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.
"...and whose girlfriend couldn't make it to the screening."
Because you hit her with a cinderblock ?
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
I'm fortunate in that I have a friend who works for EA, and whose girlfriend couldn't make it to the screening.
The sooner you and your "friend" face up to the reality of your relationship, the happier you'll both be. Vancouver is a very progressive city; it's not as if you two will have to fear for your lives when you hold hands in public.
As for the rest of your friends, the real ones will accept you as you are.
How did EA get ahold of an advanced screening? Can any company get one?
i cant read the article...no spoilers for me....i havent read the books...aw, hell...Dec 17th will bring the answers for us commonfolk
nothing.can.stop.me.now
Seriously, anybody who's been to any of the 12:01am showings for movies like LotR or Star Wars knows what I'm talking about. You'll get hordes of people dressed up like Gandalf (albeit some morbidly obese variant of him) trying to hit you with a broom handle that they insist on calling a quarterstaff.
On a side note, what sort of self-respecting /.er would be wary of spoilers regarding LotR?
This, and many other reviews are referring to RotK as the best of the three films. Yeow, that's high praise all by itself.
Can I assume that the battle at the Black Gate is left out, and that portion tightened up into the siege of Minas Tirith? I could see how that could make for another couple hours easily...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
from a fan standpoint. Just enough to let us know that we won't be missing much.
My only question: I read recently that there were a number of "endings" to the film, showing the fates of various characters? Is this true? Or is this going to be more for the extended edition DVD release next year, with the article I read serving as a spoiler to this?
-- You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stay alive.
Most of you already know this, but: The scouring of the shire scene will not be in the extended edition - Jackson didn't like it and never filmed it...but 10 minutes of other scenes with Saruman and Wormtongue will be back for the DVD.
The ride of the Rohirrim, the chapter covering the beginning of the battle of the Pelennor fields, is an incredible passage; probably my favourite little bit of fiction ever. I suggest you re-read before claiming status as Tolkien fan.
Yeah, right.
I heard there's a book that tells the whole sotry of the three movies... And more!!!
And it's written by a good author, too...
Kriox
Spoilers? Like what? Gollum is Frodo's father? Sam tying the deflector dish to the warp drive to escape Mordor? OTOH, with what I've heard is being cut, maybe I shouldn't be suprised.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Oh man! That just ruined it for me!
Personally, I always thought this part didn't flow well in the book either. It didn't seem to "fit". The style was different, the main plot was over, it didn't seem to matter. I am glad Jackson chose this section to cut from the movie. It will make a better movie, and IMBO (In My Blasphemous Opinion) would have made a better book too.
Most books are too big to fit in a movie, and these books are bigger than most. By big I mean big with details, plots, characters, etc, not just big in pages. If Jackson had to cut something out without changing the main plotline, Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire were the best choices.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
I believe that's exactly the Saruman footage people were complaining had dispaeared from the movie.
Kriox
can be read here. The usual disclaimers about spoilers applies (hell, you read this review, another one ain't gonna kill you much).
Wasn't this film originally going to be called "Revenge of the King", but they changed the name after some marketing material had already been prepared?
Don't make snide remaks about his preferences, ok? Its not PC
I'm guessing this means that all the EA employees that went to the film will no longer have jobs; this is probably their severance package. :)
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Spoilers? Are there any slashdot users who haven't read the book? :-)
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
I have two exams on the 17th day and seeing as how I flunked the midterms for both classes, I won't be given a B.Sc in May if I go.
That being said I have tickets for 12:01.
Who cares if you flunk a couple in the long run anyways?
I think changes between any movie made from a book or books, even the beloved Tolkien trilogy, are a necessary evil as part of the media switch. I guess I'm even geek enough to rather have seen Glorfindel instead of Liv Tyler on Frodo's crossing to Rivendell. The problem, time and space notwithstanding, is the style of book, and whether or not that can be adequately expressed. Whether it's Lowry's "Under the Volcano" or Herbert's "Dune," it's difficult to transform words and thoughts into pictures and movement without some loss. As a fan, I'm willing to give the director/creative team a lot of leeway and will suspend my interior cinema of what I think the characters should look like in order to enjoy what's on the screen. So, on with the show.
I don't know about anyone else, but I personally would miss the hobbit-battle at the end against the orcs. There's just something cool about little guys getting all ferocious and kicking the ass of bigger, evil types. I can just imagine a line of hobbits lined up with pitchforks and rakes, charging at half a dozen orcs, and the orcs turning to run. Good stuff. :)
I imagine that this end battle is what Lucas shaped his Endor battle after, to a degree - at least in concept. Little 'cute' guys kicking the asses of much bigger, more agressive baddies in a humorous manner.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
shelob is a her /nitpicking geek mode
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I can't wait for the Peter Jackson collection.
It will include the LOTR trilogy, and Peter Jackson's greatest film, Bad Taste!
Hopefully Faramir's character is evened out a little as he becomes the more the character from the book in the course of this film.
I do understand Jackson's desire to have some character development for Faramir - I'm just hoping he provides the development that I expect.
I thought many complaints about the change were unjustified until we've seen the other half of that characters development.
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
The dictionary describes a Golem as "an artificially created human supernaturally endowed with life" in Jewish folklore. Golems of the mud and rock varieties also appear prominently in WarCraft III, of course - what would the Jewish folklorists think of all this? Anyway, Gollum is, of course, nothing of the sort. -Dan You can't spell "pedantic" without "dan"
The battle for Bywater will not be in the extended edition DVD, nor will any of the scouring of the Shire.
Unfortunate, because I loved that part of the book, but Peter Jackson never filmed any of it.
This information was included in the Newsweek December 1, 2003 issue that had several articles on the Return of the King. (Page 60 in the caption box labeled "Spoilers!).
Cheers,
Lasz
So in a nutshell - who gives a shit? - many fans including my kid, who is obviously somewhat more thoughtful and intelligent that your lame anonomous self.
Instead, at your request we can see the latest sequel of the Matrix.
Where oh where has my Underdog gone?
I saw it about 2 weeks ago. Peter Jackson was there afterwards with the two writers for an interview moderated by Carrie Fisher (who not only hadn't read the books, but I got the feeling she hadn't seen the previous movies either. In any event, she really had no interesting questions or comments of her own and relied on the audience to supply them.)
Okay, now that you all envy me, here's my mini-review:
It was really, really good. 3x the special effects of the last one. Spider (Shelob? or something like that) was AWESOME. Battle scenes were great. The Orlando Bloom elephant takedown will be talked about (and certainly parodied) for years. Gollum is constantly good in every scene he's in. His acting is awesome-- he gives Sam this one look look (it's in the trailer) that basically says "you're so screwed" while simultaneously kissing Frodo's ass. Sean Astin gives his best performance ever as the devoted best friend. There's a real cool "woman vs. funky snake-headed dragon" faceoff. The end battle sequence is cool, as is the volcano stuff-- flaming lava balls flying through the sky like giant comets. The sound was cranked up when I saw it, and the screaming, screeching audio was top-notch.
The bad: Some boring/slow parts, including the Liv Tyler subplot and the now-notorious "thirteen endings" featuring tons of Unexplained Stuff-- giant eagles, a mysterious boat trip to...somewhere. And at three hours and twenty minutes, you really really start to feel it at the end.
That said, I'm getting to see ANOTHER advanced screening tomorrow! It's my favorite of the three by far, and certainly one of the best movies of the year.
As far as Peter Jackson-- much of what he said at that screening has been reported widely already-- he's doing king kong (one of the films that got him interested in filmmaking in the first place), he wants to do Hobbit but there are legal challenges at the moment, and he talked a bit about making LOTR vs. "Meet the Feebles". He said LOTR was infinitely more complex, but it was just as difficult to do MTF because he didn't have all the people working on it. What else... he talked a bit about adapting the work-- the first thing he did was summarize the books into a ninety page outline-- 30 pages per book. He also talked about getting the rights to the book, working with the Weinsteins (apparently Bob didn't get the concept until he realized that the guy with the sword, axe, and arrows were "specialists") at Mirimax before switching to New Line, and how sometimes he'd be shooting four units simultaneously.
I don't know if anyone's even gonna read this, so I guess i'll finish with that. The point is, it's good. See it. You'll like it.
So, no, no scouring in the Extended, however, Christopher Lee's last moments as Sauromon will be added back in to it.
This info taken from many interview, feel free to search around, i am currently to lazy to provide links
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
I have hope that this may be added into an Extended-Edition (probably due out this time next year).
:-)
Unfortunately, I read that Jackson *never* liked that part of the books and never intended to film it, so I seriously doubt it will happen.
This really sours me on his understanding of the books as a major point of having hobbits in the first place (as far as I can gleam) is that they are going to have the need to have their own power in the 4th Age. That's another big part of Gandalf, many of the elves and the ring-bearers going across the water at the end. Sure, it's a melancholy ending, but it most of life doesn't end up all happy anyway, far as I've seen.
And hey, I said it first (AFAIK), how about making some scenes with Tom Bombadil with Patrick Stewart! I mean, the dude can sing and he kinda looks like a leprachaun which is always the picture I make of ol' Bombadil who is one of my favorite characters.
And, yeah, they fscked my *favorite* character *way* up: Faramir. But enough ranting, I didn't have the budget to make it better
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
For true peace & happiness, go to www.mihr.com
Manual Sig Generator v. 3.9ish
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.
You ain't the only one.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
www.mihr.com for true peace & happiness
Are you on the rebound from diablo recently?
Or were you referring to this?
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.
It is very hard to review a movie based on a book you have read. Your perception of it is completely changed by knowing the story beforehand. And you cannot judge the way seens look. This is because you are comparing them to the images you saw in your head while reading the book and will not apply to anyone else. All you can really review is how closely he stuck to the story. Maybe some general charecteristics. Therefore the views based on his experiences while reading the book are not relevant.
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
Interesting idea. He's quite far from my idea of Bombadil, but the man's so talented he could probably make it work. :-)
More important, who would play Goldberry, the river-daughter?
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
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.
This movie trilogy was originally proposed as two movies, each made one at time. But the studio decided to take a gamble, and make three movies, and make them all at once. Would have been a disaster if the first movie had bombed, but it paid off in the end. Now that they're a big success, perhaps they wish they'd made one movie for each of the six "books". Then again, that would have meant major characters disappearing for the length of one or more movies...
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.
This is one of the changes that occurred after they started shooting the first one. Originally, Gollum was going to be computer animated with very little mo-cap... but Andy Serkis changed all that, and turned Gollum's portrayal in the movies into a fully fledged character with true depth.
Of course, they'd already started shooting the first one when they discovered this, so this scene with Gollum and Smeagol was put in later.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Here in Saskatoon our private school did the exact same thing. They rented the entire theatre for 1:30 on this wednesday so we can see the movie. Best of all, they charged us only $2 and a food donation.
Sweet!
The scouring of the shire scene will not be in the extended edition - Jackson didn't like it and never filmed it...
Somebody needs to flog PJ with a wet sock for that. If the Shire scene couldn't be fit in due to time or budget, that's fine. But PJ's personal feelings about that whole chapter doesn't give him to the right to fsck it out of the story.
Personally, I find that chapter of Book Three to bring a certain measure of closure that the story (the Tolkien version, not the PJ version) needs and deserves.
Thank God for small favors. That part of the book was too obviously reflective of Tolkein's politics. He always denied that the LOTR was based on recent history, and for the most part that's plausible. But when you have former allies of The Evil One wandering around The Shire, throwing their weight around, and spouting socialist slogans, only to be taken down by returning war vets, it's a bit hard to believe that old JRR wasn't grinding any axes.
One of my favorite parts of RotK was when Sam and Frodo are forced to march with some of the Orcs in Mordor as they head towards Barad-Dur. Does anyone know if this scene will be in the movie or not?
...according to the article Newsweek did. Although I thought it was a bit anticlimatic, it resolved Saruman's fate (which, according to Newsweek, doesn't happen) and also provided an excllent contrast between the hobbits of the Fellowship as they were when they left the Shire and those same hobbits when they returned.
Well, I'd have to assume it was the part where the remains of the Fellowship, along with the elves of Imadril, journeyed North after Aragon & Arwen's wedding, and ran into Saruman and Grima after Treebeard let them leave Orthanc... And they'll probably throw Grima's murder of Saruman in there just to close it all up.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Gollum == Ring dude.
You are not the customer.
Now *that's* a dang good question.
I'm drawing a blank but she'd have to be pretty young and wispy-thin.
This definitely illustrates the beauty of these books, in that the images you can create yourself will *always* surpass the reality of film.
I've listened to Gibson's Neuromancer audio book (which he, himself, read, with the Edge doing the music) well over 100 times as backnoise for programming (gotta love the subtle techno feel), and I doubt seeing a movie version, no matter how well done, will be anything but painful for me.
So this ragged train of thought begs the next question: who for Case and who for Molly? For some reason, Gary Busy (with lot's of makeup) always seems my picture of Armitage (I think he could do the "blank-as-a-button bit pretty good").
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
for true peace & happiness: www.mihr.com
Life has a purpose, if you don't know that purpose, you're already losing.
MSG 4.0
Nope.
Sorry.
You, dear sir (or madam), are completely wrong.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
No. He said Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended
and it was later altered (without a notice indicating it) to say Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended
When caught in this lie, the Bush administration web-masters made it harder to catch these revisionist tactics by disallowing spiders on the web-site
Another link:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001619.shtm
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
Frodo is a program !!!
Oh, Wait...
getSexySig();
Darth Vader is Luke's father. Apollo 13 makes it home safely. Hal9000 kills the crew. Sarah Connor crushes the Terminator in a metal press. Khan is killed in the Genesis explosion while Kirk escapes. Spiderman kills the Green Goblin. ET phones home and a spaceship comes to rescue him. Ripley blows the Alien out an airlock. Major Kong rides an H-Bomb to the target and the Doomsday Weapon is detonated. The Planet of the Apes is really Earth. Butch and Sundance get killed by the Peruvian Army. Spartacus gets crucified. Frodo throws Gollum and the Ring into the pit, defeating Evil.
You haven't read the books.
Thats why you don't know.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Then what did Frodo see in Galadriel's mirror? I don't believe that they would have shot these scenes for just 10 seconds of screen time in FotR.
To read makes our speaking English good. - X. Harris
As with the other post, I have to agree that Tolkien 's writing is seriously overrated. (oh, watch the moderators waste a point to hide my anonymous post).
I read Tolkien as a kid, and enjoyed it immensely.
I then grew up a bit, read a lot more fantasy and sci-fi/sf and realised there are many authors who write better, both in terms of plot, and in terms of their actual style. Tolkien is great for children, but lets learn to appreciate adult literature a bit more, hmm?
I mean it! I read the whole trilogy back in the summer of 1974, but don't spoil it for me by telling me how it ends!
Actually, since the books are more drawn out, with much more detail, and the graphics are rendered with far superior algorithms (wetware, as it were), I'd recommend to anybody who hasn't read the books that they not 'spoil' it by seeing the film first.
Think about it.
A Good Intro to NetBS
After that glowing review, I might just have to go see this movie after all...
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.
Go outside more.
I own two motorcycles. I rode one of them across the U.S. this summer, so I get out plenty.
Even in the middle of Texas at 90mph on my Triumph, I still think Peter Jackson still sucks ass.
original AC
In the 1970's there were things called 'Midnight Movies'; showings of unusual films at 12am. They were actually quite popular then, but now it's hard to believe that anyone would want to see a movie at midnight.
The 1970's were also an era of a certain type of movie that can only be called an 'anti-date' movie. These films were all but guaranteed to make you feel so weird and repulsive after seeing them that you ran the risk of associating the shock induced by the movie with the person whom you went to the theatre with. Often you wouldn't know this was going to feel this way until the film was almost complete.
Movies in the 1995-2003 era are more-or-less engineered to induce precise emotions in the audience. There are few real surprises either good or bad. Everybody knows fairly well in advance how they are going to feel after the movie's over and they're leaving the theatre. You may not know what is exactly actually going to happen in the movie, but you have a fairly good idea how it's going to make you feel. Compared to the rollar-coaster risk that you took with 1970's movies, this is not really a bad thing.
Some examples of the 'anti-date' midnight movies of the 1970's are:
Clockwork Orange (1971 Stanley Kubrick)
Seven Beauties (1975 Lina Wertmuller)
El Topo (1969 Alexjandro Jordokoski)
Taxi Driver (1976 Martin Scorsese)
Chinatown (1974 Roman Polanski)
The list can go on and on. I'm amazed now that there was any romance at all in the 1970's. The fact that childern were still born to people who went to lots of movies is a testament to the human spirit.
My girlfriend told me her bosses son, who plays ball for USC , got a private screening along with the rest of the team...
;-(
what I'm more jealous of is that they also get a private screening of the Playboy mansion later this year
If only I'd gone to University maybe I could've been a walk on or something...
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Indeed. The author of the review could learn a lot from your attitude.
For example, he didn't like Jackson and Company's decision on making Faramir a jackass initially. I vsn sympathize with that, I didn't either. Neither did the actor. And then they explained to him (and to the viewers of the documentary DVDs) the problem with Faramir in the book.
One of the many reasons Faramir is so kick-ass in my mind -- as well as being Tolkien's favorite character -- is because, when told about the presence of the Ring in his patrol territory, he answers, "I would not pick this thing up even if it lay by the side of the road." Think about that for a moment.
See, while it's a great moment of personal integrity, it completely undermines the horrible eroding strength of the Ring. What, here's someone who's not tempted at all by the most powerful artifact in the Third Age? Fuck the Hobbits, then -- give it to this dude, he can stroll into Mordor and toss it into the fire without a moment of doubt. Instead of failing, as Frodo technically does.
If you think that hordes of moviegoers wouldn't be talking about this "massive plot hole" as they left the theatre, think again.
So, they decided to make Faramir as vulnerable as everyone else to the lure of power. And instead of a static Faramir as in the book, where he's strong and good and self-disciplined when we meet him, and in the end is still strong and good and self-disciplined (and married), here we get to see Faramir overcome the temptation of the Ring, and progress to being more self-disciplined than he started out. I think Tolkien would count that as a victory.
Personally, I don't consider either version of Faramir superior to the other. The incredibly powerful "I do not love the sword for its brightness" passage can still be read without the movie "tainting" it or anything like that.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
NO, NO, NO. Frodo doesn't throw the ring in. Gollum tries to take the ring back, biting Frodo's finger off and falling into Mt. Doom in the process. This is an important point, as the only creature EVER to give up the ring voluntarily is Bilbo.
cheers, ben
Never miss a good chance to shut up -- Will Rogers
I somehow get the impression from all the interviews, reviews etc. that I've read that this will not get included, even in the extended version, which is alright by me. I always thought that sequence felt a little tacked on in the book, and was Tolkien's last shot at reminding us that evil will always be with us in some form.
Befor you flame me, bear in mind that that point has been sufficiently well made in the trilogy (the corruption or temptation of otherwise "good" characters, such as Saruman, Boromir, Isildur; Sauron's very existence, surviving for millenia.)
Also, the book's ending is already pretty downbeat as it is. The ring has taken a heavy toll on its Frodo and Bilbo, both psycholgically and physically. And we all know that by the closing of Return Of The King that this the end of an era. With all this going on, the devastation wrought on the Shire seems like preachy excess.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
The golem, in spite of all the good it could potentially do, is a power so great that it corrupts everything around it, and a decision is made to return it from whence it came because no one person should ever have that much power.
Sound vaguely familiar?
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
he was awesome, even if they did put way too much makeup on him so he looked somewhat like a zombie
Steven Notley (Bob the Angry Flower creator) has a review here.
I hate to point this out to everyone, and this is not a troll, but you've all missed the boat on LoTR reviews until you check out:
www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=16641
Karma: The only way to win is not to play.
Look, people, this has been stated since 1998--there will be no Scouring of the Shire. It was not filmed. It will not be in the Extended Edition. The homage to it was the vision in the Mirror of Galadriel.
In every single LOTR article, someone brings up how they hope for the Scouring, when it's already been covered that it won't appear. Peter Jackson has been open about this since the very beginning. Stop talking about how you hope it appears!
"Sufferin' succotash."
As usual for a Slashdot movie review, I suppose...
Aintitcool.com has at least three articles of reviews, the latest one containing about TEN submitted reviews in them. Read those for in-depth reviews that don't bring up the Scouring (for the last freaking time, it wasn't filmed and won't appear, not even in the extended version) or other vague descriptions ("the scenes were cool, this character was funny, it was good, can't wait for extended version which I felt was better last time").
"Sufferin' succotash."
Which is posted in every single LOTR article, more than once in each.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
First, you're replying to a lame troll. That only encourages them.
And, just to be my nitpicky self, Tolkien was a philologist rather than a linguist. Not quite the same thing, but close enough.
It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired. - Robert Anson Heinlein
I didn't read the review
That's good. Now you can comment on the subject.
As you know this is Slashdot where nothing is read, a lot is said.
less is more
...until some fan takes the 10 seconds shown in the Mirror and stretches it out into a 40 minute cut scene bonanza; featuring every scene from all three movies containing either the Shire, a Hobbit, an Orc, Saruman, Grimma or any combo thereof. One can only hope a purist does it as opposed to someone who willy-nilly adds scenes of Treants attacking the Orthanc for the "awe factor". Note: any misspellings or mistakes are purely due to me being too lazy to get off the couch and walk 5 feet to the bookcase and dealing with the still-stiff boxed set.
Moving away from the funny sl/rant, thanks for the info on the Scouring not being in the ExtEd, I was wondering if the vision in the mirror was footage shot for a full chapter. While there are many nods to sections left out, such as the Mirror showing the scouring and the use of several chapter names as spoken lines in the films; I feel it makes some of the omissions more glaring by comparison. As a book to movie conversion, I'm around 90% satisfied with the theatre versions of the first two, and 99% satisfied with the extended editions of them. I can only dream and pray that the Amber series by Zelazny ends up as good.
Jonah Hex
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
I think what really matters is how these films survive over time. Long was it Tolkien could not be done: you could do Star Wars, you could do anything, but you couldn't do Tolkien. Others tried and failed.
A few movie critics are beginning to talk not about the fantasy of JRR but the fantasy of Jackson, as if the latter's interpretation will in some way supersede the literary accomplishment of the former.
This can very well happen, although it certainly is not Jackson's intention. What these movies must do over time is enhance the LoTR experience, not replace it.
Only time will tell.
In neverending story the hero goes back and takes care of the small-time bad guys after saving the world. And that was a fun movie adaption.
I think the question should be "What value did the Director get from the book?"
Perhaps the better question is, is the book better off today than it was before the movies were made? Few, I think, could argue "no."
For one, the movies introduced dozens of people to the books. Some of them didn't even realize the movies were based on any book at first; I distinctly remember murmors of "how can they end it there?!" after the first LOTR movie in theaters on opening night. No such murmors after the second one. After the third one I expect to hear a lot of "wow" in its place. I have friends who considered themselves fans of fantasy literature but had never read Tolkein. I'd say roughly half of those now intend to pick up the books after the movies. If nothing else, the other half takes with them the impact of the movies whether they know that is Tolkein's impact or not.
Let's face it: The LOTR trilogy is the vastest, most ambitious epic movie series ever undertaken. New Line literally bet the farm that the series would succeed and they have not been disappointed. The sheer scale of the filming and editing is astonishing; the quality is superb. Nowhere in LOTR have I yet found myself going, "that CGI SUCKS!" like I did, for instance, in Matrix Reloaded. They have been exceptionally professional and their product exhibits that professionalism.
Did they capture every aspect of Tolkein's work? Absolutely not. There is no way they could, even in nine hours (10:30 with the extended editions) of movies. But I would argue that they have captured the most important part, the vastness of Tolkein's world. Tolkein is the father of fantasy literature not because his story is the best (that is subjective), or his characters the most relatable--many authors have created the same before him and after. Tolkein is the master because of the pure vastness of his creation. He created a world. He created species that fantasy authors today take for granted. He interwove into this world generations before the story ever took place to provide almost a detailed history of the world before the story ever begins. He even created languages.
All of these elements are present, if one looks for them, in the movies. The beauty of the Shire in Fellowship was breathtaking. The incredible stonework throughout both of the first two movies (and no doubt through the third) is indicative of a fantastic history. The vastness of the lands and the castles was staggering, and the scope of the battle in Two Towers was unprecedented--and from every indication, the battle in Return will put it to shame.
Throughout it all, Jackson also manages to properly portray the mood. I think he has done a fantastic job detailing the effect that the ring has had on Frodo and I think Gollum is pure brilliance. The music is perfectly appropriate to the scenes, often deep, base-dominated sounds that resonated through the audience and gave illustrated the feelings of vastness and hopelessness. The colors and scenary--or I should say, general lack thereof as the Fellowship breaks apart and moves closer to their dark goal--is crowning.
He didn't stay completely true to the books, of course. A lot was cut--that's expected--and some of the edges smoothed to make the cut scenes transparent. But he also took some plot points and invented or changed them to help illustrate concepts he felt needed better illustration. Some of the changes I didn't like, some I did; most of the changes I honestly don't care about. If that is something that somehow ruins the movies for someone, than that person is better of not watching the movies. Could aggrevate their heart condition. *eyeroll*
Point being, a very fine job was done. Not everything was done exactly according to the book, but I think Jackson did a wonderful job portraying the most important aspects of Tolkein's work and introducing it to a whole new generation of readers. And to answer your initial question -- "Was something essential to the written work captured and represented on the screen?" -- I would say yes. Most everything essential to the work was captured.
Your mileage may vary.
Absolutely. It's a Macintosh.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
One of my housemates is still geeky enough to (and still has the dotcom job to be able to afford to) take the whole household out to see Martix: Revolutions on the Metreon's IMAX screen for the midnight, opening night (morning?), showing. I sure appreciated it, and didn't turn down the opportunity. But, many, Many, MANY, times throughout the course of the night; I thought to myself: "The ticket price should include the right to beat up one trenchcoat-wearing dork".
I've already been told not to make plans for wednesday night. So while I'll, no doubt, greatly enjoy seeing ROTK; I'll also, no doubt, spend a good portion of the night desperately resisting the urge to throttle selected RenFair/SCA rejects.
No wonder most of my newer friends are more from the artsy-fartsy crowd than the geek crowd. They may smell bad from smoking too much. But at least I won't catch them making lightsaber or warp drive noises anytime soon.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
For Tolkien's sake, if you are reviewing a movie on Slashdot, please, check the fucking spelling! Lest we will hear about dwarf Gimmler, hobbit Poppy and Agronome the King...
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Amanda Peet in blonde wig.
However, the battle of Pelenor Fields is Jackson's money-shot. His obsession with fight-scenes has distorted the previous two movies and now he has taken the chance to indulge himself in the final film even if it means totally screwing up the development of the characters' stories: Merry, Pippen, Sam, Frodo, Grima, and Saruman are sacrificed to allow a really big fight scene.
To hell with Peter Jackson. I hope someday someone films LotR, because I for one think it could make a great film (or three).
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Except for actually putting the characters from the book into the near-perfect scenery, effects, and costume design.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Actually nobody ever gave up the ring voluntarily - it has a will of its own, and goes where it wants. It had just finished with Bilbo, that's all.
Well, not 100% anyway.
I have not idea how credible "ain't it cool news" is, but this article mentions a rumor of more filming next year for the extend edition of ROTK.
I'll continue to hope until I see review from a reliable source that its not included in the EE.
BTW, was anyone slightly bugged that the "homage" to the scouring in FOTR showd samwise as a prisoner? In the book, the hobbits returned to the shire to mop up the floor with the bad guys. None of the 4 were taken prisoner.
"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
Mod parent down -- link doesn't go anywhere near a review.
(It's funny to see someone demanding that others give up hope when the subject is Lord of the Rings.)
The outrage and expectation beyond hope is justifiable to fans of the novel. "Scouring" is the denouement, where the climax is actually *resolved*. It demonstrates in no uncertain terms that things are different, permanently, because of the events that have transpired. The Shire had changed along with the hobbits despite their absence. Things would not go back to normal just because the ring was gone and Merry and Pippin were home. The elves are gone and Men would be in charge. "Scouring" was the first glimpse of the Age that had just been born through Frodo, Sam and Gollum's actions. Unlike other nixed material like Tom Bombadil, or changed material like Arwen or Faramir's characters and roles, "Scouring" is actually essential to the gist of the story, which Peter Jackson was supposedly guarding despite his changes.
Also, if anyone avoided purchasing the extended version of The Two Towers because the extra stuff added to The Fellowship of the Ring was lame, then I highly suggest you reconsider. The extra stuff added to The Two Towers was much more relevant and meaningful.
Apologies to those who don't get the joke.
GPL: Free as in will
There's a bunch of theatres here showing these films regularly.
Some friends visited me from Dallas & they were astounded that there was even one theatre showing these. The number of bikes on the streets also scared them.
I don't seek these out when I'm in other cities, so I can't tell you what other cities have a lot (or a little) of this.
...the Soviet version of "War and Peace" was 511 minutes long (8-1/2 hours) and it *was* a single narrative framework. Both Tolkein and Jackson broke "The Lord of the Rings" into three parts.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
If you wanna see what lucas would have done with the lord of the rings, watch Willow.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
See, I think *that's* how things should really be. I love working at jobs like that, where I'm a big part of my own destiny. The corporate world loves to make empty promises along those lines, but in reality - when you work for them, you get what some bean-counter decided is in your "proper pay range" for that year.
Sure, you get the supposed "benefit" of a steady income, no matter how good or bad the company's sales are - but that's a facade. If it gets too hard for them to pay you, they'll just let you go at the drop of a hat - and then you'll have a BIG problem on your hands.
At least working for the little guys, you always know what's up ahead - because you're actively part of the operation, and YOU control much of it. You can't single-handedly change a bad economy, but you could opt to do things like help advertise for them, even though you're "off the clock", or put in some extra hours of work on customer's equipment that you don't bill them for - so they'll be pleased enough to use you again and again.
You can tell me that you need to have a good love story to make a Hollwood movie tick: but I don't buy that you have to make fun of the short race that gets played by midgets (versus the hobbits, who are just as small and played by average sized actors).
Umm... You do know that John Rhys-Davies is 6'1" tall, right?
"I can only dream and pray that the Amber series by Zelazny ends up as good." Or the H2G2 film. Or, one day, the Discworld films. But I'm sure Adams -- rest his soul -- and Pratchett would agree that many scenes may be ommitted. They tend to ramble and add footnotes, as if packing their Silmarillion into the margins of their LOTR. Still, every minor character has his fan club.
This guy has some great points!
Marvin knew: "Think of a number, any number..."
beware of spoilers.
Dammit. It's too late. I read the books in 8th grade. Now the movies are completely ruined!
Jackson is from NZ, the entire film was filmed in NZ, and Jackson is a big promotor of NZ.
He wants to be known as a NZ Director, hes very proud of his homeland, and wants more attention paid to it.
He begged the studio to allow him to film there.
Welcome to the End
Of the whole movie.
Everything else in the movie, I've read, was to show the horrors of war - the scouring of the shire was the point of the books.
WWII Vets returning from a defeated germany, exhausted and devastated with loss and grief came home to an england transformed by the realities of war from a quaint parochial burb into an industrial nation scarred with firebombings and terror from the V2 rockets.
The lesson here is that you cannot go to war to protect innocence, and you can't go home.
"No good deed goes unpunished"
...but 10 minutes of other scenes with Saruman and Wormtongue will be back for the DVD.
I found the first two to be spectacular, but jilted in the theater. When I saw the DVD's it all came together for me.
I'll wait this time around to see the extended DVD's first.
Aww, crap, who am I kidding?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
+1 Better adaptation than Lucas's "prequels"
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
No, it's intellectual property people often descramble to watch for free.
MP3s are intellectual property people often download to listen to for free.
No difference, except in the ways they're labelled.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Ok, so we all know there is at least a chance of having a Jackson directed "Hobbit" later.
... the key is quality.
My hope is that after that he (or others with talent and equal respect for Tolkien's intents) gets the ability to turn some of the Silmarillion into a set of mini-movies. HBO has a terrific history of well directed series' over the last few years. I think it would work out quite well.
The first one could even be the scourging of the the shire, even though it's from the trilogy, or Tom Bombadil, then move on to the bigger stories from the Silmarillion.
Maybe even take some of the stuff from the Chris Tolkien additions to the Silmarillion as a prequel to the movies, though I would hope that would be as feature movies.
This could go on for quite some time
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Actually, Bilbo gave the ring up. If the ring had had its way, it would have gone off with Bilbo. Gandalf at the time didn't know what the ring was, and the dwarves that accompanied Bilbo in the book wouldn't have known to protect the ring, should their party come under seige. The ring would have had a far easier time getting back to Sauron by sticking with Bilbo. Recall, the ring's wasn't the only will at work.
There is so much the Matrix makers could learn from these movies. I cannot forgive the crime we were all subjected to with the Matrix. I have to say it, this was the movie of the year. Pirates of the Carribbean is the only movie this year that could even come close to competing. Kudos to Peter Jackson and crew for rescuing this year of bad movies.
I am Lord Snowbeam. Heed my call!
>>Tolkien created the fantasy genre.
I think that the author of Beowulf might not agree with you.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".