Slashdot Mirror
A Return Of The King Review
I must have read the trilogy three or four times since I was first introduced to it via The Hobbit back in grade-school. I am not a purist, but some of the changes Peter Jackson has made along the way weren't to my liking. For example, I didn't like the deviation in Faramir's character during the Two Towers, despite Peter Jackson's claim that he needed to create additional tension and discord beyond what Tolkien included.
The Return of the King has same flaws, but overall I thought it was a more engaging movie than the previous ones. Beware, there are a few spoilers ahead; obviously, most of the Slashdot crowd knows the story in the books, but what will follow should be considered a spoiler, as I am describing Jackson's adaptation of the book.
The movie opens at what I thought to be a strange spot - Smeagol's killing his friend for the Ring; why not put this in the first movie? I think this may have been foreshadowing one of the more prominent departures from the book: Jackson decided to increase the tension between Sam and Frodo over the Ring, with Golem playing on Frodo's Ring-induced distrust. This tension did exist in the book, but Jackson makes it more overt. Personally, I thought it was a little over the top.
Obviously, the book is too large to be made into even a three-hour movie, but I found that one large part is missing that I hoped would be covered: the Battle of Bywater. In the book, when Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin arrive back at the Shire, they discover that Saruman and his thugs have enslaved the Hobbits. I have hope that this may be added into an Extended-Edition (probably due out this time next year).
A good chunk of this movie is spent on the moments leading up to the battle, the battle itself, and the immediate aftermath. As a result, I noticed that there were a lot of speeches of the sabre-rattling kind made by principal characters that I'm sure weren't there in the book -- a kind of Holywood-ization in the Gladiator spirit. It probably makes the movie more interesting to people who haven't and won't read the book.
The humor that could be found in The Two Towers (specifically, Gimli) carries over into The Return of the King. I didn't mind the humor, though I know it's an addition that Jackson made.
Along the way, I noticed other small deviations, but I'll leave those for Tolkien fans to argue over.
Enough complaints; there were a lot of great scenes, and many of the plot lines were handled deftly by Jackson.
Shelob getting Frodo, and Sam taking him for dead, is done particularily well. Jackson didn't change much at all here, and the effects are great.
From the book, I remember a strong impression of bleakness as Sam and Frodo take the final stage of their journey to Mount Doom -- Jackson got that dead-on. Jackson does an excellent job showing the toll that the Ring is taking on Frodo.
The battle outside the walls of Minas Tirith puts the battle of Helm's Deep to shame. The high walls of the city built into the cliff, with a huge army of orcs outside the walls, have to be seen to be believed. I don't actually remember any in-depth description of the battle outside Gondor (in fact, I don't remember any great battle depictions from any of the books -- bad memory?), but Jackson does a great job of providing one. The trebuchets are particularily engaging.
Overall, I would have to say that this was my favorite of the three movies. The movie was a little more grim, a little darker, and showed some of the violence and fighting in a more disturbing fashion. I am hoping that some of what I perceived as shortcomings will be fixed in the Extended Edition (the Two Towers's Extended Edition was a much better movie that the theatre version). I can't wait to see it again.
Erm, well there are currently a couple of popular LotR video game titles EA Games has published under Jackson's license, and one or two others in production. I think that would be the key to getting this kind of preview. So go write some games, or no movie for you!
no disrespect, but I really liked the last chapters of the book. I always got the feeling that when Tolkien was writing about Great Events he used the more poetic and formal language (i.e., more like Yoda-speak with back-assward syntax); when dealing with Hobbits, he (puposely?) slipped into more "Common" speech. While I agree that the style was different, it think it was done on purpose and with great effect. It FELT like they were coming home when I read it. It also sets up the idea that, although the Shire has been rescued from Saruman, Frodo has sustained too much hurt to remain and departs over the Sea with Bilbo. It's not as bittersweet if he just gets up and leaves coming back from Gondor. Although I can understand why PJ left it out of the movie (even accounting for the fact that he is on record of hating the "Scouring" chapter).
NO CARRIER
I like the last chapter a lot. Most epic have a hard ending well. Author usually brings people to the climax, and drops the reader right after that. The last chapter brings a climax to a sense of closure. It makes you fell like you are indeed reading a excerpt of these people's lives, since life to go on after the main plot...
The movies are a lot more about humans than the books were. Tolkien created the hobbits and so had an affinity for them. So the entire book really is about how different the hobbits are from the humans.
For example, the book starts out with Frodo sitting on the most important thing in the world for 20 years. Then Gandalf tells him he must leave the shire immediately and he still stays for another 6 months.
The movie is much more human-centric. See how Boromir and such are changed.
As such, there really is no way to put the scouring of the shire in. The climax is when the entire world is saved, especially the human world. There is no way to follow that with saving a small group of shut-ins.
If I were filming the books, I'd do the same thing.
I'd agree.
for me the shire part is as meaningful as the rest of the rotk book, if not more important. Frodo did what he did FOR the shire and the return to there to see it being corrupted by Saruman(who they let go earlier, and could have slain) has a certain bitter and sad feel to it. Return to shire also shows how the other hobbits that were on the journey had changed and grown into something much more than they were when they left Shire, from pusharounds into somebody who can take care of themselfs(and of their kin). Luckily there's lots of other plotlines in the book as well, though not any as so touching.
well, I just hope that at least some new people will pick up the books and read them with thought.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The scouring of the shire was one of my favorite parts of the books. It made the rest of the books more real for me. You don't just blow up the Death Star and go home to a world that is suddenly rosy and new.
Also, it really showed the character development that had taken place. Merry, Pipin, Frodo, and Sam would have been killed or they would have silently obeyed their captors like the rest of the hobbits if they hadn't gone on the journey they had. Yet they still remembered their roots well enough to know how to rouse their old friends and relations in a time of desperate need. Merry and Pippin really grew up and came into their own in those chapters.
I think an author would be hard pressed to come up with a better denoumont to saving the world. It brought you down slowly from the destruction of the ring. The book did not end with a jolt, nor did I find the last half of the Return of the King to be booring. The level of excitement died out gradually, as day-to-day business returned very gradually, not to normal, but back to a new normal because nothing could be as it was.
Anyway, I was sorry it didn't appear in the movie, but I've still got the books. The first two movies were many times better than I thought they would be and I enjoyed them emensely. I liked that women had a more prominent role in the movies. A feminist couldn't read the Lord of The Rings without grimacing several times but they could watch the movies. I also thought the Two Towers did a brilliant job portraying Gollum and the Hobbits. They were just as I imagined them.
Though I actually liked Tom Bombadil, cutting him was a good call. He was basically irrelevant to the rest of the story. I would have made some of the battle scenes shorter (particularly in the Two Towers - they only made it half-way through the book!). Then we could have seen the scouring of the shire. But I'm really splitting hairs here. The movies are great. I can hardly wait until next week!
In short, i think Jackson might be right in showing an increased tension...at least it will get to the viewers who have not read the books.
Among about a million other things, LotR is a classic "coming of age" tale. Merry and Pippin start out kind of silly and end up mature and experienced. JRRT actually has them grow taller to make it even more obvious that they are like children growing up. In this sense, the book is not over when Sauron is beaten. Perhaps JRRT wants to say that evil in the world is not isolated in obvious bad guys in far away lands, but it also exists and has to be fought in our own neighborhoods.
LotR is full of observations that such things show in multiple levels.
PS: While I don't agree with all his choices, I think the PJ did a fantastic job making the movie he wanted to make.
I don't understand why everyone assumes that people who work with computers like fantasy. I can understand the assumption about girlfriends (or lack there of), but it's always bothered me that whenever I let on that I'm a geek, someone asks me about fantasy novels. I like lord of the rings (the movies--I've never read the books), but I despise most fantasy. I wish that people didn't associate the two so closely.
And that's why they're directing it, and not you. Books and movies are two different mediums. What works in one does not work in the other.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
One huge thing they illustrated here is that Gandalf was no longer fighting anyone's battle. His purpose in Middle Earth was to train people to fight their own battles vs evil.
The hobbits asked him to help them when returning to the shire. He flat out told them NO.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Have to agree about the ending(s). I too attended a preview last week (with digital projection, I am pleased to say) and there were so many false fnales, that I heard a few people actually chuckling. It was pretty cheesy in a way, but after all, we've been through a lot with this whole damned LOTR saga and I guess I can forgive a bit of overindulgence at the end.
On the whole, I'd have to say that ROTK was a strong finish for the series. I loved #1, got a bit bored with #2, but was truly riveted by #3. We all expect the FX bar to be raised with each new mega-budget blockbuster and this was certainly no exception, but for me, the triumph of this film was the nearly seamless integration of the effects. The extensive digital offline work really paid off (with the exception of a few wonky bits of compositing were Hobbits met reality) and the color work was spectacular.
Individual geeks may take issue with this or that infidelity or liberty taken, but in general, the triumph of the LOTR digital post-production pipeline is the stuff that will keep many of the geeks here in the chips for years to come.
"...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
Frodo throws Gollum and the Ring into the pit, defeating Evil.
That better not be how the movie ends, that would suck. It totally didn't happen that way. Frodo failed in the end, he succumbed to the Ring. The day was only saved by Gollum's greed and subsequent lack of care. That's why Gandalf was never so sure that Gollum should have been killed long ago, that he might still have a purpose.
Even though this is getting pretty far off-topic - I know what you mean about the college education vs. reading/using the library thing.
I can say with absolute certainty that I learned more from my own reading than I ever learned in school.
On the other hand, though, the formal/structured nature of school forced me to learn about quite a few topics I would have chosen to skip over if I was simply reading the things I wanted to read.
Anyway, if you want to go the self-taught route and be a success minus the college degree, all I can say is: Work for yourself! Seriously, the corporate world will never give you a fair shake, no matter how knowledgeable and hard-working you are, because the respect for "the piece of paper" is too ingrained in the system. I've learned to accept this, and considering I don't have the financial means to start my own business, I compromise by working for individuals who did - and need that "top quality second or third employee" to help grow what they've started. Yeah, the corporate I.T. guys with the degrees earn more than me, but I do pretty well for myself - and know that my work is MUCH more appreciated than it would be in some corporate cubicle.
Most oppression is conducted in the name of the common good. It was hardly new in his day. The "collect all resources for the common good" bit is an old favorite of many corrupt states, not just the ones that claim to be Socialist. It is a close cousin of the "trade your civil liberties for the security of all" line of rhetoric that is so popular in the US today. I imagine that 100 years from now those scenes will still seem strangely familiar.
If you view LOTR as a story of the Ring, then it ends when the ring is destroyed and Aragorn takes his throne. Everything after that is pointless. But if you view it as the story of the people who were most personally involved with the unmaking of the ring, a return to the Shire is necessary.
The story began in the Shire, with the hobbits fleeing from a danger they couldn't even comprehend. I think it is fitting that the story ends after they return to the Shire to master a situation their younger selves could not have met.
Not all random numbers are created equally.
Can we all just get over the idea that movies are not going to be the same as books? I mean it's been, what 100 years, and we're still shocked?
If we look at LoTR as just a movie, which is bringing some of Tolkein's characters and stories to life (though not all of them, and not in the form that Tolkien wrote them... OF COURSE) -- I think you will find that these movies measure up well against just about any other movie out there. Certainly compared to the absolute CRAP we've been treated to this year (with very, very few exceptions), RoTK has to do very little to rise above the crowd. The first two movies were better by far, IMHO, than Ladyhawke, Krull, Legend, Willow, and a host of other fanstasy movies that we've seen in the last few decades. I have a soft spot in my heart for some of the Jim Henson work from the 80s, but even those are at best no better than LoTR.
I even enjoyed them more than the Sinbad movies of old, and that's saying something.
So if you must compare LoTR to something, compare them to other movies. There have been better, and will be again, but I think these movies will prove to be as memorable 20 years from now as any other fantasy (original or adaptation) has been.
Even if there was time in the movie to show it, it wouldn't work. It's an overly extended climax, a mini-movie tacked on at the end.
Imagine at the end of RotJ, after the destruction of the death star, but before the Ewok dance number, we are subjected to twenty minutes of Luke returning to Tatooine and discovering a sith jedi is still loose and making things miserable for Mos Eisley. It might make a good sequel, but it doesn't belong in the movie.
But PJ did put in a return to the Shire, Sam getting married, and the Grey Havens. So it does have closure.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The scouring of the Shire is the _point_ of the _entire_trilogy_! The message is about Man growing up and taking personal responsibility for himself and his world, and is summed up perfectly in those chapters. Personally, I've liked the films, but they are _not_ The Lord of the Rings; Jackson has changed the entire focus of the story (witness also the presence of elves at Helm's Deep, which detracts mightily from the meaning of the battle).
+++++++
"Look, dear, it's a crazy hairy scary man!"
There are a tonne of characters in the book who are offered the ring, and yet refuse it. Aragorn, Gandalf, Galadriel; Frodo offers it to all of them, and they all refuse. But it's one thing to resist the pull of the ring when it's in someone else's hand, and quite another to resist, like Frodo does, when you carry it around day and night.
You talk about the development of Faramir in the movie, but I tend to think of Faramir more as a foil to Boromir; Faramir is what Boromir should have been. Faramir, along with Aragorn and Eowen and a few others, is an example of the nobility of the race that is to take over from the elves.
Also, I don't think Frodo's resistance to the ring is the only reason he is chosen as bearer. If Gandalf (or Galadriel, or Aragorn) had been the bearer, the consequences of a fall would have been disasterous. Not only would the ring not have been destroyed, but a new dark power would arise, just as evil as Sauron, and even more powerful. Not to mention that Frodo could sneak into Mordor. I'm pretty sure Sauron would notice if Gandalf the White came in to storm his castle. Frodo is chosen because he has no concern for greatness, because is not powerful, and because he is not glamerous.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Peter Jackson is not writing a book. He's taking a book, and trying to make it work *as a movie*. Again: He's making a MOVIE. You can't sell a book to a studio. You have to sell a screenplay or a script to a studio. A screenplay is not a book. Neither is a script. The main aim of any screen adaptation of a book is not to stay faithful to plot, characters, action, duration, but to the thematic content of the source work. This is what Peter Jackson did. Some things from Tolkien's work simply will *not* work in a Hollywood film, with a Hollywood narrative that is commercially viable. Even if the studio is New Line(which is semi-independent, but has to market its releases to the public nonetheless.) So, please, please please, STOP GRIPING ABOUT HIS DECISIONS TO STRAY FROM THE PLOT.
Well, their are several reasons why they're a big deal.
The first one that comes to mind is: length. No one has ever filmed, for the cinema -- TV mini-series don't count -- a 9 1/2 hour epic with a single narrative framework. The only films I know of that come close are The Seven Samurai at 3.5 hours and The Sorrow and The Pity, which if I remember correctly clocks in at 5.5 hours. And the latter was a documentary.
And no, the Star Wars trilogy doesn't count either. The stories are separately coherent.
The second reason is that Jackson has done such a terrific job. Like many here, I disagreed with some of his choices, especially using Gimli almost exclusively for comic relief in The Two Towers. But overall, he's done a fantastic job. In some cases, Boromir in particular, and Aragorn to a lesser extent, the characters actually have more depth than in the books.
Another reason, as mentioned above, is that the books are classics. Tolkien took the techniques of Norse sagas, Anglo-Saxon epic poems and narratives, Celtic myths and fables, and created from that a story compelling enough to create a whole new genre of literature. Sure, a lot of books in the fantasy genre suck. So do a lot of mysteries. The fact that a lot of mysteries suck doesn't in any way lessen the literary contributions of E.A. Poe or Wilkie Collins, who can be considered the creators of the mystery genre in the same way as Tolkien created the fantasy genre.
There are more reasons, of course. But that'll do to start.
I can understand why some people don't like fantasy.
I don't understand why people who don't like fantasy post to Slashdots about LotR.
He borrows storylines or concepts, plasters them into massively hyped pop hollywood blockbusters. Not that this doesn't take a certain talent, but talent of a completely different sort of that of Tolkien.
And exactly *how* does that make him worse than Tolkien? It wouldn't surprise me if Tolkien would suck at film making. You see, writing books and directing movies are two entirely different tasks. Tolkien was an excellent author of a book, and obviously good at inventing a story too. Jackson is an excellent director, and I have rarely seen anyone better than him at adapting a story to a movie like he has done. And that's exactly one of the things directors do and get paid for doing right. He would be borrowing ideas if he made movies very similar to other movies, though. But no one has illustrated this story on the movie screen as well as Jackson before, and that makes him a brilliant director IMHO.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!