-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
The Return Of The King **Spoilers**
- Thread starter Darren
- Start date
M
member 737
Guest
I eventually saw The LOTR two days ago and I must admit that I'm in two minds about this film. A huge part of it was great, engrossing and visually perfect, but I was deeply disappointed by the ending. It was so boring and senseless at times, that I strongly wished it would have finished sooner.
What I didn't like:
1. Frodo makes Sam to leave him.
2. A mysterious disappearance of the horses in front of the Black Gate. Besides, where do the warriors run, if they are surrounded by the enemies?
3. Arwen - a risk of her death in particular.
4. Elrond coming with Anduril. (though at first seeing him was a kind of relief, because for a moment I thought the stranger in black was Arwen.)
5. What happens to Elrond after he gives the sword to Aragorn?
6. No change in Aragorn after he became a king. (except the haircut).
7. What and WHY does Aragorn sing during his coronation?
8. No Eowyn and Faramir's romance.
9. Merry recovers surprisingly quickly after having been wounded by the Witchking.
10. People of Gondor are a thoughtless mass.
11. How Denethor can know all these things about which he speaks to Gandalf?
12. Gandalf "helps" Denethor to get into the flames.
13. Nobody takes any notice of Theoden and Denethor's death.
14. We don't know what happens to all characters, with the exception of Frodo, Sam, Gandalf and Aragorn.
15. No word about Wormtongue.
What I liked:
1. Battle scenes.
2. Special effects.
3. Fast action.
4. Actors (except Bloom)
5. Appearance of Minas Tirith, Nazguls, Witchking, the spider.
6. Fluent coming from huge mass scenes to three-actors scenes.
7. Transformation of Gollum at the beginning.
8. Relationship between Denethor and Faramir.
9. Pippin has more to do.
10. Fires calling for help. (though it could be shorter)
Feel free to refer to any of the points.
What I didn't like:
1. Frodo makes Sam to leave him.
2. A mysterious disappearance of the horses in front of the Black Gate. Besides, where do the warriors run, if they are surrounded by the enemies?
3. Arwen - a risk of her death in particular.
4. Elrond coming with Anduril. (though at first seeing him was a kind of relief, because for a moment I thought the stranger in black was Arwen.)
5. What happens to Elrond after he gives the sword to Aragorn?
6. No change in Aragorn after he became a king. (except the haircut).
7. What and WHY does Aragorn sing during his coronation?
8. No Eowyn and Faramir's romance.
9. Merry recovers surprisingly quickly after having been wounded by the Witchking.
10. People of Gondor are a thoughtless mass.
11. How Denethor can know all these things about which he speaks to Gandalf?
12. Gandalf "helps" Denethor to get into the flames.
13. Nobody takes any notice of Theoden and Denethor's death.
14. We don't know what happens to all characters, with the exception of Frodo, Sam, Gandalf and Aragorn.
15. No word about Wormtongue.
What I liked:
1. Battle scenes.
2. Special effects.
3. Fast action.
4. Actors (except Bloom)
5. Appearance of Minas Tirith, Nazguls, Witchking, the spider.
6. Fluent coming from huge mass scenes to three-actors scenes.
7. Transformation of Gollum at the beginning.
8. Relationship between Denethor and Faramir.
9. Pippin has more to do.
10. Fires calling for help. (though it could be shorter)
Feel free to refer to any of the points.
Ending- I also would like more about other characters, but I was grateful for so much about Sam- my favourite...especially because my other favourite, Eowyn, was greatly cut off...
I hated so much of Arwen- what for? What is more, they added her scenes, but not personality... (although I agree with Idun about the relief in point 4)
The scene, whene Legolas jumps on the oliphant was just ludicrous.
I also agree with point 8- but no- they STOOD next to each other...I've almost forgotten.
I won't tell anything about the lack of Saruman...
And I think there is some problem with time. Gandalf tells Pipin, that they're going to travel for three days. But when they already are in Gondor, Faramir tells them he saw Frodo two days before. It would mean that they set off their journey one day before meeting of Faramir, Frodo and Sam, but it was in the previous film.
Generally, I think that this film is rather good...
I hated so much of Arwen- what for? What is more, they added her scenes, but not personality... (although I agree with Idun about the relief in point 4)
The scene, whene Legolas jumps on the oliphant was just ludicrous.
I also agree with point 8- but no- they STOOD next to each other...I've almost forgotten.
I won't tell anything about the lack of Saruman...
And I think there is some problem with time. Gandalf tells Pipin, that they're going to travel for three days. But when they already are in Gondor, Faramir tells them he saw Frodo two days before. It would mean that they set off their journey one day before meeting of Faramir, Frodo and Sam, but it was in the previous film.
Generally, I think that this film is rather good...
Halo
New Member
Apparently, Peter Jackson's next film is to be a remake of King Kong, something which doesn't appeal to me in the slightest! I saw Ian McKellen on the Jonathan Ross show, and he said that if The Hobbit was made he would definitely expect to be asked to play Gandalf again, and would be furious if he wasn't! I wish Peter Jackson WOULD make The Hobbit soon, but maybe the poor guy needs a bit of a break from Middle Earth. 
Martin
Active Member
I loved the Legolas/Oliphaunt - scene! I thought it was amazing, and a welcome distraction after so much carnage.
I somewhat agree with all the point Halo made, though you have to remember that the film was 3,5 hours as it is. Adding things would just make it longer and longer. Jackson had to cut some things, right? Just you wait for the DVD come next Christmas, and many of your complaints will be resolved (not the choice of actors/actrices of course, but hey, there's no accounting for taste, right?!).
Cheers, Martin
I somewhat agree with all the point Halo made, though you have to remember that the film was 3,5 hours as it is. Adding things would just make it longer and longer. Jackson had to cut some things, right? Just you wait for the DVD come next Christmas, and many of your complaints will be resolved (not the choice of actors/actrices of course, but hey, there's no accounting for taste, right?!).
Cheers, Martin
And Arwen doesn't add anything to the story...well, except that Aragorn has another stimulus to fight. As if he wouldn't do it without the threat of death to his beloved...
And to Sam and Frodo (Idun's point one)-I could understand Frodo's making Sam leave him-after all, he was in the Ring's power- but I'm not able to forgive that Sam really intended to adandon Frodo for a while- at first, I was sure that he would be following Frodo and Golum.
And to Sam and Frodo (Idun's point one)-I could understand Frodo's making Sam leave him-after all, he was in the Ring's power- but I'm not able to forgive that Sam really intended to adandon Frodo for a while- at first, I was sure that he would be following Frodo and Golum.
Martin
Active Member
If they would've dropped the Aragorn/Arwen-thingie altogether, then the first film would be completely devoid of anything even resembling love. Replacing it with the Eowyn/Faramir-thingie wouldn't change that, because they made their respective entrances in 'The Two Towers'.
And: I really think that the Eowyn/Faramir-thingie will get more attention on the extended DVD.
Cheers, Martin
And: I really think that the Eowyn/Faramir-thingie will get more attention on the extended DVD.
Cheers, Martin
M
member 737
Guest
To my mind, a film should be completed in cinema version, because this is the version which is assessed by critics and viewers. As for the present, I don't see any chance that I could see the DVD, so I just don't care if they will add anything, or not. I will definitely not see this.
Martin
Active Member
Well, that's your opinion. In my opinion, it is a wise choice to cut the film somewhat for its cinematic release, simply because the extended version is going to be well over 4 hours, which could (and would) scare movie-goers away from the theatres. They have only cut irrelevant (for lack of a better word) parts from the film, which only the fans who've read the books will notice. The general public won't notice a thing about these ommisions.
They've made the cinematic release for the general public (which, of course, generates the most income), and Peter Jackson wanted to do something for the die-hard Tolkien-fans, so he decided to use the medium of DVD to give them (us) what they (we) want. Mind you, he didn't have to do that.
Cheers, Martin
They've made the cinematic release for the general public (which, of course, generates the most income), and Peter Jackson wanted to do something for the die-hard Tolkien-fans, so he decided to use the medium of DVD to give them (us) what they (we) want. Mind you, he didn't have to do that.
Cheers, Martin
Halo
New Member
I don't know how true this is, but I just read in the paper today that Peter Jackson is intending to release ROTK on DVD at over five hours!!! Personally, I would be dying to see it at that length. I got the extended DVDs of the first and second films for Xmas, and having now seen them, I can say that The Two Towers especially is much improved by the reinstated scenes (not that it was anywhere near rubbish to begin with). This is especially true with the scenes which show much more about Denethor's relationship with his sons Boromir and Faramir; there is much more depth. Quite frankly, I love these films so much that if they were nine hours each, I could still happily sit and watch them!
M
member 737
Guest
I am a Tolkien fan. But I won't get what I want.
Martin
Active Member
It's impossible to get what you want, simply because it's impossible to fully translate a book, any book, to film, especially one as epic as this one.
Come on, you'll have to admit that Peter Jackson gave a decent effort?!
Oh, and Halo, I utterly agree with you!
Cheers, Martin
Come on, you'll have to admit that Peter Jackson gave a decent effort?!
Oh, and Halo, I utterly agree with you!
Cheers, Martin
Especially considering that some parts of all three movies that were the most dramatic were not even mentioned in the books.
I think that the movies were awesome and represented the books nicely. The books concentrated more on some things, while the movies spent more time on battle scenes, which added to the films' popularity.
I think that the movies were awesome and represented the books nicely. The books concentrated more on some things, while the movies spent more time on battle scenes, which added to the films' popularity.
M
member 737
Guest
Legolas stays in Middle Earth until Aragorn's death; then he builds a ship and goes across the sea; Gimli goes with him.
This could be mentioned in the film. The best reason is that some people (like Nemo) would like to know that.
Even though, I agree that Jacson did a good job. Nonetheless, it could have been done better.
Unsatisfied Idun
This could be mentioned in the film. The best reason is that some people (like Nemo) would like to know that.
Even though, I agree that Jacson did a good job. Nonetheless, it could have been done better.
Unsatisfied Idun
Martin
Active Member
Yes, some people would like to know where Legolas and Gimli ended up. Also, there are bound to be people around wondering how tall Treebeard is, how old Gandalf is, how much Sam weighs, but you can't put everything anyone might wonder about into the film. This is the basic idea of the book, and they put that into the film. If you want the complete story, read the book!
Stop being so grumpy! You're depressing me
Cheers, Martin
Stop being so grumpy! You're depressing me
Cheers, Martin
M
member 737
Guest
You know, there is a small difference in relevance of information about Legolas and Gimli's farther fate and height of Treebeard. Without the first, you feel a sense of emptiness - I mean that you know that something in the story is missing.
As for the complete story, Tolkien wrote once that a major complaint from his fans was that the book is too short. Apparently, those readers must have thought something could have been added to the story, let alone to the film.
Besides, I'm not being grumpy, I'm a perfectionist.
If you're not so depressed as to give up reading this thread, could you write what did you like most about the film? Which changes do you think improved it in comparison with the book?
As for the complete story, Tolkien wrote once that a major complaint from his fans was that the book is too short. Apparently, those readers must have thought something could have been added to the story, let alone to the film.
Besides, I'm not being grumpy, I'm a perfectionist.
If you're not so depressed as to give up reading this thread, could you write what did you like most about the film? Which changes do you think improved it in comparison with the book?
Martin
Active Member
I'm not saying the film improves on the books, because it doesn't, and no film will ever will, it's as simple as that.
That said, I do think that the films approach the books in their quality, in the telling of the story and the developing of the characters, but, of course, on a smaller scale, with less detail. I think this is as good as it's gonna get (in a mainstream, normal-length film). Period. No one's gonna top this. Not any time soon, anyway.
Cheers, Martin
That said, I do think that the films approach the books in their quality, in the telling of the story and the developing of the characters, but, of course, on a smaller scale, with less detail. I think this is as good as it's gonna get (in a mainstream, normal-length film). Period. No one's gonna top this. Not any time soon, anyway.
Cheers, Martin
M
member 737
Guest
I do not claim that for you the film is better than the book, even though you describe it as "awesome". I mean that if a film is so great, it may at parts be, in fact, slightly better than a book, on which it's based. In LoTR particular case, I would vote for the fact that battle scenes are better presented. To my mind, in the book they are not as spectacular and interesting, as in the film.