PeterDavid.net

If any movie could be perfect, it would be Casablanca. Did you purchase the new DVD with the commentary from Roger Ebert? Worth the purchase.

Thanks Peter. Haven't seen the movie yet, am planning to between Christmas and the New Year, so I'm grateful that you kept the spoilage to a minimum. The thing that's always struck me is how interested Jackson is in serving the story as opposed to bringing out a blockbuster product or showing off the special effects. I can sit through and marvel at the epic stuff precisely because he has so many character-focused scenes.

If I understood the movie correctly, the reason Arwen was being influenced by Sauron and the other elves weren't was because she'd made her decision to stay behind and tie herself to Aragorn and Middle-Earth.

WHatever the reason was for Arwen being tied to the ring made no sense. Unless, it was something her father told Aragorn to further his determination to beat Sauron. Still, useless either way. Going to see it again on Monday and maybe then I'll catch something different.

Yup, not perfection. But pretty much one of the most awe-inspiring films I've seen in my cinema-going lifetime.

It's been said, but it's true. This is this generation's answer to the original Star Wars (because this generation's literal Star Wars simply ain't cutting it) and will probably remain a cinematic milestone until they stop making movies.

And if I was George Lucas, I'd be very nervous right now.

John

Well, I for one am disappointed "The Scouring of the Shire" was dropped. I completely understand how such a lengthy postlogue would have diluted a major Hollywood film—but on the other hand, it does wonderfully portray the theme that good versus evil is not always a massive, cosmic, army versus army global battle but sometimes just a small-scale fight that happens in your own back yard—and thus hits closer to home.

That's a minor niggle about a near-perfect movie.

I agree with John, I would've liked to see the original book ending shire storyline, although I'm sure my bladder would've hated sitting there even 5 minutes longer than I did.

Wonderful movie! Can't wait to see how much they add tot he "Extended Special Edition" of RotK next November...

I loved the movie, but i think it did a bit of an injustice to Sam by taking out the scouring of the shire... that's where the book always tore me up....

Ra!

Heresy alert: I tried, I mean, really, really tried to read the books. But I could never get past page 300 of the first book. God knows I tried. But it was just so g*ddamn boring I kept falling asleep. I've got other books that are actually fun that I wanted to read.

That said, I really loved the movies. I had no idea what would happen and just got swept along in the majesty. Even though I enjoyed seeing my hero, Sam, bring the movie to a close, it did feel as if the movie had at least three different endings and the director couldn't settle on one. Again, that said, RETURN OF THE KING was a fantastic movie

I was enthralled by both the FX and the character storylines. Only disappointment was the leader of the Nine getting killed by a woman. After all, she's still a member of mankind. It was nice to see, but I thought the splitting of hairs was a bit fine there.

An absolutely outstanding movie. Can't wait for the DVD, or the compulsory second viewing, to see if there's anything else I missed. Great stuff.

Unless it was drastically altered, and everyone I've seen talking of this implied that it wasn't, Eowyn doesn't kill the Witch-King. Merry does.

Erm, better see the movie, Alan.

I, too, miss the Scouring of the Shire (and no, it wasn't filmed, so no RotK EE for it). My wife is already tired of hearing me say as much. :)

The Arwen thing, as a whole, bugs me, because it wasn't that important to the story.

Although, when you look at *some* of what Jackson & Crew did (not all of it though), it does make more sense than the original book.

Take Faramir, for example. They discuss in the director's commentary n TTT EE that Faramir didn't make much sense just refusing the ring outright. It just takes away from the power of the ring entirely.

So they changed him for the movie (and lengthened his story in the process).

So that was a change I could easily approve of. :)

I guess the Arwen thing is perhaps best explained by the fact that her hopes are pinned on Sauron being defeated, since she is now stuck in Middle-Earth.

If Aragorn were killed, she'd die of a broken heart or something?

If Aragon lives, she lives on.

I found myself muttering "magnificent" and "spectacular" many times during this movie...and I was alone! One of the best movies ever.

As nifty as it would have been to see the Scouring of the Shire, there's no way in hell it would have worked in the movie.

As it is, I kept on expecting those title cards from Clue to pop up during the black fades...you know, "That's how it could have ended, but this is how it really ended."

It's been a long time since I've read ROTK, probably too long. When my kids were small, we'd tried to read them to them, but they got bored by the first third of ROTK. I have no memory at all of the army of the dead, but certain scenes were powerful that I missed:

* Pippin befriending a Minas Tirith kid, that really grounded you in the people of Gondor. This was handled visually, though, and would have taken a lot of time.

* One piece of the scouring of the Shire I missed is the Rowan seed Galadriel gave to Sam -- that wasn't in Fellowship, and without the scouring, the tree is less significant.

* My buddy missed the watchers at Minas Morgul, but I didn't remember that much either.

But the visuals of Minas Tirith were glorious. Trolls and Oliphaunts -- that's the way to run a siege.

So now, we need films of:

* A Princess of Mars (Brad Pitt & Jennifer Aniston, anyone? Actually, how about the camp version with Janeane Garofalo(sp?) and Ben Stiller)

* Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser (haven't even thought about casting this one)

* Sabriel by Garth Nix (go read this one now!!!!)

At least for an extended period, Disney had the rights to A Princess of Mars. I know Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott (Aladdin, Pirates of the Carribean) wrote at least one possible script.

Of course, that was before they did PotC; I'm now picturing a certain actor proclaiming himself as "Captain Jack Sparrow of Virginia" :-)

As another person who never made it through the books (and first saw all the movies Sunday evening, Monday evening, and when the company took everyone to a Wednesday show), anyone want to take a crack as describing, in spoiler font, just what happened in this Scouring of the Shire other than a very large troll with some steel wool attacking the place?

What film is? (Okay, "Casablanca," but other than that.)

even with its cop-out ending? :)

With the large-scale success of Lord of the Rings (and the TV-scale more-or-less success of the two Dune mini-series), maybe people won't be as scared as fantasy/sci-fi projects branded 'long and boring', and that Foundation movie will actually get done :)

(btw, although I have a hard time with LotR, I have read the Dune series in its entirety a few times, and Dune itself about 20 times, so I'm not afraid of 'long and boring')(and let's just not get into how many times I've read the Foundation trilogy, or even the trilogy's sequels)

...what were we talking about? Oh, yeah, RotK! well, and all Epics, I suppose.

...could the Odyssey be in our future? the Iliad? Beowulf itself? or (dare I say it) another American Pie sequel :)

The whole Arwen dying bit. I thought it was because she passed on "whatever grace she had" to Frodo back in Fellowship. And anything short of immortality would look like "dying" to an Elf. S'what it sounded like to me, anyway.

Well, I don't know how close it sticks to the Iliad, but Troy is coming out next year. And its got both Orlando Bloom and Sean Bean, so its got LotR connections.

Well, I'm hovering in between liking it and loving it. The Army of the Dead sequences and the Frodo/Gollum/Sam sequences were everything I hoped they'd be. On the other hand, Arwen's beefed up role didn't add a whole lot, and much of the movie felt like a Klingon TNG/DS9 episode (lots of superbly trained stage actors running around in bulky costumes and/or prostheses). I'll have to think about it a bit more....

Oh, and as for the howling of the purists....I had a friend who did a revision of a piece by a classic writing team. It was a Major Thing (New York opening, multimullions on the line, etc.) For the months before the show opened, the purists were up in arms. How DARE he descecrate the work? He isn't worthy enough to change a word written by that team! He should get his own story to work on! This work BELONGS to this Team and he shouldn't be allowed near it!

The problem was that A) this team ADAPATED the work of another writer, B) my friend consulted quite frequently with the original writer, and C) the resulting work was closer to the original work than what was done by this famous writing team.

The irony is that many of the purists KNEW all three of these things....and didn't care.

So if folks are annoyed by changes....I hope you aren't considering yourselves "purists"....

Regarding Eowyn and the Witch King...

She kills him in the books. There was no change for the movie.

The prophecy is similar to the prophecy in MacBeth, that no man born of woman can kill MacBeth...except MacDuff was born by C-Section. Similarly, no man was able to kill the Witch King. A woman did.

(book stuff warning) Merry gets a pass because he was using a weapon specifically designed to combat the Witch King from before he became a Nazgul. Tom Bombadil gave them those blades instead of Galadriel.

Before I see the movie and tell you what I think, here's a little something I found thanks to Snopes: http://www.fredbasset.org/pound/Lord%20of%20the%20Rings.mov Think of this as a way to mix Star Trek and LOTR. But I'm warning you: it's not for the people of nervous disposition.

"..and that Foundation movie will actually get done :)"

said Ian

Mayhaps a successful adaptation of I,Robot will inspire rapid release of more Asimovies.

I'm sure it doesn't mean as much to most but one of my favorite trilogys of books are the War of The Lance, which is actually DragonLance:Chronicles 1-3.

Anyhow, seeing this movie, particularly near the end(and if you love the war of the lance you'll know what I'm referring to)I just had the thought that they could actually make a movie of the DragonLance stuff.

Brendan Frasier as Cameryn and Viggo Mortenson as Raistlin.

Michael Norton

It was splendid. I came out of Fellowship thinking that it was as good a movie as could have been made. I was a bit annoyed by Two Towers - all those elfy bits - though the extended DVD is much better.

Return of King though was a real return to form. Hardly any non-Tolkien scenes, wonderful to look at, with enough jokes to break up the serious bits and it was just wonderful to see all those things I first read about nigh 30 years ago looking so 'right'.

One thing though: How many people got the significance of the moth? It was one of my favourite little touches, but I've only found one person so far who got it.

Have you ever been to a film that so drained you emotionally that you couldn't even talk about it for days?

This is one of those films.

Multiple endings? What is the problem here? I would have been devastated if it hadn't ended exactly as the book. In the last ten minutes, you could hear people throughout the jampacked theater openly sobbing as Frodo bid his farewells to his friends.

And then I turned to my wife and saw something I have never seen before.

She was crying also.

In 35 years of taking Dee to movies, even ones that would have cracked the hardest of hearts, I've never once seen her cry.

But there we were, sobbing like kids, and we just sat there, cuddled together, watching the last moments of the film run out, bonded for the first time in our feelings toward a great film.

And as the credits rolled against Alan Lee's fabulous pencil sketches, I turned to Dee and said, "I think we must come back."

And she said, "Yeah, I think so too."

This coming from my wife, who rarely, if ever, wants to see the same movie more than once.

George Lucas has squandered his day in the sun on two lousy, unnecessary prequels and threatens to do the same with Indiana Jones again. The era of Peter Jackson has begun.

Now, what do you think he's gonna do with King Kong?

Let's just hope that by the time he finishes King Kong, he'll have gotten the legal rights cleared up to make The Hobbit.

Man, just what is that four-film DVD set gonna look like?

O.K. The scouring of the Shire - the Short, Short Version. Really Short.

After much partying and long goodbyes, our four Hobbitses (sorry) head for home, only to find theShire has been taken over by gangs of bad Men and Hobbits, as well as Saruman and Grimer Wormtoungue. They organize an uprising and kick out the Men, settle with the bad Hobbits, and deal much more humanely with Saruman than he deserved (but he still gets his, heh, heh).

Pippin, Merry, and Sam become heroes and very important persons in the Shire, and without, while Frodo retires to revise Bilbo's book. And then the story, I presume, continues as the movie shows.

I have yet to see "Return..", but read the book as soon as I finished seeing the DVD of "...Towers", so it's fresh in my mind.

You should read the appendix in "Return..." regarding the timeline for the whole thing to maybe get a better grip on the story as well as a fairly short synopsis (less than 30 pages, as opposed to hundreds) of the story.

And I won't object to anyone correcting any mistakes in this, memory being faulty and subjective.

This was short?

This was an extraordinary movie, the best of the year. (My 2nd choice was the previously-untouched LOST IN TRANSLATION.) The movie managed to juggle multiple storylines, without losing sight of any of them. The battles were fantastic, the ending(s) were incredible (I feared the coronation/reward ceremony would look too much like the end of STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE, but they dodged that one), and ending the film with Sam reminded us that this wasn't about war, or killing, but about preserving a way of life. (I liked how the final shot was the "good" ring of Sam's door.)

I only had 1.5 complaints. We see that Eowyn is a dutiful daughter, a kick-ass fighter, a compassionate person (she takes Merry to the battle when no one else did). All we see of Arwen is that she's getting sick, and would die for a chance to have a son. And Aragorn picks Eowyn??? And for a half-complaint, I'd have enjoyed seeing Christopher Lee's scenes; thank Frodo for the extended scenes on DVD.

I'm very happy with the LOTR trilogy, but I find myself bothered by Peter Jackson's plans to remake "King Kong." On my personal list of "Best Movies Ever" (say that in the Comic Book Guy's voice), Kong is way, way up there. I just don't see what Jackson could bring to the table that would improve the original version. Yeah, I know CGI would make more realistic dinosaurs, but for its time, the original did pretty well, thank you. And shouldn't anyone doing a remake of a classic movie actually want to make a better version, one that soars above the source material? Meriem C. Cooper, Willis O'Brien and friends got it right the first time. There's no need of a rehash. JMO.

Didn't like the movie so much, better than the lame Fellowship but nowhere near the working machine of Towers. I'm not book purist, though I read them all, it just wasn't that hot of a movie. Email me or IM me at Hdefined if you want to know my reasons.

Don't get your hopes up for I, Robot, at least as an Asimovian adaptation. Essentially, the studio bought rights to the book and title *after* a completely separate robots involved murder mystery/detective script had been written and slapped the I, Robot title on said script. The only Asimovian thing about it will probably be some use of the three laws...and using the same names for some characters.

Needless to say, I'd much prefer the Ellison script get filmed.

Too many endings? Please... you're watching what amounts to a nine-plus-hour film. That's nine hours of plot, character and theme development in a world created from the bottom up for the sole purpose of telling the story; that's a lot of loose ends to tie up. And if you want those loose ends tied up right, you have to go for length. It was a gamble, and it paid off.

Every time I heard someone in the audience moan, "when does it end?", I wanted to tell them to go ahead and leave; do us all a favor and just leave, because you obviously don't care enough to give the trilogy it's due. If you're emotionally invested in these characters (as any fan of the books must be to see the film version), a half-hour of endings done right is exactly what you want. Jackson delivers.

The OTHER John Byrne

A three and 1/2 hour movie, and I wanted more?!!!

My only complaint is about the missing "scouring of the shire". And to be honest, it was 'cause we missed one of the funniest lines ever written. In the final book, after all that Sam and Frodo have been through, Sam, Merry and Pippin begin to organize the Hobbits to fight Saruman and Wormtoungue. Sam makes a quick detour to check on Rose. She scolds him for taking the time to socialize with her and her father. "leaving poor Mr. Frodo the first time he needs a loyal friend."

Several people have mentioned adaptions they'd like to see. So I'll add my wish list in no paticular order.

Time Enough At Last by Robert A Heinlein (preferably a series on a cable channel willing to spend the bucks)

Caves of Steel etc. by Issac Asimov (as a prelude to the Foundation series)

Ringworld by Larry Niven (There's something wrong with a world where the only Niven story that's been filmed is the excellent Inconstant Moon. Doesn't anyone in Hollywood say "Hey, that was GREAT! What else has this guy written?)

Sandman by Neil Gaiman (Again, a TV series; a movie can NOT do justice to this one.)

Myth... by Robert Asprin (Okay, just 'cause I wanna see Tanada 20 ft tall. Then again, I gotta see Massha 40 ft wide, but that's the price ya pays.)

Incarnations of Immortality by Piers Anthony (On A Pale Horse, etc. My daughter just started reading this series. I guess I'm gonna have to go buy myself replacement copies; I've already been warned that I ain't getting them back)

Ender's Saga by Orson Scott Card (I know that Ender's Game is in production, but I want the whole series!)

AND NUMBER ONE on my wish list...

OZ by Frank L Baum. (I know Return To Oz was blasted by the critics, but maybe the time's finally come for this lost gem)

Saw it yesterday afternoon, and both my wife and I were so sorely tempted to go back for an immediate repeat viewing today that only the spectre of "All The Stuff We Have to Finish Before Christmas" and a Frodo-like strength of will kept us from turning the whole weekend over to Jackson's vision.

Some randmo thoughts:

Aragorn: Man, I hope Mr. Mortensen get his son--who talked him into taking the role--whatever he wants for Christmas for the next 20 years. (Nice symmetry there, too, as _The Hobbit_ itself only saw publication because of the rave review the then 10 year old son of the would be editor gave to JRRT's original manuscript for the book that launched it all into the public eye...)

Legolas: Damn good year for Mr. Bloom, I'd say. I love the scene with the Oliphaunt in ROTK, sure, but it's almost over the top, and the wrong-side flip up on to the horse in TT works better becuase it's less showy, more casual. Still, the scene stealer is pratically the only real chance everyone's favorite elf gets to shine in the third film, so there's no begruding it. Am I the only one who was feeling a resonance not only to the _Empire Strike Back_ but also, in the dismount, to the entrance of Capt. Jack Sparrow in that other little film Mr. Bloom had the good sense to show up for? :-)

Gimli: Well, you win some, you lose some. I understand why PJ needed to use the character for comic relief throughout, but in this third movie he's a sadly diminished presence all around, far more so than in the books themselves (where, admittedly, he does fade to the background, too). Throwing in the towel good-naturedly on this after TT, I almost wanted PJ to just go ahead and have Gimli, too, jump in the bed in the "Hop on Frodo" reunion scene, but I suppose even PJ has to draw the line somewhere for fear of pushing the already-considerable ire of Gimili purists too far at last...

Eowyn: Superb. I'm only sorry her eventual union with Faramir couldn't have been indicated more fully in the film.

Arwen: The perils of having enlarged/created her role for the first film came home to roost this time, I'm afraid, as it just wasn't compelling to watch her moon away again as we'd done through the second installment. Still lovely to look at, but, yeah--you do sit there wondering: "He's choosing her over the gorgeous warrior woman?"

New Zealand: truly deserve the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor/Actress this year.

I'm so thrilled PJ stayed true to the essential failures and triumphs and the role of Fate in the climactic moments inside Mt. Doom between Sam, Frodo, and Gollum. My biggest fear was that Evil Hollywood (TM) would have brought pressure to bear to have made Frodo more heroic in those final moments, having missed the point as EH is prone to do.

Regarding the "many endings"--heck, I'm with PAD: these people more than earned it. If they'd wanted to do a few more, I'd have gladly sat there for them (though perhaps the blackout was a mistake). I do wish we'd gotten some of the hints the books provide regarding the final fates of Legolas and Gimli, Eowyn, Faramir, and Eomer--but that would have been asking a lot for most of the audience at that point, I know.

As to the absence of the Scouring of the Shire chapters, well, I'm of at least two minds on it. On the one hand, I can fully understand why it wouldn't have worked for the film and agree with the decision to leave it out. On the other hand, it's one of my favorite parts of the books, and is arguably crucial to a full resolution of many of the themes of the story of the Hobbits running through all three books and the prequel. The Scouring establishes that Evil can appear in--and be succesffuly fought it--even the most Arcadian of homes, it establishes the full weight of the changes their experiences have wrought upon the four (though there's a bit of a nod to that with the great scene in the tavern at Bree, yes), and it resolves the implicitly anti-industrial critique of Saruman's and Grima's worldviews. Given that PJ chose to make those environmental themes such a large part of the first two films--literalizng them in ways the books don't, in fact--I missed their relative absence here, and kicking the Middle Earth equivalent of Midlands Coal (or ADM, if you prefer) out of the Shire on screen would have been satisfying on that level. Ah, well. Perhaps, given the strong bonds between the four actors, they'll reunite with PJ in a year or so to do a one-hour TV special filming the sequence. Think of the ratings. :-) (Hey, one can dream...)

Speaking of next projects for PJ, while I'm sure he'll want to move out of the genre again for a bit after redoing _King Kong_, we couldn't help but come up with the following dream project over dinner after the film last night:

_The Odyssey_ from New Line Cinema, directed by Peter Jackson, starring Viggo Mortenson as Odysseyus, Julianne Moore as Penelope, Catherine Zeta-Jones as Circe, and Nick Stahl as Telemachus.

C'mon, seriously, you know we'd all love it. :-)

My take?

It was the first time I've been to a movie in ages where the audience applauded during the closing credits. I haven't heard anyone do that since Return of the Jedi ...

Of course I don't go to very many movies. :)

k9

Great ending to the trilogy. A lot has been said in this thread so I won't go into what has already been said. At the screening I saw Saturday, there was applause at the end as well. That's always a good way to end a movie.

Bobby Nash

There was also applause at my theater. I can't ever remember that happening before. Fantastic movie, the best of the three, (and that's saying something.)

Caves of Steel etc. by Issac Asimov (as a prelude to the Foundation series)*

There was a British production of this done 40 years ago, adapted by Terry Nation and with Peter Cushing as Elijah Baley

David

I took the whole "Arwen is dying" comment simply as Elrond freaking out about his daughter choosing mortality... sure, she's not going to die for a long, LONG time -- but to an immortal, it's still DYING. I simply figured Elrond was telling Aragorn that since his daughter had chosen to stay, and die, in Middle Earth, the Aragorn better damn well finish this Sauron character and take care of his daughter. It's what I would do.

My wife -- who's never read the books -- LIKED the long ending, she said it let her get her breath back after the bit with the spider.

She HATES spiders.

The movie I'd like to see(and I'd love PAD to write) is the FF movie. I'd appreciate feedback on the following suggestions.

Charlize Theron for Sue.

Michael Clarke Duncan for Ben(this is negotiable, if only due to age).

George Clooney for Mr. Fantastic

Brittany Murphy for the human torch

Some themes could be explored

*aborted romance between Johnnie Storm and Ben that's cut short by the accident: He's a 'top gun' type, she's a wild girl: they probably had crushes on each other. Hence the love/hate banter between them after the accident. potential throwaway lines

"Johnny, I can't: I'd hurt you."

She steps steps slowly into his space, like a man who wants to pick a fight. maintains full eye contact the whole time.

"Maybe I'd hurt you"

*Jealousy between Sue and Johnie. Johnie envys Sue's "perfect" life(and potentially amazing sex life: let's not forget who she's married to), and thus is horrible to Sue, as teenagers can be. Sue, OTOH, envy's Johnie's freedom and wonders if she would have had a better(normal?) life if she had chosen Ben.

*Reed is self important, arrogant, and likeable. He gets a secret kick out of Johnie not so subtle innuendoes and questions, and Sue's jealous reaction to them. Hence, a justification of the Clooney smirk.

*Ben doesn't 100% believe that Reed would cure him if he could, as than Reed would have competition for Sue and/or Johnnie affections. He feel guilty and dirty about this, as Reed is his best friend. Maybe he's a little right?

*Johnie's "hotheadedness" is fully and Freudianly self evident: she's a very vivacious young girl who can't get physical with anyone because she'd kill'em dead. Hell, maybe the nature of her power makes her more, um, vivacious still. With Britney Murphy playing the part, she could really make you wonder what ws going on when she 'flamed on". Besides, visualize how great she would look in costume

Anyway, just some thoughts. I wish I had the talent to write it. Next best thing, of course, is to have PAD write it.

M

I thought it was a good movie and one of the best of the year but easily the weakest of the trilogy. The first two I had almost no complaints with, It set up a very compelling good vs evil, david and Golieth story. I was right there with the fellowship rooting them on seeing them survive on their wits and abilities. I went into this movie wanting to see how they could beat the odds. My beef with the movie is they didn't. Every time they were backed in a corner, Tolkien threw them a lifeline. The good guys are going to lose against an army 10 times its size? Throw in a convient army of invincable ghosts. Hell, why even need an army? 5 ghost could have done the job. It would have just taken longer. Sam needs to get past an large group of orcs? Have the orcs convienantly kill themselves over a disagreement. Why not. Saved the day for Merry and Pippen in the Two Towers, Why not use the same trick twice. The movie started to get better when the characters decided to stop hoping for luck and actually came up with a plan to distract the bad guys but what happened when, Again, the bad guys outnumbered the bad guys 10 to 1? The ground falls out from under the bad guy but STOPS MERE INCHES FROM THE CLOSEST HERO!!!

Touching Saurumans crystal ball gives away an important piece of Saurons plan but has no real lasting negative effects?

Frodo and Sam make it upon the only rock that the lava ignores and gets saved by the giant birds that come out only when SOMEONE COULD REALLY USE A GIANT BIRD!!!!

Everyone says the same thing about Tolkien and Lord of the Rings. That its more like he found a window into Middle Earth and wrote what he saw. But ROTK was definatly one of those stories that you could tell there was a writer pulling string to help his characters out of the tough situations.

Since some people have mentioned desired movie adaptions, here's the book I want to see, with the absolutely perfect lead:

I AM LEGEND by Richard Mattheson.

Starring Bruce Campbell.

'Nuff said.

What amazed me the most about seeing the movie was the fact that NO ONE talked through the movie. There were a few whispers back and forth but there weren't any conversations being carried on. I can't remember the last time that happened. And no one kicked my seat either. It was like a Christmas miracle. :)

Virtually flawless. I grew up (literally) reading these books... they form some of my earliest memories, and are the passion that lurks beneath the surface, fueling any other "normal", day-to-day passions (of which I have many).

Those with questions (say about Eowyn and whether Aragorn chose here [someone up above sounded like they thought that had happened] or why there were so many "convenient" last minute saves [such as the Eagles]) should check out http://tolkien.slimy.com/...

And in response to whoever asked about the significance of the moth, if you're referring to it's significance within the film version it was a call back to the moth that Gandalf sent to summon the Eagle (whose name was Gwaihir in case anyone was interested) to save him from the top of Orthanc in the first movie.

Since we're on the topic of movies, nobody wants to comment on the Spider-Man 2 teaser? :)

I was fortunate enough to get tickets for Trilogy Tuesday for my girlfriend and me... we saw the extended editions of the first two movies on the big screen (and what a difference that made, with an incredible sound system...) and then we saw the ROTK immediately following. It was incredible... even though we ended up taking bathroom breaks during the first two movies, we didn't budge from our seats during the third. From the Newsweek article, we were both prepared for some of the changes, but it wasn't as bad as we thought it would be (especially the omission of Gandalf and Saruman's confrontation at Orthanc.) But I must say I didn't like the more aggressive Gandalf in this film... his attacks on Denethor were totally out of character, and I thought he looked silly doing his whirling dervish impression on the ramparts of Minas Tirith.

As for the omission of the Scouring of the Shire... yeah, I wished it had been filmed. But the poignant scene in the Green Dragon, with everyone ignoring our heroes while making a big fuss over Ted Sandyman's big pumpkin, was enough to bring it home for me. And the ending, in my mind, was nearly perfect... PJ couldn't have ended it any better than having the final words spoken be the same in the movie and the book.

New Line did a nice job with the Trilogy Tuesday event; we all received a little piece of history for our support of the film -- a plaque with a film cell from each of the 3 movies. Very nice indeed.

Doug Hancock wrote: "What amazed me the most about seeing the movie was the fact that NO ONE talked through the movie."

You are lucky. At my 2nd viewing I was stuck next to a girl -- I'd guess between 10 and 12 -- who would not shut up during the entire movie! And it wasn't just her shouting out the screen ("Go Frodo!") at exciting times. She'd share with her friends every random thought she had. No, during the coronation scene she found something, Eris knows what, incredibly funny; and I sat through one of the most awe-inspiring parts of the movie either hearing this moron laugh or hearing her sucking in air trying not to laugh. Makes me wish I'd brought my own sword...

This didn't occur to me during Fellowship or Towers (and certainly not in reading the books), but it became apparent (to me at least) that in King, Merry & Pippin are * drum roll * a gay couple!! Indications: Pippin finding Merry on the battlefield and saying "I'll take care of you." --- Merry catching the boquet at Aragon's wedding, and lastly, Pippins arm around Merry's shoulder at Frodo's farewell... As Seinfeld would say, "Not that there's anything wrong with it", just an observation.

On to the next epic film series, I would love to see Piers Anthony's Bio of a Space Tyrant. Incarnations of Immortality are great books, but imho Bio is PA's best series. How can you not love an epic story with a hero named Hope Hubris???

Pippin & Merry together forever, man.

Posted by Joe Goforth:

This didn't occur to me during Fellowship or Towers (and certainly not in reading the books), but it became apparent (to me at least) that in King, Merry & Pippin are * drum roll * a gay couple!!

Be assured, gay subtext to LOTR (the films and the books) has indeed occured to some folks:

http://www.sovo.com/2003/12-12/arts/feature/queerness.cfm

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/2003/12dec2003/ae03_hobbit.htm

http://dominic.delicious-blue.org/dom/nyblade.php

http://www.dallasvoice.com/articles/dispArticle.cfm?Article_ID=3880

Be assured, gay subtext to LOTR (the films and the books) has indeed occured to some folks

And hopefully these are just people that aren't taking the subject seriously.

If they are, they're taking things too far.

But then, nothing would compare to the garbage from those wanting The Two Towers renamed due to 9/11.

I had a group of people sitting behind me who found every little thing in the film incredibly funny, especially the serious parts. Very annoying. Still better than The Last Samurai with the thugs in front of us talking through out, the guy behind us loudly smacking his lips as he ate his popcorn and commenting on every little thing and the same 3 people that felt the need to get up and walk through our aisle every 15 minutes or so.

Didn't movie theatres used to have ushers at one point?

We apparently watched different films, Peter. :-)

I thought Return of the King was clearly inferior to the first two - precisely because characterization suffered so badly. The characters mostly folded to one-dimensionality, and the intriguing themes and focuses of Tolkein's original (Sam-as-protagonist and as representative of the new age; the epic closing of an age of history) are thoroughly buried under battle scene after endless battle scene.

The loss of "The Scouring of the Shire" was a bad body-blow to the story, as it's a prime way in which the personal and societal growth of our Hobbits is demonstrated. The ending loses a lot of its impact (and some of its meaning) by excising it.

The film overall I think suffers a lot because Jackson didn't include more of Tolkein's denouement. At least he included some of it - ending on the coronation ceremony would have been pretty lame, since it was one of the most poorly-written moments of the three films.

On top of that, the handling of Denethor is clumsy in the extreme and could mostly have been cut. The Arwen storyline adds little to any of the films and could have been removed entirely. Some very strange storytelling choices in there.

The film is fun, but it's less meaty than the first two. Fellowship I think is clearly the best of the trilogy, from pretty much any standpoint. But while the first two films are adventure dramas, King is really just an action film. Which was disappointing.

We apparently watched different films, Peter. :-)

It's funny how 95% of people watched one film, 5% (if that) watched another. ;)

Alright, we came up with another Next Project for PJ that's even better (in the mind's eye, at least) than The Odyssey with Viggo, Julianne, Catherine, and Nick:

Wuthering Heights.

Katie Holmes as Katherine, Jude Law as Heathcliff, Ewan McGregor as what's-his-name, Katherine's husband. Girl from "Once and Again" as Kathy II, some unkown punk kid as Hareton.

Actually, I thought as Michael Rawdon did.

RoTK is a heavily layered action film-the best parts were everything that wasn't a fight.

Meaning, I loved most of everything with Sam and Frodo (Do you remember the Shire Mister Frodo?)

Everything Arwen has been lame. A footnote in the appendix of LOTR was made into a major plot point-ugh.

Don't get wrong here-I did like the film! I just found some things to be lacking, and don't find it as phenomenol as everyone else.

I'm happy for you all none the same. ;)

footnote in the appendix of LOTR was made into a major plot point-ugh.

And yet, that is one of the flaws of the novel, that Arwen isn't that much of a plot point. You find out more about the relationship by his pushing Eowyn away.

Rather odd when Arwen is much of Aragorn's drive throughout the story and his eventually taking on the mantle of the king.

It wasn't handled the best in the movies either, but in the end, I think using Arwen more really was necessary.

On the off-hand chance that anyone is still reading this thread, here's a ramdom thought:

Has anyone else noticed how much Frodo/Elijah Wood looks like a hairy-footed Michael Landon (espically during that first scene where he greets gandalf in the shire)? ^_^

Just to add my 'me too' to the list, I also thought the third movie rocked; can't wait for the extended DVD.

Oh, RotK was awesome. Except for Shelob. I couldn't watch. WAY acute arachnophobia here.

I want to know if anyone else thought that one orc (you know which one) looked like Sloth from "The Goonies." I turned to my fiance and went "Rocky Road?" every time he was onscreen. Got major laughs. :)

The Sloth similarity was deliberate. It was sort of an inside joke (though one that many people are obviously in on) with Astin... a shout out to his "Goonies" days.

I found this at www.mymac.com:

While I usually agree with my writers, or at least do not publicly challenge them, I must take exception to Chris’s last blog post about the faults of the last Lord of the Rings movie, The Return of the King.

Yes, it is long. Too long to sit in a theater. Or is it? If your viewing was anything at all like mine, the first fifteen minutes of the movie was not the movie at all, but rather one LONG running commercial for Coke, some credit card company, and other made-for-television commercials which look horrible and pixilated as heck on the big screen. Then I had to sit through five movie trailers, which are of course commercials themselves. I don’t mind the trailers, actually. Up until this, it was one of the only places to see previews of upcoming flicks. But the product commercials are getting overbearing. From this point on, if I see a product ad before a movie, I will try my best NOT to purchase that item. Advertise Coke-a-Cola before a movie? Not buying any Coke, Sprite, Diet Coke, etc… for at least a month. Credit card ad? Nope, not applying. Already have that card? Will try not to use it for at least thirty days.

The trailers are a different matter. For the most part, there are usually no more than three or four trailers. Unless, of course, it is a Disney movie, in which case they will pimp every movie they plan on making over the next five years. Disney is the biggest offender of showing trailer after trailer after trailer before one of their flicks. Especially if it is a Pixar movie, as those are about the only decent movies coming out of the Disney camp the last five years. So they ride the coattails of a great movie (Monsters, Inc, Nemo, Toy Story, etc…) to pimp out the drivel that is a Disney created movie. Disney sucks…

I digress. Return of the King, as Chris feels, was a waste of time. I could not disagree more. And here’s why.

Most movies today are either decent or really bad. In fact, very, very few movies made today would be considered excellent or a classic. The last few movies I have watched, Kill Bill, Matrix Revolutions, and Bad Santa, have all been HUGE disappointments. Kill Bill was simply one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Lame story, HORRIBLE acting, no character development, and a complete waste of money. Bad Santa had a great premise, and I actually think Billy Bob Thornton is a good actor. But this movie was bad. Really, really bad. NO characters worth liking. Plot holes you could drive a locomotive through. Crummy cinematography. Just bad, bad, bad. Bad Santa, indeed. And Matrix Revolutions… Talk about a disappointment. The first Matrix was a fun, interesting film. Groundbreaking in a lot of respects. Unique, even. But like so many sequels, it was all downhill from there. The first Matrix was a complete movie, cyber-punk done right. The second movie was boring and did nothing but setup the third movie. And Revolutions? Yawn. Sad, really.

So how does ROTK fair? Here, there are no shades of grey. You know who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are. You want the good guys to win, not just because they are good, but also because you really, truly care about the characters in the film. You completely believe in the pain and suffering Frodo goes through as the bearer of the One Ring. You see the conflict in Strider, as he grapples with who he really is, and who he must become. You respect Gandalf, and know intuitively that he is the general. You also feel his goodness, and his care and concern for those around him. Sam is loyal, trustworthy, and completely steals the trilogy. And more, all three movies stand on their own, but together tell ONE tale, a tale of good vs. evil. Here are the bad guys, and you fear them. Here are the good guys, and you worry for them.

When the machines attack the human city, the audience wants the humans to win to save humanity. But the Human city of Zion never feels like a real place. We really don’t get to see that this city is a living, breathing place full of people with hopes and dreams. In ROTK, and all the LOTR films, the world is a completely real place, full of real people with hopes, fears, frailties, strengths, weaknesses, and love. And not because they live in a real-world type of setting, but because the creator of this movie, Peter Jackson, let the actors be real. The special effects in Matrix are awesome, and you marvel at all the eye candy. But you know that what you are seeing is a special effect. In LOTR, there is just as much special effects, but you completely accept them without thinking about it. (Remember, the Hobbits are NOT really that small, so every shot you see them next to a full-sized person is an effect, but you completely never think about it.) The special effects never get in the way, while movies such as Star Wars, Matrix, and Hulk spotlight the special effects and CGI work, because underneath there is nothing else.

So, is ROTK a waste of almost four hours in a theatre? Not if you appreciate great, epic filmmaking. The tale of Frodo Baggins is one worth telling. Middle Earth feels like a part of our own history we simply never knew about. The story is a simple one at its core. But it is told masterfully, reminding all who watch it why many of us fell in love with the movies in the first place. There is a place for fun, special effect films. I love those, too. I will be at the next Star Wars, SpiderMan, Hulk, Aliens Vs. Predator, and Matrix-type of movies. They are, really, a dime a dozen today. Big-budget popcorn action flick escapism in all its glory. But movies like LOTR are unique, rare, and should be applauded for what they are, and what they represent. Film-making at its finest. And personally, I cannot wait to get my hands on the five-hour extended DVD edition when it comes out. Anyone up for a weekend in front of my HDTV to watch all three LOTR extended format next summer over a weekend? Just be sure to bring a LOT of popcorn!

A strange mix of good and bad. The first three quarters of the film were fairly exciting, but after Sam rescues Frodo from the tower the film rushes forward in leaps and bounds. For example: Peter Jackson makes a point of including Frodo and Sam donning Orc armor and then a few shots later they aren't wearing it at all. The build to get into Mordor was so long that after entering the damned place, the journey to Mount Doom takes about 15 minutes. No impact and no emotion behind this, very anticlimactic. Meanwhile, the good guys decide to draw out Mordors army. Instantly every orc in Mordor is gone. Think about it, one moment, Sam and Frodo look down on the valley filled with orcs all standing between them and Mount Doom, cut to, council at minas Tirith deciding to draw out orcs to help poor Frodo out, cut back to Sam and Frodo watching every orc take off.

A little disjointed and abrupt.

Also, Sauraman? Hello? He just sank back into his tower at the end of the last film and out of the series? Very, very poor. And how did the palantir get outside? Who cares? It just was, right?

My guess is this will all be answered in the dvd release. Well, isn't that just special, now we make films and cut crucial bits of story out so that we can sell an extra dvd per household? Saurman was built up tremendously in the first two films, if a person hasn't read the books, won't they may be wonder, hey, where's that old wizard guy? Guess not.

Arwen: They cut out the one important scene she had in the book, giving Frodo the Evenstar (Aragorn never had it). They built up this love interest, why? So that in the third film she can just walk up and kiss Aragorn for a happy ending? She was built up such a badass in the first film just so we can watch her pine away in the next two? Why? From a structoral point of view, it makes no sense.

Notice that even Peter Jackson cannot tell Saraman and Sauron apart. After the victory at Minas Tirith Gandalf refers to Sauron having been the one to attack Helms Deep. Way to go continuity.

The book left a nice uncertainty to Gollums death, did he accidntly stumble off the edge, or did he just not care for his future as he had the ring and was happy to rest? The film completely removes this uncertainty what with Frodo attacking Gollum and both of them falling off.

Eowyn and Faramir? Loose threads for the dvd edition? Or just left be to be ignored? Why even have the characters if you're not going to give us the closure. Pointless from a structural point of view. If we have to wait until the dvd, why did I just pay to see an incomplete movie. Extras are nice, but only as enhacements. Not as a neccesity for a linear, solid story.

So, I feel it was very, very flawed. But it was qquite a bit of fun. Great cinema? Not even close. Fun movie to turn your brain off to? Sure. Flawed? Yes. Very.

But when a director who publicly states that he hates any story that revolves around magic directs a film that centers around wizards and elves and a war about a magic ring, what can one expect?

Well... I'm fairly a purist, and my wife's family are very much purists.

The best thing I can say about the movies is... Peter Jackson has an amazing visual sense. His SFX and visualizations were terrific.

I just wish he hadn't made so very *many* changes to the story, many that were undoubtedly necessitated by the desire to keep the length under, say, 20+ hours... but many of which completely changed the characters, or made them virtually irrelevant.

And that's something I can't appreciate, no matter how great the battle scenes are.

This version suffers from a serious lack of characterization, a willingness to change the plot significantly to get good visuals, and in the end, it's not a good representation of the story told in the books.

Oh, most of the characters are there, and quite a few of the events, but many of them are so different as to be almost unrecognizable except by name.

Oh: and if Disney has any hand in "A Princess of Mars" or any other Barsoom novel, I'm likely going to be sorely disappointed.

And the Heinlein book is "Time Enough for Love".