Topic: LotR: RotK

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
Yes there's an excuse. It wasn't filmed.

That's what I meant- there was no excuse not to film and hence no excuse not to include it in the DVD.

Quote
It's also not as simple as merely adding it to the film. That part wasn't just left out, the ending was constructed as if it was never meant to be included. Adding it would require an actual CHANGE to the ending.

Have you ever read the book? The only difference between the movie's ending and the book's ending was the exclusion of the Scouring of the Shire. It's like the exclusion of the Old Forest in FotR- they just didn't show it. No ending would have to be changed at all- seriously, I know you've read the book, which kind of confuses me that you think they'd have to change the ending. Hell, they even kept the last line of the book in the movie.

Quote
You obviously feel it was an important scene. I don't and obviously Peter Jackson didn't either. Neither of us is right or wrong...

No, I'm right, you're wrong. It's not a little matter of opinion, it IS an essential part of the story- the simple fact Tolkien wrote it should say as much. As long as LotR is, Tolkien didn't write anything that wasn't necessary- he was not an author who simply threw things in just to make it longer.

Quote
No matter what people are going to complain about stuff that's been changed or removed but if the film was a literal translation of the book it would have been REALLY long and REALLY boring.

Why do you think the general public thinks The Two Towers is better than Fellowship of the Ring? Because they thought FotR was REALLY long and REALLY boring. Why do you think Tolkien fans think Fellowship of the Ring is better than The Two Towers? Because FotR was a much more faithful adaption of the book. RotK could have been both- theatrically it could be what the public wants and on DVD what the fans want.

Quote
I think Peter Jackson did pretty much the best job anyone could have.

Best? No. One dam fine job that nobody else could have replicated? Hell yes. I think overall he made a very faithful adaption of the book, with most of the changes being not only necessary but extremely well done. That doesn't mean I think ALL the changes were necessary OR well done (I think we can all agree that the person who put elves in Helm's Deep needs to be crucified). That's precisely why I said judge the movie as just that, a movie, and not as an adaption of the book, because faithful it was not. That doesn't keep me from regarding each movie independantly as the three greatest cinematic masterpieces ever crafted by mortal hands- I shudder to think if my brain could handle judging the entire 10+ hour epic.  

[Ian Sane]

"That's what I meant- there was no excuse not to film and hence no excuse not to include it in the DVD."

Oh okay.  I thought you realistically thought they should film that scene and put it in the DVD.

"Have you ever read the book? The only difference between the movie's ending and the book's ending was the exclusion of the Scouring of the Shire."

Yes I have read the book.  In the movie the four hobbits walk past that guy in Hobbiton and he sees that they're wearing regal armor and riding horses.  IE: they've just returned and everything is fine.  When I say that the ending is changed it means that in order to put in the scourging they would have to remove shots from that scene and present it in an entirely different manner.  There's no way they could just insert the scourging into the film as is without removing some of it.  As a result it's a change instead of a mere extension.

"Why do you think the general public thinks The Two Towers is better than Fellowship of the Ring? Because they thought FotR was REALLY long and REALLY boring. Why do you think Tolkien fans think Fellowship of the Ring is better than The Two Towers? Because FotR was a much more faithful adaption of the book."

I was unaware that the general public prefered Two Towers.  In fact almost every person I've ever met who has seen both movies liked the first one more.  The only people I've ever met who thought Fellowship was boring never bothered to see any of the other movies.  I personally like Fellowship more not so much because it was more faithful but because I liked the story better.  I like the first book better as well.

"No, I'm right, you're wrong.  It's not a little matter of opinion, it IS an essential part of the story- the simple fact Tolkien wrote it should say as much. As long as LotR is, Tolkien didn't write anything that wasn't necessary- he was not an author who simply threw things in just to make it longer."

Yes this is a matter of opinion.  I don't think Tolkien wrote anything to make it longer but that doesn't mean all of the detail in the book is an essential part of the story.  In terms of a narrative there are several characters and parts that do not affect the overall story whatsoever.  For example the various lyrics to the songs present in the book ultimately are not required for the story.  They're just a neat little detail that was thrown in.  If they were excluded the story would still make perfect sense.  I see the movie not as an adaptation of the book but as an account of the story of the Ring.  If those events really happened then you could see the movie and book as different accounts of the real life events.  In the grand story of the Ring the scourging of the shire is unimportant.  It's a detail that one account made note of and the other didn't.

Of course it seems pretty silly that we're arguing over something like this when the movie kicked ass regardless of what was included or excluded.

[mouse_clicker]

Even IF we were going along with the premise that the ending would have to be changed (really, more scenes were pulled in the other 2 extended DVD's), director's cuts of movies very often have very different endings- look at Blade Runner.

Quote
I was unaware that the general public prefered Two Towers. In fact almost every person I've ever met who has seen both movies liked the first one more.

Almsot everyone I've talked to who has not read the book thinks The Two Towers is better, mainly because they thought FotR was very boring. Even a quick look at the general consensus on IMD shows TTT several places higher than FotR.

Quote
Yes this is a matter of opinion. I don't think Tolkien wrote anything to make it longer but that doesn't mean all of the detail in the book is an essential part of the story.

Some passages are more for backstory than story progression, yes, but the Scouring of the Shire is most definitely not backstory. It was necessary to show that evil still existed and would always exist, and that the hobbits weren't stupid little fat farmers who didn't know any better.

Quote
Of course it seems pretty silly that we're arguing over something like this when the movie kicked ass regardless of what was included or excluded.

That's what geeks do, though, is nitpick over tiny little details until we're blue in the face.

[Berny]

Way to go, mouse.

[nolimit19]

i thought the series could have been better, but i guess you can only ask for so much. i liked the first one the best, and the 2nd the least. i will see the 3rd one again sometime htis week...maybe i will like it a little more...who knows.


P.S. i seriously want to see them make the hobbit more than anything now. it would be sooooo cool.

[mouse_clicker]

Peter Jackson said he'd make The Hobbit if New Line can get the rights from United Artists (who made the animated version). If they do, I'll feel very sorry for Peter Jackson- he will have spent some 10 years of his life adapting one man's books.

[ThePerm]

i msut watch them all when their on dvd!!!! martathon style!!! that will so kick ass!

[BiLdItUp1]

It's good to be back- at least for now.
Last I heard, the Tolkien estate is the main problem for them(and even if we were to see any adaptation, it wouldn't be till probably '09-'10, because of King Kong). Damn it, they're screwing up everything for their loyal fans these days. Thank G-d good old John Ronald Reuel got this 50gs for the movie rights back in the day- or there would be no LOTR movies to begin with(and if there were no LOTR movies to begin with, I would never had read LOTR/H/Sillmarillion- which would have been a great loss)

Leaving the Scouring in the movie would have been feasable at this point- the character progressions of Merry and Pippin have come to the point in ROTK that it would have been possible. In any case, for PJ to include the Scouring of the Shire, he'd have to change the Scouring story to begin with(i.e. buckland, sandyman, lotho, etc.- as it would be too many characters to introduce at this point) as well as the Isengard sequence which was supposed to be at the end of TTT/beginning of ROTK:EE.  All in all, I believe that yes, in the books, your point that evil still exists in the world after Sauron's demise. But the way the movie progresses and is set up is such that Sauron is the source of all this great evil- witness the destruction of the Dark Tower and the blowing away of all those nasty Orcses. It wouldn't do to have a little miny-war with Saruman right after that. It just doesn't work.

[Berny]

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Peter Jackson said he'd make The Hobbit if New Line can get the rights from United Artists (who made the animated version). If they do, I'll feel very sorry for Peter Jackson- he will have spent some 10 years of his life adapting one man's books.

Yeah, but he did a good job. I'd say that the good in the movies far outweighs the bad, the mistakes. And his next project, King Kong, is just him spending another couple of years adapting a movie that's been done twice? Maybe only once. I forget if they remade it or not. I really want to see an original film from this guy. I want to see what HE is capable of doing.

[mouse_clicker]

Berny: Oh, of course he did a good job! But he msut be exhausted even now, after doing Lord of the Rings. King Kong has only been remade once, but Jackson's remake will stay much closer to the original. As for his other movies, he did make the very critically acclaimed Heavenly Creatures, which launched Kate Winslett's career, but that was based on a true story. He did make The Frighteners, and the decidedly more gruesome and bizarre splatter flick Bad Taste, as well as Meet the Feebles, which has been likened to Muppets on drugs.

[Hostile Creation]

I saw The Frighteners. . . it wasn't a bad movie, but it was far from impressing me.  Some aspects appealed to me while others did not.  Or something.  Heck, I'm probably thinking of the wrong movie anyway.

[Termin8Anakin]

The Frighteners was the funny/freaky combo starring a decidedly Marty McFly-looking Michael J Fox (that red shirt and the jeans).
I think it was a great movie.

Fox play a guy that, after a freak accident, sees ghosts. HE uses this ability to make a living as a fraud ghostbuster, getting two ghosty pals to stir up some trouble (raise and shake beds, knock over some things, etc) until people turn up dead, and he stumbles upon a plan that has a freaky woman conjuring up the ghost of her dead muderer-boyfriend to continue their killing spree. Fox has to use his abilities and overcome his past to save the small town.
It also has this insanely eccentric FBI/CIA (whatever ) agent who's job used to be infiltarting various hardcore cults (the effects of which are quite noticable). He suspects that Fox was behind his wife's death, as well as the string of deaths that have been happening, since Fox was the last one to see them.

A good movie

And Return of the King?
Wow.

Just........wow.
It was a great beginning, and a tearful ending. I don't think I've ever been close to crying as much as the ending of RotK.
Great work Peter Jackson

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
It was a great beginning, and a tearful ending. I don't think I've ever been close to crying as much as the ending of RotK.

I did cry at the end. Seeing Sam walking up to his hobbit hole and seeing his daughter running up to him (who was actually Sean Astin's daughter), and then hearing him speak that line, I couldn't help it.

[Ghost_of_a_Flea]

Quote
Originally posted by: Termin8Anakin

It also has this insanely eccentric FBI/CIA (whatever ) agent who's job used to be infiltarting various hardcore cults (the effects of which are quite noticable). He suspects that Fox was behind his wife's death, as well as the string of deaths that have been happening, since Fox was the last one to see them.

Jeffrey Combs as the agent was great!  Of course he shall forever be Dr. Herbert West from the Re-Animator series to me, but he's a great actor!  As I've said already, I'm addicted to horror movies... they're my obsession.  

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Berny: Oh, of course he did a good job! But he msut be exhausted even now, after doing Lord of the Rings. King Kong has only been remade once, but Jackson's remake will stay much closer to the original. As for his other movies, he did make the very critically acclaimed Heavenly Creatures, which launched Kate Winslett's career, but that was based on a true story. He did make The Frighteners, and the decidedly more gruesome and bizarre splatter flick Bad Taste, as well as Meet the Feebles, which has been likened to Muppets on drugs.

You forgot one Peter Jackson's greats... Braindead (usually known as Dead Alive); possibly one of the greatest zombie movies outside of Romero's Dead Trilogy and the Evil Dead movies (I also dig Lucio Fulci's work, but I wouldn't call them masterpieces).  Easily one of the goriest movies of all time; really good zombie flick!  

[Hostile Creation]

Yeah, that's the one.  It's a good movie, and an interesting plot, but something about it didn't appeal to me.  Partially the turn that the villain took.  It seemed like they started making the movie without knowing what would happen with that crazy reaper dude.  The plot wouldn't have been so unsatisfactory if that guy hadn't been so bad@ss with his scythe.  Going through floors and whatnot.  That was cool.

[evil intentions]

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker

Quote
It was a great beginning, and a tearful ending. I don't think I've ever been close to crying as much as the ending of RotK.

I did cry at the end. Seeing Sam walking up to his hobbit hole and seeing his daughter running up to him (who was actually Sean Astin's daughter), and then hearing him speak that line, I couldn't help it.

Really? I didn't feel sad at all.

I kept thinking the movie would end. But it just kept on going.

[SPOILERS!!!]

The first time when I thought it was going to end is when Frodo was awakening on his bed to see "The White Wizard" adnt then when merry and pipen and everyone else came. I thought it would end right after that.
The second time is when they came back to the Shire.
The third was when Frodo was going on the boat with the elves. (I admit it's pretty close to the ending, yet, they still shoudl Sam and his family.

I think the funniest part in the movie was where Gandolf hit that messed up king into the fire and he ran out and jumped off the cliff. All of my cousins and I were laughing hystarically.

[mouse_clicker]

[SPOILERS!]



I just said I cried, not that the ending was sad- there is a difference.

And I HATED the scenes where Gandalf just beat up Denethor with his stuff- it made me cringe more than anything else in the movie, and I thought it was the only thing keeping it from being truly perfect. I already wasn't happy with Denethor's character being a two dimensional cardboard cutout, but when Gandalf hit him with the staff, not once but multiple times, I was almost as mad as when they put elves in Helm's Deep. Seriously, how could a man  who makes such beautiful masterpieces that capture essentially ever nuance of the book put in something like that that just undermines it all? It doesn't make any sense.  

[Ocarina Blue]

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
As for his other movies, he did make the very critically acclaimed Heavenly Creatures, which launched Kate Winslett's career, but that was based on a true story. He did make The Frighteners, and the decidedly more gruesome and bizarre splatter flick Bad Taste, as well as Meet the Feebles, which has been likened to Muppets on drugs.

You forgot Brain Dead. Two hours of pure gore, honestly. This movie outdoes watching all of the fatilities in Mortal Kombat 3 in a row repeatably for several days on end. That movie is the most horrid thing I've ever seen (I've decided to opt out of viewing tub girl). However, by dehumanising the victims, it somehow managed to go unnoticedby by our beloved rating's authority. Seriously, viewing this film not only gave me a new view on Jackson's work, but a new view on his mind.

Looking over both of the movies, my two major observations were that:
a) Books and movies are not compatable formats, and
b) The movies are more Jackson than Tolkien

[Oldskool]

mmm... Smaug, and lots of Dwarves... I sure hope that a live-action The Hobbit is made!


Or... a SILMARILLION MOVIE... It could have an intro about the creation of Arda (the world) and the Valar and Maiar, and then go into the main story about the First Age. Perhaps it would do better as a mini-series than a movie.

[Berny]

For all who missed out, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is officially the best movie ever made. It won 11 oscars, tied for the most number of Oscars a movie has won with Titanic and Ben Hur. Henceforth, all who insult Tolkien's magesty will be executed. You have been warned.

             ^_^    

       

   


Nine stars for each of the members of the Fellowship.

[SearanoX]

Bah, I still don't think that it deserves so many Oscars, but I'll agree that it definetly deserves the technical awards.

[mouse_clicker]

You're lucky me and Berny don't know where you live, SearanoX.

[Draygaia]

The Lord of the Rings with all three parts put together IMO is the best movie ever.  I don't think of it as three movies but a movie in three parts.  The story was only three books because the people who decided to print thought it was ok to do so but really it is 6 books.  Since they put elves at Helm's Deep (I'm ok with that.  Its a movie, duh!) in TT I wish they put Dwarf armies instead of attacking ghost in RotK.

[Ian Sane]

"Since they put elves at Helm's Deep (I'm ok with that. Its a movie, duh!) in TT I wish they put Dwarf armies instead of attacking ghost in RotK."

Wha??  I think it's fair to assume that you are literally the only person on Earth to wish this, or even think of it.  Dwarves wouldn't even make any sense since the whole point of the ghost army is that they are able to wipe out the Mordor army with no problems.  Dwarves obviously could not make the same impact.  Plus it's like a HUGE change to the story for really no good reason.  Far worse than the Elves thing which is really more of an addition than a change.

As for the Oscars I'm glad to see Return of the King win best picture though I really see it as a piece of a greater movie so it seems kind of "wrong" for a part three to win best pic.  They should have given the first film best picture two years ago instead.  I am very glad to see Peter Jackson get some recognition for his work.  Three films, three oscars for Jackson.  Seems fitting.

However I think it was overkill for it to win EVERYTHING it was nominated for.  There's no reason it had to win best song for example aside from the Academy wanting it to do a clean sweep.  "Into the West" is not even that great of a song in my opinion (though "May it Be" from the first film is).  I personally wanted "Kiss at the End of the Rainbow" from A Mighty Wind to win that one.

One thing that's interesting is that because of the extras on the extended LotR cuts for the first time I can think of I recognized people who won technical awards.  My brother and I cheered when Richard Taylor came up to accept his awards.  With no other movie would I have any idea who that guy was.

[Termin8Anakin]

Return of the King was an excellent movie.
I didn't watch the whole Oscars cermony, but jusdging from the hilarious LotR spoof that Billy Crystal did with Jack Nicolson and Michael Moore (didn't watch all of it either), it was going to be a LotR-dominated show.
The song he sung at the beginning was funny also.