LotRs Return of the King... a british perspective *spoilers*

Pedro said:
Also if it was Peter Jacksons call I can't help but wonder if the decision wasn't made in the wake of september 11th, showing the shire being rebuilt when the twin towers are still just rubble might have been percieved as inconsiderate (believeable after all the fuss over the Two Towers not changing its name), still even in that case the level of cheese is completley unwarranted.
Click to expand...

I won't even touch that first post, but this idea is dumb. Nobody ever took the Two Towers name change thing seriously, and there was never any "fuss" about it whatsoever. To think it shaped the movies is insane.
 
I took the name change at face value, simply because I can see groups lobbying for something so bizzare. However, after an hour or so, I think I snapped to and found something better to get angry about.
 
Eh, it turned out that the "petition" was started from the same e-mail account that automatically posts random crap to every Slashdot thread.

(Edit: however, that Pedro and LeHah took it seriously is certainly telling of something.:))
 
Annnyyyyywwwwaaaayyyyyy, I personally thought the ending was rubbish and wasn't true enough to the book. I would have loved to see the revival story of Saruman and Wormtongue enslaving the Shire.

P.S. I have nothing against American's, American FUNDED films (apart from the crap ones, the rubbish ones, the poop ones and the stupid ones :) ), or America in general (apart from Michael 'Freak' Jackson, but thats a different story).
 
Having now seen the movie, I don't agree that cutting out the scouring of the Shire was a bad idea. While I suppose the ending of the book, with its sort of "price of freedom" message (haha, I fit in a WC reference!) fits into Tolkien's grand scheme for the overall story, I think it would have made for a jarring ending to the movie. While it's not really "tacked on" to the book, it definitely is a distinct episode which seems almost only tangentally connected to the main events.

Considering the length of the overall movie, I'm not sure throwing in a battle sequence with hobbits attacking thugs would necessarily make sense to most people (huh? what happened to the Shire?); heck, I bet most people hardly remember we started in the Shire by the end of the third movie. In fact, my major complaint about the ending is that it seemed to go on, and on, and on... in the book, this was because it was tying up all the loose ends, but I think we could have done with fewer "endings" in the movie.
 
call me a rabid fanboy, but i'd sit through five hours of a third movie if it meant I got to see Christopher lee go *poof*

besides, The guy that plays Wormtongue (I forget his name at the moment...oh yeah! Brad Dourif!) deserves more screentime...he's truly a very talented guy. he's done horror, sci-fi, really low budget sci-fi, even LOWER budget sci-fi, fantasy, and i think I saw him in a cop drama movie once...
 
You forgot to mention the movie he got an Oscar nod for: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
 
And you say Pedro has done this several times before? Man, nobody needs to drive a point into the ground that much.

As for the movie, I think that it was beautifully done. RotK is by far, IMO, the best-most perfect-movie I have ever seen. Sure the ending wasn't what I expected and I really think Sam and Fordo should of died scarificing their lives to "save the world."

Plus, there definitely should of been some sort of partying of some kind for the 4 heroic hobbits in the shire. Fordo should also of "aged" mentally for carrying that heavy burden for more than a year.

Otherwise, the movie was perfectly done in spreading out the dialogue, battles, plot progression and overall keeping it interesting and on edge throughout the film.
 
Iceblade, Frodo and Sam didn't die, but they damn near did. as far as Frodo carrying that mental burden, in the book- he did. he could barely live with himself anymore and he was scarred physically and mentally to the point he was incapable of living a normal life. that's what you didn't see in the movie.
 
I got that feeling from it. Sam and Frodo went on that huge adventure, when they got back to the Shire Frodo was hollow, while Sam wasn't.
Frodo probably got addicted to the danger, the risk and wanted more adventure.
While Sam went the Swords to Plowshares (or whatever), like a dictator of the Roman era, they only fight cause they had to, and went back to thier old lives when the war was over.
I thought Frodo was a bitch (oddly no insult intended), he did what pretty much anyone would have done, while Sam was the real hero, proving he was the bravest of all hobbits.
Did any of you guys get the feeling that Sam and Frodo, were a little TOO close.
Great movie, can't wait to see the full one, the rest were better because of the deleted scenes, especially The Two Towers.
 
I finally saw the damned film. I thought it was great but I have a few nitpicks, the largest of which is the damned Legolas/Oliphant scene which I found so rediculous it was borderline repulsive. I don't understand Jackson's emphasis on the elf's battle abilities considering that Gimli was a much more serious character in the book and that Aragorn was by far and wide the biggest badass of the lot and didn't need fancy CGI moves to be cool.
 
Oh come on you didn't like the Flintstone slide off the trunk.

Jackson must have thought that Legolas was going to be a marketable character, especially among the teen women folk.

I liked how Aragorn was so savage in the movies when he fought, a direct contrast to the people he eventually ruled.
 
I just watched it for the third time yesterday. The part when the horns blow and the riders of Rohan crest the hill, with horns blowing, brings tears to my eyes.

And as I said many times before, it is great to finally see a movie that shows what really happens when calvary catches footsoldiers on open ground, beautiful.

I also like the soundtrack, especially the music during the scene I just described, and the score when they light the beacons, it is very rousing, giving a sense of hope.
 
BlackJack2063 said:
I liked how Aragorn was so savage in the movies when he fought, a direct contrast to the people he eventually ruled.
Click to expand...

Despite my affection for Viggo Mortensen as an actor (and for playing the best Lucifer I've ever seen), Aragorn was a whole hell of a lot more savage in the book.
 
I have yet to read the books, and I think I am going grateful that I did it in this order. I am one of those people that is really hard on book, video game, game (you get my point) based movies. From what I have read and heard from people who are fans and a few fanatics of LOTR, there are plenty of differences, many are small ones of course by there are differences. I would have been afraid in expecting the movie to be more like the book it might have spoiled my enjoyment of the movie.

I like "the british prespective" lol. I think those english kniggets are still upset with us damn yanks. My favorite author is British, David Gemmel, but I don't make a distinction between nationalities.

America will rule the world through the power of television!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top