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

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Maybe.

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.

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.

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.

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?

This will brighten everyone's snowy weekend.

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

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.

Lars, I haven't had time to watch TT once, yet--though I snagged my copy Sunday.

(Before anyone can beat me to it, "WTF?")

(seeing it at 9AM was really trippy btw)

I am finishing up work, I am cleaning up some stuff...I am off. I will post something incoherent and babbling at 3 am. (Not that this is different from most times.)

Anyway. Trilogy showing! Ned happy! ROTK fucking awesome! The world is great! I need sleep! More later! Good night!

I haven't seen TLOTR: TROTK (I love these abb.), but I'd like to
chime in and agree with Chrissie H that the first two movies were
directed averagely at best. Keep in mind that I'm a Tolkien fan
(though not a rabid one), but even more I'm a film buff. And I
wasn't too impressed with Jackson's screenplay from either
standpoint; his Fellowship was fairly cohesive, with Gandalf
playing the wise, all-knowing wizard, while Tolkien's Fellowship
was a bickering, contentious gang, with little sense of direction
or purpose.

Meanwhile, Jackson's direction seemed perfunctory. His style was
way too overbearing, desperately trying to convert the viewers
- "yes indeed, this is an epic! epic epic epic!!!" Observe the
endless closeups and slow-motion shots in part 1 - and part 2's
long, boring battle scenes. These had little drama or excitement -
just more CGI's furiously thwacking. Overall, I agree that Jackson
added nothing new or interesting to this movie. Fortunately, the
original story is so compelling that the films are modern
classics. But I still can't help but wonder what a great
director like Gilliam, Scorsese, or Doug Liman could
have done with the series.