The offical ENWorld The Return of the King Extendend Edtion DVD reaction thread.

[dravot]

I thought that Tolkien abhorred a vacuum.

 

[Talmun]

Tolkien didn't say he "abhorred analogy", he said he abhorred allegory. Middle-Earth being saved by the grace of God (more specifically, in the personification of Eru) is not allegory. Learn what your literary terms mean before you start trying to discuss what Tolkien meant or did not mean.

My point, regardless of incorrect terminology, stands. You are looking at someone else's interpretation of Tolkein's work and criticizing it because it doesn't highlight what you see there. There is no evidence, beyond the fact that Tolkein was Catholic, that Eru and the Judeo-Christian idea of God are meant to be the same.

There is nothing wrong with not liking someone else's point of view, but that hardly makes their point of view wrong.

 

[Talmun]

I just got the gift set at lunch. The Minas Tirith model is nice, very detailed. It opens up to reveal a small, round dish. They call it a "keepsake compartment" I guess for ticket stubs and what-not. Still, very nice.

 

[reapersaurus]

Which misses the point of the story completely. And thus, is a stupid reason to make a change. Middle-Earth is saved by the grace of God, not by the hand of man (or hobbit) no matter how humble. Making that change transforms the story into a boring and mundane "adventure" tale. It isn't. And shouldn't be.

Let me get this straight.

a) You actually believe that PJ should have made a LotR film trilogy which made it clear that it was God's will that caused everything to happen?

b) Even though that's not made clear in Tolkein's books?

(don't concentrate on b) and ignore a), please)

 

[Storm Raven]

My point, regardless of incorrect terminology, stands. You are looking at someone else's interpretation of Tolkein's work and criticizing it because it doesn't highlight what you see there. There is no evidence, beyond the fact that Tolkein was Catholic, that Eru and the Judeo-Christian idea of God are meant to be the same.

Wrong. We have Tolkien's own words to guide us on that score, and he's pretty clear. For example, he explicitly said so:

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally Catholic and Religious work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and symbolism.

and

It is about God, and his sole right to Divine Honour. The Eldar and the Númenoreans believed in the One...

As to the scene at Sammanth Naur, Tolkien had a very clear idea of what the meaning of the events as they played out symbolized:

He [gollum] did rob him and injure him in the end - but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at the precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one could have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself and relieved of his burden. He was very justly accorded the highest honours...

and

Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely [as an instrument of Providence] and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved.

There is nothing wrong with not liking someone else's point of view, but that hardly makes their point of view wrong.

It does, when their point of view contradicts the author's own words cocnerning the meaning he intended to convey.

 

[Storm Raven]

a) You actually believe that PJ should have made a LotR film trilogy which made it clear that it was God's will that caused everything to happen?

Given that this was what Tolkien intended, leaving in the scenes in which the point is driven home would have made sense.

b) Even though that's not made clear in Tolkein's books?

It is very clear, if you pay attention when you are reading the books. It is made undeniable when you read Tolkien's letters about the books.

 

[Truth Seeker]

Okay, there seems to be major differences of opinion, on what should or shoud not have been seen in the movies.

Sidepoint:The last 6 threads, have remanents of religious overtones, just a word of caution, don't take it to a point of one-sided view, or this thread will be closed.

Now, given the fact, I did say something before about translating such material from a well establish source, is near virtually impossible to do, for film.

If PJ has miss the point, as discussed by some, it is known, and said, doing all the books in a movie format, would make it boring, who in your opinion could have done the job better or bring to light, the theme of the entire series.

Who would have fought to keep the intergity of the outline.
Who would have the patience to spend almost 10 years of their life, in bringing this film, before the masses.

I understand some, don't like the direction it was done, but you know what, when book work is done, it is just a interpretation from thought, on how they would imagine things to work(usually based on personal experience), PJ is in the same category. I believe it took the author, nearly two decades to finish this great work.

It was a blessing that PJ was the one to do it, now at this time, if not, we could have waited another 10 years or more, for someone else to find the courage to put everything on the line, to do this.

Tolkien may have felt, that he was writing a simple story, with the reflection on humanity as the source...then explain to me, after all this time...why now, do they still strike a chord with us, to this very day.

The trilogy(movie) has only enchance the presence of the books, more so, now than ever(maybe I will buy them, when things slow down for me...LOL).

And the trilogy, are just an interpretation...nothing more, a massive attempt, not actual canon, in my book...that is a world of headache to do...chances were taken, opportunties lost and gain, and in the end, a gamble. A unbelieveable successful one at that.

Let the end results speak for themselves, from now, and to the possible future, if this outline 'verison' will qualify as an interpretation to the author's work.

On that, to each their own.

 

[David Howery]

Now that this set is FINALLY available here in the US, I got it and watched it today... here's my initial impressions.
final confrontation with Saruman: good... since they aren't doing the Scouring, this ended his role nicely.
Gandalf vs. Witch King: neat, but damn short. My biggest beef with it is that the Rohirrim horn blowing that lured the WK away was so faint, I missed it the first time; it looked as if he got bored and left. I reran that scene and turned up the sound and finally heard it.. they really should have punched up those horns.
Houses of Healing: major disappointment.. I wanted to see Aragorn tending to Eowyn, Faramir, and Merry. It's one of my favorite scenes in the book.
Pelennor Fields: most of the additions were fun to watch but didn't add anything to the storyline; still, they are pretty neat. Eowyn and Merry kick major butt after they get knocked off their horse. And we finally see just how Gothmog gets what's coming to him.
Mouth of Sauron: neat neat neat!!!
one point: someone earlier on here complained that the first DVD ended in the middle of the Pelennor battle. It actually ends when Grond is being hauled forward to the gate... even in the theatrical version, the movie cut away at this point to go back to Frodo and Sam... in the EE, it goes to the new Corsairs scene instead... so, not a major change here....

 

[Mark Oliva]

Waiting for the Ring

There are many ways of looking at things. This is one way. One also might ask how long PJ now has exclusive rights and thereby has closed the door to anyone else trying to do a better job of it for XX years. In that case, I well might have preferred a 10-year wait for something better.

To keep that in perspective, the films aren't bad in heir own right. But they're far removed from J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings." They're Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings." Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Truth Seeker]

Loving the RIng...err, wait...just a bit.

*Edited for correction *It was a blessing that PJ was the one to do it, now at this time, if not, we could have waited another 10 years or more, for someone else to find the courage to put everything on the line, to do this.

There are many ways of looking at things. This is one way. One also might ask how long PJ now has exclusive rights and thereby has closed the door to anyone else trying to do a better job of it for XX years. In that case, I well might have preferred a 10-year wait for something better.

To keep that in perspective, the films aren't bad in heir own right. But they're far removed from J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings." They're Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings." Nothing more and nothing less.

Yes...it is PJ's for now...an interpretation, just an interpretation. Darn, I knew I shouldn't have mention that time frame . A better question, could it have been better, given the possible tight fisted movie moguls' views on big budget films these days...there are hits and misses.