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?
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!
Judging from the back cover of the soundtrack, the Black Gate will be in the movie, at least.
Thus spake Josh.
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 assume you're referring to this AP article: AP: Final 'Rings' Has Many Endings Thu Dec 11, 2:56 PM ET By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer With "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," Peter Jackson (news) delivers a decent ending to his fantasy trilogy -- actually, about 12 endings. Unable to settle on a finale among the many farewells and epilogues in J.R.R. Tolkien's text, director Jackson decided to use them all. The result is an endless parade of false endings that will give you a great lower back workout as you rise from your theater seat thinking things are finally over, then settle back in for the next prolonged addendum. This is the main flaw to an otherwise rousing, action-packed closing chapter that began with 2001's "The Fellowship of the Ring" and continued with last year's "The Two Towers." The nine-hour theatrical epic (more like 11 hours once the extended home-video version of all three flicks are out) winds up petering out in anticlimactic torpor. Jackson does scale back greatly on the aftermath of the final good-against-evil battle, yet he preserves the main events to keep die-hard Tolkien fans happy. So viewers are treated in some detail to such comparatively passive sequences as the survivors' return home; the ascension of human warrior Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) to the throne and his wedding to Elf hottie Arwen (Liv Tyler); the mystical fate of runty Hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Bilbo (Ian Holm), woolly wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and Elf top dogs Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) and Elrond (Hugo Weaving); and the domestic bliss of Frodo's Man Friday, Sam (Sean Astin). That baggage makes "Return of the King" the longest of the trilogy by far, clocking in at 3 hours, 20 minutes. There's far too much cool-down time for casual viewers but probably not enough to satisfy the hard-core Tolkien legions. So why not put Blanchett back in voice-over mode, let her narrate a Reader's Digest condensed montage of Jackson's interminable ending, and save the elongated conclusion for the extended home-video cut? The movie opens with a flashback explaining how Smeagol (Andy Serkis) came to possess his "precious," the nasty ring of ultimate evil, and the first dark deeds that began transforming him into wizened computer-crafted fiend Gollum. Then the action picks up where "Two Towers" left off, with Gollum plotting to regain his precious as Frodo and Sam trek toward Mount Doom, where they must destroy the ring to keep dark lord Sauron from enslaving Middle-earth. Meantime, Aragorn, Gandalf and the gang square off against Sauron's plug-ugly minions. If you're looking for bigger and better battles than the first two chapters, "Return of the King" comes through. Jackson and his New Zealand crew, which filmed all three movies simultaneously, pile computer-generated props, sets and creatures as high as a Nazgul's eye to create the colossal combat scenes. Bat-faced orcs ride gargantuan elephants into battle against humans on horseback. The adversaries engage in a very cool catapult duel that brings mountains of broken castle stone down on the warriors. Aragorn and pals Legolas the Elf (Orlando Bloom (news)) and Gimli the Dwarf (John Rhys-Davies (news)) charge into the fray at the head of a ghastly ghost army. Frodo's battle with a giant spider -- an encounter Tolkien placed at the end of "Two Towers" but which Jackson transplants to "Return of the King" -- is one of the creepiest computer-animated sequences ever produced. Like "Two Towers," "Return of the King" is more a bruising action movie than "Fellowship of the Ring," the best of the trilogy on the strength of the intimate interplay among its misfit heroes. Hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) again play larger roles, but much of the original fellowship members are relegated to prancing in larger-than-life mode. Secondary characters step up to provide the final film's most intriguing interpersonal drama. Faramir (David Wenham), brother of the slain Boromir (Sean Bean)), vainly struggles to gain the respect of his conte
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?
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
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"
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.
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.
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!
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
You don't. Choose "Plain Old Text" when posting. Especially when karma whoring.
OMFG U R TEH N00B! (just kidding.)
Ron Paul 2012
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.
Gollum == Ring dude.
You are not the customer.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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!
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!
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.
:)
Hmm. Could we have that INSTEAD of the Ewok dance number? Especially the new one?
No wait. Let's do that with all the Ewok scenes
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
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."
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.
Just because the Shire ending doesn't follow Hollywood (whose conventions Tolkien hated) guidelines doesn't mean it doesn't have a place. It illustrates many small things, but most importantly it provides the final, triumphant character endings for each hobbit. So many of my favorite lessons that the book provides are driven home in the final chapters.
Basically, speak for yourself, and remember whose masterpiece the story really is. Tolkien is the master, and those who cannot create cannot improve.
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.
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.
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!
...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.
+1 Better adaptation than Lucas's "prequels"
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??