[SPOILERS] THE Return of the King Thread

[Storm Raven]

About the orcs killing EVERYONE off (except 4), yes - it's stupid and doesn't work in the book as well if that's the way it exactly goes down. Does Sam just waltz right into the fortress, or does he use the Ring in the book?

In the books, Sam uses the ring, but doesn't kill many orcs doing so. The orcs kill each other off. They were orcs from two different groups (some were orcs from Minas Morgul, and some were orcs from Barad-Dur) and they fight over Frodo's belongings. By the time Sam gets into the tower, all but a handful are dead, and Sam mops up. Effectively, the sequence in the movie is virtually identical to the sequence in the books, which works okay, since it is established that orcs do that sort of thing.

About the missed line re: Eowyn-
I think we should first decide whether to couch the discussion in the context of the movies, or the books.
Because unless I'm mistaken, just about everything you responded was in the context of the books, NOT the movie.

Umm, no. The line I quoted from Arargon was in the movie TTT, not the book. There are several points in the movies where the responsibility of duty is emphasized. Most of the heroes in the movie aren't hoping for glory and renown, especially not Theoden, who is convinced that everyone is going to die and there aren't going to be any more songs anyway. They do what they do because they are convinced that it is their responsibility to do so.

As I saw it, your interpretation is not correct with regards to Eowyn from what's presented in the movie.

You didn't watch the movies very closely then.

The movies were quite clear about heroes performing heroic actions in defense of what's Good.

No, the movies were quite clear about doing one's duty. Every hero in the movie is doing what he does ultimately because he believes it is the right thing to do. Aragorn accepts the responsibility of kingship, Theoden accepts the duty to protect his people and come to Gondor's aid, Faramir accepts his duty to obey his father's wishes, Gandalf accepts his responsibility to rally the people's of Middle Earth. Those who shirk their duty, lose. Boromir swears an oath to protect Frodo and betrays it, and dies. Saruman betrays his duty to oppose Sauron, and is replaced and defeated. All of this is in the movies.

The movies were also clear that Eowyn yearned for a chance to prove herself on the battlefield and earn renown. They never showed what you described that I saw. They even showed her "Father" (I know he isn't her direct father, but I used "Father/Daughter" for ease of typing) repeatedly being concerned over his legacy, playing the hero role, Glory, etc.I assume you watched the movies closely, so I'm confused how your reading of Eowyn's character can be so different from mine.

Except that Theoden is explicitly not concerned about his legacy, because he thinks that everyone is going to die. Thus there will be no legacy. He says this on multiple occassions in the movies. His is concerned about whether he has done the right thing, since he will be judged in the afterlife. Not about glory and renown, but about duty.

Eowyn's quest for glory is counter to the actions of the other characters. Theoden goes to battle because he believes it his responsibility to do so, and he says this. Eowyn goes to battle for selfish personal reasons.

Further, she didn't HAVE to give up her desire for renown in the movie - she GOT IT.
That's the purpose for my suggested line. To echo the quite-clear subplot (to me) in memorable words directly from her "Father" as he's dying, in the middle of the battlefield. It was set up for the line, they just missed it.

But that would be reqarding her for doing something that is not right. Everyone else goes to battle for duty's sake. She goes to battle for personal glory. She's in the wrong there, Theoden isn't going to reward her by talking about how she has won glory, especially since he dies thinking that no one is getting glory, only duty and death. You should review the movies, since you clearly missed the point of many characters.

 

[Merlion]

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?

I also have a problem when someone talks to me like an ignorant child, which is what you are doing to us all intended or not. You've been shown a dictionary defition of the term that fits the way it was used by myself and other posters, and you still essentialy insist "you used it wrong because I say so". Thats bound to eleicit some unfavorable reactions.

 

[Storm Raven]

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

In that case, you should not be surprised to find out that film adaptations of books usually contain many elements of those books. In this case, the film adaptations contains a resolution ending the story that is longer than the ending of a He-Man episode.

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

The ending was necessary to resolve the themes of the movie. Just because you didn't pay enough attention to understand sdoesn't make the ending "god-awful". Mostly it just makes you poorly read.

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.

It is shown in the movies that Gandalf has power over men's hearts. But I think your main quibble is that you have a D&D inspired view of what a "wizard" should do. I expect you think he should have been flinging fireballs and casting "power word, kill".

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.

Given that you (by your own admission), haven't read the LotR books, exactly how do you come to the conclusion that the Dragonlance books are more "user friendly"? I would say that the Dragonlance books are more juvenile and less interesting overall, since they are basically pulp fantasy at best. But I don't think they are any more "user friendly" so long as you are literate enough to read without moving your lips.

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

Given that the ringwraiths were introduced as the nazgul (note, nazgul is both plural and singular, there is no word such as nazguls), it seems odd that you didn't note this. When something is explicitly introduced and described with a particular name, I generally think one would remember what that name is attached to.

 

[Merlion]

I would really like to see some moderator involvement in this thread. Several people really need to learn how to talk to other people without insulting their intelligence

 

[pezagent]

According to the New Heritage Dictionary:
1. 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.

Fine, we'll play by dictionary.

Can you explain how the eagles are unexpected, artificial, improbable, or how they were introduced suddenly when they were introduced in the first film? Can you explain what part of the plot they are resolving?

Let's try this one:

3. A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

Were the eagles unexpected? How else would you suggest Frodo and Sam get off the mountain? Like nobody here saw this coming? Please. Was it a sudden solution? Did Frodo and Sam not accept their fate and did not enough time pass before the eagles appeared--with Gandalf? Did not enough time pass before one could actually realize that the eagles were an obvious choice to appear to save them from their fate, not the plot itself?

(If one can't see this term is erroneous by now I'm not sure there's any hope... )

And to get deep into it, Frodo and Sam have reached their end--they actually think they're going to die. They have accepted their fate. If they were actually looking for a way off Mt. Doom I might actually agree that it was contrived and ill-suited--almost convenient, but as they have accepted their fate it is yet another mark that the story has ended. Was there not enough character development and "bonding" thoughout the film to suggest Gandalf would come up with a solution to find them and bring them to safety?

Please.

Again, because one cannot suspend disbelief and accept the eagles as is does not give one justification to point out literary fallacy.

People seem to enjoy pointing out the dictionary to defend their POV, however, in this case I find this to be trite. To quote Lisa Simpson: "Yes, I'm going to marry a carrot." How about quoting an established literary critic or professor on the matter? A dictionary defines terms within the context they are meant to exist within--what I mean is, I agree with the definition, however I think people are taking it too far out of context. If we like, Webster's offers a more precise and acceptable definition:

1 : a god introduced by means of a crane in ancient Greek and Roman drama to decide the final outcome
2 : a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty

Once again, how the hell would you get Frodo and Sam off the mountain? If you didn't expect this outcome, what did you expect? This is a perfectly acceptable solution to their problem--and again, as they had accepted their fate, they didn't even have a problem to begin with. Only the viewer, the self-serving audience, wishes them to survive. This, in itself, should be enough to let one know that deus ex machina is not at work here.

This is the point I'm trying to get across, a point that's being passed over for the sake of sentiment. Which is not all bad--it means the narrative did it's job and allowed the audience to be more concerned with the characters than the actual plot. Which, considering the plot, was most likely Tolkien's intention.

Perhaps this definition might help those in need of mental assistance:

From some guy someplace somewhere who's thoughts were accessible to me in a bind:

In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a deus ex machina.

Few modern works feature deities suspended by wires from the ceiling, but the term deus ex machina is still used for cases where an author uses some improbable (and often clumsy) plot device to work his or her way out of a difficult situation. When the cavalry comes charging over the hill or when the impoverished hero is relieved by an unexpected inheritance, it's often called a deus ex machina.

I liked this definition because it includes the word clumsy, which is how one should recognize it. Clumsy. The author doesn't know what to do, so an act of God, some divine intervention, steps in and relieves the hero of any redeemable action. That is deus ex machina. Not some misunderstood or inconsistent or subjective bit of narrative, be it cinematic or literary.

The thing about deus ex machina is that you'll know it when you see it--it's obvious, blatant--and there wouldn't be a debate over it. If you want to see dues ex machina in action, rent a copy of Magnolia. The only film I know of to date that takes the concept literally and uses it on purpose. For those who haven't seen the movie I won't reveal what happens.

And as I seem to have exhausted this conversation for the sake of argument, to those who still disbelieve, I can only say this: bite me.

/johnny

PS. I have a pet theory that the defense of deus ex machina comes from it's improper use presented in the DMG. I was very annoyed a few weeks ago when I purchased a copy and saw it used in the Adventures section. Used in this manner I believe it's become more of a shibboleth to gamers who now seem to use it frivolously.

 

[Piratecat]

I love shibboleths, especially when they secrete mucous to let their slaves breath underwater. There are few underdark monsters to top them.

And now that that bad pun is out of the way, let's try to be less condescending, folks. It's possible to express your views without denigrating others. Please try to do so.

Incidentally, the Report a Post link is just above the "profile" button in every post; it's the best way to get the attention of a moderator.

 

[Merlion]

Thanks Piratecat

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I would really like to see some moderator involvement in this thread. Several people really need to learn how to talk to other people without insulting their intelligence

No . That's why I pulled out of the conversation.

 

[Morrus]

Just to reiterate what PC has said - this is a fascinating thread, with some great debate and discussion in it. There's also some unpleasant snippiness and pedantry. Let's try and be nice to each other, eh? After all, nearly all of us agree that RotK is a friggin' great movie!

On the ending - I agree that it was too long. I don't feel that it made for good cinema (I had no problem with it in the books), and actually felt a bit bored for the last 10 minutes or so. I agree that it could have been shortened (even re-written, since the Scouring was omitted) and that Saruman could have been added back in, along with some other bits and pieces. That said, I still think that it is fantastic film.

Thinking back, the bits which struck me most were:

1) The charge of the Rohirrim. I actually felt a shiver go down my spine at that moment.

2) Shelob. Now that was just incredible.

3) Pretty much the whole of the battle. Looked and felt incredible!

Some things I thought were less strong:

1) I felt that there were some moments which were just too cheesy. The bit where they all join Frodo in his bedroom made me cringe.

2) Sam going into the tower to rescue Frodo. Yeah, I know that happened in the book, but actually seeing it realised on screen made it seem a bit silly to me.

3) Elrond showing up etc.

4) The army of the dead. They arrive, there's a long shot of a green "glow" swarming over the bad guys for about 5 seconds, and the battle is over. Very anti-climatic for me, as battle-endings go.

5) Nazgul. I didn't get this impression from the books, but, again, seeing it onscreen made some things more "apparent" to me. The Nazgul don't really seem much of a threat - Aragorn drives them off easily in the first film, one of the fellbeasts is hit by a single arrow and flees in TTT, and the Witch King confrontation is too darn easy. His fell beast, in particular, was about as much threat as a tabby cat. I'd like (blasphemy!) PJ to have rewritten the Nazgul to make them much more formidable than they actually were.

6) Gimli still too much of a comedy figure, something which has bothered me through all three movies. Also, in TTT when he had a score of 2 and Legolas had 19 - how on earth did he catch up? Did Legolas just slow down to give him a chance, deciding that his 19 orcs/10 seconds hit rate was too fast to make for fair competition? Or should the two have been prtrayed as more equal all the way through, as in the books?

I like what they did with Denethor, although I feel it should have been explained a little better. I also feel that, despite my reservations with Faramir's portrayal in TTT, the whole arc with him works perfectly, despite being different from the books.

I've only seen the movie once (I'm going back tomorrow), but I feel that PJ improved on the books in some places, and did most of it the justice it deserved. Only occasionally did he fall short in my opinion, and in some of those cases I felt he should have actually rewritten stuff to improve it, as it wasn't written with the cinema in mind. In other cases, of course, I felt that he'd rewritten stuff for no reason (Aragorn falling off the cliff and then coming back again in TTT. Wait, didn't that same thing happen to Gandalf, what, 20 minutes agoi? Disn't work at all for me).

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

6) Gimli still too much of a comedy figure, something which has bothered me through all three movies.

I've been re-reading the books over the past couple of months(just got to Minas Tirith), and I was surprised to notice that Gimli is portrayed almost the same. Yes, the movie has him a bit more as the comic relief...but he was the same in the book. Or at least...that's the impression I got as I re-read through Two Towers.