[SPOILERS] THE Return of the King Thread

[KidCthulhu]

Saw it three times in rapid succession over the holiday week. Favorite moments

1)Pippin singing to Denethor - I agree with barsoomcore that this was Billy Boyd's movie. We knew Sam would rock (and he did), but Pippin was a pleasant surprise. It was nice of PJ to recognize Pip's potential as an observer and everyman and use it to tell the story.

2) The moment when the Fellowship knew Frodo had succeeded, followed by their immediate realization of what this meant. Within seconds you had "Frodo's alive!" "Frodo did it!" "Frodo's dead". And in the extended version this will follow the Mouth of Sauron, making it all the more beautiful.

3) The charge. It's been said many times, but damn is that good.

4) Eowyn killing the Witch King. I agree that it wasn't everything I'd been hoping for, but my expectations were damn high.

I do love the Scouring of the Shire. But I didn't miss it here, and I really thought I would. The same precidents hadn't been set, because of the movie's subtle and not so subtle departures from the book. Sauron really is more of a central evil in the movie. To have him go, and then there still be trouble would rob the triumph, in the context of the film.

Also, in the book, you get more time between the wrenching emotions of Sam and Frodo's struggle, the desperate feint by the men of the West, and the fall of Sauron, and the Scouring. Chapters pass, full of coronations, weddings, judgements, trips to Rivendell. You have time to wind down. There really isn't that time in the movie, and it would really be hard on audiences to whip them around like that. It's pacing, rather than anything else.

Waiting for the EE for the Faramir/Eowyn stuff, the Mouth of Sauron, the Witch King/Gandalf scene, etc.

Apparently the Goonies monster Orc General is Gimli's boss monster, in a scene that will be restored in the EE. He wasn't forgotten.

 

[KidCthulhu]

Pezagent, just one more thought on the Deus Ex Machina thing. This literary device is considered hackneyed and trite by most literary critics, English professors and cognoscenti. In modern parlance, to use a Deus Ex Machina is to admit that you can't get out of the story any other way. I can see that you might feel that this implied criticism shouldn't be applied to JRR.

The Greeks (who may not have invented it, but certainly used it a lot), used the trick as proof that the gods are watching over the actions of man and will be there to reward the righteous and punish the wrong do-er. The gods appeared in the machine as an act of faith, and as a sign that all would be well if man did his best.

I belive that Tolkein, with his knowledge of literature, and his deliberate use of a very stylized technique in LoTR, was drawing on that Greek history with his inclusion of the Eagles. The Eagles didn't appear because Tolkein was a bad writer, who wrote himself in a corner. The Eagles appear because the forces of good needed help at the last minute, and the (figurative) gods were coming to make sure everything turned out ok.

Just my .02 cents, but perhaps this will sooth your objections. The Eagles are a Deus Ex Machina, but that is not necessarily bad.

 

[KenM]

Apparently the Goonies monster Orc General is Gimli's boss monster, in a scene that will be restored in the EE. He wasn't forgotten.

But they leave the elf's big fight scene in, dwarven discrimnation, I tell you.

 

[pezagent]

This post is a summary of comments relating to my posts. It should wrap-up the points I've already made. Where comments are appreciated, I still remain seated in my opinions, as there have been no convincing arguments for me to change position.

pezagent, I think the problem I see is that you consider everything after the climax of the story to be epilogue.

This is not true.

But, Sam & Frodo on the rock and being rescued to rejoin their companions in Rivendell is still denouement.

No, it's not. Sam & Frodo being rescued are part of the narrative--that this narrative is part of the story or plot is misinterpreted. Dénouement leads to the resolution of the plot, it doesn't summarize or clean it up.

The climax of the story has been reached, but our heroes lay dying... and the plot finally unravels to send them home.

The plot of LOTR
The plot of LOTR is to destroy the ring. The characters and thier lives are incidental to this. This does not make them unimportant to the reader/viewer, however. In speculative fiction it is better to develop characters outside of the plot, rather than create melodrama by having their development drive it. This is where most fantasy/sci-fi fails.

-----------------

Ah, but most novel-sized works have more than a single plot that needs resolving. Some plots may seem more important than others to you, but that doesn't mean they stop when what you consider the major plot is resolved. Thus, the narrative can continue on with plots you don't consider important--

If you're suggesting that LOTR has subplots I don't agree. The plot is quite clear in LOTR--that the ring of power must be destroyed.

If you're suggesting there are plots within LOTR that I've missed then please be my guest and point them out to me and we can discuss them.

The term dénouemenet, when used properly, suggests just this--that all twists and turns and mysteries created by the plot are revealed, untangled, and resolved. If plot isn't resolved it's nothing more than a case of bad writing--which brings us back to deus ex machina--divine intervention used to resolve plot.

One man's epilogue may be another's plot resolution.

Here you suggest that analysis is a matter of opinion. I don't agree. Plot resolution and epilogue are very clear distinctions within fiction--within the structure of drama itself. And the better the work, the easier it is to determine where these distinctions are made. LOTR is very easy to dissect. I submit that it is the lack of intermediate/advanced fiction theory that leads to misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

------------------

I think there is some confusion about who made you supreme god of literary terms, and which parts of each and every story fit each one

I don't think personal attacks are necessary. If you don't agree with what I have to say, make your point. I believe I've been very polite and patient in regards to peoples opinions about how fiction works. If you spent twenty years playing D&D and I came along telling you drarves and elves love each other I think you'd have something to say about it. Eh?

---------------------------

The eagles are partially deus ex machina, and partially explainable by old personal alliances.

I don't agree that the eagles are dues ex machina, I've made very good points why.

Does there need to be more agonizing over this very minor plot point than that? Tolkien could, for example, have easily had the lava flows miss the area where Sam and Frodo end up and have them walk to safety. In the end, the eagles have limited neccessary impact on the plot.

Once again, by the time the eagles arrive, the plot of LOTR has been resolved, they are not part of the plot. Plot is the story, created through conflict, told through narrative. Once the ring is destroyed, there's no more conflict. The plot is resolved. It couldn't be more clear than in the movie--all the bad guys are swallowed up by the earth.

------------------------------

Pezagent, just one more thought on the Deus Ex Machina thing. This literary device is considered hackneyed and trite by most literary critics, English professors and cognoscenti. In modern parlance, to use a Deus Ex Machina is to admit that you can't get out of the story any other way. I can see that you might feel that this implied criticism shouldn't be applied to JRR.

No, I have no defense for Tolkien. And one doesn't get out of story, one gets out of plot. Do you know how to end a story? You place The End where appropriate. Would you like to hear the world's shortest story? "Once upon a time, the end."

The Greeks (who may not have invented it, but certainly used it a lot), used the trick as proof that the gods are watching over the actions of man and will be there to reward the righteous and punish the wrong do-er. The gods appeared in the machine as an act of faith, and as a sign that all would be well if man did his best.

That's a very interesting, personal interpretation of Greek history. However, it's not what deus ex machina means.

I belive that Tolkein, with his knowledge of literature, and his deliberate use of a very stylized technique in LoTR, was drawing on that Greek history with his inclusion of the Eagles.

I think you're reaching for straws here to make your point. This requires more interpretation than is necessary. You're suggesting that Tolkein is using symbolism which has nothing to do with the concept of deus ex machina.

The Eagles appear because the forces of good needed help at the last minute, and the (figurative) gods were coming to make sure everything turned out ok.

An interesting interpretation--of symbolism. That's not deus ex machina. It's not clumsy, contrived, unexplainable, or related to resolving the plot or ending the story. It's something one would expect to find in speculative fiction.

Just my .02 cents, but perhaps this will sooth your objections. The Eagles are a Deus Ex Machina, but that is not necessarily bad.

I sincerely appreciate your attempts.

Unfortunately, I believe you have described the Eagles more as a form of symbolism than that of divine intervention. My objections against improper use of literary terms still stand where I sit.

/johnny

 

[Hypersmurf]

You expect me to believe that a man who created an entire Elven language wrote himself into a corner? I think you may have just put your foot in your mouth.

Uh, she said didn't.

As in "True/False: The eagles appeared because Tolkien wrote himself into a corner. A: False."

You're agreeing with her.

-Hyp.

 

[pezagent]

Uh, she said didn't.

As in "True/False: The eagles appeared because Tolkien wrote himself into a corner. A: False."

You're agreeing with her.

-Hyp.

My bad, it was a long post, apologies all around.

(eat snacky smores)
/johnny

 

[Napftor]

Umm, you do realize that PJ's end sequence was a heavily truncated version of the end sequence Tolkien wrote, don't you?

If you had read my original post, you might have noticed that I stated I had NOT read the books. So, umm, no.

Actually, the weakness in the Steward story was that not enough time was spent on it, and thus it because a very two-dimensional story without the depth that it should have had.

Fine. Take more time out of the god-awful ending.

Nazgul. Spell it right please.

Magic in Tolkien is more subtle than the D&D style fireball flinging you are used to. Perhaps you didn't realize that. Gandalf's main magical power is the power to inspire men to greatness.

Again, haven't read the books. Let's not get snippy on spelling. I didn't see any "Beware of Nazgul" signs in the movies. My ignorance of Gandalf's "power"...I'll point to my lack of Tolkein knowledge once again.

That would be because Soth was a literary imitation of the Witch-King. You would be more accurate to say that Soth had a Witch-King like air and appearance.

Since Weis and Hickman have mentioned several times that they gathered inspiration from LotR, I do not doubt this. It's a good thing the Dragonlance Chronicles are a lot more user-friendly. Improving on the original, as it were.

His nazgul? You do realize that the Witch-King is a nazgul don't you?

Nope. I figured those flying things were nazguls. After hours and hours of sensory overload, you tend to forget these things.

 

[Napftor]

Storm Raven - no, he doesn't. He said at the start of the message that he hasn't read the books. That's why he doesn't know how to spell Nazgûl. The movies only refer to the wraiths without their Fell Beasts as Nazgûl once, from memory - in FotR, when the hobbits first meet Strider. So it's not unfair for him to see Gondorians running away from Fell Beasts yelling "Nazgûl!", and associate the word with the big black dragonny things.

Reread his post with the understanding that he hans't read the books.

-Hyp.

Thanks, Hypersmurf. Wish I had continued reading down the last page before making my above rebuttals.

 

[pezagent]

I didn't see any "Beware of Nazgul" signs in the movies.

lol

PS... I thought inspire greatness was a bard ability, not a wizard's spell... (my attempt at D&D humor).

 

[WizarDru]

One may believe the definition of deus ex machina to be broad, however this doesn't give license to confuse bad narrative or inconsistency with divine intervention in regards to plot.

According to the New Heritage Dictionary:

1. In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.
2. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
3. A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

The eagles seem to fit definitions 2 and 3, to me.


Either way, I really enjoyed the movie. I plan to see it again in the theaters. That's about the best compliment I can pay it, and the only one that matters, in the end.