You know what I really want to know? How in the world did Gandalf get his staff back? I mean, he's trapped on the top of Saruman's tower, then he jumps and flees on that huge bird. But at no point did he ever get his staff back from Saruman.
[extended edition junk]
Or, more glaring. in the extended edition of RotK there is an added scene where the witch king corners Gandalf and right as gandalf wields his staff the king shatters it. sending gandalf flying back and more or less defeated. Then, after the battle is won, he has a new staff.
and this isn't his gnarled staff either, it's his fancy gandalf the white staff.
New staff. Like Luke Skywalker made himself a new light saber.
I could accept this if the new staff was different. Gandalf gets his exact same staff back.
No, it's not a big issue, doesn't detract from the plot, storyline or continuity. Heck, most people I mention this to haven't even realized it until I say something, then they're scratching their heads right along with me.
I totally agree, these three films are a towering epic, and it will take the combination of a great story, awesome set design, choreography, special effects and dialog to even come close to Jackson's rendition of the LotR trilogy.
I wonder if anyone will even try to top it. A couple years ago I remember reading that the guy responsible for OKing the production of LotR was let go for tying so much $$$ in these films. At least whomever approved it had the foresight to OK production of all 3 films at the same time. I'd hate to see another debacle like Ralph Bakshi's attempt to make all 3 movies, but only being able to produce 2 of them.
Or, more glaring. in the extended edition of RotK there is an added scene where the witch king corners Gandalf and right as gandalf wields his staff the king shatters it. sending gandalf flying back and more or less defeated. Then, after the battle is won, he has a new staff.
and this isn't his gnarled staff either, it's his fancy gandalf the white staff.
C'mon, Gandalf's a wizard. What's the use of all that wizardly power if he couldn't just turn a blade of grass into one or just conjure it from thin air? It should be a piece of cake for him.
One thing that always had me really bored, both in the books and the movie, is the long sequences of Sam and Frodo suffering on their way to an through Mordor. I could easily live with at least 20 minutes less Sam/Frodo suffering in exchange for some Shire-scouring.
In general I think the first and third movies (extended versions) were the best. The Two Towers is just one long prolonging of enevitable battles. But thats just me
the movies were really mostly about Frodo's development. So, all the walking and shit were to show how Frodo was becoming more dependent on the Ring he was trying to get rid of....
I think the slow motion hug fest was more of a curtain call at the end of a play or musical when everyone comes out and makes a bow.
As a film major, I noticed more the use of long lenses vs. normal lenses.... i mean.... COME ON! The book explicitly says "Frodo battle the troll through a long lens," and in the movie a normal lens was used.... bullshit!
C'mon, Gandalf's a wizard. What's the use of all that wizardly power if he couldn't just turn a blade of grass into one or just conjure it from thin air? It should be a piece of cake for him.
nyuk nyuk, I'm reminded of that simpsons episode where Xena is answering nerd questions.
"In episode 18gf3 you struck the kobold down with a -"
"When Itchy plays Scratchy's bones like a xylophone, he hits the same rib twice, but producing two different tones? Are we to believe this is some kind of magical xylophone?"
"Is there anyway to get out of the dungeon without the wizard's key?"
One thing that I think was lost in the movies was the special place hobbits have in that world. These days I can't separate what I read in the LotR from the Silmarillion. Hobbits were not created by "god" or "angles" like elves, man and dwarfs were. Which is part of the reason the ring does not have the same effect on them. In the end no one gives up the ring but part of the reason it got to the mountain is because the people bringing it there were hobbits and not elves/men/dwarfs. Seems to be lost in the movie. Maybe I missed it.
It's too far off for me too. I remember originally grabbing the Silmarillion in search of a few answers to these questions, but I don't remember finding them there. The answer may be somewhere in Tolkien's letters, where I believe he spelled out that hobbits are merely a sub race of men, and also somewhere in the appendices there is mention of it. They would have been created by Illuvatar and awakened at the same time as the race of man. I wonder if they were created as a sub race, or merely relegated away, eventually turning from the world of the "big folk" where they would not have been very useful. Did Tolkien ever broach the subject in his letters?
As for the films. Jackson and company deserve nothing but credit -- most people thought it would be impossible to do. They not only did it, they went to great lengths to do it in the best spirit of the books. Yes, there are narrative derivations from the text, but there is also a towering artistic realization there. It isn't a lazy pastiche of fantasy cliches and pop-medievalism either, and that was the second biggest danger behind the crushing complexity of bringing it to film in a faithful way. They got the languages, the geography, the races...
They are really only let down by the action movie overtones of the last film, and a few slo-mo shots too many. My preference would have been to more dramatic scenes/tensions: Denethor, the citadel, Eowen-Faramir-Aragorn, Sam's rescue of Frodo, and an altogether different weight to the battles of RoTK -- uglier, more like Gladiator/Saving Private Ryan, less like Indiana Jones.
And even though I disagree with the dramatic decisions of RoTK, I give full credit to Jackson for the care that went in to making a most enjoyable product. If hollywood did half as much, they might produce more than the dozen or so watchable films they make in any give year.
As for the films. Jackson and company deserve nothing but credit -- most people thought it would be impossible to do. They not only did it, they went to great lengths to do it in the best spirit of the books. Yes, there are narrative derivations from the text, but there is also a towering artistic realization there. It isn't a lazy pastiche of fantasy cliches and pop-medievalism either, and that was the second biggest danger behind the crushing complexity of bringing it to film in a faithful way. They got the languages, the geography, the races...
Bravo!!! I concur 100%. Given the love for the book, its complexity, and how well thought out and written it was, for Peter Jackson and co. to do what they did translating it to film is nothing but an impressive feat. Naturally, everyone will have there nitpicks, even me, but overall it is extraordinary what they were able to accomplish.
IIRC, in the commentary of the extended FotR DVD, Jackson said there would be no scouring of the Shire--other than the small scene shown in Galadriel's magic birdbath. And really, implementing it would've thrown the whole movie off--making it longer and more confusing to the layperson:
The Sackville Baggins (Lotho, etc.) would've needed to be introduced in the first movie and given a backstory (they inherited Bag End, which means exposition of Frodo moving--etc.).
In the film, all the "bad guys" were swallowed into the earth--implying that all of Sauron's evil had been beaten (to non-Tolkienites). It wouldn't follow that destroying the ring had missed the meanies in the Shire. Only in the Appendices is it mentioned that there were battles going-on in other parts of Middle Earth. The War of the Ring is localized to Gondor and Mordor in the film.
I agree that there were too many (too too fricking many) slo-mo scenes in the original RotK (I haven't watched the extended version yet--just the supplementary DVDs). The long ending didn't bother me because I felt it to be the ending of the entire three films.
On the whole, Jackson & Co. did an admirable job adapting the book. In the commentaries with Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Phillipa Boyens explaining the changes made in plot and characterization from the text, I could see their points (the Faramir change threw me for a bit in TTT). These guys weren't slashing and burning; they made changes carefully and considerately.
Did anyone else catch the Easter Egg on ROTK? Quite funny.
BTW, I didn't look for any on FOTR or TTT, but I'm certain they are there.
I don't know what you are referring to, but the funniest anomaly I've found in all the movies, was a wide shot of helms deep where everyone is retreating, and in the corner you see two guards, who at first quickly put down their weapons and start to sort-of run, but then almost immediately slow to a relaxed saunter, and start talking to each other as they stroll towards the fort.
I'd watch that part again just to make sure I have it right, but my brother lost my second disc for the two towers!
In the film, all the "bad guys" were swallowed into the earth--implying that all of Sauron's evil had been beaten (to non-Tolkienites). It wouldn't follow that destroying the ring had missed the meanies in the Shire. Only in the Appendices is it mentioned that there were battles going-on in other parts of Middle Earth. The War of the Ring is localized to Gondor and Mordor in the film.
Well, most of them, if you watch that scene, the land does swallow the vast majority of mordor's army, but they had been surrounding the humans, and the ones in the back were able to flee.
I don't know what you are referring to, but the funniest anomaly I've found in all the movies, was a wide shot of helms deep where everyone is retreating, and in the corner you see two guards, who at first quickly put down their weapons and start to sort-of run, but then almost immediately slow to a relaxed saunter, and start talking to each other as they stroll towards the fort.
I'd watch that part again just to make sure I have it right, but my brother lost my second disc for the two towers!
On the extended release DVD 1, there is a menu option to choose a scene (IIRC), on the last page (scenes 33-36 I think) there is an option called 'New Scene' at the bottom. If you select it you will see the Easter Egg.
I love Return of the King, extended. I haven't yet read the books (but definitely plan to now that all three have been released) and I can say that all three movies were just absolutely amazing.
To me, the first movie introduced you to the amazing locations of Middle Earth (small digression: I would LOVE to see a movie based on every day life in the Shire. Not action, no nothing, just how the Hobbits lived. Hell, I'd love to see an elf movie, too, based on life in Rivendell and ... shit, I forgot the other location.... but that would be cool, I think) and got you familiar with all the characters and how separate each race of beings had become in their world. In all, the first movie really set the tone for how epic this trilogy was going to be. The second movie showed you how much was at stake and really drove home the point that no one was going to be untouched by this war. The third one was, to me, just amazing. For the past two movies you have been hearing about how the great war was coming, and in the third movie, you actually witness it and it was more grand and spectacular than my imagination conceived! The scenes of Frodo and Sam trudging through Mordor, while some may see it was unnecessarily long, I saw it as showing how difficult the journey was, even though they were so close to Mt. Doom. It made me realize how difficult the mission was from the beginning.
As for the scouring of the Shire, let me tell you: as a fan that has not read the book, I would have been pissed if they ended the movie like that. I don't care how faithful to the adaptation it would have been, it would have pissed me off. It's like, after a three year, twelve hour journey (as a movie goer), if they ended the movie with the destruction of the Shire, it would have felt that all that was for nothing. I don't know if I'm articulating myself well right now, but, like I said, I would have just shook my head and never watched RotK ever again and stuck to the first two.
Tolkien incorporated a lot of his beliefs into Lord of the Rings, including his views on deforestation and the effects of war on all people. I read somewhere that said views were the inspiration for Treebeard and the Ents, and Frodo's inability to go back to the simple life of a Hobbit after all he went through. I also read that the scouring of the Shire was his way of showing us how wars fought and won in distant lands mean little when your own home is being corrupted. This is all well and good, but didn't fit the way Jackson had been telling the story up to that point.
<shrugs> As it stands, I love these movies. I think it's bloody amazing that there were few doubters after FotR (save the hardcore fans, of course). Like, everyone I spoke to didn't say "Man, this one was so awesome, I hope they don't botch up the next film." Everyone I spoke to was like, "Of COURSE the next film is gonna kick ass!" I've never heard that for any movies that had more than one part to it, as there's usually doubt and fear that the film makers would screw something up. I think that, in itself, was a testament to Jackson's storytelling.
I don't think a gross-out movie director was up to the challenge of the books. The arc of the Hobbits' experience was lost on him and the other writers. Not enough decapitation and lava in it apparently.
Maybe the extended-extended version could have Jack Black come back as a leering, syphalitic King Kong and deficate on Bag End.
"The second movie showed you how much was at stake and really drove home the point that no one was going to be untouched by this war."
And yet you won't let the Shire be touched? I said in my earlier post:
"And even if Jackson was trying to get something across that the people at home cannot understand; he also didn't show that people at home are still affected and that they can do something still."
Which shall it be? Shall the little people revolt and drive out the large evil? or will the little people go on in life in ignorance?
And in the prequel to The Fellowship of the Ring, the Concerning Hobbits and particularly, the notes of the the Shire Records. After what happened with the Scouring, Hobbits actually cared about history and what happened. They knew that they would not be there forever, that they're story must end and that they must let it continue on.
Comments
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
You know what I really want to know? How in the world did Gandalf get his staff back? I mean, he's trapped on the top of Saruman's tower, then he jumps and flees on that huge bird. But at no point did he ever get his staff back from Saruman.
[extended edition junk]
Or, more glaring. in the extended edition of RotK there is an added scene where the witch king corners Gandalf and right as gandalf wields his staff the king shatters it. sending gandalf flying back and more or less defeated. Then, after the battle is won, he has a new staff.
and this isn't his gnarled staff either, it's his fancy gandalf the white staff.
Originally posted by tonton
New staff. Like Luke Skywalker made himself a new light saber.
I could accept this if the new staff was different. Gandalf gets his exact same staff back.
No, it's not a big issue, doesn't detract from the plot, storyline or continuity. Heck, most people I mention this to haven't even realized it until I say something, then they're scratching their heads right along with me.
Originally posted by Scott
From the books I don't remember the staff being that important. I guess the movie needed a prop.
Yea, I don't remember any kind of significance placed on Gandalf's staff in the books either.
I totally agree, these three films are a towering epic, and it will take the combination of a great story, awesome set design, choreography, special effects and dialog to even come close to Jackson's rendition of the LotR trilogy.
I wonder if anyone will even try to top it. A couple years ago I remember reading that the guy responsible for OKing the production of LotR was let go for tying so much $$$ in these films. At least whomever approved it had the foresight to OK production of all 3 films at the same time. I'd hate to see another debacle like Ralph Bakshi's attempt to make all 3 movies, but only being able to produce 2 of them.
Or, more glaring. in the extended edition of RotK there is an added scene where the witch king corners Gandalf and right as gandalf wields his staff the king shatters it. sending gandalf flying back and more or less defeated. Then, after the battle is won, he has a new staff.
and this isn't his gnarled staff either, it's his fancy gandalf the white staff.
C'mon, Gandalf's a wizard. What's the use of all that wizardly power if he couldn't just turn a blade of grass into one or just conjure it from thin air? It should be a piece of cake for him.
In general I think the first and third movies (extended versions) were the best. The Two Towers is just one long prolonging of enevitable battles. But thats just me
I think the slow motion hug fest was more of a curtain call at the end of a play or musical when everyone comes out and makes a bow.
As a film major, I noticed more the use of long lenses vs. normal lenses.... i mean.... COME ON! The book explicitly says "Frodo battle the troll through a long lens," and in the movie a normal lens was used.... bullshit!
Originally posted by LiquidR
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
C'mon, Gandalf's a wizard. What's the use of all that wizardly power if he couldn't just turn a blade of grass into one or just conjure it from thin air? It should be a piece of cake for him.
nyuk nyuk, I'm reminded of that simpsons episode where Xena is answering nerd questions.
"In episode 18gf3 you struck the kobold down with a -"
"magic wizard powers"
"I see"
"How about in episode 35ft8 when you-"
"magic wizard powers"
"in episo-"
"wizard, powers"
"Is there anyway to get out of the dungeon without the wizard's key?"
--"What the hell are you talking about?"
As for the films. Jackson and company deserve nothing but credit -- most people thought it would be impossible to do. They not only did it, they went to great lengths to do it in the best spirit of the books. Yes, there are narrative derivations from the text, but there is also a towering artistic realization there. It isn't a lazy pastiche of fantasy cliches and pop-medievalism either, and that was the second biggest danger behind the crushing complexity of bringing it to film in a faithful way. They got the languages, the geography, the races...
They are really only let down by the action movie overtones of the last film, and a few slo-mo shots too many. My preference would have been to more dramatic scenes/tensions: Denethor, the citadel, Eowen-Faramir-Aragorn, Sam's rescue of Frodo, and an altogether different weight to the battles of RoTK -- uglier, more like Gladiator/Saving Private Ryan, less like Indiana Jones.
And even though I disagree with the dramatic decisions of RoTK, I give full credit to Jackson for the care that went in to making a most enjoyable product. If hollywood did half as much, they might produce more than the dozen or so watchable films they make in any give year.
BTW, I didn't look for any on FOTR or TTT, but I'm certain they are there.
Originally posted by Matsu
As for the films. Jackson and company deserve nothing but credit -- most people thought it would be impossible to do. They not only did it, they went to great lengths to do it in the best spirit of the books. Yes, there are narrative derivations from the text, but there is also a towering artistic realization there. It isn't a lazy pastiche of fantasy cliches and pop-medievalism either, and that was the second biggest danger behind the crushing complexity of bringing it to film in a faithful way. They got the languages, the geography, the races...
Bravo!!! I concur 100%. Given the love for the book, its complexity, and how well thought out and written it was, for Peter Jackson and co. to do what they did translating it to film is nothing but an impressive feat. Naturally, everyone will have there nitpicks, even me, but overall it is extraordinary what they were able to accomplish.
- The Sackville Baggins (Lotho, etc.) would've needed to be introduced in the first movie and given a backstory (they inherited Bag End, which means exposition of Frodo moving--etc.).
- In the film, all the "bad guys" were swallowed into the earth--implying that all of Sauron's evil had been beaten (to non-Tolkienites). It wouldn't follow that destroying the ring had missed the meanies in the Shire. Only in the Appendices is it mentioned that there were battles going-on in other parts of Middle Earth. The War of the Ring is localized to Gondor and Mordor in the film.
I agree that there were too many (too too fricking many) slo-mo scenes in the original RotK (I haven't watched the extended version yet--just the supplementary DVDs). The long ending didn't bother me because I felt it to be the ending of the entire three films.On the whole, Jackson & Co. did an admirable job adapting the book. In the commentaries with Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Phillipa Boyens explaining the changes made in plot and characterization from the text, I could see their points (the Faramir change threw me for a bit in TTT). These guys weren't slashing and burning; they made changes carefully and considerately.
Originally posted by rogue master
Did anyone else catch the Easter Egg on ROTK? Quite funny.
BTW, I didn't look for any on FOTR or TTT, but I'm certain they are there.
I don't know what you are referring to, but the funniest anomaly I've found in all the movies, was a wide shot of helms deep where everyone is retreating, and in the corner you see two guards, who at first quickly put down their weapons and start to sort-of run, but then almost immediately slow to a relaxed saunter, and start talking to each other as they stroll towards the fort.
I'd watch that part again just to make sure I have it right, but my brother lost my second disc for the two towers!
Originally posted by scottiB
In the film, all the "bad guys" were swallowed into the earth--implying that all of Sauron's evil had been beaten (to non-Tolkienites). It wouldn't follow that destroying the ring had missed the meanies in the Shire. Only in the Appendices is it mentioned that there were battles going-on in other parts of Middle Earth. The War of the Ring is localized to Gondor and Mordor in the film.
Well, most of them, if you watch that scene, the land does swallow the vast majority of mordor's army, but they had been surrounding the humans, and the ones in the back were able to flee.
can you say sequel!
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
I don't know what you are referring to, but the funniest anomaly I've found in all the movies, was a wide shot of helms deep where everyone is retreating, and in the corner you see two guards, who at first quickly put down their weapons and start to sort-of run, but then almost immediately slow to a relaxed saunter, and start talking to each other as they stroll towards the fort.
I'd watch that part again just to make sure I have it right, but my brother lost my second disc for the two towers!
On the extended release DVD 1, there is a menu option to choose a scene (IIRC), on the last page (scenes 33-36 I think) there is an option called 'New Scene' at the bottom. If you select it you will see the Easter Egg.
To me, the first movie introduced you to the amazing locations of Middle Earth (small digression: I would LOVE to see a movie based on every day life in the Shire. Not action, no nothing, just how the Hobbits lived. Hell, I'd love to see an elf movie, too, based on life in Rivendell and ... shit, I forgot the other location.... but that would be cool, I think) and got you familiar with all the characters and how separate each race of beings had become in their world. In all, the first movie really set the tone for how epic this trilogy was going to be. The second movie showed you how much was at stake and really drove home the point that no one was going to be untouched by this war. The third one was, to me, just amazing. For the past two movies you have been hearing about how the great war was coming, and in the third movie, you actually witness it and it was more grand and spectacular than my imagination conceived! The scenes of Frodo and Sam trudging through Mordor, while some may see it was unnecessarily long, I saw it as showing how difficult the journey was, even though they were so close to Mt. Doom. It made me realize how difficult the mission was from the beginning.
As for the scouring of the Shire, let me tell you: as a fan that has not read the book, I would have been pissed if they ended the movie like that. I don't care how faithful to the adaptation it would have been, it would have pissed me off. It's like, after a three year, twelve hour journey (as a movie goer), if they ended the movie with the destruction of the Shire, it would have felt that all that was for nothing. I don't know if I'm articulating myself well right now, but, like I said, I would have just shook my head and never watched RotK ever again and stuck to the first two.
Tolkien incorporated a lot of his beliefs into Lord of the Rings, including his views on deforestation and the effects of war on all people. I read somewhere that said views were the inspiration for Treebeard and the Ents, and Frodo's inability to go back to the simple life of a Hobbit after all he went through. I also read that the scouring of the Shire was his way of showing us how wars fought and won in distant lands mean little when your own home is being corrupted. This is all well and good, but didn't fit the way Jackson had been telling the story up to that point.
<shrugs> As it stands, I love these movies. I think it's bloody amazing that there were few doubters after FotR (save the hardcore fans, of course). Like, everyone I spoke to didn't say "Man, this one was so awesome, I hope they don't botch up the next film." Everyone I spoke to was like, "Of COURSE the next film is gonna kick ass!" I've never heard that for any movies that had more than one part to it, as there's usually doubt and fear that the film makers would screw something up. I think that, in itself, was a testament to Jackson's storytelling.
Maybe the extended-extended version could have Jack Black come back as a leering, syphalitic King Kong and deficate on Bag End.
"The second movie showed you how much was at stake and really drove home the point that no one was going to be untouched by this war."
And yet you won't let the Shire be touched? I said in my earlier post:
"And even if Jackson was trying to get something across that the people at home cannot understand; he also didn't show that people at home are still affected and that they can do something still."
Which shall it be? Shall the little people revolt and drive out the large evil? or will the little people go on in life in ignorance?
And in the prequel to The Fellowship of the Ring, the Concerning Hobbits and particularly, the notes of the the Shire Records. After what happened with the Scouring, Hobbits actually cared about history and what happened. They knew that they would not be there forever, that they're story must end and that they must let it continue on.