# [SPOILERS] THE Return of the King Thread



## John Crichton (Dec 17, 2003)

Just to get the ball rolling...

Got back from Trilogy Tuesday just a little while ago. After seeing all 3 films like that in a row it is hard to think of them as individual films. What a fantastic ride!!

*Return of the King* was everything I hoped it would be. Took the best parts of the first two films, added to them and tied things up in the end with a punch that is lacking in many movies of this type. Over the course of the evening, as I discovered new bits of the films I had already seen and experienced the last part for the first time I can't even count the many times were I teared up. Living along with those characters was really something and as true a journey one can take without experiencing it myself.

Excellent. Simply excellent. It will be hard for anyone to top this...


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 17, 2003)

IMHO, I think RotK was one that was full of highs and lows. There were parts I absolutely loved. 



Spoiler



Smeagol and Deagol. The Siege of Gondor. (Go Evil Battering Ram of Doom!) Shelob. Nazgul goodness.



On the other hand, there were things I didn't like so well.... Nothing major though, really, just little nitpicks.



Spoiler



And while it was corney as hell, and I was groaning as much as anyone, seeing Legolas take out the Oliphant was cool. Cheesey, but cool.


----------



## Goodsport (Dec 17, 2003)

But isn't this only the Theatrical Version of the film, and not the Extended Version?   


-G


----------



## KenM (Dec 17, 2003)

I really liked it, even though I know some of my friends will be upset there are some major parts from the book left out.  I really liked 



Spoiler



The eagles coming in and fighting the nazgul on the fell beasts, the book makes it sound like they come in and just pick up Frodo and Sam at the end. They took a more active role.


  There is one thing that will top it, Return of the King EE DVD.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 17, 2003)

Goodsport said:
			
		

> But isn't this only the Theatrical Version of the film, and not the Extended Version?
> 
> 
> -G




Of course. So? Doesn't mean it's not worth seeing.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 17, 2003)

One comment, and I'm not going to spoil anything really, but for those of you with the EE version of TTT, there is one scene that is repeated, more or less word for word, but in a different location, in RotK. Which is kinda annoying. I wonder if the EE version of RotK will cut that bit.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Dec 17, 2003)

I just got back from Trilogy Tuesday myself.

Things I really dug:

* Everybody gets a chance to be in the spotlight in this one.  The last movie seemed to be very Aragorn & friends-heavy, and this one seems more 'even' in respect to screen time for the characters.  It was nice to see more of Merry & Pippin, and especially more of Gandalf.

* The bad guys.  Saruman doesn't appear, which is a bummer, but all of the other bad guys make up for it.  Shelob, the Witch King, that extra-deformed orc general, the armored troll warriors, and all the rest were just so freaking cool.

* Samwise the Hero.  Sam is awesome in this movie.  He is the heart of the film.  He really makes the movie for me.

* Free Stuff!  They gave us t-shirts, a free lunch, and three film cels, one from each movie!  Awesome!


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 17, 2003)

i just got back from seeing RotK, a movie i've been waiting to see for almost 6 years (since i first heard about the trilogy being made). i'm sure most of you can imagine the sort of expectation that this builds up (if you haven't experienced it yourself). the best thing i can say about this movie is, it lived up to all of my expectations. i loved this movie from beginning to end. although my one complaint is that the long end cheats the climax of the story. however, that's a fault of the book's story line and not the moivie's.

i thought the acting was superb all around; the direction, poignant; and the execution beautiful. the build up was very well done and the resolutions extremely satisfying. there was laughing, crying, exultation and relief. an excellent piece of filmaking, not just a piece of fantasy, film making. 

then again, i could just be riding the wave of satifaction right now. i can't wait to see it again this sunday! gotta go buy those tickets now, if you'll excuse me ... 

~NegZ

BTW *Tsyr*,
there were a LOT of scenes and dialogue repeated throughout the 3 films. which bit were you talking about?


----------



## stevelabny (Dec 17, 2003)

this thread is gonna suck.
we're all gonna sit here heaping praise on the movie.
its getting old already
someone go find a troll.

This ones a classic.

The only bad thing is that  I got ripped out of a Spidey 2 trailer. :-(


----------



## FireLance (Dec 17, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> someone go find a troll.




I think there were three in Fellowship.  Turned to stone, though.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Dec 17, 2003)

I am still speechless.  This is literally the best movie I have ever seen and I have seen A LOT of movies.

Yeah, it was off in some parts, but it was the feeling the movie gave me that made it good.  The fear, the emotion, the ending happiness.  I could not have asked for a better experience.

A definate 5 out of 5 for me and I worry now that I will never see a movie as good as RoTK for the rest of my life.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 17, 2003)

The spoiler blackouts are annoying in this thread.  We should just rename the thread as being spolier laden, and be done with it.  I really don't want to read 15 pages of half-blacked out stuff, which is what will happen.

I loved seeing the trilogy in the theatre.  Really amazing.  I had waited to see the extended version of TT until tonight, and I thought it was fantastic.

ROTK was, as everyone else said, really stunning.  

The free gift of the film cells is pretty nifty as well.  An actor from the movie was there...though I thought he said he played Sauron, which makes no sense.  The kid from The Man Show (well, actually, the show one of the hosts got for himself after leaving the man show) was broadcasting the whole time during the breaks, which was interesting a bit.  Lots of people dressed up in some really great costumes, and lots of statues and other pieces from the movie where at the theatre too.  

All in all, a great day.

It's 2:30 AM...time for sleep.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 17, 2003)

What I liked about it is that Jackson had the balls to put a proper denouement on the story to tie up some of the important loose ends. There was a point at which most directors would have ended the movie, and at the midnight showing I went to, about 10 people got up and left the theater, thinking they would beat the crowd out.

But the movie didn't end. They missed almost an additional half an hour. I was chuckling about that going out; reminds me of people who leave sporting events early because their team is losing, only to find out the team came back and won.

So King of Chaos, did you see the movie in Temple? If so, which screen at Premiere did you see it on? I saw it on screen 2.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Dec 17, 2003)

Bah, we had to see in it screen 1.  By the time we got to the theater, the second screen was already full so they made us go to the first theater.  Would have been cool to have seen you, though 

You may have seen us on the way out, though.  A large man with a black jacket and glasses?  I was with my sister.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Dec 17, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> An actor from the movie was there...though I thought he said he played Sauron, which makes no sense.  The kid from The Man Show (well, actually, the show one of the hosts got for himself after leaving the man show) was broadcasting the whole time during the breaks, which was interesting a bit.  Lots of people dressed up in some really great costumes, and lots of statues and other pieces from the movie where at the theatre too.




Probably the same fellow who played Lurtz from the first movie, then.  He was actually a camera man for the movie, but he was so friggin' large that he fit both the role of Sauron the the Uruk-kai general in FoTR, so they used him.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 17, 2003)

KingOfChaos said:
			
		

> Bah, we had to see in it screen 1. By the time we got to the theater, the second screen was already full so they made us go to the first theater. Would have been cool to have seen you, though
> 
> You may have seen us on the way out, though. A large man with a black jacket and glasses? I was with my sister.



Yeah, I hate screen 1 with that side entrance.

A large man with a black jacket and glasses? Well, I was the large man with the brown jacket and glasses.


----------



## TiQuinn (Dec 17, 2003)

I have a Spoiler Request!

Did they bring back Glenn Yarborough to sing "Frodo of the Nine Fingers"?


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 17, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> I have a Spoiler Request!
> 
> Did they bring back Glenn Yarborough to sing "Frodo of the Nine Fingers"?



No.  Nor did they have "Where there's a whip, there's a way".


----------



## Chain Lightning (Dec 17, 2003)

Just got back from a midnight screening here in California. 

I loved it. It was just awesome to watch. I dreaded many things going wrong with wrapping up the LotR trilogy. One of which is the ending. In my mind, I had a version that I wished to see personally. And I thought that there was no way Jackson or anyone was going to do it that way. But I was surprised. Jackson did it! What a happy coincidence. I was very happy.

I could go on and on about all the awesome stuff. But man, my post would be huge. So how about I'll just list some stuff I thought were the weak spots and you guys can assume that everything else I thought was awesome. Heh heh.



Spoiler



1.) The finding of the Palantir (spelling?): I thought this was kind of weak. In the book, it states that the Ents couldn't gain entrance into Orthanc. Thus, no battle took place inside that tower. In the movie, the inside of the tower is never seen sacked either.....and yet....how does the Palantir end up outside? Yes, in the book, Wormtongue throws it out the window....but that's not shown either. In the movie, it is presented as if it was part of the detritus of battle. But a thing from inside the tower winding up outside? Weird. I thought that could've been done better. I suspect the extended DVD edition will clear it up.





Spoiler



2.) Eowyn and Faramir: I love the scene they have together in the book that takes place after the big battle. I really wanted to see something similar to that done in the RotK movie. Maybe there will be in the extended DVD...but in the theatrical release, there isn't. Faramir is just suddenly up and healthy and standing next to Eowyn. Both actors trying their best to convey to the audience that they're going to 'hook up' with just a single look. Because that's obviously all they're aloud to have time for . Tough call....so much to tell with the more central characters....how do you squeeze in the time?





Spoiler



3.) Too many close ups: It seems to me that they used WAY more close ups in RotK to save money. Less compositing you have to do when all there is in the background is some ambiguous 'stuff'. You don't have to film on location or have the FX team digitally put in a BG that matches when you're so close. Makes it easier to shoot those lines out of sequence or for 'pick ups' and last minute tweaks. Cutting close to someone delivering a dramatic line is a staple of movies. But in RotK , there was so much scenes where the head of the actor dominated the whole screen. Most films vary it up a bit. Head & Shoulder shots, Chest and Up shots, etc. Anyways, I'm just nit picking this. Didn't hurt the film really.





Spoiler



4.) Shakey Cam still blows: I still hate the shakey cam. Yah yah yah, it puts you in the action blah blah. I still hate it. Thankfully Jackson doesn't make it too bad. Action is clear in most of RotK. But the shakey cam was at its worst when Osgiliath was being over-run in the first quarter of the movie. Where Faramir had to retreat.





Spoiler



5.) No Easterlings?: Uh....where are the Easterlings? Why weren't they shown in the battle of Pelenor Fields? This upset me. Not seeing them make a showing. I really loved how they looked and all.





Spoiler



6.) Arwen's Gay Parents: Y'know....sometimes just the smallest of things will ruin a dramatic moment. A foam prop flopping in the background.....an extra that didn't take off his Nike shoes in a period piece....etc, etc. Well, there's this nice moment in the end of RotK when Aragorn walks by a line of people. Each bowing to him. After he's been crowned by Gandalf. Then, Legolas stands to the side to reveal that Elrond and Arwen are there. Elrond mouths some words in his daughter's ears that the audience can't hear. But you can tell he says, "go to him". Its a nice moment.  He is finally letting his daughter be with the man she loves and with his approval too. Aragorn and Arwen kiss. Crowd cheers! Then camera cuts to Elrond standing proud and happy for his daughter.





Spoiler



Or.......at least that's what the shot should've been. Elrond should be standing prominently in front and in focus while everyone else should be off to the side or far enough behind him to leave him a single focus on screen. So the audience can look upon him and his acting. See how his character finally has come to terms with his daughter's decision and how he's happy for her, how he's approved. But instead, camera cuts to Elrond....and standing way too close to him right next to his shoulder is this really odd looking Elf man with long golden hair. The moment looks like an alternative lifestyle couple watching their adoptive daughter recieve her diploma at a high school graduation. Only thing left is for them to look at each other knowingly, or for the strange elf man to have one hand around Elrond's shoulder. It doesn't help that the previous scenes showed couplings. Faramir and Eowyn, Aragorn and Arwen...then Elrond and strange Elf man life partner. And please, don't take this as some negative comment toward homosexual couples on my part. That's not what I'm saying. I'm perfectly fine with those who choose such a lifestyle....its just that I don't think that's what Elrond is doing in Middle-Earth. I could be wrong though.






Well, that's about it. I loved the rest. Can't wait to hop back in line sometime and see it yet again!


----------



## Maraxle (Dec 17, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> someone go find a troll.



I dunno.  I just wasn't feeling it.  My suspension of disbelief was ruined when I saw the car driving through the background, not to mention Sam's Reeboks.  Overall I give it 6.5/10.


----------



## TiQuinn (Dec 17, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> No.  Nor did they have "Where there's a whip, there's a way".





Sacrilege!  

I still say they needed to have Casey Kasem back as Merry!  Or was he Pip?


----------



## Krug (Dec 17, 2003)

Ebert's review



> That it falls a little shy of greatness is perhaps inevitable. The story is just a little too silly to carry the emotional weight of a masterpiece. It is a melancholy fact that while the visionaries of a generation ago, like Coppola with "Apocalypse Now," tried frankly to make films of great consequence, an equally ambitious director like Peter Jackson is aiming more for popular success. The epic fantasy has displaced real contemporary concerns, and audiences are much more interested in Middle Earth than in the world they inhabit.




The story is a little too silly????


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 17, 2003)

Back from Trilogy Tuesday myself and at work with 3 hours of sleep. But I have no regrets. I was happy all around. I loved FotR and was even more pleased with the Extended Edition. The original Two Towers left me cold, but again the Extended edition made up for it mostly. Now comes RotK. I put the theatrical version om par with FotR EE. I can't wait for the EE.

FotR 8/10
FotR EE 9/10
TT 6/10
TT EE 8/10
RotK 9/10
RotK EE 10/10?

I will join in the spoilers later, right now just trying to stay awake at work. The film cells were a cool gift.


----------



## DonAdam (Dec 17, 2003)

The film cells are quite cool.

Fellowship I think is my favorite movie because it centers the viewer in the world so much. I thought there was too much fighting proportionally in TT theatrical, but the extended was perfect with all the world-building and character development back in. Some scenes didn't even make sense without the extended cut (Brego picking up Aragorn).

I'm hoping that's what happens with RotK. I'm hoping the extended version doesn't add a single frame of fighting and adds more talking. I'm spoiled after Fellowship's almost documentary approach to Tolkein's world that the battles can drag a little. I'm glad I saw the whole trilogy consecutively, because otherwise I might have gotten a little tired of the fighting in RotK.

However, that's the way the books are. My only complaint is the Sam rescues Frodo from the orc tower scene. It bothered me when I watched it that they took out Sam wearing the ring; I think that makes the scene what it is, that once he's tasted the power of the ring same can still give it up. However, upon reflection I realized that they could not have had Sam put on the ring based on how quickly Sauron has seen the ring every other time its been worn in the films.

So then my only question became... why leave Frodo's capture in at all? The scene did not serve any real purpose except for the brief scare with Sam holding the ring, which could have been done any number of other ways. Also, the whole tower of orcs wiping itself out was rather trite. This didn't hurt my enjoyment of the movie for more than a few brief seconds, but I hope the extended does something to give more of a purpose to this scene.

Also, because I like the near-documentary approach, RotK was harder to swallow because it was more ambitious. It was more high-fantasy than the low-fantasy of most of Fellowship (excepting the Sauron and Balrog scenes). That meant that what was on screen wasn't going to look real no matter what; however, they did an amazing job of making it look authentic. As a result of the weirdness of it, though, there were times when I didn't feel as fully immersed in the world as I was in the previous two films.

Overall, though, here's how I would rate them:
Fellowhip: 10/10
Two Towers: 9/10, 10/10 extended
RoTK: 9/10 in context, but had I seen just it it would have been more 7 or 8/10. Jackson tends to cut what I consider good stuff, so the extended will undoubtedly increase that number.

The reason the scores are so high is because of near-flawless writing and acting (I can only think of one line I don't like in any film- Theoden's "so it begins"), the realness of the world (no plastic looking sets or crappy CGI and the distinctiveness of the cultures), and the fun, cinematic (if ocassionally a bit long) action scenes (you couldn't have done Tolkein with realistic battles, especially not with Gimli and Legolas's contest).

Furthermore, excepting the Sam rescuing Frodo quibble, I universally loved the changes from the book. Tom Bombadil had no place in a movie; his character is simply too ethereal to have fit with the straight-forward approach of Jackson. The change to Faramir and the elves showing up at Helm's Deep showed on screen what the reader had always had to imagine symbolically or psychologically; we got to see, physically, the temptation of Faramir and the passing of the world to Men from the elves (think the scene when Haldir died). The army of the dead attacking at Minas Tirith rather than capturing the mercenaries avoided complicating the battle or having to do a flashback to another battle right after the big one.

All in all, I think they'll go down in many people's hearts, if not the critic's lists, as the best movies ever made (including in mine). It's going to be difficult for the film to receive spots in any "best of" lists because there are 3 of them that are so seamlessly woven together, because of the "movie" fight scenes, because of their popularity (alot of critics only like things that are "elite"), because of their straightforwardness, and because their fantasy. Well, those people suck.

Can't wait for Jackson's Hobbit...


----------



## Quickbeam (Dec 17, 2003)

Amazing.  Simply amazing.
'Nuff said.


----------



## Numion (Dec 17, 2003)

Excellent. Worthy end for the trilogy. 

Favorite part was anything with the Witch-King of Angmar. 

I cannot be killed by any living man!

Well scary character and well executed (pun intended)! 

TTT (theatrical version) was a disappointment, but this was just great. Found myself holding back tears at many points during the films. Samwise rules!


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 17, 2003)

If only I could have afforded to get three hours of sleep last night...

Oh, well.  I'm only 5 hours or so away from seeing it myself.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Dec 17, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> Ebert's review
> 
> 
> 
> The story is a little too silly????





You should listen to him complain on the Ebert & Roeper show about Gandalf being so spry and vital considering the fact that he's an 'old man.'  

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click...tic=columns&sortby=default&page=1&rid=1229652

You know, after Gandalf's fight with the Balrog I should think that it's more than clear that Gandalf is much more than human and is not just an 'old man.'  Ah, well.


----------



## TiQuinn (Dec 17, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> Ebert's review
> 
> The story is a little too silly????




This is the guy who gave "The Cell" four stars.

The thing that annoys me about Ebert is his terrible inconsistency.  He will laud movies like "The Cell" and "Star Wars - Ep. 1" for their vision, imagery, and popcorn fun, as well as championing movies like Daredevil, 2 Fast 2 Furious, Blue Crush, and Die Another Day, but is dismissive when it comes to the Lord of the Rings.  But then, I remember his original review of FotR, and in it he basically says that it doesn't fit with how HE pictured Middle Earth when reading the books.  His reviews have been condescending ever since.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 17, 2003)

Ebert's review:

I don't get you guys.  Ebert loved the movie.  He has a few quibbles with it.  But he starts out very clearly saying "This is the best of the three, redeems the earlier meandering, and certifies the "Ring" trilogy as a work of bold ambition at a time of cinematic timidity." ..."Still, Jackson's achievement cannot be denied. "Return of the King" is such a crowning achievement, such a visionary use of all the tools of special effects, such a pure spectacle, that it can be enjoyed even by those who have not seen the first two films"

Give the guy a break.  He doesn't have to think it is the best movie ever seen by man to be able to say he liked the film...


----------



## TiQuinn (Dec 17, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Ebert's review:
> 
> Give the guy a break.  He doesn't have to think it is the best movie ever seen by man to be able to say he liked the film...




Nah.

He spends most of the review damning it with faint praise.  He sounds like the editor or Peter Jackson has got him in a hammerlock while he's writing it.


----------



## KenM (Dec 17, 2003)

I really wanted to see the Ebert and Roeper show last weekend, as they were reviewing RotK, but it was not on due to all the Saddam being caught coverage.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Dec 17, 2003)

Numion said:
			
		

> Excellent. Worthy end for the trilogy.
> 
> Favorite part was anything with the Witch-King of Angmar.
> 
> ...




Yes, his method of execution smacked of Black Mage   The implosion effect was quite nice as well.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 17, 2003)

I'm waiting to hear what the two friends I have say about it after seeing it last night.  I know the one will gush non stop, he thinks these movies are the greatest thing ever.  But then he's never read the books.   The two reviews in the paper today were mixed.  The main review said it's a great movie, but it needed a few coats of post-modern paint to get a larger role for women and bullcrap like that.   Yeah, PJ should have re-written the story even more than he already did...   The reviewer had never read the book either.

Now the reivew by the guy who has read the book sounded like me discussing the Two Towers, he has trouble with the butchered characterizations.   He points out problems with Arwyn, Elrond, Sam & Frodo, Theoden, & others.  He claims it's a good movie but diverts from the book too much and leaves too much out of the story.  

Well I don't pay much attention to reviews but I get the feeling I'll be like the second guy after seeing the movie.  The Two Towers damaged my lust for the next movie as it is.  I'll probaly wait a while before seeing it, but I may hold out for the EE, if that's possible for me.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 17, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The spoiler blackouts are annoying in this thread. We should just rename the thread as being spolier laden, and be done with it. I really don't want to read 15 pages of half-blacked out stuff, which is what will happen.



Done, which I should have done in the first place...


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 17, 2003)

Ya know, I have one quirky gripe.

Gollum bit off the last joint of the index finger on Frodo's left hand. And I admit, Frodo put the ring, strangely, on his index finger. 

But the last joint? Who wears a ring on the LAST JOINT of a finger, much less the index finger?


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Dec 17, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Ebert's review:
> 
> I don't get you guys.  Ebert loved the movie.  He has a few quibbles with it.  But he starts out very clearly saying "This is the best of the three, redeems the earlier meandering, and certifies the "Ring" trilogy as a work of bold ambition at a time of cinematic timidity." ..."Still, Jackson's achievement cannot be denied. "Return of the King" is such a crowning achievement, such a visionary use of all the tools of special effects, such a pure spectacle, that it can be enjoyed even by those who have not seen the first two films"
> 
> Give the guy a break.  He doesn't have to think it is the best movie ever seen by man to be able to say he liked the film...




Hey, don't get me wrong--it IS a good review.  I just think that it's funny that Ebert would gripe about Gandalf being a powerful warrior, 'cuz, you know, even though he defeated a demon of the Old World single-handedly and is a Wizard and all, he LOOKS like an old man.  Plus, his overall praise for the three films is pretty condescending.  Basically, he says that because it's fantasy it isn't as 'good' as other films that take place in the 'real' world.  You can't find it surprising that folks on a D&D message board would find that attitude irksome.


----------



## Krug (Dec 17, 2003)

I watched the marathon and though the extended versions added a lot to the psychological depth of the characters. While I enjoyed RotK, I feel Jackson omitted some parts for the sake of brevity, and the extended RotK will round up everything nicely.


----------



## Black Omega (Dec 17, 2003)

I didn't think biting the finger off at the second joint is that big of a deal.  At least from watching it today it certainly looks like more of the finger is bitten off than the tip.  Gollum gets the finger in his mouth, tries to pull the ring off with his teeth.  It doesn't work since past the second joint a frantic Frodo can simply  bend his finger and keep it from going further, so plan two.  We bites it off!


----------



## nikolai (Dec 17, 2003)

The film is brilliant, and the effects really give us something we haven't seen before. I thought it was great. That said, I want to spend the rest of my post bitching about things I didn't like...


In terms of plot, it diverged way to much from the books. I'm not going to list all the ways, but I think some of the Tolkien has been jiggled around with for no good reason, to the detriment of the story. I realise the demands of adaptation, but they then spend way to much time having to solve problems that never existed in the books.
There's loads of faux Shakespearian expository dialogue for the first three-quarters of an hour or so, and tonnes of voice overs. I really think most of this is redundant, some of it was pretty badly written too. 
The film has a sense of real evil at some moments (I loved the gargoyles). The nazgul are at times gothic and creepy in a way they weren't in the Two Towers. That said, I think the red lighthouse eye is daft, and there isn't the sense of forboding there should have been at times. I really liked the Eye of Sauron in the first film, and the wearing the ring effect; it's a shame they've both been abandoned. And Pippin gazing into the Palantir could have and should have been really trippy - instead we get a strange glued to their hands effect. The book is really, really bleak, I don't think the film even comes close.
What's with the green fetish? I couldn't see what the big green energy spike from Minas Morgul was all about and Dead looked weird.
The Siege of Minas Tirith was a let down. The book lays the events out very dramatically. I think some of this is lost, particularly with the Orc's eye view of the other side. I'd always imagined it more like Hoth.
Oh and the sappy, sentimental, soft focus women and children shots. It's even worse than it was in the Two Towers. Surely there's a less blatent way of tugging at the heartstrings of the viewers than this. 

Anyway, cinematically it's a triumph. There really is nothing else out there like it. Some of the special effects were so good I'm wondering whether any improvement in that area is possible. Is there any way some of the creatures could be made to look better? As far as CGI goes this may be as good as you can get it. Absolutely Stunning. I came out feeling someone had Format C:\ed my brain.


----------



## Mark (Dec 17, 2003)

_*THAT*_ was the goods...


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 17, 2003)

The think that really upset me about the Roger Ebert review was this:



> . . . although the half-elf Arwen (Liv Tyler) here makes a crucial decision -- to renounce her elfin immortality in order to marry Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) -- there is none of the weight or significance in her decision that we feel, for example, when an angel decides to become human in "Wings of Desire."



The reason her decision doesn't carry the same weight or significance is that, in "Wings of Desire," the angel's decision was THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FREAKIN' MOVIE! Arwen's decision is just a subplot of a much, much larger story. It's not fair to compare the two.

And I wasn't aware that Arwen was a half-elf.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 17, 2003)

*Needed to be four movies...*

The _Return of the King_ was the greatest visual spectacle in the history of cinema and I will be surprised if it will be surpassed anytime soon. It blows away the _Matrix_ and _Star Wars_ for special effects and eye candy.

That being said, I must confess that _Return of the King_ was choppy in terms of plot and character development. Certain parts weren't edited particularly well such as Eowyn killing the Witchking and then speaking with Theoden, way too short to capture the emotional impact I was hoping to feel when seeing it. Not to mention the horrendous changes to Theoden's character that made him seem less noble and loveable than the Theoden I know from the books. Luckily, PJ gave him back quite a bit of his nobility in the _Return of the King_, but still not quite enough to make him the character Tolkien made him.

Some parts were corny and contrived, like when Aragorn waited for the orc army to surround him before charging and when Frodo fell for Gollum's simple tricks. Sam's and Frodo's friendship would never be so easily sundered and Aragorn definitely wouldn't have been that poor a battle commander.

I really feel the majority of the blame isn't so much on PJ for certain poorly done parts. I think it is because he needed one more film to do the series proper. Hindsight is 20/20 and there is no changing things now. 

Overall, the film is very good. Much too light on emotional weight for my tastes, but the battle scenes are absolutely awe-inspiring. I wanted to run an epic D&D war when I watched the charge of the Rohirrim. Just unbelievable.

It was a good end to the trilogy, though I know it will still leave me disatisfied when compared to the books. Far too many changes to parts of the story that I hold dear.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 17, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> The think that really upset me about the Roger Ebert review was this:
> 
> 
> The reason her decision doesn't carry the same weight or significance is that, in "Wings of Desire," the angel's decision was THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FREAKIN' MOVIE! Arwen's decision is just a subplot of a much, much larger story. It's not fair to compare the two.
> ...




Both of her parents are Half-Elves, Elron and....  I can't remember the name.  So she's the half-elven child of two half elves.


----------



## The Sigil (Dec 17, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Both of her parents are Half-Elves, Elron and....  I can't remember the name.  So she's the half-elven child of two half elves.



Not quite... here's the full nasty family tree...

Elrond married Celebrian, who was the daughter of Galadriel and Celeborn (and thus is a full-blooded elf).  Thus, Arwen's mother's heritage is easy... 100% Elven.

Elrond is trickier... Elros and Elrond were brothers.  They were called "half-elven" and were the sons of Earendil and Elwing, both of whom are also called half-elves.

Earendil was the son of Tuor, one of the great men in the first age, and Idril, an elf.  Thus, Earendil is fully half-elven.

Elwing was the daughter of Dior and Nimloth.  Dior, whom you may or may not recognize as the son of Beren and Luthien, was clearly half-elven, as Beren and Luthien were human and elf, respectively.  Nimloth was (as far as we can tell) a full-blooded Elf.

That makes Dior half-elven and Nimloth full-elven... so Elwing would be 3/4 elven.

If Elwing is 3/4 elven, and Earendil is 1/2 elven, that makes Elros and Elrond 5/8 elven and 3/8 human.

Elros chose to become human and was the progenitor of the kings of Numenor (if memory serves).  This is why the Numenoreans are so long-lived.  Elrond, of course, chose to become elvenkind, and was granted immortality.

This makes Arwen 13/16 elf, for those keeping score at home. 

This also makes Galadriel Arwen's grandmother.  Celebrian was wounded by poison, and had to leave Middle Earth by way of the Gray Havens or die from the poison, which is why she's not around.  This also explains Galadriel's keen interest in the Arwen/Aragorn storyline (in FotR:EE and TTT).

Also, if memory serves, there were 37 generations from Elros to Aragorn, making Aragorn and Arwen first cousins 37 times removed.

No, I don't have a life.  And I admit, I had to look up Elwing's heritage... http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm

Also, look up the Elessar (the gem Arwen gives to Aragorn in the movies) in Lost Tales some time.  Neat stuff for PJ to include in the movie... a "throwaway" for those not familiar with ITS story, but a touch that shows how much of Tolkien he kept track of. 

--The Sigil


----------



## stevelabny (Dec 17, 2003)

nice to see the trolls are out.
much more entertaining now.
thanks.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 17, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Not quite... here's the full nasty family tree...
> 
> Elrond married Celebrian, who was the daughter of Galadriel and Celeborn (and thus is a full-blooded elf). Thus, Arwen's mother's heritage is easy... 100% Elven.
> 
> ...



Sig, man.

That was very cool.  I was wondering about that.  And now I know.  Very cool.


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 17, 2003)

after reading Ebert's review, i'm wondering if the man even has an imagination left. his statements boil down to basically: "it was a very good movie, but because it was a fantasy movie and not something that could happen in real life, it can't be taken seriously. only an adolescent could find it emotionally moving."

yes, i am paraphrasing quite a bit, but that's essentially what he's saying. which, IMO is, of course, utter malarky. the ideas presented in the story are universal. good vs evil, friendship, loyalty, duty, destiny and so on. saying that they're not as poignant because it's a fantasy movie is like saying, an image isn't as good because it's painted and not a photograph.

i really think that after a lifetime of watching movies for a living, the man has no imagination left.

~NegZ


----------



## Numion (Dec 18, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Ya know, I have one quirky gripe.
> 
> Gollum bit off the last joint of the index finger on Frodo's left hand. And I admit, Frodo put the ring, strangely, on his index finger.
> 
> But the last joint? Who wears a ring on the LAST JOINT of a finger, much less the index finger?




No one. But you understand that the ring could move to the next joint, if gollum took the whole finger into his mouth. Then he starts chewing, the ring moves (because its bigger than the finger), frodo tries to pull his finger out, gollum gets only the tip bit of, but he's got the ring. 

Thats too much analysis, but try it for yourself 

The key is that frodo was pulling his finger obviously out of gollums mouth, and thus resulted in this scene.


----------



## Alcareru (Dec 18, 2003)

Quickbeam said:
			
		

> Amazing.  Simply amazing.
> 'Nuff said.




I guess I can put away my fears of a trilogy let down. Pretty posotive reviews from the media both geek and mainstream. Slate and Salon likedit and they seem to be pretty critical on alot of recent movies.

I am relieved, but now with the trilogy concluded, I no longer have what has become a holiday tradition. <sigh>


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 18, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> Some parts were corny and contrived, like when Aragorn waited for the orc army to surround him before charging and when Frodo fell for Gollum's simple tricks. Sam's and Frodo's friendship would never be so easily sundered and Aragorn definitely wouldn't have been that poor a battle commander.



Have you not being paying attention? 

I don't know about Aragorn, but the reason Frodo fell for Gollum's simple tricks is because of the ring. One of its effects is it makes the bearer paranoid. Just look at Gollum. It was the evil influence of the ring that sundered their friendship (temporarily). The ring is a very powerful force. The rift between Sam and Frodo is one of the things that drives that fact home.


----------



## Sollir Furryfoot (Dec 18, 2003)

Saw the trilogy showing yesterday, very awesome...I feel so geeky that I have tickets #1-3 (well, just 1 right now, as the other two are with my friends) from my theatre, heh.

Curiously, did anyone else get a feel of Star Wars in the Oliphant battle, just Oliphants instead of those walker vehicles?  Same with Sam and Frodo's dressing up in orc armor...

Maybe I was just really really tired, but that's what my mind connected with immediately after seeing both of those scenes, heh.

Hrm, with more sleep perhaps I can write more coherently later.


----------



## Krug (Dec 18, 2003)

Solliyr
Yeah i did. The AT-AT battle. 

As for Sam and Frodo.. well Lucas borrowed from Tolkien.. and so now it's Jackson's turn..


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 18, 2003)

Sollir Furryfoot said:
			
		

> Curiously, did anyone else get a feel of Star Wars in the Oliphant battle, just Oliphants instead of those walker vehicles?




Heh.  I leaned over to my friend beside me as the Rohirrim charged and said "That armour's too strong for blasters. Use your harpoons and tow cables!"

-Hyp.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Dec 18, 2003)

Damn, but this was a good movie. 
I agree with what ShadowDancer said about the Ring aiding in Frodo's paranoia. And Gollum was really, really mean this time around. As well he should have been.

Almost everything about Pellenor Fields was incredible, but I think special mention should be given to the fell beasts (much more impressive than in TTT) and the battering ram. 

And, is it just me, or was the deformed orc general reminiscent of Sloth from The Goonies? 

Demiurge out.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 18, 2003)

Sollir Furryfoot said:
			
		

> Curiously, did anyone else get a feel of Star Wars in the Oliphant battle, just Oliphants instead of those walker vehicles?





I think everyone in the theater (okay, at least the group I went with) thought about the battle of Hoth when the Oliphants rolled in.


----------



## Speaker (Dec 18, 2003)

I will not say much, because I cannot do this movie justice.

I will say that this is the only movie to have truly reached down deep and crushed my heart, made me feel more then I thought I could ever feel for characters on a screen.

At one point - one of my favourite scenes from the book, when the riders sing 'Death', it just became too much.  I just...  sobbed.  I let out everything.  I cried, and my whole body shook with emotion.

Never before have I felt that way about a movie.  And I fear that I never will again, which is a shame.  Because this movie put me there.  It made me see.

And that's all I wanted to say.


----------



## Black Omega (Dec 18, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> Have you not being paying attention?
> 
> I don't know about Aragorn, but the reason Frodo fell for Gollum's simple tricks is because of the ring. One of its effects is it makes the bearer paranoid. Just look at Gollum. It was the evil influence of the ring that sundered their friendship (temporarily). The ring is a very powerful force. The rift between Sam and Frodo is one of the things that drives that fact home.




And let's face it, who better to know how to take advantage of what the ring does to you than Gollum?

And the scene where Sam gave the ring back to Frodo was great.  There's this pause where he's thinking about it.  Really flashed back to the opening scene.


----------



## thalmin (Dec 18, 2003)

> Originally Posted by Celtavian
> 
> Some parts were corny and contrived, like when Aragorn waited for the orc army to surround him before charging



The point was he was not trying to win the battle, he was trying to buy Frodo time, keep Sauron's attention away from Mt. Doom.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 18, 2003)

*re*



			
				Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> Have you not being paying attention?
> 
> I don't know about Aragorn, but the reason Frodo fell for Gollum's simple tricks is because of the ring. One of its effects is it makes the bearer paranoid. Just look at Gollum. It was the evil influence of the ring that sundered their friendship (temporarily). The ring is a very powerful force. The rift between Sam and Frodo is one of the things that drives that fact home.




Sorry, Frodo is not that stupid (even with the influence of the ring) and would never have fallen for that simple trick, thus to me it seemed contrived. If you felt it appropriate, then have at it. I don't, no use debating it.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 18, 2003)

thalmin said:
			
		

> The point was he was not trying to win the battle, he was trying to buy Frodo time, keep Sauron's attention away from Mt. Doom.




Please do not tell me about this story. I know it better than you more than likely. Know now that I am far more on the Tolkien purist side than not. I much prefer the way the book handled certain scenes than PJ. 

Aragorn arrayed his armies in as tactically sound a manner as possible to make it look like he meant real battle in the book. Why? Sauron is intelligent enough to see through a common farce like a battle commander who allows his people to be surrounded by the enemy army before attacking. 

Another thing that was fairly corny was the "spotlight of Sauron". That was bad.

This movie was real "hit and miss" for me. Parts were very good (the charge of the Rohirrim being magnificent), but some parts just weren't right.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 18, 2003)

Fantastic!  Wonderful!  A fantastic climax to the greatest trilogy in motion picture history.

Parts I especially loved were:

The charge of the Rohirrim.
Eowyn and Merry battling the Witch-King.
Shelob's lair.
Sam's battle with Shelob.
Sam storming Cirith Ungol, slaying orcs as he goes.
The oliphants.
The midair battles between the nazgul and the eagles.

...and that's just off the top of my head.

Out of all the LotR movies, though, I believe that RotK will be the one to benefit most from having an Extended Edition.  Things that could possibly be included in the extended edition would be the Eowyn/Faramir romance, the Sauruman scenes (which were cut because they didn't fit), more of Sam and Frodo's trek across Mordor, Aragorn and the dead warriors overtaking the corsairs, etc.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 18, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Parts I especially loved were:
> 
> The charge of the Rohirrim.




Henceforth known as "Rohgue Squadron" 

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 18, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Things that could possibly be included in the extended edition would be Aragorn and the dead warriors overtaking the corsairs, etc.




I can't see that one happening... Aragorn's appearance over the side of the ship was supposed to surprise the audience as well as the orcs, but if you see them commandeering the ships in the first place, that would be... unlikely 

I'd like to see Sam overhearing orcs talking about the "mighty Elven warrior" on the loose 

-Hyp.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 18, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Henceforth known as "Rohgue Squadron"




_*rimshot*_ 



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I can't see that one happening... Aragorn's appearance over the side of the ship was supposed to surprise the audience as well as the orcs, but if you see them commandeering the ships in the first place, that would be... unlikely
> 
> I'd like to see Sam overhearing orcs talking about the "mighty Elven warrior" on the loose




You're probably right about the corsairs part.  Ah well.

I was kind of disappointed that the Mouth of Sauron didn't make it into the movie.  I was looking forward to seeing him present Gandalf and Aragorn with Frodo's gear and seeing the despair on their faces as they believe that Frodo failed in the quest.


----------



## TiQuinn (Dec 18, 2003)

Just an awesome flick, and I can't wait to see it again!  It was very suspenseful, and definitely had some real emotional heft to it...something missing in The Two Towers.

I loved the charge of the Rohirrim!  It was one of those scenes where I could almost feel myself rising up out of my seat.

Gollum was ten times nastier in this movie, just the way I like him.  The wedge that he drives between Sam and Frodo, and the subsequent encounter with Shelob was fantastic and very suspenseful.

Sean Astin turned in the best performance of the bunch, IMO.  I wouldn't be surprised to see him get a nomination for Best Supporting Actor.  In a way, he really carried the movie.

It's too bad they cut out Saruman.  I thought that I wouldn't miss it when I saw the film as a whole but it really did feel unresolved.  Gandalf's dismissive "He has no more power" didn't provide the closure needed there.  What makes it worse, is when the omission is considered alongside my biggest problem with the movie.....

...Did we really need four or five false endings?  There was definitely excess fat on this thing.  Take out the Sam gets married scenes, Sam comes home to his wife scenes, Frodo and gang hanging out in the bar afterwards scenes, etc, and you have probably trimmed a full ten to fifteen minutes off the film.  What makes it more unbearable are the fade to whites/fade to blacks.  It seemed deliberate, and it was funny (in a bad kind of way) to watch so many people in the theater get up from their seats, then sit back down, then get up again, then sit back down, etc., etc.  Probably not the best way to end one of the biggest movie epics ever.


----------



## Mark (Dec 18, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> Please do not tell me about this story. I know it better than you more than likely.




I don't know you but I do know thalmin.  You might want to rephrase that "I know it better than you more than likely" part to "There's a slim chance...(etc.)"


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 18, 2003)

Grond! Grond! Grond! Grond! Grond! Grond! Grond! Grond! Grond! Grond! Grond! Grond! Grond! Grond! Grond! Grond!

Sorry... I would have seen the movie just to see Grond. And I'll see it again, and ya know what? Seeing Grond again is part of the reason.


----------



## Ravellion (Dec 18, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> Take out the Sam gets married scenes, Sam comes home to his wife scenes, Frodo and gang hanging out in the bar afterwards scenes, etc, and you have probably trimmed a full ten to fifteen minutes off the film.  What makes it more unbearable are the fade to whites/fade to blacks.  It seemed deliberate, and it was funny (in a bad kind of way) to watch so many people in the theater get up from their seats, then sit back down, then get up again, then sit back down, etc., etc.  Probably not the best way to end one of the biggest movie epics ever.



I think the sailing away (end of an era), the sitting in the pub (going back to normality and a whole different kind of despair right after basking in glory) and the crowning (basking in glory) are too important to take out. I think you could take out at least one, probably both of the Sam/Rosie bits... probably the second one, where he comes home after seeing Frodo off.

Rav


----------



## theburningman (Dec 18, 2003)

Four words.

Ho.  Lee.  Shee.  It.


----------



## pezagent (Dec 18, 2003)

Hi all,

Just got back from the movies, thought I would share the enthusiasm. I thought that it was one of the best fantasy movies I've ever seen, especially, as has been mentioned, keeping all three in mind. Most trilogies I've seen (there aren't that many, are there?) try to keep the "theme" going but this was, of course, an entire story told in three acts with three movies. Hard to beat that. Certainly would be inspiring to put more epic novels on the screen in such a fashion. 

I have to admit I never finished the novels. My ex-wife loved them, so I started reading them, but I was really into sci-fi at the time and read all the Dune books instead. So althogh I'm familiar with the Hobbit and the characters in LotR, the ending was a pleasant surprise for me. 

If people ever ask me why I didn't like Matrix:Revolutions, I'll just point to RotK and say "That's how you wrap up a story."

Regards,

/johnny


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 18, 2003)

Ravellion said:
			
		

> I think the sailing away (end of an era), the sitting in the pub (going back to normality and a whole different kind of despair right after basking in glory) and the crowning (basking in glory) are too important to take out. I think you could take out at least one, probably both of the Sam/Rosie bits... probably the second one, where he comes home after seeing Frodo off.



I thought the 20 minutes of epilogue was great.  A fitting ending.  Like coming back from a war.  Or well, exactly like coming back from a war.  Everyone was changed.

Anyone who wore the One Ring had to leave the world.  Gandalf had served his purpose and was no use to the world.  Merry & Pippen will never be the same.  Sam grew up and found himself; he found himself being a leader and a hero.  Aragorn accepted his true purpose.  Actually the only ones who didn't change that much were Legolas & Gimli who just found each other as friends.

It was fitting that after all they went through that we got to see how they were all truly affected by their journey.  Classic.


----------



## pezagent (Dec 18, 2003)

Ravellion said:
			
		

> I think the sailing away (end of an era), the sitting in the pub (going back to normality and a whole different kind of despair right after basking in glory) and the crowning (basking in glory) are too important to take out. I think you could take out at least one, probably both of the Sam/Rosie bits... probably the second one, where he comes home after seeing Frodo off.
> 
> Rav




Ho! Before I log off...

These were *great* scenes and I'm so glad that PJ put them in! Being a New Yorker in New Zealand I could totally relate to the scene in the pub--here's four guys that just saved the Shire but all anyone cares about is a giant pumpkin! I just laughed. And the whole part about Sam going home--to give the audience (us) peace of mind and let us know that Sam went on to live a happy life in the Shire... and the contrast in then gives us that Frodo's journey was to _save_ the Shire so that he could do this... I think these things are important and often overlooked in movies.

In another thread I said that PJ didn't do anything special with LotR but after watching this I can think of one thing he did that Hollywood  couldn't--and that's convince the powers that be to trust him to deliver a quality picture that lives up to everyone's expectations. And I think he was able to do that because he _is_ a Kiwi.

Anyway, I'm off... thanks for lettin' me shake-n-share.

/johnny


----------



## Belen (Dec 18, 2003)

The trilogy is easily the best movies I have ever seen in my life and I cannot imagine any movies living up to them even unto the end of my days.

I used to say the "trilogy" and meant star wars, but no longer.  The worst thing about the movie was knowing that you would not go see another next December.

I think that Jackson really portrayed the sense of loss and sadness that you feel when the books conclude.

I sat there last night and literally could not speak or move until the credits ended.

Dave


----------



## JoeBlank (Dec 18, 2003)

Fantastic conclusion, and an marvel that will likely never be matched. No other movie experience can even come close for me.



			
				Ravellion said:
			
		

> I think the sailing away (end of an era), the sitting in the pub (going back to normality and a whole different kind of despair right after basking in glory) and the crowning (basking in glory) are too important to take out. I think you could take out at least one, probably both of the Sam/Rosie bits... probably the second one, where he comes home after seeing Frodo off.



Once the decision was made to do the wrapups at the end of the movie, rather than ending on a more dramatic note, there was really no reason to do the job half-way by trimming them or leaving some of them out. I can't tell you how happy I was that the final scene from the book, with Sam coming home to his family, was included as the final scene in the movie, even down to Sam's line "Well, I'm back."

Sam has been my favorite fictional character for many years, and to see the character done so perfectly on screen is just unbelievable. All too often this sort of thing falls short of expectations, but not this time.


----------



## KenM (Dec 18, 2003)

Seen it twice now, going again this weekend. Did anyone notice that they did not show the deformed orc general getting killed on screen? Thought that was a little odd, as he was one of the officers.


----------



## thalmin (Dec 18, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> Please do not tell me about this story. I know it better than you more than likely.



Please don't act so defensive. You needn't take my comments so personally, though you probably are more knowledgable about the books than I (thanks anyway, Mark)







> Know now that I am far more on the Tolkien purist side than not. I much prefer the way the book handled certain scenes than PJ.



A simple, non-judgemental statement. I am not such a purist.



> Aragorn arrayed his armies in as tactically sound a manner as possible to make it look like he meant real battle in the book. Why? Sauron is intelligent enough to see through a common farce like a battle commander who allows his people to be surrounded by the enemy army before attacking.



True, but he still wouldn't know why, and he might more cautiously watch to see what Aragorn had up his sleeve. Besides the sword.


> Another thing that was fairly corny was the "spotlight of Sauron". That was bad.



Agreed.



> This movie was real "hit and miss" for me. Parts were very good (the charge of the Rohirrim being magnificent), but some parts just weren't right.



Some significant changes to the story were made for the movie. I am not saying Jackson improved on Tolkien's work, but he made an exceptional movie. It works for me (although Peter really wash pushing the bladder limit.)


----------



## Kestrel (Dec 18, 2003)

The movie was the best Ive seen in terms of epic scope.  Absolutely incredible.

I wanted to see more of Aragorn though.  I mean, the film is Return of the King after all.  Its like you see him get Anduril, dump Eowyn, command the Dead of Dunharrow, and then command the troops to attack the Black Gate.  

I guess I was really missing a scene where everyone in Gondor has the realization that he is the king.  The King they have been waiting 37 generations for.  Something with the emotional impact of when Boromir says, My King.

I just felt cheapened with him attacking with the Dead Men and then suddenly he's the King. 

Other than that, I absolutely loved the film.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2003)

Well, I'm profoundly let down.  Yesterday, as has been my tradition for three years now, I went and saw a Lord of the Rings movie on opening day in a nice theatre, and now I can never do that again, except on the off-chance that the Hobbit really is made.  I'll have to see it again to tell for sure where this movie rates vs. it's predecessors (and I will on Friday, possibly twice, in fact.)  I also feel this was a fitting ending to the series, but I'm already anxiously awaiting the Extended Edition; much of this movie felt rushed, despite it's length.  In fact, I had to explain quite a bit to my wife who has never read the series and who wasn't following some of the abbreviated plot streams.  In particular, the movie didn't give a good explanation of why Frodo had to leave at the end, and she didn't get that one at all without some discussion.  I also explained about the dead men at Dunharrow, but as soon as I did, the movie did, so I was a bit premature there!   

Despite Celtavian's complaints, I think this movie was quite possibly the one that cleaves most closely to the books; certainly there's nothing as significant a departure as Theoden and Faramir's characters from the Two Towers.

There were some powerful emotional moments in this one as well.  I've been a bit surprised lately, while rewatching the Two Towers on extended DVD and now this one, at the emotional impact that still resonates in our modern culture from the portrayal of heroism as a kind of Ragnarokian fatalism.  When the Rohirrim all chanted "Death!" as they charged into battle against a host they had no hope of defeating, I had shivers throughout my body.  When Sam, realising (apparently) for the first time, that there would be no return trip, but he still stoutly picked Frodo up and carried him most of the way up the slope of Mt. Doom, I felt something similar.  And I understood the satisfaction Theoden had during his dying moments as he said he could now go to his mighty ancestors and not feel ashamed to stand amongst them, or Faramir's willingness to go on an errand that he knew to be suicide.

Indeed, many of the moments that were taken straight from the book resonated much more powerfully with me than they ever did reading it, because I had never imagined them to be powerful moments somehow (although the reverse was certainly often true as well.)

[sigh]  Like I said, I'm terribly let down to have the whole experience be essentially over, with the exception of the extended edition scenes to see still.  But it will be fun to have my own personal marathon of the three movies once I have all three extended DVDs -- certainly I can have that be my tradition every Christmas holiday when I have the time at home to do that!


----------



## Kestrel (Dec 18, 2003)

I think Skull of PvP says it best though.

http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20031217


----------



## Ashy (Dec 18, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I was kind of disappointed that the Mouth of Sauron didn't make it into the movie.  I was looking forward to seeing him present Gandalf and Aragorn with Frodo's gear and seeing the despair on their faces as they believe that Frodo failed in the quest.




I agree 100% - I was waiting to see what they would do with the Mouth of Sauron - saddening, really...  Also, the "Spotlight of Sauron" was bad and should have not been done, and the whole "Arwen's fate is now tied to the Ring as well" scene should never have been considered, much less written and filmed...

Other than those things (and all the stuff they left out, of course), I thought it rocked, and I am a Tolkien fan from waaaaaayyyy back....


----------



## Salthanas (Dec 18, 2003)

I think I'm going to reserve judgement on this film until the extended version comes out. Overall it was very good but I can't help feeling that Jackson fluffed some key scenes badly and in parts it seemed very choppy indeed. The highlight for me was the charge of Rohan, the low point was the bizarre spotlight of Sauron. As a villain Sauron did'nt really do it for me, the giant eye just seemed a little bit too bizarre (I still think PJ should have had a physical Sauron as he was in the books but from what I've heard Peter Jackson say he genuinley thinks that Sauron was just this giant eye which is in fact wrong). I think PJ should have missed out the whole Frodo sending Sam away scene, I know why he did it but still. I think the whole Shelob scene would have been improved with both Frodo and Sam going through her lair together as it happened in the book. 

No Gandalf confrontation with the Witch King! One of the scenes I was most looking forward to as well ,mores the pity. Even the shot of a Nazgul attacking Gandalf and Pippin did'nt make it into the final cut. Overall though the standard for the three films has been very high and in consideration it could have been a whole lot worse than it turned out. Still though I can't help but think that Return of the King was really just a trailor for the extended Return of the king out next year


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2003)

Salthanas said:
			
		

> Overall it was very good but I can't help feeling that Jackson fluffed some key scenes badly and in parts it seemed very choppy indeed.



Quite agreed.  I was surprised at how long the movie took to get going, and then felt after that that a lot of important stuff was kinda rushed.


			
				Salthanas said:
			
		

> The highlight for me was the charge of Rohan, the low point was the bizarre spotlight of Sauron.



I don't understand everyone's antagonism towards this.  I thought it worked quite well as a cinematic device while inside Mordor, at least.


			
				Salthanas said:
			
		

> As a villain Sauron did'nt really do it for me, the giant eye just seemed a little bit too bizarre (I still think PJ should have had a physical Sauron as he was in the books but from what I've heard Peter Jackson say he genuinley thinks that Sauron was just this giant eye which is in fact wrong).



You either need to reread the books, or pony up a quote.  I'm dying to see where you'll find one that proves that Sauron had a physical body.  EDIT: _Because I happen to know quite well that there isn't such a quote anywhere to be found..._


			
				Salthanas said:
			
		

> No Gandalf confrontation with the Witch King! One of the scenes I was most looking forward to as well ,mores the pity.



That's an odd scene to look forward to, since all they do is look at each other menacingly for a while, then a c0ck crows and the Witch-king hightails it away from the gate.  That's hardly the stuff of epic film-making.


			
				Salthanas said:
			
		

> Still though I can't help but think that Return of the King was really just a trailor for the extended Return of the king out next year



I kinda felt that way as well.  At least I have some kind of cinematic LotR experience still to look forward to!


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 18, 2003)

Numion said:
			
		

> No one. But you understand that the ring could move to the next joint, if gollum took the whole finger into his mouth. Then he starts chewing, the ring moves (because its bigger than the finger), frodo tries to pull his finger out, gollum gets only the tip bit of, but he's got the ring.
> 
> Thats too much analysis, but try it for yourself



I just did, and I still don't get it -- are you sure you explained yourself right?  If you could post again with more detail, I'd appreciate it:  I'm only going to be able to try it again nine more times.

Daniel


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 18, 2003)

Do they mention at all that Sam, as the last of the ringbearers, goes west across the sea in the end?


----------



## Salthanas (Dec 18, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Quite agreed.  I was surprised at how long the movie took to get going, and then felt after that that a lot of important stuff was kinda rushed.
> 
> I don't understand everyone's antagonism towards this.  I thought it worked quite well as a cinematic device while inside Mordor, at least.
> 
> You either need to reread the books, or pony up a quote.  I'm dying to see where you'll find one that proves that Sauron had a physical body.  EDIT: _Because I happen to know quite well that there isn't such a quote anywhere to be found..._




Gollum comments on the fact that Sauron has a finger missing on the black hand when the Hobbits are before the Black Gate in the Two Towers, furthermore Tolkien is quite specific in his letters that Sauron had a physical form. Its not really something open to debate.

As for the Witch King scene, well its not just the confrontation between the two its everything that happens around it as well, the darkness breaking at dawn, the cockerel crowing for a new day and then the sound of Rohans horns blowing in thiat particular powerful moment. In the film we just had cave trolls break through the gate and run amok before we heard the arrival of Rohan. Not really quite as dramatic as things were in the book I think personally


----------



## myrdden (Dec 18, 2003)

Speaker said:
			
		

> At one point - one of my favourite scenes from the book, when the riders sing 'Death', it just became too much.  I just...  sobbed.  I let out everything.  I cried, and my whole body shook with emotion.




My wife (who is not all that big into fantasy but loves the LotR and Potter movies) became a bit choked up at that scene too.  It was a very powerful image on the screen.

I personally loved the film and can't fully describe how satisified I am with the adaptation. And with the extended edition coming out next year it can only be better.

Myrdden


----------



## SnowDog (Dec 18, 2003)

Last night, immediately after the movie, I really didn't want to think too much about it.  I just wanted to let it soak in.

Today I can think a bit about it, and offer some thoughts.  

I loved the movie.  It was a fitting conclusion to the series and it was emotionally satisfying with plenty of everything you need in a great fantasy story.

It's really impossible to review this movie as an actual movie.  The Tolkien story is so much a part of my own "back story" that nothing else can really compare.  On the one hand, if PJ just put together a series of vignettes, each showing a scene from the book in his incredible reenactment of Middle Earth, I'd still be thrilled.

I think that's why I love Fellowship so much.  I was too busy picking my jaw off the ground in awe over the visualization of everything I had been imagining since the age of 9 to really worry about pacing or story.  By TTT that stuff was more taken for granted, and even Gollum and Helm's Deep (both incredible achievements) couldn't take away my disappointment at the changes in the story and pacing.  In a way, ROTK has the same problem.  Even the characters are firmly-enough established, most of them.  Sure, there are lots of "wow, cool" moments, but in the end I'm still left slightly distracted the whole time as my brain collates all the changes and omissions.

As with TTT I think this movie will grow on me with repeated viewings, as I grow to appreciate the movie's pacing and story on its own instead of thinking of it as a telling of the book with some things left out and changed.

I think the biggest problem I have with it is a problem that's overwhelming in the book as well.  The main story finishes and then wraps up everybody else's story for chapters and chapters.  And yet after all we've invested in these people, you want to see it all wrap up.  And that feeds into what I said before.  It's not that it would make a better movie to spend an extra hour after the Ring is destroyed wrapping up all the stories, it's just that all the post-Ring stuff is a part of my memory of the story and I would love to see it put into visual form.

For me, the high points of the movie (that I can remember off the top of my head) were:
- The Witch King and his Fell Beast.  Handled very well.
- Heck, every time a Fell Beast was on screen.
- Every time anyone sang, especially Pippin's song to Denethor.
- Aragorn's transformation into the King and his acceptance of his duty.
- Theoden's redemption and restoration as a Kingly figure.  They did a great job with Rohan, period.  
- Elrond's face as he "delivers" Arwen to Aragorn.
- The return to Hobbiton.
- Minas Tirith itself; you really could understand Boromir's statements in the first movie about his love of the city.
- Comic Relief well done but not overdone.
- Gandalf taking charge, well done but not harped on.
- Eowyn, Pippen, and the Witch King.  An iconic moment from the books brought to us almost word for word.
- Almost all the effects were outstanding.
- Sam carrying Frodo.
- Sam and Frodo realizing they're doomed and finishing the quest anyway.
- Sam and Frodo at the end.  I'm glad PJ didn't shy from portraying their closeness.
- (I'm sure there's more, but this is off the top of my head)

Lower points:
- The pacing of the climb+spider+tower for Sam/Frodo/Gollum just felt off.  We go from a couple minor fights to a full-fledged massacre in the tower in like 10 seconds.
- The march to the Black Gate + Sauron's diversion of forces to it happened too quickly.
- Pippin and Denethor ... the complexity here was a bit lost as Pippin felt overwhelmed with debt to serve this man and yet terrified by his madness.  It all happened too quickly and you just felt like he was trying to tell too much.
- The head Orc in the siege on Minas Tirith looked like something out of Toxic Avengers.
- Denethor's madness not sufficiently explained.  He had a Palantir, man, and it's been driving him mad.  How is this the same man that inspired such loyalty in his two sons?  We just don't see it.  Denethor just doesn't come across as tragic enough.
- Ok, Legolas is badass.  The single-handed Mumakil-slaying was a bit overkill.  Just let this guy loose on the Pellenor Fields and the battle's over.
- The Army of the Dead singlehandedly turning the battle so dramatically felt a bit weird.  I honestly don't remember how it's portrayed in the book.
- We never see Eomer grieve for King Theoden.
- Somewhat cheesy effect shots: Legolos + Mumakil, Shelob wrapping Frodo in silk.

Not to mention things which were missing which distracted me in their absence, but which perhaps aren't really low points in the movie, just things which bugged me as a Tolkien fan.
- Aragorn never directly challenges Sauron.  There's this great moment where Aragorn grabs a Palantir and directly challenges Sauron.  It's a big part of his accepting the mantle as King, and a big part of why the distraction works.
- Pippin's friendship with the son of the guard in Minas Tirith.
- Faramir + Eowyn in the Houses of Healing
- Aragorn proving his right to rule by fulfilling the prophecy about being a healer.
- No wrap-up for Saruman.
- Not enough new characters.  There's Prince What's-his-name (Imrahil?), and those Pukel-men or whatever.  Hmm.  As you can tell, these are obviously not that important to me as I can't remember much about them.  But in any case, I waited for them and they weren't there .
- Wrapup story for Legolas and Gimli missing.
- No "Mouth of Sauron" character at the Black Gate.

Anyway.  I loved the movie.  I'll see it a few more times and buy it over and over again on DVD .  Don't get the wrong impression.


----------



## Rugger (Dec 18, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I thought the 20 minutes of epilogue was great.  A fitting ending.  Like coming back from a war.  Or well, exactly like coming back from a war.  Everyone was changed.
> 
> Anyone who wore the One Ring had to leave the world.  Gandalf had served his purpose and was no use to the world.  Merry & Pippen will never be the same.  Sam grew up and found himself; he found himself being a leader and a hero.  Aragorn accepted his true purpose.  Actually the only ones who didn't change that much were Legolas & Gimli who just found each other as friends.
> 
> It was fitting that after all they went through that we got to see how they were all truly affected by their journey.  Classic.





I agree...the movies is 9+ hours long: it deserves a nice long ending, not a 5 minute wrapup.

That being said, I'll put on my video editor hat and say this: The endings should NOT have been done with Fades to Black. I think THAT is what is making people antsy...if they had cross-faded, it would have been less jarring.

Dang. Best films ever. I have NEVER felt like I did when it was over. Equal amounts of bliss and anger (cause that's all, folks!)....wow.

-Rugger
"I WantAnEowynOfMyOwn!"


----------



## Rugger (Dec 18, 2003)

Salthanas said:
			
		

> No Gandalf confrontation with the Witch King! One of the scenes I was most looking forward to as well ,mores the pity. Even the shot of a Nazgul attacking Gandalf and Pippin did'nt make it into the final cut.




Yeah...funny thing this, esp considering it was in all the trailers!

In the "Weapons and Warfare" book that is out (GREAT book), they even mention something about the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff...and since the book is written more in the context of the films, I gotta wonder if we may have a treat waiting in the EE for us...fingers crossed!

-Rugger
"I ShallNotPass!"


----------



## Claude Raines (Dec 18, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Do they mention at all that Sam, as the last of the ringbearers, goes west across the sea in the end?




No, nor do they mention Legolas & Glimli passing over the ocean. We do see a shot of Gandalf wearing the red ring, but I don't remember any shot of Elrond wearing his ring.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2003)

Salthanas said:
			
		

> Gollum comments on the fact that Sauron has a finger missing on the black hand when the Hobbits are before the Black Gate in the Two Towers, furthermore Tolkien is quite specific in his letters that Sauron had a physical form. Its not really something open to debate.



I agree it's not.  Gandalf says quite plainly in "Shadow of the Past" that Sauron's physical form was destroyed but his spirit endured.  The best that you can say is that Sauron's form during the War of the Ring was ambiguous, and that Peter Jackson's interpretation is as valid as your own.  Your insistence otherwise is what I don't see open to debate.


----------



## Kestrel (Dec 18, 2003)

Hehe...it was good to see Sloth from Goonies getting work again, he's really come up in the world.  Captain of Mordor hordes!

I really think Legolas killing the Mumakil was a tongue in cheek bit of humor on the part of the director.  I mean, Eowyn dropped one solo by simply cutting on one's legs.  (I kept expecting Luke to show up with grapple gun, lightsaber and grenade)


----------



## Claude Raines (Dec 18, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Not quite... here's the full nasty family tree...
> Elwing was the daughter of Dior and Nimloth.  Dior, whom you may or may not recognize as the son of Beren and Luthien, was clearly half-elven, as Beren and Luthien were human and elf, respectively.  Nimloth was (as far as we can tell) a full-blooded Elf.
> 
> That makes Dior half-elven and Nimloth full-elven... so Elwing would be 3/4 elven.
> ...




Actually, Luthien was half-divine, the daughter of Thingol and Melian (a Maia who stayed in Middle Earth until the death of Thingol). Thus Dior was 1/2 human, 1/4 elf, and 1/4 divine. Elwing is then 5/8 elf, 1/4 human, and 1/8 divine. Elrond becomes 9/16 elf, 3/8 human and 1/16 divine. Finally, Arwen is 3/16 human, 1/32 divine, and 25/32 elf. It is said that her beauty was such that it was like Luthien's, and this was attributed to the blood of the Maia in her veins. Of course, Aragorn also has a smattering of divine blood since he is from the line of Elros, but I won't bother calculating the percentages involved.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2003)

Kestrel said:
			
		

> I really think Legolas killing the Mumakil was a tongue in cheek bit of humor on the part of the director.  I mean, Eowyn dropped one solo by simply cutting on one's legs.  (I kept expecting Luke to show up with grapple gun, lightsaber and grenade)



I kinda liked the Eowyn hamstringing a mumakil scene, myself.  In fact, although occasionally over the top and worthy of a good  response, in general, I kinda liked the swashbuckling flair added to the movies on occasion.  After all, this is cinema, not the books themselves.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 18, 2003)

Claude Raines said:
			
		

> No, nor do they mention Legolas & Glimli passing over the ocean. We do see a shot of Gandalf wearing the red ring, but I don't remember any shot of Elrond wearing his ring.




I don't recall Gimli passing over. I recall from the books that Gimli and Legolas wander middle earth together until Gimli dies. Then Legolas like the other elves leaves for Valinor.

As for Elrond wearing a ring it wasn't shown directly but there was the sceen where they talk about the 3 rings for the elves and show Elrond, Galadrial and someone else (Cirdan in the books before he gives the ring to Gandolf who he felt was wiser than Saruman) 

Someone else also asked about why Sam didn't go. This I think was due to the way Jackson edited for time. In the book Sam eventually goes because he was also a ring bearer. In the movie Sam never puts on the ring and only holds it by the chain. It could be argued that that is not enough to qualify as Ring Bearer since also in the movie Boromir picks up the Ring by the chain before giving it back to Frodo.


----------



## ASH (Dec 18, 2003)

Best movies ever. 

Breathtaking.

Near perfect.


I recently read the third book, I never saw anything where they mention Saruon's physical form. If they did it must have been in passing and not real important to the story because I missed them.

I thought the eye was a great way to represent Sauron. Especially when Frodo puts the ring on in Mt. Doom and they eye turns, its really how I imagined it in the book. 

I can not think of any real problems with the movie. So what, it was a little different from the book, all in all he changed very little. The things he left out he did elegently.
I really had no problem with Peter Jackson's intepretation of the book, I feel he did a wonderful job. 

The problem with making a movie based on a book is that each person can percieve a book differently. One could find more importance in a chapter than another person. 

For instance... The end when Sam comes home to his wife and kids is the best ending the movie could have had. Its sort of like saying that life will go on now. 

IMO I find it silly to break down a movie that you say you like. Doesn't finding all the faults make the movie less enjoyable to you, especially when they faults I am seeing here are really nitpicky stuff?

EDIT: By _*you*_ I mean no one in particular!!


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 18, 2003)

*re*



			
				thalmin said:
			
		

> Please don't act so defensive. You needn't take my comments so personally, though you probably are more knowledgable about the books than I (thanks anyway, Mark)A simple, non-judgemental statement. I am not such a purist.




My apologies. I'm grumpy when I just get up.



> True, but he still wouldn't know why, and he might more cautiously watch to see what Aragorn had up his sleeve. Besides the sword.




Yes, possibly. I just missed the way the book did it. 



> Some significant changes to the story were made for the movie. I am not saying Jackson improved on Tolkien's work, but he made an exceptional movie. It works for me (although Peter really wash pushing the bladder limit.)




I give you that. _Lord of the Rings_ is visually the most beautiful, awe-inspiring piece of film-making that I have ever seen. 

From a plot perspective, it was choppy. My friend noticed the same thing and he hasn't read the books. 

I did seriously enjoy the movie, though the Tolkien purist in me couldn't call it perfect.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 18, 2003)

*re*

I truly felt Jackson needed one more movie to tie this up right. I think they were stuck in trilogy mode from the beginning and _Lord of the Rings_ required a break with tradition.

The Battle of the Pelennor fields and all that happened during that time could have been a movie in and of itself. The pacing was so fast it felt like they were stuffing me full of epic, momentous, emotionally powerful moments until my mind was too over-whelmed to care anymore. Just too fast paced for me and not enough time given for the moments to build and reach climax before the next moment came. It was a whirlwind.

Hopefully, the extended edition will work some of this out, even though I am absolutely dead sure they needed another movie. Character development was cut far too short, and another movie would have really allowed the fleshing out of certain characters and moments.

A truly beautiful movie though that has set a new highwater mark for epic filmmaking, tops both its predecessors and that is saying something.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 18, 2003)

*re*



			
				ASH said:
			
		

> Best movies ever.
> 
> I recently read the third book, I never saw anything where they mention Saruon's physical form. If they did it must have been in passing and not real important to the story because I missed them.




In passing just after the ring is destroyed, his spirit rises into the sky and then dissipates.



> I thought the eye was a great way to represent Sauron. Especially when Frodo puts the ring on in Mt. Doom and they eye turns, its really how I imagined it in the book.




I didn't so much mind the eye. It was the "spotlight" effect I thought was corny.



> I can not think of any real problems with the movie. So what, it was a little different from the book, all in all he changed very little. The things he left out he did elegently.
> I really had no problem with Peter Jackson's intepretation of the book, I feel he did a wonderful job.




_Return of the King_ was definitely better than _The Two Towers_ in being faithful to the book. Just slightly too fast-paced for my tastes.




> For instance... The end when Sam comes home to his wife and kids is the best ending the movie could have had. Its sort of like saying that life will go on now.




Great final scene. That part was perfect.



> IMO I find it silly to break down a movie that you say you like. Doesn't finding all the faults make the movie less enjoyable to you, especially when they faults I am seeing here are really nitpicky stuff?




For me personally, it is like being both sad and happy at the same time. Sad because there are parts you feel are important to the story that are left out or not done properly, and happy that parts of the film are well-done and they equal or exceed what you imagined a scene might look like from the book. 

I personally believe this will be the definitive film interpretation of Tolkien's work in my lifetime, for good or ill. This is it. Some Tolkien fans are going to completely satisfied, others will hate it, and I think a good many will be like myself, torn between loving and hating it until we die.

I will watch it again. I will buy the EE of the DVD's. I will always notice the parts that were poorly done no matter how hard I try not to, I will always miss the parts of the story that were left out or changed that I felt were important, and I will always love the parts that were well-done and equaled or exceeded my expectations. 

This is the movie all Tolkien fans will have to live with, and live with it I will.  I certainly won't call it all good nor all bad, and I'll watch it from time to time just as I read the books from time to time.


----------



## Claude Raines (Dec 18, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I don't recall Gimli passing over. I recall from the books that Gimli and Legolas wander middle earth together until Gimli dies. Then Legolas like the other elves leaves for Valinor.



It's in the appendicies to RotK. He is the first and only dwarf allowed to pass into the west, due mainly to his friendship with Legolas.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 18, 2003)

Rugger said:
			
		

> I agree...the movies is 9+ hours long: it deserves a nice long ending, not a 5 minute wrapup.
> 
> That being said, I'll put on my video editor hat and say this: The endings should NOT have been done with Fades to Black. I think THAT is what is making people antsy...if they had cross-faded, it would have been less jarring.



I said the same thing to a friend right after the movie about the fades.  It was almost like he was trying to trick the audience.  Slow wipes or quicker fades may have worked better, I'm not sure.

Considering I don't remember the books at all (except for a few of the names) I stayed with *Return of the King* pretty well.  I could tell there were a few things missing but the movie was already 3 1/2 hours long.  We'll get the Extended with an extra hour tacked on for sure.

Things I want to see (keep in mind I am not referencing the books in any way as I don't remember them):

- An explaination about Denethor and a little more build up.  The madness worked but I didn't understand fully why given the film's explaination of his character.  There was enough to have it not take away from the experience but I feel there should be a little more there.

- I want to see Eowyn and Eomer hook up onscreen.  Seemed important after all they went through individually and they were together at the wedding.

- More stuff with the city-o-the dead.  It was a tad quick.  Heck, throw about 20 more minutes of Aragorn in there.  I guess from reading this thread that there is enough material from the book to plug in there to round things out for him.  

As for things like some folks not understanding why Frodo left, I would actually like to keep that scene as is and not add an in-movie explaination.  I got it right off the bat and felt the drain on Frodo simply by his actions in the epilogue to that point.  He would never be the same and therefore had to leave the world behind.  He had basically died but a little part of him lived on, just enough to say his goodbyes.

I'll be seeing this again a few times over the holidays and will watch my EE DVDs heavily.  I plan on reading the books again, which would basically be for the first time, after the RotK EE is released.  I'm interested to see what I think of them.  I have liked every novel that a movie has been based on better than the film with the exception of *Fight Club*.  We shall see.


----------



## RenoOfTheTurks (Dec 18, 2003)

> Every time anyone sang, especially Pippin's song to Denethor




Interesting that you liked Pippin's song to Denethor.  In the theater I was in, there were audible groans and laughs during this part.  I thought it was terrible as a soundtrack for the charge, because the charge was set up so poorly.  Denethor's eating was disgusting, and failed in its attempted cinematic use.  In fact the way Denethor was portrayed, a lot of depth was lost from his relationship to Faramir and it seemed in the movie as if Faramir was throwing away a lot of good soldiers for nothing.  I hated the charge toward Osgiliath.  I don't remember cussing Faramir out in the book like I wanted to during the movie.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 18, 2003)

I saw this at the midnight showing...and again Wednesday afternoon. I really have no words...it was amazing. Yes, there were problems, but for me the good far outweighed the bad. I usually analyze movies...but I just can't with this one. The Cracks of Doom were just as I imagined...as was the Ride of the Rohirrim...those alone just have me at a loss for words.


----------



## myrdden (Dec 18, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> - I want to see Eowyn and Eomer hook up onscreen.  Seemed important after all they went through individually and they were together at the wedding.




Don't you mean Eowyn and Faramir?  Eowyn and Eomer were, afterall, siblings.

Myrdden


----------



## blargney the second (Dec 18, 2003)

*Razing of the Shire*

I loved the movie!  I particularly enjoyed seeing the trilogy to have a better feel for the parts of the book that I had a difficult time imagining.

However, I was very upset that they didn't include the razing of the Shire.  It's the chapter of the series where the four hobbits become heroes for their own people.  The ending in RotK had them drinking together in a pub, while the whole rest of their folk had no idea whatsoever of the important things they had done.

Oh yeah, it would also have been nice of them to show Denethor's palantir to explain his otherwise-mystifying madness.

Of the three movies, I felt this one was the weakest: for people who hadn't read the books, there was too much that was left unexplained, while those who have read the books were disappointed by the departures from canon.  (I found most differences to be acceptable, given that they were likely done in the hopes of making a better cinematographic experience.)

-blarg


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2003)

RenoOfTheTurks said:
			
		

> Interesting that you liked Pippin's song to Denethor.  In the theater I was in, there were audible groans and laughs during this part.  I thought it was terrible as a soundtrack for the charge, because the charge was set up so poorly.  Denethor's eating was disgusting, and failed in its attempted cinematic use.  In fact the way Denethor was portrayed, a lot of depth was lost from his relationship to Faramir and it seemed in the movie as if Faramir was throwing away a lot of good soldiers for nothing.  I hated the charge toward Osgiliath.  I don't remember cussing Faramir out in the book like I wanted to during the movie.



Weird.  Nothing like that in my theatre; I thought the singing was quite a poignant backdrop to the utter waste and tragedy of the moment.


----------



## Salthanas (Dec 18, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I agree it's not.  Gandalf says quite plainly in "Shadow of the Past" that Sauron's physical form was destroyed but his spirit endured.  The best that you can say is that Sauron's form during the War of the Ring was ambiguous, and that Peter Jackson's interpretation is as valid as your own.  Your insistence otherwise is what I don't see open to debate.




He says that Sauron was vanquished but his spirit endured. However in that very self same chapter you've just highlighted Gandalf says that after a defeat the shadow always takes another shape and grows again. Tolkien uses the word eye to describe where either Morgoth or Sauron has their attention at any particular moment. In Morgoths ring he talks about Morgoths eye being something that Orcs could feel when he merely turned his thought to them.
The Eye of Sauron is mentioned in the "Rings of Power" in the  Silmarillion before he loses the ring.

I'm not saying its particularly clear from the book but the single fact is that if you read Tolkiens letters he makes it very clear that Sauron had a physical form. IIRC he does this in one of his more interesting letters when he discusses what the Nazgul would have tried to do if they had reached Mount Doom in time to stop the Ring falling into the fire. So although you can say its ambigious in the book to Tolkien's mind Sauron had a physical form which is why I think I can say with some safety that PJ's belief that Sauron is merely a flaming eye is wrong.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 18, 2003)

Whoa. This is just too weird.

Celtavian and I are in total agreement.

Well, not on the notion that he knows more Tolkien than thalmin.  

I'm interested in people's responses to Eowyn's face-off against the Witch-King. This was the great disappointment of the film for me. Everything else was great (the effects shots look like effects shots, but okay, they were a million times better than any effects shots I've ever seen, so I'll let that go) -- or if it wasn't, I'm assuming it will be addressed in the EE.

But I thought Eowyn's big scene was sold immeasurably short. The staging of it gave no real drama to the scene, her cutting the head off the beast happened nearly off-screen and at a distance, and her big moment was just lost.

Here's how it plays out in the book:

Theoden goes down, Eowyn's mount, Eowyn and Merry go down. Merry roots around in the ground while Eowyn stands up and tells the Witch-King she's going to keep him from Theoden. The exact words are:

"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!"

Which is possibly the best line ever given to any character at any time in any work of human creativity. But I acknowledge that is my own idiosyncrasy.

 W-K tells Eowyn if she wants to be a fool he's happy to oblige her, and says that no living man may hinder him.

Eowyn laughs.

SHE LAUGHS. In the midst of all this death and carnage, a woman laughs.

She throws off her helmet and says, "But no living man am I!"  And introduces herself and her parentage in that charming way characters in Tolkien have (and I miss that, too: "I am Aragorn son of Arathorn. Here is the Sword That Was Broken and is Forged Again. Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!") and squares off.

And the W-K studies her, momentarily at a loss.

WHAT A MOMENT!

AND THEN, she falls, and it's MERRY who holds Theoden in his last moments. Then Eomer comes up finds his king dead and his sister (who he thought safely at home) apparently dead, and that's where the Rohirrim scream _DEATH_ ("DEATH they cried with one voice loud and terrible") and make their final charge.

Okay, I accept that we couldn't have TWO charges of the Rohirrim. I'll even hope for Eomer finding the gang in the EE. But Eowyn's moment never happened.

And the movie is less than what it could have been for me.

That said, I'm seeing it again this weekend and intend to see it at least twice more after that. I'm sure. It's cinematic history. We'll tell our grandchildren about seeing these movies in the theatre for the first time.

And just think: we are (most of us, anyway) the last generation that ever grew up reading those books with no expectation of ever seeing them on the big screen. From now on, everyone who comes to these books will know that there's a movie version out there.


----------



## ControlFreak (Dec 18, 2003)

I loved the movie. I was at the local Trilogy showing on Tuesday, and then saw it again Wednesday evening with my wife.

Anyway, here were a few of the things that bothered me:

- The Palantir at Isengard along with the lack of any confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman and the breaking of Saruman's staff.
- The relationship between Pippin and Denethor, the lack of Denethor's Palantir, and the flaming, running, jumping Denethor.
- The black fleet (I'll come back to this)
- House of Healing - but I did hear that it was all filmed (including the whole Faramir/Eowyn relationship) so we'll certainly see it in the EE, but didn't wounds seem to heal a little too fast? Certainly that was the case with Merry.
- The Mouth of Sauron and Frodo's mithril shirt - again, I heard that the role of the Mouth of Sauron was cast and filmed, so hopeful for the EE.
- I understand them leaving out the Scouring of the Shire, but I still hate that they did. They could have practically made that film IV 
- At the end, Sam says, "Well, I'm back," and walks inside .. into 3 Bagshot Row!? Did Frodo sell Bag End so he'd have extra cash in Valinor?
- Pet Peeve - I don't know about you guys, but it kills a little of the immersion for me when I see Peter Jackson's kids in every movie wearing different hairstyles. They've been in the Shire, in Helm's Deep, and in Minas Tirith, and every time I see them now I sigh out loud.

Anyway .. back to the black fleet. I actually spoke to a friend about this earlier and he reminded me that it was actually only 1 page in the book, but I still think it was under-done in the movie. I'll 'splain:

The good armies are doing their best and making enough small victories to keep hope alive. The evil army is taking heavy losses but have breached the city gates. A black fleet appears on the shore and the good forces are emotionally CRUSHED! The orcs cheer as their reinforcements arrive just when they can use them. Suddenly, the banner of the Kings of Gondor comes into view at the top of the mast. Emotions are completely reversed and the tide of the battle is changed.

I don't know .. I just didn't think there was the emotion that there needed to be there.

CF


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 18, 2003)

Well you have helped me make up my mind.  I will, regardless of pressure from friends and family, not watch the theatrical release.  I will wait for the EE.   It already sounds like they have cut the hell out of the book.   I don't want that lingering taste of foulness like I had after seeing the TT on opening night.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 18, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> "Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!"
> 
> Which is possibly the best line ever given to any character at any time in any work of human creativity. But I acknowledge that is my own idiosyncrasy.




My favourite line was cut as well - Legolas' "Ai! Ai! A balrog! A balrog is come!" 

On the other hand, my second-favourite line - "Fool of a Took!" - made it in twice 

-Hyp.


----------



## Kestrel (Dec 18, 2003)

Go see it Flexor, for all our griping, I bet the vast majority of us walked out of the theatre with teary eyes.

I know I did.

Even with the parts missing that we would have loved to have seen, its an incredible film.  Just incredible.  Well worth seeing on the big screen.  You'll be mad if you don't see it in the theatre.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 18, 2003)

I saw it, and loved it. 

I think that some, if not all, of the 'explain more' queries might be answered in the _65-70 minutes_ the Extended Version is going to add (as I understand at this time). 

The audience was interesting as well. Both shows I went to (Midnight, then noon Wed) were sold out. No-one laughed except at the intentionally funny scenes. It would be interesting to find out who is laughing at things like Pippen's song; I'm more than willing to bet it's a disproportiate group of people who behave like idiots no matter what movie they're watching. 

Places the audience _cheered_.

When Eowyn cuts off the head of the Witch-King's mount.
Legolas' flawless dismount 
When Aragorn vaults over the ship railing. 
When Sam kisses Rosie.
And, of course, at The End.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 18, 2003)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Places the audience _cheered_.
> [*]Legolas' flawless dismount




Hell, I wasn't cheering Legolas at that point... I was cheering _Gimli_.

Line of the film 

-Hyp.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Dec 18, 2003)

Kestrel said:
			
		

> Go see it Flexor, for all our griping, I bet the vast majority of us walked out of the theatre with teary eyes.
> 
> I know I did.
> 
> Even with the parts missing that we would have loved to have seen, its an incredible film.  Just incredible.  Well worth seeing on the big screen.  You'll be mad if you don't see it in the theatre.




I'll second that.  You'll be sorry you missed out on the big screen if you do...I'm sure that the Extended Edition will rock even harder...but this was still one heck of a film.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2003)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I think that some, if not all, of the 'explain more' queries might be answered in the *65-70 minutes* the Extended Version is going to add (as I understand at this time).



I agree; so far, without fail, the Extended Editions have added immeasureably to the value of the movie.  I actually can't wait until I've seen them so many times that I don't remember what's been added anymore.  

I've also heard that there's more than an hour of material cut.  I really have to wonder if all that will make it back in, though -- that would bring the total up to around 4 1/2 hours, which is stretching what will even fit on 2 DVDs...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 18, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Hell, I wasn't cheering Legolas at that point... I was cheering _Gimli_.
> 
> Line of the film
> 
> -Hyp.



 The audience I was with laughed for a good long time at that line. DEFINATLY the Line of the Film!

It was fun, because the audience I was with was hugely enthusiatic, and when we cheered...man did we cheer.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2003)

TracerBullet42 said:
			
		

> I'll second that.  You'll be sorry you missed out on the big screen if you do...I'm sure that the Extended Edition will rock even harder...but this was still one heck of a film.



I dunno.  _I'd_ certainly feel that way, but if Flexor really felt that way about TT, then he might very well be too disappointed with it to bother.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 18, 2003)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Places the audience _cheered_.
> 
> When Eowyn cuts off the head of the Witch-King's mount.
> Legolas' flawless dismount
> ...




The other giant cheers in our theater included:

Farimirs brave charge against hopeles odds at Osgiliath
The initial charge of the Rohirrm
The second charge of the Rohirrm against the Oliphants


----------



## ControlFreak (Dec 18, 2003)

Kestrel said:
			
		

> Go see it Flexor, for all our griping, I bet the vast majority of us walked out of the theatre with teary eyes.
> 
> I know I did.
> 
> Even with the parts missing that we would have loved to have seen, its an incredible film.  Just incredible.  Well worth seeing on the big screen.  You'll be mad if you don't see it in the theatre.



If you didn't tear up at all during RotK you aren't human. I mean .. I still tear up while reading the books and I've done that every year for about 25 years now!

So here are my Lord of the Rings (movies) Top Eight (leaving room for someone to add 2 more ) Tear-Jerking Scenes:
8: FotR - Bilbo after he turns into the gollum like thing for a second in Rivendell, "Don't adventures ever end?"
7: RotK - When the Fellowship members realize that Frodo has succeeded in his quest at the Black Gate.
6: FotR - The Fall of Boromir
5: RotK - Aragorn, "You bow to nobody."
4: tTT - Aragorn calls for the group to continue on after Moria. Frodo turns towards him (and the camera).
3: tTT - Gandalf's words echo, "Look for me at the dawn of the fifth day. Look to the East."
2: FotR: Frodo, "I will take the ring to Mordor, though I do not know the way," and Gandalf's reaction to that statement.
1: RotK: Gandalf, "Frodo, it is time," and the realization by Merry, Pippin, and Sam that Frodo is leaving.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 18, 2003)

Kestrel said:
			
		

> Go see it Flexor, for all our griping, I bet the vast majority of us walked out of the theatre with teary eyes.
> 
> I know I did.
> 
> Even with the parts missing that we would have loved to have seen, its an incredible film.  Just incredible.  Well worth seeing on the big screen.  You'll be mad if you don't see it in the theatre.




Nah, the only movie I've ever regretted missing at the theater was the Matrix.  Hell I'm much more happy sitting on my couch with a cold Budwesier in one hand and a footlong sub sandwich in the other.   Plus I can smoke while watching the flick, and pause it to take a leak.  

P.S. I will admit I can be anal about movies taken from books I like.  I can't help it.   Maybe the thing that pissed me off the most about TT was that I had to watch that whole Aragorn off the cliff dreaming of Arwyn stuff instead of stuff that advanced the story JRRT was telling.  It wasn't a bad movie, it was just a dissapointment after the first one.  The EE is quite enjoyable since I can skip some stuff and the cool story bits I liked from the book are there in some cases.  But the fact that Treebeard and Faramir had to be tricked into doing what they knew was right in the books is very annoying.


----------



## Kestrel (Dec 18, 2003)

I would disagree with the order, but I think you definitely got the teary sections.

The fall of Boromir is still the one that gets me the most, closely followed by Aragorn the King bowing to the hobbits.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 18, 2003)

Boromir's death was a great moment.  Boromir was nailed perfectly by Sean Bean IMO.  Best acting job of the series.


----------



## Krug (Dec 18, 2003)

On the box office front, RotK has the biggest Wednesday opening _ever_, raking in US$34 mil, beating part I of a certain scifi saga...

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/?page=wed&p=.htm


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2003)

ControlFreak said:
			
		

> If you didn't tear up at all during RotK you aren't human. I mean .. I still tear up while reading the books and I've done that every year for about 25 years now!
> 
> So here are my Lord of the Rings (movies) Top Eight (leaving room for someone to add 2 more ) Tear-Jerking Scenes:
> 8: FotR - Bilbo after he turns into the gollum like thing for a second in Rivendell, "Don't adventures ever end?"
> ...



Hmmm... that's an interesting excercise.  I don't have the same moments, I don't think.  Let's see, going movie by movie:

Frodo says "I will take the ring."  Gandalf sighs, everyone shuts up and Frodo continues, "Though I do not know the way."
Gandalf falls into Moria's chasm.  This keeps going until after they start running through the trees in Lorien.
The Fall of Boromir
Frodo standing on the shore with the Ring in his hand, trying to muster the courage to go on to Mordor alone.
A few minutes later, Sam joins him and convinces him that he must go with him.
The Rohirric woman puts her kids on the horse and tells them to run to Edoras.  The little girl starts crying.
Theoden speaks the line "No one should have to bury their child" and breaks.
In a moment of Ragnarokian fatalism, Theoden agrees with Aragorn to ride out against the Orcs at Helm's Deep with every expectation that he will die and his nation will be destroyed in the wake of his death.
Gandalf comes up over the ridge and says "Theoden King stands alone," then Eomer comes up behind him and says "Not alone!"  This continues throughout the charge down the hill, and for that matter, while Sam speaks his lines about why they must go on.
Still not remembering well the order of things in the new movie -- wait until after tomorrow night when I've seen it two more times!   Still, here's a few moments I remember:
The Rohirrim chant "Death" and charge into the hopeless battle at Pelennor Fields.
Pippin sings that despairing song while teary but resolute Faramir rides to his death (or so he believes) and Denethor sits calmly spilling tomatoes and strawberry juice on his chin.  Tragic and creepy at the same time.
Eowyn pulls off her helmet and says "But I am no man!"  Granted, I agree with barsoomcore that this moment was surprisingly underplayed, but maybe I made it up too big in my mind as one of the most dramatic moments in print anywhere, so there's no way the film version could ever live up to it...
Sam picks Frodo up and says "I may not be able to carry it, but I can carry you!"  For some reason this scene never struck me as emotionally powerful in the books, but man did it pack a punch in the movie!
Sam and Frodo sit on the rock as lava flows around them talking about Sam and Rosie and the life they believe they'll never now have; glad at least to be together as friends at the end.
Frodo and Co. take their leave of Merry, Sam and Pippin at the Grey Havens.
And also, was anyone else really creeped out by Gollum at the very end?  As he hugs the ring to himself, completely oblivious to the fact that he's falling in the frikkin' lava?!  Or the look on his face as he hits the lava, and tries to hold the ring up out of it; clearly more concerned about it than himself...


----------



## ControlFreak (Dec 18, 2003)

Kestrel said:
			
		

> I would disagree with the order, but I think you definitely got the teary sections.
> 
> The fall of Boromir is still the one that gets me the most, closely followed by Aragorn the King bowing to the hobbits.



My 1, 2, and 3 were the top moments for me from each movie. All really for different reasons:

1) Even after seeing the movie a few times, I know that Gandalf will show up with Eomer .. but I get so caught up in the moment that I forget it every time. And then suddenly Aragorn remembers what Gandalf says .. and I remember it .. and I realize then that at that moment of defeat, they are saved.

2) When Frodo said he would take the ring to Mordor, the look in Gandalf's face is by far the thing that chokes me up in FotR. Gandalf is talking with these elves, dwarves, and men, and he's so obviously hoping for a better idea .. and he's dreading that he will have to ask Frodo to do it. Suddenly, Frodo volunteers and the look on Gandalf's face is one of complete sorrow with a tinge of relief. I couldn't have hoped for a better reaction.

3) Straight out of the book .. and it gets me the same way there as well. The sudden realization that they aren't there just to say goodbye to Bilbo and Gandalf, but to Frodo as well. I can barely type about it now thinking back. It's the end of an epic .. book or movie .. and it's amazing.

CF


----------



## Krug (Dec 18, 2003)

Regarding the ending:



> Jackson equates the trilogy to Tolkien's experiences in World War I.
> 
> The aftermath of the epic "felt to me very much like what would have happened after the end of the first World War," Jackson said. "Soldiers come back and life around them has gone on. But nobody really knows what they went through."


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 18, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Eowyn pulls off her helmet and says "But I am no man!"  Granted, I agree with barsoomcore that this moment was surprisingly underplayed, but maybe I made it up too big in my mind as one of the most dramatic moments in print anywhere, so there's no way the film version could ever live up to it...



 I might possibly be guilty of the same sin...


			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> And also, was anyone else really creeped out by Gollum at the very end?  As he hugs the ring to himself, completely oblivious to the fact that he's falling in the frikkin' lava?!  Or the look on his face as he hits the lava, and tries to hold the ring up out of it; clearly more concerned about it than himself...



I sure was. Eughhhh....

I'm just going to add the moment when Pippin offers his service to Denethor. It's such a heartfelt, generous and noble gesture. You just think, "Oh Pip, I hope you never learn!"

Billy Boyd == God

Wow did he pull one awesome performance after another. He was the great surprise of this film -- what a sudden depth and range he displayed. Wonderful.


----------



## KChagga (Dec 18, 2003)

Wow, what a great movie!  This truly is the best 3 movies I have ever seen.
I do have some complaints though.
The movie was choppy.  My girlfriend who has never read the books had a hard time following with some of the jumps.

Speaking of choppy.  The projectionist at National Amusements in Ann Arbor, Mi who was running theatre 9 at 10:10 (YES, you Buddy!) couldn't change reels for crap.  We actually had visible stops in the film at at least 3 switches  

I feel that we needed that scene with Saruman at the very least to show how the palantir got outside.  That seemed very odd. Hmph oh look a palantir just sitting around.  
I also think we needed to see Denethor with his palantir.  My girlfriend couldn't understand why he went nuts.

Excellent movie!
Best Trilogy Ever!


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 18, 2003)

myrdden said:
			
		

> Don't you mean Eowyn and Faramir? Eowyn and Eomer were, afterall, siblings.
> 
> Myrdden





Oops! That's what I get for being hasty.  

Yes, Faramir.  Otherwise it would just be wrong...


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 19, 2003)

There were times during the movie when my wife had to pry my hand off her leg, that's how tense and "into it" I was.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 19, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> There were times during the movie when my wife had to pry my hand off her leg, that's how tense and "into it" I was.



 My wife has that problem with my hand and her leg all the time.


----------



## CrusaderX (Dec 19, 2003)

I just returned from the theater, and wow, what a film.  I was highly entertained, but now I can't wait for the EE of ROTK, since I think it will improve the film considerably.

Favorite parts:

- Merry being left behind...only to be swooped up by Eowyn on horseback!

- Eowyn slaying the Witch King.  This is probably my favorite part in the whole film, if not the whole trilogy.  Eowyn is just amazing.    And the Witch King's actual death was quite cool.

- "You bow to nobody."  That scene really choked me up and got me teary-eyed.

- The ending with Sam, his wife, and kids.  In a saga of epic war and sweeping grandure, it was shown that family is what matters most.  Bravo!


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 19, 2003)

It was odd.  Maybe it's just a few things I'm going through in my life now, but I didn't cry at all.  I felt like I might start to cry as Frodo got onto the boat at the end, but that was all.  I was awed by many parts of the movie, and my emotions were pulled many different ways, but not to great sadness.

When I saw Fellowship, . . . and that's what I loved most about these movies, the Fellowship, . . . I cried when Frodo tried to cross the river alone, and then when Frodo realizes he still has a friend in Sam, a friend who will not leave him.  Interestingly, my then-girlfriend cried most when Sam promised that he wouldn't leave Frodo.

That girlfriend left me last year, just before Two Towers.  Since then, I've enjoyed the movies for their drama and cinema, but I haven't cried.  I suppose the character I most felt for was Gollum, the poor bastard.  Obsessed with something beautiful, unable to have it, and ultimately destroyed because he cannot be free of his desire for it.  I may sound a bit obsessed, but . . . watching the end of Return of the King, I felt that Sam thought of Frodo as a great friend that he was loyal to and would miss greatly, but Frodo loved Sam.

I loved the friendship I saw between all these characters.  That was the greatest thing for me; not the grand battles or the giant computer generated splendor, and certainly not the 'Ragnarokian fatalism.'  When the group sees Frodo at the end and smile and are so pleased to see him, that made me happy with the movie.  I was in a warm and fuzzy glow until the end of the credits.  My friends left the theater as soon as the credits started rolling, but I stayed because I wanted to see all of it.  The ending fulfilled me, and the pleasant feeling I enjoyed just then will always be one of my favorite memories.



That, and Shelob fighting Sam was hella cool.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 19, 2003)

Loved the movie, great cinema. My favorite parts were what I felt were the most epic moments.
The lighting of the fire's across the mountain range. For some reason this was one of my favorite scene's (though I wish it'd have been someone other than Aragorn watching for it at Rohan).

The charge of the Rohirim was the best charge in any movie ever! That I recall at least. They just plowed through, proving why they were so important to the battle.

Liked:
They left in the heads! (when the orc's catapult the heads)
Pippin's song during the charge to Osgiliath, and the futility of the charge was superb.

Didn't like:
the ending was too long IMO. I think the part to be deleted was the long ride with Bilbo (same dialogue could have been said at the harbor) and the book. He could have handed Sam the book and revealed the title as much as they had to have a seperate scene. The "everyones part must end" line's were important, but they seemed repetitive. And yeah, the white screen fooled quite a few people into standing. 

Only the fall of the First Ring is noted.

Spotlight was silly.


----------



## thalmin (Dec 19, 2003)

I can't believe that just reading about everyone's teary sections has me going again.
I said this at the end of the Fellowship, I've said it somewhere on these boards, but I'll say it again. This movie trilogy is not only better than I expected it to be, it is better than I could have hoped it would be. Powerful, well cast, brilliant acting, good pacing, special effects that were REAL, killer soundtrack, scenery to die for, very close to the books, true to Tolkien's theme.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 19, 2003)

thalmin said:
			
		

> This movie trilogy is not only better than I expected it to be, it is better than I could have hoped it would be. Powerful, well cast, brilliant acting, good pacing, special effects that were REAL, killer soundtrack, scenery to die for, very close to the books, true to Tolkien's theme.




Amen, brother.   I feel fortunate to have seen what I thought was impossible come to life.  There's only one other reading "experience" that is in the same league as LotR for me, and that's Narnia.  And when we see that brought to life with as much loving care as LotR was, I will be a happy man indeed.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 19, 2003)

Yeah, I'm being unduly harsh on TTT.   It's a damn good movie, I guess I just think it could have been a lot better.  But you guys are right, we are lucky that this much effort was put into bringing the story to the screen.


----------



## Kai Lord (Dec 19, 2003)

Return of the King is the culmination of a hundred years of cinema.  Every technique, everything ever learned in every aspect of filmmaking and fictional storytelling has now been surpassed.  Its that good.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 19, 2003)

Y'know what I missed?  Ghan-buri-ghan.  I know, I had no hope that he'd actually be in the movie, but I've always had a strange fascination with the Woses.


----------



## theburningman (Dec 19, 2003)

> There were times during the movie when my wife had to pry my hand off her leg, that's how tense and "into it" I was.




It was I who had to pry my wife's hand from _my_ leg as Shelob was stalking Frodo.  That scene was every bit as creepy as I had read, and it was the first time I was actually taken aback by a giant spider in a movie (usually they're just not that scary).


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Dec 19, 2003)

No Mouth of Sauron!  Other than that, complete geekgasm.  Ditto on everything everyone else said.


----------



## Kastil (Dec 19, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> The other giant cheers in our theater included:
> 
> Farimirs brave charge against hopeles odds at Osgiliath
> The initial charge of the Rohirrm
> The second charge of the Rohirrm against the Oliphants



Some in the theatre I was in:

-When Gandalf whacks Denethor with his staff for calling the retreat
-everytime one of the films started, especially RotK
-When Sam kicks butt on Shelob

I can't wait to take my son to see it and will pine for a year until the EE comes out.  I will be getting the boxed set again, of course :-D

Thank you New Line for my collectible.  It was a nice touch.  Last but not least, thanks to my husband who puts up with my little obsessions.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 19, 2003)

I have a dilemma.  I have a friend who I know would love this movie, but she is painfully arachnophobic.  The _mention_ of there being a spider in Lord of the Rings makes her nervous, and she screamed the first time she glimpsed Shelob in the trailer.  But the Shelob scene is one of the best in the movie.  Should I just cover her eyes during that entire sequence?


----------



## Particle_Man (Dec 19, 2003)

wow!  Loved it and DEFINITELY looking forward to the EE edition.

Comments:

1) This is a problem with the books too, but where are all the other dwarves, anyhow?  Did every dwarf die in Moria except Gimli?  Is there some other battle between dwarves and orcs that we don't get to see?  Heck, there were more HOBBITS fighting in ROTK than dwarves.

2) We should start a poll for women of Lotr: Arwen, Galadriel, Eowyn, Rosie, unnamed woman who sends kids to safety in TTT, and Shelob (of course).  

3) The Gollum as CGI makes the final gollum wrestling the invisible frodo believable.  Amazing!  Nothing hokey in either Gollum's or Shelob's CGI.

4) I loved how Frodo's line "Sorry Sam. Sorry about Everything." when Sam rescued him in the tower parallels Bilbo's line to Frodo after Bilbo tried to snag the ring back.

5) If Jackson isn't allowed to make The Hobbit into a film, there ain't no justice.

6) In the final credits, notice how Gollum/Smeagol got TWO line drawings?  Loved that touch.

7) On "I will watch it again. I will buy the EE of the DVD's. I will always notice the parts that were poorly done no matter how hard I try not to, I will always miss the parts of the story that were left out or changed that I felt were important, and I will always love the parts that were well-done and equaled or exceeded my expectations.  This is the movie all Tolkien fans will have to live with, and live with it I will. " This parallels The Wizard of Oz.  That movie had flaws, but no sane person will try to do a remake of that movie.  I can't imagine anyone trying to do a remake of Lotr.

8) So according to the movie, the ring-bearers were: Sauron, Isildur, Deagol, Smeagol, Bilbo, Frodo, Smeagol again.  (Boromir, Aragorn, Sam, don't actually touch the ring, if I remember correctly).  Oh wait, did Galadriel hold the ring or not?


----------



## Krug (Dec 19, 2003)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I have a dilemma.  I have a friend who I know would love this movie, but she is painfully arachnophobic.  The _mention_ of there being a spider in Lord of the Rings makes her nervous, and she screamed the first time she glimpsed Shelob in the trailer.  But the Shelob scene is one of the best in the movie.  Should I just cover her eyes during that entire sequence?




I can say those spider scenes are pretty intense... Yeah you should cover them.


----------



## KenM (Dec 19, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> I can say those spider scenes are pretty intense... Yeah you should cover them.




  Yes they are, my girlfriend does not like gross or creepy stuff in movies. She got freaked out with the arrows hitting Bromir in FotR. I'm seeing RotK this Saturday, third time for me, first time for Her, I can't wait the see Her reaction to Shelob.   

   How come we don't see the orc general die onscreen? I heard a rumor that it was suposted to be Gimli's big fight scene, but it was cut, and will be in the EE. But they leave the hansome elf's big scene in, discrimnation, I tell you.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 19, 2003)

*re*



			
				Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Well you have helped me make up my mind.  I will, regardless of pressure from friends and family, not watch the theatrical release.  I will wait for the EE.   It already sounds like they have cut the hell out of the book.   I don't want that lingering taste of foulness like I had after seeing the TT on opening night.




If you don't see this movie on the bigscreen, you will kick yourself. There are some moments that just won't be the same on the small screen. There are some real jaw dropping moments in this film. It really is a cinematic masterpiece.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 19, 2003)

*re*



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I might possibly be guilty of the same sin...




It was the movie. The scene was too quick and the relationship between Eomer and his sister was never built up properly, so it didn't even matter whether the scene when he sees her is not included. They didn't even include the part where she and Merry lay grievously injured.

The movie did not properly portray the cost of slaying the Witchking of Angmar, which hurts its emotional impact for me. Merry and Eowyn nearly died from killing him, and you could not tell watching the movie.


----------



## GMVictory (Dec 19, 2003)

I'm a comic book fan for 30+ years.  Movies based on comics have overloaded the need to complain or nitpick and that urge has burned right out of me.  

I watch book adaptations for the moments/scenes where they get it absolutely right.  Those moments where, in the case of comics, the illustrations are alive.  And, in other literature, where my imagination has somehow been stolen and is depicted on screen.  Sometimes, improved upon.

These three movies were full of those moments for me.


----------



## Endur (Dec 19, 2003)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> 1) This is a problem with the books too, but where are all the other dwarves, anyhow?  Did every dwarf die in Moria except Gimli?  Is there some other battle between dwarves and orcs that we don't get to see?  Heck, there were more HOBBITS fighting in ROTK than dwarves.




The Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain fought their own battle in the book that we didn't get to see.  Against the Easterlings.  After the fall of Sauron, they cleaned out Moria.



			
				Particle_Man said:
			
		

> 8) So according to the movie, the ring-bearers were: Sauron, Isildur, Deagol, Smeagol, Bilbo, Frodo, Smeagol again.  (Boromir, Aragorn, Sam, don't actually touch the ring, if I remember correctly).  Oh wait, did Galadriel hold the ring or not?




In the book, Sam is considered a ring-bearer for the short time he held the ring in the Tower.


----------



## Berandor (Dec 19, 2003)

Reading this gets me started again.
My favourite scenes in part three:

* The joy in Theoden's face when the Olifants attack. He really loves the challenge.
* Shelob's scene. It seemed to be over so quick, and then was sooo good!
* The charge of the Rohirrim, Sam picking up Frodo, Faramir's charge, naturally
* Gandalf talking with Pippin at the final gate
* Aragorn turning around to his men at the Black Gate: "For Frodo!" Wow.
* The Fellowship reassembled with Gandalf laughing.
* The hobbits in the Green Dragon
* How Gandalf and Pippin ascend Minas Tirith.
... the whole movie!

Legolas killing the Olifant was cheesy, but I loved it nonetheless. I was wondering, though, whether I would have allowed it in a D&D game. I hope I would have, because it was a cool scene 

Hugo Weaving was always a little "Smith" in FotR and TTT, but here he really transformed for me. But despite the good to great acting by the whole cast, my favourite has to be Bernhard Hill. The old man riding into the battle, finally able to find the honor of his forebears - grand!


----------



## Chain Lightning (Dec 19, 2003)

Just saw it again. Was surprised to find it better the second time. 

I still hold to my first review that was posted earlier in this thread. Although, I suspect no one read it because of the huge amount of spoiler black out lines.

I add some more tid bits about the movie.

First time I watched it, everyone laughed and cheered at the appropriate scenes. Second time was a little different. No one ever laughed at either Pippin or Aragorn singing. But...the inappropriate laughter came in on the second time I watched it. 

Some uncontrollable laughter erupted from two guys during the scene where Frodo wakes up in bed after being rescued by the eagles. They laughed when Legolas appeared at the door. Then when Aragorn appeared. Then they started to attempt to be quiet...but lost control again and laughed when Sam showed up. I assume its the nature of the dreamy lighting and the slo-mo that made them laugh. Probably misinterpreting the scene to be 'romantic like entrances' rather than just good friends entering a room. The slo-mo doesn't help I admit. 

On another note, ever cheer at a part that no one else cheered at? Like your mind cheered on impulse without first waiting to hear if anyone else was cheering. Thus, you ended up being the only one cheering and slightly embarrassed. Well, I did a small cheer at a part no else cheered at. But didn't mind. I wasn't embarrassed or anything. It was when Rosie threw the flowers and Pippen caught it instead of the girl next to him. Then the girl next to him gives him this look, suggesting to the audience that Pippen may find a romantic interest next. At that I did a small cheer. A little "Yeah!" 

Speaking of Eowyn vs. the Witch King. Indeed, Eowyn is one of my favorite characters. I too felt a tad let down on PJ's version. Not totally so much to dislike the scene entirely...but I just wish it was better. Yeah, the staging was very undynamic and so was the cheoreography. And I love Miranda Otta to pieces, but her fighting stance was poor and so was her warcry. I kinda wished that she didnt' do any warcry before thrusting her sword through the Witch King's head.

Having listened to the commentary and hearing Miranda yearn for some fighting time on screen (much like Eowyn), .......I expected her to be really physically ready when it came time. It didn't seem like it. She seemed to somewhat fight like a girl who's about a week into self-defense class at the local community center. Now, to be fair....the fault may not be in Miranda's performance. It simply could be the way PJ directed her to move or the stunt coordinator telling her to do this or that. Who knows. But the end product wasn't completely to my liking. 

Having Faramir's character have extra depth in the movie version made me even more excited about seeing him and Eowyn find each other. So, yet another little disappointment when I don't see them in that moment when the talk to each other. 

Here's another thing. Where were the Easterlings? Maybe in the book they don't show up at Pellenor Fields, but since they were shown in TTT.........shouldn't they have made an appearence?


----------



## Kestrel (Dec 19, 2003)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Just saw it again. Was surprised to find it better the second time.




I have to see it a second time.  Im always too busy trying to find the books in the first viewings.  Its hard to enjoy the film for what it is when Im looking to see what they left out or changed.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 19, 2003)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Some uncontrollable laughter erupted from two guys during the scene where Frodo wakes up in bed after being rescued by the eagles. They laughed when Legolas appeared at the door. Then when Aragorn appeared. Then they started to attempt to be quiet...but lost control again and laughed when Sam showed up. I assume its the nature of the dreamy lighting and the slo-mo that made them laugh. Probably misinterpreting the scene to be 'romantic like entrances' rather than just good friends entering a room. The slo-mo doesn't help I admit.




I think I know what was happening here, as there was uncontrollable laughing in my theatre atthat part too, and I know why my folks were laughing...

Have you ever heard of "slash fic"?  It is a subset of "fanfic" - fan-written fiction, using characters from popular stories.  Slash fic is about romantic and/or sexual interludes the author would like to see that don't appear in the original text.  Frequently the stuff crosses the assumed sexual preferences of the characters - there's lots of Frodo/Sam (see that slash?  thus the name) fanfic out there, because many folks like to interpret their relationship as homosexual.

Anyway, much fanfic is bad, slashfic often worse.  In that light, that whole scene looks like the start of a really, really bad piece of slash fic.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 19, 2003)

I'm too involved with evaluating the film as an adaptation of the books to really properly evaluate it as a film on the first viewing.  Nevertheless, I think I'll end up liking this one at least as much as TTT.  I'll likely go see it again tomorrow.

My bugs:

The pacing seemed off to me - the film just moved too _fast_.  This made it less of a chore to sit through, but not so great a film as it otherwise might have been.  It should have been 4 hours.  I expect the EE to fix this, but waiting another year is going to grate.

Since it was announced back before the release of FotR, I've been defending Jackson's decision to cut the Scouring of the Shire as unnecessary and anticlimactic.  Yet, at the end of RotK, I felt the lack of it.

The Armies of the West circling up on the hills before the Black Gate is right out of the book, save that there is no hill in the movie.  After musing on it for several days, I think that the sight of the Black Bate, open, and Barad-dur beyond as the Host of Mordor marches through is one of the most awe-inspring sight of the film.

I though the "searchlight" effect of the Eye was a bit cheesy, but not jarringly so.  And it's very much like it's described in the book.

Eowyn vs. the Witch-King:  This was one of the scenes from the book that I felt Jackson needed to absolutely _nail_, but unlike Gandalf vs. the Balrog (which he got exactly right,) he didn't quite.  I really wanted that dialogue, both from Eowyn and the Witch-King.


----------



## Davelozzi (Dec 19, 2003)

I agree that Eowyn and the Witch-King, while still great to watch, was a not quite as dramatic as I had hoped.  Perhaps, like barsoomcore and Joshua Dyal, I had built it up too much in my head, although from what I can remember, it was done well in the cartoon version of RotK.  

And although, the fight itself could have been a bit better (a more deadly struggle would've been more climactic), the main issue for me was the way the whole secrecy of Eowyn's time as Dernhelm was glossed over.  Sure, there's enough in the books to make it pretty obvious that Dernhelm is Eowyn, but they never come right out and say it until the final moment when she removes her helmet and says "I am no man".  Having Merry say "my lady!" as she picks him up was a bad idea.  Since they didn't mind taking such liberties with voice mixing to make Gandalf sound like Saruman when he first appears as the White Wizard in TTT, I would think they could've exercised a little more subtelty with Eowyn's disguise.

That said, Eowyn is one of my all time favorite characters in my all time favorite stories, so of course my expectations were high.  Even with the slight disappointment, she is still one of favorites in the film.  I've always been surprised whenever someone says that Tolkien couldn't do strong female characters.  To me, Eowyn is probalby  the strongest female character in fantsy literature.

But enough griping.  This movie was incredible.  The effects were insane.  The siege of Minas Tirith was jaw dropping.  I have a new respect for catapults.  The adaptations to turn the book into a movie were well done.  When I saw TTT in the theater, I was disappointed by the changes to Faramir, but with the extra footage in the extended version and the handling of his character in RotK, he is redeemed in my eyes.

Great film!


----------



## Berandor (Dec 19, 2003)

Well, Eowyn is no wizard; she could onlyy disguise her so good. I think if PJ would have presented us with a "believable" disguise we would have seen through nonetheless (especially since false beards or something wasn't really available), and just thought how stupid it was that no character in the movie got that.
Otoh, now we can see her ducking away from Theoden riding by, so we see she's trying to remain undetected within her measly disguise. I thought it was alright.


----------



## Ashy (Dec 19, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Weird.  Nothing like that in my theatre; I thought the singing was quite a poignant backdrop to the utter waste and tragedy of the moment.




Same way with me, Joshua....


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 19, 2003)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Well, Eowyn is no wizard; she could onlyy disguise her so good. I think if PJ would have presented us with a "believable" disguise we would have seen through nonetheless (especially since false beards or something wasn't really available), and just thought how stupid it was that no character in the movie got that.
> Otoh, now we can see her ducking away from Theoden riding by, so we see she's trying to remain undetected within her measly disguise. I thought it was alright.




And we wouldn't have had shots establishing her fear/amazement/joy/whathaveyou as she approached battle.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 19, 2003)

I saw it last night, and I thought I would post my thoughts before reading this entire thread, so as to avoid contamination.  After I've posted, I'll go back and see what everyone else thought, and maybe reply here and there.

First, I think the casting was superlative.  I don't watch many movies or much TV, so most of these people were totally new to me.  But dang!  PJ nailed it every time.

The only change from the book that annoyed me was the 'Arwen is dying' schtick.  Totally unnecessary and cheesy.

I absolutely loved Bernard Hill's portrayal of Theoden.  It was masterful.  Shakespearean, even.  Of course, it helped that they left in his soliloquys from the book.  He really nailed the Beowulf aspect of being a King of Rohan.

Eowyn was totally cool and inspiring in the battle of the Pellenor.  The only thing I wanted that was not there was to hear her say "Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!" like she does in the book.  

Loved Legolas and the elephant.  Was it cheesy?  Of course.  What's your point?  

Sean Astin put in an amazing performance.  Samwise the hero indeed.  When Frodo tells him to go home, his tears broke my heart, and made me shed some of my own.  I hope he wins best supporting actor.  At the very least, I don't think he'll ever want for acting jobs. 

I wanted to see more of Faramir's story--the scenes in the Houses of Healing with Eowyn are poignant in the book, and I hope they make it into the extended version. I shed some tears at the way Denethor treated him.   Of course, part of why I want to see his story is because the actor, David Wenham, is tasty eye candy.

Now that I've seen Shelob, my players had better beware if I ever run giant spiders again, boy howdy.  Disgusting and frightening at the same time.  Filled with evil goodness.

Generally, the battles were amazing.  I'm not a big fan of the shaking camera technique, but I can see how the disorientation and confusion it adds made the battle scenes appropriately chaotic.  And I loved the catapults of Minas Tirith throwing big chunks of damaged buildings out onto the enemy, where they squashed whole platoons.  Wholesale slaughter, baby!

I'm glad that they kept going with the Gimli/Legolas competition, but I wish the dwarf would have been a bit more than comic relief. 

Overall though, I think I liked TT extended version best so far.  I just couldn't care enough about Gondor and its people.  I knew from the books that I was supposed to, and why.  But if I had not read the books (10+ times) I don't think I would have understood who they were or why they mattered.  The Rohirrim seemed far more interesting to me, and captured my heart far more.  Perhaps PJ will spend a bit more time on the people of Minas Tirith, so they will seem worth all the trouble.

That's all for now.  I didn't get to bed until 2:00 am, and woke at 5:15.  I'm not functioning fully today.


----------



## danbala (Dec 19, 2003)

Salthanas said:
			
		

> No Gandalf confrontation with the Witch King! QUOTE]
> 
> You just made me realize that this: http://www.lordoftherings.net/media/desktops/creatures_witchking2_1024.jpg
> 
> wasn't in the movie! I guess we know one new scene for the EE!


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 19, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> When the Rohirrim all chanted "Death!" as they charged into battle against a host they had no hope of defeating, I had shivers throughout my body. When Sam, realising (apparently) for the first time, that there would be no return trip, but he still stoutly picked Frodo up and carried him most of the way up the slope of Mt. Doom, I felt something similar. And I understood the satisfaction Theoden had during his dying moments as he said he could now go to his mighty ancestors and not feel ashamed to stand amongst them, or Faramir's willingness to go on an errand that he knew to be suicide.



I found these moments to be chilingly powerful too.  And I too, found it surprising, and somehow heartening, that in our modern ammoral culture such scenes of honor without hope of reward could be so stirring.  

I'm glad PJ understood these scenes from the book so well.  This trilogy could have been a disaster if it had been done by someone who did not respect the text enough.  Even though he made some changes, none of them (except the Arwen one I mentioned in my previous post) struck me as unnecessary or as fumbles.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 19, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I was kind of disappointed that the Mouth of Sauron didn't make it into the movie. I was looking forward to seeing him present Gandalf and Aragorn with Frodo's gear and seeing the despair on their faces as they believe that Frodo failed in the quest.



Yeah, me too.  Perhaps we'll see it in the extended version, but I suspect not.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 19, 2003)

theburningman said:
			
		

> It was I who had to pry my wife's hand from _my_ leg as Shelob was stalking Frodo. That scene was every bit as creepy as I had read, and it was the first time I was actually taken aback by a giant spider in a movie (usually they're just not that scary).



True about giant spiders.  I think part of what made it so scary was that WETA had obviously thought a lot about how a giant spider would fight, and made her seem massive and clever.  She was constantly throwing her weight around, knocking him to the side with her forelegs, pinning him, and so forth; her fighting style was like a special form of kung fu you can only do if you have eight legs, fangs, and an abdominal stinger .  Most giant spiders just attack by running up and biting at you -- borrrrring!

Shelob, without having a single line, came across as wickedly intelligent, as having a personality.  Quite a difficult feat.

As for Faramir's suicidal charge, I gotta say that hit me hard.  I'm nowhere near an expert on the books, having read them three times in twenty years, and I have no head at all for battle scenes.  When Faramir and his troops started to ride out, I was thinking, "Surely they're not really going back to Osgyliath?  Surely someone's going to stop them just in time?"  And then the expressions on the faces of the orcs as they see the line of cavalry coming across the field -- the orcs thinking, incredulously, "Are you fools *serious*?"  And then everyone charging forward to their deaths as the orcs shrug and accommodate them -- it took me until the end of Pippin's song to believe it was really* happening.  Superb!

Daniel

* you know what I mean


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 19, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I truly felt Jackson needed one more movie to tie this up right. I think they were stuck in trilogy mode from the beginning and _Lord of the Rings_ required a break with tradition.



Maybe, but given the hard time he had convincing anyone to make three movies, I think four would never have happened.



> The Battle of the Pelennor fields and all that happened during that time could have been a movie in and of itself. The pacing was so fast it felt like they were stuffing me full of epic, momentous, emotionally powerful moments until my mind was too over-whelmed to care anymore. Just too fast paced for me and not enough time given for the moments to build and reach climax before the next moment came. It was a whirlwind.



I think this may be why I liked Two Towers better.  As we were walking back to the car after the movie, my husband said "Was Peter Jackson trying to see how many epic battles he could cram into one movie or something?"  Granted, hubby hasn't read the books for 20 years, but he does have a point.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 19, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> "Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!"
> 
> Which is possibly the best line ever given to any character at any time in any work of human creativity. But I acknowledge that is my own idiosyncrasy.



It's an idiosyncrasy we share, then.  I'm sorely disappointed at the lack of that line too.

For me, Eowyn has always been one of the bravest and most interesting characters in the trilogy.  By cutting this short, the diminished her.  She was still wonderful, and I savored the scene.  But.  I.  Want.  That.  Line.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 19, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Maybe, but given the hard time he had convincing anyone to make three movies, I think four would never have happened.



 On the other hand, given the 1.8 BILLION dollars the first two films have generated (so far), I'd say he'd have an easier time of it now...

Shame the films have already been done, hey?


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 19, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> On the other hand, given the 1.8 BILLION dollars the first two films have generated (so far), I'd say he'd have an easier time of it now...



I've been thinking about this.  The commercial success of these films ought to prove to even the most out-of-touch suit that doing it right can earn you more money than doing it cheap.

I wonder if there will be any lasting changes on the way studios think about movies and their financing.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 19, 2003)

Actually, Peter Jackson was struggling to make _two_ films.  When he went from Miramax to New Line, they actually told him that it didn't make any sense to not do three.  Three cheers for the suits!  That doesn't happen everyday.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 19, 2003)

Yes. Michael de Luca (President at New Line at the time) deserves a lot of credit for his faith in Peter Jackson's vision and his willingness to do it right.

Will it change the way movies are made? No question -- it already has. I suspect that the decisions to make the Matrix sequels as a unit AND to make Kill Bill into two parts were both easier decisions to make in the wake of the bold decision by New Line to commit to the entire LotR project up front.

New Line looks awfully smart right now.

JD, what's up with the Wham! quote?


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 19, 2003)

Hey, everyone's gotta celebrate the holidays in their own way.  

Maybe next time I come to Vancouver, I'll celebrate it in that lovely leather bar you describe so well...

Err...  also, don't forgot Back to the Future 2 and 3 were made as a single unit.  For whatever reason that didn't change the way movies were made.


----------



## dagger (Dec 19, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's an odd scene to look forward to, since all they do is look at each other menacingly for a while, then a c0ck crows and the Witch-king hightails it away from the gate.  That's hardly the stuff of epic film-making.
> I kinda felt that way as well.  At least I have some kind of cinematic LotR experience still to look forward to!






I actually think that is a very exciting point in the battle, not the end all be all of moments, but it is very cool nonetheless.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 20, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's an odd scene to look forward to, since all they do is look at each other menacingly for a while, then a c0ck crows and the Witch-king hightails it away from the gate. That's hardly the stuff of epic film-making.




In rode the Lord of the Nazgul. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgul, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.

All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dinen.

"You cannot enter here," said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. "Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!"

The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.

"Old fool!" he said. "Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!" And with that he lifted high his sword and flame ran down the blade.

Gandalf did not move. And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the City, a  crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn. And as if in answer, there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns. In dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last."

____________

An odd scene? Maybe it wouldn't work as well on film (I think it would) , but that will always be the most memorable section of the book for me.

Edit: Apparently the synonym for rooster can't be used here


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 20, 2003)

Sigh.  I think I need to read the books again. It's been about 18 months.  I read them for the first time in 1974, and have been reading them every two years or so since then.  They still have the power to move me.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 20, 2003)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> The pacing seemed off to me - the film just moved too _fast_.  This made it less of a chore to sit through, but not so great a film as it otherwise might have been.  It should have been 4 hours.  I expect the EE to fix this, but waiting another year is going to grate.




I sort of felt the same way, that there was a rush to the battle, but then I remembered that the movie is 3 hours+!
I mean, at some point you have to say "stop" and I'm surprised they even let it get as long as it got.



> Since it was announced back before the release of FotR, I've been defending Jackson's decision to cut the Scouring of the Shire as unnecessary and anticlimactic.  Yet, at the end of RotK, I felt the lack of it.




I didn't miss it. The fact that Book Fans have been harping on it for so long is the only reason I even remembered it.
I like heroes that are content in themselves, the look the guy gave them when they came riding home in all their finery from saving the world...

that look that said "bah, another bunch of malcontents"

That was perfect for me! Sending them home to fight some more, that wasn't important to me. They did all they needed to do by that point.


----------



## theburningman (Dec 20, 2003)

Without bragging too much, let me say that I wish I had had an eighth grade teacher as cool as I am.  Today (the last day before Christmas break), we spent the morning before lunch watching FotR, and the afternoon watching TTT.  Not a bad way to spend a school day, huh?  I figure I'm going to single-handedly raise RotK's box office take by about $1500, since almost all of my 130 students said they were going to get their parents to take them to see it this weekend.  

Anyway, while we were watching it, I was really focusing on details that I hadn't noticed before, and how they paid off in RotK.  I can't remember who it was on this thread who commented about Frodo's abrupt decision to send Sam away and how it just wasn't believable.  I might have been inclined to agree with them before today, but not anymore.

Frodo's Ring-induced paranoia and distrust are built very steadily through the first two movies.  In Lothlorien he imagines that the others are giving him evil looks.  In TTT he often sides with Gollum against Sam, most of the time because he is inspired by pity like Bilbo was.  When I take the progression through all three movies, Frodo's abandonment of Sam doesn't seem abrupt or out of character at all to me.  It also serves to ramp up the tension for the audience.  Maybe it could have been done more closely to the book, but I'm not sure it would make for a better film scene.

My two cents.


----------



## Endur (Dec 20, 2003)

I wonder how many hours of film it would have taken to make a complete remake of LOTR.  Many more, I guess.  Even with everything they covered, they left out a lot.

I'm very happy with ROTK.  Especially the part covering the Rohirrim.  

We didn't see as much of the Gondorians, mostly just Pippin and Faramir and Denethor and loyal soldiers obeying.  Awesome architecture.  Some mention of Denthor's use of the palantir as one of the causes of his insanity would have been appropriate.


----------



## Mystery Man (Dec 20, 2003)

> I wonder how many hours of film it would have taken to make a complete remake of LOTR. Many more, I guess. Even with everything they covered, they left out a lot.




Word is, there's 55 hours of good film. We've seen what, nie or ten? Word also is, there's a 55 hour version some time in the future.

Just a rumor, but wouldn't that be cool?


----------



## pezagent (Dec 20, 2003)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Word is, there's 55 hours of good film. We've seen what, nie or ten? Word also is, there's a 55 hour version some time in the future.
> 
> Just a rumor, but wouldn't that be cool?




Honestly? No... I believe in editing. What ends up on the cutting room floor often belongs on the cutting room floor (yes, I know there's no floor anymore, it's just an expression).

It's like Steven King novels--once upon a time he had an editor. Now he doesn't. A novel that could be 300 pages is now 3000. (I don't read SK anymore, just an example...)

/johnny


----------



## Berandor (Dec 20, 2003)

Well, the 55 hours most likely include several different angles of the same scene, which you really wouldn't want to see five of, one after the other.


----------



## Alcareru (Dec 21, 2003)

Finally, finally saw the film after taxing my willpower all week. I loved it too, probably my favorite installment of the 3.

Like the other films I have small nitpicks over things not included from the books. I would have loved at least a small cameo from Saruman considering hes been one of the driving antagonist thru 2 films.

But my rambling thoughts.... 

While I liked the Smeagol scene, Andy Serkins kinda played him like the village idiot with that sily grin on his face. But the whole sequence, like the other beginning scenes of the other 2 films was great.

And I missed the voice of Sauron too.

But the movie really did tie everything together and the characters by now have really grown and developed. I choked up in so many places more than I have in a movie in recent times, in places mentioned by others in this thread.

It was wonderful the Sam (the true hero of the trilogy after all) did become one of the centerpieces of the movie.

And I absolutely loved Galadriels impish grin at the end. Galadriel, the rebel, the exile going home at last.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Dec 21, 2003)

Took my girlfriend and 4 of my closests friends to see it at the Imax theatre. 

I'm not sure how I feel about it yet. So many mixed emotions.

I'm going to see it again next week so I can give a full review.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 21, 2003)

Just saw the movie today. I have to go see it another couple of times, of course. Loved it. Even though there were a few changes/portrayals I could have done without, it's a monumental cinematic achievement and incredibly well-done. Waiting for December won't be the same again.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 21, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> I wonder how many hours of film it would have taken to make a complete remake of LOTR.  Many more, I guess.  Even with everything they covered, they left out a lot.




I'd love for them to edit togethor all three movies into one long movie. It'd work great.



> I'm very happy with ROTK.  Especially the part covering the Rohirrim.
> 
> We didn't see as much of the Gondorians, mostly just Pippin and Faramir and Denethor and loyal soldiers obeying.  Awesome architecture.  Some mention of Denthor's use of the palantir as one of the causes of his insanity would have been appropriate.




They mention the Eye of <Wherever> when he rebukes Gandalf's aid. A simple quote from Gandalf saying "they have a palantir here, if he's been using it overmuch..." or something of the sort.

But, oh well. He was made to be unlikable, and succeded. Burning alive was fitting!


----------



## Dispater (Dec 21, 2003)

Saw it yesterday. All I can say for the moment is that I am extremely impressed, and that I'll let my final judgement wait until I have at least seen it one more time in the cinemas.


----------



## Fast Learner (Dec 21, 2003)

While the Sauron Searchlight effect was kinda cheesy, I don't know how else they could have effectively accomplished what they needed to do. There are all kinds of lines in the book like "the eye of Sauron was upon them," and it would have been just as difficult to show Sauron being distracted.

A bit goofy, sure, but I don't know how it could have been better and still achieved what it did.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 21, 2003)

As for Serkis' portrayal of pre-ring Smeagol.... Well, if you look at the scene in the books, he's pretty spot-on.  Smeagol comes from a long-ago time, before hobbits were as civilized and cultured and sophisticated as they are today.  

As for the Scouring of the Shire... I missed it.  It is the single strongest portrayal of how the hobbits have grown and changed over the course of their adventures.  Looking lordly as they ride into town and being glowered at by an old-timer just doesn't do the trick, IMHO.  

Luckily, the farewell scene was well-done, so the thing didn't end on a flat note, for me.


----------



## Bob Aberton (Dec 21, 2003)

With regards to Denethor's madness, I will try to look at it as though I never read the books (although I have read them) and thus don't know that he had a Palantir.

I would say that to the non-JRRT-reading moviegoer, Denethor's madness was a combination of the death of his favorite son, the coming necessity of giving up rulership of most powerful kingdom in Middle-Earth, followed by the apparent death of his other son, and the apparently imminent destruction of Gondor (for which he will go down in history as the ruler that lost Gondor to the Enemy).  To Denethor, all of this basically amounts to the end of world (or at least the end of that part of the world that matters to him).  So he goes crazy.

That's a pretty difficult series of losses and defeats to go through in just a few months (or weeks, I can't remember which...).  Is it any wonder he committed suicide?

Of course, if you know about the Palantir, that's just one more cause to add to those listed above.

And anyway, did anyone notice the irony in having the same shot showing Denethor falling to his death also reveal the cavalry of Rohan preparing to break the siege?  If he'd just stuck around a few minutes longer...but as it is, he kills himself right at the moment of what could have been his glorious victory for Gondor.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 21, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> As for Serkis' portrayal of pre-ring Smeagol.... Well, if you look at the scene in the books, he's pretty spot-on.  Smeagol comes from a long-ago time, before hobbits were as civilized and cultured and sophisticated as they are today.



My problem with it, was that his voice and mannerisms were too much Gollum already. It downplays the degeneration of Gollum if he started that close to it already. IMO ofcourse.



> As for the Scouring of the Shire... I missed it.  It is the single strongest portrayal of how the hobbits have grown and changed over the course of their adventures.  Looking lordly as they ride into town and being glowered at by an old-timer just doesn't do the trick, IMHO.




Just seems to me that all the fighting they did to save the world, it's kind of minimized when they return to find the Shire in trouble. They returned triumphant to a place that didn't even know it was in danger. The Scouring just seems a way to get them the credit they perhaps deserve, but don't pursue. The scene of them drinking togethor caps it perfectly for me. They know what they did, and they did it so that the other hobbits never had to undergo the dangers they faced. I think for most average movie goer's, that's a better resolution than going into detail about the rescue of the Shire. But then, I liked the epic feel of the movie, and think the Shire battles would have paled in comparison to the Charge.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 21, 2003)

Bob Aberton said:
			
		

> ...and the apparently imminent destruction of Gondor (for which he will go down in history as the ruler that lost Gondor to the Enemy).




I think that the movie makes it pretty clear that if Gondor falls, there will not actually be any more history, at least not in the sense anyone cares about.  If Minas Tirith falls, Gondor falls.  If Gondor falls, Sauron wins.  Permanently.  It isn't just the end of the everything he cares about.  It really is the end of the world as anyone knows it.




			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Just seems to me that all the fighting they did to save the world, it's kind of minimized when they return to find the Shire in trouble. They returned triumphant to a place that didn't even know it was in danger. The Scouring just seems a way to get them the credit they perhaps deserve, but don't pursue.




I'll grant you, if what you're looking for is an action sequence, it'd be anticlimatic.  But if you're looking at character development, it's more essential.  The Scouring isn't a way to give them credit, but to display what their character has become after going through the events.  With the haughty glances and sitting clinking mugs in the tavern, you'd almost think Merry and Pippin hadn't changed or grown much as people through the whole mess.


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 22, 2003)

Just saw the movie last night......utterly amazing.

I don't know what my favourite part is.  There are *parts* that I like better from Fellowship, but taken as a whole, I like Return of the King better.

The charge of the Mumakils, the ringwraiths mounts swooping, grabbing people, and throwing them from the heights, Frodo standing over the volcano.....the battle with Shelob....

There was so much to like.  Admittedly, lots of stuff was changed.  But count me in the camp that doesn't care.  I think there are truths in the statement that the book, if filmed literally as it occurred, would have utterly failed.

Tolkien was brilliant....but Peter Jackson understood how to take the best elements, and the most elements, for that matter, to create the best possible movie based on the book.

It's going to be a long, long wait for the DVD release..

Banshee


----------



## Taren Seeker (Dec 22, 2003)

All the nitpicking and kvetching aside there were only 2 things in this entire trilogy that really bothered me, as in PJ made a bad decision.

1) Legolas' shield ride.  Sorry, it just totally breaks the mood for me.

2) Elrond telling Aragorn that Arwen's life is somehow linked to the Ring. Hmm, I think saving Gondor and the entire world was probably enough motivation for Aragorn to kick some ass.  Adding that in seemed like cheap melodrama.

That's it. In 10+ hours of movie, TWO things that bugged me enough to pull me out of the experience of viewing. PJ made some decisions that I may not agree with, but I have to say that in only those two instances did he make a bad decision. I think that's a distinction that a lot of haters fail to make.

What a great ride. Now I can only dream of what wonders await us in the EE. Sigh, only 11 months to go.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 22, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I'll grant you, if what you're looking for is an action sequence, it'd be anticlimatic. But if you're looking at character development, it's more essential. The Scouring isn't a way to give them credit, but to display what their character has become after going through the events. With the haughty glances and sitting clinking mugs in the tavern, you'd almost think Merry and Pippin hadn't changed or grown much as people through the whole mess.



My interpretation of the scene in the tavern is quite different. I saw it as a reflection of just how much the four hobbits had changed and grown, including Merry and Pippin. In almost all other scenes from the movies in which they were in a tavern or at a celebration (including one in RotK, in Edoras IIRC), Merry and Pippin were right in the middle of the festivities. They liked being the center of attention, and the ring leaders of any mischief that was going on.

Now after having gone to war, they realize that sort of activitiy is immature. They've grown, and are content to just sit and drink with their war buddies.

I've witnessed the same sort of changes in real-life servicemen who have gone to war.

And I think the haughty glances they receive upon returning were more for their reputations before they left rather than for anything they had done upon returning. I think hobbits in the Shire were treating them the same way they did when the four left, but the four had grown during their adventure and were nothing like they were when the left. I don't think the four were or would act like conquering heroes returned from the war; they are content in their knowledge of what they did, and how they proved themselves, to themselves, and they probably could care less what the rest of the Shire's residents think about them.

Just my take/interpretation.


----------



## GMVictory (Dec 22, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> My interpretation of the scene in the tavern is quite different. I saw it as a reflection of just how much the four hobbits had changed and grown, including Merry and Pippin. In almost all other scenes from the movies in which they were in a tavern or at a celebration (including one in RotK, in Edoras IIRC), Merry and Pippin were right in the middle of the festivities. They liked being the center of attention, and the ring leaders of any mischief that was going on.
> 
> Now after having gone to war, they realize that sort of activitiy is immature. They've grown, and are content to just sit and drink with their war buddies.
> 
> ...




As a former serviceman who's been to war that scene was exactly how I felt when my buddies and I returned to the world.  Life went on for the civilians with no clue what we had gone through or what had been required of us.  We watched people around us evince an innocence we no longer had.  Carefree and experiencing happiness that was no longer available to us.  I'm not saying we were all somehow damaged in our time in theater, but we were irrevocably changed and saw the world around us differently.  Only we and those of us who were there could fully empathize.  

I thought that this end was better than the burning of the shire (for the movie).  I liked that they had averted the future that Frodo had seen with Galadriel.  They preserved their home.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 22, 2003)

GMVictory said:
			
		

> As a former serviceman who's been to war that scene was exactly how I felt when my buddies and I returned to the world.  Life went on for the civilians with no clue what we had gone through or what had been required of us.  We watched people around us evince an innocence we no longer had.  Carefree and experiencing happiness that was no longer available to us.  I'm not saying we were all somehow damaged in our time in theater, but we were irrevocably changed and saw the world around us differently.  Only we and those of us who were there could fully empathize.
> 
> I thought that this end was better than the burning of the shire (for the movie).  I liked that they had averted the future that Frodo had seen with Galadriel.  They preserved their home.




I agree. I think that the end works better for the movie, just as the Scouring of the Shire and Sharkey's death works better for the book. In the book, Frodo fills the function of the character who returns after incredible hardship in the War but is not recognized as such, while Merry and Pippin serve as a counterpoint to him. Getting that across in the movie would have taken a lot more time and effort, so the tavern scene works fine. Different strokes for different media.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 22, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I don't recall Gimli passing over. I recall from the books that Gimli and Legolas wander middle earth together until Gimli dies. Then Legolas like the other elves leaves for Valinor.






			
				Claude Raines said:
			
		

> It's in the appendicies to RotK. He is the first and only dwarf allowed to pass into the west, due mainly to his friendship with Legolas.




Minor quibble. Gimli goes with Legolas due to their friendship. But he is allowed into the West (the appendices surmise) due to Galadriel. 

"But it is said that Gimli went also out of desire to see again the beauty of Galadriel; and it may be that she, being mighty among the Eldar, obtained this grace for him. But more cannot be said of this matter."


----------



## Psion (Dec 22, 2003)

> My problem with it, was that his voice and mannerisms were too much Gollum already. It downplays the degeneration of Gollum if he started that close to it already. IMO ofcourse.




I agree with that.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 22, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I'll grant you, if what you're looking for is an action sequence, it'd be anticlimatic.  But if you're looking at character development, it's more essential.  The Scouring isn't a way to give them credit, but to display what their character has become after going through the events.  With the haughty glances and sitting clinking mugs in the tavern, you'd almost think Merry and Pippin hadn't changed or grown much as people through the whole mess.




I always saw the Scouring as a vivid depiction of the fact that destroying Sauron didn't banish evil from the world, just a particular form of it. LotR is different from a lot of other fantasy epics in that it doesn't assume that once you eliminate the evil overlord the world is peace and roses.

It is also confirmation of Gandalf's statements in the beginning of FotR that the hobbits can "fence themsevles into" the Shire, but they can't "fence the world out".


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Dec 22, 2003)

Something that I'm surprised that no one else has mentioned is the sequence with the lighting of the beacons...incredible stunning shots as one beacon after another is lit, the torches shining as the hope of Men crosses the mountains and comes to Rohan. Amazing stuff.

But the charge of the Riders remains the greatest moment. Utterly heartbreaking.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 22, 2003)

I was so certain that not including the Scouring would ruin the whole trilogy. I complained loud and long to anyone who would listen (which list grew shorter over time -- go figure) that by leaving out the Scouring PJ had missed the WHOLE POINT of the story.

I was wrong. I admit it. The end of the movie works just fine -- that scene in the bar, the four of them look around, see hobbits getting excited over giant pumpkins, and clink their glasses in silent salute told so much. It was a classic case of something a movie is better at than a book. You couldn't write those performances, the emotion carried in their faces. You need a _sequence_ to show the emotional transitions, you need _story_ to illustrate what's happened to these characters. In a movie, we can _see_ it. We don't need a sequence of events to illustrate it for us -- it's right there on the faces of Billy Boyd (standout performance of the film, he was), Dom Monahan, Sean Astin and Elijah Wood.

He showed me what I thought would take the Scouring to illustrate, and he did it in one shot.


----------



## Berandor (Dec 22, 2003)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> Something that I'm surprised that no one else has mentioned is the sequence with the lighting of the beacons...incredible stunning shots as one beacon after another is lit, the torches shining as the hope of Men crosses the mountains and comes to Rohan. Amazing stuff.
> 
> But the charge of the Riders remains the greatest moment. Utterly heartbreaking.



 Furthermore, this has got to be the worst job in all of Gondor; sitting your whole life on some snowcovered mountaintop watching for a fire that hasn't burned in centuries...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 22, 2003)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Furthermore, this has got to be the worst job in all of Gondor; sitting your whole life on some snowcovered mountaintop watching for a fire that hasn't burned in centuries...




Heh.  Exactly my thought while watching the film - I leaned across to my friend and said "Man, that job's gotta _suck_..."

-Hyp.


----------



## KenM (Dec 22, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> He showed me what I thought would take the Scouring to illustrate, and he did it in one shot.




  Yes I agree, and the movie would have sucked IMO if they show the hobbits going through all they did, get back to the Shire, and show it all burned and changed.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 22, 2003)

Well, I'm not convinced you couldn't do the Scouring -- it's still my favourite part of the books and I'd love to have it in the movie. But PJ managed to capture the key realisation of the Scouring in that one scene.

There's still stuff like Frodo's insistence on non-violence, the surprise of the Men when the hobbits turn on them, the ability of Sam, Merry and Pippin to lead, and Frodo's final confrontation with Saruman, that I would love to see and I think might well have improved the film.

But not having them didn't ruin the film.


----------



## myrdden (Dec 22, 2003)

Taren Seeker said:
			
		

> 2) Elrond telling Aragorn that Arwen's life is somehow linked to the Ring. Hmm, I think saving Gondor and the entire world was probably enough motivation for Aragorn to kick some ass.  Adding that in seemed like cheap melodrama.




I had intrepreted that scene as Elrond saying to Aragorn (albeit in rather dramatic prose) that Arwen had chosen a mortal life with Aragorn and could not longer travel to the West.  Her fate, now that she was mortal, was tied to the world just as every other mortal.

I have to see this movie again.

Myrdden


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 23, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> And I think the haughty glances they receive upon returning were more for their reputations before they left rather than for anything they had done upon returning. I think hobbits in the Shire were treating them the same way they did when the four left, but the four had grown during their adventure and were nothing like they were when the left.




I think there's a bit of that, but also of the "adventurer" stigma. People thought Bilbo was odd for going on his little trip, and the same applies to the hobbits that skipped out for 3-4 months.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 23, 2003)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> Something that I'm surprised that no one else has mentioned is the sequence with the lighting of the beacons...incredible stunning shots as one beacon after another is lit, the torches shining as the hope of Men crosses the mountains and comes to Rohan. Amazing stuff.



I said it back on page 3 or 4 or something!


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Dec 23, 2003)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I said it back on page 3 or 4 or something!



My humblest apologies. I did read through the thread, but I must have missed that. Still a great sequence though...even if it is the Worst Job Evar.


----------



## ReignofGeekaos (Dec 23, 2003)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I think there's a bit of that, but also of the "adventurer" stigma. People thought Bilbo was odd for going on his little trip, and the same applies to the hobbits that skipped out for 3-4 months. .




It was more along the lines of thirteen months.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 23, 2003)

Saw the movie the 20th (and just got back from travelling and got rhe chance to post).  Great movie.  I need to see it again -- I spent too much of the first viewing comparing it to the books.

I did miss a lot of the scenes that were left out -- particularly the Houses of Healing and Mouth of Sauron scenes -- but I fully expect to see them in the EE DVD.  There are things I might have done differently were I editting, but overall a superb work, and I think the trology as a whole is an amazing achievement, capturing well the spirit of Tolkien is not the precise letter  of his writings.

I'm just sad there's no fourth installment to look forward to next year.  I guess we can hope that PJ gets to to "The Hobbit", but it may be a couple years even so.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 23, 2003)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> I guess we can hope that PJ gets to to "The Hobbit", but it may be a couple years even so.



Yeah.  I hope he gets to it quickly though, because Ian McKellan isn't exactly a spring chicken.  Imagine The Hobbit now with a different actor playing Gandalf.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Dec 23, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Yeah.  I hope he gets to it quickly though, because Ian McKellan isn't exactly a spring chicken.



Sir Ian McKellen is 64 and quite healthy. He is 17 years younger than Christopher Lee. I'm confident that we will see him on stage and on the silver screen for at least a decade.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 23, 2003)

Huh.  He looks much older.  I guess he has been in the sun too much over the years.  Still, I'm happy to hear he's only 64.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 23, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Huh.  He looks much older.  I guess he has been in the sun too much over the years.  Still, I'm happy to hear he's only 64.




He looks much older in the movie, but I just saw an interview with him and he looked like late fifties to me. I was thinking, Wow they did a good job with makeup.


----------



## Dispater (Dec 23, 2003)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> Something that I'm surprised that no one else has mentioned is the sequence with the lighting of the beacons...incredible stunning shots as one beacon after another is lit, the torches shining as the hope of Men crosses the mountains and comes to Rohan. Amazing stuff.
> 
> But the charge of the Riders remains the greatest moment. Utterly heartbreaking.




I also thought the beacons were brilliantly captivated. There were these shots the second units must have spent ages on, getting the right angle, finding the perfect mountains, finding the right light... and only get it into the film for about 5 secs... I could have watched them for hours...

And the charge of the Rohirim... DEATH! Heh. Wouldn't everybody who sat in the cinema that moment just liked to exchange their seats with a Rohan steed and just charge down into the screen at the army of orcs...?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 24, 2003)

Saw it.

Loved it.

Much respect to Peter Jackson.

I'm looking forward to re-reading the books with a new visualisation of the scenary and probably the characters!

Cheers


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Dec 24, 2003)

*(!)*

Yes, I'm late.  I just saw ROTK on Tuesday, and with this film being a week behind is like being out of the Stone Age.  Yet, there it is.

  ROTK is overwhelming.  Emotionally overwhelming.  It is so overwhelming that I probably will only watch it once (maybe twice) not including the DVD releases.
  It does not have the single grand knock out punch of the film Of Mice and Men, but it has a long series of lesser punches that add up.  Jackson's work is staggering, his psychology devastating, his detail and characters and images colossal.  It is whelming.  It is too much.  It is much greater than the effect in FOTR or TTT.
  FOTR was a very, very hard hitting film.  TTT was mindnumbing in it's emotional intensity.  But ROTK is just simply overwhelming.
  A certain Lady sitting next to me collapsed into tears over and over during the film, using napkins to wipe at her eyes, and she left the theater crying.  (The first, and probably the last, time I will ever see that happen.)  Two people sitting on my other side left their sweaters (expensive sweaters, I would note) in the theater, forgetting them in the emotional tumult of the film.

  I just wish they had shown Frodo arriving at Valinor or the Lonely Isle.  That would have been very nice.

  For comparison, think of the Millennium 2000 roller coaster at Cedar Point (if you've never been on it, think of the music that acconpanies the Entish assault on Isengard, and the flooding of Isengard, from the TTT.  That describes the ride.)
  Or think of the Grand Canyon, upon first seeing it, in person, while standing on the edge of the dropoff with no rail. (assuming you have height phobia or large open space phobia)
  Or think of your first trip in a jet aircraft as a child (including the homesickness.)
  Think of skydiving, or mountain climbing, or hand-gliding, or skiing down the Expert Slope for the first time.
  Think of a brief trip to the Emergency Room.
  Think of your very first Christmas you can remember.
  Think of being in love.
  Think of listening to Wagner, at his most uproarious, with the volume turned way up, for hours.
  Think of the film Of Mice and Men, or The Red Pony.
  Think of being on-stage in a large theatrical production.

  That's the level of emotion I'm talking about here.  ROTK is just overwhelming.

  Did I mention it was good?  It was that, too.  It was a 10.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 24, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm looking forward to re-reading the books with a new visualisation of the scenary and probably the characters!



I'm dreading the same


----------



## kengar (Dec 24, 2003)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Furthermore, this has got to be the worst job in all of Gondor; sitting your whole life on some snowcovered mountaintop watching for a fire that hasn't burned in centuries...



LOL 

My co-worker saw ROTK midnight opening day & I took the day off to see it that afternoon. Thursday we went to lunch & yammered about the film and this was our comment on that scene. 

Her: "Wow! That scene was awesome!"
Me: "Yeah, but what Gondorian colonel did you have to tick off to get _that_ assignment!?
Her: "EXACTLY!"


----------



## Orius (Dec 24, 2003)

SnowDog said:
			
		

> Not to mention things which were missing which distracted me in their absence, but which perhaps aren't really low points in the movie, just things which bugged me as a Tolkien fan.
> - Aragorn never directly challenges Sauron.  There's this great moment where Aragorn grabs a Palantir and directly challenges Sauron.  It's a big part of his accepting the mantle as King, and a big part of why the distraction works.
> - Pippin's friendship with the son of the guard in Minas Tirith.
> - Faramir + Eowyn in the Houses of Healing
> ...




I agree on the _palantir_, the Druedain, and the Mouth.

Basically in the books, Aragorn uses the _palantir_, takes control of it from Sauron, and shows him the sword.  Basically, he does as a way of saying to Sauron, "I got the Ring, now I'm coming to kick your ass."  It scares Sauron, which is why he launches his attack ahead of time.  Naturally, PJ wopuldn't be able to squeeze all that in, but putting in some of it would have been cool.  

I did miss the Mouth.  That would have made the scene before the Black Gate more powerful.

Didn't need the guard or his son.  It would have taken up even more time in a film that was already pretty rushed.

Same with Faramir and Eowyn.  It's not really important to the overall plot.

Imrahil would also have been unneeded.  It's harder to introduce a lot of extra named characters in a movie than book, because it's harder for the audience to keep track of the characters.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 24, 2003)

SnowDog said:
			
		

> - Not enough new characters. There's Prince What's-his-name (Imrahil?), and those Pukel-men or whatever. Hmm. As you can tell, these are obviously not that important to me as I can't remember much about them. But in any case, I waited for them and they weren't there .



Yes they were -- you just weren't paying attention.

The Pukel-men were clearly visible at the turns on the switchback up to Dunharrow -- the shot of the mysterious rider coming up the road shows a Pukel-man crouching behind him/her. They're statues.

You're probably talking about Ghan-Buri-Ghan, though, aren't you? Yeah, no Ghan which was disappointing.

And Prince Imrahil is most definitely there -- watch the crowd scenes during Aragorn's coronation and you'll see the swan banner of Imrahil quite prominently. I mean, okay, we don't actually _see_ the Prince, but come on! What more do you want?


----------



## ZosKia (Dec 24, 2003)

Dispater said:
			
		

> And the charge of the Rohirim... DEATH! Heh. Wouldn't everybody who sat in the cinema that moment just liked to exchange their seats with a Rohan steed and just charge down into the screen at the army of orcs...?




Hi Dispater,
That is exactly how I felt!


----------



## Napftor (Dec 26, 2003)

Just saw the movie and have only skimmed through the thread, so forgive me if I repeat any earlier arguments.  Please bear in mind that I have not read the book and am unlikely to in the near future.  Oh, and it's like 130 am.  

Great effects and combat sequences.  They do not, however, make up for the lack of emotion I felt for the characters.  No weeping took place in these eyes.  And the ending....egads!!!  What was Peter Jackson smoking when he dragged that thing out for an extra 30 minutes?!

PJ: "We've finished the movie so let's go get plastered!"
Crewman: "But Mr. Jackson we can't.  There's still 3 million left in our budget."
PJ: "Oh.  Well in that case, let's just tack some scenes onto the end.  Oh I know.  Bilbo and Frodo can go along with the elves on their magical journey!  Hmm...a gratuitous return to the Shire's tavern and Sam's wedding will spend the money nicely as well."
Crewman: "That's....urm...appropriate I guess.  But why does Frodo need to go with the elves?"
PJ: "Are you kidding?  By the end of this mega-movie, everyone in the theater will have to go!  Get it?!  Mwahahaha!"

Anywho, the characters are given their chances to shine, but it is for such a short time in each instance, that I just lost any feeling for them by the end.  Certainly glad the good guys won and all, but could we lose the new subplot with Faramir and his father please?  The demented steward of Minas-Tirith's story wasn't worth the film time it was given.  Blech.  Didn't mind the repeat bashings he received from Gandalf though.  Speaking of which, where the hell was the magic?  So he casts a light spell on the nasguls?  Don't strain yourself.

There were good things, of course.  McKellen's portrayal of Gandalf is great as always.  The pacing is waaaaaaay better than in TTT.  Always good to see some undead action, even if their involvement in the battle was a bit too quick.  Jackson should have added more to that battle and less to the ending.  Um, can't think of much else at the moment.

So my rating is 6.5/10.  TTT was 4/10 with FotR still being my favorite at 8.5/10.

OK, you can tear into me now.  

EDIT: Forgot about the witch-king.  Very cool with a Soth-like air and appearance.  Great promise with his line about Gandalf, "I will break him."  And then his coolness is truck down in an instant.  I'm not upset at the circumstances of his demise, only in the fact that his nasgul killed more people than he did.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 26, 2003)

Napftor, it's really interesting to see the reactions of people who have not read the books.  

Since you haven't read this whole thread, you probably won't know that all the scenes you're objecting to appear in the books.  Well, more or less.  The book goes on for quite a while after Aragorn is crowned, and those chapters are so beloved by fans that if PJ had left them out he would have had rotten fruit thrown at him every time he appeared in public.  

As for Denethor, in the book it makes much more sense and is an important part of the plot.  PJ left out the reason Denethor went mad, though, so I can see why people who hadn't read the books would be confused.

You didn't have an emotional reaction to the Sam/Frodo storyline?  Wow.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 26, 2003)

What's a Soth?


----------



## shilsen (Dec 26, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> What's a Soth?




A male Sith, silly!


----------



## Napftor (Dec 26, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> ...You didn't have an emotional reaction to the Sam/Frodo storyline?  Wow.




Hi Buttercup.  How have you been since I saw you at GenCon?  

No, I did not have an emotional reaction.  I wept during the first movie but there was so much more time with the characters together as a fellowship then.  RotK was...just so back and forth.  And I also remember wondering why Sam could not just throw in the Ring on his own.  So what if it was "Frodo's task?"  The fate of the world was riding on them.  Sam would not have minded if Frodo took the credit should that circumstance have occured.

And something else I remember: Where the hell did those eagles come from at the end?  I do recall one saving Gandalf from the top of that tower.  But they have not been seen since!  Did 'ol white robes have them on speed dial?!  I;m sure this is explained in the books as well, but there was zilch in the movie (could have taken time from the end sequences to explain this in the middle  ).


----------



## Zamdrist (Dec 26, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> Ebert's review
> 
> The story is a little too silly????




Could Ebert be more out of touch with reality? What's more relevent today than the understanding that evil cannot be placated and must be fought head on?

Wow...


----------



## Napftor (Dec 26, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> What's a Soth?




That would be a reference to the death knight Lord Soth of Dragonlance fame.


----------



## Zamdrist (Dec 26, 2003)

Napftor said:
			
		

> And something else I remember: Where the hell did those eagles come from at the end?  I do recall one saving Gandalf from the top of that tower.  But they have not been seen since!  Did 'ol white robes have them on speed dial?!  I;m sure this is explained in the books as well, but there was zilch in the movie (could have taken time from the end sequences to explain this in the middle  ).




I recall Gandalf releasing a moth from his robe, I guess that was the 'messenger' to the Eagles to come help. I thought it was kind of lamely done, the Eagles then just appeared, almost immediately after the release of the moth.

Again, if I recall, the Eagles appearance was as much a surprise to Gandalf as to everyone else in the book's story.

Forgive me if this has been covered, I didn't see it discussed...I never did actually see Sam take the ring from Frodo when Frodo was wrapped up in the spider web. Did I just miss it?


----------



## theburningman (Dec 26, 2003)

> No, I did not have an emotional reaction. I wept during the first movie but there was so much more time with the characters together as a fellowship then. RotK was...just so back and forth. And I also remember wondering why Sam could not just throw in the Ring on his own. So what if it was "Frodo's task?" The fate of the world was riding on them. Sam would not have minded if Frodo took the credit should that circumstance have occured.




Check out this thread for an interesting and related discussion.

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=72602

Bear in mind that the arguments presented make more sense in the context of the book (but I think they also make sense in the movie's context as well).


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 26, 2003)

Zamdrist said:
			
		

> I recall Gandalf releasing a moth from his robe, I guess that was the 'messenger' to the Eagles to come help. I thought it was kind of lamely done, the Eagles then just appeared, almost immediately after the release of the moth.




You got it a little off. Gandalf didn't pull the moth out...it flew down in front of his face, and surprised him. Basically, its saying "Guess who's here!" and then pan up to the Eagles.



> Forgive me if this has been covered, I didn't see it discussed...I never did actually see Sam take the ring from Frodo when Frodo was wrapped up in the spider web. Did I just miss it?




Nope, they didn't show it. Cinematically, they couldn't...it held lots of suspense when you think the Ring is in the hands of the Orcs. Sam DID get it though...it was just not shown.


----------



## johnsemlak (Dec 26, 2003)

Ooops, wrong thread   Moving on...


----------



## Zamdrist (Dec 26, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> You got it a little off. Gandalf didn't pull the moth out...it flew down in front of his face, and surprised him. Basically, its saying "Guess who's here!" and then pan up to the Eagles.
> 
> Nope, they didn't show it. Cinematically, they couldn't...it held lots of suspense when you think the Ring is in the hands of the Orcs. Sam DID get it though...it was just not shown.




Ah well that makes more sense. Ironic I was confused because I knew the story, lol.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 26, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> You got it a little off. Gandalf didn't pull the moth out...it flew down in front of his face, and surprised him. Basically, its saying "Guess who's here!" and then pan up to the Eagles.




It was quite a cool moment, too.

Gndalf saw the moth, and in the audience we thought "_Yeeeeeah_...", 'cos we knew the Fell Beasts were about to get their asses kicked... 

-Hyp.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Dec 26, 2003)

Just saw RotK again last night. Parents hadn't seen it yet....so I took them to go see it. 

The movie still is awesome. But we all know what is awesome about LotR:RotK. Its pretty obvious. However, as we're talking about some of its weaker moments, a thought came to me that made me a tad more disappointed at a certain scene.

The scene I'm talking about is the Eowyn vs. The Witch King scene. Its been mentioned how this scene should've been more epic and majestic. That PJ's theatrical version is kind of a let down. I thought so too at first and second viewing. But it never really got on my nerves or anything. It just became one of those ugly spots in the LotR trilogy. Each movie has them.

[in my opinion, the ugly spots that hurt the quality of the films were: Weathertop, Frodo holding the ring in front of Fell Beast riding Ringwraith at Osgiliath, Witch King attempting to 'break' Gandalf (absent), and Eowyn vs. the Witch King. - - - wow, I just noticed they all have to do with a Ringwraith in one form or another  - - -]

Okay, back on track....I digress. The thought that popped into my head that made the scene more disappointing is this: A few moments later we see Legolas spectacularly take down an Oliphant. I love this scene. I don't find it out of place or anything. And it was done in a cool way. What upsets me now that I think of it.....is that PJ and his crew spent more filming effort making Legolas vs. Common Oliphant look cool rather than equal or more effort making sure the Eowyn vs. the Witch King (TWO VERY IMPORTANT CHARACTERS) scene looks as majestic and cool as it needs to be. 

Okay, that's off my chest now. However, don't think because I rant about this one scene that I'm not a total fanboy of this trilogy. I am....I love these films, I love what they've down and offered for the cinematic fantasy genre. Its just that sometimes I wish I had the power to go back in time and tell PJ to not mess up a few scenes. Like Weathertop for instance.

According to PJ, all Eowyn needed to defeat the Witch King on his Fell Beast is one common Torch and one common arrow. 

Alright...enough complaining from me....continue on my friends.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 26, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It was quite a cool moment, too.
> 
> Gndalf saw the moth, and in the audience we thought "_Yeeeeeah_...", 'cos we knew the Fell Beasts were about to get their asses kicked...
> 
> -Hyp.




It was actually one of my favorite moments because you can't pull that off in books at all. What made it so great, was that the second we saw the moth, the guy next to me just whispered to himself one thing that made me grin.

_"...Gwaihir..."_


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 27, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> As for Denethor, in the book it makes much more sense and is an important part of the plot.  PJ left out the reason Denethor went mad, though, so I can see why people who hadn't read the books would be confused.




It's amusing, while looking through, but the scene when Gandalf arrives in the throne room is the text from when Denothor is already nutsy later on in teh book. They mention the Eye of Minas Tirith, but they don't explain in the movie that it's a Palantir, or why that's bad. (Saruman's Fall didn't seem to have anything to do with palantir-ing. Though they discuss it in Fellowship.)

I still think there was enough in the movie to justify Denethor being unhinged, but also acknowledge that without seeing EE TT, you probably wouldn't care.

But, Denethor HAD to go crazy. If he hadn't sent Faramir out to ride against Osgiliath, they may not have had enough heads to fill teh catapults for the siege of Minas Tirith.
And that would have been a shame!


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 27, 2003)

Napftor said:
			
		

> Hi Buttercup. How have you been since I saw you at GenCon?



Fine thanks, and you?  I hope you're going again next year.  Perhaps we can game together!



> No, I did not have an emotional reaction. I wept during the first movie but there was so much more time with the characters together as a fellowship then. RotK was...just so back and forth. And I also remember wondering why Sam could not just throw in the Ring on his own. So what if it was "Frodo's task?" The fate of the world was riding on them. Sam would not have minded if Frodo took the credit should that circumstance have occured.



I felt that RotK was too short, myself.  I wanted more time to savor various bits.  Perhaps that's the problem you were reacting to.  As for why Sam couldn't do it, well, since he was Frodo's "second" if you will, I suppose he could have.  But that would have destroyed his innocence.  Of course the more cynical reason is that it wasn't in the script.



> And something else I remember: Where the hell did those eagles come from at the end? I do recall one saving Gandalf from the top of that tower. But they have not been seen since! Did 'ol white robes have them on speed dial?! I;m sure this is explained in the books as well, but there was zilch in the movie (could have taken time from the end sequences to explain this in the middle ).



The eagles show up in the books too.  Personally, they've always seemed a bit too much like deus ex machina to me, but I'll admit that they are less so in the books than in the movies.  Gandalf is friends with Gwaihir the Windlord, who is the king of the eagles.  Gwaihir is the one who rescues Gandalf from the cliff over moria, where he lay after defeating the balrog.  Gwaihir also removes him from Orthanc when Saruman has him trapped on the roof.  There's a line in the book where Gandalf asks Gwaihir to go and get Frodo & Sam after Mt. Doom starts exploding where he says something like "Third time pays for all' so perhaps Gandalf did the eagles a favor in the past.  I haven't read any of the fragmentary stuff that Christopher Tolkien has published since his father's death, so it may be covered in one of those books.


----------



## Napftor (Dec 27, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Fine thanks, and you?  I hope you're going again next year.  Perhaps we can game together!...




Haven't decided about next year's Con yet.  It may have been a once in a lifetime thing...we'll see.

Thanks for the other info.  The eagles were a bit deus ex machina indeed.  And I see where you're coming from with savoring bits.  The movie should have been split into two meatier bits.  It may have solved my problem with the character's lack of screen time (and my subsequent shoulder shrug factor).


----------



## Merlion (Dec 27, 2003)

On the Eagles: I am of the belief that the Eagles of the Misty Mountains are Maiar, just like Gandalf, Sauron and the Balrog. I mean, their giant talking sentient eagles after all.
  But at the very least it is stated in the Silmarillion that they are direct servant of the Vala Manwe(as are all good avians), who is essentialy the true King of Arda(the Earth).
  So they are another case of literal Deus Ex Machina...much like Gandalf's return from "death".


----------



## pezagent (Dec 28, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> So they are another case of literal Deus Ex Machina...much like Gandalf's return from "death".




Hi Merlion,

Both the Eagles and Gandalfs return are not examples of _deux es machina_--they weren't forces of great power that intervined with the story and abruptly ended it. 

The Eagles are an obvious choice to help the characters escape from Mt. Doom as they were introduced earlier in the story. If Gandolf arrived on a flying carpet then there would be inconsistency within the story--but it still wouldn't be deux es machina.

Gandalf's return is more of a _red herring_ if one is looking for a literary term to describe the event. Personally I probably wouldn't go that far, however, as only the characters reactions to his fall lead us to believe that Gandalf dies. The narrative never pushes the question or suggests that he _is_ dead.

Regards,

/johnny


----------



## Merlion (Dec 28, 2003)

> Both the Eagles and Gandalfs return are not examples of deux es machina--they weren't forces of great power that intervined with the story and abruptly ended it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 28, 2003)

From dictionary.com

*deus ex ma·chi·na*   (
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





ks mä
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




k
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




-n
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, -nä
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, m
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




k
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







-n
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) _n._ 


In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.
An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.
There isn't anything here about ending the story, although in ancient drama that certainly is what happened.  The current meaning is more broad, as you see.  So the eagles really are an example of deus ex machina, for good or ill.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 28, 2003)

Napftor said:
			
		

> And something else I remember: Where the hell did those eagles come from at the end?  I do recall one saving Gandalf from the top of that tower.  But they have not been seen since!  Did 'ol white robes have them on speed dial?!  I;m sure this is explained in the books as well, but there was zilch in the movie (could have taken time from the end sequences to explain this in the middle  ).




The Eagle issue just as surprising and unexpected in the book. There is no mention of them or even thier possible involvement until on the Field of Cormallen durring the battle before the Black Gate we get.



			
				JRR Tolkien - LotR Return of the King said:
			
		

> As if to his eyes some sudden vision had been given, Gandolf stirred; and he turned, looking back north where skies were pale and clear. Then he lifted his hands and clried in a loud voice ringing above the din: _The Eagles are coming!_ And many voices answered crying: _The Eagles are coming!_ The hosts of Modor looked up and wondered what this sign might mean.
> 
> There came Gwaihir the Windlord, and Landroval his brother, greatest of all the Eagles of the North, mightiest of the decendants of old Thorondor , who built his eyries in the inaccessible peaks of the Encircling Mountains when Middle-earth was young. Behind them in long swift lines came all their vassals from the northern mountains, speeding on a gathering wind. Straight down upon the Nazgul they bore, stooping suddenly out of the high airs, and the rush of their wide wings as they passed over was like a gale.




There is no direct reason given in the book but it might be possible to infer from a few other things.



			
				JRR Tolkien - The Hobbit said:
			
		

> The wizard and the eagle-lord appeared to know one another slightly, and even be on friendly terms. As a matter of fact Gandolf, who had often been in the mountains, had once rendered a service to the eagles and healed their lord from an arrow-wound.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




As is seen in the Hobbit the Eagles never liked Goblins/Orcs and enjoyed "cheating goblins of their sport." While they did not trust men, their hatred of the Goblins led them to join with Men, Elves, and Dwarves when it came time to fight a large Goblin army. This also brought a freindship between at least the Dwarves and the Eagles.



			
				JRR Tolkien - LotR Appendix B said:
			
		

> February 17 *Gwaihir bears Gandolf to Lorien*.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Emphasis mine.

Once again with the Eagles bearing Gandolf to Lorien it is not surprising that they are aware of the imminent danger facing Middle earth. Being freinds with both the Dwarves and Elves (at least a likely freindship with them) and already demonstrating their hatred of Orcs in the Hobbit and willingness to help men out when it comes to killing Orcs, it is not unlikely to expect their help in the great battle against Sauron. There is pleny of activy going on across middle earth at the same time as seen with attacks on Dale, Mirkwood, Rohan, and three on Lorien.  It would also not be surprising if the Eagles were also involved in one or more of these battles. Now the last assault on Lorien is just 3 days before the assault on the Black Gate and if the Eagles were helping Lorien then it would be reasonable to expect Galladrial (who still has her magic and the mirror) to then send the Eagles onto the Black Gate. 

So there we have the long version from the books with both direct and indirect reasons for the Eagles unexpected involvement in the final battle.  So as for the film version we are given none of this. But the problem becomes their involvement is in the book and it does make really cool visual scenes so including them becomes neccesary. Should Jackson have done something to prepare us, probably but so much is already cut and this is a hard thing to show in the film. A nod is given to this with the inclusion of the moth but I think it is forgivable like many other things to leave undisclosed. The whole Eagle thing can/should be properly resolved if we get a film version of the Hobbit.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 28, 2003)

> There isn't anything here about ending the story, although in ancient drama that certainly is what happened. The current meaning is more broad, as you see. So the eagles really are an example of deus ex machina, for good or ill.




Thanks for clearing that up Buttercup


----------



## Gnarlo (Dec 28, 2003)

Finally got to watch the movie yesterday afternoon, leaving in about an hour for viewing number two 

Loved it, other than for feeling a bit rushed and disjointed. The EE will cure that, as it did for TTT. Only three parts bugged me a bit:

1) Never pictured Dunharrow looking like Bluffside. The image of it at the top of the cliff with the zigzagging path climbing up to it just looked to me like "how exotic a location can we make this appear." Of course, I drag out my books this morning and read the arrival of Theoden to Dunharrow, and Pippin describes it _exactly_ as looking like that, so oh well   It won't bother me now the next time I see it.

This also brings up a related musing of whether PJ has/JRRT had acrophobia. I've lost count in the trilogy of how many times we are standing on a precipice/tower/cliff looking down into the depths. Reminds me a bit of a critic I read remarking how Lovecraft seemed to be scared of fish and fishy smells.

2) Denethor's run. I would have liked to have seen Denethor's death scene be a little bit more of him leaping back into the flames rather than Gandalf knocking him into the pyre, but that's a matter of taste. What did bother me was then watching him do a 300 yard dash engulfed in flames; running that far drenched in oil and looking like Jonny Torch? Jarred me out of my belief in the movie for a few seconds.

3) Did the scene with Frodo lying in bed and the Fellowship coming into his bedroom remind anyone else of the Wizard of Oz? Especially with it being color-graded into that golden sepia-like tone; I was expecting them to come in dressed in overalls and straw hats. A friend of mine got the same impression, he said he was waiting for Toto to come running in and jump on the bed at any second.

Minor niggles though.  To be bothered by less than 1% of 3 1/2 hours entertainment in a conclusion to a movie you've been waiting 26 years for is a stellar performance in my book. Bravo!


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 28, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Thanks for clearing that up Buttercup



No problem, Merlion.


----------



## pezagent (Dec 29, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> There isn't anything here about ending the story, although in ancient drama that certainly is what happened.




Resolving the plot=ending the story. Act III is up. The end.



> The current meaning is more broad, as you see.  So the eagles really are an example of deus ex machina, for good or ill.




I do not agree at all that the eagles are an example of deus ex machina. By the time the eagles arrive, _the story has already ended._ That's the end of act three--Frodo has accomplished his mission. Whatever happens after that is incidental, and can't contribute to the plot, because the story is over. The Eagles come to take them off Mount Doom _after the plot has been resolved_. 

Also, the eagles are not unexplainable. Gandalf could summon Shadowfax, why couldn't he summon the Eagles? We've already seen them introduced in the first movie. As I stated before, just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean it's screwing with the plot. 

So to say that the Eagles are an example of deus ex machina is not true, because the plot has already been resolved (the story is over) and their appearance can be explained. 

One may believe the definition of deus ex machina to be broad, however this doesn't give license to confuse bad narrative or inconsistency with divine intervention in regards to plot. 

Regards,

/johnny


----------



## Merlion (Dec 29, 2003)

So even though the diciniary says we were using the term correctly, we still werent cause you say so?
  I am getting to the point where I wonder why I ever post here or anywhere else. The egos and bad attitudes and arrogance and nitpicking are just really making me wonder


----------



## demiurge1138 (Dec 29, 2003)

Something of note about RoTK. It seems to equate madness with eating.

Once Smeagol starts turning into Gollum (very, very mad), we see him catch and eat a fish with his bare hands. Then, in his self-narration, "we forgot the taste of bread" ranks right up with "we forgot the feel of sunlight". Then, later, Denethor eats while Pippen sings and Faramir nearly gets killed. It's the first scene where we really get thefeetling where he's passed from grief into insanity.

Just an observation.
Demiurge out.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 29, 2003)

pezagent said:
			
		

> Resolving the plot=ending the story. Act III is up. The end.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not agree at all that the eagles are an example of deus ex machina. By the time the eagles arrive, _the story has already ended._ That's the end of act three--Frodo has accomplished his mission. Whatever happens after that is incidental, and can't contribute to the plot, because the story is over. The Eagles come to take them off Mount Doom _after the plot has been resolved_.



No, the s_tory_ has not ended. The _story_ has reached its _climax_. They are not the same thing.

After the climax, the story continues with the denouement. Jackson's denouement is just longer than is used in most movies. That's OK. Tolkien's denouement was also longer than most. That too, is OK. It's a perfectly valid and acceptable literary device. Also a valid and acceptable motion picture device. Certainly most studios don't allow their directors to use such a lengthy denoument, but this is a special movie and movie trilogy, so indulgences are allowed.


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 29, 2003)

Finally got to see RotK:

Thoughts:
Smeagol was a bit too much like Gollum to begin with for my tastes, and Deagol and Smeagol were too cartoony as well.
I'm surprised noone's mentioned the horrendously obvious stand-ins this go-round. In at least 5 occasions, I noticed that the stand-ins for the hobbits were being shown on film, not the actors. The way they walked, their hair - one or 2 times they showed the stand-in's FACE!
Boo. :thumbsdown:
I hope they digitally correct those scenes for the EE. It threw me out of the scene every time 'some short dude' was shown as a Hobbit.
I didn't buy the orcs conveniently fighting and killing each other (almost) to the last man to allow Sam to waltz into the teeth of Mordor unmolested.
They SHOULD have explained Denethor's behavior. Him having and using a Palantir is too important to leave out. His behavior doesn't make sense based solely on the movie.
Denethor couldn't have been put out the way he was ("Rohan Betrayed me!") if he was against the lighting of the fires.
The Shore where Bilbo and Frodo get on the boat seemed awfully "built-up" and constructed to me. I never pictured the dock being that big and established, with a city around. Always thought it was more arboreal.
They missed an unbelievably important line about Eowyn that would have wrapped up her movie story:
When Theoden was dying, he has something like, "I go to meet my ancestors in the Great Hall - I am not ashamed at joining them, blah blah..."
_All he had to add there was something like, "We will be waiting for you to join us when your day comes."_
That line would have accomplished 3 things:
1) It would have added emotional resonance to the father/daughter scene.
2) It would have payed off the scenes that they had built up Eowyn's character wanting (more than anything) "glory and renown".
3) It would have further cemented the 'heroic' ideal' that the movies spent time creating - that all these great stories, with people heroically dying for noble causes, etc etc etc.
 Of all the nitpicks, I'm flabbergasted that the writer's missed the Eowyn line of her joining the heroes of their people.
It was RIGHT THERE in front of them and they missed it. In fact, it was SO there, I thought (when watching the scene) that it had almost been telegraphed with TTT Eowyn scenes and the 'heroic story' sub-plot.
It's like they set the ball up on a Tee, and then whiffed the swing.

Things I had no problem whatsoever with:
Legolas vs the Oliphant. Not cheezy. Very cool.
Sauron's spotlight. Not cheesy. How else would you want it to be shown?
What's so wrong about the "Arwen being linked to the fate of Middle Earth" bit? I'm not seeing how that's so bad - it's just one small dialogue trying to involve a character that couldn't be present.
I'm glad they didn't show The Scouring of the Shire.
Other than the first list of things, I thought the movie was amazing. Easily the best movie ever made, and I say that with no hyperbole or overblown intent.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 29, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> *I didn't buy the orcs conveniently fighting and killing each other (almost) to the last man to allow Sam to waltz into the teeth of Mordor unmolested.*





I assume that means you didn't buy this plot turn when it happened in the books either?



> *The Shore where Bilbo and Frodo get on the boat seemed awfully "built-up" and constructed to me. I never pictured the dock being that big and established, with a city around. Always thought it was more arboreal.*




It's been an elven settlement for millenia. In Tolkien, many elves build huge cities. The greatest elven city in Middle Earth history was entirely underground. The association of elves exclusively with trees is foreign to Tolkien.



> *They missed an unbelievably important line about Eowyn that would have wrapped up her movie story:
> When Theoden was dying, he has something like, "I go to meet my ancestors in the Great Hall - I am not ashamed at joining them, blah blah..."
> All he had to add there was something like, "We will be waiting for you to join us when your day comes."*





No. That's a silly line. Because Eowyn's experience doesn't make her desire valor. It makes her desire peace and home. She _turns away_ from the path of a the shield maiden after the Battle of Pellinore Fields.



> *That line would have accomplished 3 things:
> 1) It would have added emotional resonance to the father/daughter scene.*




He's not her father. She's not his daughter.



> *2) It would have payed off the scenes that they had built up Eowyn's character wanting (more than anything) "glory and renown".*




Except it would have completely voided the character development of Eowyn, who gives up the quest for glory and renown to accept responsibility and duty instead. She starts as a glory seeking adolescent and ends up as an adult. Changing the end result of her character development to adolescent wish fulfillment would destroy the power of her story arc.



> *3) It would have further cemented the 'heroic' ideal' that the movies spent time creating - that all these great stories, with people heroically dying for noble causes, etc etc etc. Of all the nitpicks, I'm flabbergasted that the writer's missed the Eowyn line of her joining the heroes of their people.
> It was RIGHT THERE in front of them and they missed it. In fact, it was SO there, I thought (when watching the scene) that it had almost been telegraphed with TTT Eowyn scenes and the 'heroic story' sub-plot.
> It's like they set the ball up on a Tee, and then whiffed the swing.*




No. It's like you completely missed the point.

The people heorically dying for noble causes did so _because it was their duty and responsibility to fight and possibly die_, not because they were seeking glory and renown. Eowyn's desire for glory is exactly _counter_ to the actions of most of the other individuals in the story, since her desire is for self-aggrandizement, whereas the desires of other "combatants" in the story is for the defense of others.

Being remembered in song is not the _goal_ of Tolkien's heroes, it is a side effect of _doing what is right_. Remember the line in TTT where Aragorn says "there will come a time for valor without renown"? The main heroes of the story would _still_ step up and fill the breach under those conditions. By the end of her story line, Eowyn realizes that she should as well.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 29, 2003)

Napftor said:
			
		

> *No, I did not have an emotional reaction.  I wept during the first movie but there was so much more time with the characters together as a fellowship then.  RotK was...just so back and forth.  And I also remember wondering why Sam could not just throw in the Ring on his own.  So what if it was "Frodo's task?"  The fate of the world was riding on them.  Sam would not have minded if Frodo took the credit should that circumstance have occured.*





Frodo wouldn't let Sam take the Ring (one he had it in his possession) because he was under the power of the Ring and wouldn't let anyone else have it willingly. Frodo wouldn't let Sam carry the Ring for the same reason that Gollum desperately wanted to get his hands on the Ring: it creates a desire in those around it to possess it, and makes them paranoid that everyone around them will want to take it from them.

Further, it was Frodo's task because Galadriel had seen that it was. Remember, powerful elves have precognition in the story. They can see the future, and based upon those visions, they guide others. Galadriel has pronounced that it is Frodo's task, because she has foreseen that it is. And because she foresaw that, the prophecy she foretold comes true.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 29, 2003)

Napftor said:
			
		

> *PJ: "Oh.  Well in that case, let's just tack some scenes onto the end.  Oh I know.  Bilbo and Frodo can go along with the elves on their magical journey!  Hmm...a gratuitous return to the Shire's tavern and Sam's wedding will spend the money nicely as well."*




Umm, you _do_ realize that PJ's end sequence was a heavily truncated version of the end sequence Tolkien wrote, don't you?



> *Certainly glad the good guys won and all, but could we lose the new subplot with Faramir and his father please?  The demented steward of Minas-Tirith's story wasn't worth the film time it was given.  Blech.  Didn't mind the repeat bashings he received from Gandalf though.*




Actually, the weakness in the Steward story was that _not enough_ time was spent on it, and thus it because a very two-dimensional story without the depth that it should have had.



> *Speaking of which, where the hell was the magic?  So he casts a light spell on the nasguls?  Don't strain yourself.*




Nazgul. Spell it right please.

Magic in Tolkien is more subtle than the D&D style fireball flinging you are used to. Perhaps you didn't realize that. Gandalf's main magical power is the power to inspire men to greatness.



> *EDIT: Forgot about the witch-king.  Very cool with a Soth-like air and appearance.*




That would be because Soth was a literary imitation of the Witch-King. You would be more accurate to say that Soth had a Witch-King like air and appearance.



> *Great promise with his line about Gandalf, "I will break him."  And then his coolness is truck down in an instant.  I'm not upset at the circumstances of his demise, only in the fact that his nasgul killed more people than he did.*





His nazgul? You do realize that the Witch-King _is_ a nazgul don't you?


----------



## pezagent (Dec 29, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> No, the story has not ended. The _story_ has reached its _climax_. They are not the same thing.




A story ends when the plot is resolved. That a story must reach a "climax"  is formula, not fact. That the narrative may continue beyond the story--outside of it--does not mean the story is brought with it. The end is the end.

Yes, the story ends when the ring is destroyed. This is the plot that carries the entire series--that the ring must be returned to Mt. Doom and destroyed. The plot line is introduced within the first ten minutes of the first movie. 

The story becomes complex because it describes just how much is at stake if the ring is not destroyed. 

The "fight" with Golumn at the end is the _cinematic climax_ (as Douglas Bauer calls them "high events" in fiction writing) _not_ Sam and Frodo sitting on a rock afterwards. That Sam lives to see the Shire again, that Frodo finishes his book and leaves the Shire are _not_ part of the story. The *narrative* continues into *epilogue*, _but the story is over._

In cinematic structure it is unusual to have an _epilogue_--there's just not enough time for it--but that would best describe the last part of ROTK as it mimics the fictional structure is was based on in regards to narrative.



> After the climax, the story continues with the denouement.




This is not true. Perhaps one has confused dénouement with epilogue. 

Dénouement refers to the final "unraveling" of the plot--not what happens _after_ the resolution of the plot. It _may be_ the final conflict, or the conclusion of events that leads to the ending of the story. It literally means "untying". 

Narrative _after the plot is resolved_ is _epilogue_, not dénouement. 

Perhaps there is confusion about plot and story--and narration. Plot _is_ the story. Plot is introduced, revealed, and resolved through narration. Narration, however, is not story. And story is not plot. (That explaination should clear up any confusion.)

The lingering effects events have after the story ends--after the plot has been resolved--is icing on the cake. It exists only to give the readers (audience) peace of mind. To _ease_ them from the ending and help them _let go._ Wherever one can place "and they lived happily ever after" will mark the end of a story. In ROTK, one could just as well put it right after the ring is destroyed: "And the ring was destroyed, and they all lived happily ever after." Acceptable? Yes. Captivating? Not really.

That the movie goes on to describe _how_ they managed _after_ the story is appropriate closure--as you have mentioned--because the story was complex, and to have ended it without sentimental closure would have surely created disappointment. But it is narrative--a summation--not actual story, that we are watching. 

/johnny


----------



## Kesh (Dec 29, 2003)

pezagent, I think the problem I see is that you consider everything after the climax of the story to be epilogue.

Now, I agree that RotK does have an epilogue. A really, really long one.  But, Sam & Frodo on the rock and being rescued to rejoin their companions in Rivendell is still _denouement_. The climax of the story has been reached, but our heroes lay dying... and the plot finally unravels to send them home.

*After* that, I agree that it's epilogue. The scene of them entering the Shire, drinking, etc. is 'extra' story to help provide full closure.

Now, as to other postings about 'why didn't Sam take the ring', there are two reasons. One has been mentioned: Frodo didn't want to give up the ring, because it had some influence over him. However, and more importantly, he didn't want to give it to Sam because he knew _first hand_ how corrupting the ring was, and didn't want Sam to suffer the way he had.


----------



## kengar (Dec 29, 2003)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Now, I agree that RotK does have an epilogue. A really, really long one.  But, Sam & Frodo on the rock and being rescued to rejoin their companions in *Rivendell* is still _denouement_. The climax of the story has been reached, but our heroes lay dying... and the plot finally unravels to send them home.





< nitpick> They rejoin their companions in Gondor, not Rivendell < /nitpick>

I agree with the rest of your post, though.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2003)

pezagent said:
			
		

> A story ends when the plot is resolved. That a story must reach a "climax"  is formula, not fact. That the narrative may continue beyond the story--outside of it--does not mean the story is brought with it. The end is the end.




Ah, but most novel-sized works have more than a single plot that needs resolving.  Some plots may seem more important than others to you, but that doesn't mean they stop when what you consider the major plot is resolved. Thus, the narrative can continue on with plots you don't consider important - one man's epilogue may be another's plot resolution.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 29, 2003)

> Perhaps there is confusion about plot and story--and narration




I think there is some confusion about who made you supreme god of literary terms, and which parts of each and every story fit each one


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 29, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I think there is some confusion about who made you supreme god of literary terms, and which parts of each and every story fit each one




I think one problem is that people are looking to make the appearance of the eagles into something other than it is in RotK. Gandalf is friends with the lord of the eagles (Gwaihir, and his brother Landroval), it is not surprising that they come to his aid in the end. Further, eagles are the special messengers of Manwe, the most powerful of the remaining Valar, hence, their appearance in some ways _is_ a _deus ex machina_, albeit a completely intentional and logical one.

The eagles are partially _deus ex machina_, and partially explainable by old personal alliances. Does there need to be more agonizing over this very minor plot point than that? Tolkien could, for example, have easily had the lava flows miss the area where Sam and Frodo end up and have them walk to safety. In the end, the eagles have limited neccessary impact on the plot.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 29, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Umm, you _do_ realize that PJ's end sequence was a heavily truncated version of the end sequence Tolkien wrote, don't you?




Storm Raven - no, he doesn't.  He said at the start of the message that he hasn't read the books.  That's why he doesn't know how to spell Nazgûl.  The movies only refer to the wraiths _without_ their Fell Beasts as Nazgûl once, from memory - in FotR, when the hobbits first meet Strider.  So it's not unfair for him to see Gondorians running away from Fell Beasts yelling "_Nazgûl!_", and associate the word with the big black dragonny things.

Reread his post with the understanding that he hans't read the books.

-Hyp.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 29, 2003)

> Further, eagles are the special messengers of Manwe, the most powerful of the remaining Valar, hence, their appearance in some ways is a deus ex machina, albeit a completely intentional and logical one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## kengar (Dec 29, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Thats exactly what I was saying to. And as I mentioned earlier, although its never said for sure, I believe the eagles of the mountains might be Maiar.




I have heard that somewhere as well; the Gwahir was as much a divine spirit incarnate as Gandalf, abeit with a different purpose. I don't have a quote to back that up however.


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 29, 2003)

First off, those were my personal feelings about the MOVIE.
It's been a long time since I read the books, so don't read my points as anything but a critique of the movie.

If you want to discuss the books (and my belief that they are VERY flawed), we would have to start a seperate thread, and I'd have to read the books again (no time). 

About the orcs killing EVERYONE off (except 4), yes - it's stupid and doesn't work in the book as well if that's the way it exactly goes down. Does Sam just waltz right into the fortress, or does he use the Ring in the book?

About the missed line re: Eowyn-
I think we should first decide whether to couch the discussion in the context of the movies, or the books.
Because unless I'm mistaken, just about everything you responded was in the context of the books, NOT the movie.
As I saw it, your interpretation is not correct with regards to Eowyn from what's presented in the movie.

The movies were quite clear about heroes performing heroic actions in defense of what's Good.
The movies were also clear that Eowyn yearned for a chance to prove herself on the battlefield and earn renown. They never showed what you described that I saw. They even showed her "Father" (I know he isn't her direct father, but I used "Father/Daughter" for ease of typing) repeatedly being concerned over his legacy, playing the hero role, Glory, etc.







			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I assume that means you didn't buy this plot turn when it happened in the books either?
> 
> Except it would have completely voided the character development of Eowyn, who gives up the quest for glory and renown to accept responsibility and duty instead. She starts as a glory seeking adolescent and ends up as an adult. Changing the end result of her character development to adolescent wish fulfillment would destroy the power of her story arc.



I assume you watched the movies closely, so I'm confused how your reading of Eowyn's character can be so different from mine.

In the movies I saw, she DIDN'T accept her duty - she reluctantly didn't fulfill her father's wishes of her being a Courtier/Political Leader and instead "quested for glory and renown" - not just for renown's sake, but because she firmly believed that to save what she loved, and defend herself, she had to go to war.
This was made quite clear in TTT with her line of (clumsily paraphrased) "Long ago women of the Rohan learned that not knowing how to use a sword won't stop you from dying on one."

Further, she didn't HAVE to give up her desire for renown in the movie - she GOT IT.
That's the purpose for my suggested line. To echo the quite-clear subplot (to me) in memorable words directly from her "Father" as he's dying, in the middle of the battlefield. It was set up for the line, they just missed it.

And so did you.

The movies are NOT the books, guys.
And thank goodness for that.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 29, 2003)

Its mostly just implied. It states they work for Manwe (and that all non evil avians do). but they are the only talking animals in LOTR...and they do always seem to show up when needed. And seem to be easily contactable by powerful people (Galadriel sends Gwahir to search for Gandalf when she learns of his fall, since she knows what he is and that he will be back)


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 30, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> The movies were quite clear about heroes performing heroic actions in defense of what's Good.
> The movies were also clear that Eowyn yearned for a chance to prove herself on the battlefield and earn renown




Another person commented to me recently about Eowyn (from the movies) "I found it hard to be sympathetic to her character. They're drafting little kids into the army, and she's out for personal glory in the battles."


----------



## KidCthulhu (Dec 30, 2003)

Saw it three times in rapid succession over the holiday week.  Favorite moments

1)Pippin singing to Denethor - I agree with barsoomcore that this was Billy Boyd's movie.  We knew Sam would rock (and he did), but Pippin was a pleasant surprise.  It was nice of PJ to recognize Pip's potential as an observer and everyman and use it to tell the story.

2) The moment when the Fellowship knew Frodo had succeeded, followed by their immediate realization of what this meant.  Within seconds you had "Frodo's alive!"  "Frodo did it!" "Frodo's dead".  And in the extended version this will follow the Mouth of Sauron, making it all the more beautiful.

3) The charge.  It's been said many times, but damn is that good.

4) Eowyn killing the Witch King.  I agree that it wasn't everything I'd been hoping for, but my expectations were damn high.

I do love the Scouring of the Shire.  But I didn't miss it here, and I really thought I would.  The same precidents hadn't been set, because of the movie's subtle and not so subtle departures from the book.  Sauron really is more of a central evil in the movie.  To have him go, and then there still be trouble would rob the triumph, in the context of the film.

Also, in the book, you get more time between the wrenching emotions of Sam and Frodo's struggle, the desperate feint by the men of the West, and the fall of Sauron, and the Scouring.  Chapters pass, full of coronations, weddings, judgements, trips to Rivendell.  You have time to wind down.  There really isn't that time in the movie, and it would really be hard on audiences to whip them around like that.  It's pacing, rather than anything else.

Waiting for the EE for the Faramir/Eowyn stuff, the Mouth of Sauron, the Witch King/Gandalf scene, etc.  

Apparently the Goonies monster Orc General is Gimli's boss monster, in a scene that will be restored in the EE.  He wasn't forgotten.


----------



## KidCthulhu (Dec 30, 2003)

Pezagent, just one more thought on the Deus Ex Machina thing.  This literary device is considered hackneyed and trite by most literary critics, English professors and cognoscenti.  In modern parlance, to use a Deus Ex Machina is to admit that you can't get out of the story any other way.  I can see that you might feel that this implied criticism shouldn't be applied to JRR.

The Greeks (who may not have invented it, but certainly used it a lot), used the trick as proof that the gods are watching over the actions of man and will be there to reward the righteous and punish the wrong do-er.  The gods appeared in the machine as an act of faith, and as a sign that all would be well if man did his best.

I belive that Tolkein, with his knowledge of literature, and his deliberate use of a very stylized technique in LoTR, was drawing on that Greek history with his inclusion of the Eagles.  The Eagles didn't appear because Tolkein was a bad writer, who wrote himself in a corner.  The Eagles appear because the forces of good needed help at the last minute, and the (figurative) gods were coming to make sure everything turned out ok.

Just my .02 cents, but perhaps this will sooth your objections.  The Eagles are a Deus Ex Machina, but that is not necessarily bad.


----------



## KenM (Dec 30, 2003)

KidCthulhu said:
			
		

> Apparently the Goonies monster Orc General is Gimli's boss monster, in a scene that will be restored in the EE.  He wasn't forgotten.




  But they leave the elf's big fight scene in, dwarven discrimnation, I tell you.


----------



## pezagent (Dec 30, 2003)

This post is a summary of comments relating to my posts. It should wrap-up the points I've already made. Where comments are appreciated, I still remain seated in my opinions, as there have been no convincing arguments for me to change position.



			
				Kesh said:
			
		

> pezagent, I think the problem I see is that you consider everything after the climax of the story to be epilogue.




This is not true.


> But, Sam & Frodo on the rock and being rescued to rejoin their companions in Rivendell is still _denouement_.




No, it's not. Sam & Frodo being rescued are part of the narrative--that this narrative is part of the story or plot is misinterpreted. Dénouement leads to the resolution of the plot, it doesn't summarize or clean it up. 



> The climax of the story has been reached, but our heroes lay dying... and the plot finally unravels to send them home.




*The plot of LOTR*
The plot of LOTR is to destroy the ring. The characters and thier lives are incidental to this. This does not make them unimportant to the reader/viewer, however. In speculative fiction it is better to develop characters outside of the plot, rather than create melodrama by having their development drive it. This is where most fantasy/sci-fi fails.

-----------------



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Ah, but most novel-sized works have more than a single plot that needs resolving.  Some plots may seem more important than others to you, but that doesn't mean they stop when what you consider the major plot is resolved. Thus, the narrative can continue on with plots you don't consider important--




If you're suggesting that LOTR has subplots I don't agree. The plot is quite clear in LOTR--that the ring of power must be destroyed.

If you're suggesting there are plots within LOTR that I've missed then please be my guest and point them out to me and we can discuss them.

The term dénouemenet, when used properly, suggests just this--that all twists and turns and mysteries created by the plot are revealed, untangled, and resolved. If plot isn't resolved it's nothing more than a case of bad writing--which brings us back to deus ex machina--divine intervention used to resolve plot.



> One man's epilogue may be another's plot resolution.




Here you suggest that analysis is a matter of opinion. I don't agree. Plot resolution and epilogue are very clear distinctions within fiction--within the structure of drama itself. And the better the work, the easier it is to determine where these distinctions are made. LOTR is _very_ easy to dissect. I submit that it is the lack of intermediate/advanced fiction theory that leads to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. 

------------------



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> I think there is some confusion about who made you supreme god of literary terms, and which parts of each and every story fit each one




I don't think personal attacks are necessary. If you don't agree with what I have to say, make your point. I believe I've been very polite and patient in regards to peoples opinions about how fiction works. If you spent twenty years playing D&D and I came along telling you drarves and elves love each other I think you'd have something to say about it. Eh?

---------------------------



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The eagles are partially _deus ex machina_, and partially explainable by old personal alliances.




I don't agree that the eagles are dues ex machina, I've made very good points why.



> Does there need to be more agonizing over this very minor plot point than that? Tolkien could, for example, have easily had the lava flows miss the area where Sam and Frodo end up and have them walk to safety. In the end, the eagles have limited neccessary impact on the plot.




Once again, by the time the eagles arrive, the plot of LOTR has been resolved, they are not part of the plot. Plot is the story, created through conflict, told through narrative. Once the ring is destroyed, there's no more conflict. The plot is resolved. It couldn't be more clear than in the movie--all the bad guys are swallowed up by the earth. 

------------------------------



			
				KidCthulhu said:
			
		

> Pezagent, just one more thought on the Deus Ex Machina thing.  This literary device is considered hackneyed and trite by most literary critics, English professors and cognoscenti.  In modern parlance, to use a Deus Ex Machina is to admit that you can't get out of the story any other way.  I can see that you might feel that this implied criticism shouldn't be applied to JRR.




No, I have no defense for Tolkien. And one doesn't get out of story, one gets out of _plot_. Do you know how to end a story? You place *The End* where appropriate. Would you like to hear the world's shortest story? "Once upon a time, the end." 


> The Greeks (who may not have invented it, but certainly used it a lot), used the trick as proof that the gods are watching over the actions of man and will be there to reward the righteous and punish the wrong do-er.  The gods appeared in the machine as an act of faith, and as a sign that all would be well if man did his best.




That's a very interesting, personal interpretation of Greek history. However, it's not what deus ex machina means. 



> I belive that Tolkein, with his knowledge of literature, and his deliberate use of a very stylized technique in LoTR, was drawing on that Greek history with his inclusion of the Eagles.




I think you're reaching for straws here to make your point. This requires more interpretation than is necessary. You're suggesting that Tolkein is using symbolism which has nothing to do with the concept of deus ex machina.



> The Eagles appear because the forces of good needed help at the last minute, and the (figurative) gods were coming to make sure everything turned out ok.




An interesting interpretation--of symbolism. That's not deus ex machina. It's not clumsy, contrived, unexplainable, or related to resolving the plot or ending the story. It's something one would expect to find in speculative fiction.



> Just my .02 cents, but perhaps this will sooth your objections.  The Eagles are a Deus Ex Machina, but that is not necessarily bad.




I sincerely appreciate your attempts.  

Unfortunately, I believe you have described the Eagles more as a form of symbolism than that of divine intervention. My objections against improper use of literary terms still stand where I sit.

/johnny


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 30, 2003)

pezagent said:
			
		

> You expect me to believe that a man who created an entire Elven language wrote himself into a corner? I think you may have just put your foot in your mouth.




Uh, she said _didn't_.

As in "True/False: The eagles appeared because Tolkien wrote himself into a corner.  A: False."

You're agreeing with her.

-Hyp.


----------



## pezagent (Dec 30, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Uh, she said _didn't_.
> 
> As in "True/False: The eagles appeared because Tolkien wrote himself into a corner.  A: False."
> 
> ...




My bad, it was a long post, apologies all around. 

(eat snacky smores)
/johnny


----------



## Napftor (Dec 30, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Umm, you _do_ realize that PJ's end sequence was a heavily truncated version of the end sequence Tolkien wrote, don't you?




If you had read my original post, you might have noticed that I stated I had NOT read the books.  So, umm, no.




> Actually, the weakness in the Steward story was that _not enough_ time was spent on it, and thus it because a very two-dimensional story without the depth that it should have had.




Fine.  Take more time out of the god-awful ending.




> Nazgul. Spell it right please.
> 
> Magic in Tolkien is more subtle than the D&D style fireball flinging you are used to. Perhaps you didn't realize that. Gandalf's main magical power is the power to inspire men to greatness.




Again, haven't read the books.  Let's not get snippy on spelling.  I didn't see any "Beware of Nazgul" signs in the movies.    My ignorance of Gandalf's "power"...I'll point to my lack of Tolkein knowledge once again.




> That would be because Soth was a literary imitation of the Witch-King. You would be more accurate to say that Soth had a Witch-King like air and appearance.




Since Weis and Hickman have mentioned several times that they gathered inspiration from LotR, I do not doubt this.  It's a good thing the Dragonlance Chronicles are a lot more user-friendly.  Improving on the original, as it were.




> His nazgul? You do realize that the Witch-King _is_ a nazgul don't you?




Nope.  I figured those flying things were nazguls.  After hours and hours of sensory overload, you tend to forget these things.


----------



## Napftor (Dec 30, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Storm Raven - no, he doesn't.  He said at the start of the message that he hasn't read the books.  That's why he doesn't know how to spell Nazgûl.  The movies only refer to the wraiths _without_ their Fell Beasts as Nazgûl once, from memory - in FotR, when the hobbits first meet Strider.  So it's not unfair for him to see Gondorians running away from Fell Beasts yelling "_Nazgûl!_", and associate the word with the big black dragonny things.
> 
> Reread his post with the understanding that he hans't read the books.
> 
> -Hyp.




Thanks, Hypersmurf.  Wish I had continued reading down the last page before making my above rebuttals.


----------



## pezagent (Dec 30, 2003)

Napftor said:
			
		

> I didn't see any "Beware of Nazgul" signs in the movies.




lol

PS... I thought *inspire greatness* was a bard ability, not a wizard's spell... (my attempt at D&D humor).


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 30, 2003)

pezagent said:
			
		

> One may believe the definition of deus ex machina to be broad, however this doesn't give license to confuse bad narrative or inconsistency with divine intervention in regards to plot.



According to the New Heritage Dictionary:  


> In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.
> An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
> A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.



The eagles seem to fit definitions 2 and 3, to me.  


Either way, I really enjoyed the movie.  I plan to see it again in the theaters.  That's about the best compliment I can pay it, and the only one that matters, in the end.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 30, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> *About the orcs killing EVERYONE off (except 4), yes - it's stupid and doesn't work in the book as well if that's the way it exactly goes down. Does Sam just waltz right into the fortress, or does he use the Ring in the book?*





In the books, Sam uses the ring, but doesn't kill many orcs doing so. The orcs kill each other off. They were orcs from two different groups (some were orcs from Minas Morgul, and some were orcs from Barad-Dur) and they fight over Frodo's belongings. By the time Sam gets into the tower, all but a handful are dead, and Sam mops up. Effectively, the sequence in the movie is virtually identical to the sequence in the books, which works okay, since it is established that orcs do that sort of thing.



> *About the missed line re: Eowyn-
> I think we should first decide whether to couch the discussion in the context of the movies, or the books.
> Because unless I'm mistaken, just about everything you responded was in the context of the books, NOT the movie.*




Umm, no. The line I quoted from Arargon was in the _movie_ TTT, not the book. There are several points in the movies where the responsibility of _duty_ is emphasized. Most of the heroes in the movie aren't hoping for glory and renown, especially not Theoden, who is convinced that _everyone is going to die and there aren't going to be any more songs anyway_. They do what they do because they are convinced that it is their responsibility to do so.



> *As I saw it, your interpretation is not correct with regards to Eowyn from what's presented in the movie.*




You didn't watch the movies very closely then.



> *The movies were quite clear about heroes performing heroic actions in defense of what's Good.*




No, the movies were quite clear about _doing one's duty_. Every hero in the movie is doing what he does ultimately because he believes it is the right thing to do. Aragorn accepts the responsibility of kingship, Theoden accepts the duty to protect his people and come to Gondor's aid, Faramir accepts his duty to obey his father's wishes, Gandalf accepts his responsibility to rally the people's of Middle Earth. Those who _shirk_ their duty, lose. Boromir swears an oath to protect Frodo and betrays it, and dies. Saruman betrays his duty to oppose Sauron, and is replaced and defeated. All of this is in the movies.



> *The movies were also clear that Eowyn yearned for a chance to prove herself on the battlefield and earn renown. They never showed what you described that I saw. They even showed her "Father" (I know he isn't her direct father, but I used "Father/Daughter" for ease of typing) repeatedly being concerned over his legacy, playing the hero role, Glory, etc.I assume you watched the movies closely, so I'm confused how your reading of Eowyn's character can be so different from mine.*




Except that Theoden is explicitly _not_ concerned about his _legacy_, because he thinks that _everyone is going to die_. Thus there will be _no legacy_. He says this on multiple occassions in the movies. His is concerned about whether he has _done the right thing_, since he will be judged in the afterlife. Not about glory and renown, but about duty.

Eowyn's quest for glory is _counter_ to the actions of the other characters. Theoden goes to battle because he believes it his responsibility to do so, and he says this. Eowyn goes to battle for selfish personal reasons.



> *Further, she didn't HAVE to give up her desire for renown in the movie - she GOT IT.
> That's the purpose for my suggested line. To echo the quite-clear subplot (to me) in memorable words directly from her "Father" as he's dying, in the middle of the battlefield. It was set up for the line, they just missed it.*





But that would be reqarding her for _doing something that is not right_. Everyone else goes to battle for duty's sake. She goes to battle for personal glory. She's in the wrong there, Theoden isn't going to reward her by talking about how she has won glory, especially since he dies thinking that _no one_ is getting glory, only duty and death. You should review the movies, since you clearly missed the point of many characters.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 30, 2003)

> I don't think personal attacks are necessary. If you don't agree with what I have to say, make your point. I believe I've been very polite and patient in regards to peoples opinions about how fiction works. If you spent twenty years playing D&D and I came along telling you drarves and elves love each other I think you'd have something to say about it. Eh?




I also have a problem when someone talks to me like an ignorant child, which is what you are doing to us all intended or not. You've been shown a dictionary defition of the term that fits the way it was used by myself and other posters, and you still essentialy insist "you used it wrong because I say so". Thats bound to eleicit some unfavorable reactions.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 30, 2003)

Napftor said:
			
		

> *If you had read my original post, you might have noticed that I stated I had NOT read the books.  So, umm, no.*





In that case, you should not be surprised to find out that film adaptations of books usually contain many elements of those books. In this case, the film adaptations contains a resolution ending the story that is longer than the ending of a _He-Man_ episode.



> *Fine.  Take more time out of the god-awful ending.*




The ending was necessary to resolve the themes of the movie. Just because you didn't pay enough attention to understand sdoesn't make the ending "god-awful". Mostly it just makes you poorly read.



> *Again, haven't read the books.  Let's not get snippy on spelling.  I didn't see any "Beware of Nazgul" signs in the movies.    My ignorance of Gandalf's "power"...I'll point to my lack of Tolkein knowledge once again.*




It is shown in the movies that Gandalf has power over men's hearts. But I think your main quibble is that you have a D&D inspired view of what a "wizard" should do. I expect you think he should have been flinging fireballs and casting "power word, kill".



> *Since Weis and Hickman have mentioned several times that they gathered inspiration from LotR, I do not doubt this.  It's a good thing the Dragonlance Chronicles are a lot more user-friendly.  Improving on the original, as it were.*




Given that you (by your own admission), _haven't read the LotR books_, exactly how do you come to the conclusion that the Dragonlance books are more "user friendly"? I would say that the Dragonlance books are more juvenile and less interesting overall, since they are basically pulp fantasy at best. But I don't think they are any more "user friendly" so long as you are literate enough to read without moving your lips.



> *Nope.  I figured those flying things were nazguls.  After hours and hours of sensory overload, you tend to forget these things.*





Given that the ringwraiths were introduced as the nazgul (note, nazgul is both plural and singular, there is no word such as nazguls), it seems odd that you didn't note this. When something is explicitly introduced and described with a particular name, I generally think one would remember what that name is attached to.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 30, 2003)

I would really like to see some moderator involvement in this thread. Several people really need to learn how to talk to other people without insulting their intelligence


----------



## pezagent (Dec 30, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> According to the New Heritage Dictionary:
> 1. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.




Fine, we'll play by dictionary. 

Can you explain how the eagles are unexpected, artificial, improbable, or how they were introduced suddenly when they were introduced in the first film? Can you explain what part of the plot they are resolving?

Let's try this one:


> _
> 3. A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty._




Were the eagles unexpected? How else would you suggest Frodo and Sam get off the mountain? Like nobody here saw this coming? Please. Was it a sudden solution? Did Frodo and Sam not accept their fate and did not enough time pass before the eagles appeared--*with* Gandalf? Did not enough time pass before one could actually realize that the eagles were an obvious choice to appear to save them from their *fate*, not the *plot* itself?

(If one can't see this term is erroneous by now I'm not sure there's any hope...  )

And to get deep into it, Frodo and Sam have reached their end--they actually think they're going to die. _They have accepted their fate._ If they were actually looking for a way off Mt. Doom I might actually agree that it was contrived and ill-suited--almost convenient, but as they have accepted their fate it is yet another mark that the story has ended. Was there not enough character development and "bonding" thoughout the film to suggest Gandalf would come up with a solution to find them and bring them to safety?

Please.

Again, because one cannot suspend disbelief and accept the eagles _as is_ does not give one justification to point out literary fallacy.

People seem to enjoy pointing out the dictionary to defend their POV, however, in this case I find this to be trite. To quote Lisa Simpson: "Yes, I'm going to marry a carrot." How about quoting an established literary critic or professor on the matter? A dictionary defines terms within the context they are meant to exist within--what I mean is, I agree with the definition, however I think people are taking it too far out of context. If we like, *Webster's* offers a more precise and acceptable definition:

1 : a god introduced by means of a crane in ancient Greek and Roman drama to decide the final outcome
2 : a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty

Once again, how the hell would you get Frodo and Sam off the mountain? If you didn't expect this outcome, what did you expect? This is a perfectly acceptable solution to their problem--and again, as they had accepted their fate, they didn't even _have_ a problem to begin with. Only the viewer, the self-serving audience, wishes them to survive. This, in itself, should be enough to let one know that _deus ex machina_ is not at work here.

This is the point I'm trying to get across, a point that's being passed over for the sake of sentiment. Which is not all bad--it means the narrative did it's job and allowed the audience to be more concerned with the characters than the actual plot. Which, considering the plot, was most likely Tolkien's intention. 

Perhaps this definition might help those in need of mental assistance:


> From some guy someplace somewhere who's thoughts were accessible to me in a bind:
> 
> In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a _deus ex machina._
> 
> Few modern works feature deities suspended by wires from the ceiling, but the term deus ex machina is still used for cases where an author uses some improbable (and often clumsy) plot device to work his or her way out of a difficult situation. When the cavalry comes charging over the hill or when the impoverished hero is relieved by an unexpected inheritance, it's often called a deus ex machina.




I liked this definition because it includes the word _clumsy_, which is how one should recognize it. Clumsy. The author doesn't know what to do, so an act of God, some divine intervention, steps in and relieves the hero of any redeemable action. _That_ is deus ex machina. Not some misunderstood or inconsistent or subjective bit of narrative, be it cinematic or literary. 

The thing about *deus ex machina* is that you'll know it when you see it--it's obvious, blatant--and there wouldn't be a debate over it. If you want to see dues ex machina in action, rent a copy of *Magnolia.* The only film I know of to date that takes the concept literally and uses it on purpose. For those who haven't seen the movie I won't reveal what happens.

And as I seem to have exhausted this conversation for the sake of argument, to those who still disbelieve, I can only say this: _bite me._

/johnny 

PS. I have a pet theory that the defense of _deus ex machina_ comes from it's improper use presented in the DMG. I was very annoyed a few weeks ago when I purchased a copy and saw it used  in the Adventures section. Used in this manner I believe it's become more of a shibboleth to gamers who now seem to use it frivolously.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 30, 2003)

I love shibboleths, especially when they secrete mucous to let their slaves breath underwater. There are few underdark monsters to top them.

And now that _that_ bad pun is out of the way, let's try to be less condescending, folks. It's possible to express your views without denigrating others. Please try to do so.

Incidentally, the Report a Post link is just above the "profile" button in every post; it's the best way to get the attention of a moderator.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 30, 2003)

Thanks Piratecat


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 30, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I would really like to see some moderator involvement in this thread. Several people really need to learn how to talk to other people without insulting their intelligence




No .  That's why I pulled out of the conversation.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 30, 2003)

Just to reiterate what PC has said - this is a fascinating thread, with some great debate and discussion in it.  There's also some unpleasant snippiness and pedantry.  Let's try and be nice to each other, eh?  After all, nearly all of us agree that RotK is a friggin' great movie!

On the ending - I agree that it was too long.  I don't feel that it made for good cinema (I had no problem with it in the books), and actually felt a bit bored for the last 10 minutes or so.  I agree that it could have been shortened (even re-written, since the Scouring was omitted) and that Saruman could have been added back in, along with some other bits and pieces.  That said, I still think that it is fantastic film.

Thinking back, the bits which struck me most were:

1) The charge of the Rohirrim. I actually felt a shiver go down my spine at that moment.

2) Shelob.  Now that was just incredible.

3) Pretty much the whole of the battle.  Looked and felt incredible!

Some things I thought were less strong:

1) I felt that there were some moments which were just too cheesy.  The bit where they all join Frodo in his bedroom made me cringe.

2) Sam going into the tower to rescue Frodo.  Yeah, I know that happened in the book, but actually seeing it realised on screen made it seem a bit silly to me.

3) Elrond showing up etc. 

4) The army of the dead.  They arrive, there's a long shot of a green "glow" swarming over the bad guys for about 5 seconds, and the battle is over.  Very anti-climatic for me, as battle-endings go.

5) Nazgul.  I didn't get this impression from the books, but, again, seeing it onscreen made some things more "apparent" to me.  The Nazgul don't really seem much of a threat - Aragorn drives them off easily in the first film, one of the fellbeasts is hit by a single arrow and flees in TTT, and the Witch King confrontation is too darn easy.  His fell beast, in particular, was about as much threat as a tabby cat.  I'd like (blasphemy!) PJ to have rewritten the Nazgul to make them much more formidable than they actually were.

6) Gimli still too much of a comedy figure, something which has bothered me through all three movies.  Also, in TTT when he had a score of 2 and Legolas had 19 - how on earth did he catch up?  Did Legolas just slow down to give him a chance, deciding that his 19 orcs/10 seconds hit rate was too fast to make for fair competition?  Or should the two have been prtrayed as more equal all the way through, as in the books?

I like what they did with Denethor, although I feel it should have been explained a little better.  I also feel that, despite my reservations with Faramir's portrayal in TTT, the whole arc with him works perfectly, despite being different from the books.

I've only seen the movie once (I'm going back tomorrow), but I feel that PJ improved on the books in some places, and did most of it the justice it deserved.  Only occasionally did he fall short in my opinion, and in some of those cases I felt he should have actually rewritten stuff to improve it, as it wasn't written with the cinema in mind.  In other cases, of course, I felt that he'd rewritten stuff for no reason (Aragorn falling off the cliff and then coming back again in TTT.  Wait, didn't that same thing happen to Gandalf, what, 20 minutes agoi?  Disn't work at all for me).


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 30, 2003)

Morrus said:
			
		

> 6) Gimli still too much of a comedy figure, something which has bothered me through all three movies.




I've been re-reading the books over the past couple of months(just got to Minas Tirith), and I was surprised to notice that Gimli is portrayed almost the same. Yes, the movie has him a bit more as the comic relief...but he was the same in the book. Or at least...that's the impression I got as I re-read through Two Towers.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 30, 2003)

Morrus said:
			
		

> 5) Nazgul.  I didn't get this impression from the books, but, again, seeing it onscreen made some things more "apparent" to me.  The Nazgul don't really seem much of a threat - Aragorn drives them off easily in the first film, one of the fellbeasts is hit by a single arrow and flees in TTT, and the Witch King confrontation is too darn easy.  His fell beast, in particular, was about as much threat as a tabby cat.  I'd like (blasphemy!) PJ to have rewritten the Nazgul to make them much more formidable than they actually were.




I don't think he needed to do that at all.   He should have never re-written the scene with the Nazgul when Frodo gets stabbed.   That right there took a lot of impact out of the Nazgul.    Strider jumps out and starts kicking thier asses?  WTF?   Based on that I don't know why 3-4 elves couldn't take the whole lot of them!  Then the scene where a single arrow drives one off...are these things supposed to be tough?   Bad writing by PJ & crew on those.   The aura of fear was gone after Weathertop.  Terrible scene if you want to keep the aura of fear around them.


----------



## Bob Aberton (Dec 30, 2003)

If I recall properly, Flexor, Aragorn does pretty much the same thing in the books - and in the books, Frodo sends the Witch-King running by slashing his cloak and shouting "Elbereth!"  

Aragorn is the most powerful mortal in Middle-Earth; he might even measure up favorably with Isildur.  I would argue that far from diminishing the Nazgul, the Weathertop scene just goes to show how powerful Aragorn is.

And Legolas kills a Fell Beast with one arrow in The Two Towers (the book version).  However, when Faramir does somewhat the same thing in the movie, apparently it's a sign of how wimpy the Nazgul are.

(On a side note, Smaug the dragon in The Hobbit was killed by one arrow; does that mean Smaug is wimpy, too?)


----------



## Storminator (Dec 30, 2003)

Morrus said:
			
		

> 6) Gimli still too much of a comedy figure, something which has bothered me through all three movies.  Also, in TTT when he had a score of 2 and Legolas had 19 - how on earth did he catch up?  Did Legolas just slow down to give him a chance, deciding that his 19 orcs/10 seconds hit rate was too fast to make for fair competition?  Or should the two have been prtrayed as more equal all the way through, as in the books?




In the books Legolas is ahead 19 to 2, but then he runs out of arrows, and Gimli's axe work catches up.

Incidently, I think the scene in TTT where Gimli is killing and roaring out his body count is awesome. Who'd like to be the next orc to step to that?

PS


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 30, 2003)

Bob Aberton said:
			
		

> If I recall properly, Flexor, Aragorn does pretty much the same thing in the books - and in the books, Frodo sends the Witch-King running by slashing his cloak and shouting "Elbereth!"
> 
> Aragorn is the most powerful mortal in Middle-Earth; he might even measure up favorably with Isildur.  I would argue that far from diminishing the Nazgul, the Weathertop scene just goes to show how powerful Aragorn is.
> 
> ...




I thought that Strider used torches to try and keep the Nazgul at bay, then Frodo gets stabbed and they withdraw to wait for the knife to do it's work?  It's been a while since I read the Fellowship.  Yes Aragorn is mighty, but I got the impression that he could just kick the  out of the Nazgul from watching the movie.  I got the sense of the fear they radiate more from the books I suppose.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 30, 2003)

pezagent said:
			
		

> Were the eagles unexpected? How else would you suggest Frodo and Sam get off the mountain? Like nobody here saw this coming? Please.



To me the first time I read the books?  Yes, they were.  To people who've never read the books?  Yes, they were.  That the characters had accpeted their own deaths doesn't mean the audience had.  I didn't see the story as "Destroy the Ring.", but rather "Destroy the Ring, Save the Free Peoples and Survive if we can."

You don't agree, which is fine.  But your opinion is not an absolute.

And since a moderator has already had a say, I'll just add that there's really no need to be rude.  Your point can stand just fine on it's own, without lashing out.


----------



## kengar (Dec 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted by Morrus
> 
> 
> 5) Nazgul. I didn't get this impression from the books, but, again, seeing it onscreen made some things more "apparent" to me. The Nazgul don't really seem much of a threat - Aragorn drives them off easily in the first film, one of the fellbeasts is hit by a single arrow and flees in TTT, and the Witch King confrontation is too darn easy. His fell beast, in particular, was about as much threat as a tabby cat. I'd like (blasphemy!) PJ to have rewritten the Nazgul to make them much more formidable than they actually were.




In the books, at the beginning (Shire, Bree & Weathertop) the Nine were not yet at their full strength. Their power had waned with Sauron's after the One Ring was lost. The Nazguls' main weapon was fear. At Weathertop, Fire helped to keep them at bay. They disliked fire and light, being creatures of darkness. 

_"Strider laid his hand on his (Frodo's) shoulder. 'There is still hope,' he said. 'You are not alone. Let us take this wood that is set ready for the fire as a sign. There is little shelter or defnce here, but fire shall serve for both. Sauron can put fire to his evil uses, as he can all things, but these Riders do not love it, and fear those who wield it. Fire is our friend in the wilderness."_

When Frodo put on the Ring and entered the shadow-world, the Witch King was able to see him clearly and strike him with the Morgul blade. Aragorn and the others drove them off with torches.

I agree with Bob that the scene with Faramir shooting the hell hawk was probably meant to be reminiscent of Legolas' felling the winged beast in TTT. 

Lastly, as far as the films go, one of the things that isn't really obvious is the effect of the Nazguls' cries. In ROTK, you see the men of Gondor cringing and covering their ears. 

_"Pippin knew the shuddering cry that he had heard: it was the same that he had heard long ago in the Marish of the Shire, but it was grown in power and hatred, piercing the heart with a poisonous despair."_

Also:

_"For yet another weapon, swifter than hunger, the Lord of the Dark Tower had: dread and despair.

The Nazgul came again, and as their Dark Lord now grew and put forth his strength, so their voices, which uttered only his will and malice, were filled with evil and horror. Ever they circled above the City, like vultures that expect their fill of doomed men's flesh. Out of sight and shot they flew, and yet were ever present, and their deadly voices rent the air. More unbearable they became, not less, at each new cry. At length even the stout-hearted would fling themselves to the ground as the hidden menace passed over them, or they would stand, letting weapons fall from nerveless handswhile into their minds a blackness came, and they thought no more of war; but only of hiding and of crawling, and of death."_

This is one of those instances, I think, where the book does a better job than the movie. It's hard to show this kind of thing on screen.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 30, 2003)

Bob Aberton said:
			
		

> (On a side note, Smaug the dragon in The Hobbit was killed by one arrow; does that mean Smaug is wimpy, too?)




it was a special arrow.  


and Faramir is no elf when it comes to using a bow.


----------



## Kesh (Dec 30, 2003)

pezagent said:
			
		

> Fine, we'll play by dictionary.
> 
> Can you explain how the eagles are unexpected, artificial, improbable, or how they were introduced suddenly when they were introduced in the first film? Can you explain what part of the plot they are resolving?
> 
> ...




Well, give up hope. 

The eagles are a DEM for the fact that they showed up _at the battle_ for absolutely no reason given in the film. (I cannot recall if a message was ever sent to them in the books.)

In the movie, they simply show up unannounced and intervene in the fight. And solely by the grace of their presence, Sam & Frodo can be saved when they otherwise would likely have died on Mt. Doom.

If there had been even passing mention of someone sending a message to the eagles asking for help, your argument would have more weight.


----------



## Kesh (Dec 30, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> < nitpick> They rejoin their companions in Gondor, not Rivendell < /nitpick>
> 
> I agree with the rest of your post, though.




Whoops. Thanks! For some reason, I the bedchamber reminded me of the one in Rivendell, so that's what my brain stuck in there.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 30, 2003)

Bob Aberton said:
			
		

> *If I recall properly, Flexor, Aragorn does pretty much the same thing in the books - and in the books, Frodo sends the Witch-King running by slashing his cloak and shouting "Elbereth!"*





Actually, Aragorn's efforts in the book are pretty ineffective when confronting the Nazgul on Weathertop. They have stabbed Frodo with the Morgul blade when he shows up, and they withdraw not because they have been driven off, but because they are content to wait for the knife to work. They are convinced that Frodo will succumb in short order. Aragorn waving burning branches about is not very effective.

And Frodo's attack is noted for being _completely_ ineffective. The Witch-King withdraws because he wants to, not because of anything Frodo or Aragorn did.



> *Aragorn is the most powerful mortal in Middle-Earth; he might even measure up favorably with Isildur.*




He may be the most powerful mortal on earth, but he's a far cry form the powerful elf-lords. In the book Glorfindel, an immensely powerful elven warrior, is brushed aside by the nazgul as they pursue Frodo.


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 30, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> In the books, Sam uses the ring, but doesn't kill many orcs doing so. The orcs kill each other off. They were orcs from two different groups (some were orcs from Minas Morgul, and some were orcs from Barad-Dur) and they fight over Frodo's belongings. By the time Sam gets into the tower, all but a handful are dead, and Sam mops up. Effectively, the sequence in the movie is virtually identical to the sequence in the books...
> 
> No, the movies were quite clear about _doing one's duty_.
> 
> Eowyn's quest for glory is _counter_ to the actions of the other characters. Theoden goes to battle because he believes it his responsibility to do so, and he says this. Eowyn goes to battle for selfish personal reasons.



a) You don't know everything about the movie, nor what is going on in the movie character's heads. Please stop acting like you do, unless it's based on the frames of film that were shown so far.
You know the books. That is affecting your view of the movies, as I'll show later.

b) Since you do appear to be knowledgable about the books (for example - thanks for the info about the dock (what's the name?) being an Elvish settlement for millenia), I'll ask some questions for clarification:
* Sam used the Ring to get into the Fortress? That makes a lot of sense. It explains how Sam could have gotten in, at least. That would have worked. However, they decided not to show that in the movie (I'm sure the writers had their reasons), therefore the scene DIDN'T WORK.
* If different orcs from different places were always a hairs-breadth from killing each other, than how did they mount such an awesomely united front at both Helm's Deep and Minis Tirith? It doesn't make sense that their animosity and inability to work together comes and goes at the author's whim.

c) As for heroes doing things for duty vs honor - I think we're probably saying the same thing, but using different words. You can say "Duty and Responsibility" and I say "heroes performing heroic actions in defense of what's Good." It's probably pretty close to each other.
Can't you see that me saying "Theoden was concerned over his legacy, playing the hero role, Glory, etc." is the same as you saying "(He) is concerned about whether he has done the right thing, since he will be judged in the afterlife", or are you THAT pedantic?

d) You paraphrasing Aragorn in one place in TTT does not mean that what you are espousing is actually present in the movies.
I think you've ignored where I've quoted the movie for the support of my position.

e) You contradicted yourself in what you said about Eowyn:
First, you said: 







			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except it would have completely voided the character development of Eowyn, who gives up the quest for glory and renown to accept responsibility and duty instead. She starts as a glory seeking adolescent and ends up as an adult. Changing the end result of her character development to adolescent wish fulfillment would destroy the power of her story arc.



Don't you see that you are using the book for the basis of this? None of that was in the movie.
Secondly, you now say:







			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> But that would be reqarding (sp?) her for _doing something that is not right_. Everyone else goes to battle for duty's sake. She goes to battle for personal glory. She's in the wrong there, Theoden isn't going to reward her by talking about how she has won glory, especially since he dies thinking that _no one_ is getting glory, only duty and death. You should review the movies, since you clearly missed the point of many characters.



This directly contradicts your previous post.
As I see it, it's YOU who is confused about what's presented in the movies, and YOU who didn't watch them close enough. But I doubt if I will help you to see that.

For my part, if you can show me _in the movies_ the support for your interpretation, than I will be open to reading it and determining whether that's the valid interpretation of the _movies'_ drama.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 30, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> *b) Since you do appear to be knowledgable about the books (for example - thanks for the info about the dock (what's the name?) being an Elvish settlement for millenia),*




The Gray Havens. It is Cirdan's fortress in Middle Earth.



> *I'll ask some questions for clarification:
> * Sam used the Ring to get into the Fortress? That makes a lot of sense. It explains how Sam could have gotten in, at least. That would have worked. However, they decided not to show that in the movie (I'm sure the writers had their reasons), therefore the scene DIDN'T WORK.*




Sam uses the rign when getting through Shelob's passages, but doesn't when going through the citadel, because by then to orcs have killed each other.



> ** If different orcs from different places were always a hairs-breadth from killing each other, than how did they mount such an awesomely united front at both Helm's Deep and Minis Tirith? It doesn't make sense that their animosity and inability to work together comes and goes at the author's whim.*




The orcs attacking Helm's Deep were driven by Saruman's will and most were Uruk-Hai, better warriors than normal orcs. The orcs attacking Minas Tirith were led by the Witch-King and the other nazgul, who held them together. In the book, there are a couple of instances where orcs left to themselves engage in petty arguments that escalate into lethal violence. Many times they are shown as having to be driven into battle by their masters, whipped to fight in some cases.

In every case in LotR where the orcs work together, they are led by a powerful force that dirves them into battle: the orcs of Moria are ruled by the Balrog, the orcs of Isenguard are ruled by Saruman, the orcs of Minas Morgul are led by the Witch-King. But the Witch-King is away, and Sauron's eye is elsewhere when the orcs in Cirith Ungol have their altercation.



> *c) As for heroes doing things for duty vs honor - I think we're probably saying the same thing, but using different words. You can say "Duty and Responsibility" and I say "heroes performing heroic actions in defense of what's Good." It's probably pretty close to each other.*




It depends. In the movies, it is pretty clear that doing what is right frequently means _not_ doing the heroic thing, but rather doing the _responsible_ thing. Faramir lets Frodo go, rather than gain glory from his father by taking the ring to him. Aragorn finally accepts kingship rather than continue to be a free man. Both Galadriel and Gandalf turn down the ring, which would allow them to increase their power (but corrput them) and oppose Sauron with their might.



> *Can't you see that me saying "Theoden was concerned over his legacy, playing the hero role, Glory, etc." is the same as you saying "(He) is concerned about whether he has done the right thing, since he will be judged in the afterlife", or are you THAT pedantic?*




No. It is a different thing. Glory and a legacy are how you are remembered _on earth_. How you are judged in the afterlife is entirely different, unconnected to whether anyone remembers your deed on earth. Eowyn is clearly concerned about whether she will have songs written about her and be famous, and Aragorn (and Theoden) tell her that is not why you behave valorously. Theoden joins his fathers certain that he has done the right thing, but also certain that there will be no songs sung about him, look at his speech delivered in RotK (movie) before the Rohirrim charge. He clearly believes that they are all going to die, and there will be no glory, no songs.



> *d) You paraphrasing Aragorn in one place in TTT does not mean that what you are espousing is actually present in the movies.*




Direct quotes from character's lines (the hero's lines no less) in the movies are not actually in the movies?



> *e) You contradicted yourself in what you said about Eowyn:*




No. I didn't. You misunderstand what the difference between "glory" and "doing the right thing". Eowyn seeks glory, personal pride. By the end, she gives that up to be with Faramir. Note that her deeds go _unremarked_, and she doesn't bring them up. She has learned that responsibility is more important than gaining fame for what you have done.

I believe this will be clarified in the extended edition when the Houses of Healing sequences are restored to the movie.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 30, 2003)

Morrus said:
			
		

> 4) The army of the dead.  They arrive, there's a long shot of a green "glow" swarming over the bad guys for about 5 seconds, and the battle is over.  Very anti-climatic for me, as battle-endings go.




"Anti-cli*mac*tic.  Anti-climatic means you're... against the _weather_."

God, Joan of Arcadia.

-Hyp.


----------



## Napftor (Dec 30, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]
> In that case, you should not be surprised to find out that film adaptations of books usually contain many elements of those books. In this case, the film adaptations contains a resolution ending the story that is longer than the ending of a _He-Man_ episode.
> 
> The ending was necessary to resolve the themes of the movie. Just because you didn't pay enough attention to understand sdoesn't make the ending "god-awful". Mostly it just makes you poorly read.
> ...




*sigh*
Your typical "rabid fanboy" reaction to my review and questions is why I normally don't post in these threads.  Just because I didn't rate it a 10 does not mean you get to ridicule my tastes.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 30, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "Anti-cli*mac*tic.  Anti-climatic means you're... against the _weather_."
> 
> God, Joan of Arcadia.
> 
> -Hyp.



 It's snowing in Vancouver. Yer darn tooting I'm against the weather.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 30, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's snowing in Vancouver. Yer darn tooting I'm against the weather.




Weird - it's hot and sunny here.  Just your fairly average summer day.



-Hyp.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Dec 30, 2003)

(Bass Puppet sits patiently as he watches this informative yet, trainwreck of a thread)

"Awe man, I'm all out of popcorn...."

...(walks into the next room)...
.
.
....(returns with a replenished tub and sits back down)

"....please continue."


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 30, 2003)

Yo, Bass Puppet. You going to eat all that?

*sits next to BP and starts to work on the popcorn*

"Y'know, I can't believe the effects in that reapersaurus post. Didn't anyone notice the crappy rendering? And what about those lame crane shots in Storm Raven's post? Sheesh."


----------



## Bass Puppet (Dec 30, 2003)

"You can see the strings!!"


(walks out demanding a refund)


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 31, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> "Y'know, I can't believe the effects in that reapersaurus post. Didn't anyone notice the crappy rendering?



HEY!
Can I help it if the effects company (Ad HominFX) backed out of the post after taking my money, leaving me with simple quotes proving my points, unfestooned with lurid prose implying my opponent's lack of intelligence?


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 31, 2003)

pezagent said:
			
		

> The thing about *deus ex machina* is that you'll know it when you see it--it's obvious, blatant--and there wouldn't be a debate over it. If you want to see dues ex machina in action, rent a copy of *Magnolia.* The only film I know of to date that takes the concept literally and uses it on purpose. For those who haven't seen the movie I won't reveal what happens.



Tim Burton's version of "Planet of the Apes" also takes the concept of *deus ex machina* literally and uses it on purpose.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 31, 2003)

> And Frodo's attack is noted for being completely ineffective. The Witch-King withdraws because he wants to, not because of anything Frodo or Aragorn did.




I have to partialy disagree with this. In the book Frodo speaking the name of Elbereth does in fact greatly dismay the Nazgul(I just would like to see what would happen if she actualy appeared). And they do fear fire greatly. Now yes the main reason they just went ahead and left was because they figured the blade had it sinched. But the name of Elbereth was painful to them and they fled it.




> The eagles are a DEM for the fact that they showed up at the battle for absolutely no reason given in the film. (I cannot recall if a message was ever sent to them in the books.)




There isnt that I remember. But as I have said before the fact of "divine intervention" becomes even more aparent to readers of the Silmarillion, since the Eagles serve Manwe who is King of the Earth and essentialy the Creator's right hand (and they may themselves be divine beings as gandalf is)


----------



## Storminator (Dec 31, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> HEY!
> Can I help it if the effects company (Ad HominFX) backed out of the post after taking my money, leaving me with simple quotes proving my points, unfestooned with lurid prose implying my opponent's lack of intelligence?




That doesn't excuse your font choice, nor your horrendous punctuation. You could have at least used some color.  

PS


----------



## pezagent (Dec 31, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> To me the first time I read the books?  Yes, they were.  To people who've never read the books?  Yes, they were.




Not to me. I expected the eagles to appear. Especially since they helped Gandalf escape the first time.



> That the characters had accepted their own deaths doesn't mean the audience had.




Yes, if you re-read my posts, you'll see that's my point. Only the _audience_ wishes them to survive. The audience, unfortunately (or thankfully, depending upon how one looks at it), does not get to narrate the picture.



> I didn't see the story as "Destroy the Ring.", but rather "Destroy the Ring, Save the Free Peoples and Survive if we can."




I didn't see the story that way either. I saw the plot that way. Reading into the plot one can attach the sentiment to the story. That's how it works. So the plot--the conflict--is about destroying the ring. Your interest in saving the peoples and surviving is brought forth from your sympathy towards the characters, which once again, if you re-read my posts, I've already made that point. "Saving lives" is _not_ the plot of LOTR. That, I am certain of.



> You don't agree, which is fine.  But your opinion is not an absolute.




Well, my opinion is based on my educated beliefs(!?) in regards to fiction analysis. I defend them accordingly. 



> And since a moderator has already had a say, I'll just add that there's really no need to be rude.  Your point can stand just fine on it's own, without lashing out.




I'm sorry if you feel I'm "lashing out"--I think reaching the end of my reserve is more like it. You'll know if I lash out--I'll most likely be banned from the community when that happens. 

Regards,

/johnny


----------



## pezagent (Dec 31, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> Tim Burton's version of "Planet of the Apes" also takes the concept of *deus ex machina* literally and uses it on purpose.




Oh man, did anyone add that to the list of _Worst Movies Ever?_ I think you're being far too generous--it's possible it was used here on purpose--if the story was, in fact, a comedy. 

/johnny


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 31, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> From dictionary.com
> 
> *deus ex ma·chi·na*   (
> 
> ...




I think Tolkien might be amused by this discussion. 

While it can be argued both ways with the eagles my own personal feeling is that while the eagles technicaly qualify as deus ex machina, it is not the intent of the author to use them this way.  Tolkien's works rely heavily on the entire history of Middle-earth and draw from each other, with all things repeating in some ways. Beren and Luthien/Aragorn and Arwen (there are numerous parts to this alone); Isuldur claiming the ring at Mount Doom/Frodo claiming the Ring at Mount Doom; Sauron loosing a finger when he loses the Ring/Frodo losing a finger when he loses the Ring. The list goes on and on. With the eagles I feel Tolkien is once again trying to bring back a piece of history for us. This time it is the repetition of the events of the Battle of Five Armies. The statement from the RotK of "The Eagles are coming!" brought back the same emotion I felt when I first read Bilbo say the exact same thing in the Hobbit. Not only do the Eagles arrive at the nick of time as the final battle seems hopeless but Tolkien specificaly uses exactly the same words to anounce their arrival. Tolkien even brings up the relationship directly in the book with these sentences right after the eagles are first anounced, "For one moment more Pippen's thought hovered. 'Bilbo!' it said. 'But no! That came in his tale, long long ago. This is my tale, and it is ended now. Good-bye!'" While I can see that if you haven't read the books this could be missed I would point as well to the animated version of Hobbit. While this may not be the greatest of interpretations the coming of the eagles was not overlooked. Yes it is deus ex machina but the real message is not how something occurs but why and history repeating itself. Just like the ancient Greeks, Tolkien use of deus ex machina is not intended to give an easy answer but to get a larger point accross: History repeats itself.

The other amusing thing about this discussion is that most of us are overlooking the real and literal deus ex machina of Tolkien. That is Gandolf. While we are argueing over the Eagles, Tolkien has wrapped his repetative and litteral use of the technique so well into the story we don't even notice it. Gandolf is a Maia, as tolkien describes them in the Silmarillion "Ainur of a lesser degree than the Valor" depending on your interpretation a lesser or demi-god, but divine and older than Middle-earth itself. This is the literal part, just as the greeks used it, it is a God helping out deserving mortals in times of need. So where does this come into the story.

In the Hobbit:
Gandolf leaves and comes back to rescue everyone from the trolls. 
Gandolf is "left behind" when the Goblins capture the party and then shows up to rescue them.
Gwaihir owes Gandolf a favor so helps the Party get to where they need to go.
Gandolf shows up at the lonely mountain just in time to mediate between the Elves/humans/Dwarves.

In the Lord of the Rings:
At Rivendell to help Elrond save Frodo from certain (un)death.
On the mountain as he lights a fire to save the fellowship from freezing to death.
In Moria by being able to take out the Balrog.
In Fanghorn to redirect the trio from their hobbit quest.
At Edoras to kick out Wormtongue and restore Theoden.
At Helm's Deep when he apears with the Cavalry and the Hurons at the last minute.
At the Pelenor Feilds to rescue Faramir's company from the Nazgul.
At the gate of Minas Tirith where Galdolf blocks the entry of the Witch King (Book and possibley the EE).

It is much more direct in the Hobbit which was a earlier less refined work, but its is definitely in the Lord of the Rings as well. Deus ex machina is all over the place but integrated extremely well. So well that its use as a legitimite litterary tool is shown off. The issue of the Eagles seems to me to be a case of misinterpretation of Tolkien's intent. By trying to get that one more reference to the past a slight ommision was made in covering its possible missinterpretation.

P.S. Please excuse some typos. It is late and I got out of bed to put this down so it would stop bothering me and I could get some sleep.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 31, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I think Tolkien might be amused by this discussion.
> 
> While it can be argued both ways with the eagles my own personal feeling is that while the eagles technicaly qualify as deus ex machina, it is not the intent of the author to use them this way. <snip>



*From a letter to Forrest J. Ackerman [Not dated; June 1958]
*[Tolkien's comments on the film 'treatment' of _The Lord of the Rings.]_



> The Eagles are a dangerous 'machine'. I have used them sparingly, and that is the absolute limit of their credibility or usefulness.


----------



## pezagent (Dec 31, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I think Tolkien might be amused by this discussion.




Why, did you know him personally? 



> While it can be argued both ways with the eagles




I agree anything can be argued about--but I'm still waiting for a good one to come my way--because...



> my own personal feeling is that while the eagles technically qualify as deus ex machina,




...people like telling me (us) this, but do not clearly explain _why_. Why do think the eagles "technically" qualify as deus ex machina? 



> [...] While this may not be the greatest of interpretations the coming of the eagles was not overlooked. Yes it is deus ex machina




No, it's not.



> but the real message is not how something occurs but why and history repeating itself. Just like the ancient Greeks, Tolkien use of deus ex machina is not intended to give an easy answer but to get a larger point accross: History repeats itself.




History repeating itself: You're talking about a _theme._ I don't think there was any "hidden" meaning behind using deus ex machina--as spelled out by (a) definition it wrapped up a play that had no way out of plot. It is my pet theory (based on my limited knowledge of Greek history) that Greeks would make up plays on the spot, as entertainment was extremely important in a civilized culture, and with nowhere to go, the statue would be lowered or placed on stage. To give this any more credit than it deserves, such as suggesting that it had some sort of deep, spiritual, or perhaps revealing power, I think is very imaginative--and idealistic.



> The other amusing thing about this discussion is that most of us are overlooking the real and literal deus ex machina of Tolkien.




I think some of us have injected symbolism, thematic representation, and supernatual aid into the term _deus ex machina_. 



> That is Gandolf. [...]




I'd like to point you in the direction of Joseph Campbell. 

Gandalf is not, in any way, shape, or form, _deus ex machina_. I believe what you're trying to get across is that Gandalf represents _supernatural aid_--perhaps like Merlin to King Arthur or, with respect, Obi-Wan to Luke Skywalker. Although he helps the characters of Middle Earth, he does not relieve the characters from the burden of resolving their own conflicts. His presence is setup, _known_, he is a hero with flaws, and has limitations. He is, like the other characters in the story, just another character, albeit more powerful and more wise than the others. His wisdom is a guide, a beacon of light and hope.



> Deus ex machina is all over the place but integrated extremely well.




No, it's not.

You've pointed to situations where Gandalf has helped others, but, as I've pointed out in my previous posts, this doesn't mean dues ex machina is at work. 

Whatever Gandalf does in LOTR or elsewhere, we _expect_ it from him. Does he change himself into a giant dragon to fight and destroy the enemy? No. He lights a fire to help his friends from freezing to death. This isn't an example of dues ex machina, this is an example of *supernatural aid*. 

Supernatural aid--as described by Campbell, is often necessary within the scope of fantasy, as the characters often start off too "weak" to be able to complete the adventure on their own. What makes the story interesting is how the characters grow with the help of supernatural aid. 

This has nothing to do with dues ex machina. As I've pointed out before, deus ex machina has to do with the plot--not the characters. It's a _device_, like using the cheat codes on your Playstation to get all the powers without playing the game to get them. If the author has introduced a character, such as Gandalf, into the story, there's going to be very little need for any unnecessary and unexpected plot resolution, because that's what the supernatural aid is all about. I believe this may be more along the lines of what you're talking about.



> So well that its use as a legitimate literary tool is shown off.




Deus ex machina is not a legitimate literary tool. That's the whole point. It's a _device_--an event, a character--something totally absurd and so unexpected one would want to punch the author in the nose for tying us in knots only to find there's no way out but through extraordinary means that have *not* been set up through exposition.

I was thinking about this earlier today, a good example of exposition, and I was thinking of the movie *Die Hard.* At the end of the movie, the villian is dangling off the high-rise, and in _super-slow motion_™ the tension builds as he swings his gun forward to get off a last shot--and most likely kill--our hero. But he's holding onto the wife's watch, and our hero quickly unlatches it in a nick of time, sending our villain to his death. The end.

So where did that watch come from? It was an essential part of the plot resolution, because how else could our hero have sent the villain to his death before getting a bullet between the eyes? (Or even better, the wife?)

If, within the first act of the movie, one of the characters didn't spend a few minutes making sure we _knew_ about the watch ("Hey, look at that watch we got her. See that watch? Show him the watch.") then we'd have a classic case of deus ex machina. But because we know about the watch--and might even forget about it as unimportant--it's not deus ex machina. It might be a surprise, but it's explainable. But by the very dictionary definition everyone is hiding behind in this dicussion, taken out of context--it _would_ be dues ex machina. And that is not how to use the term at all.

Getting back to Gandalf, he hardly qualifies for a clumsy, contrived, and sudden literary device used solely to relieve our heroes from responsibility. Sure he helps out, but what are friends for? And I'd also like to point out that having powerful friends in adventures such as these helps achieve something else--it helps us suspend our disbelief further. We know our characters can't be too much in peril because they have a powerful friend. He's kind of like a security blanket in the readers mind. Think of the exhilaration when Gandalf falls down the chasm--what will the characters do now? We can only hope that they've become powerful and wise enough to continue on their own, and of course, we secretly hope that Gandalf has something up his sleeve to come back to us. This isn't dues ex machina at work. I believe this is powerful, straightforward, fiction at work. 

I think you're on the right track here, I think Gandalf has obviously been included as supernatural aid, which is a great literary device to use. The difference between something like _supernatural aid_ and _deus ex machina_ is that the former is welcomed by the reader/audience, the latter is not. The latter is more like a slap in the face. As a "participant", you'll feel ripped off. To paraphrase Cartman, you'll want to kick somebody straight in the nuts.



> The issue of the Eagles seems to me to be a case of misinterpretation of Tolkien's intent. By trying to get that one more reference to the past a slight ommision was made in covering its possible misinterpretation.




I'm not sure I agree with this--only because I'm weary of those who seem to have a handle of Tolkien's "intent" when reading between the lines. I like decomposing the work to see what makes it tick--in hopes I can put my own together one day (!?) but that's as far as I'll go. The only thing that I can ever be sure of is that he intended to write a story and went pretty far with it.

/johnny 

Edit: Two notes... one, that I am not trying to infer that Tolkein has inserted Gandalf into the story as a gimmick, which I don't think anyone would suggest, and two, that when I refer to deus ex machina making us aware of the author--I mean just that--the author, not the narrator. The slap in the face I'm speaking of is the snap back to reality, removing us from the story dream-trance that we've been in, being made to be suddenly aware of another's presence, namely the person writing the story. Suspended disbelief breaks and falls to the floor in pieces, and we shake our heads, and say "what the f6ck are you doing?"  -- j 

(eat snacky smores)


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 31, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> In the Lord of the Rings:
> 
> At Rivendell to help Elrond save Frodo from certain (un)death.
> On the mountain as he lights a fire to save the fellowship from freezing to death.
> ...



You forgot his arrival at Helm's Deep with the Rohirrim to save those besieged by the Uruk-hai.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 31, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I have to partialy disagree with this. In the book Frodo speaking the name of Elbereth does in fact greatly dismay the Nazgul(I just would like to see what would happen if she actualy appeared). And they do fear fire greatly. Now yes the main reason they just went ahead and left was because they figured the blade had it sinched. But the name of Elbereth was painful to them and they fled it.




Actually, it is not commented on in the book how deadly the name Elbereth is to the nazgul. The only remark made about that is that the name was "more deadly" than the completely ineffective cut that Frodo made that messed up one of their cloaks (i.e. the name Elbereth was better than something that did absolutely no damage to them).

Basically, they withdrew because they wanted to. Not because they were driven off by Elbereth or anything else. Their work was done for the night. Like most of Sauron's servants, they are cowardly in the end, and try to accomplish their goals with as little effort and risk as possible. This is just one example.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 31, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> You forgot his arrival at Helm's Deep with the Rohirrim to save those besieged by the Uruk-hai.




That was on my list last night. I just forgot to include it. It is edited in now.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 31, 2003)

Napftor said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> Your typical "rabid fanboy" reaction to my review and questions is why I normally don't post in these threads.  Just because I didn't rate it a 10 does not mean you get to ridicule my tastes.




I ridicule your taste when it is clearly driven by an expectation that a twelve hour story will have the same denoument as a half-hour _Thundarr the Basrbarian_ episode. I ridicule your taste when it is juvenile, and most of your criticisms concerning the length of the ending are juvenile.

I also ridicule the fact that you completely missed basic information told to you during the course of the movies. If you can't be bothered to actually pay attention to what is on the screen, then your review deserves criticism.

And I'm still trying to figure out how you are able to determine that the Dragonlance books are more "user friendly" than the LotR books, since by your own admission, you haven't read LotR. I suppose you have some sort of skill in reviewing things you know nothing about? That would explain your "review" of the movies on elements that you didn't bother to pay attention to.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 31, 2003)

> Actually, it is not commented on in the book how deadly the name Elbereth is to the nazgul. The only remark made about that is that the name was "more deadly" than the completely ineffective cut that Frodo made that messed up one of their cloaks (i.e. the name Elbereth was better than something that did absolutely no damage to them).




Uhhh.....ok first of all you as well really need to tone down the attitude, especialy since you yourself have made some errors(you said Merry and Pippin were in their 40s in LOTR...Pippin tells Bergil he is 28 or 29 in ROTK). and now this. You obviously do know a great about the story but as the Moderators and MORRUS have already said everyone (but basicaly mostly you and pezagent) need to stop telling the rest of us that what we say is inacurate even when it is acurate, and talking to us all like children
  When he said Elbereth...they all ran away. And Aragorn more or less says that was why. Now as I allowed, the fact that they thought there work was already done was a big reason they were willing to "give up" for the moment that easily, but I think saying "more deadly to them was the name of Elbereth" implies it was pretty unpleasant for them.
   But of course I'm probably wrong seeing as how the rest of us are so illiterate and stupid


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 31, 2003)

pezagent said:
			
		

> ...people like telling me (us) this, but do not clearly explain _why_. Why do think the eagles "technically" qualify as deus ex machina?




2.An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
3.A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

There is plot problem for the characters. They are getting trashed by the Nazgul in front of the Black Gate. Pippen in fact believes he is about to die. The good guys are about to loose. Out of nowhere the eagles show up. That qualifies as "sudden and unexpected" and is a solution to a plot issue.

Additionaly from a readers perpective we want to see Frodo and Sam live even if they are resigned to death. They are on Mount Doom with no food or water and are surrounded by lava. This is certainly a big problem and the Eagles are an "sudden and unexpected solution." 

I beleive that this was not Tolkien's intent in using them but by the dictionary definition this qualifies. Therefore the eagles "technicaly" qualify. I hope that is good enough since it seems very clear to me.



			
				pezagent said:
			
		

> No, it's not.




Is too, infinity. 




			
				pezagent said:
			
		

> History repeating itself: You're talking about a _theme._ I don't think there was any "hidden" meaning behind using deus ex machina--as spelled out by (a) definition it wrapped up a play that had no way out of plot. It is my pet theory (based on my limited knowledge of Greek history) that Greeks would make up plays on the spot, as entertainment was extremely important in a civilized culture, and with nowhere to go, the statue would be lowered or placed on stage. To give this any more credit than it deserves, such as suggesting that it had some sort of deep, spiritual, or perhaps revealing power, I think is very imaginative--and idealistic.
> 
> I think some of us have injected symbolism, thematic representation, and supernatual aid into the term _deus ex machina_.




1.In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.

What is this if not supernatural aid. 



			
				pezagent said:
			
		

> I'd like to point you in the direction of Joseph Campbell.
> 
> Gandalf is not, in any way, shape, or form, _deus ex machina_. I believe what you're trying to get across is that Gandalf represents _supernatural aid_--perhaps like Merlin to King Arthur or, with respect, Obi-Wan to Luke Skywalker. Although he helps the characters of Middle Earth, he does not relieve the characters from the burden of resolving their own conflicts. His presence is setup, _known_, he is a hero with flaws, and has limitations. He is, like the other characters in the story, just another character, albeit more powerful and more wise than the others. His wisdom is a guide, a beacon of light and hope.




It seems the problem is that we have a difference of interpretation of the definition of deus ex machina. You are trying to differentiate Supernatural Aid from dues ex machina. I would argue that there is no difference. One is a subset of the other. You interpret dues ex machina as a wholely negative thing while that is but one of the three definitions given. Definition one lists a god being used to resolve a plot or extract the protagonist from a difificult situation. Gandolf is a god and he is used repeatedly to extract the protagonists from a dificult situation. There is nothing about sudden, unexpected, or improbable in this definition. In fact the is no indication that you can't use the same god over and over in this way as part of the story. Definition three also does not list any negative conotations. It is the same as one except that it widdens the field to include not just gods but any character or event. You seem to argue that Supernatural Aid is something different from dues ex machina which you use only definition two to define. I counter that your supernatural aid is just definition one or three. 



			
				pezagent said:
			
		

> Deus ex machina is not a legitimate literary tool. That's the whole point. It's a _device_--an event, a character--something totally absurd and so unexpected one would want to punch the author in the nose for tying us in knots only to find there's no way out but through extraordinary means that have *not* been set up through exposition.






			
				pezagent said:
			
		

> Getting back to Gandalf, he hardly qualifies for a clumsy, contrived, and sudden literary device used solely to relieve our heroes from responsibility. Sure he helps out, but what are friends for? And I'd also like to point out that having powerful friends in adventures such as these helps achieve something else--it helps us suspend our disbelief further. We know our characters can't be too much in peril because they have a powerful friend. He's kind of like a security blanket in the readers mind. Think of the exhilaration when Gandalf falls down the chasm--what will the characters do now? We can only hope that they've become powerful and wise enough to continue on their own, and of course, we secretly hope that Gandalf has something up his sleeve to come back to us. This isn't dues ex machina at work. I believe this is powerful, straightforward, fiction at work.
> 
> I think you're on the right track here, I think Gandalf has obviously been included as supernatural aid, which is a great literary device to use. The difference between something like _supernatural aid_ and _deus ex machina_ is that the former is welcomed by the reader/audience, the latter is not. The latter is more like a slap in the face. As a "participant", you'll feel ripped off. To paraphrase Cartman, you'll want to kick somebody straight in the nuts.




Again you seem to just be focusing on definition two. Both definition one and three do not carry the negative bagage. Your concept of Supernatural Aid as a legitimate literary tool is my concept of definition one or three of dues ex machina.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 31, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Is too, infinity.
> 
> 
> > Infintity + 1!!! Nyah!!!!
> ...


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 31, 2003)

Storm Raven:  You are coming across like a rabid fanboy attacking the IQ anyone who dares critizise your beloved JRRT.   Jeez.  He's not perfect, your interpertation isn't the only valid one.  Take it easy.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 31, 2003)

And yes, the Dragonlance novels were far more user friendly.   A lot less to digest IMO.  As good as LoTR?  Well that's for the reader to decide.  I enjoyed the first two trilogies quite a bit and would love to see a movie trilogy made out of the first set of books.


----------



## pezagent (Dec 31, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> 2.An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
> 3.A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.
> 
> There is plot problem for the characters. They are getting trashed by the Nazgul in front of the Black Gate. Pippen in fact believes he is about to die. The good guys are about to loose. Out of nowhere the eagles show up. That qualifies as "sudden and unexpected" and is a solution to a plot issue.




"Out of nowhere" is vague. Of course the eagles came from _somewhere_. 

I believe that you, like others, would have liked to have the narrative explain "why" they arrived just in a nick of time--or even take the time to explain where they came from. This is just a high-point of drama--nothing more. We see that our heroes are in a perilous situation, but we _know_ there is hope. When the eagles come and help out their friends, you don't get up out of your seat and wonder what the hell is going on, do you? 



> Additionaly from a readers perpective we want to see Frodo and Sam live even if they are resigned to death.




Yes, I know, I've already made this point a few times.



> They are on Mount Doom with no food or water and are surrounded by lava. This is certainly a big problem and the Eagles are an "sudden and unexpected solution."




To you it's a problem. As I've mentioned, to the characters, they have accepted their fate. I've already commented on this fallacy, please read my posts.



> I beleive that this was not Tolkien's intent in using them but by the dictionary definition this qualifies. Therefore the eagles "technicaly" qualify. I hope that is good enough since it seems very clear to me.




If you wish to take a dictionary definition out of context and be happy with it, that is certainly your choice, but I wouldn't recommend it. What I mean is, I still don't think your explaination qualifies, because it's not related to the plot. I believe it's related to your wishes of what the narrative _should_ have been. Not what the narrative actually _is_. 



> 1.In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.
> 
> What is this if not supernatural aid.




This is you trying to create a correlation between supernatural aid and dues ex machina to prove that your argument may be valid. You're wasting my time, and I'm offended.

/johnny


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 31, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> *Uhhh.....ok first of all you as well really need to tone down the attitude, especialy since you yourself have made some errors(you said Merry and Pippin were in their 40s in LOTR...Pippin tells Bergil he is 28 or 29 in ROTK).*





The ages of all the characters in LotR is given in the appendices of RotK. Frodo is 51. Merry is 37. Sam is 38. Pippen is indeed 29. These are not "young characters" though. They are fully grown adults well into their maturity. Pippen is a "tween", but at the tail end of that.



> *and now this. You obviously do know a great about the story but as the Moderators and MORRUS have already said everyone (but basicaly mostly you and pezagent) need to stop telling the rest of us that what we say is inacurate even when it is acurate, and talking to us all like children*





I'm talking to you like someone who has read the books (and happens to have them on hand). If you think that correcting your errors is talking to you like children, that's your problem.



> *When he said Elbereth...they all ran away. And Aragorn more or less says that was why. Now as I allowed, the fact that they thought there work was already done was a big reason they were willing to "give up" for the moment that easily, but I think saying "more deadly to them was the name of Elbereth" implies it was pretty unpleasant for them.*




No, it implies that the ineffective cut Frodo made was completley ineffective. He cries out Elbereth _before_ he cuts at the Witch-King, and _before_ the Witch-King stabs him. If it was deadly and drove them off, they wouldn't have stayed around to stab him, it would have driven them off before they could do that. They withdrew because their work was done. The sequence of events makes this pretty clear: Frodo swings his sword, Frodo uses the name "Elbereth", the nazgul attack, the Witch-King stabs Frodo, the nazgul withdraw, Aragorn shows up.

Aragorn's quote (after finding a torn cloak) was "This was the stroke of Frodo's sword. The only hurt that it did his enemy, I fear, for it [the sword] is unharmed, but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth." In other words, the sword stroke was _completely_ ineffective, dealing _no harm_, and comparatively, the minor discomfort Elbereth's name might have caused was more deadly. Its not a comment directed at showing how dangerous the name is, it is a comment directed at showing how _completely ineffective Frodo's sword work was_.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 31, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> And yes, the Dragonlance novels were far more user friendly.   A lot less to digest IMO.




I'm still trying to figure out how a person who hasn't read LotR could come to that conclusion though. Obviously, you've read both (as have I), and I didn't find Dragonlance that much more user friendly (mostly because I was bored most of the way through them), but I am not sure how someone who hasn't read both could make a comparison.


----------



## pezagent (Dec 31, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> its a valid literary technique.




Would you like to bet some money on this?


----------



## Storminator (Dec 31, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I'm still trying to figure out how a person who hasn't read LotR could come to that conclusion though. Obviously, you've read both (as have I), and I didn't find Dragonlance that much more user friendly (mostly because I was bored most of the way through them), but I am not sure how someone who hasn't read both could make a comparison.




Perhaps he's one of the millions of folks that read 50 pages of FotR and said 'this sucks." Then picked up a DL book and read it cover to cover. Which one looks more accessible?

PS


----------



## Merlion (Dec 31, 2003)

> If you think that correcting your errors is talking to you like children, that's your problem.




Well, your definitly mistaken about that. This forum has rules, and your constant rudeness to...basicaly everyone...is against those rules.
  You see, it is possible to "correct someones errors" without being arrogant, rude and condescending.
  You and Pezagent have both been reported to the moderators...although I would have thought PC and Morrus's posts would've been enough to tone it down. I guess not


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 31, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> Perhaps he's one of the millions of folks that read 50 pages of FotR and said 'this sucks." Then picked up a DL book and read it cover to cover. Which one looks more accessible?




He hasn't said he tried to pick up LotR and read it. He said he hasn't read it at all. If his background is otherwise, I'd expect him to note that.

But as to your "millions" comment, if the number of people who have read a work is an indication of its asccessibility, I think Dragonlance loses out on the comparison. Based upon volumes sold and so on, LotR has Dragonlance beaten out by many millions of readers.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 31, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Well, your definitly mistaken about that. This forum has rules, and your constant rudeness to...basicaly everyone...is against those rules.




Please cite the rule you refer to. Or go away.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 31, 2003)

LOL! scroll up and read PC and Morrus's posts. that should be plenty


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 31, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> LOL! scroll up and read PC and Morrus's posts. that should be plenty




They don't actually cite any rule. You seem to think there is one. Thus far, there hasn't been any personal insults, vulgar language or so on. Just point ing out where errors concerning the text (and the course of the movies in cases where the movies are being dealt with) are made. If you choose to interpret your being wrong about stuff as insulting you, that's your problem, not mine.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 31, 2003)

read there posts again. They tell everyone to STOP THE CONDECESNION. You are STILL DOING IT
  if you cant see how the way you are speaking to us all could be insulting (as about 3 or 4 posters have said) thats your problem, not mine


----------



## Merlion (Dec 31, 2003)

You dont have to use foul language or actual come out and say " your stupid and have no idea what your talking about" to be insulting.
  Wether you intend it or not, you and Pezagent both are really pissing people off. Stop and listen for a second


----------



## Storminator (Dec 31, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> 2.An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
> 3.A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.
> 
> There is plot problem for the characters. They are getting trashed by the Nazgul in front of the Black Gate. Pippen in fact believes he is about to die. The good guys are about to loose. Out of nowhere the eagles show up. That qualifies as "sudden and unexpected" and is a solution to a plot issue.




If you look closely, Pezagent is using his terms very precisely and consistently (and to my limited knowledge, accurately). The point of the attack at the Black Gate is to draw Sauron's eye. That all the heroes will die is given. Therefore, there is no plot problem. In fact, the attack is completely successful.

The eagles are not "introduced suddenly." To fit that definition, this would have to be the first scene we see eagles in, but it's not. The eagles were previously introduced, and everything they do is entirely consistent with their characters: they fly, they have sharp talons, they are large enough to carry people. Eagles as Deus ex Machina fails on two points (not suddenly introduced, not resolving plot points).



> Additionaly from a readers perpective we want to see Frodo and Sam live even if they are resigned to death. They are on Mount Doom with no food or water and are surrounded by lava. This is certainly a big problem and the Eagles are an "sudden and unexpected solution."
> 
> I beleive that this was not Tolkien's intent in using them but by the dictionary definition this qualifies. Therefore the eagles "technicaly" qualify. I hope that is good enough since it seems very clear to me.
> 
> ...




While DeM is supernatural, and it is aid, it does not fill the same literary role. Supernatural aid, as a techinical term, still requires support in the context of the story. Perseus's magic sword and boots are supernatural aid, and we see them provided before they are used. As a contrast, the Holocaust Cloak in Princess Bride is a DeM, because we never even hear mention that such a thing could possibly exist until it is needed, and then it turns out our heroes already have one, and it's the perfect tool for the job.



> It seems the problem is that we have a difference of interpretation of the definition of deus ex machina. You are trying to differentiate Supernatural Aid from dues ex machina. I would argue that there is no difference. One is a subset of the other. You interpret dues ex machina as a wholely negative thing while that is but one of the three definitions given. Definition one lists a god being used to resolve a plot or extract the protagonist from a difificult situation. Gandolf is a god and he is used repeatedly to extract the protagonists from a dificult situation. There is nothing about sudden, unexpected, or improbable in this definition. In fact the is no indication that you can't use the same god over and over in this way as part of the story. Definition three also does not list any negative conotations. It is the same as one except that it widdens the field to include not just gods but any character or event. You seem to argue that Supernatural Aid is something different from dues ex machina which you use only definition two to define. I counter that your supernatural aid is just definition one or three.
> 
> Again you seem to just be focusing on definition two. Both definition one and three do not carry the negative bagage. Your concept of Supernatural Aid as a legitimate literary tool is my concept of definition one or three of dues ex machina.




You can't use definition 1 of DeM unless you are specifically refering to Greek or Roman drama. That's right there in the definition. That leaves with definitions 2 and 3. Defintion 3 does not refer to drama at all, and is there to cover the cases in real life that mimic the DeM, such as when an unexpected buyer appears to save your nearly bankrupt company from oblivion. That leaves, in the context of fiction, definition two, which happily coincides with the classic literary definition of DeM. This is why pezagent focuses on this definition: it is correct to do so.

DeM clearly has negative connotations, in all modern literary critiques. This is because it is artistically unsatisfying, almost be definition.

PS

P.S. Pezagant, despite your occasionally testy attitude (obviously from frustration), you have earned my respect. You clearly have the chops to break down a tale, and I find myself wishing I could go back to my college days and trade in a couple of physics courses for some of your dramatic analysis training.

P.P.S. As the trilogy winds away, I foresee a time when there are no more LotR threads, at least not how we're used to seeing them. To me, that makes this thread sort of the swan song of LotR discussion on ENWorld. It's kind of sad how it's needlessly degenerated into bitterness and acrimony.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 31, 2003)

pezagent said:
			
		

> You're wasting my time, and I'm offended.




No problem. I will cease to discuss this with you as you aparently don't want to.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 31, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> P.S. Pezagant, despite your occasionally testy attitude (obviously from frustration), you have earned my respect. You clearly have the chops to break down a tale, and I find myself wishing I could go back to my college days and trade in a couple of physics courses for some of your dramatic analysis training.



Not mine.  Despite the several dictionary definitions quoted word for word, he's essentially said, "no, use this definition.  It's better than yours because I went to college."  

Although I disagree that he's been rude, he's also been pedantic and argumentative to the point of silliness.

What's offensive to me are the many people who have gone out of their way to be offended by statements that were clearly not meant to offend, and IMO are clearly not offensive anyway.  A few folks added to my ignore list, to be sure.


----------



## Storminator (Dec 31, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Not mine.  Despite the several dictionary definitions quoted word for word, he's essentially said, "no, use this definition.  It's better than yours because I went to college."




I agree with him. As my post above showed, I think people have misapplied dictionary definitions.



> Although I disagree that he's been rude, he's also been pedantic and argumentative to the point of silliness.
> 
> What's offensive to me are the many people who have gone out of their way to be offended by statements that were clearly not meant to offend, and IMO are clearly not offensive anyway.  A few folks added to my ignore list, to be sure.




Offensensitivity.

PS


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 31, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> The eagles are not "introduced suddenly." To fit that definition, this would have to be the first scene we see eagles in, but it's not. The eagles were previously introduced, and everything they do is entirely consistent with their characters: they fly, they have sharp talons, they are large enough to carry people. Eagles as Deus ex Machina fails on two points (not suddenly introduced, not resolving plot points).



Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but where do we see more than a single giant Eagle in FotR?  I realize that we here them discussed with some length in the books, but I was under the impression we were discussing the movie, and I honestly don't recall if Gandalf makes mention of there being more than a single great eagle.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 31, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> If you look closely, Pezagent is using his terms very precisely and consistently (and to my limited knowledge, accurately). The point of the attack at the Black Gate is to draw Sauron's eye. That all the heroes will die is given. Therefore, there is no plot problem. In fact, the attack is completely successful.




Your mostly right. For the characters the attack is successful (Maybe), but as the ring is not destroyed yet they can't realy be sure. Until they know the ring is destroyed this is just a gamble. If they die too early Sauron will then shift his attention elsewhere and Frodo will be caught and Sauron wins. No, for the characters the longer they survive the better, not because they wan't to live but because the longer they survive and draw Sauron's attention the better. Plus like with the Hobbits the reader wants Aragorn and company to live even if they are happy in dying.



			
				Storminator said:
			
		

> The eagles are not "introduced suddenly." To fit that definition, this would have to be the first scene we see eagles in, but it's not. The eagles were previously introduced, and everything they do is entirely consistent with their characters: they fly, they have sharp talons, they are large enough to carry people. Eagles as Deus ex Machina fails on two points (not suddenly introduced, not resolving plot points).




The eagles are mention in The Lord of the Rings twice previously, Once in FotR and Once in TT. Each time it is not an army of eagles but just Gwaihir giving gandolf a ride and the scenes are told as stories not as direct narative. The fact that they show up in number and to fight can very well be taken as sudden and whether it resolves a plot point has already been discussed pages ago.



			
				Storminator said:
			
		

> While DeM is supernatural, and it is aid, it does not fill the same literary role. Supernatural aid, as a techinical term, still requires support in the context of the story. Perseus's magic sword and boots are supernatural aid, and we see them provided before they are used. As a contrast, the Holocaust Cloak in Princess Bride is a DeM, because we never even hear mention that such a thing could possibly exist until it is needed, and then it turns out our heroes already have one, and it's the perfect tool for the job.




Your right I am not an expert so I can't fight a battle of litterary terms well, but writing is a form of art and it is up to the individual to interprete as they wish. Whatever we feel about or interprate in a work of art is right for us. Experts might have a wider base to draw their own interpretations from but they still can't tell me my own feelings about something.



			
				Storminator said:
			
		

> You can't use definition 1 of DeM unless you are specifically refering to Greek or Roman drama. That's right there in the definition. That leaves with definitions 2 and 3. Defintion 3 does not refer to drama at all, and is there to cover the cases in real life that mimic the DeM, such as when an unexpected buyer appears to save your nearly bankrupt company from oblivion. That leaves, in the context of fiction, definition two, which happily coincides with the classic literary definition of DeM. This is why pezagent focuses on this definition: it is correct to do so.
> 
> DeM clearly has negative connotations, in all modern literary critiques. This is because it is artistically unsatisfying, almost be definition.




Once again we differ on our interpretations of a definition. As we all learned we can't even agree on what the definition of "is" is. 



			
				Storminator said:
			
		

> PS
> 
> P.S. Pezagant, despite your occasionally testy attitude (obviously from frustration), you have earned my respect. You clearly have the chops to break down a tale, and I find myself wishing I could go back to my college days and trade in a couple of physics courses for some of your dramatic analysis training.
> 
> P.P.S. As the trilogy winds away, I foresee a time when there are no more LotR threads, at least not how we're used to seeing them. To me, that makes this thread sort of the swan song of LotR discussion on ENWorld. It's kind of sad how it's needlessly degenerated into bitterness and acrimony.




I too was hoping for a good discussion and I even respect Pezagant for his writing ability and broad base of experience even if I disagree with him. I hope that everyone in this thread can continue on without bitterness. But there will be more discussions. We will go over this all again in a year when the Extended Edition comes out and we have yet another take on the story.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 31, 2003)

Storm Raven, pezagent: keep on keeping on.

This has been a great discussion, despite the offensitivity of some involved.

Geez, you want to see insults and condescension, watch me and reapersaurus go at each other sometime!


----------



## Storminator (Dec 31, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Your mostly right. For the characters the attack is successful (Maybe), but as the ring is not destroyed yet they can't realy be sure. Until they know the ring is destroyed this is just a gamble. If they die too early Sauron will then shift his attention elsewhere and Frodo will be caught and Sauron wins. No, for the characters the longer they survive the better, not because they wan't to live but because the longer they survive and draw Sauron's attention the better.




Agreed. 



> Plus like with the Hobbits the reader wants Aragorn and company to live even if they are happy in dying.




If we go back to pez's separation of what the readers want from what the plot demands tho (accepting for the moment that separation as valid), this falls out of plot resolution. Right? If pez's separation holds, this doesn't address plot. 

Wether or not you accept pez's terms is another discussion.



> The eagles are mention in The Lord of the Rings twice previously, Once in FotR and Once in TT. Each time it is not an army of eagles but just Gwaihir giving gandolf a ride and the scenes are told as stories not as direct narative. The fact that they show up in number and to fight can very well be taken as sudden and whether it resolves a plot point has already been discussed pages ago.




But we as readers have expectations of the eagles. We think of them as bigger, better, cooler versions of real eagles. Therefore, if we accept the existance of one, we can accept the existance of many. In fact, if there was only one giant, intelligent eagle, we'd like an explanation of why he exists. We also accept eagles that fight, because we know that in real life, eagles kill things. Naturally, these bigger, better, cooler version should also kill things.

As a parallel, in FotR, we see exactly one troll. But we accept the others when they arrive.



> Your right I am not an expert so I can't fight a battle of litterary terms well, but writing is a form of art and it is up to the individual to interprete as they wish. Whatever we feel about or interprate in a work of art is right for us. Experts might have a wider base to draw their own interpretations from but they still can't tell me my own feelings about something are wrong.




But we aren't talking about interpretation (at least not all the time, and not directly). The DeM discussion is based on pinning the right term on the eagles, and wether or not that term is DeM.

How you feel about it is certainly up to you, but what the device technically is, isn't.



> Once again we differ on our interpretations of a definition. As we all learned we can't even agree on what the definition of "is" is.



Here's the three definitions. 


> 1.In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.
> 
> 2.An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
> 
> 3.A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.




Repeating my earlier arguments: 
1 can't apply, as it specifically refers to Greek and Roman drama. Can we agree on that? No matter what else you pull out of that definition, it only counts for Greeks and Romans.

2 is the classic literary definition of DeM. This doesn't come from the definition, but from general knowledge of literary criticism. It is the generalized form of definition 1, right? If you are trying to apply definition 1, but not to Greek or Roman drama, you should revert to definition 2, as it specifies fiction or drama.

3 doesn't mention fiction or drama. This makes it an even further abstraction from 2, as 2 is from 1. But this is the only definition that omits the term drama. Therefore, this definition should not be used to refer to drama, as that's what definition 2 is for.

Therefore, in arguing the eagles, we need to look at definition 2, and it follows from there that the eagles are not DeM. I think if you accept my analysis of the definitions, this result is clear. If you don't, we're down to arguing assumptions, and that can never be won. 



> I too was hoping for a good discussion and I even respect Pezagant for his writing ability and broad base of experience even if I disagree with him. I hope that everyone in this thread can continue on without bitterness. But there will be more discussions. We will go over this all again in a year when the Extended Edition comes out and we have yet another take on the story.




True, we'll get one last shot at it. Won't be anything like the last 3 years tho.

PS


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 31, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> I agree with him. As my post above showed, I think people have misapplied dictionary definitions.



Not the very first dictionary definition quoted.  It's ironic that we're mentioning Classic litreature.  I think a great example of modern-day _hubris_ to come to a message board and say (paraphrasing), "No, that dictionary is wrong -- I know better than that dictionary.  No, trust me, I really do.  You're problem is that you're not trained in literary criticism."


			
				Storminator said:
			
		

> Offensensitivity.



Yes, one of my biggest flaws.  

Anyway, what were we talking about?  Maybe we should have some spin-off threads on some of the LoTR details, eh?


----------



## Storminator (Dec 31, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Not the very first dictionary definition quoted.  It's ironic that we're mentioning Classic litreature.  I think a great example of modern-day _hubris_ to come to a message board and say (paraphrasing), "No, that dictionary is wrong -- I know better than that dictionary.  No, trust me, I really do.  You're problem is that you're not trained in literary criticism."




Well, I did miss a lot of this thread. Note that jumping in the middle didn't stop me from trying to prove everyone wrong!   

PS


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 31, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> And yes, the Dragonlance novels were far more user friendly.





That's because Dragonlance belongs in the section with the "I Can Read" books.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 31, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> That's because Dragonlance belongs in the section with the "I Can Read" books.



 WHAM! Ouch. You know that's gotta hurt, Bob.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 31, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> *read there posts again. They tell everyone to STOP THE CONDECESNION. You are STILL DOING IT*





If you actually bothered to check the accuracy of your postings from time to time, you wouldn't need to be corrected. If you don't want to be dcorrected, stop acting like a petulant child.



> *if you cant see how the way you are speaking to us all could be insulting (as about 3 or 4 posters have said) thats your problem, not mine*





If you want to be insulted when your incorrect statements are exposed for what they are, that's your problem, not mine.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 31, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> *You dont have to use foul language or actual come out and say " your stupid and have no idea what your talking about" to be insulting.*





The problem is, with most of the posts I have dealt with, the people I have responded to, in many cases, really _don't_ know what they are talking about. If they want to be pissed off when it is pointed out that they don't know what they are talking about, that's their concern.


----------



## Storminator (Dec 31, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 
> The problem is, with most of the posts I have dealt with, the people I have responded to, in many cases, really _don't_ know what they are talking about. If they want to be pissed off when it is pointed out that they don't know what they are talking about, that's their concern.




That's probably enough Storm. These posts aren't contributing anything, and you're closing in on a dozen of them. Merlion obviously isn't going to let it go, so you should.

PS


----------



## Napftor (Dec 31, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I'm still trying to figure out how a person who hasn't read LotR could come to that conclusion though. Obviously, you've read both (as have I), and I didn't find Dragonlance that much more user friendly (mostly because I was bored most of the way through them), but I am not sure how someone who hasn't read both could make a comparison.




I read the first 100 pages of LotR and found it too boring to continue with at that time.  I may take another crack at them in the future.

As for your insults...You shouldn't go fishing today because you're not going to catch anything.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 31, 2003)

Doesn't the Hobbit belong with the "I Can Read" books?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 31, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> And yes, the Dragonlance novels were far more user friendly.   A lot less to digest IMO.  As good as LoTR?  Well that's for the reader to decide.  I enjoyed the first two trilogies quite a bit and would love to see a movie trilogy made out of the first set of books.




Not like this, you wouldn't!  

Teehee!

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 31, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The problem is, with most of the posts I have dealt with, the people I have responded to, in many cases, really _don't_ know what they are talking about. If they want to be pissed off when it is pointed out that they don't know what they are talking about, that's their concern.




Storm Raven - correcting errors is fine.  You're contributing a lot to the discussion.  But you _are_ coming off as rude - please be _nicer_ when you expose people's inexcusable ignorance.

Merlion - stop pointing it out.  It's not helping the tone of the thread either.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 31, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Storm Raven - correcting errors is fine.  You're contributing a lot to the discussion.  But you _are_ coming off as rude - please be _nicer_ when you expose people's inexcusable ignorance.
> 
> Merlion - stop pointing it out.  It's not helping the tone of the thread either.



This thread has been hijacked for 5 pages now, I can't really see anyone's opinion changing.

I didn't even get to put in my theory that Merry & Pippin paid the Balrog to whack Gandalf because Gandalf was gonna narc on their drug running! The thread is too hostile, so what's the point?


----------



## Merlion (Jan 1, 2004)

Thanks Hyper
I only continued pointing it out because they both continued being rude after PC and Morrus had posted warnings.
  But Flexor is right I think thease threads are pretty much done with anyway


----------



## KidCthulhu (Jan 1, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I didn't even get to put in my theory that Merry & Pippin paid the Balrog to whack Gandalf because Gandalf was gonna narc on their drug running!




See, now I heard this theory too, but I think Gandalf was into the pipe weed a little to heavy to be any real threat to MC-Merry and the Pipster.  Gandalf was their bitch, and he knew it.  The real threat was Saruman, who was threatening to cut their distribution lines and start flooding Rohan with his own supply of pipeweed.  Look how he was stock piling the stuff.

Why do you think Pippin turned Treebeard around and pointed him at Isengard?  I tell ya, it was a drive-by treeing.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 1, 2004)

KidCthulhu said:
			
		

> See, now I heard this theory too, but I think Gandalf was into the pipe weed a little to heavy to be any real threat to MC-Merry and the Pipster.  Gandalf was their bitch, and he knew it.  The real threat was Saruman, who was threatening to cut their distribution lines and start flooding Rohan with his own supply of pipeweed.  Look how he was stock piling the stuff.
> 
> Why do you think Pippin turned Treebeard around and pointed him at Isengard?  I tell ya, it was a drive-by treeing.





See, I figured Saruman was The Man. The hobbits knew he was onto Gandalf's habit, and weren't sure if Gandalf could be trusted. He had to be removed from the scene.

When it became obvious Saruman was onto the scope of their operation (including masked riders of rohan running their stuff), they had to handle saruman. the delight they took in recovering their siezed goods was obvious.

Like in any cop drama, Saruman (once he is thrown down and kicked off the force but the corrupt Gandalf) goes rogue.

I can imagine the Scouring of the Shire had many deleted scene's of Saruman kicking in doors and saying "this time it's personal". The hobbits had to kill Wormtongue, since he was their inside man...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 2, 2004)

*(Off Topic) Well then, what if ...*

Ok, we all know that the Lord of the Nazgul could not be killed by a man.
  We all know that a woman, Eowyn, and a hobbit, Merry, killed him.

  But what if it was that audacious girl named Buffy, with her friends Willow, Tara, and Anya, who faced the Lord of the Nazgul on the Fields of the Pelennor?
  Who would have won that battle?

  And, what if it was Buffy who showed up to aid a wounded Frodo and his friends, instead of Glorfindel (or Arwen.)
  Could she have saved him?

  What if it was Buffy/Willow/Giles running the defenses of Helm's Deep, and not Theoden/Eomer/Aragorn?  What would have happened then?

  And, just what would have happened if Buffy and her friends had taken the Paths of the Dead?
  Before you say she would have died, since she is not the Rightful Heir of Isildur, remember that this is the Undead Slayer we are talking about!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 2, 2004)

*About that Oscar*

Return of the King will not get the Oscar.  Forget it, folks.  It isn't happening.

  Hollywood will, quite deliberately, go and find a film that nobody has ever heard of, nobody has ever seen, and which nobody is ever going to go to see, and give that film the Oscar.

  My guess is that Hollywood will give Mystic River the Oscar.  (There.  Now, you have at least heard of the film in question.)


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 2, 2004)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Return of the King will not get the Oscar. Forget it, folks. It isn't happening.
> 
> Hollywood will, quite deliberately, go and find a film that nobody has ever heard of, nobody has ever seen, and which nobody is ever going to go to see, and give that film the Oscar.
> 
> My guess is that Hollywood will give Mystic River the Oscar. (There. Now, you have at least heard of the film in question.)



Mystic River will never make the cut, especially since it wasn't terribly well recieved.  Cold Mountain or Master and Commander are much stronger contenders...but I'm making the assumption that you're referring to the Best Picture Oscar, since it turns out they give out a bunch of the silly things.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 2, 2004)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Hollywood will, quite deliberately, go and find a film that nobody has ever heard of, nobody has ever seen, and which nobody is ever going to go to see, and give that film the Oscar.



Right. Like...

_Chicago_, _A Beautiful Mind_, _Gladiator_, _American Beauty_, _Shakespeare in Love_, _Titanic_, _The English Patient_, _Braveheart_, _Forrest Gump_ and _Schindler's List_ (Just to list the last ten Best Picture winners). I mean, who ever heard of those films? Where'd they dig up those obscure, wee little pictures?

 

I certainly think RotK is a longshot for Best Picture for two reasons: 

One, it's a fantasy picture with monsters. You can have swordfights in a Best Picture, but they must be swathed in a) historical Hollywood-accuracy an b) self-important political statements about how nice it is to be allowed to yell things like "Freedom!" 

Two, it's directed by Peter Jackson, who is not a Hollywood director and produced the entire film outside of California. Not something the Academy necessarily wants to promote. Plus he's tubby and wears shorts all the time and so won't look as good on stage as, say, Clint Eastwood in a tuxedo.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 2, 2004)

*OK folks. I'll write this in orange to make sure people see this.*

*This is a great thread, and there are some people contributing to it in a valuable way. Unfortunately, some other people are ruining it for them. I'm not going to close the thread and ruin things for those behaving themselves - I'm just going to ruin it for those who can't be nice. I'm disgusted that a post about LotR could end up this way - it's hardly religion or politics.*

*So, from this post onwards, any snipes, smart-alec comments, insults etc. will result in the poster in question being banned for a week with no warning.*

*For those unclear about the rules, I'm going to explain the rule: This thread is to be used to discuss LotR in an amiable manner. It's a simple rule.*

*It is not to be used to discuss each others' conduct, messageboard rules or anything else. If you have a problem with a post, use the "Report Post" link; if you post about it in the thread then you'll get banned for a week as well as the original poster you were complaining about.*

*I hope that's clear. Now, let's discuss LotR, eh?*


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jan 2, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> See, I figured Saruman was The Man. The hobbits knew he was onto Gandalf's habit, and weren't sure if Gandalf could be trusted. He had to be removed from the scene.
> When it became obvious Saruman was onto the scope of their operation (including masked riders of rohan running their stuff), they had to handle saruman. the delight they took in recovering their siezed goods was obvious.
> Like in any cop drama, Saruman (once he is thrown down and kicked off the force but the corrupt Gandalf) goes rogue.
> I can imagine the Scouring of the Shire had many deleted scene's of Saruman kicking in doors and saying "this time it's personal". The hobbits had to kill Wormtongue, since he was their inside man...




Saruman's not The Man. He's as addicted to pipeweed as any of them. But he conceals his addiction by belittling Gandalf's habit. As we know from the Flotsam and Jetsam scene, he's got a big stash of the Shire's Best in his pantry. That's why he takes over the Shire in the books. _He_ wants to be Middle-Earth's kingpin, but Wormtongue, who probably also smokes, kills him as revenge for getting him hooked in the first place. 

Demiurge out.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 2, 2004)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> Saruman's not The Man. He's as addicted to pipeweed as any of them. But he conceals his addiction by belittling Gandalf's habit. As we know from the Flotsam and Jetsam scene, he's got a big stash of the Shire's Best in his pantry. That's why he takes over the Shire in the books. _He_ wants to be Middle-Earth's kingpin, but Wormtongue, who probably also smokes, kills him as revenge for getting him hooked in the first place.
> 
> Demiurge out.




The aforementioned Evidence siezed from the hobbits was stored in an evidence locker in Orthanc's precinct house. the hobbits destroyed the entire building to get it. Many innocent orc-clerks were killed in their rampage.


----------



## Adlon (Jan 2, 2004)

I think that one important thing was overlooked, as to WHO 'The Man' was....

'The Man' is one of the most careful individuals I've ever known of. He works behind the scenes. He avoids public appearance. He stays below the palantir (radar), yet, cannot be harmed by any of the super powerful magics known in Middle Earth.

Several individuals have met him, yet falied to realize that HE is 'The Man'. No one suspects.

Tom Bombadil. C'mon guys, how could you have NOT figured THAT out !!??


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 2, 2004)

Adlon said:
			
		

> I think that one important thing was overlooked, as to WHO 'The Man' was....
> 
> 'The Man' is one of the most careful individuals I've ever known of. He works behind the scenes. He avoids public appearance. He stays below the palantir (radar), yet, cannot be harmed by any of the super powerful magics known in Middle Earth.
> 
> ...



Feh. Bombadil's just a immortal stoner who hangs out with his old lady. He grows the weed, sure...but he's not the Man. He's not connected enough. He just shils his stuff through one of the Man's agents in Bree.

I'll tell you who the Man is. Celeborn. You know..."Mr. Galadriel". Always there, but always in the background. In control of a whole forest, and when his old lady sails into the West to escape prosecution, he expands his drug empire all the way to the Mirkwood, baby. And all while staying out of the way of the new King. 

Everyone else? 

_Lackeys, _baby_, lackeys_.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jan 2, 2004)

I really don't think Bombadil is "The Man". I'll agree to Celeborn, though. But the truth about Tom Bombadil is darker than even Adlon suspects...

The Truth About Tom Bombadil 

Demiurge out.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Jan 3, 2004)

ok, I went and saw it for the 2nd time yesterday. I absolutely loved it better the 2nd time. The acting was better than the first two installments, the special effecst were tighter (especially for legolas), the score rounded out nicely with all three movie scores. A couple of things I didn't understand and maybe some of you intelligent people can clearify for me. Now understand, I haven't read the books in 24 years, and I've been waiting to see all three movies before I re-read them again and some of these questions might just be movie related so be gentle with me. (looks at previous posts again). 

1. Why exactly do the hobbits (in particular Bilbo and Frodo) have a resistance towards the ring? Weren't Deagol and Smeagol Hobbits too? If so, why didn't the ring have the same effect? If it betrayed Isiludul and abandoned Gollum, why didn't it abandon Bilbo or Frodo? Why did it wait till Frodo was at Mt Doom to finally turn him?

2. Why didn't Arwen and Elrond talk in Elvish? Even though it's a small gripe, it just bugs me that they didn't use it enough, I mean, I would have liked to see the orcs speaking orc (goblins speaking goblins, etc.) instead of a bad english dialect with a lisp. I guess, it just would have been more realistic too speak to each other in their natural tongue, but I don't remember english being the universal language amonst all creatures on Middle Earth. To man, but that's all I remember.

3. Why is Sarumans Plantir at the base of Isengard? I know, this part was cut from the movie and it will be in EE, but from what they left us was Galdalf telling Treabeard that Saruman is no longer a threat (in the background you can see several Ent's beating on the base of Isengard). I would have thought that they would have done a better job at explaining this since they cut out a scene that was intended for TTT. 

Thanks

-Cain


----------



## kengar (Jan 3, 2004)

Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> ok, I went and saw it for the 2nd time yesterday. I absolutely loved it better the 2nd time. The acting was better than the first two installments, the special effecst were tighter (especially for legolas), the score rounded out nicely with all three movie scores. A couple of things I didn't understand and maybe some of you intelligent people can clearify for me. Now understand, I haven't read the books in 24 years, and I've been waiting to see all three movies before I re-read them again and some of these questions might just be movie related so be gentle with me. (looks at previous posts again).
> 
> 1. Why exactly do the hobbits (in particular Bilbo and Frodo) have a resistance towards the ring? Weren't Deagol and Smeagol Hobbits too? If so, why didn't the ring have the same effect? If it betrayed Isiludul and abandoned Gollum, why didn't it abandon Bilbo or Frodo? Why did it wait till Frodo was at Mt Doom to finally turn him?




This is a trickier question than it might first seem. I can give you my resaoning based upon personal perception after having seen the movies and read the books many times (only twice for ROTK film though  ). As far as Bilbo is concerned, Sauron wasn't calling to the Ring for most of the time that Bilbo had it. Nor was he -at that point- aware of hobbits or the Shire. When Frodo got the Ring, things were already in motion: Gollum's capture in Mordor, Sauron gathering his strength, etc. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that Frodo & Bilbo were essentially "good" people. They not only were harder to corrupt because of their decent natures, but they also weren't ambitous or puissant the way a Gandalf or Boromir might be. They never _tried_ to do anything particularly powerful with Ring, so its corrupting influence had a harder time taking hold. Smeagol was a sneaky so-and-so before he ever got the Ring, so he was more easily corrupted. In the books, Deagol really didn't put up much of a fight, Smeagol just killed him and took the Ring. In the end, though, the Ring finally managed to beat down Frodo's resistance and bend him to its will.



> 2. Why didn't Arwen and Elrond talk in Elvish? Even though it's a small gripe, it just bugs me that they didn't use it enough, I mean, I would have liked to see the orcs speaking orc (goblins speaking goblins, etc.) instead of a bad english dialect with a lisp. I guess, it just would have been more realistic too speak to each other in their natural tongue, but I don't remember english being the universal language amonst all creatures on Middle Earth. To man, but that's all I remember.




There is mention that many of the orcs are from different tribes/regions and therefore speak Westron (Common) to one another when mixed together. As far as the elves, I agree that them speaking "human" to each other was slightly silly, but perhaps PJ didn't want certain scenes' poignancy to be diluted by the audience having to reading subtitles. Also, Elvish is not a "complete" languages, iirc. The limits of grammar and vocabulary might have limited dialogue options. I'm no expert on Sindarin/Quenya, though.



> 3. Why is Sarumans Plantir at the base of Isengard? I know, this part was cut from the movie and it will be in EE, but from what they left us was Galdalf telling Treabeard that Saruman is no longer a threat (in the background you can see several Ent's beating on the base of Isengard). I would have thought that they would have done a better job at explaining this since they cut out a scene that was intended for TTT.



In the books (and I assume the EE) Gandalf parleys with Saruman in an attempt to bring him back to the good side and help them v. Sauron. Wormtongue throws the palantir out the window (not realizing what it is) at Gandalf. In the theatre, I think what we see is the begnning and very end of that sequence. Minus the conversation and the throw.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 6, 2004)

Earlier in this thread, there was some debate as to Eowyn's reasons for wanting to enter battle. Now, I haven't read "Lord of the Rings" completely -- I've read "Fellowship" and the first half of "Two Towers" -- so I'm just speaking about the movies.

From the movies, I don't get the impression that Eowyn is a glory hound who wants to go to war to seek honor and acclaim. And I don't understand where people get that from. I saw RotK last night for the second time, and paid particular attention to all of Eowyn's scenes. And I've watched TTT several times, in the theater and on DVD.

The impression I get from Eowyn is not that she is seeking glory. She just wants an opportunity to do her duty, and fight as she has been trained to do. She has been trained to use a sword, just like a man, so she feels she should be allowed to go to war and fight, just like a man -- no more, no less.

She fears being trapped into a traditional female role, someone who stays at home cooking and cleaning and sewing -- things she apparently hasn't had much training in, if you've seen TTT EE. Or being married off to some man who won't allow her to take up arms as she has been trained to do, or who will not treat her as an equal.

She reminds me of the female pilots in the Navy and Air Force who for years fought to be allowed to fly combat missions. They had received the same training as male pilots, why couldn't they fly the same missions? They didn't want special treatment -- they just wanted equal treatment. Now they are allowed to fly any mission a male pilot is allowed to fly. They have proven in combat missions that different genitalia and/or a one chromosome difference in DNA doesn't make someone a better pilot.

Eowyn reminds me of a backup athlete on a sports team. She doesn't necessarily want to be a star, she just wants to get into the game and prove she can contribute. "Put me in, Coach. I'm ready to play."


----------



## fba827 (Jan 6, 2004)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> Earlier in this thread, there was some debate as to Eowyn's reasons for wanting to enter battle. Now, I haven't read "Lord of the Rings" completely -- I've read "Fellowship" and the first half of "Two Towers" -- so I'm just speaking about the movies.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Eowyn reminds me of a backup athlete on a sports team. She doesn't necessarily want to be a star, *she just wants to get into the game and prove she can contribute.* "Put me in, Coach. I'm ready to play."




(Also just speaking with the movies as a reference)

I would agree with almost all that was said except for the one thing (bolded above for reference)...

I don't think she is trying to _prove_ that she can contribute.  I thin kshe just wanted to contribute, plain and simple -- no effort to prove that she can, she just wanted to.

But perhaps I am focusing too much on her one speech at the night before the fight.  The King says that the hobbit shouldn't be cnouraged to fight and Eowyn goes into a nice quote about why shouldn't he be allowed to fight and help those he considers friends for the saftey of those he loves (or something along those lines -- that's far from an exact quote on my part) -- my point is though, I take that to be her own motivation and justification as well.  And since they won't knowingly let her contribute, she found a way ..

again, not disagreeing with the statement as a whole and just felt like sharing my two cents on the topic.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 6, 2004)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *From the movies, I don't get the impression that Eowyn is a glory hound who wants to go to war to seek honor and acclaim. And I don't understand where people get that from.*





I get the impression that she is after glory because she says she is after glory. There are a couple of speeches (like the "I fear a cage" speech, and her exchange with Aragorn in Helm's Deep) where she says "I want to fight and get glory with the boys".


----------



## Asmo (Jan 7, 2004)

Time for a slight highjack:
I was thinking about one thing from the film:the departure from the Grey Havens. There´s a scene in a couch where Bilbo is leaning on Frodos shoulder and he´s talking about something (can´t remember now) and he´s looking really OLD. When did he get so old? When Frodo and the party meet him in Rivendell he looks about the same, but suddenly a couple of years later he looks incredible old. What´s up with that (It´s even more strange if you read the books and know that 17 (?) years has passed from the first birthday party and Rivendell)?

Asmo


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 7, 2004)

He no longer has the Ring, which has been artificially sustaining him all these years. Remember when Gandalf first comes to Bag End in Fellowship and he squints at Bilbo and says in a wondering tone, "You haven't aged a day..." ?

And then he's noticeably older and weaker when Frodo meets him in Rivendell -- he no longer has the Ring and so he's starting to age.

That's because of the Ring. Also why Gollum is still alive, hundreds of years after he found the ring. In Gollum's case, he had it for so long he's probably immortal so long as the Ring itself endures.

It's certainly not clear in the movies, for sure, but I think PJ did a pretty good job of giving us the critical info.

In any case, it's because he's been deprived of the Ring.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 8, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 
> I get the impression that she is after glory because she says she is after glory. There are a couple of speeches (like the "I fear a cage" speech, and her exchange with Aragorn in Helm's Deep) where she says "I want to fight and get glory with the boys".



She never says she is after glory.

In the first speech mentioned, Aragorn asks her what she fears. Eowyn anwers "A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them. And all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire."

Valor is not the same as glory.

Later, at Helm's Deep, she is upset about having to go to the cave with those who can't fight. She says, "There is no renown in that." To which Aragorn says, "There may yet come a time for valor without renown," meaning she might have to fight the Urik-hai if they break through the defenses and reach the caves.

Renown is the same as glory, but she doesn't say she is seeking it. It is implied, yet it is also understandable -- to me, at least -- that she is upset, and might be saying something she doesn't truly mean.

There are three ways to know someone, whether they are a real person or a fictional character: by what they say, by what others say about them, and by what they do. On only one occassion does Eowyn mention "renown" in connection with being allowed to fight. No one in any of the movies ever says anything along the lines of "That Eowyn -- she's a glory hound" or "She only wants to fight so she can grab some glory for herself." And none of her actions in the movies indicate she is a glory hound. There's just one mention of renown, made in the heat of the moment, when she is upset.

To me, that's not enough to brand her as someone interested only in obtaining glory for herself.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 8, 2004)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> Later, at Helm's Deep, she is upset about having to go to the cave with those who can't fight. She says, "There is no renown in that." To which Aragorn says, "There may yet come a time for valor without renown," meaning she might have to fight the Urik-hai if they break through the defenses and reach the caves.
> 
> Renown is the same as glory, but she doesn't say she is seeking it. It is implied, yet it is also understandable -- to me, at least -- that she is upset, and might be saying something she doesn't truly mean.




I get the feeling that she's upset, and that why she's saying _exactly_ what she means, when she normally wouldn't.

("Did you order the Code Red!?"   "_You're god-damned right I did!_")

"She said it, but she probably didn't mean it" isn't a very strong argument for "She never says she is after glory".

-Hyp.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 8, 2004)

I think I'm going to disagree with you, Shadowdancer.

Eowyn doesn't have a lot of lines in the films to begin with, so each time she speaks we must assume that whatever she's saying is important enough that we must consider it carefully.

Valor is certainly very, very similar to glory. To desire a chance for valor is pretty much to desire a chance to show how great you are, and pretty much an assertion that valor unnoticed by others is worthless.

And again to take your example of her reaction to being sent to guard the caves -- isn't it true that what people say in their unguarded moments reveals more about their character than anything else?

Eowyn's reaction to the news is not concern for Aragorn and her uncle, who will be facing the onslaught, not indignation that her contributions to the defense are under-rated, but rather that she is being robbed of what she sees as a chance for reknown.

Her priority is not to save her people. Nor even to save the man she's coming to love. Her priority, the only thing she mentions in this moment, is to have a chance to show how great she is.

There is one more very telling example -- when Theoden makes her Queen. He says "You're Queen now, so you have to look after the nation." Her king, her uncle gives her a direct order, the importance of which is clear -- and she disobeys him. Not even openly -- she conceals herself and disregards her duty to her people and her king.

For what? For glory.

I think it's clear.


----------



## KenM (Jan 15, 2004)

Anyone else notice that Sam is given the book from Frodo at the Grey Havens, but in the next scene with Sam walking up to his house coming home from there, he is not holding it? He does not  have a backpack or anything. Where did it go? Did Sam throw the book away?


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 15, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice that Sam is given the book from Frodo at the Grey Havens, but in the next scene with Sam walking up to his house coming home from there, he is not holding it? He does not have a backpack or anything. Where did it go? Did Sam throw the book away?



He put it with the book Frodo was reading in FotR, and left in the forest when Gandalf arrived in Hobbiton for Bilbo's party.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 15, 2004)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *She never says she is after glory.*





Except she does. You just, for some reason, choose to believe that her stated desire for glory means something other than that.



> *In the first speech mentioned, Aragorn asks her what she fears. Eowyn anwers "A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them. And all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire."
> 
> Valor is not the same as glory.*




Yeah, pretty much it is in this context. She wants to be allowed to fight. She desires to shed the responsibilities of duty that she is surrounded with. The responsibilities of being a replacement queen for the Rohirrim and the attendant duties that go with that. Seeking valor, and eschewing duty, is the very core of seeking personal glory.



> *Later, at Helm's Deep, she is upset about having to go to the cave with those who can't fight. She says, "There is no renown in that." To which Aragorn says, "There may yet come a time for valor without renown," meaning she might have to fight the Urik-hai if they break through the defenses and reach the caves.
> 
> Renown is the same as glory, but she doesn't say she is seeking it. It is implied, yet it is also understandable -- to me, at least -- that she is upset, and might be saying something she doesn't truly mean.*




So, when you say that she doesn't say that she wants it, you mean that you believe that her statement that she desires glory (in the form of reknown) doesn't count because of your entirely unsupported assumption that she means something different than she actually says.

Right. That's not a very convincing argument. Especially since there is no _other_ instance in the movies in which Eowyn says something that isn't what she means.



> *There are three ways to know someone, whether they are a real person or a fictional character: by what they say, by what others say about them, and by what they do. On only one occassion does Eowyn mention "renown" in connection with being allowed to fight.*




For a character with as few lines as she has, that's plenty. And I disagree. The "I fear a cage" speech also gives light on this character trait of hers.



> *No one in any of the movies ever says anything along the lines of "That Eowyn -- she's a glory hound" or "She only wants to fight so she can grab some glory for herself."*




Yet they continually talk about how she should accept her duty and _not_ seek out battle for herself. They don't talk about Eowyn as being a glory hound, because until she disobeys her uncle and abandons her responsibilities to (secretly) join in the ride to Minas Tirith, she actually does what she is supposed to do. After the battle, she has no scenes until after the war is over, and no dialogue in that one, so we don't see the aftermath of her decision being discussed.



> *And none of her actions in the movies indicate she is a glory hound.*





Other than, for example, abandoning her responsibilities to join in battle so that she can win some personal glory. You know, instead of doing her duty and not getting the flashy credit, she chooses to disobey her uncle, abandon her post, and seek out renown.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 15, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yeah, pretty much it is in this context. She wants to be allowed to fight. She desires to shed the responsibilities of duty that she is surrounded with. The responsibilities of being a replacement queen for the Rohirrim and the attendant duties that go with that. Seeking valor, and eschewing duty, is the very core of seeking personal glory.



I'm going to side with Shadowdancer on this one. I just don't see Eowyn as out for personal gratification, so much as being out for being given an equal chance to influence her own destiny.

A core part of movie-Eowyn's character is that she is treated as a lesser actor in events. Eowyn's main problem is that she knows that she is a competent warrior, something Aragorn recoginzes almost immediately upon meeting her, and yet she is continually shunted out of usefullness. Right or wrong, Eowyn sees her best value to her people as being side-by-side with her brother and uncle, choosing her own battlefield.

The contention that her responsibilties as queen bind her to sit back and watch others sacrifice and die without being given the same choice is what chafes her. In both cases, at Helm's Deep and Pellenor, if the men all fail, what exactly can she do, then? Critically short on fighting men in both instances, they eschew the fact that they need more spears for battle, and that they are employing old men and young boys to fight....and yet no one suggests that the King's niece, who is clearly a competent and skilled warrior, take part.

Eowyn sees this as the height of hypocrisy, most likely, and nonesensical. She's not there to protect the women and children: she's there to give the Kings some degree of mental comfort. And if the fate of the world is in the balance, and the hope of all men rests on one of these battles, why shouldn't she participate? The fact that a term exists such as 'shieldmaiden of Rohan' and the 'our women learned long ago...' line indicate that female warriors are far from uknown amongst the Rohirrim. Theoden is saving himself anguish, and that's the only logical reason for his denial of Eowyn. Does he truly think that if he fails (and in RotK, he clearly expects that they will) that it's preferable for Eowyn to sit in Edoras, waiting for the rampaging hordes to come?

I don't doubt that she also wants a chance at glory...something she gets, though I suspect she didn't fully appreciate the cost until after the fact. Her entire culture (and truthfully, all of the cultures of Middle Earth, except possibly the hobbits, who only have the Bullroarer) centers around regarding their past heroes, like Helm Hammerhand. But I don't see her as being solely motivated by a desire to be a hero of legend, and I think it's a tad unfair to ascribe purely selfish motives to her actions.

Her actions at Pellenor certainly don't indicate someone who was out to show everyone what she could do...but instead someone who wanted to do what was right and to do what she could do. That she aids and befriends the one other person about who shares the same dillemma is telling of this, to me. Granted, there is a greater reason for why Merry is denied...but thematically, PJ is clearly intimating that they have something to contribute - ultimately contributing one of the most important actions of the battle.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 15, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *I'm going to side with Shadowdancer on this one. I just don't see Eowyn as out for personal gratification, so much as being out for being given an equal chance to influence her own destiny.*





She has as much chance to influence her destiny as anyone has (i.e. almost none). The individuals who fight, do so because it is their duty to do so. The individuals who do other things do so because those other things are their duty.



> *A core part of movie-Eowyn's character is that she is treated as a lesser actor in events. Eowyn's main problem is that she knows that she is a competent warrior, something Aragorn recoginzes almost immediately upon meeting her, and yet she is continually shunted out of usefullness.*




Actually, she is shunted into usefulness, which is her problem. Theoden needs someone to be able to take care of his people while his duty as their defender calls him to war. Eomer is not present (having been banished), and he needs his warriors. He needs someone he can trust, and who can lead, and believes Eowyn has those qualities. Theoden places her in a position _where she is needed_.



> *Right or wrong, Eowyn sees her best value to her people as being side-by-side with her brother and uncle, choosing her own battlefield.*




And her choice is _selfish_. She is needed to be a caretaker for those who need a leader. Her choice is to throw aside the duty that has been appointed to her, abandon her post, and seek out battle to show her valor and gain renown. She acts like a spoiled child.



> *In both cases, at Helm's Deep and Pellenor, if the men all fail, what exactly can she do, then?*




Serve to lead Rohan's people in an attempt to save them. Someone has to assume responsibility for those who survive the war, even if none of her kinsmen do. She is given a great responsibility, and an important role, yet she casts this away so she can play hero. But heros don't shirk their responsibilities, they accept them. Heroism comes from shouldering those burdens.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 15, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Serve to lead Rohan's people in an attempt to save them. Someone has to assume responsibility for those who survive the war, even if none of her kinsmen do. She is given a great responsibility, and an important role, yet she casts this away so she can play hero. But heros don't shirk their responsibilities, they accept them. Heroism comes from shouldering those burdens.



But I guess I'm missing what the point was.  If all of mankind's fate depends on this battle, and mankind is doomed if they fail...what is the point of leading people who are going to die?  Essentially, Theoden is telling her "Sweetheart, you head home to tell everyone to await torment and death.  I realize you're fairly good with a sword and spear and born to the sadle like all our folk, but the threat of the total annhiliation of mankind simply isn't enough to get to overcome the fact that you're a woman." 

I can see a logic for her staying with the refugees in Helm's Deep.  Theoden was confident of it's defenses, the people needed a leader to stem any chance of panic and this wasn't a battle for all of mankind, but for Rohan.  Even if they failed (and "I know how to fight orcs, master dwarf"), they had an escape route.

But at Pellenor, if they lost, mankind would be wiped out.  Destroyed.  Pillaged, burned and then genocidally ended.  Why not have Eowyn along?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 15, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *But at Pellenor, if they lost, mankind would be wiped out.  Destroyed.  Pillaged, burned and then genocidally ended.  Why not have Eowyn along?*





Not necessarily. Eowyn could have led the remaining people north in that event, for example. Further, while the bulk of the men were away fighting in Gondor, who was left behind to protect the women and children from bandits, other orcs and various other problems? Who was there to make decisions, be the voice of the King in disputes and other non-combat options. There is more to running a kingdom than making sure that your swords are sharp.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Jan 15, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> But at Pellenor, if they lost, mankind would be wiped out.  Destroyed.  Pillaged, burned and then genocidally ended.  Why not have Eowyn along?




Theoden could fall in battle and the war could have been won without him.  He wanted to ensure someone could lead in case that should come to be.


----------

