Grr. Return of the King makes me angry.

[kolvar]

Some comments:
- Tolkien was a great fan of Beowulf (I think he did a translation or retelling of it)
- Gimli (the joke) and Eomer (becoming some byproduct) clearly got the chaft (How I miss scenes like: "And when all Armies of Mordor lie between us...", sniff, goes right to my heart)
- I hate the elves at Helms Deep (spoils the whole movie for me (apart from Aragorn's "death"))
- As part of a movie that got a whole, gigantig mega-battle and the destruction of the arch-enemy, the scouring would not have worked, because, regardless of how dramtic it would have been done, the audience would simply have been annoyed by yet another battle on a smaler scope. There where enough people, who where ennoyed by the ending as is, because it stretched the movie beyond what they were used as the ending of normal movies. RotK is not a horror-movie that needs a last appearance of Freddy or Jason to shock the audience (sorry, if this sounds stupid - I know, that it is not the same)
- The worst part of RotK was the attack of the ghost-army, because it looked like a giagantic blob and made the sacifices of the Rohirim useless.
"Hey, there is an army that is several times larger than our and they have Mumakil. But we charge nonetheless." "Oops, how many Rohirim have died? sorry, why did you not wait, till my army of invincible ghosts did the job."
GRRRR. The Corsair-ships filled with people, that fight and die would have been better. Than we could have had the Witch-king on horse at the gate and the descruction of the gates would have been the anti-climax of the seige (as it should have been).
- About the interpretation of Tolkiens work: it is the right of every person to interpret a book as he sees fit. That is the beauty of books. But as soon as a book is adapted to the screen, the director's/ screenwriter's vision is broadcasted and becomes one of the most imporant ones (especially if there is only one worthwhile movie at the moment (and I do think, that there will be a tv-adaptation (like dune - more or less uninspired but truer to the book) and more movies))). Therefore the director has to face the criticism as anyone who gives an interpretation of something, and even more so, because he forces us to comply to his interpretation, if we are to like his work (more or less). (and why did I write this????)

 

[Berandor]

A big part of my day-to-day job is convincing people that it's okay to be wrong. It's a tough struggle, let me tell you.

So you're counseling election analysts?

Iactually, I agree with your comments on discussion and argumentation, even if I don't agree with your opinion about LotR's climax in the Shire. So, basically, you're wrong.

 

[David Howery]

I didn't really have a problem with the Dead at the Pelennor... it was another of PJ's shortcuts to keep the film length down. When he made the decision to not have the Dead attacking the Corsair ships in the theatrical film, having the Dead at Pelennor made sense... otherwise, there wouldn't have been any point to the whole 'going into the black mountain' scenario. Granted, he could have put the attack on the Corsairs into the film and then have the ships at Pelennor full of people instead of the Dead, but it would have strung out the movie for another 1/2 hour or so (sure, all of us here would like to have seen that, but it would have been death at the box office for the average movie goer).
Actually, I didn't have a lot of problems with ROTK in general, other than the scenes that were left out and will be in the EE (I was really looking forward to the witch king/Gandalf clash). My biggest beefs with the whole trilogy are all with TTT instead....

 

[Vocenoctum]

I didn't really have a problem with the Dead at the Pelennor... it was another of PJ's shortcuts to keep the film length down. When he made the decision to not have the Dead attacking the Corsair ships in the theatrical film, having the Dead at Pelennor made sense... otherwise, there wouldn't have been any point to the whole 'going into the black mountain' scenario. Granted, he could have put the attack on the Corsairs into the film and then have the ships at Pelennor full of people instead of the Dead, but it would have strung out the movie for another 1/2 hour or so (sure, all of us here would like to have seen that, but it would have been death at the box office for the average movie goer).

You can't show the attack on the boats, because it ruins the suspense of who's on the boats.

But, I think the Dead should have been more skeletal or something. They should have poured out and fought, another rally and the orcs could have broke and retreated when the witchking explodes.

Pouring across the wield and into the city was just too quick and bleh for me.

 

[KenM]

Some comments: - The worst part of RotK was the attack of the ghost-army, because it looked like a giagantic blob and made the sacifices of the Rohirim useless.
"Hey, there is an army that is several times larger than our and they have Mumakil. But we charge nonetheless." "Oops, how many Rohirim have died? sorry, why did you not wait, till my army of invincible ghosts did the job."
GRRRR.

The Rohirim had NO IDEA that the ghost army was coming. Last they saw of Aragorn was him going into the haunted mountin with Legolas and Gilmli.
I thought the look that Theoden/ Bernard Hill gave when he saw the Oliphents was perfect: "we flanked the orcs and took them out, but now a real challenge" was what I thought he was thinking.
Also there is a scene in RotK EE that has Aragorn and the dead army taking over the black ships.

 

[MerricB]

For those who want to see the Scouring of the Shire in the film:

Hobbits = Ewoks.

That's what it would have been - a huge let down. One of the reason that the Scouring means so much to us is because we've spent a huge amount of time reading about hobbits in the first chapters of the book.

Fatty Bolger, Lotho Sackville-Baggins, The Gaffer, Lobelia - they're all characters we've come to know.

You would have needed an extra two hours in FotR for a payoff in RotK - and an extra hour or two in RotK.

After the significant battles in RotK, we suddenly get to see little furry creatures take on the dregs of the Evil Empire...

Cheers!

 

[David Howery]

You can't show the attack on the boats, because it ruins the suspense of who's on the boats.

But, I think the Dead should have been more skeletal or something. They should have poured out and fought, another rally and the orcs could have broke and retreated when the witchking explodes.

Pouring across the wield and into the city was just too quick and bleh for me.

I think there will be more of this kind of stuff in the EE... I know that the battle is extended quite a bit. As for the Dead... the book describes them as shadowy dark figures... I wish the movie had made them darker instead of that ghastly greenish white, but they looked ok other than that...

 

[Orius]

I'm watching the end of Return of the King, and I'm just frustrated at the small mistakes. The trilogy was so good, up until the last hour or so. Then it was just pretty good, with lots of awkward moments that ruin the drama for me. Maybe the extended edition will help, but here's my list of irks:

The Steward of Gondor sprinting a quarter mile, while on fire, just so he can plummet from the top of Gondor. It would've been better if he'd just collapsed on the pyre.

Denethor portayed as some mad decadent Roman emperor through the whole film bugged me actually. In the book, he didn't lose it until the end, when he though Faramir was dead. Up to then, he resists Gandalf, not because he's mad with the lust for power, but becaus he doesn't trust Gandalf, who is after all, a free agent. The problem there is Denethor is so focused on the defense of Minas Tirith that he doesn't really consider the rest of Middle-Earth except for Rohan.

Sam not getting to put on the ring and kick ass while invisible, just because in the first movie they decided that Sauron immediately knows just where you are when you put on the ring. It's just not as interesting to have the Orcs and Goblins killing each other off again.

The orcs did kill themselves off in the tower in the book when they fought over Frodo's posessions. Sam simply snuck through the tower with the Ring. Likely they didn't have him use the Ring because it would undercut the dangers of using the ring especially while in Mordor.

One too many of Sam's "C'mon Mr. Frodo, we can make it" moments. Toward the end, instead of us seeing Frodo's burden (as we had earlier), he just seems like a wuss. If he were spasming, spitting up blood, and if Sam were just as injured and kinda emaciated, then yeah, I'd be cool with it. But as is, there's too much pep talk, not enough Hobbit action.

I chalk that up to more Hollywood sensibilities rearing their ugly heads again.

And the one that most irks me. Inviso-Frodo, at the end. They'd already established the really cool visuals of the gray, windswept world that appears when you put on the ring. It was cool when the Ringwraith stabbed Frodo on Weathertop, so why didn't they use it at the end of Return of the King? Why did they have Gollum swinging around in mid-air, looking goofy, when they could've shown some actual struggle, seeming epic because we're in the invisible world again?

This scene in the book is shown from Sam's POV, not Frodo's so we're given a description of Gollum wrestling with an invisible Frodo, instead of what Frodo sees. This scene is fairly faithful to the book. WHAT I thought was bad was Frodo pushing Gollum in, going over with Gollum, and Sam catching him. As bad as the stupid TTT scene with Aragorn going over the cliff.

 

[CrusadeDave]

Not to nitpick but...

Heaven knows I was one of the people emailing and calling studios when Peter and Fran were doing their whirlwind tour of Hollywood trying to get someone to buy the rights away from Miramax, and the ill-fated 2 movie deal.

I'll always love Bob Shaye for suggesting to Peter, "Why 2 movies? Aren't there 3 books?"

Looking back, I think this was a bad idea. Where the movies tend to crumble is where Peter, Fran, and Phillipa try to cram each book into a movie with a definite ending. What they should have done, is find the "natural" cliffhangers, and endings in the Novel, and structured the films that way.

For me, there are three natural breaks in the chronological story that make sense to craft movies around.

Movie 1: Starts at the beginning and ends with Gandalf falling into the chasm with the Balrog. You could move the idea of the Warg attack from TTT to before entering the Mines to better correlate with the book.

Movie 2: Starts with Frodo's Dream of Gandalf falling, proceeds to Rivendell, the river, the breaking of the fellowship (shortened a bit), and ends just After Helm's Deep (No Elves), and Frodo turning away from the Black Gate, agreeing to trust Golumn. This would be the longest of the 4 movies, probably by far.

Movie 3: Starts with the fall of Isengard from the Ents perspective, progresses through a tightened Faramir story (No Osgiliath kidknapping), Aragorn on Paths of Dead, Gandalf and Pippen in Minas Tirith, and ending with the worst series of clifhangers: The Gate of Minas Tirith Breaking, and Frodo kidknapped by Orcs, with Sam all alone.

Movie 4: Starts with Sam assaulting Tower and Pelennor Fields, and focuses more on the long march to death of Sam and Frodo.

Each of these four films then has it's own pace leading up to either a resolution (Rohan saved, Sam and Frodo make peace with Golumn, Aragorn King, Ring Destroyed), or a Cliffhanger (Gandalf Dead? What do they do now? Minas Tirith Falls? Frodo Captured? Wow!)

The end of Fellowship and Two Towers just don't seem to work. In fact, whenever Peter, Fran, and Phillipa invent something to add to the story in order to get the pacing and buildup right, it doesn't seem to work as well as what came before.

I'm not asking for 4 films the lengths of the EE DVD's. Instead, film necessitates telling this story as Appendix B does, chronologically. While I appreciate the creators desire to stay true to the book, by giving us three movies called Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King, I think they would have better served the telling of the story by focusing not so much as where Professor Tolkien decided to switch perspectives, but by what natural climaxes would work best building toward in each phase of the story.

Of course, noone would have ever, EVER thought to have done this in four parts before the fact. Heck, what would you have titled the second film: The Breaking of the Fellowship? The Ring goes South? The Riders of Rohan? Maybe you title the second film, Fellowship of the Ring, and call the first movie: Hunt for the Ring?

No Idea.

I'm very very greatful for my 11+ hours of Extended Edition movies. I never thought it would have been this good when the film was finally approved by New Line. I just feel that if Peter, Fran and Phillipa would have been able to look outside the box a bit, and look for the natural breaks in the story, the film as a whole could have been structured in a stronger way.

 

[KenM]

For me, there are three natural breaks in the chronological story that make sense to craft movies around.

Movie 1: Starts at the beginning and ends with Gandalf falling into the chasm with the Balrog. You could move the idea of the Warg attack from TTT to before entering the Mines to better correlate with the book.

Movie 2: Starts with Frodo's Dream of Gandalf falling, proceeds to Rivendell, the river

I Thought the river(when the water rises up and sweeps away the ringwraiths) and Rivendell is before Moria.