LOTR:TT:EE Appendices Disc 3. Discussion of Tolkein

[The Mirrorball Man]

RotK is the only movie that I watched in 2003 that I wish I had not seen.

A partial list of movies I have seen in 2003 (most of those that closed in the top ten at least one week in 2003); Chicago, About Schmidt, Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, Just Married, The Recruit, How to Lose a Guy In 10 Days, Daredevil, Shanghai Knights, Old School, The Jungle Book 2, Gods and Generals, Anger Management, Bulletproof Monk, Phone Booth, Bringing Down the House, Head of State, View from the Top, The Hunted, Charlie's Angels 2, The Hulk, Finding Nemo, Bruce Almighty, 28 Days Later, The Italian Job, The Matrix Reloaded, X-Men 2, The In-Laws, Bend it Like Beckham, Freaky Friday, Open Range, Pirates of the Caribbean, Terminator 3, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Legally Blonde 2, Mystic River, School of Rock, Kill Bill, Lost in Translation, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Underworld, Secondhand Lions, The Last Samurai, Elf, Master and Commander, The Matrix Revolutions.

Hey, what about Gigli?

 

[Camarath]

Hey, what about Gigli?

I did not see that movie so I really can't say.

 

[Camarath]

But those?

Come on...

Each of those movies gave me at least a tiny bit of joy. I can not say the same about Return of the King.

Although to be completely honest the Zerg Rush did bring me a flicker of amusement. I can just hear the text now.

Lord_Sauron: WTF you said no Rush
Aragorn: Zerg Rush kekekekeke
Lord_Sauron: Damn Koreans
Lord_Sauron has left the game.
Aragorn:

 

[Wombat]

My impression of this section of the disc, as several others have mentioned in one way or another, is that Tolkein did everything "wrong" from a standard commercial and editing viewpoint, but that the whole of the work was fantastic even in the face of conventional wisdom -- in other words LotR is "bad" in the same was Casablanca is bad -- it breaks all the rules, yet is absolutely amazing, so sometimes it is wise not to listen to experts.

I also began to understand more directly the difference between "what works on paper" vs. "what works on the screen" in this section. No, I don't agree with every change Jackson made to the story, but I did and do feel that he has made a fantastic film.

In many ways, I compare Jackson's LotR to Reiner's The Princess Bride -- there are many individual sections that are changed, even quite drastically, but the spirit of the work remains wholly intact.

 

[Wormwood]

LotR is a great story and I've read it multiple times, but even I can admit that it bogs down in parts (Tom Bombadil, long poems about elves that died eons ago, etc).

Proving that the term 'Crunch vs. Fluff' has not outlived it's usefulness.

Lord_Sauron: WTF you said no Rush
Aragorn: Zerg Rush kekekekeke
Lord_Sauron: Damn Koreans
Lord_Sauron has left the game.
Aragorn:

LOL.

Zerg rush is precisely the term I think of whenever I see MASSIVE™ in action.

Impressive, yes . . . but obvious and overdone (Dare I say garish?).

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, it goes to show... even the most wisest critics among us (you know who you are) cannot tell. It all boils down to individual taste.

Maybe if Tolkien hadn't wrote LOTR back in the days, it would not have been greenlighted through the modern editors and publishers of today, who as someone says, were college-taught there is one "right" way to write a fictional story.

What matters is your own opinion, and take others with a grain of salt.

Oh, and stop comparing the film version with the original book version. It only gives you a headache.

 

[reapersaurus]

To me, they basically mirrored my thoughts: the books have a good story concept, re-invented mythology, and have the occasional well-written line of dialogue or clever idea BUT the actual story-TELLING is incredibly weak, flawed, and tedious.

Exactly my thoughts, as well.

But I also caught some of what Sigil was mentioning, too (somewhat). That the story succeeded despite not doing it "right".

I think that featurette (one of the best featurettes I've ever seen, bar none, BTW) did a fantastic job of showing how the original work did things unconventionally, and this created some real problems when attempting a film version, and showed what they had to do to surmount those obstacles.

The fact that the purists HAVEN'T come out of the woodwork to virtually stone the EE for such blasphemy (pointing out the problems with the original work) shows that the featurette has merit.

Personally, I loved when the featurette had scholars pointing out the things Tolkein did "wrong." I've felt that for 20 years now, but never had such a well-explained, fact-based record showing exactly what I felt so many years.

 

[DMScott]

What is the general feeling on the screenwriters and Tolkein scholars using such flattering phrases such as "hundreds of pages where nothing happens" and "not the way a professional writer would write" ?

When LOTR was first published, it was panned by many critics who predicted it would bomb, and there was utter shock in many circles when it ended up doing so well. It still gets attacked by critics, but now because it's popular. Literary snobs would prefer everyone plow through something like Joyce's "Ulysses".

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Literary snobs would prefer everyone plow through something like Joyce's "Ulysses".

And what's wrong with that? I'm sure there's more than enough room in the literary world for two great books like LOTR and Ulysses.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

How can anyone think The Fellowship is a tedious book? It's easily the best book of the series! Now the Two Towers has a few moments of boredom when Sam & Frodo take center stage, but they aren't long lasting.