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)
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)

I watched the Two Tower extended edition twice this weekend, I am in a bad way.

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?")

Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 22:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Aw yeah. Those book sales figures alone make me so happy.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 13 December 2003 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

how does this make ya feel?

gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 08:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Content.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 13:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Hooray I am going to see this on Friday, yay me!

Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I am awake and already counting down the hours. Less than six hours before I'm in line for the trilogy...

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 13:36 (twenty-two years ago)

TO. MORROW. NIGHT.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 14:05 (twenty-two years ago)

same here - 9.30 showing in Greenwich - not sure i'll make it back north of the river!

stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 14:09 (twenty-two years ago)

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH plans to see it fallen out before even booked - I am about to gnaw off my arm in agony.

Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

just saw it this morning, it was pretty great! more or less has the same strengths and flaws of the other two movies. I found it took its sweet time getting going, but once it was there it was THERE. good stuff.

(seeing it at 9AM was really trippy btw)

s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Most good to hear. :-)

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.)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 18:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Slutsky, we shall compare, as I'm setting it in....5 hours and counting. Course, no early morning babbling for me (lack of comp connection). But, I'll squeak tomorrow...if I can put my feet on the floor. (Won't get in til around 4 AM; boondocks isn't all good.)

Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 16 December 2003 22:58 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, see it please people so we can talk about it without me worrying about spoilers (not that i'd really be spoiling anything for anyone who'd read the book, obviously, but still it's a matter of honour)

s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 04:49 (twenty-two years ago)

ian mckellen gets to kick so much ass!

rgeary (rgeary), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 05:35 (twenty-two years ago)

So what do you nerds call yourselves? Hobbies?

Leee Iacocca (Leee), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 06:58 (twenty-two years ago)

ask these guys

gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 08:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't bother reading anything on this thread but of course the total gayness of this movie was already discussed, right? I know everyone says they saw it for all that fighting stuff, but it was obviously just 3 hours filler (with lots of leather, big poppin' swords, shiny helmets, and a penis tower with a big evil flaming vagina on top) to set up shirtless hobbits and man love. What a lame excuse for a fairy tale though. Don't let me ruin it for you now- but in the cop out ending they don't actually fuck, instead they stick everything back in the closet with deus ex machina marriages to females who had about zero to do with the man love story. They should of married each other instead.

sucka (sucka), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 09:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Well yeah.

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

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 10:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Let's keep things interesting...

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.

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 10:57 (twenty-two years ago)

You had me going until the end...

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 11:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Once More With Hobbits, anyone?

Sarah (starry), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 13:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm with Andrew there. Inevitably any suggestion about how else could have done this seems to call to mind all sorts of bizarre imaginings, and not necessarily of the good kind (and I speak as a Gilliam fan!).

I think what might be key in all this is to remember two things about Jackson's approach that are objective as opposed to subjective:

1. He made it clear from the start that he was not interested in an ironic approach from his actors et al, that the story as interpreted had to be taken at face value. In otherwards, a story conceived in an epic tradition would be treated as such.

2. Within that framework he was also interested in keeping it as 'realistic' as possible, quotes intentional. This covered everything from focusing on the characters to specific camera choices, ie hand-held 'documentary' approaches at points and so forth.

Whether or not you think these approaches were justified or successful is up to the individual beholder. Personally speaking -- as a reader of Tolkien, my favorite author, but not one interested in a slavish reinterpretation where it would not work in another medium -- I think this conception was exactly what was needed and that he hit the bullseye. It will not be to everyone's tastes.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

DOES NO-ONE CARE ABOUT ONCE MORE WITH HOBBITS

Sarah (starry), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I haven't seen it yet! Forgive me!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 16:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I sent it to my boyfriend! Thanks Sarah!

teeny (teeny), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 16:03 (twenty-two years ago)

I admit my first reaction may have been a little unrestrained (nearly fell of chair with larffter ect).

Sarah (starry), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I'll go a bit further (as I can in this magical world beyond the veil of probability and say that Lost in La Mancha gives a good indication that Gilliam's version would make Bakshi's look like an uncompromised work of personal genius. And I'm a big Gilliam fan as well.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 16:08 (twenty-two years ago)

ok here's what I liked and didn't like about the movie [probably SPOILERS]

liked/loved:
-minas tirith, which was incredibly awesomely realized
-the battle at minas tirith, obv
-everything in mordor, incl. the spider
-the very end, which "got" me
-the beasts that the nazgul ride on (sorry I forget their names, but I thought they looked and especially SOUNDED incredible--kinda freaked my shit out, actually)

didn't like:
-the opening sequence with pre-gollum smeagol, which I thought was really awkwardly shot and not a very strong beginning
-most of the humourous stuff
-the fact that the battle of minas tirith came over an hour before the movie was over, which felt anti-climactic
-the battle at the gates of mordor, which felt even more anti-climactic considering the greatness of the minas tirith battle
-the fact that we didn't get to see more awesome gandalf-with-glowing-staff stuff (though when he chases the nazguls away it was awesome)

s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 16:51 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought they looked and especially SOUNDED incredible

Heh heh heh...the sounds were altered donkey howls. Really!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

really? very effective, those howling donkeys, they actually gave me chills! they should award those brave donkeys an honourary oscar!

s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 17:06 (twenty-two years ago)

-the beasts that the nazgul ride on

Aren't they the fell beasts?

felicity (felicity), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 17:15 (twenty-two years ago)

CLEVER HOBBITSES TO CLIMB SO HIGH!

felicity (felicity), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 17:18 (twenty-two years ago)

is that what they're called? they're scary no matter what!

actually, all the oversized beasties--the spider, the olyphants (wicked), the things the ogres were riding on, these were all incredible

s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 17:38 (twenty-two years ago)

the use of sound was great! all those beasties were downright terrifying. the entire audience shrieked when the spider showed up again.

rgeary (rgeary), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 17:46 (twenty-two years ago)

also there were rounds of applause for sam and the rohan-maiden (eowyn??)'s personal victories, and i saw it with a potentially very jaded audience.

rgeary (rgeary), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 17:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought she was great, though when she cut off the beast's head it should've been a closer shot, I think, something about that moment wasn't exciting enough

s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 17:50 (twenty-two years ago)

SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER

I loved the huge sweeping shots of the beacons being lit on the snowy mountaintops. The spider was fascinating, how she was so neat and quick about wrapping the body up and it made a cool, weird dry sound.

I didn't love the cursed ghost mountain people. I don't know what the alternative is, but all ghosts in movies look the same.

Sam and Faromir are my favorites. I hope Faromir marries Eowyn and they have like 10,000 babies. But I hope they live in Minas Tirith or wherever, not Rohan. I find Rohan drab and depressing.

felicity (felicity), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)

felicity, you're otm about the beacon scene--I remember thinking to myself "ah-ha, this is where the movie is really STARTING"--or at least where it took off

and yeah, the ghosts weren't that impressive but I really liked the long shots of them making there way up minas tirith

s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 17:58 (twenty-two years ago)

[MORE SPOILER ACTION] also I liked legolas' luke-skywalker-style (à la empire strikes back) olyphant take-down

s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 18:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Very important question: is Ghan-Buri-Ghan in it?

Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 18:06 (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.