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 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)

I don't know that guy

s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 18:07 (twenty-two years ago)

(spoiler schmoiler blabla)

Where did those eagles come from again? They felt so deus ex machina-ish

Awesome movie though. Minas Tirith = !!!!! And teh funny worked way better than in part 2 (the dwarf's comment on Legolas' AT-AT action was perfectly timed)

Wintermuté (Wintermute), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 18:19 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, that was a pretty good joke! I have no idea about those eagles though.

s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 18:23 (twenty-two years ago)

I liked legolas' luke-skywalker-style (à la empire strikes back) olyphant take-down

Ha! My friend Misty thought the same thing (and approved). Pretty spectacular.

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

No. Maybe extended DVD will have it, who knows.

I have no idea about those eagles though.

It's in the original text, blame Tolkien if you must. (The moth reappearing was a movie invention and I *KNEW* it would show up again -- loved it).

Beacons -- pretty damned awesome. They're in the book but the version here was the way to go.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 18:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I am now getting rather excited abt seeing it.

Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 18:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I liked the moth a lot, though I hadn't really remembered it. I sort of remember the eagles from the book, though a line or two of explanation or set-up would've been welcome, I think.

s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

It's all a bit vague in the book too, though -- they show up in the nick of time. Arguably a weak spot but he had already established the Eagles' knack for that in The Hobbit so I'm not too flustered.

The one moment I looked at completely askance -- the exact death of Denethor. He does indeed immolate himself and all but in the book he simply lays down on the pyre -- the movie variation was just a little too much.

The reworking of Sam/Frodo/Gollum in the Minas Morgul/Shelob's Lair sequence was intriguing but I'll have to wait until I see it again tonight to judge better. The telescoping of the Cirith Ungol to Mount Doom sequences was abrupt but understandable. The expanded role of the Dead rooled and the actual breaking into Minas Tirith nicely ratcheted up the tension.

Anyway, back to work.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 18:41 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, denethor's death was pretty over the top, but at the same time it was an excuse for a great, if totally ridiculous, shot

s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 19:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I want to know what lauren thinks of it all!

anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 19:28 (twenty-two years ago)

i can't see it til friday (and that's no guarantee...)

thanks for those with the spoiler warnings... perhaps a mod can add a spoiler title to the message title?

:*(

gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 20:08 (twenty-two years ago)

But you see, Nick, I disagree with Jackson's choice to straightforwardly recreate the books. It smacks of
fanboyism ("we must not deviate from the spirit of the holy
writ, my brothers"). He cut out so many characters and plot
points anyway, not to mention changing the feel of the story.
why not just go for the gusto?
Why be limited by Tolkein's vision?

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 22:11 (twenty-two years ago)

You're not making much sense there. Is he straightforwardly recreating the books, or is he cutting out characters and changing the feel of the story?

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 22:14 (twenty-two years ago)

He tried to do both, and the films suffer from it.
He should have gone all the way and changed everything.
It's not that hard to improve on Tolkien, they've been
doing it for forty years. _Sword Of Shannara_, by Terry
Brooks, was kind of a Tolkien ripoff but much better
written, IMO.

And for my money, "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote"
would likely have been
as brilliant as the rest of them, had it lived.
I mentioned Gilliam because his fantasies (_Baron Von
Mucnchausen_, _The Fisher King_) have been stellar, and
Scorsese because _Gangs Of New York_ had a dreamlike,
mythical visuals that would have suited Middle Earth quite
nicely.

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)

. _Sword Of Shannara_, by Terry
Brooks, was kind of a Tolkien ripoff but much better
written, IMO.

Er, I fear we have nothing further to talk about here if this is the example given. (The argument that one can take Tolkien's example in order to myth-create in different styles and approaches, however, is perfectly fine in and of itself, though the sense that a later/different approach will automatically be superior as a result seems forced.)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 22:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't make an argument that Tolkien homages are "automatically"
better. Of course there have been plenty of bad Tolkien imitations.
IMO Tolkien was a great worldbuilder but a limited author.
And there have been many epic fantasy novels written in the
past few decades that put Tolkien's work to shame.

Sometimes I think the only reason Tolkien is considered the best
is that he's usually the first (or only) fantasy author that
people read. Of course, there's nothing wrong with holding this
opinion (Tolkien's the best) but I strongly disagree.

I only mentioned _SOS_ because it was the first book to come out
of Tolkien's tradition, not because I consider it the best.
Still, it was addictive and hard to put down, qualities that are
of utmost importance in fiction. In contrast, I found Tolkien's
books to be long, long slogs indeed.

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 22:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Guy Gavriel Kay, Tad Williams, Robin Hobb, George Martin,


Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 22:53 (twenty-two years ago)

You can strongly disagree with me all you want. That's the point. ;-)

If you're talking about Williams's fantasy trilogy, I found that to be astoundingly dull, much more so than Tolkien has ever been to me -- it was overarching but overstuffed, a couple of great characters aside. Kay in contrast I'm deeply fond of but the Fionavar books were a formal exercise in comparison to the alternate histories since, all of which have shown a much greater sense of range. Kay's ability to foreground moral ambivalence is indeed wonderful but I think this obscures Tolkien's own abilities in this field, something which I'm sensing you are dismissing all too readily.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 23:06 (twenty-two years ago)

SP, you would have been MUCH better off mentioning ANY of the people you subsequently mentioned before Terry "I have two stories and 8000 books" Brooks.

(xpost Ned, Robin Hobb is really, really great and George Martin is even better. You should give them both a look.)

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 23:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Brooks is not well respected, but I enjoyed what I've read
(only the first few novels).

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 23:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I enjoyed the first few books of his I read, too. It was when I got to book #4 and went "WAIT A SECOND HE ALREADY WROTE THIS STORY" that I became suspicious.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 23:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Robin Hobb is really, really great and George Martin is even better. You should give them both a look.

I actually have the Martin series building up 'on hold' for a read when it's done. Hobb I've not heard of, though, thanks!

Wot Dan said about Brooks, many times over.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 23:41 (twenty-two years ago)

scorsese?!?!?! because of GANGS OF NEW YORK!?!!?!?!

s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 18 December 2003 05:31 (twenty-two years ago)

SPOILER sPoIlEr!!

SPOILER sPoIlEr!!

SPOILER sPoIlEr!!

SPOILER sPoIlEr!!

SPOILER sPoIlEr!!

My favorite part was by far the bit where Denethor was eating, having Pippen sing to him, while the gondor soldiers rode back out. It was kind of heavy heanded, but he syned the sounds & visuals so well that it came out very nicely.

But what was up with the dragging on of the endings? I know it's all in the book, but it felt like it was really dragging along. Although it was neat to the ring that Gandalf had on his hand as they left on the boat. It was kind of cool that they included that, even without calling it out by saying anything about it.


lyra (lyra), Thursday, 18 December 2003 05:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought the beginning dragged on more!

s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 18 December 2003 06:00 (twenty-two years ago)

You mean the Smeagol origin sequence or after that? (I presume the latter! The origin sequence is extremely well done, I think.)

Lyra very much OTM with the Denethor/Pippin sequence juxtaposed with Faramir's charge. And I was thinking of Gandalf's ring tonight, noticed it too!

Just got back from my second showing. Shelob's second attack really is fucking unsettling.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 18 December 2003 07:39 (twenty-two years ago)

haha, the three elf rings are GLARINGLY obvious in all three films to me for some reason. is aragorn's ring supposed to be significant in any way or is it just cool looking ranger gear?

the slate review correctly identifies the beacon sequence as the moment where the film really takes off.

i thought legolas' little escapade was an explicit star wars reference!

rgeary (rgeary), Thursday, 18 December 2003 07:47 (twenty-two years ago)

is aragorn's ring supposed to be significant in any way or is it just cool looking ranger gear?

In the extended Two Towers it is talked about a bit more -- Saruman identifies it as the Ring of Barahir, indicating his descent from Isildur. That is indeed part of the backstory in Tolkien's work -- to try and keep it quick (ha) Barahir was a Man in the First Age who assisted the Elves in their struggle against Morgoth; the ring was given to him by an Elf lord who he had specifically rescued in battle. Through Barahir's son Beren and then through the line of kings and lords of Numenor the ring became a symbol of descent and kingship.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 18 December 2003 07:52 (twenty-two years ago)

raggett comin' through with the tolkien ephemera

rgeary (rgeary), Thursday, 18 December 2003 07:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't get me started. At least not right this second, I need sleep!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 18 December 2003 07:55 (twenty-two years ago)

i was kind of bummed that we didn't get to see aragorn taunting sauron through the seeing-stone! i wanted to see a psychic rumble.

rgeary (rgeary), Thursday, 18 December 2003 07:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I loved the scene where they passed the sickly green city (Minas Morgul?) It had a wonderfully hellish glow to it.

Simon Daly, Thursday, 18 December 2003 09:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I disagree rather strongly with SP's suggestion that this is pedestrian, slavish direction. In Return of The King the part of Jackson's past that really shows is his skills as a horror director. As Ned mentions, Shelob's second attack is masterfully done, possibly the best giant spider sequence I have ever seen, taking that which is truly frightning about spiders and magnifying it. There are plenty of other horror tropes being used here as well (though his ghosties were very reminiscent of The Frightners).

There were pacing issues and the lengthy endings (whilst cock on for the book) dragged a touch. Also odd that Arwen didn't want to see her Dad off on the boat. There also seemed something a bit off with Gollum at the end, I always remember him being a bit satisfied with his own death / destruction of the ring which did not quite come across (the perilous escape from the cracks seems a little bit overblown too).

All in all though thoroughly satisfying.

Pete (Pete), Thursday, 18 December 2003 10:36 (twenty-two years ago)

I loved the huge sweeping shots of the beacons being lit on the snowy mountaintops.

I remember this being such a powerful moment in the book. I haven't seen the clip yet and was hoping this was going to be included in the final film. Yes, NOW I really want to watch it!!!

Ste (Fuzzy), Thursday, 18 December 2003 10:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm so glad that Shelob is scary. I haven't seen the film yet, only Making Of programmes on the telly and watching some crew person manipulating three hairy legs made it look like it was going to be really shite. My heart sank. And now my heart is back up again!

Can't wait to see it.

Madchen (Madchen), Thursday, 18 December 2003 11:31 (twenty-two years ago)

the perilous escape from the cracks seems a little bit overblown too I chuckled quite loudly at that, but it was FUN.

Lego-lass on the oilyfunt was the best

Jaunty Alan (Alan), Thursday, 18 December 2003 11:37 (twenty-two years ago)

the Legolas/Olyphant scene was the GOOD Star Wars ref.

the Theodyn/Gandalf "what does your heart tell you?" line was the BAD Star Wars ref


has no-one mentioned how fucking great the 360 degress pans were?

fear not Madchen, the Shelob bits are absolutely stunning

stevem (blueski), Thursday, 18 December 2003 11:50 (twenty-two years ago)

pretty mad how it felt like it was gonna end, but then there was another bit, then it felt like it was gonna end, then there was ANOTHER scene etc.

the ghosts reminded me a lot of POTC more than anything else - i thought they were fine

biggest irk = no Saruman

when Aragorn and everyone kneel down before the hobbits for a split second i 'wished' it would cut to the fanfare end theme and the 'Directed by George Lucas' caption on starfield, haha

also very annoyed that we got trailers for the new Farrelly Brothers film (OH DEAR GOD IT LOOKS SO FUCKING TERRIBLE I WANT TO PUNCH THOSE STUPID PEOPLE) and the new Mask film (it's a baby.....a BABY.....) but not Spiderman 2 or that one with JUde Law and Nicole Kidman which might be good

stevem (blueski), Thursday, 18 December 2003 11:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Dancing baby the movie. Ack ack.
Stuck On You looks like it will be a return to form for the Farrellys.

Pete (Pete), Thursday, 18 December 2003 11:59 (twenty-two years ago)

We got the Spiderman 2 trailer here. Ha ha. We also got something starring Jude Law, G. Paltrow and Ms. Jolie called Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow which stylistically looks like a WWII era alien invasion flick, sorta. The next Pitch Black film, Chronicles of Riddick (should I see the first one?), couple of other things.

has no-one mentioned how fucking great the 360 degress pans were?

Damn straight. Aimed for the epic and nailed it.

More coherent thoughts later tonight, though I'll probably chime in more throughout the day.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 18 December 2003 15:38 (twenty-two years ago)

the thing about the beautiful beacons sequence tho...who on middle earth is gonna haul their ass up those snow capped peaks to light the fire? some of the locations for the beacons were completely ludicrous. as a result of this i found it hard to believe i was watching a documentary.

stevem (blueski), Thursday, 18 December 2003 15:59 (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.