PDA

View Full Version : Return of the King


Scabrous Birdseed
31-12-2003, 13:02:01
Wank. I give it 2/5 glows.

Lazarus and the Gimp
31-12-2003, 13:22:23
You don't get a better seal of critical approval than that.

zmama
31-12-2003, 13:38:27
I'll have to run out and see it now! :D

BigGameHunter
31-12-2003, 17:48:26
It wasn't as good as I hoped...a little lame in parts.

Debaser
31-12-2003, 18:00:59
Were the lame parts the begining, the middle, and the end?

RedFred
31-12-2003, 19:10:20
Interesting that for a 'wank' movie that there are three threads active on it already.

Venom
31-12-2003, 20:11:31
And there goes a rabid fanboy warming up the defenses.

BigGameHunter
31-12-2003, 20:43:54
I thought some of the CG was weak, the pacing was a bit choppy, and some characters (Sauramon, evil guys) were given short shrift.
Also, the undead army looked like something from Disneyland...

But I still liked it, overall...just think they should/could have made at least 5 movies to do it more justice, in hindsight.

Sean
31-12-2003, 21:02:29
Yes but the ‘normal’ battle scenes were really well done.

If it seems like I am obsessing over this, well, that’s the result of lowered expectations.

Mightytree
31-12-2003, 21:24:07
4.25/5 glows. Best of the trilogy.

We all know that everything Scabbie doesn't like has to be good. :)

BigGameHunter
31-12-2003, 23:08:56
I'm going to give it 3.5 glows and say the craftsmanship seemed to steadily erode over the trilogy.
I did enjoy the battle scenes, but none of them were long enough and I could take a handheld camera, dress up in trash bags and vinyl, swing a broomstick painted silver around whilst shaking the camera violently and achieve similar results.

Scabrous Birdseed
31-12-2003, 23:40:48
Dammit, I looked for a thread. Label your stuff you fuckers.

Positive point: Structure- Good build-up, best of the lot I think. Decent fantastic locations although the "seen it before" syndrome was starting to creep in. Nice hobbit blood.

Negative points: Pacing/Balance- Too long by far and yet it serioulsy lacked focused sections, meaning the battles etc. never got the attention they deserved. Nothing approaching the intensity of Helm's Deep in the second film (3/5 glows, if you ask), instead the battles were cluttered, random and full of deus-ex-machina supernatural elements. In general the action scenes felt like he just threw on effect after effect instead of slowing down and making you care about bits of the battlefield.

Gollum- Wavering sinner in TTT, evil schemer in ROK. Couldn't handle a mildly complex character could you Peter?

Tolkien- He's crap.

Um.

That's about it really.

Scabrous Birdseed
31-12-2003, 23:41:44
Oh yeah, and the Horror movie spider was just crap. Honestly.

Lady_of_Chicken
02-01-2004, 17:29:37
There was a moment when I literally blurted out in the movie theater: Oh, come on, already!!!

I know the scene had to be dramatic, but the excessive camera angles and delay was really trying--maybe flashbacks would have helped portray the character's inner struggle better.

Overall, it's a worthwhile movie to see on the big screen.

BigGameHunter
02-01-2004, 21:46:19
Funny how it can be so good and poorly made at the same time, eh?
Jackson has a "finishing move" problem, a la Mortal Combat...can't figure out the combination.
:)

Lady_of_Chicken
02-01-2004, 22:42:52
Having never read the books...

(Can I still post?)

The movie had enough plot and the characters were developed well enough, plus the shots and special effects AND the costumes were enough to make me not regret paying to see it at the cinema AND I even bought a drink and popcorn. Hey, hey!

That says something, since most films I will just wait for at the dollar video store. :D

BigGameHunter
02-01-2004, 22:44:56
Me too...the cinema sucks major whang these days.
:(
A single day of viewing TMC will prove that point.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
04-01-2004, 05:49:38
The bit LoC was "Oh come on"=ing about was the "drop the ring in the fire already" bit, I believe. We both agree that there should have been less "Look at Frodo from this angle, now from this one, now from this one" etc. and maybe more kinda blurry transparent overpictures of memories, or weirdo meta-flashbacks like the Galadriel scene in the spider cave. Anything to show he was having an internal struggle!

The giant spider bit could have been better, but it's difficult to tranfser the long narrative about Shelob into a movie-format, so the stock "movie monster spider" was all you could reasonably get out of it. Unless you wanted Gollum muttering about it some more.

What most irritated me was the scale of the geography. Mordor is supposed to be HUGE, not some dinky little city-sized plain. You're supposed to be able to see Mount Doom and the Barad-dur because they're huge, not close up. I was seriously looking forward to the growing despair of Frodo and Sam as they made their way around Mordor, and not their undocumented trip directly across it :rolleyes:

I was also surprised that Sam didn't put the ring on, like in the book. There was no reason for him not to, if he was trying to sneak into the tower to rescue Frodo.

Saruman not invading the Shire was forgivable, seeing at it would probably need a lot more explanation that the movie had time for. 3 hours 20 is quite long enough without sticking another hour on it :)

The CG was suffering from the slightly off physics modern movies seem to be prone to these days. Worst example: the horn-blowing guy on the giant elephant. Next worst example: Legolas jumping around on the elephant.

The Arwen storyline was annoying, but understandable since the movie doesn't come with appendicies that explain it all :)

Still, I did like it, I thought it was at least equal to the first movie, though the best bit of all three is still the "Gandalf beating the crap out of the Balrog as they plummet down into the abyss". That's just ballsy for an old dude :D

Scabrous Birdseed
04-01-2004, 11:17:25
The first movie was wank too. The second was okay.

Funkodrom
04-01-2004, 12:26:39
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
Gollum- Wavering sinner in TTT, evil schemer in ROK. Couldn't handle a mildly complex character could you Peter?

The extended Two Towers explains that change a lot better than the standard movie. (I think, don't remember the unextended version perfectly) but when Frodo 'betrays' Gollum to Farimir's men Gollum's personality surfaces again and starts controlling smeagol.

In fact, both the first two movies work a lot better with the extended footage in.

Lazarus and the Gimp
04-01-2004, 22:46:38
Saw it yesterday, and thought it was great.

I've always had reservations about Scab's opinions since I bought "The Long Ships" on his recommendation. I'm just making another attempt to read it and it's painful. I just hope it was translated by someone with no ear for English (or any other language).

maroule
05-01-2004, 08:41:19
Originally posted by Funkodrom
In fact, both the first two movies work a lot better with the extended footage in.


very much so
the story is better linked/structured

paiktis22
05-01-2004, 09:15:48
Very boring and it reminded me of dolmadakia in a can whereas fresh they are much better and taste less fake.

Jon Miller part Deux
05-01-2004, 10:57:07
I liked it

think that it, more than either of the other two, needs an extended edition though

some things would just leave people who have not read the book saying 'What? where did that come from?'

Jon Miller

Jon Miller part Deux
05-01-2004, 10:57:07
I liked it

think that it, more than either of the other two, needs an extended edition though

some things would just leave people who have not read the book saying 'What? where did that come from?'

Jon Miller

maroule
05-01-2004, 12:48:46
unfortunately, those who did read the book wondered too, at time (the green ghost tsunami cleaning minath tirith like a harpic toilet WC flush in particular)

Jon Miller part Deux
05-01-2004, 12:59:33
well, yah

they should have followed the books, and just brought in the Amroth Knights there

jon Miller

King_Ghidra
05-01-2004, 13:13:32
yeah i wanted to see the knights of dol amroth too

i really liked it, the main battle left me absolutely stunned. I was almost in shock, it really amazed me. I would say it was head and shoulders above the helms deep battle.

I have only three criticisms:

- the gollum biscuit ploy, which does not occur in the book, was very crap

- the start felt very strange, trying to keep the victorious tone of the end of TT but leaving the cinema audience disorientated

- the ending was far too long and crap. I had no interest in seeing the scouring of the shire filmed, but the dragged out six million goodbyes was even worse, especially the final scene with sam, totally pointless.

Anyway, as a whole i loved it.

BigGameHunter
05-01-2004, 16:15:23
The more I reflect on it the less I like it, especially after seeing Master and Commander this weekend...there's some great, well done film for you. Granted, pretty much a totally different genre, but you know what I mean.
I don't remember the book all that well, but I certainly don't remember the ghostly cavalry and that really bugged the shit out of me. They made that out of whole cloth, didn't they?
Real cavalry arriving to turn the tide would have been much more uplifting.
Balls...I'll watch it all again long version when that comes out as a set...it'll probably be much better that way.

Venom
05-01-2004, 16:23:00
It was uplifting when the Riders of the Mark showed up...only to be smashed by Elephants.

jsorense
05-01-2004, 16:41:57
Was anyone else reminded of 'Army of Darkness'?

Jon Miller part Deux
05-01-2004, 16:47:55
teh ghosts did fight

jsut off camera in the books

Jon Miller

Jon Miller part Deux
05-01-2004, 16:48:46
Jackson wanted to show the power of the Dead, to show the power of Aragorn I think

and so instead of showing the ealier battle, he added them into Pelenor fields

Jon Miller

maroule
05-01-2004, 17:44:41
probably
but here was a reason why Tolkien alluded to the dead fighting without describing it, and sent Imrahil and the dol amroth knights in the ship to save MT : it reeks of deus ex machina and unbalances the plot : aragorn should have sent them on mordor, they would have cleaned the place in a minute

Jon Miller part Deux
05-01-2004, 17:46:57
reasons are given in the book

they are hinted at in the movie

Jon Miller

Sean
05-01-2004, 17:52:13
Originally posted by maroule
probably
but here was a reason why Tolkien alluded to the dead fighting without describing it, and sent Imrahil and the dol amroth knights in the ship to save MT : it reeks of deus ex machina and unbalances the plot : aragorn should have sent them on mordor, they would have cleaned the place in a minute
What about using the eagles twice to effect miraculous escapes, eh? The man had no shame.

Venom
05-01-2004, 19:02:45
The reason he alluded to it and didn't describe it is because he couldn't write an interesting action piece to save his life. Great lore writer, history creator, and social describer. Terrible action writer.

BigGameHunter
05-01-2004, 21:03:01
A shiny penny to the nerd among you that is willing to string all the battle scenes together seamlesly on DVD and send it to me.


No elf titty was a bit of a letdown. A two way with the blond and Ms. Asslips would have been fucking awesome!!!

Cumber
09-01-2004, 10:45:08
Originally posted by Sean
What about using the eagles twice to effect miraculous escapes, eh? The man had no shame.

And both times because Gandalf actually knows the king of the eagles. It does make sense.


The main thing that bugged me about the movie (and about the other two), as a raving fan of the books, was the complete lobotomy given to all the characters compared to the book. Lets have Denethor refuse to call for aid from Rohan and then complain when they don't show up on time. Lets have Gandalf send Pippin up to light the beacon anyway, while Gandalf the White stands around looking up at him and hoping no-one will notice??? Not to mention the implied stupidity of Sauron by the number of times he saw Frodo and didn't do anything.

And those are just the petty single incidents that spring to mind in the couple of minutes I'm bothering to take to write this post. But the total warping of all the characters totally distorts what is actually a reasonably accurate adaption in terms of the events. And I just didn't care when things like Faramir nearly being burned happened because the films didn't make me care about any of the characters.

At least there was no Aragorn/Sauron duel. I was mortally afraid of that. :)


And just because I can't help myself... the army of the dead in the book was used to scare off the pirates that were marauding around the coastline south of Minas Tirith and preventing the provinces there from sending levies to the defense of the city, since they had to defend their own country. With the pirates disposed of, Aragorn could then lead the troops down there up to Minas Tirith. The dead probably would have been useless in the defense of Minas Tirith, since a) their main weapon was fear and orcs are probably no more afraid of the "shades of men" than elves (orcs are corrupted elves in origin, after all) b) they'd terrify all the defenders and c) the Ringwraiths are FAR scarier than they are anyway, so the humans working for Sauron probably wouldn't've run off either.
But bringing the army of the dead straight to Minas Tirith saves a good 15-20 minutes of explanation stuff, which is certainly a good thing given the length of the film. Only problem with it was that after a friend pointed it out to me, the ghosts-swarming-over-elephants scenes remind me of Pikmin.

Sean
09-01-2004, 18:40:45
Originally posted by Cumber
And both times because Gandalf actually knows the king of the eagles. It does make sense.
So even after knowing the king of the eagles for the first time, he still knew him for the second time? Incredible.

maroule
10-01-2004, 12:12:27
friend of Gandalf

http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=www.canoe.ca/MusicImagesE/eagles_061002_160.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.canoe.ca/JamConcertsE2K/eagles_061002-sun.html&h=160&w=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3Deagles%2Brock%2Bband%26svnum%3D10%26h l%3Dfr%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8

maroule
10-01-2004, 12:14:04
here

Lazarus and the Gimp
10-01-2004, 12:19:54
As a film it worked, and worked brilliantly. While fantasy-geeks may be weeping into their mead, every else was loving it.

Scabrous Birdseed
10-01-2004, 15:16:50
You must have gone with an easily entertained crowd. My sister thought it was an extended yawn too.

BigGameHunter
10-01-2004, 15:44:14
I've now seen two movies I've liked better. I really think the first two were better and that this one was poorly engineered on all levels. Yes, it was very entertaining, but it was a bit crap as well. In fact, I can't think of a movie that bears that distinction quite so well.
Go see Cold Mountain.

Sean
10-01-2004, 18:09:31
I was going to tomorrow, actually. Cheers.

BigGameHunter
11-01-2004, 02:18:09
It's fairly violent, so lots of good stuff for the guys...though my wife didn't care for that too much...but she got to see Jude Law moon over Kidman and got a peak at his ass, so that made up for all the gore, apparently.

Cumber
11-01-2004, 03:03:17
Hey, as just normal fantasy films they were more than up to the standards we normally get (which is sad, now that I think about it). They were good and entertaining and all that. But on the level where I've been waiting for a movie adaptation of the Lord of the Rings for years, they were very very poor. I don't mind the things they cut to save time, I don't mind the things they simplified to save time, I don't mind any of that... what bugs me is the things they changed, that had to be deliberate changes that at some point along the way someone thought was better this way than in the original story. The Lord of the Rings book is well known for a reason. It's not for everyone, but neither were these movies.

Lazarus and the Gimp
11-01-2004, 08:01:19
What? You mean the Dwarf-tossing references weren't Tolkien's work?

Funkodrom
11-01-2004, 11:25:35
Tolkein meant it in a more sexual way.

Scabrous Birdseed
11-01-2004, 13:20:42
Originally posted by Cumber
The Lord of the Rings book is well known for a reason.

It's cause the secretly conservative hippie crowd of the sixties got a slab of backwards, simplistic morality wrapped up in a package that can only be appreciated on drugs.

Or possibly the 68 generation's attempt to break with modernist writing by descending into stilted, formalistic right-wing moronity.

Lazarus and the Gimp
11-01-2004, 16:45:58
Right-wing? I sense another heroically skewed theory comin up...

King_Ghidra
12-01-2004, 09:23:16
no, just a swedish troll

jsorense
12-01-2004, 19:14:49
IMHO the RotK was fine. I didn't mind too much that Jackson took some liberties with the story lines. However, this segment was not edited as well as the first two, especially when compared to the extended versions. I am sure that when RotK is re-edited it will be better.
I thought that the introduction about Gollum was, at best, too long. I think it could be deleted without anyone noticing.
The music score; almost awful.
The battle scenes; awesome.
Gandalf; did he ever use any wizzery powers at all?
Was anyone else confused with Gandalf's beard?
Speaking of beards, I was mildly shocked to see that Aragorn finally let his fill out at the end. It made him look well fed. But they say that about most men after the get married.
:beer: :) :heart:

Funkodrom
12-01-2004, 19:54:56
He scared the wraiths off.

Sean
12-01-2004, 19:58:17
At least Gandalf’s hat didn’t change colour.

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm

BigGameHunter
13-01-2004, 07:43:19
I'm surprised you saw that scene, Funky--weren't you off "tossing the dwarf" then?

fp@korea
13-01-2004, 07:53:02
'twas a good movie.

Almost all the stuff I dislike about these movies is stuff I also dislike about the books, so I can just blame Tolkien for everything. Those eagles showed up to provide the characters with another miracle escape from certain death in The Hobbit too. :lol:

Darkstar
13-01-2004, 10:08:58
And for the same reason, wasn't it? Gandalf *knowing* the King of Eagles?

maroule
13-01-2004, 10:50:00
This is EagleExpress, you called for an eagle, hold on please, humm, right, Mount Doom? no problem, it's on his way, have a good day sir

Sean
13-01-2004, 18:06:29
Originally posted by Darkstar
And for the same reason, wasn't it? Gandalf *knowing* the King of Eagles?
In the Biblical sense?

Cumber
13-01-2004, 19:57:32
Originally posted by jsorense
Gandalf; did he ever use any wizzery powers at all?


Gandalf's powers are mostly more subtle than throwing fireballs around and blasting things, despite modern fantasy's expectation of wizards. And he (along with the other 4 wizards) was forbidden to match power for power against Sauron. He had to get the free people of Middle Earth to do most of the work themselves.
But yes, he scared off the Nazgul. :p


The music score; almost awful.


Forgot to mention that. Another problem I had with all three. It is possible to get emotion and/or atmosphere from a scene without one of 5-6 pieces of music constantly telling us what to feel... and for me usually smothering whatever was there originally. You should not notice a good musical score is there, if not always then certainly when there are interesting things happening on screen for you to focus on.

Cumber
13-01-2004, 20:02:29
Yes I enjoy ranting about this stuff almost as much as I enjoyed watching the movie. :D

QtFLW@Work
13-01-2004, 21:28:47
Originally posted by Cumber
Yes I enjoy ranting about this stuff almost as much as I enjoyed watching the movie. :D

...and previously...

...I've been waiting for a movie adaptation of the Lord of the Rings for years, they were very very poor.

So not much at all, then?

I love taking things out of context :D

Scabrous Birdseed
14-01-2004, 12:19:49
Originally posted by Cumber
You should not notice a good musical score is there, if not always then certainly when there are interesting things happening on screen for you to focus on.

Bollocks. Film is an AUDIOvisual medium, and the score is extremely important and very much should be noticed when the narrative so demands. What Lord of the Rings (and the majority of other contemporary original scores) do wrong is to smother everything in incredibly grating sentimental slush turned up to 11 whether it's meaningful or not, so you end up hating the bloody thing for interfering with the movie instead of helping it along.

Some of my favourite scores are ones where there is no music for most of the film, so that when it comes along you really pay attention to it because you know it's important. Nearly everything Lalo Schifrin did up to the late 70s worked that way.

BigGameHunter
14-01-2004, 16:25:21
You know, I'm getting a bit tired of you just making shit up all the time. "Lalo Schifrin" indeed.

King_Ghidra
14-01-2004, 16:37:17
:D

Still i do agree with scabby to a certain extent. I found that the bit after gandalf died in FOTR with the music and the mountains and them all looking grief stricken in slow motion really killed the actual emotion for me.

BigGameHunter
14-01-2004, 21:15:47
This movie will suffer with time (the original cuts anyways) as our panel of superhumanly intelligent posters is proving here.

Darkstar
14-01-2004, 21:37:43
Super... what?

Sean
14-01-2004, 21:44:41
Ceded.

Scabrous Birdseed
14-01-2004, 21:46:24
Superstructure. And Base. We're all closet marxist theorists here.

Cumber
15-01-2004, 02:15:55
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
Bollocks. Film is an AUDIOvisual medium, and the score is extremely important and very much should be noticed when the narrative so demands.

Never said it wasn't incredibly important, just that you shouldn't be consciously aware of it. But that's not the only way to do music well, you're right.

What Lord of the Rings (and the majority of other contemporary original scores) do wrong is to smother everything in incredibly grating sentimental slush turned up to 11 whether it's meaningful or not, so you end up hating the bloody thing for interfering with the movie instead of helping it along.

My complaint exactly (why did it take me 7 tries to find the t in exactly?).

And :p at Qaj.

protein
18-01-2004, 11:47:02
I saw the film yesterday and enjoyed it. Since the books are enormous I haven't bothered to read them, so I can't comment on whether the film was faithful or whatever.

actually that's not entirely true, I tried to read the Hobbit about 7 times but I never get past the first boring chapter

I saw the film from a purely film entertainment point of view and I really enjoyed it. Every single frame of the film was beautiful.

The end seemed to drag on for ages and ages. I guess all the parts after the crowning of the king were in the book but I think they made the end of the film a bit gruelling.

Oh and the spider could have been skinnier and more scary.

Debaser
18-01-2004, 11:57:00
I've also tried to read the Hobbit about 1000 times, but never made it past the first chapter.

BigGameHunter
18-01-2004, 12:06:19
That's too bad...in Chapter 2 all the good sex and violence starts.

Debaser
18-01-2004, 12:07:27
Are there pictures of Liv Tyler?

BigGameHunter
18-01-2004, 12:09:47
Yes...thousands...in my mind.