The special effects were brilliant and the acting etc.
I just had a slight feeling of disjointedness with no satisfactory explanation about Saruman and Wormtongue and that other things should have been cut instead if length was the problem.
We know this will be dealt with in the extended DVD though.
But I saw the Oscars not really being just for the one film but for the whole caboodle - the academy were aware it was going to be a trilogy rather than sequels. They probably thought it was best to wait for the whole epic story to have been seen.
I hear that Peter Jackson's next venture is going to be yet another remake of King Kong.
What is he going to use for the finale? That tower in Auckland? :D-->
I think Peter Jackson's biggest mistake that people will hate him forever over, is not filming the scouring of the Shire. I can understand leaving it out of the theatrical release, but not even having it in an extended edition DVD makes no sense whatsoever. They didn't need to include the whole thing, but something should have been done. (Using vagueness to avoid spoilers for those that haven't read the book.) They could have simply had the bad guys destroying stuff on a rampage, and then had the four hobbits return and take care of business with them, without the military aspect but uniting their neighboring hobbits. Then, show them rebuilding, and five to ten minutes later, the whole thing is over and they go back to the scene of sailing to the west.
No doubt some people will hate PJ for missing out the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, The Barrow Downs, Buckland, also. Plus all the sagas and stories referred to in LOTR.
I wait to see what he does about Saruman and Wormtongue in the extended DVD. Certainly seeing them merely left locked and unpunished in Orthanc was not satisfactory.
A resolution at Isengard was filmed, but it was considered too long for the end of The Two Towers, and not relevant enough for the beginning of Return of the King. Expect the beginning of the movie to be a bit longer in the extended addition (sic).
No doubt some people will hate PJ for missing out the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, The Barrow Downs, Buckland, also. Plus all the sagas and stories referred to in LOTR.
I think they cut out most of the stuff that wasn't directly related to the FOTR vs. Sauron storyline. However, I do think that the scouring of the shire fits in with that somewhat, as it's tying up loose ends.
Personally, I think that the best way to have made this would have been something along the lines of what Spielburg did with "Taken." Unfortunately I think the budget for a series of that size would have rivaled the budget of most countries, nevermind movies.
I missed Tom Bombadil as well - but he was easily removed. I think he only shows up one more time after his "chapter" is done with - or is it just that Galadriel and Gandalf talk about him? I don't remember.
I am thrilled the film won everything, although I agree with Trefor - the awards were really for all three films - or one nine and a half hour film if that's the way you want to look at it!
I agree that Jackson should have at least filmed the "Scouring" chapter - but I read in some magazine before the ROTK came out that he didn't film it because he didn't think it fit in the books either. I think it did - if for nothing else to show what happened to Saurman & Wormtongue.
But, all in all - I think that the script writers did an amazing job in compressing the trilogy into three films. They stayed as true to the books as possible without leaving out most of the story line.
Hope R. color>size>face>
Does anyone know if "The Hobbit" will be made now that LOTR was so successful? Heck - The Shire set is probably still in tact in NZ - it wouldn't be too hard to go back and shoot there again!
The Hobbiton set is, I believe, still extant. They demolished the Edoras set but I am not sure what they did with the Rivendell set that they constructed.
If I am right, they only need three LOTR characters - Bilbo, Gandalf and Elrond and for continuity the same actors should be preferred.
But he wants to make King Kong first so we must posess our souls in patience.
That's true--Ian Holm is shown as young Bilbo finding the Ring in the opening moments of the first film. A little botox, close-ups used sparingly...yes, it could be done!
I, for one, would love to see what the folks at WETA Digital could do with Smaug battling the Lake-Men.
Who would play the dwarves, though? And Thranduil? Beorn? Remember, too, that the wood-elves are semi-bad guys in The Hobbit... :(-->
One has to accept that minor characters in books do not appear in the subsequent film.
But as you say, the scouring of the Shire was an important element in the book - it was Saruman's attempt at revenge for being thwarted and it clearly shows his eventual fate. The Sackville-Bagginses were only briefly referred to in FOTR and there is no subsequent reference to them at all, despite the fact that Lotho is used by Saruman in the book.
One could almost see this happening when Frodo in the film leaves at short notice without selling Bag End to the SBs which would have given them the social position that could then have been exploited by Saruman.
I expect that PJ will give his reasons for the changes and omissions in the extended DVD appendices.
I think they will have to be pretty darn good to satisfy those of us who are Tolkien purists! :D-->
Actually, I agree with leaving out the Scouring of the Shire. Tolkien could do it in the book because it ran short at that point anyway. Consider where it would have happened in the movie, though. We've just had the payoff of a nine-hour-plus film, the Ring is destroyed, the King is restored, the Hobbits are honored--ROLL CREDITS. (The multi-endings after that were a bad idea. IMHO, they should have wrapped all the endings up in a Galadriel-narrated montage like the first movie opened.)
If you insert the Scouring of the Shire, though, it's a colossal downer after a huge emotional high. Remember that the Shire was pretty much ruined when they got back to it. Telling that in a book is easy. In a movie, however, all you would do is show that all the .... these four little guys went through (and, vicariously, the VIEWER,) over the past 9+ hours was for nothing. They didn't save their own homes! In the book, it's easy to show the four hobbits vanquishing the last foe and becoming great community leaders, rebuilding the Shire. In a movie, viewers are feeling the effects of the Bucket-O-Coke by that time, and don't want a smaller blip in the story when the big one just finished!
All the Scouring really turns out to be in the book is a minor annoyance. In movies, all minor annoyances wind up on the cutting room floor. Most books on moviemaking and a lot of director's commentaries hit this fact over and over. The most common theme in the comments on the Deleted Scenes on a DVD is "we had to cut this scene for time, though everyone really liked it, it just didn't move the story along". Jackson made the right call, in this case. Although, one of the Saruman death scenes would have tied up that subplot better. I expect to see that on the EE DVD.
However, the fate of Saruman is still a loose end that I feel should have been addressed in the cinematic version.
He is not a minor character in the story, he has played a large part in the action of the first two films and then all of a sudden he becomes a non-person!
It is almost ironic that Boromir, who dies at the end of FOTR and who Tolkien kills off right at the beginning of the second book, still manages to appear, through flashback, in all three, whilst Saruman does not. It would have been more satisfactory if they had still let Treebeard report he had let Saruman go and the returning Hobbits caught Saruman just before he was able to ravage the Shire, proking Wormtongue enough to still finish him off.
However I guess it is speculation until the EE DVD as to how it is going to be dealt with ;)-->
Got the theatrical edition DVD yesterday and watched it again. It's every bit as good as the first time I saw it. Movies rarely affect me emotionally, but I caught myself almost choking up at the same four scenes.
Can't wait for the EE DVD, but this one will hold me for a few months! :D-->
good to hear 6er... but I always wait for the EE myself... I figure it'll be out before Christmas...
I heard November. I'm debating buying this one and then the EE in November, at which time I'll give the theatrical version to my sister or something. My wife thinks I should just buy one and keep that one, but she doesn't understand. :D-->
Recommended Posts
Trefor Heywood
I have finally seen ROTK also for the first time.
The special effects were brilliant and the acting etc.
I just had a slight feeling of disjointedness with no satisfactory explanation about Saruman and Wormtongue and that other things should have been cut instead if length was the problem.
We know this will be dealt with in the extended DVD though.
But I saw the Oscars not really being just for the one film but for the whole caboodle - the academy were aware it was going to be a trilogy rather than sequels. They probably thought it was best to wait for the whole epic story to have been seen.
I hear that Peter Jackson's next venture is going to be yet another remake of King Kong.
What is he going to use for the finale? That tower in Auckland?
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I hear he's going to use a farm in New Knoxville.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I think Peter Jackson's biggest mistake that people will hate him forever over, is not filming the scouring of the Shire. I can understand leaving it out of the theatrical release, but not even having it in an extended edition DVD makes no sense whatsoever. They didn't need to include the whole thing, but something should have been done. (Using vagueness to avoid spoilers for those that haven't read the book.) They could have simply had the bad guys destroying stuff on a rampage, and then had the four hobbits return and take care of business with them, without the military aspect but uniting their neighboring hobbits. Then, show them rebuilding, and five to ten minutes later, the whole thing is over and they go back to the scene of sailing to the west.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
No doubt some people will hate PJ for missing out the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, The Barrow Downs, Buckland, also. Plus all the sagas and stories referred to in LOTR.
I wait to see what he does about Saruman and Wormtongue in the extended DVD. Certainly seeing them merely left locked and unpunished in Orthanc was not satisfactory.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A resolution at Isengard was filmed, but it was considered too long for the end of The Two Towers, and not relevant enough for the beginning of Return of the King. Expect the beginning of the movie to be a bit longer in the extended addition (sic).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
ROTK Theatrical Version DVD: May 25, 2004 (no dts soundtrack--BOO!)
ROTK Extended version DVD: Unknown, rumor says November, like the other two. Rumor also has it that ROTK EE will have a runtime of 4hr 10min.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I think they cut out most of the stuff that wasn't directly related to the FOTR vs. Sauron storyline. However, I do think that the scouring of the shire fits in with that somewhat, as it's tying up loose ends.
Personally, I think that the best way to have made this would have been something along the lines of what Spielburg did with "Taken." Unfortunately I think the budget for a series of that size would have rivaled the budget of most countries, nevermind movies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I have seen Taken but I am not sure what you mean in how it could have applied something to LOTR...
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
I missed Tom Bombadil as well - but he was easily removed. I think he only shows up one more time after his "chapter" is done with - or is it just that Galadriel and Gandalf talk about him? I don't remember.
I am thrilled the film won everything, although I agree with Trefor - the awards were really for all three films - or one nine and a half hour film if that's the way you want to look at it!
I agree that Jackson should have at least filmed the "Scouring" chapter - but I read in some magazine before the ROTK came out that he didn't film it because he didn't think it fit in the books either. I think it did - if for nothing else to show what happened to Saurman & Wormtongue.
But, all in all - I think that the script writers did an amazing job in compressing the trilogy into three films. They stayed as true to the books as possible without leaving out most of the story line.
Hope R. color>size>face>
Does anyone know if "The Hobbit" will be made now that LOTR was so successful? Heck - The Shire set is probably still in tact in NZ - it wouldn't be too hard to go back and shoot there again!
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I know there is talk about it Hope R.
The Hobbiton set is, I believe, still extant. They demolished the Edoras set but I am not sure what they did with the Rivendell set that they constructed.
If I am right, they only need three LOTR characters - Bilbo, Gandalf and Elrond and for continuity the same actors should be preferred.
But he wants to make King Kong first so we must posess our souls in patience.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My bet is Ian Holm would be considered too young to play Bilbo (I know, I know, "you haven't aged a day..." Still...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
All they need to do is make him look like he did at the beginning of FOTR when it shows Bilbo finding the Ring.
i.e. make him look like a 50 year old hobbit - I expect he is older than that already...
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I meant to say that Bilbo was too young to have Ian Holm play him. My bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
But he did play the younger Bilbo Raf - question is would it look realistic in a full film.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
That's true--Ian Holm is shown as young Bilbo finding the Ring in the opening moments of the first film. A little botox, close-ups used sparingly...yes, it could be done!
I, for one, would love to see what the folks at WETA Digital could do with Smaug battling the Lake-Men.
Who would play the dwarves, though? And Thranduil? Beorn? Remember, too, that the wood-elves are semi-bad guys in The Hobbit...
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
According to the books, Bilbo looked "unchanged" rather than
"well-preserved" when he reached his eleventy-first birthday
(the time of the party in FotR's opening scenes.)
I missed the Barrow-Downs sequence in the first book, because it's the
scene with the barrow-wight that explains the swords Merry, Pippin and
Sam get-which are NOT normal knives, which is relevant in RotK.
The Isengard resolution scene, as shown in the theaters, was MOST
unsatisfactory. It would have been a GREAT scene, especially showing the
waning of Saruman and the difference in Gandalf the White.
Leaving out the Scouring of the Shire should be a punishable offense.
Jackson didn't LIKE the scene. As Tolkien himself put it, the scenes some
complained about were the scenes others found necessary. I feel this is
true of that scene, even if it was chopped down to 5 minutes. Heck, they
could have chopped 10 minutes just from the aggregate scenes of people
staring at each other in the third movie.
:)-->
I also think he overdid the oliphants in the 3rd movie, which is what led
to the "Empire Strikes Back" sequence that resulted. (Did anyone else here
think they were written as dino-sized? I thought they were elephant-sized.)
Tom Bombadil, in the book of FotR, appears in the scene with Old Man Willow,
the scene in his house, and the scene with the barrow-wight. After he sees
them to safety on his border, he no longer appears in the books. He's
mentioned at the Council of Elrond, when Gandalf explains why they can't
just ask HIM to hold the ring. He also is mentioned in the wrap-up as the
3rd book winds down. You see, back in the first book, in the Inn of the
Prancing Pony (where the hobbits met Strider), a bad guy stampedes all the
horses out of the stable. That's why they bought "Bill" as a pack-pony for
their luggage. As it turns out, the ponies had sought out Fatty Lumpkin,
Bombadil's pony, when they got to running. Tom eventually brought them
back to the inn, and Barliman Butterbur was compensated for the outrageous
price he put out for Bill as a replacement. We just hear that it happened,
though.
Personally, I think the story was poorer for leaving out Glorfindel and
Radagast the Brown in FotR, but I understand trying to streamline the story.
Jackson was trying to have the main characters do EVERYTHING. I understand
that but disagree, since, during a war, that's an unrealistic expectation.
Thousands upon thousands did their parts, even when "off camera" and this
helped drive that home.
I hear the scene at the Houses of Healing is restored in RotK.
I wish Jackson hadn't felt the need to make Denethor look like such a putz,
though. In the books, he seemed very bitter, but he was still competent
for the most part-which is why the watch lights of Gondor had been LIT when
Gandalf and Pippin arrived. (In the movie, they weren't.) Other allies,
such as the Prince of Dol Imrahil, DID come to the aid of Gondor, just not
as much as was hoped for, or needed. Many famed warriors fell in a day when
the Nazgul's Captain led their forces against Gondor.
(Yes, I know it's make-believe. A lot of imaginary big names fell.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
One has to accept that minor characters in books do not appear in the subsequent film.
But as you say, the scouring of the Shire was an important element in the book - it was Saruman's attempt at revenge for being thwarted and it clearly shows his eventual fate. The Sackville-Bagginses were only briefly referred to in FOTR and there is no subsequent reference to them at all, despite the fact that Lotho is used by Saruman in the book.
One could almost see this happening when Frodo in the film leaves at short notice without selling Bag End to the SBs which would have given them the social position that could then have been exploited by Saruman.
I expect that PJ will give his reasons for the changes and omissions in the extended DVD appendices.
I think they will have to be pretty darn good to satisfy those of us who are Tolkien purists!
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Actually, I agree with leaving out the Scouring of the Shire. Tolkien could do it in the book because it ran short at that point anyway. Consider where it would have happened in the movie, though. We've just had the payoff of a nine-hour-plus film, the Ring is destroyed, the King is restored, the Hobbits are honored--ROLL CREDITS. (The multi-endings after that were a bad idea. IMHO, they should have wrapped all the endings up in a Galadriel-narrated montage like the first movie opened.)
If you insert the Scouring of the Shire, though, it's a colossal downer after a huge emotional high. Remember that the Shire was pretty much ruined when they got back to it. Telling that in a book is easy. In a movie, however, all you would do is show that all the .... these four little guys went through (and, vicariously, the VIEWER,) over the past 9+ hours was for nothing. They didn't save their own homes! In the book, it's easy to show the four hobbits vanquishing the last foe and becoming great community leaders, rebuilding the Shire. In a movie, viewers are feeling the effects of the Bucket-O-Coke by that time, and don't want a smaller blip in the story when the big one just finished!
All the Scouring really turns out to be in the book is a minor annoyance. In movies, all minor annoyances wind up on the cutting room floor. Most books on moviemaking and a lot of director's commentaries hit this fact over and over. The most common theme in the comments on the Deleted Scenes on a DVD is "we had to cut this scene for time, though everyone really liked it, it just didn't move the story along". Jackson made the right call, in this case. Although, one of the Saruman death scenes would have tied up that subplot better. I expect to see that on the EE DVD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I can see what point you are trying to make Zix.
However, the fate of Saruman is still a loose end that I feel should have been addressed in the cinematic version.
He is not a minor character in the story, he has played a large part in the action of the first two films and then all of a sudden he becomes a non-person!
It is almost ironic that Boromir, who dies at the end of FOTR and who Tolkien kills off right at the beginning of the second book, still manages to appear, through flashback, in all three, whilst Saruman does not. It would have been more satisfactory if they had still let Treebeard report he had let Saruman go and the returning Hobbits caught Saruman just before he was able to ravage the Shire, proking Wormtongue enough to still finish him off.
However I guess it is speculation until the EE DVD as to how it is going to be dealt with
;)-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Got the theatrical edition DVD yesterday and watched it again. It's every bit as good as the first time I saw it. Movies rarely affect me emotionally, but I caught myself almost choking up at the same four scenes.
Can't wait for the EE DVD, but this one will hold me for a few months!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
good to hear 6er... but I always wait for the EE myself... I figure it'll be out before Christmas...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I heard November. I'm debating buying this one and then the EE in November, at which time I'll give the theatrical version to my sister or something. My wife thinks I should just buy one and keep that one, but she doesn't understand.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've heard conflicting accounts, but most agree that the ee will be released in November. I was expecting it to be out in August for some reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I will box clever like I did with the the first two.
I will buy the theatrical version and use it until the EE comes out then give the theatrical version to my sister in law like I did for the first two!
She doesn't mind second hand presents!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.