# Grr.  Return of the King makes me angry.



## RangerWickett (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm watching the end of Return of the King, and I'm just frustrated at the small mistakes.  The trilogy was so good, up until the last hour or so.  Then it was just pretty good, with lots of awkward moments that ruin the drama for me.  Maybe the extended edition will help, but here's my list of irks:


The Steward of Gondor sprinting a quarter mile, while on fire, just so he can plummet from the top of Gondor.  It would've been better if he'd just collapsed on the pyre.
Sam _not_ getting to put on the ring and kick ass while invisible, just because in the first movie they decided that Sauron immediately knows just where you are when you put on the ring.  It's just not as interesting to have the Orcs and Goblins killing each other off again.
One too many of Sam's "C'mon Mr. Frodo, we can make it" moments.  Toward the end, instead of us seeing Frodo's burden (as we had earlier), he just seems like a wuss.  If he were spasming, spitting up blood, and if Sam were just as injured and kinda emaciated, then yeah, I'd be cool with it.  But as is, there's too much pep talk, not enough Hobbit action.
Wow, they actually skipped Aragorn finally taking command of Gondor.  I mean, it's the Return of the King, and he never addresses the city to tell them, "Hey, I've returned."
Time problems.  Why'd they leave in Theoden's line that it'll take 3 days to reach Gondor, when it actually only takes them one?  A simple edit would've caught that.
Merry apparently gets flung across the battlefield after stabbing the Witch-King.  How do you explain why he's lying _under an Orc_ next to an oliphant when Pippin finds him?
Anticlimactic battle of Aragorn vs. the troll at the gates of Mordor.  In the movie it's briefly played up as if it matters, but really, do we expect the King to die to a troll, even an armored one?  Really, at this point, all the duels that need to be done have been done.  We should've just seen Aragorn cleaving through enemies until a gaggle of Orcs leap upon him, grappling him.  He should fight like a lion against a group of hyenas, slowly being worn down by the overwhelming numbers, until at just the last moment, Frodo saves the day.
And the one that most irks me.  Inviso-Frodo, at the end.  They'd already established the _really cool_ visuals of the gray, windswept world that appears when you put on the ring.  It was cool when the Ringwraith stabbed Frodo on Weathertop, so why didn't they use it at the end of Return of the King?  Why did they have Gollum swinging around in mid-air, looking goofy, when they could've shown some actual struggle, seeming epic because we're in the invisible world again?

Honestly, I think the rest of the movie is top-notch, and I hope a few of the deleted scenes will help the mood.  Particularly the mouth of Sauron, which makes the end fight with Aragorn and the army actually have emotional resonance.  But the theatrical release has a few too many moments that were handled poorly.

Oh, and one last thing.  From a storytelling perspective, I always wanted Gollum to fall into the lava just as he bites of the ring, as a direct result of him getting it.  The little dance he does and the embellishing chorus that accompanies it was too much for me.  I wanted somebody to be a hero, even if they had Gollum fall and Frodo reach for him, coming to his senses at the last moment, trying to save Smeagol.

*sigh*

Well, I just missed all of Liv Tyler, so I suppose I should go see the Shire.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 28, 2004)

Each person has their own irks, of course.  I'll address only the last one - the scene with inviso-Frodo is the way it is because that is how it is in the book.  It's told as it is seen by Sam.  One of those images from the book that the authors saw fit not to change, and I agree with them on this one.

That last struggle is epic, but not Big Magic, greywindyshadow world epic.  It's the epic struggle of two very small, very worn people over a tiny little thing, seen by one other very small person.  And the fate of the world hinges on it.  I like it that way.


----------



## Chimera (Nov 28, 2004)

I just don't understand why they didn't keep the ring and use it as a weapon against Mordor.  After all, the thing is precious, isn't it?


----------



## The_lurkeR (Nov 28, 2004)

I agree with alot of your points Ranger. The end of that movie was just too choppy, hopefully the Extended Edition will fix that for us.


----------



## Starman (Nov 28, 2004)

Chimera said:
			
		

> I just don't understand why they didn't keep the ring and use it as a weapon against Mordor.  After all, the thing is precious, isn't it?




Definitely. Boromir was _so _ right at the council.  

Starman


----------



## Mystery Man (Nov 28, 2004)

> The Steward of Gondor sprinting a quarter mile, while on fire, just so he can plummet from the top of Gondor. It would've been better if he'd just collapsed on the pyre.



Well if I remember correctly the book describes the steward of Gondor plumetting to his death. I think there are a couple of paintings of it as well.



> Oh, and one last thing. From a storytelling perspective, I always wanted Gollum to fall into the lava just as he bites of the ring, as a direct result of him getting it.



This is why Tolkien wrote the books and not you. Thanks be to God.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Nov 28, 2004)

IIRC Denethor dies burning in his pyre holding the _Palantir _ of Minas Tirith.  That's why one only sees withering hands unless one is strong willed and thus Aragorn keeps the _Palantir_ of Orthanc with him in Minas Tirith, I guess to his less willed servents can use it without just seeing Denethor's hands.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 28, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> This is why Tolkien wrote the books and not you. Thanks be to God.




Well, thanks for that.  Nice compliment.

So remind me what _actually_ happens at Mount Doom in RotK the book.  I always thought it was, "Ha ha, I'm invisible and evil."  "Give it back!  I grapple you and bite off your finger.  Oops, crap, I'm falling to my death.  That'll show you what greed gets you."

Instead, they fight, and both of them are consumed with the evil of the ring, and only dumb luck saves the day.  That wasn't the way it was in the book, was it?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 28, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Well, thanks for that.  Nice compliment.
> 
> So remind me what _actually_ happens at Mount Doom in RotK the book.  I always thought it was, "Ha ha, I'm invisible and evil."  "Give it back!  I grapple you and bite off your finger.  Oops, crap, I'm falling to my death.  That'll show you what greed gets you."
> 
> Instead, they fight, and both of them are consumed with the evil of the ring, and only dumb luck saves the day.  That wasn't the way it was in the book, was it?




Yep, it was. The point was that no one could destroy the ring willingly, ONLY 'dumb luck'(or whatever you call it) could do that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 28, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Each person has their own irks, of course.  I'll address only the last one - the scene with inviso-Frodo is the way it is because that is how it is in the book.  It's told as it is seen by Sam.  One of those images from the book that the authors saw fit not to change, and I agree with them on this one.
> 
> That last struggle is epic, but not Big Magic, greywindyshadow world epic.  It's the epic struggle of two very small, very worn people over a tiny little thing, seen by one other very small person.  And the fate of the world hinges on it.  I like it that way.





Some caveats here:

1)  In the book, Frodo doesn't hang off the edge.  I know why Jackson did this, and that he wanted to show how much Frodo had to pay in order to win, but...meh.  After the Ring is gone, Frodo is weary and wounded -- and he will never recover from those wounds -- but he is Frodo again.  In many ways, this is the real victory.

2)  In the book, Frodo tells Gollum once that, if Gollum betrays him, he'll have the Ring cast him into the Fire.  Then, on Mount Doom, Frodo tells Gollum again that, if Gollum touches Frodo once more, he will be cast by the Ring into the Fire.  And what happens?  The Ring gives Frodo power according to its measure, and as it passes from one owner to another, it "plays one last trick"...as it did to Bilbo when he found it and as it did to Isildur when he was betrayed by it after cutting it from Sauron's hand.  

Taking this stuff out (or changing it overmuch) damages the story, IMHO.


RC


----------



## KenM (Nov 28, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Well, thanks for that.  Nice compliment.
> 
> So remind me what _actually_ happens at Mount Doom in RotK the book.  I always thought it was, "Ha ha, I'm invisible and evil."  "Give it back!  I grapple you and bite off your finger.  Oops, crap, I'm falling to my death.  That'll show you what greed gets you."
> 
> Instead, they fight, and both of them are consumed with the evil of the ring, and only dumb luck saves the day.  That wasn't the way it was in the book, was it?




  In the book, once Gollum has the ring he dances around and falls into the lava. In the movie Frodo gets back up and they fight for it, both falling over.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 28, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> The Steward of Gondor sprinting a quarter mile, while on fire, just so he can plummet from the top of Gondor.  It would've been better if he'd just collapsed on the pyre.





And, without the Palantir, we don't get to understand exactly why he despaired, either.  Of course, if he had seen the ships coming upriver from Umbar, then we'd also presumably have to see the fight with the Corsairs of Umbar, when the Dead _actually_ fought and were released.  And then we'd have had to understand that there were so few forces coming to Gondor's aid because of fighting going on elsewhere.....

LotR was originally envisioned as six books.  If only we had had six movies....!      




> Sam _not_ getting to put on the ring and kick ass while invisible, just because in the first movie they decided that Sauron immediately knows just where you are when you put on the ring.  It's just not as interesting to have the Orcs and Goblins killing each other off again.





But Sam _doesn't_ wear the Ring and kick ass in Mordor in the book.  In the book, Sam is quite aware that he cannot enter Mordor with the Ring on, or Sauron _will_ know he is there.  This is very explicit in the book.

When Sam rescues Frodo, most of the Orcs have already been killed, fighting over Frodo's mithral coat.  Remember, it was worth more than the Shire and everything in it....!

Holding the Ring and being determined, so close to the seat of the Ring's power, was enough to make the Orcs see Sam as a great Elf warrior.  That, plus what happened to Shelob, which the Orcs saw as a warrior's work.


I agree with your hopes that the extended version will answer my own complaints with this version.  Long as it is, the theatrical release of RotK was really a "bare bones" experience.  Fifty extra minutes might rectify that.


RC


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Nov 28, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> [*]Merry apparently gets flung across the battlefield after stabbing the Witch-King.  How do you explain why he's lying _under an Orc_ next to an oliphant when Pippin finds him?




Perhaps the orc and oliphant were slain *after* Merry was flung across the battlefield?


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Nov 28, 2004)

Great.  Just great.  I don't get the movie until the end of next month, or early January.

Could we perhaps have a *SPOILER* in the title, eh?



(I know the gist, having read the books years ago, but still...)


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 28, 2004)

Heretic Apostate said:
			
		

> Great.  Just great.  I don't get the movie until the end of next month, or early January.
> 
> Could we perhaps have a *SPOILER* in the title, eh?
> 
> ...



 So... after the first sentence, "I'm watching the end of Return of the King, and I'm just frustrated at the small mistakes," followed by a bunch of bullet points, you weren't clued-in?


----------



## Dragonblade (Nov 28, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Yep, it was. The point was that no one could destroy the ring willingly, ONLY 'dumb luck'(or whatever you call it) could do that.




Not dumb luck. Providence. Remember Tolkien was a devout Catholic and the ending of the book reflects that. No mortal can completely rid themselves of evil on their own.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 28, 2004)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Not dumb luck. Providence. Remember Tolkien was a devout Catholic and the ending of the book reflects that. No mortal can completely rid themselves of evil on their own.



 I only used dumb luck because it was what RW referred to. In the end, it works out to the same thing: Mortals can't rid themselves of evil without some kind of help


----------



## Mystery Man (Nov 29, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Well, thanks for that. Nice compliment.
> 
> So remind me what _actually_ happens at Mount Doom in RotK the book. I always thought it was, "Ha ha, I'm invisible and evil." "Give it back! I grapple you and bite off your finger. Oops, crap, I'm falling to my death. That'll show you what greed gets you."
> 
> Instead, they fight, and both of them are consumed with the evil of the ring, and only dumb luck saves the day. That wasn't the way it was in the book, was it?




Looks like several beat me to the answer already.


----------



## KenM (Nov 29, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> LotR was originally envisioned as six books.  If only we had had six movies....!        RC




  If you want to get technical, It can be considered six books. FotR had books 1 and 2. TTT books 3 and 4, and RotK books 5 and 6. Look at the table of contents, thats how it is.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2004)

I know.  And the individual six books all have names, too.  

AND if we had six movies, there would have been time to Scour the Shire.


RC


----------



## KenM (Nov 29, 2004)

My friend Jim said there was enough in the Lord of the Rings books that they could have done 3 movies for each of the books. 3 for Fellowship, 3 for Two Towers, 3 for Return of the King.


 Edited for spelling


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 29, 2004)

WARNING: _The Two Towers_ spoilers!


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> AND if we had six movies, there would have been time to Scour the Shire.



Heck, if we HADN'T had an extra "Orcs on Monsters!" battle in _The Two Towers_, along with poor Dominic Monahan having to portentuously announce everything we're seeing as we're seeing it ("A shepherd of the trees!" "The army of Isengard!"), and ten minutes of bad water effects, we might have had time to Scour the Shire anyway.

_The Two Towers_ is a BAD movie. I like it cause it has swordfighting and monsters and Miranda Otto and Liv Tyler and a little bit of Cate Blanchett, but it's just bad. Bad dialogue (or worse, good dialogue made incomprehensible by having the characters (I'm thinking of the early scenes of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli) speaking their lines while quite clearly not within fifty yards of their friends), heavy-handed foreshadowing ("They say the trees can talk... even MOOOOOVVVVVEEE...." (poor Dominic Monahan)), and even more heavy-handed "comic relief" (poor John Rhys-Davies -- at least in FotR he got some powerful moments), and worst of all (this just might rank as the most parenthesised sentence I've ever written), a massive battle scene occupying the final quarter of the film that ends with no sign of any suffering on the good guys' parts. It's bizarre; at one moment the Hornburg is swarming with orcs pouring in from all sides and you're expecting a massacre, the next moment you see the Rohhirim abandoning the walls in a more-or-less orderly fashion, and then they're inside the hall and there's apparently only six people left alive (after we've just watched dozens run inside), and then they ride out -- and there's no registering of any price having been paid for this battle.

It's all very comic-book-y (in the bad, juvenile sense), and it robs what ought to be a heartwrenching, desperate stand of the weight and power it deserves.

A lot of people die at Helm's Deep. And they die in the movie, we see them dying in the early part of the fight. But once the Hornburg falls, there's no sign of death anymore, and I just find the whole thing very unsatisfying.

Whew. Slight rant, there. Sorry about that.

I think _The Fellowship of the Ring_ is one of the all-time greatest movie adventures ever created. It's an amazing piece of work. But the subsequent two films are bitter disappointments to me.

Don't even get me started on what they did to Eowyn's moment of glory. GRRRRRR....

/me goes off to unwind somehow, muttering, "It's only a movie, lad..."


----------



## ddvmor (Nov 29, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> My friend Jim said ...



And Big Al says dogs can't look up!


----------



## Viking Bastard (Nov 29, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> My friend Jim said there was enough in the Lord of the Rings books that they could have done 3 movies for each of the books. 3 for Fellowship, 3 for Two Towers, 3 for Return of the King.



Definately.

Very dull movies, granted, but...


----------



## diaglo (Nov 29, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I'm watching the end of Return of the King, and I'm just frustrated at the small mistakes.





i completely agree. THe movies Suck when compared to the books.

the books are 1000000000 bajillion times better.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Nov 29, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> AND if we had six movies, there would have been time to Scour the Shire.




And that would be good why?  If there's one way the movies improved on the books, it's the removal of the truly contrived and extraneous Scouring of the Shire.

The movie of Return of the King has its faults, but I think this is one thing they definitely got right.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> And that would be good why?  If there's one way the movies improved on the books, it's the removal of the truly contrived and extraneous Scouring of the Shire.
> 
> The movie of Return of the King has its faults, but I think this is one thing they definitely got right.





Sorry, but I hardly see the Scouring as contrived or extraneous.

Related to its being contrived:  We know from FotR and TT that Saruman has learned of the Shire from Gandalf, and that he believes that the Ring is there.  He sends mannish half-orc spies to Bree and the Shire to seek out the Ring, long before the book opens.  The Miller's son, Ted Sandyman, is likely an agent of Saruman, and he has agents in the Shire who are sending him Longbottom Leaf.  Indeed, within the context of the books, Sauron is _decades_ behind Saruman in learning about the Shire.

On top of this, Saruman knows that Gandalf's task is the fight against Sauron.  He knows this because it was to be his task as well.  So, once that fight is done, Gandalf's role in Middle Earth is pretty much over.  Saruman knows that Gandalf will not oppose him in the Shire, so he has only the "rat folk of the Shire" to deal with.

Finally, Saruman is vengeful.  In the book, when they meet him on the road, he telegraphs his plans even though the hobbits do not understand him.

Related to extraneous:  

Destroying the Ring was not meant to destroy all evil forever, regardless of what the movies implied.  Destroying the Ring merely removed one great evil.  The Scouring of the Shire acts as a reminder that evil still exists in Middle Earth.  As Sauron was a shadow of Morgoth, so Saruman is a shadow of Sauron.  The implication is that, as the Valar's powers (inherent in both Wizards and Elves) are withdrawn from Middle Earth, those who remain are still challenged within their measure.  The Music of Anwe goes on.  The discordant notes of Morgoth are diminished, but still part of the Music.

Also, the War was not only in Gondor and Rohan, but nearly everywhere in Middle Earth.  What happens in the Shire is a demonstration that _everyone_ was threatened, not just the people that we see.  Unlike the movie, Tolkein made certain that the reader understood that war was brewing everywhere.  The Elves would not come, for there was war on the borders of Mirkwood and Lothlorien.  The dwarves were beseiged in the Lonely Mountain.  The entire world was affected.

The necessity of Scouring of the Shire was a small sacrifice to remove so large an evil as the One Ring, but no victory can come without sacrifice, and it was not Frodo's sacrifice alone.  The Scouring showed how the characters had grown through their adventures.  It also showed that they understood the lesson of the book:  that even the small and weak can stand up to, and overcome, great evil.


RC


----------



## KenM (Nov 29, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> And that would be good why?  If there's one way the movies improved on the books, it's the removal of the truly contrived and extraneous Scouring of the Shire.
> 
> The movie of Return of the King has its faults, but I think this is one thing they definitely got right.




  I agree. I think that if they put it in, most moviegoers would have walked out in disgust, thinking "More fighting? We just had the big climax" 
 The point of the Scorging was to show how the four hobbits had changed, and Peter Jackson did that with the scene in the Green dragon at end of RotK.


----------



## KenM (Nov 29, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i completely agree. THe movies Suck when compared to the books.
> 
> the books are 1000000000 bajillion times better.




 I totally disagree. JRRT's writing style, for lack of a better word, sucks IMO. I can't get though fellowship, its so slow paced and he has the characters break out into song about something that has NOTHING to do with the plot. He goes on and on describing almost everything the characters see while traveling, but he does not describe major battles, plot points well. The main story is about a war, and IMO you need to describe the action as well as the setting equailly. 
  IMO Geroge RR Martin strikes the balance between plot, setting, character devolpment and action better.


----------



## Filby (Nov 29, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The Miller's son, Ted Sandyman, is likely an agent of Saruman, and he has agents in the Shire who are sending him Longbottom Leaf.




Actually, Frodo's cousin, Lotho Sackville-Baggins, was one of Saruman's agents in the Shire -- he became Saruman's puppet "Boss" during the wizard's occupation of the Shire -- and it was Lotho who was buying up most of the Shire's pipeweed and selling it to Saruman (which contributed to the unbalancing of the Shire's economy). Ted Sandyman was just a spineless little creep who decided he'd rather throw his lot in with the winners than help his own people.

I agree with your points, though. I see the Scouring of the Shire as integral to the story for the reasons you've discussed.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 29, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> The main story is about a war.



No, it's not.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 29, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> No, it's not.



 Yes it is. So, nyah!


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 29, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> The point of the Scorging was to show how the four hobbits had changed, and Peter Jackson did that with the scene in the Green dragon at end of RotK.




Umm, no. The point of the Scouging was to show that evil is not defeated by merely throwing a ring into a volcano. And to show that even if you want things to remain the same as they were when you were young, they don't, because you've changed in the interim. Showing that the hobbits had changed was merely a side benefit.


----------



## jester47 (Nov 29, 2004)

As it stands the Movie trilogy in its final form is supposed to be 11.1 hours long.  If the normal movie length is 2 hours, you have enough footage for 5 1/2 books.  Scouring the shire would only take about 30 minutes, but it does not work in film.  

Aaron.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 29, 2004)

Filby said:
			
		

> I agree with your points, though. I see the Scouring of the Shire as integral to the story for the reasons you've discussed.




Whether they are integral to the story of the book is largely irrelevant.  As moviemaking it would have been a horrible anticlimax.  In a movie, the audience doesn't take to having too much stuff happen after the major climax, and doing so would make the movie end on a weak note, rather than a strong one.


----------



## Mystery Man (Nov 29, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> I totally disagree. JRRT's writing style, for lack of a better word, sucks IMO. I can't get though fellowship, its so slow paced and he has the characters break out into song about something that has NOTHING to do with the plot. He goes on and on describing almost everything the characters see while traveling, but he does not describe major battles, plot points well. The main story is about a war, and IMO you need to describe the action as well as the setting equailly.
> IMO Geroge RR Martin strikes the balance between plot, setting, character devolpment and action better.




Maybe you should have your friend Jim help you with it.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 29, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Whether they are integral to the story of the book is largely irrelevant.  As moviemaking it would have been a horrible anticlimax.  In a movie, the audience doesn't take to having too much stuff happen after the major climax, and doing so would make the movie end on a weak note, rather than a strong one.



The problem ACTUALLY being that the WRONG story points were made the climactic moments of the film. I agree, that if you make the destruction of the Ring the climactic moment of _Return of the King_, you have a problem. So don't make it the climactic moment. Make it the BIGGEST moment, but that's not the same thing.

Look at the structure of _Fellowship_ for a good example. The climactic moment is the battle with the Uruk-Hai at the end -- but the BIGGEST moment is the confrontation between the Balrog and Gandalf. And yet the much-less-impressive battle scenes come across as powerful and heart-breaking -- because we care so much about these characters and we're watching something important happen to them.

PJ got seduced into thinking that the BIG moments with all their special effects and whatnot ought to be the CLIMACTIC moments, and that's why the Scouring couldn't have worked.

It's not because of some law of film-making. It's because of the choices the director made.

Put Helm's Deep at the middle of TT, put the destruction of the Ring at the middle of RotK. Wrap up the former with Shelob (or possibly the Paths of the Dead -- I bet that would work) and the latter with the Grey Havens (slightly less sappy, if possible). That'll fly.


----------



## Mystery Man (Nov 29, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Put Helm's Deep at the middle of TT, put the destruction of the Ring at the middle of RotK. Wrap up the former with Shelob (or possibly the Paths of the Dead -- I bet that would work) and the latter with the Grey Havens (slightly less sappy, if possible). That'll fly.



Or it will suck hard and you'll have a gozillion fanboys on the interent criticizing _your_ version.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 29, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Put Helm's Deep at the middle of TT, put the destruction of the Ring at the middle of RotK. Wrap up the former with Shelob (or possibly the Paths of the Dead -- I bet that would work) and the latter with the Grey Havens (slightly less sappy, if possible). That'll fly.



 And in the meantime, Sam and Frodo do virtually NOTHING during the third movie, until they get to Mt. Doom.  Book 5 was the singularly worst part of the series, with the endless descriptions of hill, dale and gorse bush.  It was the very epitome of everything that was wrong with Tolkien's work, IMHO.

 I agree some trimming could be done, but the scouring of the shire?  It seems to me it would break the narrative flow, just like it does in the books.  To me it feels more like an afterthought story, and not truly part of the quest.  I suspect many audiences would view the movies and say...why are we getting this tacked-on 'mini-sequel' at the end, here?  What does this have to do with the Lord of the Rings?  He's gone, isn't he?  Maybe it works from a literary standpoint, and maybe it doesn't....but I highly doubt it would work in a movie, at all.  Folks were bored by the relatively short Grey Haven sequence...adding a whole sub-plot about Sharkey and shire...which requires introducing a whole bunch more characters to do it any sort of justice.  Not to mention having to do lots more complicated production work on the established sets, which would further extend shoots, increase cost and so forth.

 I'm just not seeing it, personally.


----------



## mojo1701 (Nov 29, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> It seems to me it would break the narrative flow, just like it does in the books.




Peter Jackson himself said that it was anti-climactic.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 30, 2004)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Peter Jackson himself said that it was anti-climactic.



 And he's right. Now, I didn't mind it in the book, but the movies really are a whole different animal.

Maybe the Scouring would have worked if LotR was only for us Geeks, but it had a HUGE appeal beyond the niche market that fantasy usually gets. All of the emotional investment gets put into this story and finally is relieved(at least mostly) with the destruction of the ring. To put in the Scouring, you then force MORE emotional investment and its just plain exhausting by that point.

Purists could handle it fine. But the general amount of movie goes? No way. There's just a point where you have to accept that movies and books can't do the same things.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 30, 2004)

Maybe SciFi could do a movie just on the scouring of the Shire for those who realy care.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 30, 2004)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Peter Jackson himself said that it was anti-climactic.



Yeah, well, what we're debating is whether or not his choice was the best possible. I think it was not, and others think it was. Fair enough. Nobody's right or wrong in these kinds of discussions, but it's fun to entertain possibilities.

Wiz: Frodo and Sam escape from Cirith Ungol, disguise themselves as orcs, cross the plains of Mordor and climb up the side of Mt. Doom. And keep in mind that my model has the Ring being destroyed halfway through the film, so to protest that they "do virtually NOTHING during the third movie, until they get to Mt. Doom" is to pretty much miss the whole point of what I'm saying. Until they get to Mt. Doom is only halfway through the movie, so to have them "only" surviving a desperate battle of orc vs orc, trying to keep from being noticed in the midst of a huge army, crossing a desolate landscape, fighting off Gollum on the side of Mt. Doom and climbing up to the fire is quite enough for them to be doing in an hour and a bit, I think. You'd probably be able to cut the whole bit with the army, and still have lots of material.

Insufficient material is almost never going to be the film-maker's problem in adapting these works. 

I agree that it would be a challenge. I think it would be worth it, but then to me, the Scouring IS the climax of the story. If a film-maker could communicate that to an audience it would work. Obviously if they couldn't, it wouldn't.

That said, I don't think dropping the Scouring was that big a deal, myself. I think that aspect of the story was actually handled reasonably well in the films. My objections to the way the second and third films were put together I've already detailed. The second is plain BAD, and I THINK the third one is, too, though I'm withholding judgement till I see it again.

And NOT because the Scouring isn't in it, and NOT because they don't faithfully follow the books. Though I do note that pretty much every clumsy bit of dialogue and heavy-handed narratorial oom-pa-pa is new material. The stuff that IS faithful to the books is pretty consistently the best stuff throughout the movies.

I don't think that's a coincidence.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 30, 2004)

If a brash filmmaker wants to do a better adaptation of _LOTR_ than Peter Jackson's, I hope it will be after I am gone.

AFAIC, Peter Jackson's films are more than good enough for me.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 30, 2004)

Hey, how many Hamlet movies do we have?  I think there'll be a few more Lord of the Ringses.  Just not for another twenty years.

Question to Barsoomcore:  Is Theoden's rallying speech before the cavalry charge in RotK new material, or Tolkien's?  Is it just that the actor was really good?

In TTT, I don't mind the 'Running across Middle Earth chasing orcs and talking to ourselves' bit, because it's better than having the three guys running alongside each other chatting.  I'm okay with that bit of cinema.

I think the stuff at Rohan was excellent.  The random fight with worgs on the field wouldn't have been necessary if, as you said, they had ended the movie with Shelob.  They should never have changed Faramir and brought the ring to . . . whatever that city's name was.  That part of the movie could've been cut, the worg fight could've been cut, and we could've had Shelob.

Oh well.  They're still very fun to watch, especially with the twink Elf archer.  *grin*


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 30, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Hey, how many Hamlet movies do we have? I think there'll be a few more Lord of the Ringses. Just not for another twenty years.



 How many versions of Henry V do we have?  How much work does it take to stage Hamlet?  How much to stage LotR?  How many versions of Journey to the Center of the Earth?  It's not a question of just someone's take on it: it's a direct question of how it would be done, for how much money, and how it would be compared with what has gone before.  There's a reason that previously, the radio play was the version to compare to, after all.

 barsoomcore:  I see what you're saying...but you've distilled a lot of pages down to just the action points.  My recollection of most of that period of the series is pure boredom.  I'm not saying it couldn't be done...I just don't think it would be a better version.  I suppose you're right that I'm exagerrating when I say 'nothing happens'.  It'd probably be much more correct to say 'it left me with the impression that nothing happens.'


----------



## Agback (Nov 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> The stuff that IS faithful to the books is pretty consistently the best stuff throughout the movies. I don't think that's a coincidence.




Indeed!

Novels of course require adaptation to be made into good films. And absolutely faithful filming of _Lord of the Rings_ would be a dreadful movie. On the other hand, there is a reason that _LotR_ is the best-selling literary property ever. The story needed to be adapted substantially from one medium to another. But the plot, theme, and especially dialogue did not need _improving_, and if it did, any writer would have to be pretty vain to think that he or she was the one to do it.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Agback (Nov 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I agree that it would be a challenge. I think it would be worth it, but then to me, the Scouring IS the climax of the story.




Yeah. The _point_ of the Hero's Quest is that after returning from the Land of Adventure he is able to work boons for his people. Without the Scouring of the Shire, Merry and Pippin are pretty pointless characters. Random extras could just as well have accomplished what they accomplished.

Which only reminds me of how very irritating I found it that Merry and Pippin were changed from aristocrats of the highest rank to gangrels and petty thieves. I would rather have lost the Unexpected Party than the Conspiracy Unmasked.


----------



## KenM (Nov 30, 2004)

Peter Jackson said in an interview or on one of the commentaires that the mirror with the shire burning is they're tribute to the Scorging. He also said many times that if you try to do a direct translation of the book to film, it would be unfilimible. Peter jackson and the others that made this version made the ring seem alomost its own character, its own entiny, showing how evil it was, so the desctrution of the ring should have been the climax, IMO. 
I did not mind the Warg fight in the middle of TTT, the movie needed a little action at that point.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 30, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> How many versions of Henry V do we have?



_Non nobis domine, domine
Non nobis domine
Sed nomini, sed nomini
Tuo da gloriam._

Great. You got me singing that damn song again.  




			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> How much work does it take to stage Hamlet?  How much to stage LotR?  How many versions of Journey to the Center of the Earth?  It's not a question of just someone's take on it: it's a direct question of how it would be done, for how much money, and how it would be compared with what has gone before.  There's a reason that previously, the radio play was the version to compare to, after all.



If you ask me, the original radio play of _Star Wars_ is better than the adaptation by George Lucas released a few years later.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 30, 2004)

Agback said:
			
		

> Which only reminds me of how very irritating I found it that Merry and Pippin were changed from aristocrats of the highest rank to gangrels and petty thieves. I would rather have lost the Unexpected Party than the Conspiracy Unmasked.




Last time I read Lord of the Rings was 7 years ago.  Refresh me, please, on what this unmasked conspiracy is.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 30, 2004)

Funny. Some of the parts that people called "corniest" or "more artificial" was stuff that came straight out of the books, like Faramir's "show his quality" line, or Sam's speech at the end of TTT (in the book he says it when Frodo despaiers at seeing the Witch King's army).

For me the only good part about the Scouring was that we got to see how much arse Pippin and Merry could kick, fully decked out as warriors. In the movie this is paralleled by the farmer's reaction at seeing the hobbits come back, fully dressed and totally sure of themselves (and Frodo dressed as, as I call it, a "hobbit vampire"  ).


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 30, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Last time I read Lord of the Rings was 7 years ago. Refresh me, please, on what this unmasked conspiracy is.



 It's a very little thing, in the grand scope.  The 'consipiracy' is simply that Frodo is pretending to move to a new house, selling Bag End and heading off to a quiet life in the countryside.  He is, of course, actually preparing for the journey with the ring...but only Sam is supposed to know that.  When he gets to the new house, Merry and Pippin are there, and have already figured out that Frodo and Sam are up to something...and Frodo relents and reveals what's going on.  Not exactly riveting material, for a movie.  It's very slow-paced, and requires that after Gandalf tells the hobbits to take flight...that Frodo _take 3+ months to actually do so_.  Remember that between the party and his return, in the books, Gandalf is gone for 30+ years. 

 And while Merry and Pippin could have been made more aristocratic, then you have to explain that fact, followed by redoubling your efforts to make them seem humble and non-aristocratic following that point: an easy task for the books, but a luxury a movie can't afford, IMHO.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Nov 30, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I hardly see the Scouring as contrived or extraneous.
> 
> ...



Between you can barsoomcore, that was perhaps the best defense I've ever seen mounted of the Scouring.  I'm impressed.  That almost makes it sound worth the out-of-control anticlimax problem.  However, I maintain that the Scouring is one of the reasons LotR has always seemed to me like a great story bookended by interminable periods spent in the Shire.  YMMV and apparently does.



			
				mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Peter Jackson himself said that it was anti-climactic.



Feh.  What's more convincing is that _*Tolkien*_ himself labeled it as nothing more than "an excuse to make them heroes in their own land."  I'd just as soon they not be.  Most heroes aren't, IME.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 30, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Between you can barsoomcore, that was perhaps the best defense I've ever seen mounted of the Scouring.  I'm impressed.  That almost makes it sound worth the out-of-control anticlimax problem.  However, I maintain that the Scouring is one of the reasons LotR has always seemed to me like a great story bookended by interminable periods spent in the Shire.  YMMV and apparently does.





The first time I tried to read the novel, TTT bored me to tears.  Then I couldn't get through all the Mordor stuf in RotK.  Now, I've read the book over 30 times, and each time I notice how something that didn't seem important weaves into the story.  It has become my favorite book.




> Feh.  What's more convincing is that _*Tolkien*_ himself labeled it as nothing more than "an excuse to make them heroes in their own land."  I'd just as soon they not be.  Most heroes aren't, IME.





Yes, but Tolkein, like all creators, was somewhat conflicted about his work.  He denied the relationship between the War of the Ring and WWII, for example, despite the fact that he wrote the Mordor bits and sent them off to his son who was fighting in the trenches at that time. 

Tolkein was also adamantly opposed to ending a film version of TTT where Jackson did.  And, he was opposed to Disney having anything to do with a film version.

Tolkein would often refer to LotR as a simple adventure story, but there were also times that he talked about the themes and what was going on behind the scenes.  For example, one major theme in the book that makes no appearance in the movies is that Sauron's great sin is trying to order creation to his liking.  It was also the great sin of the elves, who were not meant to go to Middle Earth in the first place, and who tried to stay time through the creation of the Three Rings.  In the books, this is why Lothlorien seems so timeless.  In fact, time explicitly flows differently there, and Sam is "off his reckoning" when the moon is in the wrong phase after they leave.  Rivendell is also always described as having a rather timeless quality.

From this standpoint, having the Three Rings fade with the passing of the One Ruling Ring, and having the elves pass from Middle Earth, is actually a correction in the grand scheme of things.  Sad for those left behind, certainly, but a correction nonetheless.

Boromir is seduced by the Ring because he does not know his place.  He was to be Steward of Gondor; like his father, he preferred to be King.  His brother, Faramir, was chosen for the Quest, but Boromir took it upon himself (again, reference the books, not the movie).

Frodo is able to succeed largely because he does not try to do more than his part.  He is Ring Bearer, not Ring Destroyer.  Likewise, Sam is able to return the Ring to Frodo because Sam does not desire to be a hero, or to be anything more than he is.  They do not share the sin of Sauron.

Of course, it goes without saying that all of this stuff wouldn't work in a movie.  There have been really great movies that have dealt with philosophical themes, but no movie could deal with all of the material in LotR and still be watchable.  Even the poetry, as often as it is criticized, is actually integral to the overall vision of the book (and Middle Earth).


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 30, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Feh.  What's more convincing is that _*Tolkien*_ himself labeled it as nothing more than "an excuse to make them heroes in their own land."  I'd just as soon they not be.  Most heroes aren't, IME.





One more quick salvo:  Despite having honor throughout the West, Frodo was generally considered a minor figure in the Shire.  Sam, Pippin, and Merry became the heroes there.

This showed not only how weary and damaged Frodo was, but it also makes your point.  The greatest of heroes are often not recognized in their own land.

It is also an echo of Gandalf:  Frodo's task is done.  The Scouring of the Shire must be left to others.

RC


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Nov 30, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> One more quick salvo:  Despite having honor throughout the West, Frodo was generally considered a minor figure in the Shire.  Sam, Pippin, and Merry became the heroes there.
> 
> This showed not only how weary and damaged Frodo was, but it also makes your point.  The greatest of heroes are often not recognized in their own land.



Fair enough 

I concede the literary merit of the Scouring.  I dispute only its narrative merit.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 30, 2004)

lol


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 30, 2004)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Peter Jackson himself said that it was anti-climactic.




Which just illustrates the source of the (handful) of problematic changes that were made to the story: in many ways Peter Jackson and the other individuals who adapted the screen play missed what was important about the books.


----------



## F5 (Nov 30, 2004)

I knew going into the movie that the Scouring wouldn't be in it, and a long talk with a theatre director friend of mine helped convince me that I was OK with that.

The thing that really sticks in my craw about the end of Return is how absolutely, god-awful bad the effects are in the scene where Frodo and Bilbo board the White Ship.  Compare that shot to, say, Frodo jumping on Gandalf's wagon in the beginning of Fellowship.  The CGI they use there makes it seamless.  Can anyone tell me that when Bilbo walks up the plank, he looks like anything other than a short person in a wig?  I'm hoping that the extended edition maybe "enhances" this scene somewhat.  It just struck me that with so much spectacular effects-work being done throughout all three movies, that they should leave off with such a bad shot so close to the end.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 30, 2004)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Some of the parts that people called "corniest" or "more artificial" was stuff that came straight out of the books, like Faramir's "show his quality" line, or Sam's speech at the end of TTT (in the book he says it when Frodo despairs at seeing the Witch King's army).



The implications of Faramir's line of course are completely reversed in the movie because of Faramir's reversed reaction to the Ring, so I don't think you can say it's "straight from the book". And Sam's line is certainly hampered by its new position in the story, Sean Astin's terrible delivery, the heavy-handed use of music and juxtaposition of imagery to make it "more serious." In the book it's just a quiet moment between two friends, Sam being his usual sensible self; in the movie it's an epic moment that spans the world and attempts to sum up the entire situation. It can't carry the weight they try to give it.

I think that those problems in any event pale next to stuff like the Warg attack (KenM: lots of ways to provide action without inventing an episode that has no effect on the storyline other than making us worry about Aragorn for twenty minutes), Merry and Pippin "tricking" Treebeard into know what's happening in his own forest, the lack of gravity to the battles from Helm's Deep on, and the evisceration of Eowyn's stand against the Witch King. Those are the REAL problems with the latter two films, I would say.

You'll note "not having the Scouring" isn't in there.


----------



## Berandor (Nov 30, 2004)

Well, at least Eowyn's Stand will likely be improved in the EE.


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 30, 2004)

I like the Scouring section of the book, and of course it would be cool to see, but I understand why it's not in the film.  I do think the writers did nail the key themes of the story in nearly every significant way and RotK (the film) is a great conclusion.  I have my gripes but they don't warrant any real complaints for me (the slo-mo hugging on the bed scene was nearly cringe-worthy but hey ... that's just me).


----------



## JimAde (Nov 30, 2004)

It's not _just_ you.    I found that a bit smarmy myself.  But complaining about thing I don't like in these moveis is like saying "this car you just gave me isn't my favorite color."


----------



## Umbran (Nov 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> The problem ACTUALLY being that the WRONG story points were made the climactic moments of the film. I agree, that if you make the destruction of the Ring the climactic moment of _Return of the King_, you have a problem. So don't make it the climactic moment. Make it the BIGGEST moment, but that's not the same thing.
> 
> Look at the structure of _Fellowship_ for a good example. The climactic moment is the battle with the Uruk-Hai at the end -- but the BIGGEST moment is the confrontation between the Balrog and Gandalf....




There are limits to how much one can stretch like that, though.  Through the entire work, we are beaten over the head with how getting rid of the One Ring is a big deal.  The fate of the world depends on it.  It is basically impossible to make the trials they go through believeable unless you make the audience believe that it's about the most important thing in the world.

Having done that, you can't realistically make something else the climax, especially considering what it means personally for Sam and Frodo.  Sorry.  Just doesn't work.  

In the books, the Scouring is not a climax.  It is a bit of demonstrative exposition on the growth of the hobbits and the nature of teh world following the War of the Ring.  Heck, even within the section of the book, we are given the implication that, to the four hobbits, it's not a big deal.  Just some tidying up before they can settle down.  It's not a strain to them in comparison to what they've already done.  If the hobbits themselves aren't really under stress and tension during the Scouring, how do you sell it as a climax?


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 30, 2004)

Umbran: I guess I'm not being clear. OF COURSE in the movies that PJ made, you couldn't just tack on another hour of The Scouring and expect it to work. I'm trying to say that I believe there's a way to create films in which the Scouring IS the climax. The existing films are not those films, I grant you, and so the setup they provide is not going to give us what we want.

Obviously you PUT the hobbits under stress and tension. I'm not talking about "Being True To Tolkien's Vision" or anything like that. I'm saying I LIKE the Scouring and to me it's the climactic moment, the most exciting part of the whole story. In order to translate that to a movie you'd have to make a lot of choices, and some of those choices would involve changing what Tolkien wrote, because, as pretty much everyone has pointed out already, what works in a book doesn't necessarily work onscreen.

I would need to spend some more thinking time to determine exactly WHY I find it so thrilling, so rewarding, and then more thinking time to figure out how to bring it to the screen. But I think I would start such a project with exactly that end in mind, to have the hobbits leave the Shire with the intent of protecting it, and return to find that all their efforts, while not exactly in vain, still were unable to prevent the slow onset of change. That's the movie I would want to make, and so I would make choices about what to beat over my audience's head and so on keeping that in mind.

Is that clear? Arguments like, "Well but they spent the whole first two and a half movies making this impossible" aren't relevant to the point I'm trying to make, nor are arguments like, "I think the books behave in such and such a fashion." I'm talking about completely redoing the movies and I'm talking about making choices as regards to representing the source material in a cinematically powerful way that might involve changing the text of the books.

Obviously nobody's ever going to give me the money to do this, so I'm just making stuff up in my head for fun. I don't think the existing movies would have been IMPROVED by adding the Scouring -- I'm just saying I don't think it's true that it's "impossible" to make a movie that includes it. Given all the other choices PJ had made, it was a good idea to leave it out.


----------



## Berandor (Nov 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Umbran: I guess I'm not being clear. OF COURSE in the movies that PJ made, you couldn't just tack on another hour of The Scouring and expect it to work. I'm trying to say that I believe there's a way to create films in which the Scouring IS the climax. The existing films are not those films, I grant you, and so the setup they provide is not going to give us what we want.
> 
> Obviously you PUT the hobbits under stress and tension. I'm not talking about "Being True To Tolkien's Vision" or anything like that. I'm saying I LIKE the Scouring and to me it's the climactic moment, the most exciting part of the whole story. In order to translate that to a movie you'd have to make a lot of choices, and some of those choices would involve changing what Tolkien wrote, because, as pretty much everyone has pointed out already, what works in a book doesn't necessarily work onscreen.
> 
> ...



 If Bill Gates ever gives me the billion dollars I deserve - then maybe I'll finance this.

So start drawing storyboards!


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 30, 2004)

How about a couple of grand for drawing lessons?


----------



## Fenris (Nov 30, 2004)

I am surprised in all the discussion about the Scouring that no one mentioned Tolkien's blatant metaphor for his dismay at the loss of pastoralism and the rise of industrialism. For indeed that was what the hobbits were to him the ideal of a pastoral life that he pined for and saw diminshing everywhere.

But 50 years can change perspectives and as others have pointed out waht works in a book doesn't always work in a movie.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Dec 1, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Whether they are integral to the story of the book is largely irrelevant.  As moviemaking it would have been a horrible anticlimax.  In a movie, the audience doesn't take to having too much stuff happen after the major climax, and doing so would make the movie end on a weak note, rather than a strong one.





Then how do you explain the last thirty minutes actually in the film? Seriously, everything after the ring getting destroyed seemed to last twice as long as the entire rest of the film combined.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 1, 2004)

And the slo-mo soft focus bed hugging took three hours in and of itself. Yeek, not my favorite part of a wonderful movie.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 1, 2004)

While the first movie was by far the most faithful to the book, I really didn't have many qualms about the next two movies... I certainly didn't dislike them.  I rather liked the warg/Rohirrim fight (apparently, PJ took a minor note from the book and played it out into a major scene, rather like the fight with the troll in Moria, or the Mumakils at Pelennor).  What I didn't like was Aragorn's seeming death and miraculous comeback... with Gandalf's miraculous rebirth, that was one miracle too many.  It would have been better to just have the fight and then everyone goes on their way to Helm's Deep.  Oh, and just what was supposed to have been missing from Eowyn's moment of glory?  The movie seemed to follow the book damn near exactly on this episode, other than rearranging some of the dialogue (which had to be done, since everyone watching the movie knew it was Eowyn under the disguise, unlike in the book, where it was a mystery).
As for the Scouring, I'd always thought it was a way of showing how the horrors of war can touch even the most protected and quiet of lands....


----------



## KenM (Dec 1, 2004)

Well, only two weeks until Return of the King extended DVD. I'm saving the rest of my thoughts until I've seen the extended.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 1, 2004)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Then how do you explain the last thirty minutes actually in the film? Seriously, everything after the ring getting destroyed seemed to last twice as long as the entire rest of the film combined.



That's probably my only complaint (well, okay, the Dead sweeping in so quickly was eh). Not the length, so much as the bad way it was done and how much of it was repeated within the time given to it.

I dislike the Scouring greatly myself. Merry & Pippin are lawless bully's and Frodo is a whiney little nag. The fact that Saruman directly tells them he's gonna go ruin the Shire and then they go  sit in Rivendell for a couple months, just makes it worse for me.

But, this topic is a year old now! None of us will really change our minds.


----------



## Zoatebix (Dec 1, 2004)

Just a few points for cleaning up:



			
				KenM said:
			
		

> its so slow paced and he has the characters break out into song about something that has NOTHING to do with the plot. He goes on and on describing almost everything the characters see while traveling, but he does not describe major battles, plot points well.




IIRC Tolkein was an expert in the study of Medieval Romanaces, Epic Poems, and Folk Stories, and primarily oral-tradition story-telling.  The "diagetic" (is "diagetic" an appropriate literay term?) songs, poems, and stories are all a big part of the oral epics he's emulating in the Lord of the Rings.  There're at least two lengthy stories (in addition to all the epic similes) in Beowulf, and I'm almost positive Tolkein was a big Beowulf fan.



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> why are we getting this tacked-on 'mini-sequel' at the end, here? What does this have to do with the Lord of the Rings? He's gone, isn't he? Maybe it works from a literary standpoint, and maybe it doesn't.




I think The Lord of the Rings is as much a "genre study" of ancient literary techniques as it is a work of modern epic fantasy.  Beowulf's fight with the Dragon is the same kind of mini-sequil - the climax was 30 or more years (my figures are sketchy - it's been a few months since I read it...) before when he beheads Grendel's mom.  Or maybe it "climaxes" with Grendel - it doesn't fit the exposition-complications-climax-denouement model as well as more modern stories.



			
				Canis said:
			
		

> "I concede the literary merit of the Scouring. I dispute only its narrative merit."




It has merit in a narrative system that's 1500 years or more divorced from what we're used to reading and watching.



			
				Agback said:
			
		

> "Yeah. The point of the Hero's Quest is that after returning from the Land of Adventure he is able to work boons for his people."




I think that's the point exactly.

Anyways, I haven't read the Lord of the Rings since I've been an adult (I've been meaning to), and I certainly haven't studied it or Tolkein in an acadmic setting yet, so I don't claim that my assertions are 100% accurate.  I'm just trying to show that there's a whole lot more (over a thousand years of story-telling history more) than the transposition of a story from novel to film at work here.

Rock on!
-George


----------



## Amal Shukup (Dec 1, 2004)

David Howery said:
			
		

> ... Oh, and just what was supposed to have been missing from Eowyn's moment of glory?  The movie seemed to follow the book damn near exactly on this episode...




Eh? Not hardly. Baddy lands. BRIEF dialog, then 'chop!' (from an awkward and frankly uncinematic angle even) and that's IT - off to the next scene. I think the scene of the Witch King pulling on his gauntlets or whatever before the battle was longer...

But my problem with the scene isn't narrative - what needed to happen in order to propel the story forward happened. My problem is in terms of directoral emphasis: After all, this is the Witch King of Angmar, prophesized by Glorfindel to 'not perish by the hands of men'. Lord of the Nazgul. Sauron's single most powerful servant. He destroyed of the Northern Kingdom of Arnor, captured Minas Ithil (later Morgul), killed the last King of Gondor (why they have Stewards now). Sacked Osgilliath... The list goes on. One of the biggest baddies extant. The Balrog? A REALLY bad roll on the ol' Random Encounter Table. This guy? An actual big deal, Sauron's Main Henchman for, like, 2.5 Millenia...

'Chop'?  'CHOP?!'  Come. On!  I want menace. I want some slo mo, I want despair and defiance. I want drawn out, loving, camera angles. The Rohirrim fleeing at his dread approach - save Dernhelm/Eowyn who stands in his way against all reason. (And I mean ALL reason. Had the dawn not arrived and forced the Witch King to go rally his army, he might have slapped GANDALF all over the place). I want the fell beast's beheading in glorious technicolor. I want he Witch King's palpable moment of doubt as he realizes that there might be an unfortunate loophole in his predestined invincibility. I want the blow that shatters Eowyn's shield (and arm). I want Merry (also no 'man') wielding the enspelled sword of Westernesse (forged during the desperate war against Angmar over 1000 years earlier) and disrupting the foul magics binding the Witch King to his twisted unlife. I want the desperate thrust between 'crown and mantle' that dispatches him shown for what it was - the single biggest blow for the side of good anybody managed in the whole darn story.

And consequences: Just touching this guy with a weapon was so damaging as to be almost certainly fatal save for the intervention of the Returned King and his 'healing hands'...

But no. We got 'Chop', a weird little fizzle, and some odd visual effects. Not. Good. Enough. 

Bombadil and the Wight? Sure, so be it. Scouring? Missed it, but so be it. Warg battle? Stupid, but so be it. No confrontation with Saruman at Orthanc? Unfortunate, but so be it. A 3 minute scene featuring Mumakil surfing by the twinked out elf? Grrrrr, but SO BE IT. 

But 'chop'? No. I'm sorry Peter, that's a reshoot. Do it the heck over.

A'Mal


----------



## Zoatebix (Dec 1, 2004)

My list of favorite posters (or maybe favorite posts?) grows one larger.  Go A'Mal!


----------



## Amal Shukup (Dec 1, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Is Theoden's rallying speech before the cavalry charge in RotK new material, or Tolkien's?  Is it just that the actor was really good?




The actor - and the direction of that scene - WAS really, really good. Better than flawless. The whole riding down the line whacking swords was awesome. "St. Crispin? Hal my boy, who gives a wet slap 'bout Crispin?"

But, to give Tolkien his due, the speech content is largely Tolkien's, although pulled from a couple of places - Theoden's and a slightly later one by Eomer

Theoden: "Arise, arise, Riders of Theoden! Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter! spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered, a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises! Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!"

Eomer's contribution: "Death! Ride, ride to ruin and the world's ending!"

Oh yeah. Extended version soon. Must. Not. Explode. In. Anticipation...

A'Mal


----------



## shilsen (Dec 1, 2004)

Amal Shukup said:
			
		

> The actor - and the direction of that scene - WAS really, really good. Better than flawless. The whole riding down the line whacking swords was awesome.




I can't remember where I read it, but apparently the whole "riding down the line whacking spears" bit was something Bernard Law came up with himself and Jackson let him run with, because it was just so cool.



> "St. Crispin? Hal my boy, who gives a wet slap 'bout Crispin?"


----------



## qstor (Dec 1, 2004)

I think the one thing that really irks me in the RotK is the fact that Frodo is hanging on the edge of the cliff over the lava. I mean how MORE of a dramatic ending can you ask for? I'd prefer to have it in the book. Most of the other things in the RotK were minor for me.

Mike


----------



## JimAde (Dec 1, 2004)

That _was_ cliche, but it gave the film-makers a chance to show Frodo seriously consider just giving up and dying.  In the book that was handled with a more detailed description of how he never really healed, but here it was done in a quick (and I think effective) bit of action.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Dec 1, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> ...The fact that Saruman directly tells them he's gonna go ruin the Shire and then they go  sit in Rivendell for a couple months, just makes it worse for me.



That's pretty consistent with their previous behavior:
GANDALF: "You're carrying around the most dangerous artifact in existence, forged of _pure EV-IL_."
FRODO: "Well, I guess I should get moving sometime in the next couple weeks, then, eh?"
GANDALF: "Well, there's no _real_ hurry.  You should futz around here for a few months at least.  Give your dim friend Peregrine time to catch on."

For me, personally, that was the biggest leap in the entire book.  Dwarves, dragons, nazgul, no problem.  But that level of stupidity is absurd.

And, yes, I know that is neither the original dialogue, nor a reasonable approximation.  It is, in fact, an entirely unreasonable facsimile that nonetheless illustrates a moment where Gandalf's extreme age must have overcome the fact that he was immortal, leading to perhaps the most drastically senile decision on record.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Which just illustrates the source of the (handful) of problematic changes that were made to the story: in many ways Peter Jackson and the other individuals who adapted the screen play missed what was important about the books.



In your opinion, of course.  What is "important about the books" depends greatly on your point of view.  For some people, they hit the high points precisely.  For some, (like me) they were very, very close.  For others, it seems that they missed entirely.  There are so many things going on in the books, anyway, that there's enormous room for individual differences and interpretation.  There is no one thing (or even set of things) that is going to be equally important to all people.

Given that, I think Jackson and Co. did a pretty good job of hitting the themes and moments that resonate with most people.  Of course, following Amal Shukup's spot-on post, I have to concede that they dropped the ball a bit with that scene.  However, they handled the Charge of the Rohirrim so well, (my favorite moment of reading or movie-watching, EVAR) that I'm willing to forgive.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> It has merit in a narrative system that's 1500 years or more divorced from what we're used to reading and watching.



Point taken.

However, it has been positioned, packaged, and sold as a novel.  Arguably, Tolkien himself would have preferred a different label, but a novel it remains.  And within the (justifiably applicable) bounds of that form, it has problems.

I've always felt that LotR was an incredible story hampered at times by Tolkien's dreadful lapses of writing and redeemed by his occasional triumph.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is hampered more by its form, with moments unsuited to the form and moments where he manages to transcend it.  Certainly, viewing it as a Medieval Romance or epic of that type improves my ability to accept the Scouring.  Doesn't help much with the several metric tons of exposition he drops in a couple places for 100 pages at a time in Fellowship, though.  Sorry.  I have to chalk that up as a mistake in any form.


----------



## myrdden (Dec 1, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> AFAIC, Peter Jackson's films are more than good enough for me.




Couldn't have said it better myself.  I don't see the point in arguing or debating points are so clearly subjective that it proves no point.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 1, 2004)

Amal Shukup said:
			
		

> Bombadil and the Wight? Sure, so be it. Scouring? Missed it, but so be it. Warg battle? Stupid, but so be it. No confrontation with Saruman at Orthanc? Unfortunate, but so be it. A 3 minute scene featuring Mumakil surfing by the twinked out elf? Grrrrr, but SO BE IT.



 For what it's worth, the extended edition will clearly restore the confrontation at Orthanc (thank goodness).  I'm glad to see so much material restored, like the House of Healing, and the romance between Faramir and Eowyn.  

 Frankly, I'm going through withdrawl.  After three solid years of some of the best fantasy films ever made, the prospect of a holiday seaosn without one is pretty rough.  But with 50 more minutes of Tolkieny goodness, I guess we can get by.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 1, 2004)

Amal: You said it. Preach on, brother.

"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!"

"But I shall smite you if you touch him."

COME ON..................


			
				myrdden said:
			
		

> I don't see the point in arguing or debating points are so clearly subjective that it proves no point.



Because it's fun? I mean, point to a debate anywhere on these boards that ISN'T subjective. Low magic? 2e vs 3e? Spare me.

It's FUN to read other people's ideas and think about and express your own ideas. I LIKE imagining alternate ways to make these movies. I LIKE understanding WHY I was frustrated because it helps me to understand myself a little better. And maybe even other people.

If you don't like doing that, no problem. If you don't see the point in doing that, I'm not going to tell you otherwise. But I can tell you the point I see in doing that -- it makes me smarter. And it's fun.

Eowyn got the shaft.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 1, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Eowyn got the shaft.




Nah. Eowny's perfectly balanced, its just that the Witchking is overpowered and the DMs a munchkin that doesn't want to lose.


----------



## resistor (Dec 1, 2004)

I really missed Gandalf turning the Witch-King back at the gates of Minas Tirith.  I can't quote it, but it's something like this:

The gate breaks from the final blow of Grond, the battering ram, and Gandalf alone stands before the dark opening (it is still just before dawn).  The Witch-King on his mount emerges from the shadows and moves to enter the city.  Gandalf drives him back, telling him that no evil has ever set foot within these walls and that he shall not be the first.  Dawn breaks, and the Rohirrim charge.  The Witch-King, repulsed by Gandalf, is forced to retreat from the gates to rally his army.  Gandalf prepares to pursue him, but Pippin arrives and tells him that Denethor is killing himself and Faramir.  Gandalf agrees to go save Faramir, but notes that "others will die if he does."

It looks like some approximation of that will go into the Extended Edition, but I still like my mental image more. ;-)


----------



## myrdden (Dec 1, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's FUN to read other people's ideas and think about and express your own ideas. I LIKE imagining alternate ways to make these movies. I LIKE understanding WHY I was frustrated because it helps me to understand myself a little better. And maybe even other people.
> 
> If you don't like doing that, no problem. If you don't see the point in doing that, I'm not going to tell you otherwise. But I can tell you the point I see in doing that -- it makes me smarter. And it's fun.




Fair point.  However, I keep seeing ther SAME points being re-hashed over and over again without anything new being added (same with Star Wars posts too so I guess I really shouldn't be surprised).  The SAME issues regarding how the book wasn't followed are countered with the SAME reasons why the change was necessary.

And although I enjoy talking about whatI  liked and disliked in the film, I don't see where this is fun anymore.

Perhaps it should be asked instead, "If you were to re-edit the movie, what would you change?".  I think that would be a more interesting avenue.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 1, 2004)

Yeah, people get all wound up and indignant about stuff like this, which leads to that sort of parrotting of the same things over and over again.

Being able to detach one's ego from one's ideas is very very important.


----------



## Onos T'oolan (Dec 1, 2004)

Amal Shukup said:
			
		

> But my problem with the scene isn't narrative - what needed to happen in order to propel the story forward happened. My problem is in terms of directoral emphasis: After all, this is the Witch King of Angmar...



Thank you Amal Shukup - you have made my day 

  <weeping>[weeping]That such true words of power could come from a fellow Torontonian is more than I could ever have hoped for ..[/weeping]
 </weeping>


----------



## Umbran (Dec 2, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Umbran: I guess I'm not being clear. OF COURSE in the movies that PJ made, you couldn't just tack on another hour of The Scouring and expect it to work. I'm trying to say that I believe there's a way to create films in which the Scouring IS the climax. The existing films are not those films, I grant you, and so the setup they provide is not going to give us what we want.




No, I think I am the one not being clear.  Let me try again...

The problem lies in one of the differences between film and literature.  In a work of literature of length, you don't have a single climax.  You have, in fact need, multiple climaxes.  In LOTR, the greatest climax is (perhaps arguably) the destruction of the One Ring.  Then, given some time and slow prose after that, the reader is ready for another, smaller climax in the Scouring.  It works (for some) in a written work of length.

Film doesn't have the same luxury.  Films are but a few hours, fleeting by comparison to the time it takes to read the written work.  And that brings up the problem.

The destruction of the One Ring must be one of the climaxes of the film.  The event is important, the most important of the age.  You cannot understand why the hobbits go through the trials, and understand the changes they've undergone, unless it is made important, and that makes it a climax point.  You cannot notably reduce the emphasis of that point - it is built too strongly into the plot and character development.

Having done that, anything else would be a letdown.  I'm sorry, but dramatically the Scouring simply isn't as strong, because it isn't as important.  Yes, it means a lot to the hobbits, but if you set it and the One Ring side by side, as they must be with a film's time constraints, the Scouring loses in the eyes of the audience.  

I simply don't believe the best of spin doctors could change that, and still have the characters be plausible.  I'm sorry, but it is in the nature of the beast that is film.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 2, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> in many ways Peter Jackson and the other individuals who adapted the screen play missed what was important about the books.




Let's be a little more precise - Peter Jackson and the other individuals who adapted the screenplay thought differently than you did about what was important, and what should have priority in a mass-media movie.

There is no one objective "this is what is important about this book".  Each reader or audience member can and will think different things are "what is important".  If it were otherwise, there would be no such thing as literary analysis - if there were one Truth, you wouldn't need umpteen people dissecting a work.  There is only "What I find to be important".


----------



## Onos T'oolan (Dec 2, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> There is only "What I find to be important".



Although I do agree with you, I think you also need to consider the author's intent -- what the author _intended_ to be important -- and if it can be argued that there is something _resembling_ a Truth-with-a-capital-T, then surely it would be that intent ..

 With respect to the film - any attempt to make a movie based on a book is both a transformative and translative effort. As such the director becomes an author-by-proxy _as well as_ an author in his own right (after all, a film is a unique creation in itself). So in this case PJ's intent must also be considered.



			
				Fenris said:
			
		

> I am surprised in all the discussion about the Scouring that no one mentioned Tolkien's blatant metaphor for his dismay at the loss of pastoralism and the rise of industrialism. For indeed that was what the hobbits were to him the ideal of a pastoral life that he pined for and saw diminshing everywhere.
> 
> But 50 years can change perspectives and as others have pointed out waht works in a book doesn't always work in a movie.



I think this is an excellent point, and one that needs to be considered. PJ's intent was not to tell this story, because in the end this 'message' is ridiculously irrelevant today.

 For those arguing that the point of the Hobbits' journey is diluted by the absence of the Scouring, I would say that the message of the Hobbits' heroism, selflessness, etc. has already been pounded into the audience ad infinitum by the time the Scouring would have occurred 

   There is only so much 'weight' a single film can carry before it buckles under.


----------



## Onos T'oolan (Dec 2, 2004)

Personally, even in the books the Scouring always seemed like 'another' story -- an unnecessary addendum, as though a short story was somehow grafted on to the end ..


----------



## David Howery (Dec 2, 2004)

Amal> hmm... well, most of what you mention was in the movie... Eowyn beheading the pterodactyl, Eowyn making the big stab into the witch king, Merry stabbing him in the leg, Eowyn's arm and shield getting broken... and the whole Aragorn healing them will be in the EE.  As for the 'moment of doubt'.. it worked in the book, because you didn't know that Dernhelm was actually Eowyn, while everyone watching the movie already knew it.  You're right though, in that it would have been neat to somehow include that moment of doubt.  Still, most of what you mentioned was in there.. or are you saying it should have been done differently?


----------



## Onos T'oolan (Dec 2, 2004)

I don't think Amal had an issue with 'Content' - the basic elements were all there. The issue was with the 'Presentation' and 'Execution' of said 'Content'


----------



## David Howery (Dec 2, 2004)

ok... I personally didn't have any qualms about that scene (unlike some others), but to each his own....


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 2, 2004)

Really, I agree with Amal (How could you not? Wow!). However, I think that that scene could have been vastly improved simply by not telling the audience that Dernhelm is Eowyn.


----------



## ValamirCleaver (Dec 2, 2004)

If anything the changes and additions that have no basis in preexisting writings that were made to the story, especially those made to adhere to modern movie convetions, bother me much more than any omissions.

While I do see valid points and the likely reasoning behind them on both sides of each argument, can we at least  agree that the one person who would have best to adapt the story for the screen has been dead for over 30 years and that the one living person that would have been most capable of the aforementioned adaption widely known to have desire that these films had never come into existence.

Tom


----------



## Berandor (Dec 2, 2004)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Really, I agree with Amal (How could you not? Wow!). However, I think that that scene could have been vastly improved simply by not telling the audience that Dernhelm is Eowyn.



 And how would that be done in a way that it is remotely believable? After all, we *see* Miranda Otto on the horse, don't we?


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 2, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> That's pretty consistent with their previous behavior:
> GANDALF: "You're carrying around the most dangerous artifact in existence, forged of _pure EV-IL_."
> FRODO: "Well, I guess I should get moving sometime in the next couple weeks, then, eh?"
> GANDALF: "Well, there's no _real_ hurry.  You should futz around here for a few months at least.  Give your dim friend Peregrine time to catch on."
> ...




Well, he does actually explain why they don't go instantly: Gandalf doesn't want Frodo to arouse suspicion with his departure, and thus possibly alert Sauron's agents that he has the Ring. At that point in the story, Sauron doesn't know that Frodo has the Ring (or at least they believe he doesn't know), and Gandalf believes that a sudden disappearance would put a big flashing neon sign over Frodo's head saying "Ring of Power here, come and get it".

So instead, Frodo comes up with a cover story, sells his house, and moves to the edge of the Shire, where his departure won't be so obvious. It makes some sense in that context, although it makes no sense if you make the contrary assumption that Sauron knows that Frodo has the Ring.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 2, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Let's be a little more precise - Peter Jackson and the other individuals who adapted the screenplay thought differently than you did about what was important, and what should have priority in a mass-media movie.
> 
> There is no one objective "this is what is important about this book".  Each reader or audience member can and will think different things are "what is important".  If it were otherwise, there would be no such thing as literary analysis - if there were one Truth, you wouldn't need umpteen people dissecting a work.  There is only "What I find to be important".




Not true. In this case we have a pretty good idea of what was important about the book, because Tolkien left behind a significant legacy of essays and commentary concerning his work, and discussed at length the various themes and issues in the book. Now, you might try and argue that Tolkien's vision for the work is merely subjective and thus is only as good as anyone else's, but I think you'd have a tough row to hoe on that.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Dec 2, 2004)

With regards to...



			
				Onos T'oolan said:
			
		

> Although I do agree with you, I think you also need to consider the author's intent -- what the author _intended_ to be important -- and if it can be argued that there is something _resembling_ a Truth-with-a-capital-T, then surely it would be that intent ..




and...



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> ...In this case we have a pretty good idea of what was important about the book, because Tolkien left behind a significant legacy of essays and commentary concerning his work, and discussed at length the various themes and issues in the book. Now, you might try and argue that Tolkien's vision for the work is merely subjective and thus is only as good as anyone else's, but I think you'd have a tough row to hoe on that.




There's a strong case to be made that an author's intent represents only a portion of what actually makes it into a work (barring some forms of modern "art" which are apparently all about intent, though I would argue it is merely the cynical intent to make money off an out-of-control elitist system.  But that's a rant for another time and place)

As someone mentioned earlier, Tolkien himself denied any intent to allegory, yet it's certainly there.  If we take him at his word, that wasn't strictly intentional.  Or take Shakespeare.  Some of his plays are DENSE.  All manner of subtext and interesting psychology.  But if you told me he had any siginificant intent other than to write a successful play, I'd laugh at you.

There are all manner of things in the book that are significant to Tolkien that may be outside his intent whilst writing.  And there are other themes he probably tossed in for dramatic or historic reasons that are equally important to others, even if they were merely a plot device to J.R.R.  As such, "Tolkien's vision for the work" *IS* subjective.  And, while certainly instructive, his own writings are merely a starting point from which to talk about the "important" elements of the book.  But they are hardly necessary or sufficient.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 2, 2004)

Berandor said:
			
		

> And how would that be done in a way that it is remotely believable? After all, we *see* Miranda Otto on the horse, don't we?




How about by not *showing* Miranda Otto on the horse? By not giving a close-up of her face? By not showing Merry's idiotic expression when he sees that it's her?

EDIT: My hat of those who think they know more about a book than the author know no limit


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 2, 2004)

Boy I'm glad I never watched the theatrical version.   

Flexor - Still waiting for the EE.


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 2, 2004)

Quote:While I do see valid points and the likely reasoning behind them on both sides of each argument, can we at least agree that the one person who would have best to adapt the story for the screen has been dead for over 30 years and that the one living person that would have been most capable of the aforementioned adaption widely known to have desire that these films had never come into existence.

Nope, we can't agree on that. JRR was a writer, not a movie screen writer. I can no more assume that he would be successful at making a movie than I can at believing a pro athlete can automatically become a successful coach.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 2, 2004)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> Nope, we can't agree on that. JRR was a writer, not a movie screen writer. I can no more assume that he would be successful at making a movie than I can at believing a pro athlete can automatically become a successful coach.




Sure, but with the wealth of material out there discussing the books, it probably would have been a good idea to try to bring some of the subtext to the film in more focus. There's a reason the books are among the most successful and enduring works published in the 20th Century, and it's not just because they are a big adventure story.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 3, 2004)

David Howery said:
			
		

> You're right though, in that it would have been neat to somehow include that moment of doubt.  Still, most of what you mentioned was in there.. or are you saying it should have been done differently?



I think more could have been done to show the WitchKing as important. In the movies, there's really not a lot to fear from the wraiths. They get driven off by a torch, a river, some chick in mensware...


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 3, 2004)

I have to admit I thought the ringwraiths were wimpy in the movie. If you had only seen the movie, I'm not sure why you would really fear them. I don't remember them hurting anyone other than stabbing Frodo and running over the poor guard gate.


----------



## Pants (Dec 3, 2004)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> How about by not *showing* Miranda Otto on the horse? By not giving a close-up of her face? By not showing Merry's idiotic expression when he sees that it's her?
> 
> EDIT: My hat of those who think they know more about a book than the author know no limit



Given that Dernhelm speaks in both the movie and the book, there's pretty much no way to keep her identity secret.



			
				Zaukrie said:
			
		

> Nope, we can't agree on that. JRR was a writer, not a movie screen writer. I can no more assume that he would be successful at making a movie than I can at believing a pro athlete can automatically become a successful coach.



Also, JRRT said that if his books were ever filmed, they'd _need_ to be changed.  Only thing is, he wanted to make the changes himself.  Pretty hard to do that now...   



			
				Zaukrie said:
			
		

> I have to admit I thought the ringwraiths were wimpy in the movie. If you had only seen the movie, I'm not sure why you would really fear them. I don't remember them hurting anyone other than stabbing Frodo and running over the poor guard gate.



In FotR the book... what did they really do?  They pretty much sucked it up until Bree and even then...

Farmer Maggot chased them off.  A bunch of hippy elves chased one off.  Aragorn with a _torch_ chased the WK and a bunch of the others off.  Gandalf shot light at them and they ran off.  Legolas downed one _with a single_ arrow.
Don't get me wrong, they chilled the hell outa me when I first read the books, but what they actually _did_ was another story; they screamed and ran away from a lot of things.


----------



## Berandor (Dec 3, 2004)

I always thought the Nazgul were more like fear personified; always lurking in the shadows, always waiting for you to drop your guard. As soon as fear got a hold of you, they could harm and kill you, but if you stood your ground, they'd be not as bad as you make them out to be.


----------



## Agback (Dec 3, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Last time I read Lord of the Rings was 7 years ago.  Refresh me, please, on what this unmasked conspiracy is.




_A Conspiracy Unmasked_ is the title of the chapter in which Merry and Pippin reveal that they know about the Ring and insist on going along with Frodo to help destroy it (or at least get it to Rivendell), while Fatty Bolger will remain in Crickhollow to keep up the pretence that Frodo is still about. It is the chapter that establishes Merry's and Pippin's gallantry and decency, and sets up the relationship between Frodo and his _naif_ younger cousins.

I think it is chapter 4 of Book I, but it has been years since I read the monster and that might not be quite right.

It seems to me that the first chapter of the Lord of the Rings is not really part of the story. There is a gap of _seventeen years_ between Bilbo going away and the story really starting. The Long-Awaited Party exists for three reasons (1) to give an intimation of the corrupting power of the Ring, (2) to provide a link with _The Hobbit_, and to allude to the Unexpected Party at the beginning of _The Hobbit_. The first is inconsistent with the moel of the Ring's corrupting power used in the film, and the other two are not germane to the film at all, there being no film version of _The Hobbit_ to link or allude to. So if I were making difficult cuts for a film adaptation I would have cut the party (along with Tom Bombadil). But I would have kept the move to Crickhollow and the secret departure from the Shire, and preserved the original character of Merry and Pippin as brave young aristocrats.


----------



## Agback (Dec 3, 2004)

Amal Shukup said:
			
		

> 'Chop'?  'CHOP?!'  Come. On!  I want menace. I want some slo mo, I want despair and defiance. I want drawn out, loving, camera angles. The Rohirrim fleeing at his dread approach - save Dernhelm/Eowyn who stands in his way against all reason. (And I mean ALL reason. Had the dawn not arrived and forced the Witch King to go rally his army, he might have slapped GANDALF all over the place). I want the fell beast's beheading in glorious technicolor. I want he Witch King's palpable moment of doubt as he realizes that there might be an unfortunate loophole in his predestined invincibility. I want the blow that shatters Eowyn's shield (and arm). I want Merry (also no 'man') wielding the enspelled sword of Westernesse (forged during the desperate war against Angmar over 1000 years earlier) and disrupting the foul magics binding the Witch King to his twisted unlife. I want the desperate thrust between 'crown and mantle' that dispatches him shown for what it was - the single biggest blow for the side of good anybody managed in the whole darn story.
> 
> And consequences: Just touching this guy with a weapon was so damaging as to be almost certainly fatal save for the intervention of the Returned King and his 'healing hands'...
> 
> But no. We got 'Chop', a weird little fizzle, and some odd visual effects. Not. Good. Enough.




Hear! Hear!

"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace."

"Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey. Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. Rather he will bear thee away to the House of Lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh will be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind left naked before the Lidless Eye."

"Do what thou wilt. But I will hinder it if I can."

"Hinder me? Thou fool! No living man can hinder me."

"But no living man am I. You look upon a woman! …"

One of the cool things about Tolkien's writing (which has its flaws, in my opinion) is that the characters are often aware of it when their are in an historical moment, and they take care to say something appropriately grand, and slip into archaism. Jackson's girlfriend's re-writes turn much of this into bland pap.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 3, 2004)

You can criticize all you like. It still doesn't change my opinion of the movies. It pretty much redefines the fantasy film genre and put it on the map, what with getting the Oscar.

As for Theatrical vs. Extended Edition, I have both and I'm not ruined by either of them. I enjoyed them.

If you think you can make a better Tolkien film, then get the funding.


----------



## mojo1701 (Dec 4, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You can criticize all you like. It still doesn't change my opinion of the movies. It pretty much redefines the fantasy film genre and put it on the map, what with getting the Oscar.
> 
> As for Theatrical vs. Extended Edition, I have both and I'm not ruined by either of them. I enjoyed them.
> 
> If you think you can make a better Tolkien film, then get the funding.




Even though you didn't ask for it:

*AMEN!*


----------



## velm (Dec 4, 2004)

All in all, I thought they were good movies.  Sure they were a little on the long side, but the time went by fast, so I knew I was enjoying myself.  
Must admit, never could get into the books, tried a few times, but it was murder.  I actually knew what the story was about from reading here and there, and of course that super awesome cartoon.  

The main part that got me to raise an eyebrow was watching Legleos slide down the tusks of the elephant thing, that was 'interesting.'

(and seeing some of the far away shots at the end of the hobbits in the end.  You could tell clearly they were not the ones seen thoughout the rest of the movie.)


----------



## nikolai (Dec 4, 2004)

Agback said:
			
		

> "Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey. Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. Rather he will bear thee away to the House of Lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh will be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind left naked before the Lidless Eye."
> 
> "Do what thou wilt. But I will hinder it if I can."
> 
> One of the cool things about Tolkien's writing ... is that the characters are often aware of it when their are in an historical moment, and they take care to say something appropriately grand, and slip into archaism.




The thing I love about this Tolkien knows archaism, and knows the difference between thee and you. So _thee_ isn't just there because it's archaic. It's used between people who are equals (which is friendly) or to inferiors (which is insulting), unlike _you_ which is formal and respectful. So in the above quote Eowyn and the Witch King are both dissing each other. There's other similar examples; like where Eowyn uses _thee_ to Aragon, but he's very keen to avoid sending out mixed messages and sticks with _you_.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 7, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> In LOTR, the greatest climax is (perhaps arguably) the destruction of the One Ring.



Well, one of us is definitely being unclear. I thought I stated earlier that I disagree with this basic premise. Hence all your argument based upon it is for naught.

My whole point is that IF you want to include the Scouring, you have to make THAT the climax of the story. HOW you go about doing that I don't exactly know, but I refuse to believe it's outright impossible.


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> The destruction of the One Ring must be one of the climaxes of the film.



Sez you. I say it ought to be a moment of high cinematic excitement, but it doesn't have to be the climax. Again, consider FotR (the movie). No question that the Balrog is bigger and badder and more exciting cinematically than the battle at the end. It's the BIG moment of the film -- that whole sequence from the tomb of Balin to the escape from Moria beggars everything that comes after it.

Which is perfectly fine. Lots of very successful films follow this pattern (just about all of Hitchcock's, for example. He always put his big moments in the middle of the film). Indeed, it works perfectly well in FotR.


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I simply don't believe the best of spin doctors could change that, and still have the characters be plausible.  I'm sorry, but it is in the nature of the beast that is film.



Do you use the term "spin doctor" to describe people who see things differently than you? Which I have to admit is a funny sort of position for someone who says in their very next post:


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> There is no one objective "this is what is important about this book".



I'm NOT talking about "spin doctoring" -- I just happen to hold a different opinion about what's important about the book than you. To suggest that your interpretation is the ONLY way in which a successful film could EVER be made is a pretty strong position to hold. I'd want to see some weighty evidence before I gave such an opinion a shred of respect. Especially one couched in such a dismissive manner. And especially one followed by the admission that there is no objective means of determining the superior interpretation.

About revealing Eowyn during RotK: it is a basic truism of cinema that suspense is always preferable to surprise. Hitchcock figured this out decades ago. So the correct play, cinematically, is for US (the audience) to know all along that Dernhelm is Eowyn. Keeping other characters in the dark is fine and dandy, but your suspense is heightened by giving the audience information the characters don't possess. Basic cinematic practice. Trying to pretend it wasn't Eowyn would have been counter-productive.

It's different for books. But in movies, always go for the suspense.

About Tolkien's comments on the books: There is no reason to consider an author a privileged commentator on their own work. The idea that what matters is the AUTHOR'S intent is hogwash. I mean, if you're curious, it's INTERESTING, fair enough. But when we decide what we love about a work, we are not obligated to follow the author's instructions in that regard. And the adapting of a novel to the screen is necessarily a process in which the adaptor takes what they love about the story and turns it into cinema. And in that process, other works written by the author are not necessarily going to provide useful input. It might be interesting to consult them, it might generate good ideas, but ultimately what makes a good film is independent of what the author of the book said was important.

Authorial intent? *SNAP* for authorial intent! 

Finally, I must say that I find it interesting how people feel the need to declare that they won't let other people's opinions sway their own, and indeed attack people for holding opinions different than theirs. I happen to enjoy a pretty high level of critical debate on cinema. I don't mean to put anyone's nose out of joint or make them feel like they need to defend their choices. I just like talking about what went wrong in a film -- it's almost always more interesting than talking about what went right.

I don't think people are stupid because they disagree with me. It's unfortunate that this notion is so strongly put forward in our society -- that somebody has to be right and somebody has to be wrong whenever two people disagree -- and even worse, that it's proof of superior worth to be right rather than wrong.

A big part of my day-to-day job is convincing people that it's okay to be wrong. It's a tough struggle, let me tell you.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 7, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> My whole point is that IF you want to include the Scouring, you have to make THAT the climax of the story. HOW you go about doing that I don't exactly know, but I refuse to believe it's outright impossible.
> 
> Sez you. I say it ought to be a moment of high cinematic excitement, but it doesn't have to be the climax. Again, consider FotR (the movie). No question that the Balrog is bigger and badder and more exciting cinematically than the battle at the end. It's the BIG moment of the film -- that whole sequence from the tomb of Balin to the escape from Moria beggars everything that comes after it.




While I completely understand what you're saying, and I even like the Scouring in the book(even if it is a bit tacked on), there's a MAJOR difference between the destruction of the ring in RotK and the Balrog fight in FotR. Its okay to have the climax of FotR set in the 'middle' with the Balrog fight, as this is not the end of the story. Instead, its still very near the beginning. There IS a major problem with the Ring's destruction not being the 'climax'.

You spend three movies talking about how evil, corrupting, and dangerous the ring is. The entire GOAL of the story is to destroy this ring. When you have to spend all this time focusing on the destruction of this ring, you just plain can't have this NOT be the climactic moment. The story ENDS with the destruction of the ring. Everything after that is an epilogue that has no bearing on the story. The ring is destroyed, evil is defeated. End of story. Yes, this is simplistic, but that's the heart of it. And while you and I may enjoy the Scouring and understand how important it is in the context of the story, you just can't destroy the point of three movies halfway into the last and then say "Oh! Still more to do!" when the audience is looking for closure.

And in a way, this is also a good reason for Faramir's change. He was always my favorite character in the books, and I think he's great in the movies despite the change. But honestly, how do you go along through all of this building up the corrupting power of the ring and then find one person who just says "Nope! I'd never take that!" right away. It destroys any credibility you've built up. And to a point, destroying the Ring in the middle of RotK and adding more to the end destroys what you've worked for. Sure, its more realisitic to have a way of saying "Evil isn't destroyed so easily", but this is fantasy, and we don't always need to hold to Tolkien's depressive ending.  ...not that the end of the movies were all that much happier, of course.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 7, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> While I completely understand what you're saying, and I even like the Scouring in the book(even if it is a bit tacked on), there's a MAJOR difference between the destruction of the ring in RotK and the Balrog fight in FotR. Its okay to have the climax of FotR set in the 'middle' with the Balrog fight, as this is not the end of the story. Instead, its still very near the beginning. There IS a major problem with the Ring's destruction not being the 'climax'.
> 
> You spend three movies talking about how evil, corrupting, and dangerous the ring is. The entire GOAL of the story is to destroy this ring. When you have to spend all this time focusing on the destruction of this ring, you just plain can't have this NOT be the climactic moment. The story ENDS with the destruction of the ring. Everything after that is an epilogue that has no bearing on the story. The ring is destroyed, evil is defeated. End of story. Yes, this is simplistic, but that's the heart of it. And while you and I may enjoy the Scouring and understand how important it is in the context of the story, you just can't destroy the point of three movies halfway into the last and then say "Oh! Still more to do!" when the audience is looking for closure.
> 
> And in a way, this is also a good reason for Faramir's change. He was always my favorite character in the books, and I think he's great in the movies despite the change. But honestly, how do you go along through all of this building up the corrupting power of the ring and then find one person who just says "Nope! I'd never take that!" right away. It destroys any credibility you've built up.





I agree that the destruction of the Ring has to be a major climax in the movie trilogy since it is the event everything is working toward. But I don't agree that that's where the story truly ends, nor do I feel as if the Scouring of the Shire is tacked on. I see it as part of the falling action as we head to the denoument in the Grey Havens. I can see how it doesn't serve the purpose of the movie-going audiences though, and that PJ's shorthand version (the farmer noticing something is _different_ about the hobbits riding into town) does a fine job of indicating that the hobbits have been transformed by their adventure, even if it doesn't really show us the full extent of the changes everyone has faced or, in the case of the Shire, had to suffer.
I still think Faramir could have been handled better. After all, both Gandalf and Galadriel resisted the Ring (with some difficulty). It could have been just as satisfying to see Faramir grapple the temptation as an internal conflict (handled by use of flashbacks and so on indicating his relationship with his old man, his general psychological affinity for elves and wizards, etc). The trip to Osgiliath still seems an unnecessary complication.


----------



## kolvar (Dec 7, 2004)

Some comments:
- Tolkien was a great fan of Beowulf (I think he did a translation or retelling of it)
- Gimli (the joke) and Eomer (becoming some byproduct) clearly got the chaft (How I miss scenes like: "And when all Armies of Mordor lie between us...", sniff, goes right to my heart)
-  I hate the elves at Helms Deep (spoils the whole movie for me (apart from Aragorn's "death"))
- As part of a movie that got a whole, gigantig mega-battle and the destruction of the arch-enemy, the scouring would not have worked, because, regardless of how dramtic it would have been done, the audience would simply have been annoyed by yet another battle on a smaler scope. There where enough people, who where ennoyed by the ending as is, because it stretched the movie beyond what they were used as the ending of normal movies. RotK is not a horror-movie that needs a last appearance of Freddy or Jason to shock the audience (sorry, if this sounds stupid - I know, that it is not the same)
- The worst part of RotK was the attack of the ghost-army, because it looked like a giagantic blob and made the sacifices of the Rohirim useless. 
"Hey, there is an army that is several times larger than our and they have Mumakil. But we charge nonetheless." "Oops, how many Rohirim have died? sorry, why did you not wait, till my army of invincible ghosts did the job."
GRRRR. The Corsair-ships filled with people, that fight and die would have been better. Than we could have had the Witch-king on horse at the gate and the descruction of the gates would have been the anti-climax of the seige (as it should have been).
- About the interpretation of Tolkiens work: it is the right of every person to interpret a book as he sees fit. That is the beauty of books. But as soon as a book is adapted to the screen, the director's/ screenwriter's vision is broadcasted and becomes one of the most imporant ones (especially if there is only one worthwhile movie at the moment (and I do think, that there will be a tv-adaptation (like dune - more or less uninspired but truer to the book) and more movies))). Therefore the director has to face the criticism as anyone who gives an interpretation of something, and even more so, because he forces us to comply to his interpretation, if we are to like his work (more or less). (and why did I write this????)


----------



## Berandor (Dec 7, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> A big part of my day-to-day job is convincing people that it's okay to be wrong. It's a tough struggle, let me tell you.



So you're counseling election analysts? 

Iactually, I agree with your comments on discussion and argumentation, even if I don't agree with your opinion about LotR's climax in the Shire. So, basically, you're wrong.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 7, 2004)

I didn't really have a problem with the Dead at the Pelennor... it was another of PJ's shortcuts to keep the film length down.  When he made the decision to not have the Dead attacking the Corsair ships in the theatrical film, having the Dead at Pelennor made sense... otherwise, there wouldn't have been any point to the whole 'going into the black mountain' scenario.  Granted, he could have put the attack on the Corsairs into the film and then have the ships at Pelennor full of people instead of the Dead, but it would have strung out the movie for another 1/2 hour or so (sure, all of us here would like to have seen that, but it would have been death at the box office for the average movie goer).
Actually, I didn't have a lot of problems with ROTK in general, other than the scenes that were left out and will be in the EE (I was really looking forward to the witch king/Gandalf clash).  My biggest beefs with the whole trilogy are all with TTT instead....


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 8, 2004)

David Howery said:
			
		

> I didn't really have a problem with the Dead at the Pelennor... it was another of PJ's shortcuts to keep the film length down.  When he made the decision to not have the Dead attacking the Corsair ships in the theatrical film, having the Dead at Pelennor made sense... otherwise, there wouldn't have been any point to the whole 'going into the black mountain' scenario.  Granted, he could have put the attack on the Corsairs into the film and then have the ships at Pelennor full of people instead of the Dead, but it would have strung out the movie for another 1/2 hour or so (sure, all of us here would like to have seen that, but it would have been death at the box office for the average movie goer).



You can't show the attack on the boats, because it ruins the suspense of who's on the boats.

But, I think the Dead should have been more skeletal or something. They should have poured out and fought, another rally and the orcs could have broke and retreated when the witchking explodes.

Pouring across the wield and into the city was just too quick and bleh for me.


----------



## KenM (Dec 8, 2004)

kolvar said:
			
		

> Some comments:  - The worst part of RotK was the attack of the ghost-army, because it looked like a giagantic blob and made the sacifices of the Rohirim useless.
> "Hey, there is an army that is several times larger than our and they have Mumakil. But we charge nonetheless." "Oops, how many Rohirim have died? sorry, why did you not wait, till my army of invincible ghosts did the job."
> GRRRR.




  The Rohirim had NO IDEA that the ghost army was coming. Last they saw of Aragorn was him going into the haunted mountin with Legolas and Gilmli.
  I thought the look that Theoden/ Bernard Hill gave when he saw the Oliphents was perfect: "we flanked the orcs and took them out, but now a real challenge" was what I thought he was thinking. 
   Also there is a scene in RotK EE that has Aragorn and the dead army taking over the black ships.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 8, 2004)

For those who want to see the Scouring of the Shire in the film:

Hobbits = Ewoks.

That's what it would have been - a huge let down. One of the reason that the Scouring means so much to us is because we've spent a huge amount of time reading about hobbits in the first chapters of the book.

Fatty Bolger, Lotho Sackville-Baggins, The Gaffer, Lobelia - they're all characters we've come to know.

You would have needed an extra two hours in FotR for a payoff in RotK - and an extra hour or two in RotK.

After the significant battles in RotK, we suddenly get to see little furry creatures take on the dregs of the Evil Empire...

Cheers!


----------



## David Howery (Dec 8, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> You can't show the attack on the boats, because it ruins the suspense of who's on the boats.
> 
> But, I think the Dead should have been more skeletal or something. They should have poured out and fought, another rally and the orcs could have broke and retreated when the witchking explodes.
> 
> Pouring across the wield and into the city was just too quick and bleh for me.




I think there will be more of this kind of stuff in the EE... I know that the battle is extended quite a bit.  As for the Dead... the book describes them as shadowy dark figures... I wish the movie had made them darker instead of that ghastly greenish white, but they looked ok other than that...


----------



## Orius (Dec 8, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I'm watching the end of Return of the King, and I'm just frustrated at the small mistakes.  The trilogy was so good, up until the last hour or so.  Then it was just pretty good, with lots of awkward moments that ruin the drama for me.  Maybe the extended edition will help, but here's my list of irks:
> 
> The Steward of Gondor sprinting a quarter mile, while on fire, just so he can plummet from the top of Gondor.  It would've been better if he'd just collapsed on the pyre.




Denethor portayed as some mad decadent Roman emperor through the whole film bugged me actually.  In the book, he didn't lose it until the end, when he though Faramir was dead.  Up to then, he resists Gandalf, not because he's mad with the lust for power, but becaus he doesn't trust Gandalf, who is after all, a free agent.  The problem there is Denethor is so focused on the defense of Minas Tirith that he doesn't really consider the rest of Middle-Earth except for Rohan.



> Sam _not_ getting to put on the ring and kick ass while invisible, just because in the first movie they decided that Sauron immediately knows just where you are when you put on the ring.  It's just not as interesting to have the Orcs and Goblins killing each other off again.




The orcs _did_ kill themselves off in the tower in the book when they fought over Frodo's posessions.  Sam simply snuck through the tower with the Ring.  Likely they didn't have him use the Ring because it would undercut the dangers of using the ring especially while in Mordor.



> One too many of Sam's "C'mon Mr. Frodo, we can make it" moments.  Toward the end, instead of us seeing Frodo's burden (as we had earlier), he just seems like a wuss.  If he were spasming, spitting up blood, and if Sam were just as injured and kinda emaciated, then yeah, I'd be cool with it.  But as is, there's too much pep talk, not enough Hobbit action.




I chalk that up to more Hollywood sensibilities rearing their ugly heads again.



> And the one that most irks me.  Inviso-Frodo, at the end.  They'd already established the _really cool_ visuals of the gray, windswept world that appears when you put on the ring.  It was cool when the Ringwraith stabbed Frodo on Weathertop, so why didn't they use it at the end of Return of the King?  Why did they have Gollum swinging around in mid-air, looking goofy, when they could've shown some actual struggle, seeming epic because we're in the invisible world again?




This scene in the book is shown from Sam's POV, not Frodo's so we're given a description of Gollum wrestling with an invisible Frodo, instead of what Frodo sees.  This scene is fairly faithful to the book.  WHAT I thought was bad was Frodo pushing Gollum in, going over with Gollum, and Sam catching him.  As bad as the stupid TTT scene with Aragorn going over the cliff.


----------



## CrusadeDave (Dec 8, 2004)

*Not to nitpick but...*

Heaven knows I was one of the people emailing and calling studios when Peter and Fran were doing their whirlwind tour of Hollywood trying to get someone to buy the rights away from Miramax, and the ill-fated 2 movie deal.

I'll always love Bob Shaye for suggesting to Peter, "Why 2 movies? Aren't there 3 books?"

Looking back, I think this was a bad idea. Where the movies tend to crumble is where Peter, Fran, and Phillipa try to cram each book into a movie with a definite ending. What they should have done, is find the "natural" cliffhangers, and endings in the Novel, and structured the films that way.

For me, there are three natural breaks in the chronological story that make sense to craft movies around.

Movie 1: Starts at the beginning and ends with Gandalf falling into the chasm with the Balrog. You could move the idea of the Warg attack from TTT to before entering the Mines to better correlate with the book.

Movie 2: Starts with Frodo's Dream of Gandalf falling, proceeds to Rivendell, the river, the breaking of the fellowship (shortened a bit), and ends just After Helm's Deep (No Elves), and Frodo turning away from the Black Gate, agreeing to trust Golumn. This would be the longest of the 4 movies, probably by far.

Movie 3: Starts with the fall of Isengard from the Ents perspective, progresses through a tightened Faramir story (No Osgiliath kidknapping), Aragorn on Paths of Dead, Gandalf and Pippen in Minas Tirith, and ending with  the worst series of clifhangers: The Gate of Minas Tirith Breaking, and Frodo kidknapped by Orcs, with Sam all alone.

Movie 4: Starts with Sam assaulting Tower and Pelennor Fields, and focuses more on the long march to death of Sam and Frodo.

Each of these four films then has it's own pace leading up to either a resolution (Rohan saved, Sam and Frodo make peace with Golumn, Aragorn King, Ring Destroyed), or a Cliffhanger (Gandalf Dead? What do they do now? Minas Tirith Falls? Frodo Captured? Wow!)

The end of Fellowship and Two Towers just don't seem to work. In fact, whenever Peter, Fran, and Phillipa invent something to add to the story in order to get the pacing and buildup right, it doesn't seem to work as well as what came before.

I'm not asking for 4 films the lengths of the EE DVD's. Instead, film necessitates telling this story as Appendix B does, chronologically. While I appreciate the creators desire to stay true to the book, by giving us three movies called Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King,  I think they would have better served the telling of the story by focusing not so much as where Professor Tolkien decided to switch perspectives, but by what natural climaxes would work best building toward in each phase of the story.

Of course, noone would have ever, EVER thought to have done this in four parts before the fact. Heck, what would you have titled the second film: The Breaking of the Fellowship? The Ring goes South? The Riders of Rohan? Maybe you title the second film, Fellowship of the Ring, and call the first movie: Hunt for the Ring?

No Idea.

I'm very very greatful for my 11+ hours of Extended Edition movies. I never thought it would have been this good when the film was finally approved by New Line. I just feel that if Peter, Fran and Phillipa would have been able to look outside the box a bit, and look for the natural breaks in the story, the film as a whole could have been structured in a stronger way.


----------



## KenM (Dec 8, 2004)

CrusadeDave said:
			
		

> For me, there are three natural breaks in the chronological story that make sense to craft movies around.
> 
> Movie 1: Starts at the beginning and ends with Gandalf falling into the chasm with the Balrog. You could move the idea of the Warg attack from TTT to before entering the Mines to better correlate with the book.
> 
> Movie 2: Starts with Frodo's Dream of Gandalf falling, proceeds to Rivendell, the river




  I Thought the river(when the water rises up and sweeps away the ringwraiths) and Rivendell is before Moria.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 8, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> I Thought the river(when the water rises up and sweeps away the ringwraiths) and Rivendell is before Moria.



 He's talking about the river Anduin, which the companions sail down from Rivendell. Where's my "roll eyes at the philistines" smiley, dammit?


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> He's talking about the river Anduin, which the companions sail down from Rivendell. Where's my "roll eyes at the philistines" smiley, dammit?




Perhaps you mean Lothlorien, which borders the Anduin, and not Rivendell, which does not.


----------



## Berandor (Dec 8, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> He's talking about the river Anduin, which the companions sail down from Rivendell. Where's my "roll eyes at the philistines" smiley, dammit?



 Aren't you talking about "Llothlorien"?

Where *is* the roll-eyes smilie?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 8, 2004)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Aren't you talking about "Llothlorien"?
> 
> Where *is* the roll-eyes smilie?



 Nope, he means Lothlorien. Llothlorien would be pronounced completely differently.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 8, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Nope, he means Lothlorien. Llothlorien would be pronounced completely differently.




Oh my, I think I have a campaign idea just from that misspelling!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 8, 2004)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Oh my, I think I have a campaign idea just from that misspelling!



 That's got my curiosity...an idea just from a misspelling?


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 8, 2004)

Ah!  My eyes, my eyes!!! Shelob Supreme in Llolthlorien!  AH!


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 8, 2004)

Oh a kind of twisted Middle Earth where Lloth-worshipping drow are the "surface elves", duergar and derro are the dwarves, etc.  Probably nothing I could follow through with.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 8, 2004)

Wouldn't THAT be Lolthlorien?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 8, 2004)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Wouldn't THAT be Lolthlorien?



 Yep!  Great, evil idea though. Talk about shattering the PCs expectations after you tell them "We'll be playing a campaign inf Midle Earth"


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 8, 2004)

I've seen old TSR products that spelled Lolth both ways (Lloth is the other way).  That's where that came from.


----------



## Spatula (Dec 8, 2004)

CrusadeDave said:
			
		

> The end of Fellowship and Two Towers just don't seem to work. In fact, whenever Peter, Fran, and Phillipa invent something to add to the story in order to get the pacing and buildup right, it doesn't seem to work as well as what came before.



I don't know, the ending of FotR works just fine for me - Boromir dead, Sam and Frodo run off with the ring, Merry and Pippin captured... The Fellowship has been broken.  What happens next?  I'm with barsoomcore in that this is the best one of the trilogy.  It doesn't hurt that it's probably the one that sticks closest to the source.

It's with Two Towers that things start to break down.  You talk about natural endings - well, the natural ending of the TT would have been Saruman's defeat.  Instead we get a mishmash of different resolutions - Sam's pep talk, Gandalf's charge, the ent tearing up Isengard.  PJ says there wasn't enough time, but there would have been if he hadn't added in so many pointless scenes.  Aragorn's disappearance.  Faramir dragging Frodo to Osiligoth.  The elves arriving at Helm's deep (on foot - how'd they know where to go? how'd they get there before everyone else? why didn't they just accompany the Fellowship when they left Lothlorien?).

You don't need four movies to tell the story, unless you're throwing in the beginning, as told by the books, the scouring of the shire, etc.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 9, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> There IS a major problem with the Ring's destruction not being the 'climax'.
> 
> You spend three movies talking about how evil, corrupting, and dangerous the ring is. The entire GOAL of the story is to destroy this ring. When you have to spend all this time focusing on the destruction of this ring, you just plain can't have this NOT be the climactic moment.



Okay.

*takes several deep breaths*

I get the impression I'm speaking too quietly, or in some language only I know how to speak. It seems I'm having a great deal of trouble communicating my basic point.

Let me try once more: I believe it is possible to make a film of these books that ends with the Scouring of the Shire. I do not believe it would have been a good idea to "tack on" such a sequence to the end of the films that Peter Jackson and his team made. You're right, the entire GOAL of the story of these films is to destroy the Ring. Adding the Scouring to THESE films won't work. I agree. I believe I have already said that I agree, but here I am, saying it again.

I agree that if you create a set of films in which the audience is told again and again that the point of this whole story is the destruction of the Ring, they will react to a lengthy set of sequences AFTER that event with frustration.

I thought it was obvious that the answer to that problem is NOT spend the movies telling the audience again and again that the whole point of this story is the destruction of the Ring. What I would suggest is that you make the whole point of the story the preservation of the Shire. I don't have a good solution off the top of my head -- we're talking about a pretty mammoth undertaking, here, so you'll have to forgive me that. But you don't "have to spend all this time focusing on the destruction of the Ring." Focus on preserving the Shire.

You will have to change many things from the book. That's inevitable when translating from page to screen.

Repeating variations on "In THESE films it won't work" does nothing to establish the notion that it's an impossible cinematic task. It's not impossible -- or at least nobody in this thread has offered any evidence to suggest it's impossible. They just keep saying over and over again that Peter Jackson didn't do it.

Which I agree with. I just wish I'd seen the Scouring, and I believe it's possible to create movies that would support such a presentation.


----------



## Berandor (Dec 9, 2004)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Oh my, I think I have a campaign idea just from that misspelling!



 That was no misspelling!

*sniff*
nobody digs my humor.


ETA: barsoomcore - look at those movies. Look at them. You couldn't have put the Scouring at the end of them - it wouldn't have worked. Seriously, you'd have to create a whole different set of films for that to work. Can't you see that?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I get the impression I'm speaking too quietly, or in some language only I know how to speak. It seems I'm having a great deal of trouble communicating my basic point.




I don't think you are having trouble communicating your point. I get your point, but I don't agree with it.  You got your basic point across to me a long time ago.  I seem to have failed to get mine across.



> Let me try once more: I believe it is possible to make a film of these books that ends with the Scouring of the Shire. I do not believe it would have been a good idea to "tack on" such a sequence to the end of the films that Peter Jackson and his team made.




I believe that the issue isn't with Peter Jackson's work.  The issue is with Tolkein's original text, which does not seem to me to have the emphasis you want to place in your movie.  The climaxes we mention are points Jackson took from Tolkein.  It's part of the base story, not just Jackson's movie.



> What I would suggest is that you make the whole point of the story the preservation of the Shire.
> [...snip...]
> You will have to change many things from the book. That's inevitable when translating from page to screen.




I think if you are going to muck with the original text that badly, you really aren't making a movie of LotR.  You are making a movie "inspired by" LotR, and it really isn't the same story anymore, either in theme or in content.  At that point, you ought to just write a new story that is similar to the Scouring without all the baggage you don't want in your movie.


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 9, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> and I believe it's possible to create movies that would support such a presentation.



Sure, I guess.


> I just wish I'd seen the Scouring,



Hell, no.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 9, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Which I agree with. I just wish I'd seen the Scouring, and I believe it's possible to create movies that would support such a presentation.



It's possible, but who have the gusto to do it after Peter Jackson's adaptation?

I'm sure PJ's will not be the only _LOTR_ live-action film, but I doubt another remake will be made before I'm 55 (20 years from now).


----------



## David Howery (Dec 10, 2004)

maybe in 20 years, the Sci Fi channel will do it as a weeklong special and throw in every single scene from the books.. would that make you all happy?


----------



## Pants (Dec 10, 2004)

David Howery said:
			
		

> maybe in 20 years, the Sci Fi channel will do it as a weeklong special and throw in every single scene from the books.. would that make you all happy?



No, because it would be very boring.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 10, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> It's possible, but who have the gusto to do it after Peter Jackson's adaptation?



If somebody's willing to pony up the cash, I sure am. But that seems pretty unlikely to me.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Dec 10, 2004)

I'm just now getting around to this thread, and haven't even gotten past page 1, so I know I'm late to some of these posts, but I wanted to comment on this:


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> That last struggle is epic, but not Big Magic, greywindyshadow world epic.  It's the epic struggle of two very small, very worn people over a tiny little thing, seen by one other very small person.  And the fate of the world hinges on it.  I like it that way.




Umbran, I've been reading those books for more than 20 years, and I've thought about so many aspects of the stories over the years, but that's one of the most beautifully elegant distillations of the struggle at the Sammath Naur I've ever heard!

Excellent words!

Thanks,

Warrior Poet


----------



## Warrior Poet (Dec 10, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Don't even get me started on what they did to Eowyn's moment of glory. GRRRRRR....




I know, I know.  The single most heroic moment in the story, and, as far as I'm concerned, in all of fantasy literature, and it got watered down.

I console myself with the thought that, as movies, I think they did a very good job overall of telling a story that doesn't exactly lend itself well to theatrical presentation, and that I love the movies as a whole, in some ways for different reasons than I do the books.

All of this has probably already been addressed in pages 3 through 8 of this thread, hasn't it? 

Thanks,

Warrior Poet


----------



## Berandor (Dec 10, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> If somebody's willing to pony up the cash, I sure am. But that seems pretty unlikely to me.



 I can paypal you a dollar to begin with. Then, you should surf all tolkien sites and fantasy sites and start fund raising. Who knows? Maybe in thirty years, you've got the money together.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 10, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> If somebody's willing to pony up the cash, I sure am. But that seems pretty unlikely to me.



Well, it's not like they're gonna come knocking at your front door, unless your last name is Spielberg. You have to go out there and pitch just like Peter Jackson. After all, he thought someone else was going to make a live-action _LOTR_ until he decided he should be the one to do it.


----------



## Orius (Dec 12, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> It's with Two Towers that things start to break down.  You talk about natural endings - well, the natural ending of the TT would have been Saruman's defeat.  Instead we get a mishmash of different resolutions - Sam's pep talk, Gandalf's charge, the ent tearing up Isengard.  PJ says there wasn't enough time, but there would have been if he hadn't added in so many pointless scenes.  Aragorn's disappearance.  Faramir dragging Frodo to Osiligoth.  The elves arriving at Helm's deep (on foot - how'd they know where to go? how'd they get there before everyone else? why didn't they just accompany the Fellowship when they left Lothlorien?).




Oh, I agree.  Tolkien ended Books III and IV fairly well.  At the end of Book III, Pippin has foolishly looked into the palantir and drawn the attention of Sauron.  At the end of Book IV, Frodo has been poisoned by Shelob, Sam leaves him for dead but then hears the orcs say he's still alive.  Ending the second movie there would have still given the audience plenty to look forward too.   The problem is the way PJ and the team built up the battle of Helm's Deep, making it far more grim and dire than it was in the book.  They also seem to have been influenced by Bakshi's miserable failure and ended it there because the horrid cartoon ended there.

The elves at Helm's Deep doesn't bother me too much because it reflects one of the themes Tolkien states not only in the story, but in much of the background.  That theme is the importance of the different peoples of Middle-Earth working together.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Dec 12, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> They also seem to have been influenced by Bakshi's miserable failure and ended it there because the horrid cartoon ended there.




To be fair to Bakshi, I believe he intended his cartoon to go on through the end of the story, but there was a lack of funding (which, if I'm not mistaken, is also part of why he relied on rotoscoping for some of the animation, although some of that may have been a style choice).  Ralph seems to have gotten a raw deal on alot of his work, and he seems to struggle to get the cash for his projects.  I always end up feeling like Bakshi could make one helluva an interesting animated picture (o.k., confession time, I really like _Fire and Ice_, and yes, I know the acting is bad) given a Pixar/Disney/Dreamworks budget.  How much Jackson was influenced by that work, I don't know.

Warrior Poet


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 12, 2004)

As I understand it, Bakshi has always had a long standing reputation of underpricing his projects and promising to deliver them on a budget he can't actually make, and then ends up running out of funding and cutting corners. Rotoscoping is (or was) actually fairly expensive process, and has always been a Bakshi stylistic choice, afaik.

 Jackson clearly cribbed a few visuals from the Bakshi version (or they drew from a common source).  And to be fair to Bakshi, some sequences from his version are pretty good (and some are obviously more strictly faithful to the book).


----------



## mojo1701 (Dec 12, 2004)

I remember watching an interview with Peter Jackson, and he said that his reason for not including Shelob at the end of TTT was:

1. He didn't want the non-Tolkien-acquainted audience to think "OH, GOD! Another cliffhanger" or something like that. I remember he didn't want to end it on a cliffhanger because of the audience.

2. There wasn't much after Shelob left to Sam and Frodo besides the destruction of the Ring.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 13, 2004)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> There wasn't much after Shelob left to Sam and Frodo besides the destruction of the Ring.



Especially if you're leaving out the Scouring...

Oh wait, this is where I came in...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 13, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Especially if you're leaving out the Scouring...
> 
> Oh wait, this is where I came in...



 Hehehe. Should just put the boards on rewind instead of typing everything again.


----------

