The official thread for Lord Of The Rings - The Return Of The King [LOTR ROTK TROTK ROK] (NOW CONTAINS SPOILERS)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (647 of them)
And did Frodo ever find Nemo??!?!?

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Can anyone please explain how Aragorn will get his mitts on the palantir in the film?

Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Chrissie, I've got to say I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here, are you just saying you don't like Peter J? Cos I mean, people upthread have had "enough imagination" to grasp that part. Am I missing your point?

Yeah, I very much think you are. But I doubt it matters much.

The Balrog sequence was great, actually. It wasn't shot similarly to the stuff I mentioned, though... it's almost 100% CGI for starters.

Pulpo: I know it was a joke. And quite funny. I just don't reckon you'd need to avoid PJ to get any laughs on here, see.

ChrissieH (chrissie1068), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:16 (twenty-two years ago)

(I meant: 'I reckon you'd need...')

ChrissieH (chrissie1068), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Ok ok, so you won't tell me what you're trying to get at, just do some sniping and chuck in a nebulous concept of a director being a completely separate entity from the casting, actors, CGI (oh really, it was CGI? I wondered how a Balrog got an equity card) and location? Should he just restrict himself to his expenses account?

Ooh Madchen well do bear in mind that we've not yet seen Saruman leave Isengard so he could easily do the chucking down/finding of the palantir at the start of the next film.

Or perhaps they'll just come across a Carphone Warehouse.

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:26 (twenty-two years ago)

In the context of what I was futilely trying to say, it DOESN'T MATTER. But if this is a context you ain't got the imagination to grasp, I can't be bothered. Really. It's beyond tedious.

Friend-making tip #2: stop being so fucking rude.

I think we got (and mostly agree with) what you're trying to say about Peter Jackson's skills as a classical director, it's just that when you started talking about how Sam Raimi would have done that we fell off discussing directors into discussing what a director on this film is. Though Ned and Nichole did bait you into that one.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:36 (twenty-two years ago)

But Saruman won't be in it! Carphone Warehouse it is.

Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, it was Grima who chucked it down so it could be him, we've not seen HIM leaving Isengard. It seems ridiculous there'll be NO Saruman at all though. Or perhaps they just find a convenient palantir lying by the bin at OrcDonalds?

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:51 (twenty-two years ago)

"Free. Please Take."

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:52 (twenty-two years ago)

This is a terrible question, but I bet Ned will know the answer. Why did Tolkein favour "Orc" instead of "Ork"? I'm sure somewhere in the appendices he talks of the "Orkish" language - and was it "orcish" or "orkish" liquor that the Uruk-Hai feed Pipping and Merry?

I know, it's a terrible question. Ned? :)

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:54 (twenty-two years ago)

From JRRT's letters collection:

"Orcs (the word is as far as I am concerned actually derived from Old English orc 'demon,' but only because of its phonetic suitability)..."

Rah.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

B-b-but why does he use the K for "orkish"?

Incidentally I can't believe you did that so quickly!!

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Because if he didn't it would be pronounced "or-sish".

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Not by anyone SANE, Gothy :)

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

FEY GOTH SLAP FITE

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Invoking the powers of the Fey Folk will not help you against my GREEN CHARTREUSE!

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:30 (twenty-two years ago)

(haha this is quickly turning into a Gothemon battle)

Mopesalot, I CHOOSE YOU!

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Incidentally I can't believe you did that so quickly!!

Eh, I'm at home sick today and the collected letters are close to hand. No trick, really. :-)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Friend-making tip #2: stop being so fucking rude.

I get bored easily and I can be rude. This is true. No argument.

What was #1?

I think we got (and mostly agree with) what you're trying to say about Peter Jackson's skills as a classical director, it's just that when you started talking about how Sam Raimi would have done that we fell off discussing directors into discussing what a director on this film is. Though Ned and Nichole did bait you into that one.

Well, yeah, because I didn't want to discuss alternatives particularly. Also, I don't see why I should be challenged for having a personal opinion about something that is as valid or as worthless as anyone else's.

ChrissieH (chrissie1068), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:33 (twenty-two years ago)

"I don't agree with you and want you to explain how you got to your conclusion." != "YOU ARE WRONG AND MUST BE SMITED."

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:35 (twenty-two years ago)

For the sake of argument: okay, I'm wrong. It doesn't matter enough to me to lose any sleep about it. I'd have walked away from the thread pretty fast if I wasn't a bit depressed (mom's is pretty poor health at the moment) and wanting a bit of distraction.

I am treading in the wrong thread/place, because to me this film is a bit of flashy, interesting hokum, and that's all. I realise it's probably a lot more important to other people. Everyone's right and everyone's wrong, and ultimately, none of it means a single damn thing.

ChrissieH (chrissie1068), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:54 (twenty-two years ago)

This does remind me: we were talking about pre-booking tickets but nothing is available on the Odeon or Warner sites - NED!!!!! Help! You'll know :) And whilst you're at it, how many tickets for Fellowship have been sold in Belsornia?

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

What was #1?

Actually, it was that declaring yourself bored is never polite.

Also, I don't see why I should be challenged for having a personal opinion about something that is as valid or as worthless as anyone else's.

It is sort of all we do around here.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 17:08 (twenty-two years ago)

NED!!!!! Help! You'll know :)

I wish! Have you checked theonering.net -- they seem to have a fair amount of pre-sale info around, though it might take some digging to find it.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, it was that declaring yourself bored is never polite.

Er... sorry to be rude (I'm sure this qualifies as rude, as does almost anything else I'm ever going to say), but isn't that the same as being rude? So #1 and 2 are actually the same?

Thinking about it... while I admit to be being capable of extreme rudeness, I don't actually consider 'declaring myself bored' to be impolite. Not on here. Wrong context. I hadn't noticed anyone observing any particular kind of etiquette -- this is, after all, the board that loves talking about wanking on a regular basis. The concept of being rude is dead in the water.

I think the Golden Rule about making friends obviously is to tell a lot of lies and say exactly what Whoever wants to hear under all circumstances.

I can't be arsed.

It is sort of all we do around here.

And this kind of rudeness (as valid a definition as any other on offer) is better than mine because...?

Oh, don't answer that. It's probably 'u r all gay' or something.

(BTW, that was sarcasm, not rudeness. Okay, rude sarcasm, maybe. I can live with that.)

(I knew I should've just posted: 'LotR is a pile of worthless shite and Peter Jackson is a fat, sweaty toad.' That woulda been a lot easier.)

ChrissieH (chrissie1068), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 18:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Ned are you doing Trilogy Tuesday?

gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 18:24 (twenty-two years ago)

generally speaking peter jackson's direction, in terms of "style" and the sense in which we generally slot a director in the scale somewhere between "invisible cog in hollywood machine" vs "total individualist auteur," jackson has tended to make himself a little invisible. a wise choice given how much STUFF there is jammed into these films- surfeit of plot, names, setting, action, etc. more "showy" direction might distract us from the rest.

interesting that someone brought up sam raimi, though. where i find the touches that are especially jackson's are something like what old-school (pre-blanding) raimi would have brought. i'm thinking of wacky horror-style shots: the crazy closeups of merry and pippin with looney tunes faces after blowing off the fireworks; smash-cuts to closeups of nasty orc-y faces, the fantastic shot that wheels in to show gandalf atop the tower then dives off into the orc mines.

for a director of GIANT EPICS i think he is smashing his competition in terms of actor's direction, too. i'm sure there are plenty of directors who could do the job well also, but just the direction of the king's poem before battle in the 2nd film ("where is the horse and the rider," etc) is a fantastic actor's moment that most director-ringleaders would have missed or fumbled entirely.

rgeary (rgeary), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Ned are you doing Trilogy Tuesday?

Maybe.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

A spoiler-free review. More will no doubt start surfacing.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 4 December 2003 00:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, and Sarah, tickets are now on sale via Odeon!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 4 December 2003 00:41 (twenty-two years ago)

this is, after all, the board that loves talking about wanking on a regular basis.

You keep repeating this as a validation of whatever you feel like doing, which is odd. The discussion is hardly mandatory, or regular. Or, for that matter, rude.

I think the Golden Rule about making friends obviously is to tell a lot of lies and say exactly what Whoever wants to hear under all circumstances.

I can't be arsed.

There is a middle ground between that and saying whatever you want at all times, you know.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 4 December 2003 01:01 (twenty-two years ago)

thanks for posting that Ned.

also:
is it too much to suggest the haters take the PJ malaise to another thread? i don't mind any negative criticism here but it seems to be one-sided not to mention off-topic.

gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 4 December 2003 01:57 (twenty-two years ago)

There is a middle ground between that and saying whatever you want at all times, you know.

I can't help being a fuckwit. You don't like it, I'm not losing sleep.

This thread hasn't done much for my feelings about the film, but it has sparked an interest in reading the book again, bizarrely.

Also: gygax, who said anything about hating the guy? I finally succumbed to irony with my 'toad' comment. I think I'm no more responsible for off-topic tangents than others on here, for that matter. Never mind. I already said I regretted posting here at all and I meant it. I ought to have better things to worry about.

ChrissieH (chrissie1068), Thursday, 4 December 2003 02:41 (twenty-two years ago)

CrissieH,

I don't mind discussion of peter jackson's merits wrt: the trilogy; however, this thread was supposed to be a discussion of the third installment of the film trilogy, and here we are 192 posts in with very little content to speak of.

I think you are indeed on to something. Perhaps you should start a thread entitled: "I realised watching The Two Towers how repetitious and banal the directing actually was" and have a go... but seeing as this thread was intended to be for ROTK, perhaps we should give it a chance?

gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 4 December 2003 02:50 (twenty-two years ago)

You're dead right. I didn't expect it, but it's my fault. (I think anyone wanting to rip the piss out of my personal qualities should start a new thread too, for that matter.) Since this was your thread, I offer apologies to you specifically. I'm still pissed off about the Christopher Lee thing, though. :)

ChrissieH (chrissie1068), Thursday, 4 December 2003 03:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Me too! :-D

gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 4 December 2003 04:53 (twenty-two years ago)

my friend said it was the worst of the three films and then his old lady told me it was the best. i saw bad santa today it was great.

Pablo Cruise (chaki), Thursday, 4 December 2003 08:34 (twenty-two years ago)

There's a special about the making of on 20/20 tonight at 10:00 pm, I can't decide whether I should watch it or just wait til the movie comes out.

El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Thursday, 4 December 2003 14:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha! It was great!!! Who wants spoilers?

phil-two (phil-two), Friday, 5 December 2003 20:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Let me guess, the king returns?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 December 2003 20:31 (twenty-two years ago)

The 20/20 special on the movie was really terrible, I regret seeing it. "Apparently Tolkien made up this weird LANGUAGE and he called it ELVISH!" -- ugh.

El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Friday, 5 December 2003 20:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh dear dear. Glad I had no access to it!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 December 2003 20:33 (twenty-two years ago)

oh.. right yeah, the book

phil-two (phil-two), Friday, 5 December 2003 21:04 (twenty-two years ago)

to be true to the book jackson must change the ending

mark s (mark s), Friday, 5 December 2003 21:45 (twenty-two years ago)

ROTK clocks in at a robust 210 minutes, with the eventual extended edition rumored to be about 4 hours long. Crikey!

Gear! (Gear!), Friday, 5 December 2003 21:56 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/25/

This will brighten everyone's snowy weekend.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 5 December 2003 22:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Wow, it was good!

rgeary (rgeary), Saturday, 6 December 2003 07:51 (twenty-two years ago)

But v. long!

rgeary (rgeary), Saturday, 6 December 2003 07:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Can anyone please explain how Aragorn will get his mitts on the palantir in the film?

SPOILER - Pippin picks it up from the mess at Isengard, and Gandalf takes it from him. But Aragorn never uses it. - END SPOILER

The Yellow Kid, Sunday, 7 December 2003 09:43 (twenty-two years ago)

The 20/20 special on the movie was really terrible, I regret seeing it. "Apparently Tolkien made up this weird LANGUAGE and he called it ELVISH!" -- ugh.

I feel better I only saw the last 15 minutes of it then, though I shot out of here to try and catch the whole thing.

Just found out there aren't any theaters near me showing the Extended Editions (closest one is 100 miles away). Guess I should consider meself lucky there is ONE theatre nearby showing ROTK.

Bloody boondocks.

Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:35 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.