Badmovies.org Forum

Anybody else seen it yet? I won't give anything away, but it is spectacular film making.

The battle scenes are great, but this is movie about the hobbits. Most people would give their arm for friend like Samwise Gamgee.  This is definitely the best of the three and I can't wait to see the extended DVD.

I saw it  midnight when it was first released.  Great movie

I saw it this morning and will probably see it again next week.  I thought the beginning dragged a bit, but once it got going it was great and I loved the battle scenes.  But right now I'd say that I like The Two Towers the best of the three.

I thought the beginning dragged a bit, but once it got going it was great

That's what I've been telling people as well.  Trying to connect the plotlines from Part II seemed to take a bit of time to get it moving

is there hobbit love?

I'm sorry but there were scenes in the last one that had me cringing -  i almost thought they would thrust themselves into eachothers arms in a passionate frenzy and.....

The book is very much like that.  There's a lot of affection betwen Sam and Frodo in a non-sexual way .  If you can get past the modern perspective and think about it in terms of when Tolkien lived, it makes a big difference

LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING (2003) - seen this one Wednesday at the 3:20 showing with a 2/3 audience. Great film and great conclusion to an excellent trilogy. There will never be as great a film as this. It was simple a massive, epic, colosso film as ever could be produced. The battle scenes (another great siege) and the continuation of Frodo's journey with the Ring. That's all I can say. Well done.

I had trouble getting into the first one LORD OF THE RINGS: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, but it was ok.

Then I liked the second one LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS. Mostly only the siege battle and the arrival of the elven archers.

Following Frodo was the hardest part for me through all three films, but it works out in the end. It was sad to note that Christorpher Lee didn't get into the last film of that will forever be a great film. Lee deserved it. Even if it was only a couple scenes. Other than that all the other characters come through well.

Now that I've seen it, I think ROTK wasn't really suited to have many scenes with Lee in it.  I think the mistake was that Saruman's loose ends should have been tied up at the end of The Two Towers.   ROTK was already long and I think haivng a tidying-up scene with Saruman would have been ill-advised.

The problem I had with the first film is that I felt like it had too much exposition.  I realize it was necessary since not everyone was familiar with the story but I found a lot of the various councils and meetings a little dull since I already knew what was going on.  I think some of the problem is that so much of the story involves the characters trying to decide what to do.  If you already know beforehand you might feel a little bored.  

I enjoyed the second film the most because there wasn't as much of that, and the battle scenes were superb.  I wasn't aware at all of how long the film was, and I can't say that for either the first or third films.  

I thought the end of ROTK seemed a little bit rushed, and it makes me curious as to what was left out.   I'm anxious to see it again.

I agree that the Lee wasn't necessary to make this a great film, but they did put some stuff in that could have been left out as much as Lee's scenes, but then again I have never read the book. Well all I can say is that I liked the film and the RETURN OF THE KING was a great conclusion.

From one of the Tolkien boards:

20 THINGS TO DO WHEN SEEING THE RETURN OF THE KING:

1. Stand up halfway through the movie and yell loudly, "Wait... where the hell is Harry Potter?"
2. Block the entrance to the theater while screaming: "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" - After the movie, say "Lucas could have done it better."
3. At some point during the movie, stand up and shout: "I must go! Middle Earth needs me!" and run and try to jump into the screen. After bouncing off, return quietly to your
seat.
4. Play a drinking game where you have to take a sip every time someone says: "The Ring."
5. Point and laugh whenever someone dies.
6. Ask the nearest ring-nut if he thinks Gandalf went to Hogwarts
7. Finish off every one of Elrond's lines with "Mr. Anderson!"
8. When Aragorn is crowned king, stand up and at the top of your lungs sing, "And I did it.... MY way...!"
9. At the end, complain that Gollum was offensive to Ethiopians
10. Talk like Gollum all through the movie. At the end, bite off someone's finger and fall down the stairs.
11. When Shelob appears, pinch the guy in front of you on the back of the neck.
12. Dress up as old ladies and reenact "The Battle of Helms Deep" Monty Python style.
13. When Denethor lights the fire, shout "Barbecue!"
14. Ask people around you who they think is the next "Terminator" sent from the Middle Earth of the future to assassinate Frodo Baggins
15. In TTT when the Ents decide to march to war, stand up and shout "RUN FOREST, RUN!"
16. Every time someone kills an Orc, yell: "That's what I'm Tolkien about!" See how long it takes before you get kicked out of the theatre.
17. During a wide shot of a battle, inquire, "Where's Waldo?"
18. Talk loudly about how you heard that there is a single frame of a nude Elf hidden somewhere in the movie.
19. Start an Orc sing-a-long.
20. Come to the premiere dressed as Frank-N-Furter and wander around looking terribly confused.

You know, Susan, there are passages in the book that give one the same feeling.  Some have theorized some kind of homoerotic dynamic was supposed to exist between Frodo and Sam.  I don't think this is really the case, but some have put it forth as a theory.

The movie rules.  That's all there is to it.  For those who haven't seen it and haven't read the books, the battle of Helm's Deep is basically just an opening skirmish for what takes place in ROtK.  
However, I will say this.  I really really really really really HATE FRODO.  In both the books and the films.  He's the most worthless character in the whole damn thing, he wouldn't have made it out his front door if it wasn't for Sam, and I have a really hard time staying interested in the Sam & Frodo travelling scenes because Frodo is just such a f**kin' whiny load.  Which is unfortunate since their parts are the most pivotal to the story.

Brother R

I have to disagree with you strongly there Brother Ragnarok.  Frodo is dealing with the full brunt  of carrying the ring.  It's plainly said in the book that no other race besides the hobbits could even bear the ring without giving in to the temptation of absolute power.

Frodo is our only hope for carrying the ring to destruction.  Who else would carry it so far?  Not humans.  Not even elves, judging Galadriel's reaction.  It's telling of the ring's corrupting power that not even Frodo could bear the ring without succumbing to it and forsaking his friends.  He gave up at the end, remember?  That's the whole point of the epilogue, that Frodo could not live with the fact that he gave into power.  But who else could have carried it?  That's the point of Frodo's character.  He is constantly repudiating absolute power.

Whiny.  It's the wrong interpretation.

Sam is our heart, who we are all meant to identify with.  But it's Frodo standing up there fighting the worst impulses of all of us.

"Sure, everybody loves the stupid one, but nobody loves the jerk!"

In the extended Two Towers extras there was left our premonition scene where Faramir see Frodo starting the Gollumization process. It was freaky, but basically that's what Frodo is up against. I think I would probably be whiny too.

On a note about what  got left out  of ROTK, I  think there was a lot of  pressure for PJ to make this come in at  under 3.5 hours. I read a blurb from the editor of the film that  the next to final cut was 4.5 hours. I think when the extended DVD comes out  the whole thing will come together better. I actually hope they do what  Lucas did when he put all the new stuff in the original Star Wars trilogy and release the extended versions of the LOTR films at theaters. These are the kind of films that can only be totally appreciated in  theater with a big screen and an  excellent sound system.

My only nitpick was the way Gollum fell into the lava. In the book he just got carried away dancing around because he had the ring and slipped off the cliff.

>>. Some have theorized some kind of homoerotic dynamic was supposed to exist between Frodo and Sam. I don't think this is really the case, but some have put it forth as a theory.
<<

Well it was an observation from the standpoint of the other hobbits not being anywhere near as "friendly" as those two were.  in fact some of the scenes in the second were so suggestive that i was taken out of the movie and into my chair and started giggling like some 13 year old. ;-)
Otherwise i'm skimming over this threat without reading, I haven't seen it yet and really don't wanna see any critical breakdown of it until I do

you've got serious subtext issues

I liked the movie.  I've been waiting for a long time to see Shelob, and she didn't disappoint.  The rest of the movie was quite good, but it felt a little choppy to me for some reason.  That didn't ruin the experience for me, any more than the multiple endings.  (And that is the right word for them, unfortunately.  We kept fading to black, fading to black, fade to white for variation.  Not a good thing... not a good thing at all.)

All in all, I think we got lucky with this series.  It could have easily been much, much worse.

---

I just got back from the movie..does anyone know the exact running time?

yeesh

Somewhere in the neighborhood  3hours 20 minutes.  It really didn't seem like it though.

>Somewhere in the neighborhood 3hours 20 minutes. It really didn't seem like it though.<

seemed longer. I got in at 10:30 and got out around 2 and felt like i spent the whole day in the theater. And yeah, a few hobbit love scenes still going strong - i'm not reading too deep into it either. At one moment I could have sworn frodo slightly leaned..and for an instant I thought a kiss was going to happen. holy crap that would be an ending...

This one actually was better than the previous 2. I'm a fan of the first more than the second. In this version there is alot more character development happening as we are familiar with everyone plus alot of loose ends are tied up. I kinda hated the tease endings..just when you thought it was over...NOPE! We have more...



Post Edited (12-19-03 17:27)

It has nothing to do with me "not getting it."  I understand perfectly well that only hobbits can carry the ring, and that Frodo is going through a lot because he's carrying the most evil thing in existence.  I can deal with a psychological breakdown from that standpoint.  It's just that he falls for EVERYTHING.  Not once does he suspect Gollum, but turns on Sam.  Yeah yeah, I know it's all a part of the ring's evil and Gollum being sneaky and all that, but c'mon.  He doesn't show even one tiny bit of courage anywhere, aside from taking the ring in the first place.  Like I said, Sam keeps him going through the whole thing, and probably could have born the brunt of the ring even better than Frodo given a chance.  After all, Sam is even more pure and simple than Frodo, so the ring would have less to corrupt.  He'd just need a companion to keep him going.
In the end, it's not going to matter what I say about it.  Someone is just going to peg me for a Tolkien hater who just doesn't get it.  Well, I get it.  I just don't have to like all of it.

Brother R

A lot of the conflict with Frodo and Sam wasn't in the book--that's one of the biggest complaints by Tolkien purists.

I agree with you Brother.I've read the books many times and could be called some what of a purist, but you are right, Frodo is a extremly guliable and naive.When I read the books I got the impression that Sam was diffentaly the stronger and more brave of the two.I think that Sam would have made a much better ring bearer.

Havent seen it yet.

I hate the films, yet my wife is dragging me to see this tonight.

Pain.

I agree with you Brother.I've read the books many times and could be called some what of a purist, but you are right, Frodo is a extremly guliable and naive.  When I read the books I got the impression that Sam was diffentaly the stronger and more brave of the two.I think that Sam would have made a much better ring bearer.


I don't agree  I think you see in subtle ways that Frodo was pretty strong.  For one thing, he'd had the conversation with Gandalf abuot Gollum, wishing that Bilbo had killed him.  Gandalf's admonish about not being willing to give death even to those whom may 'deserve' it and his prediction that Gollum would still play a big part in some way, good or evil, made Frodo reluctant  to harm Gollum.  He knew Gollum couldn't be trusted, but also knew that they couldn't get into Morder without guidance.  Especially in the book, with the "swear by the precious, not on the precious" speech, it was clear that Frodo knew a lot more about what was going on in Gollum's heart than he usually let on.  Letting Farmir kill Gollum would've been easy; trusting him and putting his life in the hands of Gollum's desire for the ring  was a lot harder, and was something Sam wouldn't have done.

Sam was strong because he had a singular personal devotion to Frodo.  He did everything he could to make Frodo succeed, and that drove him.  I don't think he would have been as strong if he had the ring had had to dive himself without  that personal devotion  While he was the kind to sacrifice himself (water and lembas) for Frodo, he would not have let someone else sacrifice themself for him, even if he should've.  Sam was strong, but in a very simple, direct, self-sacrificial, personal way. Frodo needed Sam, but Sam needed Frodo

As far as the whole conflict between Sam and Frodo in the movie, I think that was an example where the book deals with ideas stretched out over narrative and internal dialogs that were hard to deal with visually on screen, so the writers illustrated the ideas differently.  I believe that the script had Frodo turn against Sam simply as a visual way of showing both the corruption of the ring and the treachery of Gollum in ways that the book spread out over a lot of narrative and simple events that the script didn't have time for.  

I also think that's the same with a lot of the Elrond/Arwen/Aragorn additions.  They weren't in the book , but they were used to visually portray ideas in the book that were hard to relate in a movie, such as the impact of Arwen's decision to stay in Middle Earth, the passing of the Elves from Middle Earth and turning over the land to Men, etc...I think the movie did that in a lot of places simply becasue there was enough action to already take a lot of time and properly dealing with the over-arching ideas properly would've been way too long, not visually interesting and pretty hard to convey, so the writers reduced them to snapshots of events to get the point across

Freep hits the nail on the head. This is one of those books that could in no way ever be directly translated to the screen.  

What came across as Frodo whining in the movie, was the dread and the ever increasing emotional weight of carrying the ring described in the book.  I think this is what  PJ was trying to get across with the Smeagol/Deagol sequence and Smeagol's eventual transformation int Gollum.  I believe this is also the point he was making by  having Bilbo ask Frodo about the ring on the way to the ship.  Even after a long separation the ring was still having an effect on Bilbo.  

The spirit of  a book is the most  you can ever expect from a film based  on it . Peter Jackson did one of the best jobs of this that I have ever seen.

Calm down, I can see the veins popping.  I dig Jackson and his vision just as much as everyone else.  Like I said, it's not that I don't get it.  I don't need all the nuances explained to me.  I just think the evil of the ring could have been portrayed in a less irritating way, like horrifying dream sequences, or hallcuinations, something like that.  When it's done strictly as Frodo fainting and complaining and wanting to give up it just gets old.

Brother R

Jackson is really in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.  I think he usually decided to err on the side of the books, which unfortunately meant he couldn't do a lot of that stuff you mention.  The trouble is that so much of the conflict of Frodo and the other characters is internal and doesn't make for exciting filmmaking.  He's changed a few things in that area and gets flak for it, but I think it makes for a better film overall.

I just think the evil of the ring could have been portrayed in a less irritating way, like horrifying dream sequences, or hallcuinations, something like that.

Unfortuantely, that wouldn't really have matched the books any better than how PJ did it, and would also not have fit the general feel and tenor of the rest of the movies, either.  Like jmc,  said "dammed if you do, dammed if you don't"; he couldn't really  do the book as the books were so he needed some way to get the ideas across in the different medium and whatever he chose was going to annoy somebody so..I love the books but I'm willing to cut him slack on how he changed them

When it's done strictly as Frodo fainting and complaining and wanting to give up it just gets old.

Sadly, that's not how I remember the movie at all.  If that was your perception and it lessened the total experience for you..*shrug* can't help you there.  Your lose

Off the topic anyone else's radio stations giving alot of Airplay to "Ramble on"? I know i used to be die hard zeppelin fan back in the day, and a couple of his songs have Tolkien references..just wondering if it's a fluke on my local station or if they are playing them with that idea in mind