[SPOILERS] THE Return of the King Thread

[pezagent]

There isn't anything here about ending the story, although in ancient drama that certainly is what happened.

Resolving the plot=ending the story. Act III is up. The end.

The current meaning is more broad, as you see. So the eagles really are an example of deus ex machina, for good or ill.

I do not agree at all that the eagles are an example of deus ex machina. By the time the eagles arrive, the story has already ended. That's the end of act three--Frodo has accomplished his mission. Whatever happens after that is incidental, and can't contribute to the plot, because the story is over. The Eagles come to take them off Mount Doom after the plot has been resolved.

Also, the eagles are not unexplainable. Gandalf could summon Shadowfax, why couldn't he summon the Eagles? We've already seen them introduced in the first movie. As I stated before, just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean it's screwing with the plot.

So to say that the Eagles are an example of deus ex machina is not true, because the plot has already been resolved (the story is over) and their appearance can be explained.

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.

Regards,

/johnny

 

[Merlion]

So even though the diciniary says we were using the term correctly, we still werent cause you say so?
I am getting to the point where I wonder why I ever post here or anywhere else. The egos and bad attitudes and arrogance and nitpicking are just really making me wonder

 

[demiurge1138]

Something of note about RoTK. It seems to equate madness with eating.

Once Smeagol starts turning into Gollum (very, very mad), we see him catch and eat a fish with his bare hands. Then, in his self-narration, "we forgot the taste of bread" ranks right up with "we forgot the feel of sunlight". Then, later, Denethor eats while Pippen sings and Faramir nearly gets killed. It's the first scene where we really get thefeetling where he's passed from grief into insanity.

Just an observation.
Demiurge out.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Resolving the plot=ending the story. Act III is up. The end.



I do not agree at all that the eagles are an example of deus ex machina. By the time the eagles arrive, the story has already ended. That's the end of act three--Frodo has accomplished his mission. Whatever happens after that is incidental, and can't contribute to the plot, because the story is over. The Eagles come to take them off Mount Doom after the plot has been resolved.

No, the story has not ended. The story has reached its climax. They are not the same thing.

After the climax, the story continues with the denouement. Jackson's denouement is just longer than is used in most movies. That's OK. Tolkien's denouement was also longer than most. That too, is OK. It's a perfectly valid and acceptable literary device. Also a valid and acceptable motion picture device. Certainly most studios don't allow their directors to use such a lengthy denoument, but this is a special movie and movie trilogy, so indulgences are allowed.

 

[reapersaurus]

Finally got to see RotK:

Thoughts:

• Smeagol was a bit too much like Gollum to begin with for my tastes, and Deagol and Smeagol were too cartoony as well.
• I'm surprised noone's mentioned the horrendously obvious stand-ins this go-round. In at least 5 occasions, I noticed that the stand-ins for the hobbits were being shown on film, not the actors. The way they walked, their hair - one or 2 times they showed the stand-in's FACE!
  Boo. :thumbsdown:
  I hope they digitally correct those scenes for the EE. It threw me out of the scene every time 'some short dude' was shown as a Hobbit.
• I didn't buy the orcs conveniently fighting and killing each other (almost) to the last man to allow Sam to waltz into the teeth of Mordor unmolested.
• They SHOULD have explained Denethor's behavior. Him having and using a Palantir is too important to leave out. His behavior doesn't make sense based solely on the movie.
• Denethor couldn't have been put out the way he was ("Rohan Betrayed me!") if he was against the lighting of the fires.
• The Shore where Bilbo and Frodo get on the boat seemed awfully "built-up" and constructed to me. I never pictured the dock being that big and established, with a city around. Always thought it was more arboreal.
• They missed an unbelievably important line about Eowyn that would have wrapped up her movie story:
  When Theoden was dying, he has something like, "I go to meet my ancestors in the Great Hall - I am not ashamed at joining them, blah blah..."
  All he had to add there was something like, "We will be waiting for you to join us when your day comes."
  That line would have accomplished 3 things:
  1) It would have added emotional resonance to the father/daughter scene.
  2) It would have payed off the scenes that they had built up Eowyn's character wanting (more than anything) "glory and renown".
  3) It would have further cemented the 'heroic' ideal' that the movies spent time creating - that all these great stories, with people heroically dying for noble causes, etc etc etc.

Of all the nitpicks, I'm flabbergasted that the writer's missed the Eowyn line of her joining the heroes of their people.
It was RIGHT THERE in front of them and they missed it. In fact, it was SO there, I thought (when watching the scene) that it had almost been telegraphed with TTT Eowyn scenes and the 'heroic story' sub-plot.
It's like they set the ball up on a Tee, and then whiffed the swing.

Things I had no problem whatsoever with:

• Legolas vs the Oliphant. Not cheezy. Very cool.
• Sauron's spotlight. Not cheesy. How else would you want it to be shown?
• What's so wrong about the "Arwen being linked to the fate of Middle Earth" bit? I'm not seeing how that's so bad - it's just one small dialogue trying to involve a character that couldn't be present.
• I'm glad they didn't show The Scouring of the Shire.

Other than the first list of things, I thought the movie was amazing. Easily the best movie ever made, and I say that with no hyperbole or overblown intent.

 

[Storm Raven]

I didn't buy the orcs conveniently fighting and killing each other (almost) to the last man to allow Sam to waltz into the teeth of Mordor unmolested.

I assume that means you didn't buy this plot turn when it happened in the books either?

The Shore where Bilbo and Frodo get on the boat seemed awfully "built-up" and constructed to me. I never pictured the dock being that big and established, with a city around. Always thought it was more arboreal.

It's been an elven settlement for millenia. In Tolkien, many elves build huge cities. The greatest elven city in Middle Earth history was entirely underground. The association of elves exclusively with trees is foreign to Tolkien.

They missed an unbelievably important line about Eowyn that would have wrapped up her movie story:
When Theoden was dying, he has something like, "I go to meet my ancestors in the Great Hall - I am not ashamed at joining them, blah blah..."
All he had to add there was something like, "We will be waiting for you to join us when your day comes."

No. That's a silly line. Because Eowyn's experience doesn't make her desire valor. It makes her desire peace and home. She turns away from the path of a the shield maiden after the Battle of Pellinore Fields.

That line would have accomplished 3 things:
1) It would have added emotional resonance to the father/daughter scene.

He's not her father. She's not his daughter.

2) It would have payed off the scenes that they had built up Eowyn's character wanting (more than anything) "glory and renown".

Except it would have completely voided the character development of Eowyn, who gives up the quest for glory and renown to accept responsibility and duty instead. She starts as a glory seeking adolescent and ends up as an adult. Changing the end result of her character development to adolescent wish fulfillment would destroy the power of her story arc.

3) It would have further cemented the 'heroic' ideal' that the movies spent time creating - that all these great stories, with people heroically dying for noble causes, etc etc etc. Of all the nitpicks, I'm flabbergasted that the writer's missed the Eowyn line of her joining the heroes of their people.
It was RIGHT THERE in front of them and they missed it. In fact, it was SO there, I thought (when watching the scene) that it had almost been telegraphed with TTT Eowyn scenes and the 'heroic story' sub-plot.
It's like they set the ball up on a Tee, and then whiffed the swing.

No. It's like you completely missed the point.

The people heorically dying for noble causes did so because it was their duty and responsibility to fight and possibly die, not because they were seeking glory and renown. Eowyn's desire for glory is exactly counter to the actions of most of the other individuals in the story, since her desire is for self-aggrandizement, whereas the desires of other "combatants" in the story is for the defense of others.

Being remembered in song is not the goal of Tolkien's heroes, it is a side effect of doing what is right. Remember the line in TTT where Aragorn says "there will come a time for valor without renown"? The main heroes of the story would still step up and fill the breach under those conditions. By the end of her story line, Eowyn realizes that she should as well.

 

[Storm Raven]

No, I did not have an emotional reaction. I wept during the first movie but there was so much more time with the characters together as a fellowship then. RotK was...just so back and forth. And I also remember wondering why Sam could not just throw in the Ring on his own. So what if it was "Frodo's task?" The fate of the world was riding on them. Sam would not have minded if Frodo took the credit should that circumstance have occured.

Frodo wouldn't let Sam take the Ring (one he had it in his possession) because he was under the power of the Ring and wouldn't let anyone else have it willingly. Frodo wouldn't let Sam carry the Ring for the same reason that Gollum desperately wanted to get his hands on the Ring: it creates a desire in those around it to possess it, and makes them paranoid that everyone around them will want to take it from them.

Further, it was Frodo's task because Galadriel had seen that it was. Remember, powerful elves have precognition in the story. They can see the future, and based upon those visions, they guide others. Galadriel has pronounced that it is Frodo's task, because she has foreseen that it is. And because she foresaw that, the prophecy she foretold comes true.

 

[Storm Raven]

PJ: "Oh. Well in that case, let's just tack some scenes onto the end. Oh I know. Bilbo and Frodo can go along with the elves on their magical journey! Hmm...a gratuitous return to the Shire's tavern and Sam's wedding will spend the money nicely as well."

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

Certainly glad the good guys won and all, but could we lose the new subplot with Faramir and his father please? The demented steward of Minas-Tirith's story wasn't worth the film time it was given. Blech. Didn't mind the repeat bashings he received from Gandalf though.

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.

Speaking of which, where the hell was the magic? So he casts a light spell on the nasguls? Don't strain yourself.

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.

EDIT: Forgot about the witch-king. Very cool with a Soth-like air and appearance.

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.

Great promise with his line about Gandalf, "I will break him." And then his coolness is truck down in an instant. I'm not upset at the circumstances of his demise, only in the fact that his nasgul killed more people than he did.

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

 

[pezagent]

No, the story has not ended. The story has reached its climax. They are not the same thing.

A story ends when the plot is resolved. That a story must reach a "climax" is formula, not fact. That the narrative may continue beyond the story--outside of it--does not mean the story is brought with it. The end is the end.

Yes, the story ends when the ring is destroyed. This is the plot that carries the entire series--that the ring must be returned to Mt. Doom and destroyed. The plot line is introduced within the first ten minutes of the first movie.

The story becomes complex because it describes just how much is at stake if the ring is not destroyed.

The "fight" with Golumn at the end is the cinematic climax (as Douglas Bauer calls them "high events" in fiction writing) not Sam and Frodo sitting on a rock afterwards. That Sam lives to see the Shire again, that Frodo finishes his book and leaves the Shire are not part of the story. The narrative continues into epilogue, but the story is over.

In cinematic structure it is unusual to have an epilogue--there's just not enough time for it--but that would best describe the last part of ROTK as it mimics the fictional structure is was based on in regards to narrative.

After the climax, the story continues with the denouement.

This is not true. Perhaps one has confused dénouement with epilogue.

Dénouement refers to the final "unraveling" of the plot--not what happens after the resolution of the plot. It may be the final conflict, or the conclusion of events that leads to the ending of the story. It literally means "untying".

Narrative after the plot is resolved is epilogue, not dénouement.

Perhaps there is confusion about plot and story--and narration. Plot is the story. Plot is introduced, revealed, and resolved through narration. Narration, however, is not story. And story is not plot. (That explaination should clear up any confusion.)

The lingering effects events have after the story ends--after the plot has been resolved--is icing on the cake. It exists only to give the readers (audience) peace of mind. To ease them from the ending and help them let go. Wherever one can place "and they lived happily ever after" will mark the end of a story. In ROTK, one could just as well put it right after the ring is destroyed: "And the ring was destroyed, and they all lived happily ever after." Acceptable? Yes. Captivating? Not really.

That the movie goes on to describe how they managed after the story is appropriate closure--as you have mentioned--because the story was complex, and to have ended it without sentimental closure would have surely created disappointment. But it is narrative--a summation--not actual story, that we are watching.

/johnny

 

[Kesh]

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

Now, I agree that RotK does have an epilogue. A really, really long one. But, Sam & Frodo on the rock and being rescued to rejoin their companions in Rivendell is still denouement. The climax of the story has been reached, but our heroes lay dying... and the plot finally unravels to send them home.

After that, I agree that it's epilogue. The scene of them entering the Shire, drinking, etc. is 'extra' story to help provide full closure.

Now, as to other postings about 'why didn't Sam take the ring', there are two reasons. One has been mentioned: Frodo didn't want to give up the ring, because it had some influence over him. However, and more importantly, he didn't want to give it to Sam because he knew first hand how corrupting the ring was, and didn't want Sam to suffer the way he had.