My Problems with Return of the King: An O/T DIScussion

[Loomis]

I just went and saw ROTK for a third time (Open Air cinema for the novelty of it), and here is a list of stuff that bugs me (**SOME SPOILERS**):

The Three Guys: How did middle earth ever get into trouble when it turns out there are Three Guys who can pretty much take on any army they come up against single-handedly.

The Orcs: Then again, it doesn't seem that beating these guys is much of a deal anyways. Supposedly bred to "destroy the race of men", all you have to do is shine a light on them, on confront them with men on horseback, and they all run away.

Gandalf's Selective Wizardry: And speaking of shining lights on things, why does Gandalf have a selective memory when it comes to doing magic. He beats the Balrog, is resurrected as Gandalf the White, drives Sauron out of Theoden...but when an army attacks "Oh, what is this stick for again? Oh, bugger me! I can control the elements...."

The Selective Solidity Ghost Army: Ok, they are ghosts. They can run across water, and through walls. What stops them from sinking through the bottom of the boats they arrive on?

The Dubious Physics of Middle Earth Lava: Supposedly the hottest substance around, the only thing hot enough to destroy The Ring - but not hot enough to cook two Hobbits practically sitting in it.

The Eagles: Not just a dodgy band. If they had access to those eagles all along, and they can take out the Nazgul, couldn't they just drop the Ring in from the sky?

There is some other stuff too, but I can't think of them now....

[Luke]

Some of my problems with the movie. They're all pretty much applicable to the whole Trilogy. The Two Towers was the biggest offender, I'd say.

Those battle sequences...are absolutely dreadful. I mean I understand there has to be a conflict of some sorts. But it's like every time a great big battle scene is coming, I just want to jump into a great big bed and fall asleep. They slow down the movie so considerably, and it's always the same thing. Speaking of The Two Towers, did anything happen in the whole movie? It was like 3 hours long, and all I can remember is a bunch of people being mistaken for dead, only to be okay, and Gandalf returning.

Another problem I have is that every single line is uttered with the same dramatic weight. The result is that every thing is so dramatic, and there's just so much of it that it undermines the real drama. Outside of a few throwaway Pippin and Merry joke lines, everything is spoken in the same 'the weight of the world depends on this line' tone.

But I know Lord of the Rings is a sacred goose, and my complaints may seem juvenile. Not to mention that Loomis' complaints were all technical. But I'm just underwhelmed by the trilogy at large and I saw the thread and I figured I must post.

Yeah well that's just, like, my opinion, man.

[2099net]

I'm not a big fan of the LotR movies. I don't like hype and effects do not a movie make (as my mother once said).

One of the main problems is the whole thing seems to be full of deux-ex-machinas (I think that's how you spell it). The fact that Aragorn just happens to have a horde of undead warriors he doesn't know about, and they turn the tide of the final battle is just enormously stupid. I know it may be different in the books, but as a film it looks like the writer wrote himself into a hole and plucked them out of thin air to help him out of a storytelling dead end. That's just the biggest example of lots of poor storytelling coincidences or devices (based on the movies, not the books, which I have never read).

I don't quite agree with Luke, the battles are obviously the "meat" of the films, and I actually enjoyed The Two Towers the most.

As for the acting, Sean Austin should have been nominated for Supporting Actor. None of the other cast deserve awards though. If people think Ian McKellen deserves and award for lots of shouting*, then I suggest they go and see Gods and Monsters, for a much better performance - because he's actually in a film which demands an acting part.

* Although, to be fair, McKellen does have a talent for making what could easily be "campy" dialogue dramatic. Eg "Aim for the Orc's eyes!" etc.

[Rebel]

The Eagles: Not just a dodgy band. If they had access to those eagles all along, and they can take out the Nazgul, couldn't they just drop the Ring in from the sky?

The temptation of the Ring is very very strong. The Hobbits are special in their ability to resist the will of the Ring. Gandalf does not even trust himself with the Ring; it would be a bad idea to trust it to an eagle. I suppose that an eagle could have carried Frodo with the Ring, but there would not be much stealth involved in an approach by air. The Eye of Sauron would see them coming from miles away. Also, on a long trip via air, Frodo would be completely at the eagle's mercy; being in close proximity to the Ring, an eagle might be tempted to just drop Frodo from the sky onto some rocks and then retrieve the Ring for himself.

[Jack]

I really don't feel like typing up long list about my likes/dis-likes about LOTR, because I've done it many times before . . . and I'm sleepy right now.

Anyway, in short, I do agree that it's vastly over-rated, and it has the usual small plot holes that you will find in any movie like it. But aside from all that, I have a great fondness for FOTR because it made me cry - in the theater. That never happens to me, but that movie did it. I thoght it was very emotional. However, TTT lowered the bar, and ROTK raised it again, but I still think FOTR triumphs over the second two.

When viewing it as a trilogy, I don't consider it the best trilogy of all time, as some have acclaimed it. I think that still belongs to Star Wars, but LOTR is definately quality, despite its weaknesses.

Wow, that turned out to be longer than I thought.

[Satoshi]

Aww, it hurts to see so much LOTR hating going on.

Haha how pathetic does that sound?

But anyways....

I'm pretty sure that my problems with ROTK will be fixed with the EE. TTT was great in theaters but it didn't feel perfect. The extended edition felt perfect to me though. I'm pretty darn sure the same thing will happen with ROTK.

BTW, FOTR is my least favorite of the three.

[Loomis]

Yay! a reaction. That's all I hoped for!

I'm not a big fan of the LotR movies. I don't like hype and effects do not a movie make (as my mother once said).

Don't get me wrong! I love the films, but the ast one just seemed a bit LONG on repeat viewing and I noticed a few things that annoyed me this time. I still have a huge findness for these films, so this is partly in good fun...

:


The Eagles: Not just a dodgy band. If they had access to those eagles all along, and they can take out the Nazgul, couldn't they just drop the Ring in from the sky?

The temptation of the Ring is very very strong. The Hobbits are special in their ability to resist the will of the Ring. Gandalf does not even trust himself with the Ring; it would be a bad idea to trust it to an eagle. I suppose that an eagle could have carried Frodo with the Ring, but there would not be much stealth involved in an approach by air. The Eye of Sauron would see them coming from miles away. Also, on a long trip via air, Frodo would be completely at the eagle's mercy; being in close proximity to the Ring, an eagle might be tempted to just drop Frodo from the sky onto some rocks and then retrieve the Ring for himself.

Ok, I'll cop that That actually is the most logical and thought-out response to that gripe I've received from anyone - so kudos! I largely included that last one because

Oh, and Luke - I tend to agree with you on the battles. While I did find them a little exciting on the first viewing, repeat viewings of the films have really made the whole film slow down at the point of the battles. In fact, I felt the film stopped dead in some of those battle scenes.

[Loomis]

Actually, while I'm here, I have a few more issues....

That Elven bread: A single bite can "fill the stomach of a grown man". Now, I know Hobbits can be greedy, but they seem to be able to pull together in a crisis. If the bread can "fill the stomach of a grown man", and they had like 4 pieces of bread left at the start of the film, surely HALFlings, if they tightened their belts would be able to somehow make it through. Guess not.

Then again, they are quite porky, which brings me to...

The Fat Hobbit: Gollum keeps making jokes about Sam eing te fat one. And it's true. Surely after 13 months of walking and climbing he would have shed a few pounds. Frodo, admittedly carrying the ring, is a shell of a man by the time he gets there, wasted away to nothing. Now Sam doesn't have the same burden, but he looks like he has a secret supply of pies in his bag. "Oh, Mr. Frodo. I know it's such a burden - but can we pop into this Fried Chicken Shack on the way up the mountain?".

Just a generally comment on the movie - I did feel as though this one played for laughs a little too much (both intentional and unintenional). Gollum's performance was on-par with Dobby the House Elf at points. And what was with Eomer's eyebrow work?

And did anybody else cringe during all the singing? Pippin, Aragorn - what was this: Middle Earth Idol?

I think this was the weakest of the three because, by the nature of it, it was ALL climax and no plot. That sound odd, but it was necessary to tie up the trilogy - with the 68 endings after the battle. Just, to me, I was idsappointed, and not just because it was the last one.

[Satoshi]

On the singing, there were alot of songs and poems in the Lord of the Rings (book) so don't be surprised that a few made it into the movies.

Sam the Fat Hobbit....hmm, I never noticed this before. He really should have lost some weight. According to the books he ate next-to-nothing, in order to give Frodo a decent amount of food. Ah well, can't expect them to get it all right.

I noticed Eomer's eyebrows too, that was strange....

*munches on tiny spongebobs, squidwards and patricks*

Hey, look kids! Itttttttt's "Spongebob Squarepants Macaroni!" Doo doo do do do dooooooo!

[Loomis]

On the singing, there were alot of songs and poems in the Lord of the Rings (book) so don't be surprised that a few made it into the movies.

Oh yes, I know there are quite a few songs in the book - I tend to skip them whenever I re-read (mostly lame rhyming couplets anyways, Tolkien was not a poet by trade anyways... ...ok, now I cop abuse from both sides, and I love the text and the films...).

One last thing...

Faramir: In the Two Towers, he is told if he lets Sam and Frodo go, his life with be forfeit. Then all that is forgotten. Last thing I saw, he was about to get it on with Miranda Otto.

[Satoshi]

Faramir: In the Two Towers, he is told if he lets Sam and Frodo go, his life with be forfeit. Then all that is forgotten. Last thing I saw, he was about to get it on with Miranda Otto.

I know this is totally unrelated and isn't the reason for it or anything but his dad did try to burn him alive in ROTK. That could be used as a potential excuse, though of course it's not the real reason why he was going to have him killed.

[michelle]

Those battles scenes did piss me off.

One slash each and the next thing you know, ten thousand orcs lie dead.

Streuth!

[Son of the Morning]

*cough*

Allow me to say that I was never a huge fan of the books: I found them unbearably dry... the story was great, but Tolkein's style turned me off like no other.

That being said, I was undeniably impressed by the trilogy.

This might sound like the cop out to end all cop outs, but one thing essential to appreciating fantasy of any kind (coming from someone who generally loathes it) is suspended disbelief. Fancy that.

And I for one loved most of the songs... I enjoyed the song Eowyn sang at the funeral in the EE of the Two Towers, I loved Pippin's song, and Aragorn's song fit into the movie almost perfectly. *cough*

[Ludwig Von Drake]

What the movies lack is the emense background that Tolkien created. If you never read the book you will want to know where did Saurum go? What is a palantir and why does the enemy control them? How does Denethor know what he knows? and who is Denethor speaking to when he tells Faramir Of all my captians who will obey me?

Though I have problems with the movie I think that they were quite well done though they shouldn't have left out Tom Bombidal and the Scouring of the Shire.

[Loomis]

That being said, I was undeniably impressed by the trilogy.

This might sound like the cop out to end all cop outs, but one thing essential to appreciating fantasy of any kind (coming from someone who generally loathes it) is suspended disbelief. Fancy that.

Yeah, I just want to re-emphasise that I am not saying I DISLIKE these by any means. And yes, there is a great element of suspension of disbelief required in the fantasy genre, of which I am also a big fan. I am a huge fan of Jackson's trilogy - I think he has crafted a great series of films that will be remembered for a long time, and deservedlyso. Though I think with all things that you watch a lot, you start to notice things that either bug you, or you can laugh at and ignore.

That is all I was trying to do here, point out a bunch of things that made be giggle or go "Bah?".

[Disneykid]

What the movies lack is the emense background that Tolkien created. If you never read the book you will want to know where did Saurum go? What is a palantir and why does the enemy control them? How does Denethor know what he knows? and who is Denethor speaking to when he tells Faramir Of all my captians who will obey me?

Well, every single one of those questions will be answered in the Extended Edition according to various reports.

Personally, I find Return of the King to be the best of the trilogy because it has so much more of an intimate feel than the previous two, and the battle sequences are easier to swallow in this one. All the problems I have with the film involve loose ends and plot holes that will be solved in the EE from what I'm hearing.

I don't think the movies are are heavy handed as Luke said because it'd be SO easy for them to proclaim every line in a grander (and cheesier) way than they did. I think the trilogy handled the epicness of it all very well without feeling cliched. In the Two Towers commentary, Jackson says he and everyone else took great care in how to approach this because he knew that if they did it wrong, they'd turn into the type of epic Monty Python and the Holy Grail was mocking, and they didn't want that. I think they were successful.

The battle sequences, I agree, are rather cumbersome and lagging. Fellowhip's sequences were too many and too close together while Two Towers had less sequences, but its were worse because they went on and on and on. Return of the King's sequences are shorter and to the point, and I was extremely glad that during the climax the battle at the gates din't overpower the Mount Down climax, which is and should be the real focus.

I'm really ticked that Sean Astin didn't get a best supporting actor Oscar nom, but Ian McKellan did for Fellowship.

So, in the end, my only real beef with LotR are its endless action sequences and some loose ends that will be remedied in the EE.

[Loomis]

In the Two Towers commentary, Jackson says he and everyone else took great care in how to approach this because he knew that if they did it wrong, they'd turn into the type of epic Monty Python and the Holy Grail was mocking, and they didn't want that.

Heh....there is some though that ROTK is only a few scenes away from being Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

1) Faramir about to be burned alive: I half expected him to start screaming "I'm not dead! I don't want to go on the cart! I feel happy...."

2) The Attack on Morrrrrdorrrrr: When Aragorn and crew are calling out their challenge at the black gate, was anybody else waiting for John Cleese to pop up over the top of the gate and say "i fart in your general direction"? Or a conversation on non-migratory swallows?

3) The Sword: When Aragorn goes to win over the ghost army, he pulls out the sword and asserts his authority. I'm sure the ghost lord just wanted to say...

"Listen. Strange Elves in tree-like habitats distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical slow-motion ceremony".

We rest our case, your honour

[2099net]

This might sound like the cop out to end all cop outs, but one thing essential to appreciating fantasy of any kind (coming from someone who generally loathes it) is suspended disbelief. Fancy that.

Of course you have to suspend your disbelief when watching fantasy - but fantasy shouldn't be used as an excuse for miraculous plot-turns or events. I have no problem with fantasy. I was and still am a big fan of Marvel superheroes.

But all the best Marvel stories were written straight and follow their own rules and logic. You only have to read Marvel's complicated "rules" on time travel and see the fuss kicked up in the letters pages when Marvel violated their own rules for the "Age of Apocalypse" storyline to see how seriously the readers take the so-called "Marvel Universe" (which I personally didn't mind as story should always come ahead of continuity). Also Marvel were the first comic company to actually internally define and stick to power limitations and write individual characteristics.

Stuff seems to happen in LotR with little or no explanation. What's with Gandalf coming back as Gandalf the White for example? Or the Undead Army? Both seem to be in the films because if they weren't the story would literally stop. In the films at least, none of the many "magical" table-turners have any foreshadowing. Which, to me, is bad storytelling full stop.

As for the extended editions explaining some of the plot holes, what pray tell were the theatrical releases then? Nothing more than marketing for the extended DVDs? In which case, why should anyone have been asked to pay to see "adverts"? A film is a film and should always be made with the aim to be as complete as possible when seen theatrically.

Finally, can I just stress my comments on Lord of the Rings are based on the films and primarily on the theatrical releases. I have never read the books, but understand that some of the points I critisise could be explained more fully in the prose.

[Rebel]

1) Faramir about to be burned alive: I half expected him to start screaming "I'm not dead! I don't want to go on the cart! I feel happy...."

Me too. When I first saw that scene in ROTK, I whispered the Monty Python line to my teenage cousin who was sitting next to me; unfortunately the reference was lost on the poor uncultured child.

[Loomis]

1) Faramir about to be burned alive: I half expected him to start screaming "I'm not dead! I don't want to go on the cart! I feel happy...."

Me too. When I first saw that scene in ROTK, I whispered the Monty Python line to my teenage cousin who was sitting next to me; unfortunately the reference was lost on the poor uncultured child.

Hee hee hee....kids these days. On my recent viewing, all my giggling with my girlfriend was not appreciated by the other people we went wity (even though they had both seen it at least twice, and one of them had seen it 4/5 times).

Stuff seems to happen in LotR with little or no explanation[...]As for the extended editions explaining some of the plot holes, what pray tell were the theatrical releases then? Nothing more than marketing for the extended DVDs? In which case, why should anyone have been asked to pay to see "adverts"? A film is a film and should always be made with the aim to be as complete as possible when seen theatrically.

Yes, I think that was the main point I was trying to make here (aside from having a little fun). Jackson, Boyens and Walsh have created their own "version" of LotR, and that was absolutely necessary for the filming of Tolkien - you couldn't film that book as written. However, in doing so they HAVE left out much of the rich tapestry of Tolkien and subsequently have created their own internal plot holes. That may be unavoidable, but it does stop me from making fun of it