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

[Stout]

Originally posted by Chaplin
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.

Well, that's just it, Chap. This isn't the first of the trilogy and I know, the second being less than stellar IMO (good movie, not true to the story-story being different from the book), the third has a good chance of that as well. I'm ready for the worst, yes.

Still, he did a wonderful job, IMO, in the first movie, and while there are certain things I know I won't like, there may be a few mitigating factors. I know going in some more of the good stuff will be in the extended edition (it wasn't huge plot-wise in the first, and I wrongly assumed the second wouldn't help the plot much either). Also, some of the rumors I've read could be wrong. So, chances are I may like the movie.

I'm just going to go in like this: I'm going to watch this as a movie, with a part of my mind on the books. If it's a good movie but has crappy loyalty to the story, I'll enjoy it, but with a tinge of sadness, because I KNOW Jackson can be loyal to the story...he's already done it once. If it's good AND loyal to the story again, I'll be ecstatic!

Don't get me wrong...this isn't THAT important...I danced around my apartment for joy and called my parents crying when I heard Saddam was dead. THAT'S important. This is just one of my favorite stories of all time, so forgive me if I don't want Jackson to ruin it for me

I know he can't film the books, and I'm cool with that. I just want him to get the story right, and I hate the presumption of anyone who wants to ruin something like that. If you're going to do the project, you must give it a personal touch, but you simply cannot make it your story. You must translate the story, and hopefully he'll do that.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Chandler Mike
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.

Mike

Fumbled the ball by inserting things from outside LOTR (albeit Tolkien's stuff) by inflating one romance but completely omitting the romance that WAS in LOTR. If he does that, yes, he'll have fumbled the ball. If Eowyn and Faramir DO have their romance, and the rumors are wrong, it'll be all good.

It's not just a movie, mind. It's the story. It can be a hellacious movie, but if it ain't loyal to the story, IMO, it failed.

As to Saruman? Maybe Gandalf will SAY something about it, but that would just be a gyp. I KNOW we don't see any of Saruman in the movie (unless Christopher Lee and others are lying), so Saruman likely won't be appropriately wrapped up.

As for the scouring of the shire, I KNOW it isn't anti-climactic-it's action packed. We can agree to disagree on whether or not it should be in the movie, but I don't think you can honestly say it's anti-climactic. Again, have you forgotten the promise Jackson made by leaving in the scouring in the mirror of Galadriel?

Bottom line: A lot of book readers have been willing to forgive far too much because a lot of non-caring reviewers have been happy with the movies. Now, if someone would have griped about the first movie, I'd have gotten upset, but after TT, I was unhappy. Jackson needs to remember the first movie and stay loyal to the story. And that's not my opinion, but the fact of Tolkien's vision and story.

 

[Stout]

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

I know LOTR weren't his first films, but I have to admit, with a little guilt, I have had no time until recently to look into others. I'll have to try and check them out.

 

[Chaplin]

Be warned though. Dead Alive and Bad Taste both are very different--heck, all his other movies are very different.

By the way, good posts this morning.

 

[Bob Chebat]

You know that scene in the Two Towers when Smeagol is battling his inner self? That cracks me up every time.



On a more serious note, this is where not having read the book is a huge plus in my opinion. There is no way that I could possibly be disappointed with ROTK since I have no idea what is supposed to happen or how it was written.

One thing I do like about this trilogy is the fact that we have not had to wait 3, 4, and in some cases 8 or 9 years for the story to be finished. I'm looking forward to my day off on Thursday when I can go see this movie, and hopefully will have time to see Bad Santa as well.

The last movie I saw in the theater was Radio. I am WAY behind.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Bob Chebat
You know that scene in the Two Towers when Smeagol is battling his inner self? That cracks me up every time.



On a more serious note, this is where not having read the book is a huge plus in my opinion. There is no way that I could possibly be disappointed with ROTK since I have no idea what is supposed to happen or how it was written.

One thing I do like about this trilogy is the fact that we have not had to wait 3, 4, and in some cases 8 or 9 years for the story to be finished. I'm looking forward to my day off on Thursday when I can go see this movie, and hopefully will have time to see Bad Santa as well.

The last movie I saw in the theater was Radio. I am WAY behind.

You're right...that is, in a way, a plus. Unfortunately, should you ever read the classics, you'll probably prefer the movies, simply because that's what you got first. I hope not. As good as the movies are, they certainly don't hold a candle to the books. Still, I'm soooooo happy we have them, if for no other reason than it gives the fantasy genre a huge boost.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Stout
You're right...that is, in a way, a plus. Unfortunately, should you ever read the classics, you'll probably prefer the movies, simply because that's what you got first. I hope not. As good as the movies are, they certainly don't hold a candle to the books. Still, I'm soooooo happy we have them, if for no other reason than it gives the fantasy genre a huge boost.

You know, I've been wondering if LOTR really does give the fantasy genre a boost. Yes, King Arthur is coming out (and I believe the trailer goes online tomorrow), but will we REALLY see a deluge of fantasy movies? Especially after the black hole between the late 80s and the year 2000? LOTR was great, but I think the "boost" is probably overexaggerated. Which is unfortunate, because I think there are some great stories to be told.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Chaplin
You know, I've been wondering if LOTR really does give the fantasy genre a boost. Yes, King Arthur is coming out (and I believe the trailer goes online tomorrow), but will we REALLY see a deluge of fantasy movies? Especially after the black hole between the late 80s and the year 2000? LOTR was great, but I think the "boost" is probably overexaggerated. Which is unfortunate, because I think there are some great stories to be told.

Really? There's a King Arthur movie coming out? Very, VERY interesting! It'll be neat to see exactly what legends they use. I mean, it's so varied, you can have Merlin as a great wizard, or as the King's mystical standard bearer. Excalibur can be Caliburn. There are THAT many different variations. Damn, now I have to go check this out!

Also, you may be very right on the boost in fantasy movies. I'm hoping they keep on coming, but you never can tell. Timeline will unfortunately hurt the cause, I think, even though it is sci fi/fantasy. I have to read the book too, because though the movie sucked, the book is said to be great.

I mean, how can you have a guy get smacked in the face with a morning star and just go *ugh* and keep fighting, without even bleeding? Lol

 

[Stout]

Excellent! I just read up on it over at yahoo. They're shooting for more of what the history of the situation likely was (not much is truly known for certain). And it sounds, from the bits they had, they seem to be following history well. They'll even call him Artorius, the REAL post-Roman warlord that held of the Angles and Jutes (and Saxons, I believe) and tried to keep things together.

Aren't there also supposed to be a few historical-type adventures about Hannibal coming out within the next year or so? I know Troy is coming out next May, and I'm anxiously awaiting that. At first, I hating the casting of Pitt as Achilles, but upon reflection, I don't mind. He's shown to be a pretty versatile actor, and I'm confident he can pull it off.

 

[Chaplin]

But stuff about Hannibal, and Troy, and of course the Alexander the Great epic (which by the way, I've seen screen shots of Colin Farrell as Alexander, and I swear, you'll laugh your arse off)--they are more like historicals--you wouldn't call Gladiator a fantasy pic, would you?

We're talking Legend, Willow, Dragonheart, Conan, stuff like that. It just hasn't been done all that frequently.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Chaplin
But stuff about Hannibal, and Troy, and of course the Alexander the Great epic (which by the way, I've seen screen shots of Colin Farrell as Alexander, and I swear, you'll laugh your arse off)--they are more like historicals--you wouldn't call Gladiator a fantasy pic, would you?

We're talking Legend, Willow, Dragonheart, Conan, stuff like that. It just hasn't been done all that frequently.

Yeah, I know, and it's a shame. Willow and Conan are among my favorites (not that Legend is too bad either! Dragonheart...eh...so-so).

The sad fact is they just don't make a lot of money. I wish they did, because they are by far my favorite. Oh well. I'll have to be satisfied with good sci-fi flics. I guess they sell better because there's usually an element of familiarity, and therefore more of a sense that it 'could' happen (though usually, that's just a 'fantasy'-pun intended!).

You're right about the historical movies. They aren't fantasy movies. Hopefully, with the advances in tech and the success of LOTR, good fantasy movies will start to appear. Like you, though, I won't hold my breath!

 

[Dan H]

No worries, Stout . . .

AICN review #1

Review #2

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Dan H
No worries, Stout . . .

AICN review #1

Review #2

All well and good. ROTK can be a good, even great movie, and still suck at telling the story. Two Towers did that. Pretty darn good movie, killed major plot points.

I'm ready for it this time, though. I'll judge the movie two ways: How it is as a movie and how it is as an actual adaptation of ROTK. I'm hoping for two thumbs up. I'm prepared for one thumb up, one thumb down. How will it be? Who knows? Smeagol doesn't know! Lol

Neither of those reviews came anywhere close to answering the questions I have about the movie. It can be awesome yet ruin Tolkien's story at the same time. And that would be tragic indeed.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Stout,

Ever consider prozac bud?

 

[Dan H]

Neither of those reviews came anywhere close to answering the questions I have about the movie. It can be awesome yet ruin Tolkien's story at the same time.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Jackson cannot "ruin" Tolkien's story. The story has been published and is near and dear to the hearts of millions. This is Jackson's Lord of the Rings, not Tolkien's.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

No book is translated exactly. It simply isn't.

The best movie adaptations that I have seen so far are the Harry Potter books.

For starters...they are basically light reading...young adult fair that have simplistic concepts at their base. Despite all this...they STILL leave a ton of stuff out of the movies that are in the books.

For instance, in the books...Ron kicks Draco Malfoy's ass left and right. Physically pounds him. Ron's dad does the same to Malfoy's dad. The Weasley's are a bunch of hot blooded red heads. This is why they are all in Gryffindor. They don't back down from anyone.

What is Ron in the movies? He's a clutz...he is a shlub. He is basically Harry's sidekick at best. I am not talking like a change to a side character like Faromir, I am talking a major character omission.

Or how about Harry himself? In the books he is quite clearly the most powerful young wizard in Hogwarts. He does things naturally that other kids can't dream of. In the movies? He hardly does any magic at all.


Or how about Mel Gibson's Hamlet...easily my favorite Hamlet. Can you find Fortinbras in the movie? Nope he is cut out.

Remember Interview with a Vampire? Armand in the movies is Antonio Banderas. In the books he is freaking 13 year old Greecian boy.

No movie sticks to the books. No movie uses the book as a script. Everyone makes changes for time reasons and continuity reasons. Sometimes the movies even improve on the books.

You guys were just talking about King Arthur. How their are a myriad of legends surrounding the tale. Why is this? Because hardly any story is told exactly the same in each way. Legends grow, they change, they become something of their own. Rarely do they stay exactly as the original story teller presented.

This is the beauty of a story. To each person it changes. I am certain that if we read the same book and then told the same person about the book...he would hear different things.

The whole concept of Canon or Gospel in a story is a fallacy.

 

[Stout]

Chris...I agree with your overall point, but I vehemently disagree with much of what you are saying on Potter. I believe the movies are very good interpretations of the books, and some of the things you point out are incorrect, IMO.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Dan H
I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Jackson cannot "ruin" Tolkien's story. The story has been published and is near and dear to the hearts of millions. This is Jackson's Lord of the Rings, not Tolkien's.

This most certainly is NOT (or should not) be Jackson's Lord of the Rings. It hasn't been billed as it-still been billed as Tolkien's, obviously-so I don't think Jackson should be allowed to do things 'just because'-which he unarguably does.

But I've already seen the movie...see my views on other threads.

 

[Chaplin]

Some news about ROTK DVD

Some news about the DVD...

**********SPOILER POSSIBLE*********************

Ain't it Cool News is reporting a that rumor that New Line is balking on the price WETA Digital is charging to finish the effects for the extra footage that Peter Jackson plans to add back into The Return of the King for the extended edition DVD. The thought is that the studio might be planning to cheap out and use a budget-rate American effects house to finish the shots. We can't vouch for the validity of the rumor, but if it's true, we'll be seriously pissed here at The Bits. New Line... if you're reading this, don't even think about it. You've got a good thing going and these DVDs have really been a cut above the usual studio cookie cutter fare. This is NO time to try to shave a little more profit out of it. Let Jackson and WETA do whatever the hell they want to with the DVD and that's that. They've earned the right. We'll look into this and try to find out if it's really something the studio is considering. If it's true, someone's gonna get an earful from us.

Ain't it Cool is also reporting a list of the scenes to be added back into the film for the extended DVD. These include Gandalf confronting Saruman at Isengard, Merry pledging allegiance to Theoden at Edoras, Aragorn using the Palantir to reveal himself to Sauron, the Witch King confronting Gandalf during the battle of Pelennor Fields, the Houses of Healing scene in which Faramir and Eowyn meet, Frodo and Sam joining a column of orcs on the way to Mt. Doom and the infamous 'Mouth of Sauron' scene at the Black Gates. Glimpses of a few of these appeared in trailers for the film. We've also heard that the drinking game at Edoras between Gimli and Legolas will be added back in, along with possibly more footage showing other characters going into the West at the end of the film. Peter Jackson has said that approximately 65 minutes of material was cut from the film for its theatrical release, so a good portion of that could find its way back into the extended cut. We'll post more when we hear it.



Bad and good I suppose.

This is from thedigitalbits.com

 

[Dan H]

The rumor is that ROTK: EE will be a bit over 4 hours and 50 minutes in length . . . !