Anyone else think it was as bad as I did? Just a few specifics (no real spoilers, but I think most of us have read the books anyway...) It was lllllooooonnnnnnggggg. I think it might have been better if it had been done in double time, because half of it seemed to be slow motion sequences. The emotions in the book were not conveyed in the movie in any way shape or form. Then there was the end, no this must be the end, no this must be the end, oh God, please let it end! They didn't end it like the book, which at least made some sense even if it did go on for a while.

(One possibility: I haven't read the books since high school, so my memory of all but a few key plot points has faded. So my perception of the movie is not really affected by differences from the book. Yours obviously was.)

quote:

---

Why in the heck would they leave shelob out of the 2nd one to put in the third?

---

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheReturnoftheKing-1127213/

If reviews are a good indicator of popular opinion, about 97% of the population disagrees with you. Now what remains is to decide whether you're in the top 3% or the bottom 3%...

And here's why...

First, I am a big fan of epic movies. Short hour and a half movies leave me feeling empty inside, so the longer, the better. A 3 hour long movie is just goodness all around.

Second, the characters. I know nothing of the emotion depth of Frodo, Samwise, Legolas, and the rest in the books, but in the movies, they weren't half bad. I really felt the emotional tension between Arwyn and Aragorn, and Frodo's desperation and determination to get rid of this ring really spoke to me.

There are more reasons, but to go so deeply into them would take time I don't have, and would surely cramp my strained hands beyond all typing abilities for the night. And that would be bad, since I have revisions to make.

So in conclusion, the movies rocked, lookin' forward to the next one, and I hope they make a hundred more after that. But they probably won't.

Peace out,

CVG

PS--AAAAAAAA! I can't believe I forgot! OSC comes to my! town! and I forget?

Dang!

Now, as many may well have guessed, this will likely be my last post, as I'll likely have hung myself by morning.

quote:

---

reviews are a good indicator of popular opinion, about 97% of the population disagrees with you.

---

The second movie just kind of whisked by. The dialogue was forced i thought in the beggining of the film. and that shot where aragon comes walking back after he falls into the river( which is not true to the book by the way) Is the lamest shot in the history of epics. (although that shot is terrible The new star wars are far worse. They are the epitome of Hollywood taking a dump all over my face) argggg! To me they should have left in the shelob so when they did the third one it wouldnt have to be so long. Then they could have added the part with souraman at the end of the books because thats the wierdest ending of all time! ITS WHAT MAKES THE SERIES SO ORIGINAL! sheesh. anyways like i said before the books will always be there.

AS a point of interest epics usually do bad anways. I think the original star wars series was the only epic to truly pull it off. The first 2 original films kicked butt. The third one was lame but heh. THe first matrix good. 2nd what the heck. 3rd Ugggghh. *VOmits

The point the author was making is that a screenplay is not the book. So if you think about it, the LORT movies are better than most since it does at least resemble the book.

...so back on topic...

I have been largely disappointed with the LOTR movies, but I try to give them a lot of leeway because turning any book into a movie is a very difficult endeavor at best, and LOTR the books were so complex that even to take on the project, and do it as well as they did, should merit a few brownie points.

I must admit that I slept through much of the 2nd movie, watching it in the theater. The battle scenes were truly "epic" but not engaging whatsoever, hence, I slept, and I LOVE LOVE LOVE battle scenes normally.

I will see the third, but only to complete the experience, much like the Matrix trilogy as mentioned earlier. The first was good, a strong start, the second started to feel like the were lost in the story. I am afraid of what I will find in the third.

Then, when he's climbing up the side of the volcano, his neck is bleeding from the chain.

Unlike the other two (which we both loved), this installment seemed at times to be going through the motions - like they were trying to get it all wrapped up. I don't feel that I had the same connection with all of the characters that I did in the first two movies. It felt like the entire focus was on Frodo and Sam, and the rest of the characters and story were incidental.

The emotional manipulation was blatant, cheap, and neverending (and judging by the amount of sniffling going on in the theater, highly successful). Battle scene - weeping - battle scene - weeping - repeat until the end. It got old.

I think another contributing factor for us was that we'd both looked at preliminary scores on metacritic.com (critic's scores as opposed to public popularity polls), and according to them, the overall critics' rating is nearly perfect. This set the bar really high, and I don't think the movie lives up to it. Looking back at metacritic, it seems that many of the reviewers said things like "it was a great movie, but it had this problem, and that weirdness, and another thing that I didn't like," and metacritic still interpreted the review as a 100. I don't get it.)

Anyway, it was a good movie. But it was a very long movie that had some problems. So while I'm glad I got the chance to see it on the big screen, I will not see it again until the extended version DVD comes out.

I know everyone wants to see the books and movies as seperate entities, but I can't do that completely.

I despise the false Faramir that stupidly took the hobbits to Osgiliath.

Elves should not show up at Helm's Deep and then magically disappear without a word.

Eowyn should not be a love-sick puppy. She was a strong warrior that wanted to defend her people.

Hobbits should not cry every half hour. Unless it's about missing a good meal.

Sam should not even consider "going home"
in the middle of Mordor.

Puffy-faced Arwyn should limit her visions to one per movie and then keep them to herself.

And for God's sake, if things had to be changed, they should have been changed to increase tension, not to dispell it. (The black ships for instance.)

Aaaarrrggghhh!!!

Moria stair jumping!

Gimli strikes a pose and it's funny!!! He's the Urkel of Lord of the Rings.

Legolas is "The Cowabunga Elf" in Extreme Stairboarding!

Elrond has acne scars! So much for elven beauty. Next time consider Antonio Sabato Jr. He'd make a great elf!

Galadriel exploded into a purple mumble-beast when offered the one ring.

I really had high hopes for this film. I thought the first two movies were acceptable, suffering mainly from a lack of resolution that was understandably built into the structure of the movies. I figured this movie would have a nice payoff, and I could leave the theatre feeling satisfied.

But, sweet merciful Jesus, this swollen blob of a movie just would not stop. I must have looked at my watch 30 times. Everything was tedius. I grew tired of the inspirational speeches talking about courage. I had more than my fill of the chaotic special effects filled fight scenes. And, man, did I get freaking sick of weepy hobbits. "Oh, my burden is so great." "Oh, I'm afraid of battle." "Oh, this is all my fault." "Can you remember the Shire Mr. Frodo? Huh? Can you? Huh? Can you? Mr. Frodo? Remember? The Shire?" Spare me. Chop and edit this bugger down to 2 hours, maybe 2 and a half and you had a great story. Chop twenty minutes from the battle scenes, chop half of the climb up the mountain, get rid of everything that happens after Golem falls into the volcano. Leave on the cutting room floor all of the National Geographic helicopter shots of snowy mountains and huge plains. Move all of this to the DVD boxed sets for the die-hard fans with endless patience and large bladders.

There's a reason movies shouldn't be faithful to books.

My rant for the day.

Of course, what keeps people's interest varies, and so what some might consider too long and dull others may consider too short. But that's a matter of taste. (Personally, I can hardly wait for the extended edition of Return of the King.)

But I think filmmakers that make these very long films today should steal an idea from epic films of the past: intermissions.

I understand that theater owners feel like intermissions are wasted time because, while they get some extra revenue from concessions, it extends the showing time of the movie, which could mean fewer showings during a day.

But when you're talking about a three-hour-plus movie, you're not going to get more than four showings per screen anyway. Four ten or fifteen minute intermissions isn't going to reduce the number of screenings.

quote:

---

There's a reason movies shouldn't be faithful to books.

---

Far better are the courageous speeches, the honest tears of the hobbits, the burdensome climb, than snapshots in time followed by quick cuts to the next scenes-in-a-nutshell -- kind of like the difference between show vs. tell for movies.

I don't remember if the book had the elongated ending, but I didn't mind it in any case. For my part, I didn't want to leave the Shire, even after three and a half hours.

I think that they should have stretched it out a few more minutes--particularly in the sequence in between the fight with Shelob/the battle at Minas Tirath--so as to better communicate that weeks rather than hours pass before Frodo and Sam get to Orodruin and Aragorn et al get to the Black Gate...but that was the only substantial criticism I would give it.

The Return of the King worked far better than The Two Towers and was well ahead of The Fellowship of the Ring.

I haven't heard any critics yet complain about Aragorn being present when Boromir dies...and if any of you even try to complain about that departure from the book, we'll all see you for what you are, hopelessly lost in the slavish dogmaticism that holds that any film adaptation of Tolkien is inherently evil. Not all of the changes were for the worst. In fact, most of them were artistic decisions that so perfectly preserved the spirit of Tolkien's original vision that I must defer to Peter Jackson as being a better student of Tolkien's work than even myself (or at least equal--since I maintain that some of his other decisions showed he did not exceed my understanding of all things).

Since this is an honor I am hardly willing to extend to any of you, I find it unsurprising that your carping does not impress me as being inspired by any noble or honest motive, but only by a small-minded desire to appear superior. I hardly need to say that it has the very opposite effect from what you intend.

I will allow EJS to say that a movie approaching four hours in length ought to have an intermission...I agree in principle, and in practice I found that at a certain point in one of the previous movies I found myself wanting a break. And there is a nice spot for just such an intermission right after the battle for Minas Tirath/escape from Cirath Ungol...which would work quite well had about another thirty minutes been alloted in the latter part of the movie.

Now first of all let me tell you One title

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LOST VEGAS! Terry gilliam made a perfect adaptation to the book!. Perfectly! Because it had the same feel. Now somebody was whining that all the hobbit crying was good and that it added to the story and blah blah blah. Well it would because that was in the story. BUT was it in the same "feel?" see in film the matter of "feel" can stretch a long way. Timing acting and writing cohesivly act as one piece of art where in books writing is the only art. Sometimes movies can get the same feel as the writing if all 3 work together. EVen if it sticks true to the Book in dialouge is the acting and timing good?

The reason why nobody says take that scene out with Borimir and Aragon when Bormir is slain IS because it retained the "feel" of the book. That is an artistic move that worked. WHy people want others removed and are angry about is not becasue literally it was untrue to the book but because it did not have the same "feel" to it.

quote:

---

I haven't heard any critics yet complain about Aragorn being present when Boromir dies...and if any of you even try to complain about that departure from the book, we'll all see you for what you are, hopelessly lost in the slavish dogmaticism that holds that any film adaptation of Tolkien is inherently evil.

---

Hmmm... I didn't notice this one. I don't see it as a troubling change, either.

quote:

---

Not all of the changes were for the worst.

---

True.

quote:

---

In fact, most of them were artistic decisions that so perfectly preserved the spirit of Tolkien's original vision

---

Ummm... no. I doubt that Tolkien envisioned the lidless eye filling Frodo's entire vision while wearing the ring. Why would he be tempted to put it back on? I'm suprised he didn't pee his pants the first time he wore it.

Same with the Palantir. Same with the Galadriel explosion. Jackson just lacks subtlety.

Why did Saruman get credit for the mountain rejecting their passage and forcing them into Moria?

Would Tolkein really have wanted the pointless stair jumping scene in Moria?

How about Frodo "sneaking away" by visiting each member of the fellowship one his way to the boat?

What about Aragorn getting pulled over a cliff by a big rat/warg? Was there even any tension that he might be hurt? I didn't notice any. Same with the arrival of the black ships. No one noticed but a handful of orcs. No tension.

At any rate, the movie was visually impressive and it doesn't erase the books. The battle scenes, for the most part, couldn't have been done better. (The oliphants rocked!) But there were many pointless, unnecessary additions/modifications that confused or sucked the energy out of the source material.

The story was actually handled better in the Rankin/Bass and Ralph Bakshe versions. Maybe I'll go watch those... Although, I didn't like Bakshe's brain-damaged Samwise.

BudHAHA, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is great. It gives you the feel of euphoria for too long. You're tired and you just want to rest, but it won't let you. I imagine an acid trip would be very similar. Terry Gilliam is an amazing director. If you haven't seen it, I recommend you get a copy of Brazil right away.

I have read LOTR more times than I like to admit, and find myself increasingly disappointed at each rereading. The problem is, Tolkein has created a mythology that idealizes and glorifies his very class/culture/gender centric view of everything. You know, almost no female characters; everything run by an elite aristocracy who are endowed by devine right with power and authority; all the good little characters who are servants, underlings, and pawns, eager to bend knee to the superior caste characters. Face it, Elendil and the refugees from Numenor were interlopers and imperialists when they colonized Middle Earth. You can bet that Saruman had plenty of resentment to work with when he riled up the indigenous folk whose land was stolen by Eorl and his followers. And why are the heros tall and fair and the villains short and swarthy. Must be that the lords of men come from good scandinavian stock, whereas the vassals of Sauron have Mediteranian origins.

Anyway, all of this business has inspired me to envision a retelling of the LOTR story. The starting point is to assume that Tolkein's version is a propaganda piece of revisionism to justify and glorify the victory of the forces which restored the King to Gondor's throne. So assume that most of the story is lies and distortions. What then would the real story look like? How would it be told, say, by partisans for the other side? Maybe the orcs are a demonized version of labor unionists and progressives. The ultimate conflict would not be between good and evil, but between aristocracy and democracy. In my retelling, the story would be a tragedy, and the defeat of Sauron would make you cry, as the aspirations of the proletarian masses for freedom and equality are crushed beneath the booted heal of ... well you get the idea. Ok, so now, Sauron and Saruman are great leaders in an uprising of the masses. Where, in all of this, does the ring come in? In my version, what the one ring does is expose truth -- the wearer obtains not the power of command, but the power to reveal what is true and what is false. (Sort of an allegory for free speech and press.) Of course the lords and kings would want to see that destroyed! Indeed, we could even name it the ring of truth (not the ring of power) and imagine that it is the basis for that phrase "it has the ring of truth ..." And poor Frodo is a well meaning dupe, who never really understands what the ring represents. On those few occasions when he wears the ring and gets a glimpse of truth, he dismisses it as a distortion of the reality that he cannot see beyond. He would be like Alvin's brother Calvin in the Hatrack stories -- totally stuck in his own vision of reality, and unable to see that he has everything so completely backward -- a fact that the READER can see so clearly.

So, what do you say? Is that a great idea for a writing project or what??? Who wants to sign up to work on it?

It sounds fantastic. I would definitly love to write something like that.

Frodo, Pippin, Merry and Samwise were the real heroes of Lord of the Rings. Only through the efforts of these small, ordinary people could the world of Middle Earth be saved. And the Elves, the most snowy-white and perfect of Tolkien's characters, departed the world once the job was done.

I'm afraid I will never believe the Lord of the Rings is an allegory for World War Two (on either side) or communism vs. capitalism.

But I disagree. Frodo was a double agent. He was democratic all the way. He let his manservent become an equal to him. You think hes a simple minded dupe which by the way would be the only reason he would hang out with samwise(other than that Sam is his manservant) Frodo knew what he was doing all along. He knew in actuallity that the ring was a truth seer and that sauroman was right. Frodo agreed with Sauran and Sauroman But he couldnt let his self rightous friends know that or they would string him up and eat his gizzards. Besides he wore the new designer orc boots which were much more practical than walking around in his feet. Progressive to the max.

He wanted to give the ring to Sauron. So he could use it to show everybody the truth (and hopefully get a new pair of boots since he had to leave his at home and had to wear them in secrecy for fear of hobbit disgrace) about the changing world. However when he got to mount doom finally that evil little Gollum who was working as a double agent for Gandalf, (which explains why farmir didnt kill him) Created a scuffle and Frodo accidently lost the ring. He was very angry because now he knew the war was over and hed never wear a nice pair of boots again. He had to go live with the biggest aristocrat of all, Gandalf, who thinks hes god (talk about ego trip) and dicourages of changing the old ways (which explains his dusty old self and how he was kind of angry at being all new again) So frodo said sorry saruan i tried my best and damn I really wanted those boots but hey I am just a hobbit. And with that he lived in hell for the rest of his life as an underling to gandalf and had to braid his beard a lot.

PS ANNE RICE already did something similar to what your thinking of doing GLogpro but with a much more controversial book: the bible. well as pertaining to one of the characters in the book

Satan. It tells his side of the story as a good guy. The only guy that saw what a crock god was and decided to take matters into his own hands. In her story hes a rebel with a cause and stuff. Now if i only could remember the title...

Ps happy Holidays!

By the way, NexCap, I am fully aware that I am creating my own meanings here. That's the whole point. I mean, it is just good clean fun. No one suggests that this is what Tolkein intended. And I sincerely hope that no one thinks that what Tolkein wrote was true historically. So, there can be no question of my distorting some objective truth or anything. The game is this: look at LOTR, and think of an alternate reality that might have produced it. Then flesh out that reality so perfectly and convincingly that the reader wonders if maybe LOTR really WAS just jingoistic propaganda.

In fact, as a much more modest project in the same vein, I am often tempted to rewrite letters I read in Ann Landers. Sometimes the letters are SO one sided and you just know that the true story couldn't possibly be like that. And Ann Landers (or whoever writes the replies) takes them at face value and validates the self-serving delusions of the original writers. I feel like shouting at her: ANN! Wake up and smell the coffee. Read between the lines, Hon. Anyway, wouldn't it be fun to take a bunch of letters from advice columnists and rewrite them from another POV? Say the offending relative or whatever of the original letter writer? But that is ANOTHER project.

BudHaHa: I was not aware of that Ann Rice work, but it sounds like Milton's Paradise Lost, which as I recall it, was pretty sympathetic to Lucifer's point of view. But yeah, that's definitely the game I am proposing. Not that I expect to be in the same league as Ann Rice or Milton ;).

[This message has been edited by glogpro (edited December 25, 2003).]

We could do it! Lets just beat up anne rice! isnt she in a wheel chair or something? wouldnt be too hard. Unless of course she really did interview a vampire and she would have him come and suck us dry...errr.

anyways iam down. I am a novice writer at the age of 19 but hey I've written many beautiful works of art that put rice and milton to shame. Though they were destroyed by my arch nemesis Desert rose in a life consuming fire. since then i have been depressed and seem to have less mental prowress. oh well.

but I am a hardworker! so lets do it!

Heres and idea. We can pretend were scholars and we write an essay or whatever you call it saying we have debunked(i love that word) Tolkien and his mind bending LOTR series! THen we show the brutal realitys of the REAL LOTR and its propaganda ways! That would be fun.

In the opening scene, Professor Rice is visited by his dean. Bad news: Rice's application for a research grant was turned down. His post doc is winding down, and he has precious little to show for it. End of term has arrived, and he really must vacate the office and rooms. (The very rooms once occupied by none other than JRR Tolkein, as it happens ...)

Cut to a new scene. Milton Rice is packing. THings are half in boxes, half stacked on tables and chairs. He reaches for a folder, upsetting a stack of books. He lunges to catch the tower before it topples, loses his balance, and falls heavily against the paneled wall beside the fireplace. There is a strange sort of creaking noise, and a panel opens inward, revealing a dark opening. Curious, Rice reaches into the chamber, and draws out a large dusty book. He blows dust off the cover, and reads aloud. "The real story of the Ring of Truth, and how it was stolen by wicked prince Aragorn ....". He stops, turns the book over, mutters "Now what on earth ..." Then he stands up and calls out. "Professor. Professor Schneidelberger." He listens for a reply but hears none. Sinking to the floor, he puts the book in his lap, and carefully opens the cover ........

Survivor, as someone who went to the movie anticipating a great time, I can assure you I'm not trying to come off as superior by dissing the movie. My motives aren't noble, I suppose, since I'm not sure what higher purpose is served by publicly expressing my dislike. It's not like my saying it was overly long and boring is going to cure cancer after all. But I have to take issue with saying my motives weren't honest. I was disappointed with the movie for all the reasons I stated. This is not a slam against anyone who liked the film. This is not a claim that I'm better than anyone who liked the film. This is a simply a statement that I had a different opinion than you. Claiming I (and anyone else who disliked the movie) am dishonest, egotistical, and small-minded because we disliked the movie for the "wrong" reasons seems a bit harsh. At least that's my opinion.

"You called Professor?" Schneidelberger pushes his black framed glasses onto the long nose that hooks across his face. He leans against the door frame his arm crossed the other crook'd, nursing his pipe into his bearded face. He looks intently at rice with a look of sadness one gives a puppy. Not that he thinks this of his associate. He simply looks at all his subjects in the same manner. Even his dear old mother who lives with him at home.

[This message has been edited by BudHAHA (edited December 25, 2003).]

quote:

---

I have to say that none of the people that dissed this movie really seemed to do so for the right reasons, nor do any of the criticisms so far seem to spring from a genuine love and appreciation of the books.

---

I don't believe that there is a "right" or a wrong reason to dislike a movie, nor is there a "right" or a wrong reason to express a dissenting opinion. Aside from releasing frustration with the disappointment I felt with the last movie, the only real motivation I had was to spur some discussion over the good/bad points of the movie. I enjoy discussing books' and movies' finer and weaker points becaues I feel it helps me as a writer.

As for my criticisms springing from a genuin love and appreciation of the book, I don't see how that is an issue. I try to rate a move based on its own merits, and not as a realization of an author's intent. Movies based on books must be able to stand alone, without the book to lean on. As a matter of fact, none of the reasons I disliked this movie had anything to do with its divergence from the book, which I actually found to be astoundingly minimal. In fact, if anything was a problem it was how closely the movie tried to follow the book!

quote:

---

(Before I get in trouble some of the battle scenes were pretty neat.)

---

Hah! Too late, my poppets. You are in trouble.

We need to break into two camps, each with members united in eternal hatred of the other. Me (I've already decided I'm going to love it - how's that for independent thought?), Survivor, Kolona, EricJamesStone, Lord Darkstorm and cvgurau against Christine, Christine's husband, loggrad98, birdcastle, Nexus Capacitor, and James Maxey. Six vs. six: that's fair. We can each base every opinion of members of the other group on what they thought of Return of the King.

Think of the wonderful flame wars we could have!

And glogpro, Phanto and BudaHAHA can be little gollums that each group kicks around every once in a while. We'll all agree that each has a little Smeagol inside, screaming to escape, that actually LOVED every bit of the trilogy - but that Smeagol isn't worth restraining abuse for.

How about it? I'm game.

(By the way, I probably wouldn't read that kind of spoof on Lord of the Rings. It's fantasy. Kings are appointed from birth. There are actually gods on Earth. People and creatures exist who are real embodiments of good and evil. Get over it.)