Return of the King...I hope this review is bogus!!!

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
40,099
Reaction score
24,565
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Granted, on reading this, I think there is a very good chance that it's a load of steaming dung, but it may not be.

Needless to say, if even SOME of the major stuff in this review is true, then Peter Jackson needs to be dragged into the street and beaten to death by copies of the books. I mean, seriously...

http://www.fantasyfreaks.org/fantasy/messages/14173.html
 

Mike Olbinski

Formerly Chandler Mike
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
16,396
Reaction score
13
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Not reading it until I see the movie.

All I know is that Rotten Tomatoe's has 16 reviews up so far, and the rating is 100 stinking percent.

If things aren't like the book, I'm not going to get bent out of shape.

Mike
 

Mike Olbinski

Formerly Chandler Mike
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
16,396
Reaction score
13
Location
Phoenix, AZ
SPOILERS BELOW!!!












Stout, this part is indeed in it, and it's about one of the best parts of the book...from a review I read.

The movie is going to be great, you have got to get rid of your "stick to the book" feelings or you may as well not even see it. Just remember, you ALWAYS have the books like Tolkien meant them to be, and you have the movie interpretation, which is just as freaking good.

The review:

"Eventually, this Black Captain of the Nazgul, who rides one of the dragonlike beasts first seen in "Towers," has a fight with Eowyn and Merry in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, outside the walls of Minas Tirith, that readers have been waiting decades to see. It's a gloriously crowd-pleasing moment, while overall the lengthy siege is tremendously exciting and visually unparalleled."

Of course, I read this next:

"Jackson and co-writers Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh make noteworthy departures from Tolkien, including such crucial moments as what happens when Frodo is finally standing on a ledge over the Crack of Doom inside the volcano where the ring must be destroyed, and how Aragorn makes use of the Army of the Dead that only he can command. Whole swaths of the book have been condensed and eliminated, but Jackson and company usually realize splendidly whatever they take on."


And I guess that has me worried a bit, but to me, as long as it works, I'm going to try and not get upset about it.


Mike
 
OP
OP
Stout

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
40,099
Reaction score
24,565
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Hey, I'm ready for it, so I won't be as bent out of shape as last time, when I was violently angry. I mean, the first was great, and then they slapped me with a red herring...er, the Two Towers!

I'm terribly afraid Return of the King will suffer from what I now call the 'Sum of all Fears' syndrome. Decent to good (or, hopefully Wed morning, very good) movie, but nothing even remotely resembling the real deal. While I don't think Return will be nearly as bad in this as Sum was, I think it will be.

****Slight Spoiler****

I mean, it's rumored that Gollum turns Frodo on Sam by telling him Sam is hording Lembas, and Frodo then sends Sam home before entering the tunnel, and Sam only attacks Sheilob by surprise. If this is true, I'll projectile vomit onto the big screen, mark my words.
 

Mike Olbinski

Formerly Chandler Mike
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
16,396
Reaction score
13
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Originally posted by Stout
Hey, I'm ready for it, so I won't be as bent out of shape as last time, when I was violently angry. I mean, the first was great, and then they slapped me with a red herring...er, the Two Towers!

I'm terribly afraid Return of the King will suffer from what I now call the 'Sum of all Fears' syndrome. Decent to good (or, hopefully Wed morning, very good) movie, but nothing even remotely resembling the real deal. While I don't think Return will be nearly as bad in this as Sum was, I think it will be.

****Slight Spoiler****

I mean, it's rumored that Gollum turns Frodo on Sam by telling him Sam is hording Lembas, and Frodo then sends Sam home before entering the tunnel, and Sam only attacks Sheilob by surprise. If this is true, I'll projectile vomit onto the big screen, mark my words.


Yeah, and trust me, after I read how the ending with Frodo and the ring had been changed, then I started worrying last night...even though I've tried not to care so much about the changes, it still will suck.

And if what you said above is true, that might suck too. However, in the book, they did have major conflict between them, so maybe this is the only way Jackson could make that come across in a movie.

Anyways, as much as that might not be like the book, it sounds like an awesome scene.

Plus, you gotta read the reviews...100%, people love it, the movie is great, and that's what's important to me.

Mike
 

Dan H

ASFN Addict
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Posts
6,261
Reaction score
5,352
Location
Circle City, IN
A friend of mine got a sneak preview ticket to see it. This guy is the biggest LOTR fan in the world . . . he's read the books something like 20 times IIRC.

He has done nothing but wax positive about the film. One thing you have to realize - this is not Tolkien's LOTR. If it were the movies would be four hours long each, with a few five minutes battles here and there, and a lot of singing and verbal discourse on how the trees look, or the family history of some ancillary character.

I love the books, but you have to be impressed with how Jackson has boiled down the plot into something palatable for a general audience while still keeping to the general framework of Tolkien's story.
 
OP
OP
Stout

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
40,099
Reaction score
24,565
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Originally posted by Dan H
A friend of mine got a sneak preview ticket to see it. This guy is the biggest LOTR fan in the world . . . he's read the books something like 20 times IIRC.

He has done nothing but wax positive about the film. One thing you have to realize - this is not Tolkien's LOTR. If it were the movies would be four hours long each, with a few five minutes battles here and there, and a lot of singing and verbal discourse on how the trees look, or the family history of some ancillary character.

I love the books, but you have to be impressed with how Jackson has boiled down the plot into something palatable for a general audience while still keeping to the general framework of Tolkien's story.

Absolutely...I am totally cool with that. And he's done both a good job at times, and a horrific job at times, IMO.

I mean, you look at the first movie. There were tons of things wrong with it, sure. My personal favorite, Tom Bombadil, wasn't even in the extended, but I was totally cool with that. It just wasn't too important. I think my favorite moment, though, was the death of Boromir. You don't really even get to see the battle in the book, but in the movie, it's the epic finale, and was stunning.

Then you have the second movie. MAJOR plot points were either marred or simply changed. I fully understand what you need to do for movies, and everything can't be the same, and I heard Jackson and that woman of his (sorry, can't remember her name) TRY to justify them, but it was all hot air. They really ruined a lot of stuff for me, though the extended edition was better.

So, I'm hoping (but not expecting, because of Jackson's arrogance-the Shire Scouring scene is not in it not because of time, but because he never LIKED it-I gives a DAMN if he didn't like it...it's not HIS book!) that ROTK is like the first movie, and not the second.
 

Mike Olbinski

Formerly Chandler Mike
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
16,396
Reaction score
13
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Originally posted by Stout

So, I'm hoping (but not expecting, because of Jackson's arrogance-the Shire Scouring scene is not in it not because of time, but because he never LIKED it-I gives a DAMN if he didn't like it...it's not HIS book!) that ROTK is like the first movie, and not the second.


Well, I love the books, but I had to admit, the Scouring of the Shire is kind of almost a Proloque to the book, except for the final few pages for the Gray Havens.

It's not necessary for the movie at all, and I think it would bring the movie down from the great ending it probably has.

Mike
 
OP
OP
Stout

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
40,099
Reaction score
24,565
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Originally posted by Chandler Mike
Well, I love the books, but I had to admit, the Scouring of the Shire is kind of almost a Proloque to the book, except for the final few pages for the Gray Havens.

It's not necessary for the movie at all, and I think it would bring the movie down from the great ending it probably has.

Mike

Survey says....BZZZZZZ! Incorrect!

It's not a prologue at all...it's the removal of the final villain of the story, the final defeat and death of Saruman. How can you NOT finish this trilogy withouth ending Saruman's life?

I'm assuming they'll remove the part about Treebeard letting Saruman go, because if they leave that in, it'll really highlight how stupid leaving out the end is. Yeah, the bad guy got away...but we'll just kind of forget about him.

And this is also not even considering how anti-climactic the defeat of Sauron is. Yes, we're going to get all kinds of cinematic shots of the fall of Barad dur (spelling?), but we don't see Sauron (though we could-see below). That's why it's good to see Saruman the villain again at the end...you get a real, tangible villain, the straight-out baddie, that people like to see. Because who else is there? Gollum? No way-too sympathetic in many folks' eyes. Shelob? Shagrat and Gorbag? The Mouth of Sauron? The Lord of the Nazgul? Not enough, IMO-that is, not enough main villains, and too many supporting-cast type villains and monsters.

Also, and this isn't the scouring of the shire, but what'll be the deal with the Palantirs? Seems to me they'll be almost moot or, worse, Jackson might leave them out entirely. Though if there was ANY case for adding something that was only described and not read, it would be Aragorn wrestling with Sauron through the Palantir. Also, the use of Gondor's Palantir mitigated slightly the madness of Denethor. He was not excused from his insanity, no, but it showed how even wise men like he and Saruman can overstep themselves.

Ah, well. I'll see what product Jackson puts up there. No, these aren't the books, but they ARE supposed to be the story the books contained, otherwise they wouldn't be titled as they are. As long as he doesn't outright change really major, major plot points like he did in TT, I should be happy. We shall see.
 
Last edited:

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,462
Reaction score
16,990
Location
Round Rock, TX
I'm surprised you're actually going to see the movie. You have already decided in your mind that you're going to be critical and probably dislike it.

Tom Bombadil? A waste in the books, and a good decision in the movies to keep him out.

The one thing I don't really like is the tendency to make Arwen such a major character. It's not a big deal, because he handles it well, but to me it just seems like a way to get Liv Tyler more screen time.

The problem is with any adaptation, or remake, there are bound to be people who don't like it. I'm sure you'll come back and scream bloody murder that you DO like it, but it's plain to see you don't like the movies or the director. And that's too bad, because although the movies to not match the books, both versions of the story stand alone very, very well. The minute you decide to view them seperately, then you'll enjoy them more and more. I hope it happens for you Stout. :thumbup:

The Scouring is also pretty anti-climactic. I definitely don't mind them keeping it out, although I will be disappointed if they leave the Saruman thread unresolved. And to resolve it, they might have to create an entirely new ending, and that I'm not too enthusiastic about either, but I'm not going to judge it until I've actually seen it.
 
OP
OP
Stout

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
40,099
Reaction score
24,565
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Originally posted by Chaplin
Tom Bombadil? A waste in the books, and a good decision in the movies to keep him out.

The one thing I don't really like is the tendency to make Arwen such a major character. It's not a big deal, because he handles it well, but to me it just seems like a way to get Liv Tyler more screen time.

The problem is with any adaptation, or remake, there are bound to be people who don't like it. I'm sure you'll come back and scream bloody murder that you DO like it, but it's plain to see you don't like the movies or the director. And that's too bad, because although the movies to not match the books, both versions of the story stand alone very, very well. The minute you decide to view them seperately, then you'll enjoy them more and more. I hope it happens for you Stout. :thumbup:

The Scouring is also pretty anti-climactic. I definitely don't mind them keeping it out, although I will be disappointed if they leave the Saruman thread unresolved. And to resolve it, they might have to create an entirely new ending, and that I'm not too enthusiastic about either, but I'm not going to judge it until I've actually seen it.

First Tom Bombadil: Very fun in the books (what is a waste to you is good writing, fun intrigue, and a cool way to get the hobbits going for others), but also completely useless for the movies. As I said before.

Arwen? Not too bad, though some of the timing is way off. I didn't mind a bit they replaced Glorfindel with her in the first movie.

And Chaplin...I hate to say it, but you're being an arrogant ass. First saying I DON'T like the movies, and predicting I'll protest that, but telling me what I really do think. Nice try, but you're not psychic, bub. I loved the first one. There were changes but they were very acceptable, and I felt the major themes of the story and main characters remained intact. Two Towers? Good movie, abysmal adaptation. Major plot points not only changed but added, and characters distorted.

I loved the first, hated the second, and hope I like the third. I'm not too terribly confident it will work out right, but I'll be ready for that this time. Last time, Jackson's changes came out of the blue for me. This time, I already know how he can hack at the story, as evinced by TT.

Problem is, Jackson's NOT Tolkien, and like many directors foolishly do with Shakespeare, he often decides he knows better than the author. He doesn't. Certain changes must be made, because it's a movie. He does that marvelously. Problem is, he wants to re-form the story to fit HIS storybook picture. We're not supposed to be getting that, but that's what we're getting. That's my big beef with him.

I think he's a tremendous director, but he's overstepping his bounds. He shouldn't decide since he personally doesn't like a part of the story he's going to change it. It's all right to change it because you have to for the movie, but to assume you know more than the author, or you're better than he was, is arrogant and needlessly ruins much of the experience for readers.

I won't even go there much on Saruman. As a movie person, YOU of all people should know how badly you'll kill a film when you hide the villains and they never show/get dealt with. Yet you choose to jump my case and tell me what I do and do not know and feel about the movies and Jackson, rather than respond to my points on the villains. Interesting.

Be ready for disappointment on your last bit, too, because Saruman will NOT be resolved. If you haven't heard, Christopher Lee didn't even make it into the film. Rightly so, he was furious.

So, here's to hoping the director doesn't make this Return of Peter Jackson, and keeps it as Return of the King.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,462
Reaction score
16,990
Location
Round Rock, TX
Who exactly is the arrogant ass now? My God, you have decided all by yourself that you know better about this whole situation than anyone.

My suggestion to you is to skip the movie--you've already decided you're not going to like it. It's true, and you know it.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,462
Reaction score
16,990
Location
Round Rock, TX
You know what? I apologize, Stout. This isn't worth having an arguement about. Sorry man.
 
OP
OP
Stout

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
40,099
Reaction score
24,565
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
*Sigh* All right. Whatever works for you, man. I don't enjoy being talked down to, so I may have come off harsh, but I can't say you weren't out of line.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,462
Reaction score
16,990
Location
Round Rock, TX
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
A Film Review by James Berardinelli
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Zealand/United States, 2003
U.S. Release Date: 12/17/02 (wide)
Running Length: 3:21
MPAA Classification: PG-13 (Violence, mature themes)
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Cast: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, John Rhys-Davies, Billy Boyd, Dominic Monaghan, Orlando Bloom, Miranda Otto, Bernard Hill, Andy Serkis, John Noble, Liv Tyler
Director: Peter Jackson
Producers: Peter Jackson, Barrie M. Osborne, Fran Walsh
Screenplay: Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson, based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien
Cinematography: Andrew Lesnie
Music: Howard Shore
U.S. Distributor: New Line Cinema

According to the calendar, Christmas is December 25. According to the movie release schedule, it's December 17. There can be no greater gift for a movie lover than the one bestowed upon audiences by Peter Jackson, whose The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is not only the best movie of 2003, but the crowning cinematic achievement of the past several years. In fact, labeling this as a "movie" is almost an injustice. This is an experience of epic scope and grandeur, amazing emotional power, and relentless momentum.

One could be forgiven for initially approaching The Return of the King with a little trepidation. As good as the first two films, The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, are (in either their theatrical or extended DVD versions), movie history is littered with occasions when trilogy conclusions have crashed and burned. Return of the Jedi. Godfather III. The Matrix Revolutions. And so on… Yet, with The Return of the King, Jackson has done more than just bucked the trend. Not only is this motion picture an entirely worthy conclusion to the landmark trilogy, but it's better than its predecessors. Somehow, Jackson has managed to synthesize what worked in The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, while siphoning off the less successful elements. The result is amazing. Taken as a whole, there is nothing out there today that can come close to comparing to The Lord of the Rings.

As with The Two Towers, some form of previous knowledge of The Lord of the Rings is necessary. However, with the earlier chapters readily available on DVD, anyone with the desire can be prepared. The Return of the King opens where The Two Towers ended, with hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin), and the creature Gollum (Andy Serkis) approaching the dark land of Mordor. Meanwhile, the company of Gandalf the wizard (Ian McKellan), Aragorn the ranger (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas the elf (Orlando Bloom), and Gimli the dwarf (John Rhys-Davies), reunite with their hobbit friends Pippin (Billy Boyd) and Merry (Dominic Monaghan) in the wake of the battle of Isengard. From there, the film follows two branches. The first tracks Frodo's progress as the increasingly haunted and weary ringbearer attempts to make his way to Mount Doom. Along the way, he is burdened by betrayal and paranoia, and must face a deadly giant spider called Shelob. Meanwhile, Gandalf and Pippin head to the city of Minas Tirith to warn them against a coming invasion, while Aragorn prepares to announce himself as Iseldur's heir, the returned king of Gondor.

The slowest portions of The Return of the King occur early in the proceedings, as Jackson re-establishes the characters. From there, it's a slow, steady buildup to a rousing climax. The experience is so immersive that I found myself in the middle of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields along with the heroes, rooting for them - even though I knew how things were going to turn out! Along the way, there are moments of genuine pathos that draw a tear from the eye; times of triumph that cause the heart to soar; instances of overwhelming tension that cause the adrenaline to surge; and images of spectacle that make the jaw drop. The pace is unflagging - once Jackson has us, he doesn't let go. When the movie was over, I couldn't believe that 3 1/4 hours had passed.

Although it's unfair to characterize the film as a collection of great moments - the character arcs and overall narrative are too strong for that - it is nevertheless impossible to deny the power of many individual scenes. One of Jackson's most notable contributions is that he directs the film with the intention that certain instances will raise nape hairs. It's the "wow" factor, and it is frequently repeated. Gene Siskel once argued that a great film needs three memorable scenes to go along with no bad ones. The Return of the King exceeds that criteria by a considerable amount.

I can think of three key reasons why this film is stronger than the earlier chapters. The first is that this is the conclusion - the resolution we have eagerly awaited for what seems like more than two years. The second is that Jackson, like Tolkien, saved the best for last. As impressive as the Battle of Helms Deep was, it is dwarfed by the Siege of Minas Tirith and the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. And Frodo's struggles have become magnified. Jackson views elements of the hobbit's travails as operatic (witness the choral aspects of Howard Shore's score). Finally, there's the simple fact that we have gotten to know the characters. By now, they have been with us for two years and six hours of screen time (over seven if you count the DVD special editions).

For those who despise truncated endings, Jackson has a treat in store. The Return of the King ends with a 20 minute epilogue that chronicles events after the War of the Ring, going as much as four years into the future and tying up nearly every possible loose end. The film concludes on exactly the same note as the book (in fact, with the same line), and, while the final chapter of the trilogy is as satisfying as it could possibly be, there's still a vague sense of melancholy when "The End" appears on the screen, because it means that these adventures are over.

Tolkien purists will be as disgruntled with The Return of the King as they were with The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, but this isn't made for them. This is Tolkien's saga as filtered through Jackson's fertile imagination, not some dry, slavishly faithful adaptation (although it is probably as true to the books in both spirit and narrative as any movie version could be). If you want rigorous adherence to the text, wait for the next Harry Potter movie. It's hard to fault the director for many of his choices. There are some omissions in The Return of the King. A couple - Saruman's death at the hands of Wormtongue and the Houses of Healing - were cut due to time constraints, but will appear on the DVD. Another, The Scouring of the Shire, was not filmed. While that may be a viable way to end the book, it is too anticlimactic for a movie, and, as such, is better excised.

The acting shines through more in The Return of the King than in the other films. Elijah Wood is excellent as Frodo, a shell of the cheerful hobbit he once was. Sean Astin transforms Sam into a fierce knight protector, defending his master against the treacherous Gollum, the terrifying Shelob, and the forces of Mordor. Viggo Mortensen gives Aragorn his fullest opportunity to be seen as a three-dimensional hero. Newcomer John Noble, as Denthor, the Protector of Gondor, displays madness laced with cunning. Orlando Bloom and John Rhys-Davies have less to do, but provide us with a little comedic banter as well as some more serious moments. Miranda Otto's Eowen is as sharp and fierce as any man, and far better looking. Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan are given an chance to flesh out Pippin and Merry. Cate Blanchett, Liv Tyler, Hugo Weaving, and Ian Holm all make brief appearances.

But the two I must single out are Ian McKellan and Andy Serkis. For the first time, Gandalf is on screen for a significant portion of time (rather than somewhere in the distance fighting a balrog, trapped by Saruman, or rounding up the Riders of Rohan). McKellan presents the wizard as a man of great wisdom, little patience, and incomparable battle skill. Using a sword and staff instead of magic, Gandalf proceeds to kick butt big-time. In fantasy mythology, Gandalf is second only to Merlin when it comes to famous sorcerers. On screen, McKellen's wizard is second to none.

For most of the film, Serkis is heard but only partially seen - Gollum is a computer generated creature that gets its cues from Serkis' body movements. (Although there is one flashback in which Serkis plays the pre-corrupted Smeagol.) The subtlety of Gollum's movements and expressions is so astonishing that it's difficult to believe this isn't a real creature. Serkis deserves a lion's share of the credit, since Gollum is as much his creation as it is that of the animators. Although a long shot, Serkis is deserving of some sort of awards credit.

Expectedly, the special effects set a new standard. The CGI participants of the major battles look more like real combatants than cartoonish computer creations. The locations, set design, and costumes are without flaw. By building many of the elaborate locales, Jackson achieves a sense of verisimilitude that he might not have attained by relying more heavily on computers. And composer Howard Shore's score is perfectly wed to the visuals, being alternately bombastic and delicate, as circumstances dictate.

Leaving Middle Earth, Jackson is now headed for Skull Island and a remake of King Kong that already has me excited. He has not ruled out a return to this fantasy world - he would like to make The Hobbit with some of the same actors, if the complicated rights issues surrounding the prequel can be straightened out. In the meantime, he has given us a trilogy of films to savor and remember. The Lord of the Rings will go down in cinematic lore as a milestone. It has legitimatized fantasy like no other production and has shown that it is possible for studio executives to realize huge gains when taking huge risks. (Had The Lord of the Rings failed, New Line Cinema would have gone down with it.) History will show the importance of The Lord of the Rings. The present illustrates its broad appeal and undeniable critical and commercial success. For many, the release of The Return of the King is the event of the year. And this is one time when the product is good enough to weather the storm of hype. This ring is golden.


© 2003 James Berardinelli


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
OP
OP
Stout

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
40,099
Reaction score
24,565
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
I'm glad they'll be putting the Houses of Healing in the extended version...or I'd be freaking. Of course, if they eliminate every bit of the romance between Eowyn and Faromir in the regular film, Jackson will have fumbled the ball (trying to build up the romance by putting in tons of Arwen stuff, then failing to develop the romance that we actually DO get in the books). We shall see, we shall see.

And this reviewer must never have read the books if he's going to call the scouring of the shire 'anti-climactic'. Really. The hobbits return, very quickly raise a rebellion against oppressive tyrants, lead a battle against them, and capture Saruman. Frodo releases Saruman, but Wormtail kills him. And it doesn't have to take a ton of time. The BBC audio CDs did great cuts in making it all happen very quickly. But, of course, all of this must be 'anti-climactic'.

And tell me, Chap...aside from hiding villains and not resolving them (which you STILL haven't responded to), what happens when you show something, then completely ignore it and pretend as if it doesn't exist?

I'll tell you what...make one hell of a glaring hole in you movie (or trilogy, as it were). It's interesting that we get the wonderful picture of the scouring of the shire in the first movie, in the mirror of Galadriel, and now...well, good 'ole Pete wants us to kindly forget about it. Hmm.

The scouring wasn't left out for film reasons. I read a direct quote that Jackson left it out because he never liked it in the books. Jackson is an arrogant ass that took a good product (the first film) and became far to presumptive.

Still, there is no denying he IS one hell of a director. His problem is he cannot leave well enough alone and must MAKE the story HIS, not direct a good STORY as it already exists.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Stout

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
40,099
Reaction score
24,565
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
And why is he doing King Kong? What is it with Hollywood any more? Why do they have to remake old films over and over and over and over and over and over again, instead of creating a new one?

Granted, most original ideas have already been done, but at least try. Not only do remakes use unoriginal ideas, but they completely copy something (in Hollywood spin, I guess it would be 'modernizing').

I'd love to see Jackson direct some new Sci/Fi or fantasy film, or something else. I'd love to be able to judge him based upon a film alone, because when you use an institution as loved as LOTR, you will never, ever escape scrutiny between that story (not exact translations of the books, but the story) and your own finished work.

Oh well. Remake away.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,462
Reaction score
16,990
Location
Round Rock, TX
Read over your own posts and tell me you have any feeling whatsoever that you might enjoy these movies just the LITTLEST bit. Because I see none. You are going to hate this movie. Without even seeing it, you've made up your mind.

Who cares what Hollywood is putting out? If you don't like it, don't see it! Pretty simple. And of course, I'm talking "down" to you, right? When King Kong comes out, don't buy a ticket. I just don't understand why you are so negative about this.

My God, why rush to judgement so quickly about a MOVIE? That's right, a MOVIE. Not a war, not a drive-by shooting in your neighborhood--a MOVIE. You are totally freaking out about this and taken such a condescending tone, it's ridiculous.

Villains disappearing? (I assume you mean Saruman) How do you know? SOMEHOW the Saruman plot gets resolved. It just won't be in the scouring, I guess. (Which I don't really understand, but we'll see next week) Stop rushing to judgement so fast. So he didn't like the Scouring in the books. So what? I know you liked it, and rightfully so, but if you want the movies to be absolutely, totally faithful to the books, then I guess you better not go, because it's totally OBVIOUS you are setting yourself up to come on here and totally blast the movie and the people making it.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,462
Reaction score
16,990
Location
Round Rock, TX
Originally posted by Stout

I'd love to see Jackson direct some new Sci/Fi or fantasy film, or something else. I'd love to be able to judge him based upon a film alone, because when you use an institution as loved as LOTR, you will never, ever escape scrutiny between that story (not exact translations of the books, but the story) and your own finished work.

Oh well. Remake away.

Try watching Heavenly Creatures. Or Dead Alive. Or even The Frighteners. It's not like LOTR are his only movies.
 

Mike Olbinski

Formerly Chandler Mike
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
16,396
Reaction score
13
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Originally posted by Stout
I'm glad they'll be putting the Houses of Healing in the extended version...or I'd be freaking. Of course, if they eliminate every bit of the romance between Eowyn and Faromir in the regular film, Jackson will have fumbled the ball (trying to build up the romance by putting in tons of Arwen stuff, then failing to develop the romance that we actually DO get in the books). We shall see, we shall see.

And this reviewer must never have read the books if he's going to call the scouring of the shire 'anti-climactic'. Really. The hobbits return, very quickly raise a rebellion against oppressive tyrants, lead a battle against them, and capture Saruman. Frodo releases Saruman, but Wormtail kills him. And it doesn't have to take a ton of time. The BBC audio CDs did great cuts in making it all happen very quickly. But, of course, all of this must be 'anti-climactic'.

Honestly, fumbled the ball? The movie has a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, I don't think Jackson has fumbled anything. If there is something NOT in the movie that you wanted, that does not mean he fumbled the ball.

Supposedly, from that review, there is a 20 minute wrap-up, so maybe that's where Saruman gets resolved, etc. Maybe Gandalf will say to everyone at the beginning "Treebeard will guard over Saruman"...we have to wait and see.

And anyways, just because YOU think the Scouring isn't anti-climactic, that doesn't make it so. It's a nice ending to find out what happens to Saruman and then Frodo and all (Gray Havens), but when I've just gone through this entire story and the Mt. Doom being the climax of the entire thing, the Scouring to me is just unecessary for anyone who just doesn't want to find out about the hobbit's journey home.

For the book, the Scouring is good, but it really has no place in the movie other than maybe a 1 minute mention in flashes when they talk about the hobbit's journey home.

Anyways Stout, don't get me wrong, I LOVE the books, they are my favorite book of all time, hands down,.

Mike
 

Mike Olbinski

Formerly Chandler Mike
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
16,396
Reaction score
13
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Originally posted by Chaplin

My God, why rush to judgement so quickly about a MOVIE? That's right, a MOVIE. Not a war, not a drive-by shooting in your neighborhood--a MOVIE. You are totally freaking out about this and taken such a condescending tone, it's ridiculous.

That's kind of funny coming from you...aren't you the ultimate judge of movies?

Mike
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,462
Reaction score
16,990
Location
Round Rock, TX
Originally posted by Chandler Mike
That's kind of funny coming from you...aren't you the ultimate judge of movies?

Mike

When was the last time I went nuts over a movie I haven't seen? I admittedly get a little crazy over movies I HAVE seen, but never ones I haven't. Totally different in this case. :D
 

Latest posts

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
556,151
Posts
5,433,885
Members
6,329
Latest member
cardinals2025
Top