I would honestly love it to be 3 films, if each of the film will be 90 to 120 minutes. But we know it wont be like that.
The Hobbit movies
-
-
I have a hard time taking that speech seriously since it's almost like he's making a joke about how they're really not supposed to be in Osgiliath; because they weren't.
Of course, if the stuff with Faramir hadn't changed SOMEHOW, Frodo and Sam would have literally had NOTHING to do the entire movie. (Bad enough Merry and Pippin were basically wandering around on Treebeard the entire time. It was entirely Aaragorn's movie.)
Sure, they could have fought Shelob in that movie like in the book, but then the finales would be fighting with each other, the movie would end on a cliffhanger, and they'd have about 5 minutes of material left for the final movie.
As much as people complain about that change, it or something like it, was a necessary one for a movie adaptation in terms of pacing and drama. Would have been extremely boring if they'd just met Faramir and he'd said "Now I'm going to protect you guys for the next two days. Have a good meal, a nice relaxing rest and recovery, as all the narrative tension seeps out of the film. Yes, I suppose I could help you along and take my brother's flace, but I'm not going to for reasons. Oh, thats the ring is it? That's nice I suppose."
-
I thought Fellowship was fantastic, Towers was ok and King…I didn't much care for.
THere's going to have to be a lot of additonal material to stretch this into three films. I though two films was a lot of a stretch too be honest.
How do these appendecies relate to the hobbit? Don't believe I've ever read them…
-
How do these appendecies relate to the hobbit? Don't believe I've ever read them…
They add even more info to the Hobbit/LOTR universe. I remember a part where it talks about Gandalf hatching the plan with Thorin before they crash at Bilbo's. Also there's a huge timeline that chronicles everything so I'm sure they could pull stuff from that. I was hoping for just two movies, but I trust Peter Jackson at this point.
-
How do these appendecies relate to the hobbit? Don't believe I've ever read them…
The biggie is where Gandalf splits off from the dwarves at Mirkwood. He goes and hangs with the white council, and they create a big plan to go take care of buisness in Dol Guldur, and they then go off to have a massive battle with the necromancer, who turns out to be Sauron.
Also theres a bunch of stuff with Thrain, the last of the dwarves to have a ring of power, (and Thorin's father) who is the one that gives Gandalf a map and key to the Lonely Mountain for Thorin. (Also, Gandalf suspect the one ring is in the area for a long while even before Bilbo gets it.)
That particular side bit really is enough material to be almost an entire movie unto itself.
-
Since other people have been bringing it up as well…
I loved The Two Towers. I loved Fellowship of the Ring even more. And Return of the King might just be my single favourite movie eve__r. Even if it did contain the one change from the movie that I really can not stand. (Frodo sending Sam away before entering Shelob's lair. Okay, so I get that they wanted to make it more tense by having Frodo enter the cave alone, but… It just goes completely against both their characters. Frodo for trusting Gollum over Sam, Sam for actually leaving despite having pretty much spent the entirety of the past two movies emphasising how he would absolutely never let Frodo go to Mordor alone.)As for this whole splitting the book into three movies thing… I really do think that's a bit much. I mean, seriously, how much of the Appendices are they actually including in this thing? Because if there was actually enough material for them to consider splitting it into three films to be a good idea, I almost have to wonder if the movies will end up being more about Gandalf's off-page journeys than it will be about Bilbo and the dwarves…
-
Tom Bombadil needs his own movie, that is all
-
@Nex:
Robby laid it out for you, I'd just like to add, that as someone who was a fan of the books before the films came out, I prefer the movies.
While I loved the story, Tolkein's writing style was not for me. The books were slow, had lost of unnecessary elements (Tom, and the sacking of the shire) and the movie made it all so much tighter. Made me like characters I could have cared less about, and, in my mind, are still one of the greatest cinematic triumphs of all time. The music, the acting, the story (credit to Tolkein, where it is due) everything about them is wonderful, in my opinion.I sit with friends as marathon the whole trilogy (extended cuts!) at least once every year, whereas I only read the books once every few years.
Tom is the worst character of anything ever, and I wish there was a way to leave him out of The Hobbit.
I feel the same. It is my favorite Trilogy and will remain. It is an event of the Millennium. Like they say, "One Trilogy to rule them all"
My favorite part in the whole trilogy remains when Peregrin sings for Denethor while Faramir takes the Orcs of Mordor Head-On.
The left out part from LOTR was not that significant unlike Harry Potter movies. Unlike many public previsions, Hobbit will keep to LOTR's reputation, or atleast very close too. Jackson has boldy and faithfully brought Tolkien's works into life in LOTR, he will bring it in this too.
How do these appendecies relate to the hobbit? Don't believe I've ever read them…
The whole Bilbo's finding of the ring, his friendship with the dwarves, Gandalf's first meating with Bilbo ETC. Even if Hobbit is based on Smaug, Dol Guldur and Battle of the five armies, the whole finding of the One rings triggers the events in LOTR.
-
One thing I am not going to do this time is read The Hobbit again right before the movie is released. I think doing that for FOTR initially put me off to the movie a bit because of expectations. With all the appendices and stuff putting in, I'm going to try and go in with a very fresh mindset.
Edit: Is this real? lol
-
New trailer. Looks great.
-
Yep, there it is…..
It's very weird to watch it for a number of reasons. For one, it took so long for them to finally get this film made. Secondly, it's weird seeing all these characters that weren't in the book like Elrond and Galadriel...I know why they're doing it but it'll take some getting used to.
-
Elrond was in the book, from what I remember.
-
Yep, there it is…..
It's very weird to watch it for a number of reasons. For one, it took so long for them to finally get this film made. Secondly, it's weird seeing all these characters that weren't in the book like Elrond and Galadriel...I know why they're doing it but it'll take some getting used to.
Elrond was in the book, actually. And the cartoon version!
Erm…
-
Trailer looks pretty good. And Cate Blanchett looks exceptionally good. To be honest i am excited.
-
Elrond was in the book? Wow, I honestly don't remember…and I've read the book 3 times, though it's probably been 10 years since the last time.
-
Elrond was in the book? Wow, I honestly don't remember…and I've read the book 3 times, though it's probably been 10 years since the last time.
Its pretty early in, the third or fourth chapter. He's the one that says the weapons they have are elvish, and finds the moon letters on Gandalf's map.
-
Don't feel bad about Elrond, it's a very short cameo. He just basically plays translator.
There are 4 versions of the trailer with different endings. Bilbo's is the best:
-
The worst thing about these movies are that now when I want a Lord of the Rings marathon it means I will need to set aside a straight 20 hours.
-
The stone giants (1:53) are literally that in this film then.
I always pictured them as simply being giants who lived in a stone environment myself, but literal stone giants makes a lot of sense when Ents are taken into account.
-
I'm asking this here because I feel it's relevant. I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I'm asking this as a fan who really loved the first two movies and I want to see what the consensus on the issue is.
Am I the only one who thinks Return of the King is overrated?
I ask this with a feeling of great disappointment because Fellowship is in my top 5 favorite movies and I really like Two Towers even if not as much as the first one. But I just rewatched Return of the King last night and I was really shocked by…frankly how much of a mess it was in my opinion. It seems to me it fell into the traps that have befallen many other great franchises (Spider-Man, Matrix, Christopher Nolan's Batman etc. etc.) in how it tried to be so big but sacrificed good writing to do so.
What to do you think?
-
I thought it was good overall, but the multiple ending sequences really drag the film down towards the end and just kill the pace of the film. It'd have been better off to skip from the eagles to the Frodo writing and from then on to the end.
-
Why was Shelob in Return of the King, anyway?
-
@Thousand:
I'm asking this here because I feel it's relevant. I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I'm asking this as a fan who really loved the first two movies and I want to see what the consensus on the issue is.
Am I the only one who thinks Return of the King is overrated?
Hm….Well, personally I think TTT is overrated. It was my least favorite of the three, yet that seems to be an unpopular opinion.
Why was Shelob in Return of the King, anyway?
Because they needed Frodo and Sam to have something exciting to do RotK. TTT climaxed with the battle of Helms Deep, and they had the ordeal with Faramir happening concurrently. Also I think they wanted to have Gollum's betrayal happen later in the story. Several different for pacing and timing out the big events.
-
I felt Return of the King was dragged after the destruction of the ring. Also, Dol Amroth was also left out. Rest, it was very good overall. It had its moments. Also, comparing to the other franchises, it was exponentially better. Well, that's just my opinion.
-
I do not recall the Stone Giants at all, and if there's a slight memory of them, I do not recall them being these enormous beings that crumbled so much of their path. But hey, looks awesome.
-
I've never understood people complaining about the lengthy epilogue, when the book's epilogue goes on for hundreds of pages after the destruction of the ring… where they meander past everyone they met along the way, then there's the lengthy scouring of the shire bit. Plus, its the resolution to three movies, not just the one.
I can only imagine what the reaction would have been if the Sarumon and Wormtongue stuff had stayed at the very end where it was in the books, adding another 20 or 30 minutes of epilogue and a mini war sequence after the ring was already dealt with, instead of just in the front of the extended cut.
Why was Shelob in Return of the King, anyway?
Pacing. You couldn't have that big fight competing with the big fights in Two Towers, it muddies things up… and because if it ended where it did in the books it'd be a horrible cliffhanger for a year, and Frodo and Sam would have had literally 5 minutes of stuff to do in the next movie.
Also because the books are divided weird, the timing of events in Two Towers overlaps the events of Return of the King. The Frodo and Sam stuff in book 4 takes place near the same time as the stuff at the end of book 5... Book six with them facing Gollum one last time and climbing mount doom is only a couple chapters... followed by a ton of epilogue.
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Thousand:
Am I the only one who thinks Return of the King is overrated?
Movie was good, it just suffered a bit from what the books required of it… namely that the story was split into like 8 peices. First movie was all Frodo's story, a straight narrative with only a couple characters, then some more added halfway. Second movie you had Aragorn story, Merry/Pippin story, Frodo/Sam/Gollum story. Third movie, the hobbits were split further, so you had Aragorn story, Merry story, Pippin story, Frodo/Sam story, elves' story, Faramir story, Gandalf's story, plus the remnants of the previous movie (Sarumon) , plus a brand new king, and a bunch of other characters...
That's mostly stuff that was there in the book. The story splitting from one narrative, to three narratives, to seven narratives is just how the books went. The movie didn't try to grow its scope sheerly for the sake of scope, the books themselves exploded the plotlines. As is they left out quite a few needless characters. It did a good job overall as far as I'm concerned anyway...
The biggest problem though was the big battle wasn't as good as the Helm's Deep battle, and the ghost army EFFECT looked too easy. (That they just swept the battlefield in a single ghosty wave of a single camera shot is what ruined it. Should have just been a slow unstoppable undead army that turned the tide in the course of a couple movie minutes, rather than 10 seconds in real time.)
-
@RobbyBevard:
The biggest problem though was the big battle wasn't as good as the Helm's Deep battle, and the ghost army EFFECT looked too easy. (That they just swept the battlefield in a single ghosty wave of a single camera shot is what ruined it. Should have just been a slow unstoppable undead army that turned the tide in the course of a couple movie minutes, rather than 10 seconds in real time.)
Pretty sure this is the most common gripe with the movie. If you're gonna include the Dead Men of Dunharrow , more time should be spent focusing on them and their allegiance to Aragorn. It is supposed to be his movie, after all.
Also, you're right, the way they swept Pelennor was deus ex machina 101.
-
I dont know how i missed out the Dead Men of Dunharrow. Yeah, the rapid ending of battle of Pelenor due to immortal dead army, was kind of depressing, just like Robby said. That being said, i still consider it as a majestic finale whose equal will not be achieved so easily. It remains my favorite.
PS - Are the upcoming hobbit movies 1:30 to 2 hours in length? I heard some people talking about the length being shortened.
-
PS - Are the upcoming hobbit movies 1:30 to 2 hours in length? I heard some people talking about the length being shortened.
The general assumption was it was going to be 2 movies that were 2- 2.5 hours, then upwards of three for the inevitable extended dvd cuts.
Since its been split into 3 movies, we no longer have any idea whatsoever. Are they taking 6 hours of movie and breaking it into three? Was there soooo much extra footage that they had nearly 9 or 10 hours worth of material? We really don't know anymore.
-
@RobbyBevard:
I've never understood people complaining about the lengthy epilogue, when the book's epilogue goes on for hundreds of pages after the destruction of the ring… where they meander past everyone they met along the way, then there's the lengthy scouring of the shire bit. Plus, its the resolution to three movies, not just the one.
I can only imagine what the reaction would have been if the Sarumon and Wormtongue stuff had stayed at the very end where it was in the books, adding another 20 or 30 minutes of epilogue and a mini war sequence after the ring was already dealt with, instead of just in the front of the extended cut.
Pacing. You couldn't have that big fight competing with the big fights in Two Towers, it muddies things up... and because if it ended where it did in the books it'd be a horrible cliffhanger for a year, and Frodo and Sam would have had literally 5 minutes of stuff to do in the next movie.
Also because the books are divided weird, the timing of events in Two Towers overlaps the events of Return of the King. The Frodo and Sam stuff in book 4 takes place near the same time as the stuff at the end of book 5... Book six with them facing Gollum one last time and climbing mount doom is only a couple chapters... followed by a ton of epilogue.
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
Movie was good, it just suffered a bit from what the books required of it... namely that the story was split into like 8 peices. First movie was all Frodo's story, a straight narrative with only a couple characters, then some more added halfway. Second movie you had Aragorn story, Merry/Pippin story, Frodo/Sam/Gollum story. Third movie, the hobbits were split further, so you had Aragorn story, Merry story, Pippin story, Frodo/Sam story, elves' story, Faramir story, Gandalf's story, plus the remnants of the previous movie (Sarumon) , plus a brand new king, and a bunch of other characters...
That's mostly stuff that was there in the book. The story splitting from one narrative, to three narratives, to seven narratives is just how the books went. The movie didn't try to grow its scope sheerly for the sake of scope, the books themselves exploded the plotlines. As is they left out quite a few needless characters. It did a good job overall as far as I'm concerned anyway...
The biggest problem though was the big battle wasn't as good as the Helm's Deep battle, and the ghost army EFFECT looked too easy. (That they just swept the battlefield in a single ghosty wave of a single camera shot is what ruined it. Should have just been a slow unstoppable undead army that turned the tide in the course of a couple movie minutes, rather than 10 seconds in real time.)
I liked the epilogue just fine. It was the only time during the movie I felt they were trying to really tell a story with a deeper underlying message (the fact that I have no clue WHY Frodo died really ruined that perfectly executed farewell though, I mean just why? It reminded me of Michael Jakson's Moonwalker when he just left for the sake of drama). The rest of the movie really felt inferior to the other two movies to me.
I love Fellowship (it's my fifth favorite movie) and I like Two Towers just fine (as a transition movie, it was perfect), Return of the King just felt so…small in comparison to the other two movies. I mean there was plenty of over-exaggeracted action scenes sure but story wise, in terms of characterization and depth and emotion and scope, it felt pretty weak, at least to me.
The movie just felt like an elaborate action sequence and it wasn't even their best action. The war in Helm's Deep was much better which is surprising given that the Rohans were just a bunch of riders with far less resources. Yet they gave a better fight, the action was more well written with more focus to the combatants and the consequences of the war and the stakes felt higher (as they should, that war was the climax of the movie whereas the war in RotK felt more like an afterthought), the Rohanians earned their victory by holding on as much as reasonably could be expected of them until Gandalf showed up with reinforcements, there were no deus ex machina ghosts to wipe out the entire army of supreme darkness in ten seconds flat in a very disappointing anti-climax. And don't get me started on that TERRIBLE scene with fucking Eowyn killing the ffin' Witch King in one of the most ham-fisted, patronizing acts of misguided feminism I've ever seen in theatre. That scene felt like it belonged in another movie in how cheesy it was. Exploring the role of women in such a male-driven fantasy world is interesting but they barely touched it with that character for the entire movie, she was as minor as minor could get, and she kills a hard-core top tier villain like that instead of someone like Gandalf or Aragorn? While spouting that awful one liner (really, she might as well have shouted "I am woman, hear me roar!")? My least favorite scene in all three movies.
Action aside, the movie didn't seem to offer much else, at least to me. I mean stuff happened but they didn't really seem to tie in together very well, didn't really have a deeper meaning that built up the world and the characters and tied into some underlying theme. I mean yeah, it had it's moments, very good moments, but they were sparse throughout the movie. And then there were the plotholes...I really don't recall asking "what" and "why" in my head so many times in the other two movies. Why did Arwyn suddenly have a vision of having a child? Why was Arwyn's fate suddenly tied to the ring? Why does Pippin touching the crystal ball thing make Sauron think he has the ring. Why do the characters know this? Why did Merry and Pippin have to separate? Why didn't Gollum just grab the ring from Frodo and push him off the stairway when he had the chance and when did he get the mental faculty to try and turn Sam and Frodo against each other? Why did Gandalf leave the crazy steward unattended so he couldn't get into more trouble (like burn his son alive)? etc. etc. These are mostly nitpicks (mostly) but they do add up.
But what really bugs me about the film is again the weak writing. The steward was a terrible, two-dimensional character and everytime we focused on him and his inane antics, it felt like filler. Faramir felt wasted(this is really disappointing because they're relatives of effin' Boromir). The Elven race felt wasted in the movie (Elrond just fixed a sword, yes in the scope of the movie it saved the day but...they just fixed a sword, Arwyn and Galadriel did jack-shit). My biggest gripe was how Gollum was wasted. The whole internal conflict of the character that the second movie spent so much time building up, the movie does absolutely nothing with it and just degrades him into a generic villain. He just pops up in the end like the boogieman. As a character, I feel they could have done better with him.
And then there's the destruction of the ring and I really felt the resolution was weak. There was no determination to do the right thing, no message about overcoming the evils of the ring, it was just two hobbits driven mad by the ring and accidentally falling into the volcano. I read online that it was originally planned for Frodo to push Gollum into the volcano but they changed it because they didn't want to show Frodo murder Gollum. However that would have been a stronger ending because at least then, Frodo would be taking responsibility for not dropping the ring when he had the chance, there would at least have been some sort of underlying theme there. Instead he gets his finger bit off and just rushes to put the ring back on. Blegh.
I really hate that I sound like I'm bashing the film. Let me make it clear, I liked the film. It was okay but it has its flaws. I write this lengthy post not out of hatred but sheer disappointment. As a movie, it was adequate, it was nowhere near the disaster of a finale to a franchise like Matrix, PotC, Dark Knight Rises etc.) but it just pales so much in comparison to the first two films especially Fellowship, it's really disappointing. I get that Peter Jackson probably did his best in a nearly unadaptable book (I don't know if the RotK book was that much harder to adapt as a book or what, I'm simply judging these as movies) and I appreciate his hard work, the cinematography, the acting, the directing, the perfect blend of CGI and practical effects are all stellar! But he managed all that and gave some really good stories and characterization in the first two movies. And I just didn't get that here.
At least for me. But maybe I'm just being a grouchy hobbit.
-
@Thousand:
I get that Peter Jackson probably did his best in a nearly unadaptable book (I don't know if the RotK book was that much harder to adapt as a book or what, I'm simply judging these as movies)
If the book had been adapted accurately, it would have been very strange as a film. Because there would have essentially been three climaxes instead of two (which already seems off in the movie), and audiences would have been bored to tears, wondering when it would end. On the other hand, if Shelob had been in Two Towers, there would have been more time to spare, but then we would have been thrust into the action from the get-go… I mean, maybe that would have worked, but Frodo, Sam and Gollum would have only been relevant at the end. I genuinely think he did the best he could.
-
@Thousand:
And don't get me started on that TERRIBLE scene with fucking Eowyn killing the ffin' Witch King in one of the most ham-fisted, patronizing acts of misguided feminism I've ever seen in theatre. That scene felt like it belonged in another movie in how cheesy it was. Exploring the role of women in such a male-driven fantasy world is interesting but they barely touched it with that character for the entire movie, she was as minor as minor could get, and she kills a hard-core top tier villain like that instead of someone like Gandalf or Aragorn? While spouting that awful one liner (really, she might as well have shouted "I am woman, hear me roar!")? My least favorite scene in all three movies.
That scene was line for line, in the book. The entire point was "no man can kill the witch king."
It was Tolkien's answer to Macbeth's c-section riddle of "no man born of woman". (as was the moving forest) Also, it was split between a woman and a hobbit, to make it extra muddied as to which was prophecy breaking. Neither of them were a man.
Yes, the army of the dead was mishandled, in that they just magically swept the battle field… rather than just being unkillable. But don't try to hold the "I am a woman!" bit against the movie, that was 100% Tolkien.
-
@RobbyBevard:
That scene was line for line, in the book.
It was Tolkien's answer to Macbeth's c-section riddle of "no man born of woman". (as was the moving forest in the previous movie.)
Yes, the army of the dead was mishandled, in that they just magically swept the battle field… rather than just being unkillable. But don't try to hold the "I am a woman!" bit against the movie, that was 100% Tolkien.
Well maybe the context of it was different in the book, maybe Eowyn had a lot more development in the book so it wasn't as bad and she actually felt like a strong female character or maybe it was as bad in the book, I don't know, I haven't read the book (I should change that one of these days when I get through my huge to-read list). I'm only judging it as a movie and the way it was executed just came off cheesy to me. Of all the changes and rewrites and moving around they did with the books, they couldn't have done that part better?
Edit: The MacBeth thing does sound interesting to say the least but we never got any sort of prophecy about that in the movie. It sounds very peripheral and hard to pull off in a movie. They really should have just did a fantastic fight against Gandalf or something and have her sneak in a final blow to a tired and battered Witch King. Then it would have been more reasonable. And lose the one-liner if you can't put it into the proper context like the book did.
-
@Thousand:
Why did Arwyn suddenly have a vision of having a child?
Because in the book they have a child. It was there to spur her final decision to live a mortal life instead of an immortal one.
Why was Arwyn's fate suddenly tied to the ring?
The elves in general are tied to the age, and Sauron failing or conquering pretty much decides if they all die or not. Its why ALL the elves left on the boats to a different world.
Why does Pippin touching the crystal ball thing make Sauron think he has the ring.
Because Sauron knows a hobbit* has the ring. Only a couple people have access to palantirs, so that gave him a rough idea of their location. And then Aragorn makes a point of challenging him later. Sauron doesn't dream that anyone would want to destroy the ring, he can only assume they would want to use it for conquest. So he goes hobbit+ring in this location+Aragorn=they plan to use the ring to lead their armies and I know where they are.
Sauron never imagined "tiny hobbit with ring sneaking around to the crack of doom to destroy it." Or else he would have had some guards right there.
Why did Merry and Pippin have to separate?
Because he's a fool of a Took that touched the magic scyring palantir after being told not to. Because they both do different things and make different pledges that require different commitments.
Why didn't Gollum just grab the ring from Frodo and push him off the stairway when he had the chance
Dual personalities, one of which is good-ish and actually liked Frodo. And he'd made a promise on the ring to obey. And because Sam was wary of him and ready to kill him. And he DID try to take the ring by force eventually.
he tried to take the and when did he get the mental faculty to try and turn Sam and Frodo against each other?
About the 47th time Sam insulted him while Frodo was kind to him.
Why did Gandalf leave the crazy steward unattended so he couldn't get into more trouble (like burn his son alive)? etc. etc.
Because he's the damn steward and he'd ruled the country just fine for years and was not an enemy. Yeah, he was bitter and callous, but he was still more or less a king and expected to do the right thing after being chastised. Gandalf isn't all powerful, can't command kings to do whatever he wants, (He can only suggest) and he didn't know the steward was going to go completely insane under pressure.
Faramir felt wasted(this is really disappointing because they're relatives of effin' Boromir).
If it makes you feel better, Faramir has like five lines of dialogue in the entire actual book.
Boromir has like three.
The Elven race felt wasted in the movie (Elrond just fixed a sword, yes in the scope of the movie it saved the day but…they just fixed a sword, Arwyn and Galadriel did jack-shit).
In the book the sword was fixed while leaving Rivendell. Followed by the elves doing absolutely nothing the entire rest of the story, Legolas aside. They actually had more presence in the movies than they did in the books.
My biggest gripe was how Gollum was wasted. The whole internal conflict of the character that the second movie spent so much time building up, the movie does absolutely nothing with it and just degrades him into a generic villain. He just pops up in the end like the boogieman.
That's the book for you. He vanished for chapters at a time only to pop up again and try again. He actually made one or two more attempts on their lives in the book.
And then there's the destruction of the ring and I really felt the resolution was weak. There was no determination to do the right thing, no message about overcoming the evils of the ring, it was just two hobbits driven mad by the ring and accidentally falling into the volcano.
That's… the entire point of the trilogy. And the power of the ring. And how it was in the book.
I read online that it was originally planned for Frodo to push Gollum into the volcano but they changed it because they didn't want to show Frodo murder Gollum.
That also would have been 100% wrong. They made the right choice not doing that.
However that would have been a stronger ending because at least then, Frodo would be taking responsibility for not dropping the ring when he had the chance, there would at least have been some sort of underlying theme there. Instead he gets his finger bit off and just rushes to put the ring back on. Blegh.
100% like how it went in the book. The song calls him Frodo of the 9 fingers, after all.
I really hate that I sound like I'm bashing the film.
Mostly it seems like you're just bashing what actually happened in the book, really.
The undead army effect being rushed I'll give you. Not really deus ex machina since Aragorn had to spend time earning it… and the result was the same (they win the battle with the help of the undead) ... just how they presented it really sucked.
-
I haven't read the book so…?
Again, maybe it works better in the context of the book with all the bits the movie took out like the abstract metaphors, peripheral subtext etc. etc.
I'm just judging the movie. I heard that Tolkien was less of a story-teller as much as a literary professor. So his books were intended as more as an exploration rather than telling a kickass fantasy way epic story. Fair enough. But the movie had to tell that story. It managed it just fine in the first two movies. For me, it didn't manage it inearly as well in the third and if it's because it was too concerned about being faithful to the book that wasn't intended to be taken so linearly well maybe it should have been less faithful? I mean I know the hard-core fans would have been up in arms but with all the changes done anyway, they probably already were either way.
Again, haven't read the books. Really need to read them of these days.
-
Actually, the movie wasn't beholden to the book at all. They knew the movies were their own thing, so they made up a lot of things, cut stuff out, and moved a lot of things around for cinematic and pacing reasons. But basically all the key things you point at are in the source material, so your complaints about the major plotpoints go back to that.
-
@RobbyBevard:
Because he's the damn steward and he'd ruled the country just fine for years and was not an enemy. Yeah, he was bitter and callous, but he was still more or less a king and expected to do the right thing after being chastised. Gandalf isn't all powerful, can't command kings to do whatever he wants, (He can only suggest) and he didn't know the steward was going to go completely insane under pressure.
Also, in the book, Denethor had been tainted by the Palantir. He saw that the enemy's ships would come and that Gondor would fall, not realizing that Aragorn was commanding the fleet. That's why he went batshit crazy. Of course, I think that was omitted in the movie.
-
But they're lacking the context the books give. Imagine adapting a Terry Pratchett book without explaining things in the world that puts everything into context like the Giant Space turtle and the four elephants, the existence of Gods and how they manipulate chance, the 8th colour of magic, the writing itself being full of easter eggs and tidbits that are important to the plot but almost impossible to translate into the movie because of how fragmented and non-liner and introspective they are. I imagine the LotR books are like that but much harder. Context is everything and I feel the movie did not do a good job in that department making those scenes come off as weak writing when it might not have been the case in the books.
-
@Thousand:
But they're lacking the context the books give.
No they aren't. The context is there. I got all this stuff from the movies, not from reading the books. In fact there's a lot of stuff I never would have gotten from the books themselves that the movies explain more clearly. Try watching the extended edition. Maybe listen to the commentaries. Its all in there without having read the books. There's a limit to the amount of exposition you can give in a movie, some things have to be inferred or thought about by the audience a little.
Or is this one of those situations where you swear up and down and insist that LOST doesn't answer any of its questions even though it answers all its questions?
-
Talking about the Elves being wasted, the whole book as well as the whole movie is supposed to revolve around Men and Hobbits entirely. Elves have had major roles in Silmarillion and somewhat less in Hobbit (Battle of Five armies). I really suggest you to read the book.
Speaking of Tolkien, frankly he has produced better works than most of the authors i have known so far (as far as high fantasy is concerned). The way he creates the settings and atmosphere is quite excellent. (Especially the way he has depicted/portrayed time progression from Melkor to Elessar, wisdom of Elves and greed of men). Arwen-Aragorn romance is one of the best of it's kind. Not to forget relationship between Legolas and Gimli.
-
@RobbyBevard:
No they aren't. The context is there. I got all this stuff from the movies, not from reading the books. In fact there's a lot of stuff I never would have gotten from the books themselves that the movies explain more clearly. Try watching the extended edition. Maybe listen to the commentaries. Its all in there without having read the books. There's a limit to the amount of exposition you can give in a movie, some things have to be inferred or thought about by the audience a little.
You say it's there but you have the benefit of being able to fill in the blanks since you've read the books. I'm pretty sure the books do a better job of explaining the scenes than the movie did. I don't agree the movie executed the scenes as well as they could have. They just came off very sloppy and lazily written to me. Like they were an afterthought instead of the thrust of the movie like it probably was for the book. I dunno, haven't read the book so I can't compare.
I'll judge the movie by the theatrical version because that's the movie that was intended to be judged and the movie that won it eleven Oscars. The extended version that tightens the stories and tidies everything up I'll be watching and judging at a later date.
Also please don't patronize me with the "I didn't get it" shtick. I've heard this a million times before and it doesn't sound any less condescending every time I hear it, even if it isn't your intent to do so. I got the first two movies just fine without any problems, that should be enough as a reference.
Really, my main problem with the movie isn't the nitpicks. Those can be explained to a degree (like you've proven) even if it involves a lot of unnecessary mental gymnastics that possibly cross the line from thinking critically about the story to lazy writing. It's mostly that the movie fell into that trap most final part of trilogy movies fall into where it felt more interested in being this big epic fantasy war movie that it sacrificed the time needed to work on those details to give a better story when the story was not intended to be about the war but those details.
So I reject your notion that I'm "bashing the book". I haven't read the book. I'm not even "bashing the movie". Despite how I sound when discussing its flaws, I LIKED the movie. I just feel it could have been much better.
@RobbyBevard:
Or is this one of those situations where you swear up and down and insist that LOST doesn't answer any of its questions even though it answers all its questions?
I'm pretty sure my problem with Lost had something to do with mediocre writing.
-
@Thousand:
You say it's there but you have the benefit of being able to fill in the blanks since you've read the books.
I didn't read the books till recently. I'd seen the movies tons of times before that. The books didn't grow my understanding in any way. For the most part I got less out of them, save for a single scene with Gimli and Legolas.
@Thousand:
I'll judge the movie by the theatrical version because that's the movie that was intended to be judged and the movie that won it eleven Oscars. The extended version that tightens the stories and tidies everything up I'll be watching and judging at a later date.
But the extended editions were always the intended version to be watched over and over for years to come. They're what the director wanted to show but was forced to cut down.
So I reject your notion that I'm "bashing the book". I haven't read the book. I'm not even "bashing the movie".
If you pointed at the scenes the movie made up whole cloth or got completely wrong, (and especially without knowing which scenes that specifically applied to) then yes, it'd be a problem with the movie. But since pretty much everything you specifically point out as having a problem with came straight from the book, then yes, its the source material you have a problem with.
-
Talking about the Elves being wasted, the whole book as well as the whole movie is supposed to revolve around Men and Hobbits entirely. Elves have had major roles in Silmarillion and somewhat less in Hobbit (Battle of Five armies). I really suggest you to read the book.
I need to read a lot of books. I've got Game of Thrones sitting on my shelf, I bought it half a year ago but I still haven't gotten around to read it because I have a huge to read list that I'm adamant in sticking to and I'm a slow reader.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@RobbyBevard:
I didn't read the books till recently. I'd seen the movies tons of times before that.
My standards are way higher than. Or I'm just being an unreasonable grouchy hobbit. Maybe I really don't get it. Whatever. I'm just telling you how I felt about the movie. Maybe I'll have a better opinion of it when I watch the extended versions and or commentaries. I'd like to be able to appreciate Return of the King more because it is a beautifully made movie in every other aspect.
-
@RobbyBevard:
That scene was line for line, in the book. The entire point was "no man can kill the witch king."
Hell, as far as I recall, in the book she didn't settle for just saying "I am no man!" and stabbing the bastard in the face either. I seem to recall her saying at least five full sentences before attacking… Wait, let me go check that.
...Her boasting took up four lines in the version of the book that I have. One really has to wonder why the Witch King didn't just kill her while she was monologuing or something.
-
@Thousand:
You say it's there but you have the benefit of being able to fill in the blanks since you've read the books. I'm pretty sure the books do a better job of explaining the scenes than the movie did.
How do you know that when you haven't the book? Hell, even the Battle of Hornburg as portrayed in the movie differs a lot from what it was writtern in book. Aragorn never fell from cliffs during the warg attack. Its all Jackson's work.
There are some bad ones about the movie, but hey, its not that bad (Comparing with the other 2 movies)
@Vegard:
Hell, as far as I recall, in the book she didn't settle for just saying "I am no man!" and stabbing the bastard in the face either. I seem to recall her saying at least five full sentences before attacking… Wait, let me go check that.
...Her boasting took up four lines in the version of the book that I have. One really has to wonder why the Witch King didn't just kill her while she was monologuing or something.
That was because Witch King was already weakened by the stab of Merry's enchanted dagger, though i am not so sure if he got stabbed before or after Eowyn's lines.
-
How do you know that when you haven't the book? Hell, even the Battle of Hornburg as portrayed in the movie differs a lot from what it was writtern in book. Aragorn never fell from cliffs during the warg attack. Its all Jackson's work.
Books have the benefit of having all the time in the world to cram extra details and write in exposition in clever ways (like how Terry Pratchett does it in fun, clever narrative) which you just can't do with a movie so I'm willing to bet the book explains things more in detail.
There are some bad ones about the movie, but hey, its not that bad (Comparing with the other 2 movies)
I agree with you. I like the movie. As a movie on its own, it's pretty good, not eleven Oscars worthy, but still great (especially compared to how awful final movies likes Dark Knight Rises, At World's End, Matrix Revolutions etc. are) I'm mostly disappointed when comparing it to the first two movies in my head. I still don't feel I was bored or wasted my time watching it, those three and a half hours flew by for me.
-
The movies didn't have Tom Bombadil. Which is the greatest decision ever made by Jackson and Co.
-
This post is deleted!
-
Did it? I was just dropping by for a quick comment. My mistake if I just beat the deadhorse.
-
I somehow deleted my post -.- (Which made RPGJay's post a doublepost) Sorry about that.