Return of the King

So who else's seen it! I went last week and loved it - but since I've been a Tolkien nut since I was 8, and I was pretty happy with the first two (even thogh they completely messed up the escape from the Shire in the first one) this is not a big surprise.

I thought that running the different threads concurrently in time (unlike the book) worked really well. I also thought the way they changed the role of the army of the dead was pretty good - although maybe a bit melodramatic. The Nazgul were not quite like I imagined, but I really liked them - particularly their screams. Was pretty happy with the effects - particularly the Mumakil (mammoths) - but possibly the rocks being thrown around were a bit too big to be believable and caused a bit too much destruction with each hit. There were also a few things I didn't like: Shelob was nowhere near repulsive, fetid and pustulent enough; they spent too long stringing out the will Gollum fall into the lava won't he etc.. which also turned the battle of the Morannon into a rather static tableau waiting for them to get on with it (although I was sitting on the edge of my seat even through I obviously knew what was going to happen).

But Garyi's reaction above confirms that I think they made a big mistake in the handling of the palantiri. They couldn't really avoid the Pippin incident, but two things were seriously wrong. Firstly, to bring in Elrond to see Aragorn at Dunharrow missed the whole point. Aragorn used the palantir to show himself to Sauron, have a fight with him, provoke him to action before he was really ready and determine from what he saw that he then needed to use the Paths of the Dead. And this also replaced the arrival of the Rangers/Dunedain - which showed that Aragorn actually did have a family/tribe/history behind him, and when he really took on his role of King, and wasn't just some pseudo-elf pissing Elrond off by fancying his daughter. And that bit about Arwen dying was sheer melodramatic shlock that really shouldn't have been there.

And the other error was omitting Denethor's use of it: his use of the stone of Minas Anor/Tirith was part of his wisdom/learning/power and was what gave him his immense knowledge of what was happening, but also turned him to despair, because of Sauron's control of what he saw. And to have him running away down the Hallows on fire, rather than determinedly lying on the pyre with the palantir in his hands was just plain crass.

I also thought that it really didn't do much to show how important Faramir was to the people of Minas Tirith - he only really got shown as some wimp being brow-beaten by his father - and I missed the 'King as Healer' stuff.

Looking forward to the Director's cut - I guess about an hour longer?

What does anyone else think?

PS. And Frodo was still at least 20 years too young! Hobbits typically lived to about 100, and didn't come of age until 33, but Frodo was 50 (so maybe our 38-40) at the time of the journey!

PPS Garyi - the Steward of Gondor wasn't quite like your average caretaker. He and his ancestors had been king in all but name, and the most powerful men in the whole of Middle Earth, for nearly 1000 years.

Back to re-reading the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales now

 

On the whole, I enjoyed it despite glaring ommissions (no, I couldn't have done better so I won't compalin) but 2 things that pissed me off more than wavering form the story were the nigh-on obscene uses of Slow-Mo and close ups on people crying. In the middle of a battle, you have someone doing a underwear catalouge style pose whilst having a good old cry, in slow motion and no-one cuts their head off . Repeatedly. Really stood out to me.

 

Brilliant cinema. OK, it didn't stick strictly to the content of the books, but that would have been monstrously hard to do and keep up the pace. The girls got the extended version of "The Two Towers" for Christmas and that of "The Fellowship of the Ring" for the previous Christmas. Anyone care to guess what they're getting for the next one? (They've already put in their order, so it's not just me - they've seen it three times each!).

All in all, a great adventure from the times when, as Douglas Adams put it, men were real men, women were real women and little furry creatures from alpha-Centauri were real little furry creatures from alpha-Centauri. I'm sorry it's over.

Did anyone read the incredibly pompous, self-serving "Guardian" critic? Complaining that there should have been more Gandalf v.Saruman conflict, even though in the book, Saruman is a spent force in the Big Evil League after the destruction of Isengard. But then, film critics write (a) to show how clever they are, and (b) to impress other film critics.

 

I enjoyed the film, but not having read the books, felt that the story wasnt finished off properly ie what happened to Saruman? Anette has told me what happened in the book, and so hopefully the directors cut on DVD will rectify this anomoly.

 

It's all Elvish to me.

Actually, I saw the second one (at least, I think it's the second one) recently, and it was quite good fun, although the only well-rounded character was Gollum, and he was CGI. Some good fight scenes, but an irritating comedy dwarf and far too many intensely dull sub-plots involving stern-faced aryans with flowing locks and the worst dialogue this side of a fantasy parody. A good enough spectacle that I'll definitely see the third one.

-- Ian

 

Enjoyed all 3 films. As a huge fan of the books (which I have read several times) I wasn't disappointed. The changes they made to the story and the things they left out were acceptable and understandable IMO allthough I don't think you could ever get the real "feel" of the history without reading the books. There's just so much backstory that the film couldn't possibly convey allthough what backstory they did do (some of which isn't explicitly in the LOTR books but in other Tolkein books) they did very well.

Found that ROTK dragged on a little too much at the end even though I knew they were following the book. Don't know how they could have done it better though

Michael.

 

And Saruman is just a sideshow anyway - goodie gone to the bad - and has nothing to do with the main game plan. I guess it's Tolkien's fault for not giving Sauron a speaking part - but that woul've been night on impossible to get right. I thought the Witch-King did a pretty good job of leading the baddies anyway.

(BTW: they were SMALL furry creatures from Alpha Centauri )

I'm amazed you managed to get anything out of it at all without seeing the first one (it sounds like you don't know the books). The dialogue is an interesting point: they used as much of Tolkien's original as they could (I guess to avoid the screams from people like me that "he didn't say that"), but since the book is written in an epic saga style (and becomes more so the longer it goes on), natural delivery is not its highpoint. It seems Jackson's decision to go for that was to give the film its epic/other-worldly nature. I do agree though that some of the acting then did become rather stiff and starchy. I have to say that the best speech of all was Aragorn's Henry V impression at Morannon - completely made up.

The drawn out ending? Well there's close on a hundred pages after Morannon in the book, and they really cut that down a lot. As one comment said, the overwhelming impression from the book, and the miscellaneous associated writings is one of fading, passing and sorrow (that's the whole history of the Noldorin Elves after all). So I thought it quite courageous of them to stick in as much as they did and avoid the false feelgood factor of finishing with the victory. Shame they didn't make more of the lost power of the Three Rings at the end.

I've just seen a comment to the effect that the first cut ran to about 6 hours! So there should be plenty of backstory in the enhanced DVD (or maybe several of them). Maybe even shots of Aragorn and Arwen's death, Legolas and Gimli and maybe even Sam's parting to the West? (All mentioned in the LOTR Appendix A)

 

I felt the third one dragged.

Also not having read the book the stroy of the mad guy trying to burn his son had no relevence to the film what so ever, infact I think you could have trashed all that.

In the midst of massive fighting and many thousands of people dying, the wizard goes off to see to this guy who is killing just one person.

It was Sheila who told me that in the book, this guy actually had an all seeing eye and that it was critical for the son who was being burned to be saved for the future of middle earth, well sorry not every one has read it and therefore that part of the story was utterly pointless.

There was far to much slow mo, and the elf queen woman, every time she spoke I was thinking 'Stop speaking like that, speak normally!'

The fight scenes and general FX were second to none however, out of this world, but I feel that history will judge this whole trilogy slightly differently to the fevour surrounding it now.

We saw it Saturday, three weeks after release, and Watford Cinemas were still sold out of all showings!

 

I did read about half of the first one when I was about 13, but threw it out of the window in disgust (just not for me, I'm afraid, I was an urban kid and a book that seemed largely to be an epic saga with a lot of hill walking in it did nothing for me).

-- Ian

 

As I always suspected - absolutely no soul whatsoever

Gary: I think what you are experiencing is the result of some savage cutting - probably most of the stuff hitting the floor was the glue that held the story together between the big set-pieces. Actually, Faramir's survival itself isn't really crucial to the plot (other than giving Eowyn someone to whom to transfer her frustrated love for Aragorn, the development of which was also really skated over) - so you have a fair point on that as it stands in the film - but the missing bit about the seeing stone and Sauron's corruption of the innards of Minas Tirith is fairly important.

I've not seen the extended version of The Two Towers yet, but my brother who has, and hadn't read the books, reckoned he could follow the story much better in that. Oh the problems of trying to fit something big into a mass market attention span!

(If you want something to drag , then read the book version of Frodo and Sam's time in Mordor - that bot does go on for ever!)

 

I was dragged to see the first film, overlong & tedious, and have avoided the other two. I utterly detested the book, thought it was a dreadful load of old nonsense, even at the age of about 12. Nothing I've heard or seen since persuades me otherwise. I was horrified when it won 'best book in the world, ever'. Goes some way towards explaining the state we're in.

The Hobbit, by contrast, was a great book.

 

I thought ROTK dragged a bit too – wondered if it was just me but it appears not. My favourite was the Two Towers – no doubt about it – it blew me away and perhaps left me expecting too much of the final film.

Never read the books but it didn't stop me enjoying the films – will try to get around to reading The Hobbit at some point – used to play The Hobbit game on the ZX Spectrum if that helps.

I do appreciate how annoying it can be when the book and film don't tally mind – I was appalled when Charlie Bucket and Grandpa Joe stole “fizzy lifting drink†in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory as this was out of character and certainly wasn't in Roald Dahl's masterpiece of similar name.



Matt.