Grr. Return of the King makes me angry.

[Berandor]

I always thought the Nazgul were more like fear personified; always lurking in the shadows, always waiting for you to drop your guard. As soon as fear got a hold of you, they could harm and kill you, but if you stood your ground, they'd be not as bad as you make them out to be.

 

[Agback]

Last time I read Lord of the Rings was 7 years ago. Refresh me, please, on what this unmasked conspiracy is.

A Conspiracy Unmasked is the title of the chapter in which Merry and Pippin reveal that they know about the Ring and insist on going along with Frodo to help destroy it (or at least get it to Rivendell), while Fatty Bolger will remain in Crickhollow to keep up the pretence that Frodo is still about. It is the chapter that establishes Merry's and Pippin's gallantry and decency, and sets up the relationship between Frodo and his naif younger cousins.

I think it is chapter 4 of Book I, but it has been years since I read the monster and that might not be quite right.

It seems to me that the first chapter of the Lord of the Rings is not really part of the story. There is a gap of seventeen years between Bilbo going away and the story really starting. The Long-Awaited Party exists for three reasons (1) to give an intimation of the corrupting power of the Ring, (2) to provide a link with The Hobbit, and to allude to the Unexpected Party at the beginning of The Hobbit. The first is inconsistent with the moel of the Ring's corrupting power used in the film, and the other two are not germane to the film at all, there being no film version of The Hobbit to link or allude to. So if I were making difficult cuts for a film adaptation I would have cut the party (along with Tom Bombadil). But I would have kept the move to Crickhollow and the secret departure from the Shire, and preserved the original character of Merry and Pippin as brave young aristocrats.

 

[Agback]

'Chop'? 'CHOP?!' Come. On! I want menace. I want some slo mo, I want despair and defiance. I want drawn out, loving, camera angles. The Rohirrim fleeing at his dread approach - save Dernhelm/Eowyn who stands in his way against all reason. (And I mean ALL reason. Had the dawn not arrived and forced the Witch King to go rally his army, he might have slapped GANDALF all over the place). I want the fell beast's beheading in glorious technicolor. I want he Witch King's palpable moment of doubt as he realizes that there might be an unfortunate loophole in his predestined invincibility. I want the blow that shatters Eowyn's shield (and arm). I want Merry (also no 'man') wielding the enspelled sword of Westernesse (forged during the desperate war against Angmar over 1000 years earlier) and disrupting the foul magics binding the Witch King to his twisted unlife. I want the desperate thrust between 'crown and mantle' that dispatches him shown for what it was - the single biggest blow for the side of good anybody managed in the whole darn story.

And consequences: Just touching this guy with a weapon was so damaging as to be almost certainly fatal save for the intervention of the Returned King and his 'healing hands'...

But no. We got 'Chop', a weird little fizzle, and some odd visual effects. Not. Good. Enough.

Hear! Hear!

"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace."

"Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey. Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. Rather he will bear thee away to the House of Lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh will be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind left naked before the Lidless Eye."

"Do what thou wilt. But I will hinder it if I can."

"Hinder me? Thou fool! No living man can hinder me."

"But no living man am I. You look upon a woman! …"

One of the cool things about Tolkien's writing (which has its flaws, in my opinion) is that the characters are often aware of it when their are in an historical moment, and they take care to say something appropriately grand, and slip into archaism. Jackson's girlfriend's re-writes turn much of this into bland pap.

 

[Ranger REG]

You can criticize all you like. It still doesn't change my opinion of the movies. It pretty much redefines the fantasy film genre and put it on the map, what with getting the Oscar.

As for Theatrical vs. Extended Edition, I have both and I'm not ruined by either of them. I enjoyed them.

If you think you can make a better Tolkien film, then get the funding.

 

[mojo1701]

You can criticize all you like. It still doesn't change my opinion of the movies. It pretty much redefines the fantasy film genre and put it on the map, what with getting the Oscar.

As for Theatrical vs. Extended Edition, I have both and I'm not ruined by either of them. I enjoyed them.

If you think you can make a better Tolkien film, then get the funding.

Even though you didn't ask for it:

AMEN!

 

[velm]

All in all, I thought they were good movies. Sure they were a little on the long side, but the time went by fast, so I knew I was enjoying myself.
Must admit, never could get into the books, tried a few times, but it was murder. I actually knew what the story was about from reading here and there, and of course that super awesome cartoon.

The main part that got me to raise an eyebrow was watching Legleos slide down the tusks of the elephant thing, that was 'interesting.'

(and seeing some of the far away shots at the end of the hobbits in the end. You could tell clearly they were not the ones seen thoughout the rest of the movie.)

 

[nikolai]

"Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey. Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. Rather he will bear thee away to the House of Lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh will be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind left naked before the Lidless Eye."

"Do what thou wilt. But I will hinder it if I can."

One of the cool things about Tolkien's writing ... is that the characters are often aware of it when their are in an historical moment, and they take care to say something appropriately grand, and slip into archaism.

The thing I love about this Tolkien knows archaism, and knows the difference between thee and you. So thee isn't just there because it's archaic. It's used between people who are equals (which is friendly) or to inferiors (which is insulting), unlike you which is formal and respectful. So in the above quote Eowyn and the Witch King are both dissing each other. There's other similar examples; like where Eowyn uses thee to Aragon, but he's very keen to avoid sending out mixed messages and sticks with you.

 

[barsoomcore]

In LOTR, the greatest climax is (perhaps arguably) the destruction of the One Ring.

Well, one of us is definitely being unclear. I thought I stated earlier that I disagree with this basic premise. Hence all your argument based upon it is for naught.

My whole point is that IF you want to include the Scouring, you have to make THAT the climax of the story. HOW you go about doing that I don't exactly know, but I refuse to believe it's outright impossible.

The destruction of the One Ring must be one of the climaxes of the film.

Sez you. I say it ought to be a moment of high cinematic excitement, but it doesn't have to be the climax. Again, consider FotR (the movie). No question that the Balrog is bigger and badder and more exciting cinematically than the battle at the end. It's the BIG moment of the film -- that whole sequence from the tomb of Balin to the escape from Moria beggars everything that comes after it.

Which is perfectly fine. Lots of very successful films follow this pattern (just about all of Hitchcock's, for example. He always put his big moments in the middle of the film). Indeed, it works perfectly well in FotR.

I simply don't believe the best of spin doctors could change that, and still have the characters be plausible. I'm sorry, but it is in the nature of the beast that is film.

Do you use the term "spin doctor" to describe people who see things differently than you? Which I have to admit is a funny sort of position for someone who says in their very next post:

There is no one objective "this is what is important about this book".

I'm NOT talking about "spin doctoring" -- I just happen to hold a different opinion about what's important about the book than you. To suggest that your interpretation is the ONLY way in which a successful film could EVER be made is a pretty strong position to hold. I'd want to see some weighty evidence before I gave such an opinion a shred of respect. Especially one couched in such a dismissive manner. And especially one followed by the admission that there is no objective means of determining the superior interpretation.

About revealing Eowyn during RotK: it is a basic truism of cinema that suspense is always preferable to surprise. Hitchcock figured this out decades ago. So the correct play, cinematically, is for US (the audience) to know all along that Dernhelm is Eowyn. Keeping other characters in the dark is fine and dandy, but your suspense is heightened by giving the audience information the characters don't possess. Basic cinematic practice. Trying to pretend it wasn't Eowyn would have been counter-productive.

It's different for books. But in movies, always go for the suspense.

About Tolkien's comments on the books: There is no reason to consider an author a privileged commentator on their own work. The idea that what matters is the AUTHOR'S intent is hogwash. I mean, if you're curious, it's INTERESTING, fair enough. But when we decide what we love about a work, we are not obligated to follow the author's instructions in that regard. And the adapting of a novel to the screen is necessarily a process in which the adaptor takes what they love about the story and turns it into cinema. And in that process, other works written by the author are not necessarily going to provide useful input. It might be interesting to consult them, it might generate good ideas, but ultimately what makes a good film is independent of what the author of the book said was important.

Authorial intent? *SNAP* for authorial intent!

Finally, I must say that I find it interesting how people feel the need to declare that they won't let other people's opinions sway their own, and indeed attack people for holding opinions different than theirs. I happen to enjoy a pretty high level of critical debate on cinema. I don't mean to put anyone's nose out of joint or make them feel like they need to defend their choices. I just like talking about what went wrong in a film -- it's almost always more interesting than talking about what went right.

I don't think people are stupid because they disagree with me. It's unfortunate that this notion is so strongly put forward in our society -- that somebody has to be right and somebody has to be wrong whenever two people disagree -- and even worse, that it's proof of superior worth to be right rather than wrong.

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.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

My whole point is that IF you want to include the Scouring, you have to make THAT the climax of the story. HOW you go about doing that I don't exactly know, but I refuse to believe it's outright impossible.

Sez you. I say it ought to be a moment of high cinematic excitement, but it doesn't have to be the climax. Again, consider FotR (the movie). No question that the Balrog is bigger and badder and more exciting cinematically than the battle at the end. It's the BIG moment of the film -- that whole sequence from the tomb of Balin to the escape from Moria beggars everything that comes after it.

While I completely understand what you're saying, and I even like the Scouring in the book(even if it is a bit tacked on), there's a MAJOR difference between the destruction of the ring in RotK and the Balrog fight in FotR. Its okay to have the climax of FotR set in the 'middle' with the Balrog fight, as this is not the end of the story. Instead, its still very near the beginning. There IS a major problem with the Ring's destruction not being the 'climax'.

You spend three movies talking about how evil, corrupting, and dangerous the ring is. The entire GOAL of the story is to destroy this ring. When you have to spend all this time focusing on the destruction of this ring, you just plain can't have this NOT be the climactic moment. The story ENDS with the destruction of the ring. Everything after that is an epilogue that has no bearing on the story. The ring is destroyed, evil is defeated. End of story. Yes, this is simplistic, but that's the heart of it. And while you and I may enjoy the Scouring and understand how important it is in the context of the story, you just can't destroy the point of three movies halfway into the last and then say "Oh! Still more to do!" when the audience is looking for closure.

And in a way, this is also a good reason for Faramir's change. He was always my favorite character in the books, and I think he's great in the movies despite the change. But honestly, how do you go along through all of this building up the corrupting power of the ring and then find one person who just says "Nope! I'd never take that!" right away. It destroys any credibility you've built up. And to a point, destroying the Ring in the middle of RotK and adding more to the end destroys what you've worked for. Sure, its more realisitic to have a way of saying "Evil isn't destroyed so easily", but this is fantasy, and we don't always need to hold to Tolkien's depressive ending. ...not that the end of the movies were all that much happier, of course.

 

[billd91]

While I completely understand what you're saying, and I even like the Scouring in the book(even if it is a bit tacked on), there's a MAJOR difference between the destruction of the ring in RotK and the Balrog fight in FotR. Its okay to have the climax of FotR set in the 'middle' with the Balrog fight, as this is not the end of the story. Instead, its still very near the beginning. There IS a major problem with the Ring's destruction not being the 'climax'.

You spend three movies talking about how evil, corrupting, and dangerous the ring is. The entire GOAL of the story is to destroy this ring. When you have to spend all this time focusing on the destruction of this ring, you just plain can't have this NOT be the climactic moment. The story ENDS with the destruction of the ring. Everything after that is an epilogue that has no bearing on the story. The ring is destroyed, evil is defeated. End of story. Yes, this is simplistic, but that's the heart of it. And while you and I may enjoy the Scouring and understand how important it is in the context of the story, you just can't destroy the point of three movies halfway into the last and then say "Oh! Still more to do!" when the audience is looking for closure.

And in a way, this is also a good reason for Faramir's change. He was always my favorite character in the books, and I think he's great in the movies despite the change. But honestly, how do you go along through all of this building up the corrupting power of the ring and then find one person who just says "Nope! I'd never take that!" right away. It destroys any credibility you've built up.

I agree that the destruction of the Ring has to be a major climax in the movie trilogy since it is the event everything is working toward. But I don't agree that that's where the story truly ends, nor do I feel as if the Scouring of the Shire is tacked on. I see it as part of the falling action as we head to the denoument in the Grey Havens. I can see how it doesn't serve the purpose of the movie-going audiences though, and that PJ's shorthand version (the farmer noticing something is different about the hobbits riding into town) does a fine job of indicating that the hobbits have been transformed by their adventure, even if it doesn't really show us the full extent of the changes everyone has faced or, in the case of the Shire, had to suffer.
I still think Faramir could have been handled better. After all, both Gandalf and Galadriel resisted the Ring (with some difficulty). It could have been just as satisfying to see Faramir grapple the temptation as an internal conflict (handled by use of flashbacks and so on indicating his relationship with his old man, his general psychological affinity for elves and wizards, etc). The trip to Osgiliath still seems an unnecessary complication.