don't actually exist. No one actually performed these miraculous feats. Clap that Peter Jackson and friends made a great movie, don't clap that Legolas in all is glory brought down an Oliphant single handedly. Its really annoying and people like me can't hear what's going on when 100 people are screaming at the top of their lungs.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I think that I liked that part best... It's like being a part of the movie. I couldn't watch it without being pulled into it and I was glad that the rest of the audience felt the same way.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Remind me to NEVER go see a movie with Newfoundlogic. I'm a "participatory" audience...
..and I'll be he never goes to see Rocky Horror Picture Show either...
Farmgirl
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I be he? Is that kinda like i she be? Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I'm still not sure how you people applaud fictional characters. No one actually did anything worthy of applause...well maybe Peter Jackson deserves applause for his movie but its not like you people are applauding Jackson, you're applauding the fictional characters. It annoys me and proves that you live in a fantasy world.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
That post annoys me and proves that you're not here to discuss, but just to make yourself think that you're better than other people.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Narnia, he does have a point. I don't (normally) applaud at movies, either. Who's going to hear me? Is there anyone to feel validated by my approval?
I can, in theory, understand such an action as a spontaneous outbreak of emotion, but I am not much given to such outbreaks and so I don't understand them experientially.
Posted by Saruman (Member # 2275) on :
That movie sucked.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
All I know is I would have enjoyed the movie more if people were more considerate of others who might actually want to watch and listen to the movie. If any of you can actually explain why you're justified in applauding the heroic actions of fictional characters thereby making yourselves look stupid and annoying patrons like myself I'll shutup.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
1) I don't have to justify anything.
2) if you were simply expressing an opinion, I wouldn't have been angry, but you made a value judgement about people posting on this board and stated it in a very rude and obnoxious way.
quote: but its not like you people are applauding Jackson, you're applauding the fictional characters. It annoys me and proves that you live in a fantasy world.
Personally, your opinion doesn't bother me at all...most opinions don't, if they're stated in a civilized manner that takes into account the opinions and feelings of others that post here.
[edit to add the quote]
[ December 24, 2003, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And in my opinion annoying everyone else so that you can act like an idiot is not civilized.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
But she's not.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I'm sorry you were annoyed, nfl, but to me that showed that people were really interested in the movie. If it had been entirely silent, I wouldn't have felt a connection with the rest of the audience. I am also somewhat offended by your 'fantasy world' comment, but it's misdirected. If you want to spout insulting comments at people, I suggest you chase down some of the people who were clapping and cheering in your theater and tell them what you thought of it. In my experience, the cheering never lasted long enough to interrupt the movie. In fact, there were some points when I felt a pause was generated just in case people felt like cheering or laughing.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If you're interested you should watch intently, not clap. Since it is not possible to track down the offending people who managed to ruin a good five minutes of the movie for me I'll complain here as is my right. As I've mentioned before if you were applauding Peter Jackson or the movie itself that would be one thing, that would actually make sense, but its pretty clear that when Eowyn chops of the head of the Nazgul's steed and the theater erupts in screams of joy people are applauding the fictional, in the fact that the fantasy, actions of fictional characters and when you applaud the actions of a fictional character as if an actual person had performed them then you are performing your actions within a world of fiction and therefore are living in a fantasy world. It greatly annoys me that people are willing to disrupt an experience for someone else completely without consideration for other people and then become angry when I act without consideration for their feelings.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Part of the glory of LOTR for me is the acts of bravery, courage, nobility, and sacrafice performed by the characters. For me, LOTR provides the hope that someday, that will be the world I live in. I was applauding that hope when I applauded during the movie.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
And I would respectfully ask you to delete your comments because they personally hurt me quite a bit and offended several other people.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I could understand your feelings if those acts were actually performed. Instead, you're applauding things that don't exist, making yourselves look stupid, and annoying people would rather enjoy a movie . I respectfully ask that you take into consideration the feelings of your fellow movie goers.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
It's less the act and more the fact that some people have been waiting for tens of years to see this happen, and the happiness of being able to see it performed so well on-screen. It's a very personal thing, obviously, and you are taking no one's feelings into account when you fly off the handle and make rude comments to people on this board. If you don't like seeing movies with the rest of the audience, go on the weekdays or wait and rent it.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I finally got to see it!
Ahhhhhhh! Beautiful! Beautiful! I don't care about the alterations either, it was perfect.
*dies*
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Yay!! Now we can discuss!!! Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
for real, guys. It's Christmas, for Pete's sake!!
On to my thoughts on the movie: Fantastic. Glorious. Even knowing how it was going to end and reading every spoiler I could get my hands on, there were still plenty of surprises.
One of my favorite parts is Frodo's conversation with Bilbo at the very end, and Frodo saying (about the ring), "I'm sorry, my dear uncle, but I'm afraid I lost it." and Frodo's resigned expression by the boat.
Gollum wrestling Invisible!Frodo wasn't as cool as I thought it would be. *runs from tomatos*
I thought Eowyn kicked trash. She's so unbeievably cool.
the Smeagol/Deagol scene was awesome. I can't think of any better way to start RotK.
the only bad thing I can possibly think of: I think Peter Jackson can't end a movie like Tolkien can't end a book. I thought the anti-climax after the ring was great, but instead of flowing together PJ just blanked the screen every few minutes
[ December 25, 2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
One LAST comment on this subject because I can see I'm getting nowhere. I was waiting a long time to see the Lord of the Rings on screen, especially since it was not done in that crappy cartoonish style, so I especially didn't appreciate the fact that others actually had the gaul to ruin segments of the movie for me. All of this is the reason why I applauded the movie, when it was over , and it was the movie not the fictional actions of fictional characters that don't actually exist that I and other reasonable people applauded. No one was applauding the fact that Legolas taking down the oliphant was done well, the were applauding Legolas for doing it, which he didn't do because none of it is real. At the very least I hope none of you ever actually complain when someone's cell phone goes off or someone talks loudly during important parts of a movie you are watching.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:At the very least I hope none of you ever actually complain when someone's cell phone goes off or someone talks loudly during important parts of a movie you are watching.
Of course, I find both of those things to be in completely different categories than communal enjoyment & applause.
I too think there are places in films - much like in theater - where pauses are anticipated for reaction. Especially so in comedies.
...or would you rather audiences not laugh in comedies either?
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
All right, nfl's right, it's time to let it go. I admit that it's annoying to be disturbed while watching a movie, especially one so anticipated. I just feel that the heart of my experience watching the movie was the fact that I was experiencing it with the rest of the audience is all.
So on to different subjects. SM, I agree, I thought the invisible Gollum fight was a bit cheesy-looking, but thinking on it, there's really no other way it could be... So I think he did well considering the fact that a visible opponent fighting an invisible protagonist is going to look ridiculous no matter what.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
newfound: I hear you. I had difficulty hearing dialogue. However, I admit to cheering along with the rest of the audience when Eowyn gave her line "I am no man" and when Gandalf whacked Denethor with his staff.
I don't really mind cheering as long as its not excessive. I mind people who think that others will admire them as true LotR fans if they correct EVERY SINGLE VARIATION between book and movie. (This is a long silenced rant about the guy sitting next to me at LotR FotR EE) Or eat, say, red vines in really, really loud shrinkwrap as Boromir passes as a true son of Gondor, while whispering to his companion that in the books, they put the swords of the fallen orcs into the boat with Boromir's body. Okay, that's TRUE, but there's no need to mention it while the rest of us are just plain mourning the guy, swords or no swords.
I'm better now. Thanks.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
I think the ending Frodo-gollum fight could have been quicker. I always imagined it to be ring on, gollum snatch, bite, gollum pushes off Frodo right into the crack of doom.
I hate to admit it but gollum just sort of hanging around midair did look slightly stupid
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Since the Gollum/Frodo fight at the end has been brought up again, I would also like to mention again it seemed a little odd that when Gollum's body landed in the molten lava, it didn't vaporize instantly in a steam explosion like would really happen when an organic body that is 90% water splashes hard after falling from a great height into molten rock that is about 1,200 degrees F., but instead actually lingered intact floating on the surface for a moment. What actually cracks me up though is that the ring lingered too, with the lettering appearing again, before the ring finally just kind of slumped down dramatically into the molten lava. It cracks me up to think that even an inanimate object has to ham up a death scene. Of course, I suppose you might say that since Sauron invested so much of his own spirit into the ring, it wasn't really an inanimate object. If that's the case, then Sauron got to ham up his death scene twice.
The person in the whole trilogy with the hammiest death scene had to be Boromir. But of course, heroes are supposed to die hard.
That brings to mind Haldir's death scene in TTT. It was a little hammed up too. But what really bothered me about that was the fact that he was obviously wearing a mithril vest, and I don't see how an ordinary sword or ax were able to penetrate it so easily, considering how in FOTR when Frodo got stabbed by a huge pike wielded by a mountain troll, it just bruised him and did not penetrate.
But I loved the movie. Even the parts I would quibble about were delightful.
Posted by wieczorek (Member # 5565) on :
I saw it on Saturday. It was great! But I spent about the last hour of the movie bawling, non-stop...
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Ron, I have heard of people temporarily surviving partial immersion in molten metal, which is actually hotter than lava. Though I didn't particularly like Gollum lasting so long and suffering no apparent injury till he sinks beneath the surface, I suppose the fact that he's holding a ring of power could account for it. As for the ring itself, keep in mind that it is supposedly so resistant to heat that the Crack of Doom is the only place in the world that will melt it. I can see it lasting a little while.
[ December 25, 2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If they were "screaming at the top of their lungs", that's quite rude. Very out of line. If this is what happened, then I at least partially agree with you, nfl.
But if they were just clapping, get over yourself, man. So you were annoyed. It's kind of annoying to me, too. But I don't wet my pants and let steam come out of my ears and lightning from my eyes either, man! Sheesh! Have you considered how much less irritated-and frankly jerky-sounding-you'd be right now if you just dealt with a total of perhaps two to five minutes of disruption in a film that's two hundred minutes long?
And you went to see this with other Jatraqueros? And your reaction was this tantrum? Geeze, man. That's actually kind of depressing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, that's good at least. I was mistaken about the people going to see it together and having this kind of fight afterwards.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:That brings to mind Haldir's death scene in TTT. It was a little hammed up too. But what really bothered me about that was the fact that he was obviously wearing a mithril vest, and I don't see how an ordinary sword or ax were able to penetrate it so easily
Dude... he got busted in the back of the HEAD.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And keep in mind that the blow to Frodo did hurt him quite a bit, in fact the reactions prior to the blow to the head were quite similar.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
A-ha! That's where the second scar on his chest came from. (Frodo's, that is.) I was frantically trying to recall why the right side of his chest was scarred instead of just the left where the Witch King of Angmar stabbed him.
I, personally, would like to extend my thanks to the unknown person sitting next to me with his handful of kleenex.
*Sighs in complete happiness*
I don't care how "hammy" any bit of it was. I laughed my tail off when Gimli told Legolas the monster oliphaunt only counted for one and cheered Eowyn when she stated "I am no man" (I loved Arwen's "If you want him, come and claim him - or however that went, too) . . .
And YESSSSSSS - I admit it!!!!!! I LIVE IN A FANTASY LAND. AND ILOVE IT. AND I DO BELIEVE I AM GUARANTEED MY PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS SO LONG AS I PAY MY TAXES IN A TIMELY MANNER.
So there - nyahh.
Bah humbug to the grouches that can't hang with a little emotion.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I loved Eowyn right before the battle, actually, the whole time she was in armor I thought she was great.
I loved Theoden's death, I thought it was everything death should be and isn't.
I also really liked Denethor's death, I thought it was very well done and..... appropriate.
And I absolutely LOVED it when Aragorn said "I do not fear death" and rushed into the paths of the dead.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:And YESSSSSSS - I admit it!!!!!! I LIVE IN A FANTASY LAND. AND ILOVE IT. AND I DO BELIEVE I AM GUARANTEED MY PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS SO LONG AS I PAY MY TAXES IN A TIMELY MANNER.
I reserve the right to cover my face with my hands and say, "Dear God, not again." when Leggy pulls another stupid stunt.
Tolkien-->Book Legolas-->Orlando Bloom-->CGI Legolas is just one too many steps away from reality for me.
And why did he pull that crap, anyway? Seconds later, we see the Army of the Dead easily take down one of the Oliphants with no risk of death. Shouldn't being 3,000 years old (give or take a few hundred) mean that you have something resembling common sense? Wisest and Fairest of creatures, indeed. Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
I finally saw it, and I can now say that I like it. I think it was my favorite of the trilogy.
Anyway, I don't think Orlando Bloom is a bad actor - just a worse-than-the-rest-of-them actor.
And the whole point of the movies are to go to "fantasy land". Duh! Besides, applauding at the end isn't much better than applauding for the characters. Exist or don't exist, neither are there to hear it. I don't clap for the characters, either, but I understand people that do. If you're going to be a "fellow moviegoer," you're going to have to expect that kind of stuff, or you'll have to wait for it to come out on video.
[ December 26, 2003, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
Frisco: That, to me, is one of the plot holes created by the change in the way he used the Dead. It made everything else seem less heroic. I think, at least, that he should have let Eowyn finish off the Nazgul before they showed up, so that she has her time in the spotlight while the battle is still up in the air.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
When I saw RotK I could tell there were plenty of people who never read the books, because the collective gasps when a) Frodo got bitten b) Faramir was dragged into Minas Tirith and c) Smeagol throttles Deagol were very audible. I have absolutely no problem with that, that's what an audience DOES, along with applaud and laugh and make all those other little noises (I screamed in one part of FotR). When I go to see a movie in the theatre, I tend to join the group mentality, and if someone starts cheering, I join in. If you don't like that, then wait for the DVD.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I THINK (could be wrong) he (Leggy) pulled that crap, Frsco, in order to give Gimli another shot at a comic moment.
And the "Dead" were released pre Minas Tirith in the book - after they freed up the Corsair ships. Aragorn collected the rest of his army from actual men. However, I try not to correct little pieces of "director decisions" during the movie for the sake of my fellow moviegoers - I must say they were kind-of swarmy/bug/freaky looking. (Shudders)
It would have been nice to see the healing of Faramir and Eowyn, rather than just two "bright, shining faces" at the tail end, I must admit.
Well, it was superb and now I will anxiously await (to the chuckles and greedy handrubbing of the advertising investments folks) for the release of the extended version.
I will make sure I have my box of hankies nearby, however.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think Gimli could've gotten the same line in had Legolas put a few arrows through the oliphant's eyes and into its brain to bring it down. And, frankly, I would've been more impressed.
No worries, though. It's not like I didn't just go see it a third time last night. It's funny-I saw TTT about seven times in the same time span last year, but this one is so much more intense, especially the end, that it's tough to see that often. I will say that it's getting easier to hold back tears, though. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It was ultimately an adequate movie. People project how they want to feel about it onto it -- and while it doesn't deserve all the acclaim, people like acclaiming things and probably deserve the chance to acclaim whatever the heck they want.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Taalcon, as for Haldir getting "busted in the back of the head" in TTT, I'm not so sure that's exactly where the ax fell. It looked to me like it struck his upper back. If it hit his head, then his head should have been propelled forward.
But that all be as it may. Why wasn't he wearing a helmet? All the other elves were.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Well, how in heck would we see Haldir's look of surpised disbelief and agony if he were wearing helmet? Sheesh.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
A better question is why not use the army of the dead to attack Mordor? I guess this sums it up: Gimli-"Certain death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?"
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I think the Army of the Dead deserved a break...
Ron: I wondered about that, and my friends and I had a heated discussion while we watched. We concluded that it was a movie thing... Otherwise how would we know that it was a bad/dramatic thing when he died?
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
Question For those of you that saw the Tuesday Trilogy showing, and possibly the premier: At the end, do you remember at the end, whether or not Frodo or Bilbo mentioned his age in surpassing the old Took? Satyagraha
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I was wondering the same thing, B. I went to see it again yesterday, and for some reason I expected him to say it, but he didn't.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
So who thinks that they have seen it the most times now? Frisco, you seem to be up there with at least 3 or 4 viewings that I think you've mentioned...right? Anyone seen it more than that?
*jealous*
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Heh...you bring up a good point. I've seen it four times, but I was wondering why I had seen TTT close to ten times by this time last year. I had forgotten about my competition with Nathan back when he worked at the movie theater. We were going to race to a dozen viewings.
But I refuse to believe that I'm the biggest LotR dork this time around. Come on, someone must've seen it 5 or more times, right?
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
I just saw it a second time yesterday, and plan on at least three more times. Next time I'm going I'm bringing a pen and paper for notes. Satyagraha
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote:When I saw RotK I could tell there were plenty of people who never read the books, because the collective gasps when a) Frodo got bitten b) Faramir was dragged into Minas Tirith and c) Smeagol throttles Deagol were very audible.
Not necessarily. At Trilogy Tuesday, I was next to a woman who gasped and cried and cheered throughout the movies. After the first or second one, I told my friend, "I don't think she's seen the movies before." Turns out I was wrong, not only had she seen the movies before, and read the books, she was quite the Tolkien expert. She even answered a question I had about wizards.
She was cute, she came in a white shirt, red vest, and with "the one ring" around her neck on a chain, not to mention she looked to be about sixty years old. Posted by Rudolph (Member # 3236) on :
LORD OF HTE RINGSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by Rudolph (Member # 3236) on :
YEAH I STARTED THE THIRD PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!! OMGOODNESS!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
ROTK: eh. Fun movie. Wouldn't see it again. But better than the books.
This is the bit where I run away. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Hey ae, I disagree with 2/3's of your statement, but to each his own.
Fun movie, saw it the second time today (intend to see it many more times), and while I always liked the books better I think they did them justice.
Posted by JaneX (Member # 2026) on :
Javert, I disagree with 1/4 of your statement: I haven't seen it two times yet. But I will.
~Jane~
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*breaths deeply* I just deleted everything I just wrote. Here it is again:
spoilers- naturally
Sorry about the length this is more than two cents but…
Personally, I think that cheering/applauding the characters is as valid as cheering/applauding the actors and filmmakers. It has gone on for hundreds of years and I’m sure that it will continue for many more to come.
Some questionably elements of the movie start for me with the big spotlight of Sauron’s eye, although thinking about it now, it seems to be the only way to have shown which way Sauron’s eye was fixed. Also, when Sauron ‘died’ I kept thinking ‘there’s going to be a shockwave’, and lo and behold, there was. Also, when Denethor caught on fire and was thrown out the room, he ran the entire length of the jutting-out platform in Minas Tirith and threw himself off the end, without falling, collapsing and dying, even though he was completely doused with oil. The Rohirrim, in order to look good on camera, never take the direct route, but tend to zigzag, which was a little unbelievable. Legolas’ stunt was fairly unnecessary, although very cool. It was pretty much the only useful thing Legolas got to do through the entire movie.
In the cave of the dead (does it have a proper name), there is a rather unfortunate line. The leader of the dead people has a deep booming voice which echoes. The beginning of the line is, “who disturbs…” In the Disney Movie Aladdin, the tiger head that rises out of the sand has a similar line, said in a similar voice. Hearing that jerked me right back to reality.
I don’t think Orlando Bloom is a bad actor, just inexperienced. Also, all his lines were either observation: “A diversion.” Or explanation, usually to Gimli. This means that he is fairly redundant, and thus Legolas is hard to act involved. He wasn’t brilliant in ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’, but he wasn’t completely terrible either. We shall see what he’s like in ‘Troy’.
I loved the colour in this movie (as I loved all the colour in all the movies). White, brown, faded green and fire. Any bright greens were only in flashbacks and dreams, and of course at the very end. Red was only used in fire and lava, faded green was in the uniform of the Gondorians, the dead, the old grass of the plains and the Witch King’s palace (but that was the same unearthly green as the dead). The rest of the movie was brown and white and grey, bleak and terrible. Rivendell’s leaves that were in autumn in the first movie, were dry and dead in the last.
Some of my favourite scenes were; the scene with Smeagal and Deagle (sp), the doomed birthday, although the sense of dread in that scene was awful. I loved the battle speeches, they almost convinced me to go off to almost-useless war more than once… Gandalf’s part in the movie was brilliant, as was Pippin’s and Merry’s, all characters who faded slightly in the second movie. In some ways, Pippin and Merry were more heart wrenching than Frodo and Sam. I was glad that they had a chance to shine. I had been afraid that Pippin’s song would be cheesy and out-of-place but the way that sequence was done, the reluctant start, Denethor’s eating, the fact that you never saw the slaughter, you just knew, was fabulous. I think that’s definitely one of my favourite scenes of all time. Denethor was deliciously disgusting and dispicable. I hated him, hated him, hated him. I was glad when Gandalf thwapped him, I was glad when he burnt to a crisp. I don’t know whether it was where I sat (third row right by the screen- I didn’t get there early enough), but in some scenes, especially when lying down, Faramir looked a lot like Boromir, which of course is perfect. But it was wonderful because Boromir was dead, but I kept seeing Faramir and thinking ‘there’s Boromir’ and then being sorry, because I would then realise that it was Faramir and that Boromir was dead. I loved that, because I could imagine the characters in the film looking at Faramir and seeing Boromir.
Large spiders are terrifying in the third row.
I loved the beacons, and Aragorn’s mad dash to the Golden Hall. I loved it when everyone bowed to the hobbits, and I loved the expressions on their faces at that time; all different, all perfect- nothing out of place.
I even sort-of-liked the fade to blacks at the end, although it was a little ‘when will it end’ish. The black screen did several things for me. First, it unfortunately brought me back to the movie theatre. Second it told me ‘time passed’, a useful thing. Third, it gave me time to collect my thoughts and move on to the next, completely different scene. The fade to white was very good, not only because the scenes were both more white than black, but because it told me that this was the last scene, then final-final scene, so when the door closed, I knew it was the door closing forever.
I cried. Yes, I cried, but also I laughed and giggled and gasped and hid my eyes and I smiled great beaming smiles of happiness, because that was all I could do. It is definitely one of the most beautiful films ever made. I loved it.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
I thought it was the best of the three movies. Peter Jackson is kewl! Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Sniff. I need another hanky, Teshi.
I closed my eyes when Shelob made her appearance. I don't do bugs. I hate nightmares. And the two together would be horrid.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Deagol is spelled like Smeagol...they're brothers.
I hated Denethor since I saw the new scene in the Two Towers: "The Steward's Sons".
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
cousins... or close friends. Not brothers.
I loved the Denethor scene becasue I hate Denethor and I admit I cheered with the rest of the audience when he was thwacked. But I really wish PJ had put in the palantir like in the book becasue for me, the way taht scene works in the book shows how Denethor was less inherently evil, than corrupted and in complete dispare, which can rather change the personality a tad. And the image of the palantir showing only two wizened old hands burning is... intense. (shudder) But it's a GOOD intense.
Posted by MoonRabbit (Member # 3652) on :
Finally saw it, and am I the only one here who thinks there's a hidden meaning to the Legolas/Oliphant scene? The Oliphant battle scene reminded me so much of The Empire Strikes Back (I don't remember a lot of detail about that scene in the RoTK book, and I've read it at least 5 times), except done a lot better.
All I could think is "That was put in to rub George Lucas's nose in it".
Way to show GL that effects work well if the story doesn't suck.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Don't knock on episodes 4,5 and 6! Star Wars rocks!!!!!
However, you are free to knock 1 and 2. Yeshhhhhhhh, indeed, effects are nothing without a decent script and story.
A decent love scene helps too... and the sad part is that compared to Annikin and the queed, romance-challenged RotK is freaking Gone with the Wind in THAT department!
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
No, they're brothers. One I saw written in a review somewhere. Two brothers always have the same nameish thing. Example: Boromir and Faramir. Smeagol and Deagol.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
"[smeagol] had a friend called deagol" -LorR FotR
Ha! Never trust reviews. My local paper gave Master and Commander more stars than RotK... The injustice!
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Again there is the name evidence.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And brothers can be friends evidenced again by Boromir and Faramir.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Aright, aright. But I still think I'm right. I looked up Deagol in the index to LotR (primary source, heh heh) and it mentioned him only in the beginning of FotR where Gandalf and Frodo are talking about how the ring came to Bilbo. And at least twice in that section Gandalf refers to Deagol as the friend, (not brother, there's no mention of them being family) of Smeagol.
I'm a loser. This little tiny twiddle is really bugging me. Perhaps I should get a life. Or, then again, perhaps I should just comb through the Appendices looking for family trees of hobbit-like creatures such as smeagol and deagol.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In the books -- which I'll admit I haven't read in over four years -- Deagol and Smeagol are cousins, IIRC.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
nfl- I'm fairly certain the books trump websites, but that might just be me.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Yup, Princess Leah's right. Never referred to as anything but friend. But then, Tolkein may have decided that they were cousins and had it put into a sourcebook later on...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm pretty certain that they're identified as cousins in one of the appendices or later books. It might be in the preface to The Hobbit. Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Yes, I was thinking of them as cousins, too, though perhaps not first cousins. Think about it, in a small community of Stoors (? was it, or Harfoots?) living in the Anduin river valley in those days, most everyone would be third and fourth cousins once or twice removed. They shared a grandmother, though, I think, so perhaps they were first or second cousins. Definitely not brothers, or it would have been mentioned.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Teshi, I loved your review. I really need to go see it again. I was getting ferklempt just listening to the soundtrack today. The music during the beacon-lighting scene is just thrilling and gives me chills. I also just LOVE the fact that it's Renee Fleming singing all the female elvish parts. The part where Arwen appears at the end and she sings is just gorgeous. I also really really love the words to "Into the West." I imagine that they're being sung to Frodo by Sam when they're back in the Shire.
I need to see it at least two more times this week before I start school again.
[ December 29, 2003, 05:17 AM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I'm not sure how swept away I am by RotK...
Then again, I was fairly disappointed with the theatrical TTT, and love the extended version, so I hope for a repeat emotional performance. Though I have to say, thus far, FotR seems like the best of the three.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I didn't like the Smeagol/Deagol scene as much as some people seem to have. They look like rednecks of the crochety sort who carry rifles. Nor do we see much friendship between them; they fish for a brief time, the ring appears, and suddenly they're fighting.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Ah well *shrugs philosophically* everything will be made clear in the EE version.
HOW LONG BEFORE IT'S OUT????????
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
*checks watch*
Oh, about 11 months.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, overall what DID you guys make of the Smeagol/Deagol scene? I was very surprised that was in there. Why suddenly explain Gollum's obsession with the ring in the THIRD movie? Why wasn't that addressed in the second?
It just seemed weird to me, because that story wasn't in the third book -- so it is like they took a step back and said "oh, we better explain this better before we go on with the rest of the story.."
Farmgirl
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
There was never a definitive explanation of Smeagol and Deagol's relationship. I standby my logic.
Farmgirl, RotK didn't explain Gollum's obsession with the ring, that needs no explanation, it explained how Gollum got the ring and how he is a "murderer".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
NFL, I guarantee you that Deagol is described by Tolkien as Smeagol's cousin, not brother.
And yes, I didn't get the point of the Deagol/Smeagol scene; I felt like they added it just to give Andy Serkis some actual screen time. It seems to me like something that should have been in the EE, especially when they moved the Houses of Healing out of the cinematic release instead.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I thought it was a good way to open RotK because it reintroduces Gollum and really focuses on his story for the first time since his skitzo episode. After doing this it moves to the Gollum/Sam/Frodo story, which I think is a really good segway. I really can't think of a better way to start the movie.
As to the Smeagol/Deagol reationship, I thought they were best friends, not necessarily brothers.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Frisco, you do know that Merry and Pippin are going to get married and have children, right?
I assume you mean that they'll adopt? I'm glad that The Shire's morality can accomodate them.
quote:Deagol is spelled like Smeagol...they're brothers
quote:No, they're brothers. One I saw written in a review somewhere. Two brothers always have the same nameish thing. Example: Boromir and Faramir. Smeagol and Deagol.
quote:There was never a definitive explanation of Smeagol and Deagol's relationship. I standby my logic.
Newfoundlogic, you're basing your belief on "some review somewhere", a couple of websites, and a theory you've put together about Tolkein's naming conventions? That seems like a...somewhat less than solid platform on which to build. By your reasoning, shouldn't Frodo and Bilbo be brothers? Similar names, after all. Same thing goes for Frodo's father, Drogo, right? What kind of family was *that*? . In any case it seems to me like a fairly minor point to be taking a stand on. Why is it important to you?
About the whole clapping business--I've never been one to clap or cheer at movies. When I was younger, I used to sneer that people were clapping at a flickering light, for god's sake, and feel plesantly smug and superior. As I've gotten older, though, I've kind of gotten over myself, and appreciate that the people behaving that way are just immersing themselves very completely in the story, and are making it an almost participatory event. It's not for me, but it doesn't bug me either. If I don't feel like being around people who are acting that way, and sometimes I don't, I just wait until the crowds have died down a bit before seeing the movie.
quote:It was ultimately an adequate movie. People project how they want to feel about it onto it -- and while it doesn't deserve all the acclaim, people like acclaiming things and probably deserve the chance to acclaim whatever the heck they want.
This I agree with completely. ROTK was okay. I'm glad I saw it--it wasn't a waste of three hours. I'll probably see the extended edition when it comes out, and I expect that someday, at some point, I'll watch all three extended editions.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I love it when the audience claps. If you're going to be involved with something, do it completely.
Smeagol and Deagol are cousins. NFL, what logic are you standing by? The naming thing? You have the wrong fantasy series.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I hadn't realized that Pokemon and I were siblings until just now! Who knew?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frisco, you do know that Merry and Pippin are going to get married and have children, right? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume you mean that they'll adopt? I'm glad that The Shire's morality can accomodate them.
Yeah, to be honest, I was worried that the Shirefolk were too rural and bigoted to accept people different from themselves. Glad to see my worries of homophobia were unfounded -- clearly hobbits are a more advanced race than man.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Frodo and Bilbo both end in "o", I don't call that even similar. Siblings always seem to have similar roots in their names in Tolkein books. I have seen it mentioned in multiple places not just a couple sites, I'm not going to post every single place where I find evidence of Smeagol and Deagol being brothers.
[ December 29, 2003, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
You could try reading the book . . . Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
The Fellowship of the Rings (authorized edition)
Start at the bottom of page 83 and continue on from there:
"Long after, but still very long ago, there lived by the banks of the Great River on the edge of Wilderland a clever-handed and quiet-footed little people. I guess they were of hobbit-kind; akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors . . . The most inquisitive and curious-minded . . . was . . . Smeagol . . .He had a friend called Deagol . . ."
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
But everyone knows books are obsolete, of course websites would be more authoritative.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:But everyone knows books are obsolete, of course websites would be more authoritative.
Damn. I didn't know that.
But I did read it on a website, it must be true...
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
It's okay, Lalo.
*pat pats Lalo's head*
I would suggest getting your copies of the trilogy at the used bookstore. They cost less that way. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I already addressed that point. I had said brothers are often friends and described as such, therefore there is no clear cut evidence either way.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Just so we're clear...
You are not claiming that Tolkein ever said they were brothers. You are saying Tolkein said they were friends, but based on your super-duper-naming strategy, they must also, by necessity, be brothers.
Wrong fantasy series, nfl. The explanation that brothers have similar names was in The Horse and His Boy.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think that their names are similar to contrast them. "Deagol" means "secret" in Old English, and "smeagol" means something like "ponderer, considerer," or some such. I guess it fits with his description of being "inquisitive and curious-minded."
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Let me just take this moment to say that my interest in languages and linguistics comes almost entirely from Tolkien and his supremem genius in that sort of thing that you just mentioned.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
We really need a complete searchable text online, as we have with other scriptures. I understand the copyright still exists on this work, but hey, they need to get over it and realize this is IMPORTANT!!!!!
Then we could do a search on all occurrences of the word Deagol, and I'm sure it would be clear that they are friends or distant cousins.
When was the last time you referred to your brother like this, "I have this friend who...."? That makes no sense. Nobody does that in the English language.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Javert Hugo, this is definitely the only fantasy series I'm talking about. Furthermore, its not some weird naming strategy, its what Tolkein does with brothers. I've pointed out that Boromir and Faramir also have the same ending. Its pretty simple, consistent, and makes sense. Finally, no one has shown anything conclusive .
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Tolkien's naming scheme for brothers is not nearly so consistent as you are trying to maintain. Also, there are vastly different cultures represented. The closest surviving culture to the proto-Stoors beside the Anduin (Smeagol's people) would be the hobbits in the Shire and in Bree. There is nothing like consistent naming of brothers in the Shire hobbits. I will give you specific examples from the geneologies when I get home and check. I don't think we know enough about the relationships of the Bree hobbits to say, for them.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I'd like to see an example where the names are like I described they're not siblings. If you do that I'll concede.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*sigh* Let me reiterate this: Deagol and Smeagol are cousins.
Not just friends. But not brothers. This is in the text, although I'm too lazy to find it. But when somebody else reads through all the appendices and prefaces to find it for me, those of you who didn't believe me will slap your foreheads and go, "Duh. Should have believed Tom."
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:The Fellowship of the Rings (authorized edition)
Start at the bottom of page 83 and continue on from there:
"Long after, but still very long ago, there lived by the banks of the Great River on the edge of Wilderland a clever-handed and quiet-footed little people. I guess they were of hobbit-kind; akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors . . . The most inquisitive and curious-minded . . . was . . . Smeagol . . .He had a friend called Deagol . . ."
DOES ANYONE ACTUALLY READ THE POSTS?
The book says that Smeagol's people were distantly related kin to hobbits - cousins if you will - it also clearly says that Smeagol and Deagol were FRIENDS. Not brothers. Not cousins. FRIENDS. And we can debate till the cows come home about in-breeding, small clans, everyone's related to everyone else to some degree of cousinship, but if folks would just pick up the book (I am referring to the authorized paperback edition FOTR, 1970 edition printing)THEY WOULD SEE THE EXACT RELATIONSHIP!!!!!
Of course, what would be fun in that? Where'd the argument go?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Okay, From Return of the King Appendix C: Family Trees.
There are many examples of brothers whose names are not related closely. A few examples: Mungo and Ponto Baggins, Hildigrim and Isembard Took, Gorbadoc and Orgulas Brandybuck, Saradoc and Merimac Brandybuck, Halfred and Erling Holman, Tolman and Wilcome Cotton, Hamson and Samwise Gamgee, and Sam's own sons, Frodo, Merry, Pippin, Hamfast, Bilbo, and Tolman.
Okay, what you want are names that are very close, like Deagol and Smeagol, but not brothers. There are examples of that as well: Mungo and Bungo Baggins are father and son, Posco and Fosco Baggins are nephew and uncle, Largo and Longo Baggins are nephew and uncle, Merimas and Merimac Brandybuck are second cousins once removed, Samwise and Andwise Gamgee are nephew and uncle, Holman and Tolman Cotton are grandfather and grandson.
There is usually some family relationship between these pairs, mainly because I'm choosing from family trees, and not that many families are shown. Also, most hobbits are interrelated, like all small town folk who have lived in the same town for many generations.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Searching the trilogy, for which there is an index, is easy, and the reference already given is the only real discussion of Deagol that I can find, but I'm going to look in the Hobbit now and see what it said. I'm pretty positive, like Tom, that they are cousins, even if distant ones.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
NFL also votes Republican. Coincidence? I ask you.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I can't find any mention of their relationship in the Hobbit, either. Would there be more in the Silmarillion or in Unfinished Tales, perhaps?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Sigh.
It's NOT in The Hobbit.
Gandalf found out about Smeagol's connection and story in FOTR AFTER Bilbo's 111th Birthday during that 20-some odd year span when he was out (sometimes with Aragorn, sometimes not) tracking down Gollum/Smeagol and Frodo was living life up as the MAster of Bag End.
Sigh.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No need to sigh, Shan. But it might well be in The Hobbit, perhaps in one of the later prefixes. I am absolutely certain that there's a textual reference to Deagol being a cousin.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
The Hobbit, hardboud collectors edition, 1966.
quote:Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creature. I don't know where he came from, nor who or what he was. p82
quote: "Ss, ss, ss," said Gollum. He had been underground a long long time . . . brought up memories of ages and ages and ages before, when he lived with his grandmother in a whole in a bank by a river. p85-6
quote:But suddenly Gollum remembered thieving from nests long ago, and sitting under the river bank teaching his grandmother . . . to suck - Eggses! p87
quote:My birthday-present! . . . So he had always said to himself. But who knows how Gollum came by that present, ages ago . . . p91
There is nothing in the Silmarillion, nor the ROTK Appendixes.
The answer lies in FOTR, Ch. 2, The Shadow of the Past. I suggest reading it! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Shan, you're talking to someone who has read the books quite extensively. As we speak, I become more and more certain that Deagol is called Smeagol's cousin somewhere in the text. *grin*
(FWIW, TheOneRing.Net -- a site for anal nerds if there ever was one -- agrees with me on this one.)
[ January 01, 2004, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Tom, I feel the exact same way. I have read the texts some 20 times, and am certain that they are called cousins, yet an extensive search this evening has failed to turn up the specific reference. I'm running out of places to check now. I may have to read the entire canon in its entirety again to find this reference. It's about time anyway, I guess. It's been nearly a year. Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Tom, you're not alone, my Tolkein lovin' best friend said without outside interference that Smeagol and Deagol were cousins. So stand strong. Though I hadn't heard that, I'm pretty sure I believe you.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Anal Nerds Uber Alles!
[ January 01, 2004, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Bernard said he also remembers them being cousins. So if it's a hallucination, at least it's a fairly widespread and consistent one. I'm still searching.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
As a side note and sidetrack from this extremely interesting argument *cough* I just wanted to say that I saw the movie again today.
It was MUCH better the second time (not that I didn't like it the first time, I think I just went into it with unrealistic expectations.) I bawled, I laughed, and I thoroughly enjoyed it MORE this time.
The lighting of the beacons is amazing, as is the part at the end where Sauron calls Aragorn's name in English and Elvish and then Aragorn turns to the company, smiles and says "For Frodo" before the big charge. AAAaaaaaah. Heaven. I still hold to my opinion that Elijah Wood's performance was stunning and helped to make the movie.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
And now, to get back to said argument:
I looked up the word "Deagol" in the index of people monsters and animals (or something like that) in the back and his name only appeared ONCE in the ENTIRE gazillion pages of the books. It is the line that Shan has already quoted. There was never EVER any mention of a cousin, though there was mention of the grandmother of the whole family of that general race of hobbit-like folks.
So all of you cousin/brother people had better find some PROOF, cause Tolkien is winning the argument so far with "friend." Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Narnia, I love you!!!!!
And since I am the only one that has bothered to offer "proof" rather than "speculation" (and Tom - you and I both KNOW that you know better from Ornery - shall I cross-reference this debate over there? )
I WIN, I WIN, I WIN!!!
(Mom said if you said it no more than three times you weren't bragging yet )
It really doesn't matter how many times you have read the book - I'm sure I'd trump that hands-down with a few notable exceptions having begun reading his works at age 8 and proceeding hence to at least quarterly re-readings for almost 20 years. Had to slow down once the child started getting very active - but I do fit in a re-read at least once a year (and that includes the Appendixes, the Sil, etc . . . )
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not saying Deagol is referenced as anything other than a friend in the main text of LotR. I'm saying he's specifically referenced as a cousin in another one of the supplemental works. My copy of LotR has an index, too, and points to the same single page. But I still distinctly remember "cousin" from something. I also remember the whole "Smeagol is an anglicized version of Trahald" bit that theOneRing.net's writeup mentions, so there's clearly some book out there which goes into more detail.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, I've been trying to figure out where I might have seen this reference, and since I don't have any of the books on me, I'm hoping that somebody here has a copy of Unfinished Tales, particularly the bit about the Gladden Fields. Is it in there?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I read Unfinished Tales for several hours last night looking for it, to no avail. If TORN and Bernard and Tom and I all remember it, then I feel pretty confident it must be real. If it were just me, ....
Shan: You don't win until everyone else concedes. Winning wouldn't be so fun if it were that easy.
Narnia: "...from this extremely interesting argument *cough*..." ROFL!
But I did find these highly interesting bits about the Istari.
"Most of the remaining writings about the Istari (as a group) are unhappily no more than very rapid jottings, often illegible. Of major interest, however, is a brief and very hasty sketch of a narrative, telling of a council of the Valar, summoned it seems by Manwë ('and maybe he called upon Eru for counsel?'), at which it was resolved to send out three emissaries to Middle-earth. 'Who would go? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men. But this would imperil them, dimming their wisdom and knowledge, and confusing them with fears, cares, and wearinesses coming from the flesh.' "
". . . for, strange indeed though this may seem, the Istari, being clad in bodies of Middle-earth, might even as Men and Elves fall away from their purposes, and do evil, forgetting the good in the search for power to effect it."
"For it is said indeed that being embodied the Istari had need to learn much anew by slow experience, and though they knew whence they came the memory of the Blessed Realm was to them a vision from afar off, for which (so long as they remained true to their mission) they yearned exceedingly. Thus by enduring of free will the pangs of exile and the deceits of Sauron they might redress the evils of that time."
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Well ak, I admire your search. I am definitely not as versed as you or Tom in all the extras, but I did put a question into TORN to see if someone could find us a reference, because I found it rather odd that no less than 7 people were pretty sure they were cousins. It must be SOMEWHERE! So maybe someone knows where. Until then, we'll just have to content ourselves with all the nifty tidbits that we've learned because of our search. (My tidbit is in the Sauron eye thread. I KNEW that he had a physical form!!)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've always looked at the Istari as Tolkien's attempt to allegorize the various Earthly prophets; they're all powerful spirits made flesh, and all have a line to the truth, but they can fall by the side and both mislead and be misled. In particular, I can't help wondering if the Blue Wizards are Tolkien's way of acknowledging -- in a somewhat backhanded fashion -- Eastern religion.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
There's some interesting bits about them in that part too. I had forgotten they even had names. I wonder what they got up to? They may have labored diligently and successfully, so far as we know, and still we might not have heard anything about them. Too bad there's no Middle earth BBC or CNN to keep us in touch with the farther flung regions.
[ January 01, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
According to a data search of The Unfinished Tales, Déagol is only referenced once in that book, and that in a footnote:
quote:In a letter written in 1959 my father said: "Between 2463 [Déagol the Stoor found the One Ring, according to the Tale of Years] and the beginning of Gandalf's special enquiries concerning the Ring (nearly 500 years later) they [the Stoors] appear indeed to have died out altogether (except of course for Sméagol); or to have fled from the shadow of Dol Guldur."
Searching Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, I found this:
quote:In the Shire etiquette, at the date of the Party, 'expectation of receiving' was limited to second cousins or nearer kin, and to residence within 12 miles. Even close friends (if unrelated) were not 'expected' to give, though they might. The Shire residence-limit was obviously a fairly recent result of the gradual break-up of kinship communities and families and dispersal of relatives, under long-settled conditions. For the received birthday presents (no doubt as a relic of the customs of small ancient families) must be delivered in person, properly on the eve of the Day, and at latest before nuncheon on the Day. They were received privately by the 'byrding'; and it was very improper to exhibit them separately or as a collection – precisely to avoid such embarrassments as may occur in our wedding-exhibitions (which would have horrified the Shirefolk). The giver could thus accommodate his gift to his purse and his affections without incurring public comment or offending (if anyone) any other than the recipient. But custom did not demand costly presents, and a Hobbit was more readily flattered and delighted by an unexpectedly 'good' or desirable present than offended by a customary token of family good-will.
A trace of this can be seen in the account of Sméagol and Déagol – modified by the individual characters of these rather miserable specimens. Déagol, evidently a relative (as no doubt all the members of the small community were), had already given his customary present to Sméagol, although they probably set out on their expedition v. early in the morning. Being a mean little soul he grudged it. Sméagol, being meaner and greedier, tried to use the 'birthday' as an excuse for an act of tyranny. 'Because I wants it' was his frank statement of his chief claim. But he also implied that D's gift was a poor and insufficient token: hence D's retort that on the contrary it was more than he could afford.
From this piece it appears as if Tolkien himself had not specified the relationship between Sméagol and Déagol precisely. It does not preclude him having done so elsewhere, of course.
There is also this little snippet in a footnote, make of it what you will:
quote:In more primitive communities, as those still living in clan-smials, the byrding also made a gift to the 'head of the family'. There is no mention of Sméagol's presents. I imagine that he was an orphan; and do not suppose that he gave any present on his birthday, save (grudgingly) the tribute to his 'grandmother'. Fish probably. One of the reasons, maybe, for the expedition. It would have been just like Sméagol to give fish, actually caught by Déagol!
Edit: I'd like to search History of Middle Earth too, but unfortunately and inexplicably find myself unable to open the pdf-file I downloaded. Perhaps someone else has better luck.
[ January 01, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
But Tom, I don't think this is allegorical at all. History, real or feigned, with its variable applicability to the here and now. I dislike allegory quite a bit, really. I'm not nearly so cordial about it as JRRT was. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Snaps fingers at cordiality!
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
One thing I remember about the index in the end of RotK is that it was supposed to be complete in items but not necessarily in references. That is, everyone should be in there, but every single time their name came up in the books may not be. I'm still not positive where I read this, but I seem to have remembered it from long ago, and I only read the Hobbit, the LotR trilogy, and the Silmarillion until the last few years when the movie rekindled my passion for Tolkien. So it's my feeling that it must be somewhere in those works. Someone should post this question on TORN and I'm sure it will be settled quickly.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Found at TORN:
quote:Q: Is Déagol Sméagol's cousin or friend? In The Complete Guide to Middle-earth (1978 ed.) by Robert Foster and in Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia by David Day (1991 ed.) Déagol is listed as being Sméagol's cousin. However, in my Ballantine edition of LOTR, Tolkien says that Déagol is Sméagol's friend. I think, upon initial creation (in earlier editions of LOTR) Déagol was in fact Sméagol's kinsman and not just an acquaintance, but this was changed for the revised editions of LOTR (merely a guess). Can any of you shed any light on this? Why was such a change made, if indeed there was a change? Did Tolkien himself or has his son, Christopher commented on this? Christopher describes the evolution of The Fellowship of the Ring in Return of the Shadow: The History of the LOTR Part 1 (Middle-earth Series, Volume 6) and so I only skimmed the book last time I was at the bookstore as I couldn't afford to buy it. It doesn't mention the change and refers to Déagol as being Sméagol's friend. It did mention that initially, Déagol was in fact the name of Sméagol, which I thought was interesting, although it has no bearing on my question.
–Mark
A: In the earliest versions of The Lord of the Rings, published in The Return of the Shadow, the story of two friends finding the Ring does not appear. Only "Digol" appears, in the role that we know as Sméagol. Digol "found the ring in the mud of the river-bank under the roots of a thorn tree." Later, using it, he earns the nickname Gollum.
In the "fourth phase" of composition, the name Sméagol is introduced, as is the story of the murder of Déagol. In this version, Déagol is called a "friend," as he is in all subsequent versions, including the published text of 1954-55, and the later revised texts. I do not know where Foster came up with the "cousin" connection (at least the instances he cites do not contain that information).
However, in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien (published in 1981, three years after Foster last revised his book), Tolkien notes that Déagol was "evidently a relative (as no doubt all the members of the small community were)" of Sméagol’s (see p. 292).
- Turgon
Update!
Craig wrote in to point out that "the use of "cousin," especially in England, is applied to anyone who is in the clan with you -- basically anyone you consider related, or kin. It did not historically have the definite definition of aunt or uncle's child as it does now."
- Turgon
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Thanks for the update and info!
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I'm trying to earn Kayla's "Google Queen" crown now that she's gone.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I dub thee "Google Master" -
how's that?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think "Google Queen" has a nicer ring to it.
Besides, I don't think I'm worth of the title, yet. I've yet to find the answer to the ultimate movie quote stumper.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
(why is Kayla gone again? Did I miss that?)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But Tom, I don't think this is allegorical at all. History, real or feigned, with its variable applicability to the here and now."
If it's feigned history, meant to suggest alternate sources for modern faith, it's allegory. If it's meant to be "real" history, Tolkien was ultimately a crankcase. All in all, I prefer to think of it as loosely allegorical. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom, there are certainly in-betweens for your view. For instance, it could be feigned history, not meant to suggest sources for modern faith, as Tolkien maintained his entire life.
[ January 02, 2004, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Tolkien specifically stated that it was NOT allegorical in any way. He said he had cordially disliked allegory in all its manifestations ever since he got old and wary enough to detect it. That he preferred history, real or feigned. I was paraphrasing his definitive statement on the subject. It is NOT allegory. Absolutely not. <shudders> I deeply dislike allegory, nay, even loathe it. So please don't let me ever again hear you make the faintest hint or suggestion that Lord of the Rings might be allegory. That is base slander.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tolkien specifically stated that it was NOT allegorical in any way."
But we all know it IS allegory. I mean, sure, certain deliberate metaphors weren't at the front of his mind when he was writing it -- but the guy WAS trying to write a mythopoeic history of England. How can that not be allegory? *grin*
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
The difference lies in the freedom of readers to decide if and how to apply the story to their own experience. With allegory, there's a specific mapping that the author has in mind that you can't break free of.
For instance, in Animal Farm, the pigs are the communist party leadership, and the revolt of the animals is the communist revolution. There's no freedom to read it as just a story about farm animals. I actually DO read it that way, but I do it deliberately, just because I abhor allegory.
Or in Gulliver's Travels, the different episodes are direct jabs at this or that group or attitude applicable to Swift's current world.
Allegory is preachy. It grinds axes. In allegory, the author dictates what the meaning of things is, and how the reader should respond to things. That's why I loathe it so.
History, or just fiction -- good stories of any kind -- leave readers free to decide for themselves what they mean, and if and how they apply to life. They show life as it is (in some way), they tell the truth about what it's like to be alive, and then leave readers free to come to whatever understanding they may of the events depicted. The author's deepest beliefs and understanding of life will be reflected, unavoidably, of course, but the author isn't saying, "I know and you don't and so listen up while I teach you". The author isn't patronizing the readers, or wink wink nudge nudging them.
That's why any suggestion that a great work of fiction is allegorical is deadly to it. Because it makes it so much less than it is, if you read it like that. So please, with Lord of the Rings, read it as it's meant. As a history, real or fictional. A story about some hobbits and stuff that happened to them once upon a time.
[ January 02, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
That would be in your humble opinion, right, Tom?
I believe the author was pretty clear in his intentions, which were to write a story to please himself and secondly to please his readers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And, to please himself, he wrote an allegory.
It doesn't matter if Tolkien's comfortable with the fact that it's an allegory; it's an allegory regardless of whether or not he's happy with that.
Now, I can certainly understand that some people are unhappy with the thought of being "preached to" by any literature at all -- and I can understand how Tolkien, who really disliked his friend Lewis' fiction for exactly that reason, didn't want to be lumped into that camp. But while I don't like people to call me fat, and while I never set out to be fat, I'm fat regardless; it takes an effort of will to not see me as fat, in the same way that someone has to be really determined to miss the allegory in LotR.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
You're surrounded by determination, Tom - never forget that . . . (bwah-ha-ha)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I have to agree with Tom. Tolkien's Ring trilogy is allegorical. ANY fantasy story that tells the truth about reality in the broad sense has to be allegorical to some extent. Tolkien was careful not to write allegorically in the narrow way that C.S. Lewis did, with closely drawn parallels at every turn, that you could use a code book to decipher.
But look, consider just one example: In Tolkien, elves are a gracious, immortal, superhuman race. The orcs were said to have been elves once, but they were perverted by evil. In Biblical theology, angels are a gracious, immortal, superhuman race. The devils were angels who were cast out of heaven and became perverted by evil. Is this not allegorical?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
If you're a Christian. Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Tom, what great fiction is NOT allegorical, if you use the word in that way? I think you are misusing the word. Allegory means there is a point by point correspondence between the elements in the allegorical work and the real life situation or narrative it is intended to bring to mind.
Did Tolkien intend for the readers to think of the elves as angels? I would say not. If that's true then who are hobbits? Who are dwarves? Christian mythology and symbolism do not contain characters who correspond to these races.
Another allegorical accusation Tolkien refuted said that the ring represented the atomic bomb and the War of the Ring was supposed to be WW2. Tolkien parried it by saying if that were true, then Saruman's researches into ring lore would have turned up information that let him make his own, and that instead of destroying the ring, Gandalf and the others would have used it, and in that story hobbits would have ended up reviled by everybody.
I would say that any effort to directly map point by point Tolkien's story to anything else would be valid only to the extent that readers might draw their own meanings from that. There is NOTHING that indicates Tolkien did so or intended for us to do so.
Lewis is allegorical, Tolkien is not.
[ January 03, 2004, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think you are misusing the word. Allegory means there is a point by point correspondence between the elements in the allegorical work and the real life situation or narrative it is intended to bring to mind. "
That's one kind of allegory, agreed. But it's not the only kind.
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
Does anyone know where I can get the lyrics to that beautiful song Pippin sang to Denethor or do I also hafta wait for the script to magically appear on the internet?
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
"Home is behind, the world ahead, and there are many paths to tread. Through shadow, to the edge of night, until the stars are all alight... Mist and shadow, cloud and shade. All shall fail, all shall fade..."
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
(The lyrics are in the soundtrack leaflet too.)
Another impressive and interesting tidbit about the soundtrack: Viggo Mortenson himself wrote the melody that he sang in the title track. Pretty nifty.
Oh and, Renee Fleming is my absolute favorite EVER. I'm so glad her voice is in this movie.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
must . . . get . . . soundtrack, precious . . .
I do have to say that Pippin's song and the intertwining of Denethor's messy meal and the race to the battle was quite impactful (is that an actual derivative of impact?)
I think you mentioned before that Viggo wrote the music for the Lay of Luthien which is nifty - I was gald to see the amount of poetry and music included in the EE's and wish there had been even more -
sigh
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
The singing is actually in the soundtrack?
I'm so glad my birthday is coming up..buahahaha
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Psst. This is what I'm asking for for MY birthday. I'm very excited. (up til now I've been borrowing my sister's copies of the soundtracks.)
I LOVE box sets of stuff. I think it's an obsession.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote: Viggo Mortenson himself wrote the melody that he sang in the title track. Pretty nifty.
Billy Boyd also wrote the melody for Pippen's song. I think it's quite cool that all of the songs in ROTK were sung by the people that wrote the music.
Posted by raphael (Member # 5870) on :
i just went to see ROTK for the second time the second time-its ten times better! in the first time I was so involved that I was missing a ton of scenes just waiting to see 'what happenes' (and I read the books about 7 times at least)I was also sobbing for half an hour at the end and was having difficulties not crying out loud when Frodo leaves.
abou the sound track- are they different in the three movies? most of the songs sounded the same for me. should I buy all three of them?
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
raphael, the soundtracks are pretty different. HS seems to have a 'theme' for every race, big city or evil hideout. To get all the themes in their best and original form, all three soundtracks are a must. For instance, the Rohan theme (my favorite) is much better on TTT soundtrack than it is in it's edited and varied form on the RotK soundtrack. Same goes for the Hobbit theme from FotR to Rotk and all of that stuff. The "Samwise the Brave" track from TTT appears in FotR, but not in it's huge, long and unedited form. That's why I'm waiting for the box set.
But, if you're not a freak like me, one soundtrack will do really well and I suggest getting RotK. That has a pretty good representation of all the themes (but you'll be missing Gollum's song and May it Be from the other two.)
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
It costs 50$..bah humbug, nobody would get that for me. I'd rather save my money for that Arwen Pendant. I'd be even more happy if I got the books.
What are the lyrics to Aragorn's song btw? It's Elvish, right?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I was late seeing it and late writing a review and no I didn't read the whole thread, just deal.
When I went into the theater I told my mom that the movie would be made for me if I could hear just a few lines.
"If I return Father, think better of me."
"Your father loves you, Faramir, and he will remember it ere the end."
As you may guess, I was looking much forward to the scenes with Faramir and Denethor.
I was not completely happy, but I am hopeful there will be more in the extended version. I'd also like to see Faramir and Eowyn in the Houses of Healing, instead of just getting to see them standing beside each other.
Legolas stunt was way too unnecessary. So were all the Shelob shots. Maybe because I was holding my mother's arm and whimpering. But seriously, we could have culled a few minutes from these to give us some glimpses of Faramir and Eowyn. I mean, we have all this build up around Eowyn and her shattered heart and we don't get to see for sure that she finds love after Aragorn?
Loved Pippin's song. One of the finest things I've ever seen on film.
"Don't go where I can't follow." Big sob factor. Well done.
Beacons - awesome.
I even found myself very touched by Legolas and "How about at the side of a friend?"
The look on the faces of Merry and Pippin when they realized what the blowing up of Mount Doom meant, that Frodo and Sam would not be coming back.
The Grey Havens. Thanks, PJ for not ending the movie at the celebration in Minas Tirith.
"We set out to save the Shire, and we did. But not for me."
Perfect.
I'll have more thoughts after seeing it a second time, I'm sure.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I'm so glad I was not the only one crying a lot.
(Insert relief smiley or would that be R-O-L-A-I-D-S? )
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
But I thought there already WAS a thread! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Peter Jackson. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Would there be more in the Silmarillion or in Unfinished Tales, perhaps?
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Narnia, I love you!!!!!![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)