Return of the King

While I generally approve of New Zealanders I have to say Peter Jackson is a hopeless duffer who couldn't direct himself out of a paper bag. In all three films he's failed to get anything resembling a performance out of a reasonably capable cast and, in ROTK he has finally lost control of the narrative once and for all. I think you'd get a reasonable notion where his (cough, cough) "artistic" priorities lie by comparing the scenes involving Denethor in book and movie - anybody who seems like they might be about to speak more than two sentences at a time is swiftly bonked on the head. I forget which screenwriter it was who said that the trouble with Hollywood was that it was run by people who genuinely thought Lethal Weapon 4 was a great movie, but whoever it was PJ should fit right in.

Glad I've got that off my chest.

David

You went for the dialogue?????

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

David,

sorry you didn't like the film or the director - although I can't think why any one is now interested in your view since you seem the need to approve of New Zealanders before you give an opinion on them!

Geoff

mr vuk vuksanovic you strike me as a bit of a clever twat

Rick,

I am not Vuk Vuksanovic, but nonetheless I am indeed quite clever.

Tom,

No. But it would have been nice.
Tolkien was no Tolstoy but there's still some pretty decent dialogue in the book. It even does clever things like revealing character, driving the plot and enhancing the significance of the action so that I actually care what happens when I read the book.

I'll watch the movie again because I'm a nerdy Tolkien fan, and I'm glad it was made, but in many ways it's a pretty duff film.

Geoff,

Pardon?


David

quote:

---

Originally posted by I remember Vuk Vuksanovic:
I am not Vuk Vuksanovic, but nonetheless I am indeed quite clever.

---

That was really cruel - and it's Xmas time too!

I was very impressed by The Two Towers, which added to my disappointment in ROTK. IRVV sums it up pretty well.

To make things worse, it was too violent for my taste - how the hell did it get a 12A certificate? I don't think I've seen anything that shocking in a 15-rated film - with the exception of the shooting in Speed. Judging by the number of small, shadowy beings who raced out of the cinema during the film, I'm not the only one who thinks this way. [But maybe it was just one being with a stomach upset and a ring of invisibility].

To be fair, however, I must confess that I fell asleep during the film. Although it seemed like only thirty seconds or so it must have been much longer because I completely missed one of the most important stages of the story, The Scouring of the Shire...

I'm afraid I don't agree with this critique at all. As a second generation Tolkien Nerd, I simply didn't notice any of these shortcomings - I thought that the film was as good as anybody could expect, given that it was very expensive and therefore has to appeal to a broad section of the public.

Probably the mistake is to think of it as the book. Tolkein worked hard at the written language which obviously doesn't translate into film. Much better to think of it as great cinematic epic. Take it on it's own turns and keep it distinct from the book

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

I saw this last night and thought it was brilliant. In many ways the Two Towers was a dissapointment for me after the first film, it just wasn't fantastical enough. However this ROTK is superb and probably the best of the three.

quote:

---

I'll watch the movie again because I'm a nerdy Tolkien fan, and I'm glad it was made, but in many ways it's a pretty duff film.

---

I'd struggle to seee how these three films could have been done much better. Ok, I might change a few small things here and there, but overall superbly done (IMO).

I agree that the Denethor character was somewhat underdeveloped, but some things have to give i guess. I would also like to have seen the scouring of the shire, and without this the film might as well have finished with the rescue of Frodo and Sam.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeremyD:
I was very impressed by _The Two Towers_, which added to my disappointment in ROTK. IRVV sums it up pretty well.

---

That will teach me to post without reading the whole thread. I must point out that I was referring to:

quote:

---

Tolkien was no Tolstoy but there's still some pretty decent dialogue in the book. It even does clever things like revealing character, driving the plot and enhancing the significance of the action so that I actually care what happens when I read the book.

---

- and the implication that this is what is missing from ROTK. I certainly don't agree with IRVV's previous comments about Peter Jackson, and I appreciate the effort that those involved in making the film put into it. It's just that, for me, something went wrong somewhere...

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeremyD:
...I don't think I've seen anything that shocking in a 15-rated film - with the exception of the shooting in _Speed_.

---

While I'm quoting myself I might as well mention that I was forgetting the scene that was cut from the DVD version of The Matrix (the one showing precisely how the bug enters enters Neo's body) - yuck!

Oh that note, Merry Xmas and Happy New Year everyone!

Took the family to see "The Return of the King" last night, and we all loved it! Of course you can't compare it to the book - it's a movie for g-d's sake! There's so much more that goes on when you're reading good literature that can never be captured in a movie - but the're different art forms. Viewed as a grand-scale epic, like the Hollywood epics of old, ROTK is a triumph. Just the set design is reason enough to go see the movie! It's pretty safe to say that there will never be another version of the Tolkien Lord of the Rings trilogy commited to film. I enjoyed all three installments and recommend them highly. IMO, ROTK deserves the Best Film of the Year Oscar, especially to honor the total three-film effort. There have been some other great films this year: "Mystic River", "Cold Mountain" (which I haven't seen yet), "The Last Samurai", "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World", "Dirty Pretty Things", "Lost in Translation", and the seriously underrated "Elephant". But none on quite this scale. Go see ROTK on the big screen while you have the chance!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Litwack:
...Of course you can't compare it to the book - it's a movie for g-d's sake! There's so much more that goes on when you're reading good literature that can never be captured in a movie - but the're different art forms. Viewed as a grand-scale epic, like the Hollywood epics of old, _ROTK_ is a triumph. Just the set design is reason enough to go see the movie!

---

The sets, scenery and FX were certainly first class, and a lot of the film was exceptionally well done. But if I watch a film of a book I find it quite reasonable to compare them. What is the point of making a film of a book if it is not intended to be true to the spirit of the book? Clearly, IMO, ROTK was intended to be true to the spirit of the book but for me it didn't work anywhere near as well as TTT, either as an interpretation of the book or as a film in its own right. I thought TTT was one of the best films I had ever seen, and was expecting more of the same with ROTK.

I'm glad you liked it so much but for me there were too many flaws, indicative of a loss of self discipline and perspective.

quote:

---

I thought TTT was one of the best films I had ever seen, and was expecting more of the same with ROTK.

---

I guess we must see things very differently, because I cannot possibly understand how someone who loved TTT could be disappointed with ROTK.

To me, all three films were of pretty much an equal standard; indeed, arguably getting better with each installment.

I agree with Tom; the films may be based directly on the books, but necessarily they must diverge to a degree. For a start, if you literally wanted to cover all the details in the 1000+ pages of the book, you'd end up with a set of films that would last for a couple of weeks!

Books and film are two very different art forms, with different demands. The book represents merely the starting point and baseline guide for a suitable interpretation.

To put it another way; I can't possibly see how, realistically, the trilogy of films could have been done much better. Small details -- inevitably -- perhaps. But nothing significant. This, I feel, is quite an acheivement.

John.

quote:

---

Of course you can't compare it to the book - it's a movie for g-d's sake!

---

Movies don't have to be so dumb.

But this I do agree with;

quote:

---

Just the set design is reason enough to go see the movie!

---

David

i know the books as well as almost anyone, and yes they are far better than the films! even Peter Jackson agrees,but that does not make the films bad,far from it. i honestly think they are among the finest films ever made,they capture the spirit of Tolkien better than i ever thaught possible

I'm out for a swift half with my chief engineer and our muckers, catch yer's next Jahr, innit, Ladies make sure they do thier stuff !


Fritz Von Commander Layla:

Ps: "Everyone I know goes away in the end"

Is Rooney the new Beckham ?

Graham Ricketts

Rick,

As an aficionado can you tell me :

a) Is the bit at the end where Bilbo and Frodo get sent on a wee elfin cruise is in the book ?

and if so,

b) What's all that about then ?

I saw part three last night and, fantastic though it was, I thought it suffered ever so slightly in parts from hollywooditis. I was surprised that they didn't get Meg Ryan in for the closing scenes.

Yup, as ring bearers Frodo & Bilbo get to go back to the land in the west. To understand you'll need to read the Silmarillion. Sam was also a ring bearer for a few hours so he's allowed to watch them go and of course Gollum would have been invited if he hadn't tried swimming in lava.

Just got back from the cinema. eek the pain. How can the Odeon be so painfully dreadful. The levels were way off and the sound painfully shrill.

Anyway the film was a great cinematic experience which kept to the spirit of the book. Unfortuanately, knowing the book becomes a problem because you notice all the bits left out and that gets in the way of the film. If I hadn't read the book I'd have been delighted. The battle scenes were excellent especially the oliphants & the flying Nazgul, the scenery stunning, the SFX first class (you can hardly see the join now and no Orcs were actually harmed during filming).

Just there were bleeding chunks cut out of the book. Not just the whole "Scouring of the Shire" but the confrontation between Saruman & Gandalf at Orthanc or the whole of the events surrounding Faramir's recovery etc etc etc ad nauseam.

mind you the Castles were spot on, as was Shelob.

So now I wait for the box set of extended play Director's cut DVD to come out and lock the doors for twelve hours and immerse myself in the best fantasy film this century or last.

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

Tom,

Thanks for answering my question but this just raises another one. I would have thought that Frodo (and Bilbo for that matter) bein' Hobbitsis and all, would have felt that the bestest reward for saving middle earth would be to be back in Hobbiton with all their old muckers. What's so great about the land in the west ?

Don't forget Tolkein was steeped in Celtic / Nordic saga and was an expert in the language of legends. The West is the place of Tir Nan Og, the land of the young. Not that this is exactly the same because he's dealing with his own mythology. But as "Heaven" is above but at the same non spatial so (from what I remember) the land beyond the seas to the West is where the Elves & Wizard came from in the Second Age. Their return signals the start of the Fourth age or the Age of Man where rationality takes centre stage and magic and mystery sinks back into our subconcious. By being Ring Bearers Frodo & Bilbo had become part of the fabric of the Third Age and so their reward is to join in the immortality (in what ever shape it takes, we are not told (perhaps symbolic of life after death or reentering the Creators song?)) of the Elves. Don't forget that they had also been drawn out with extended life by the Ring and were pretty worn out with living. Bilbo was 140 & Frodo was 35 so staying in Hobbiton wouldn't have been appealing especially after their adventures. Sam is left behind to remember the glory and magic but also to carry forward a new life. As are Merry & Pippin.

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

Speaking as a Nerd who has read the boom seven times and has two copies of the Rob Inglis verbatim reading of the entire book ( which I have heard five times ) I rate the film as a fantastic rendition of a gargantuan work.

The battle senes where fantastically well done; particularly the Cavalry charges of the Rohirrim et al. Also worthy of note was when Eowyn said to the Morgul Lord "I am no man..." before she kills him - mercifully free of Hollywood cheese and true to the book.

The sets where designed by Alan Lee, who many view as the best at rendering visual Tolkiens world; for example www.douglas.eckhart.btinternet.co.uk/ pagea22.html. (Do a Google search for more images.) In fact, some of the paintings seen on various walls in ROTK are clearly by his own hand.

I saw Ian McKellern on a chat show recently; he said that the extended DVD would be about 5 1/2 hours long. I said to The Nagger about two years ago taht when the extended DVD box set was released, we would be buying a DVD player. She has yet to veto that one....

Regards

Mike

On the Yellow Brick Road and happy

mike, are the Rob Englis readings any good?

Rick

They are a delight.

The man is a shakespearean actor who loves Tolkien. He injects character voices which, for me, work very well.

He also has a very soothing voice which is very easy on the ear.

Regards

Mike

On the Yellow Brick Road and happy

thanks Mike, i will buy them today!

quote:

---

he said that the extended DVD would be about 5 1/2 hours long

---

5.5 hours long? Really? Wow!

That is really surprising to hear, since the extended versions of the two previous films each have around 30 minutes of extra footage over the standard theatrical version -- at 5.5 hours we're talking about around 2 hours of extra footage...

John.