LOTR: Return of the King

[DGMacphee]

Okay, it hasn't been released yet in a lot of places but I figure there's going to be a post on it so I might as well start one.

Have you seen it, and what did you think (spoilers hidden of course)?

If you haven't seen it, what are your expectations?

Do you think it'll live up to the buzz and hype he critics are giving it?

98% on RottenTomatoes.com so far - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheReturnoftheKing-1127213/

95% on Metacritic so far - http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/returnoftheking/

And what did you think about Christopher Lee being cut from the film?

[Darth Mandarb]

I've already seen it.

I thought it was awesome.

I say this with a heavy heart, and it'll always have a special place in my heart, but Star Wars has been replaced as my favorite Trilogy.

Spoiler

When Eowyn kills the flying Nazgul ... I literally stood up and cheered!

[close]

I was very shocked that Chris Lee wasn't in there ... but truthfully it didn't hurt the movie.  He'll, of course, be in the extended version of the DVD.

When does it release around the world?  I went to the midnight showing on Tuesday night.  (its official US release was today (the 17th))

In a few words this trilogy is just AMAZING film making.

I think filming them all at the same time like Peter Jackson did was the key ... the continueity was just perfect because of it!  

Anyway ... I loved it!

])]v[

[remixor]

I thought it was quite good.  Definitely better than The Two Towers, but Fellowship is still easily my favorite of the three.

[BruisedWeasel]

Spoiler

When Eowyn kills the flying Nazgul ... I literally stood up and cheered!

[close]

Spoiler

You don't read much, do you?

[close]

I shall now take it upon myself to laugh at you for several hours, and then collapse into a fit of hissing and random bodily jerking.

I haven't seen the movie yet, and I'm anxious about seeing it. I've yet been unimpressed with the previous two movies. I watch them, and I can't help but chuckle at the poor acting and mediocre digital effects. I keep waiting for Uncle Tom to come out and sing us the tale of Brer Rabbit. I don't see the trilogy as epic, but some horrid trash designed to get votes from the hollywood crowd. I don't know, for some reason the films are bringing out the worst in me, and I cannot sit and watch without becoming a bit steamed. Funny, the cartoon versions never pissed me off so.

*back to mocking mandarb* HAHAHAHAHHA!! OMFG, you loser!!

[Trapezoid]

Mediocre digital effects? Could you please point us to what you'd consider top-quality CGI?

[Bruisied]

I admit, I was a bit harsh. The effects probably are damn good for the existing technology, or at least damned standard. Certainly better than some. But I hate to see cartoon characters spliced with live action. It rarely works, and ends up loking corny as hell. I was disappointed that gollum was cgi, because I'd have loved to see an actor show true talent and make himself look that pathetic without digital make-up effects. I was disappointed with a few other elements, but it was mainly concerned with the puppets.

A top notch special effect, to me, is one I do not notice as being a special effect, whether it's digital or one of m0ds' fireworks experiments. I don't care if it's cgi, I never have. The technology used should not carry the damned movie, nor should it be the reason to marvel at a film. There are probably many effects I didn't notice as being anything other than part of the scene, and that means they were done right. I shouldn't be able to pick them out because they should be part of the story.

I know that not everything is going to be perfect. I know what I see is going to reflect the skill and personality of the artist involved. I just tend to grade on a harsher curve than you, trap. I think a 'imho' belonged at the end of my previous post, but I thought that was understood. It is my opinion, and I have a right to be disappointed by what I see. I'm sick of seeing talentless fucks make wild movements with no attempt whatsoever to show any emotion. I'm tired of the value of a face being the sole reason a person is chosen to play a role. I'm sick of people oohin and ahhing over something strictly because it's fancy and techy and would look cool in a videogame. I'm tired of seeing my favorite literary works being butchered by hollywood for the sake of a buck. (I'm fine with LOTR being made a film, it's the merchandising that ticks me off. and the need for money-making through special editions and toys and fucking "Come watch all 3 back-to-back you zitty virgin nerds! We love it when you abandon Star Wars and come to us! Give us your money, oh trendy geeks! Here, you need the official limited edition stool crapped out by the dude who played that guy to the right of that orc!")

My disappointment translates itself into harsh critism. Sorry if I touched you in the wrong way, trap. I'm jaded. It all sucks. And I'm boycotting Cat in the Hat and Mike Myers.

[Trapezoid]

But Cat in the Hat uses make-up effects, doesn't it?

[Peter S. Thomas]

This post is largely directed to Yuletide/Bruisier, but I'm sure everyone who reads it with me will agree.

Yes, I HAVE read your apology, but I still think you're being too harsh. If you go to watch a movie for the special effects, then you're going to the movie's for all the wrong reasons. If we were talking about X-men, or The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, then this post would be completely different. But Lotr??

Tolkien's masterpiece represents the eternal struggle for power; the battle between right and wrong, and the ability to know the difference. It is NOT about Urukhai, or Nazgul, or Wringwraiths. It is NOT about Gollum's animation, simply because the image you see of him isn't what counts. The story behind him does.

Smeagol is the exhibition of 'ying and yang'. You don't need a computer animation to justify it.

Don't get me wrong, though. I love a good effect as much as the next person, but I wouldn't try and belittle a classic like this just because it didn't meet my expectations. Because every single one of my expectations are set too damn high, and no one could get it right, in my opinion. Not even me. That's why God gave us imaginations: so that we don't NEED to rely on good FX to believe the story and what it holds for each one.

Tolkien didn't write the book with animation in mind, and Peter Jackson made the movie from the inspiration Tolkien gave him. It's not about the quality of graphics that makes a movie good.

It's the quality of the story. And that's something that NO animation can cover...

[Las Naranjas]

I say this to everyone, and I hope that they will agree.


Please ignore her.

[Nacho]

I havn´t seen it yet, first point (I´ll see it on monday 17th December, cos seems impossible to get a ticket for the weekend) But I´ve read the book, and Reading that Saruman won´t appear has been quite shoking... IMO, the fall of Saruman is a very important part of the book.

I don´t  agree with Bruised because for me, the two previous films have been examples of a good use of the Digital effects, but I agree in some way in the "spirit" of her post. Digital effects somethimes make that something seems to "spare" in the film. I remember how dissapointing was "Jar Jar Binks" because their articulations, their movmements, their skin shape was too artificial, their robe was also "plastic". The excuse that he was an alien and we can´t use the standard of animals of the Earth is not valid for me. Same for Jabba the Jutt... He was supposed to be a huge crawling animal, clumsy when moving in the Earth. They could have get a realistic movement if they had inspired in something familiat, like the movement of a walrus or a seal, but they invented some kind of "worm" movement that resulted strange.

Also with Spiderman... their movements were too "plastics"... Have you seen Ocean´s eleven? there is an acrobat that the thieves use for robbering... his jumps for avoiding the lasers beams are spectacular, but the best of all is that they look real.

They´re just two examples. And it´s my oppinion.  

[Gonzo]

Saw it yesterday, thought it was wonderful. Once the extended DVD comes out, I will most likely rate it as highly as Fellowship. And if this one doesn't get properly recognised at the Oscars, that will be the final nail in the coffin of that award's credibility, to be frank. Perhaps they were holding out to recognise the entire trilogy with this film - I hope so.

Spoiler - do not read if you haven't seen


Having read the book, I was worried about rumoured changes to the ending (and parts of the film in general), but the only major omission was The Scouring Of The Shire (understandably), in which the hobbits come back find Saruman's taken over and ruined the Shire and wage their own little hobbit-war to reclaim the place.

It was a big relief that Frodo still went to Valinor, Merry still stabbed the Witch King, Shelob didn't talk, and the last line from the books was left intact. An excellent ending, I'm glad PJ was this faithful to the books after some alarming liberties were taken with characters and events in TTT.

Standout scenes: Obviously the scene in which Ewoyn and Merry take on the Witch King was incredible. The satisfaction of them both rising to such heroic status was awesome, and then it suddenly lurched into one of the most emotional scenes of the film, between Theoden and Ewoyn. Amazing.

Probably my favourite section of the whole story is Shelob's Lair/The Choices Of Master Samwise, and it was dealt with wonderfully. Whilst we didn't get the full emotional impact of the scene when Sam talks to his (believed to be) dead friend and decides to take the ring himself, it was sad enough, and Shelob was better and scarier than I'd ever imagined. The separation of Sam and Frodo here worked well, the audience was noticeably roused when Sam appeared holding the light saying "Get away from him you filth" and proceeded to spike her after a wonderfully desperate fight sequence. Excellent stuff.

In terms of acting, Elijah Wood and Sean Astin were superb throughout, Mount Doom in particular showcasing some great stuff from them.

Saruman and Wormtongue not being in it at all was a shame, whilst they'll surely turn up in the extended DVD, they deserve some part in the theatrical cut. Brad Dourif was great as Wormtongue in TTT, and Saruman should have been properly dealt with. For one thing, we didn't get told why the Palantir (crystal ball thing) wasn't in Orthanc tower anymore.

[Miez]

Haven't seen ROTK (yet) - but I've seen the first two parts several times and I have to say that it has been quite a while since I've seen a movie that does CG in such a convincing way.
To me the CG in LOTR works because the special FX in these movies are not EXCLUSIVELY done with computers. For instance; when I first saw the two Argonath statues in the lake in the Fellowship, they looked like incredibly convincing CG. When I saw the DVD documentary my jaw dropped when I learned that they where two big styrofoam props ...
The computer graphics in LOTR are very transparent, they never become CG for the sake of CG. Even Gollum is played by a real actor (who's then motion captured and skinned).
I like the movies because I can watch them and NOT go "miniature ... CG ... miniature ... matte painting" in my head while watching the scenes. And there are bucketloads of movies where I do this subconsciously (sp?).

IMHO of course...  

[juncmodule]

I say this with a heavy heart, and it'll always have a special place in my heart, but Star Wars has been replaced as my favorite Trilogy.

As always Darth, you take the words right out of my mouth.

I am very lucky in that I have NOT read the books. Which, I know, is sad in the opinions of many of you. However, without even reading the books, I know that when I do they will easily become my favorite books. Ever.

I thought the trilogy on the whole was absolutely amazing. With this barrage of trilogies lately, it is nice to see that this one not only holds up but stands above any movie of it's sort.

Bruised:  You are not being very nice :'(. The Eowyn scene was amazing, having read the book or not.

I'm really disappointed to hear about all of the changes from the books. My girlfriend has read them and she has been loving the movies, however there are a few things that have bothered her. I hope that the extended DVD will have the Saruman and Wormtongue scenes in them(if they were filmed, were they?).

later,
-junc

[LordHart]

I haven't read the books either, and it's a shame too because they are literary classics... but for some ungodly reason, my local bookstore doesn't seem to ever have any bloody copies of any of the books.

I just hope that Peter Jackson gets the rights to make The Hobbit.

[MillsJROSS]

I can't wait to see the third one. I'm sure I'll enjoy it thoroughly. Although, they do need an Intermission with a movie that long, and I'm kind of angry with them for not doing so. This movie doesn't dislodge any liking I have towards the Star Wars trilogy. In fact I had to choose to watch a trilogy all in a row, I'd probably choose Indiana Jones, as it's entertaining, and more importantly short.

I'd just like to say, that I've read the books, and while I enjoyed them. I don't think they're so much a masterpiece anymore. I've read better fantasy. It was the first of it's kind, a milestone, no doubt, but I don't consider it the cream of the crop. Not that the books aren't good, but Tolkien gives waay too much information about the history of middle earth, than anyone needs to know, and his work is not perfect. I actually prefer The Hobbit to the LOTR trilogy. I think this movie is a wonderful translation to the book, and while I don't consider it the best books in the world, it's a book you guys should read.

-MillsJROSS

[Gonzo]

I really haven't come across a more gripping story, and I read a fair bit. As it's fantasy, some people seem to snobbishly think that it's silly and can't reach a certain standard, but it's fantastic populist fiction. You can take away all sorts of lessons from it, but most importantly it's a bloody great yarn, with characters you grow to care about. Even a term of an English Lit degree hasn't jaded me into not seeing those as the unmistakable qualities of a great book. It's certainly my favourite novel, I can re-read it with enormous pleasure. Christopher Lee who plays Saruman re-reads it every year, and I can see myself getting into that habit.

As movie trilogies go, I've always loved the trinity of trilogies - Star Wars, Indy, and Back To The Future - but LOTR is now right up there with those. The extended cuts of the films are the icing on the cake, they're awesome, they feel far more complete - but watching the 3 in a row will take some serious stamina (it will take up approx. 11 hours of your day!). I'm sure plenty will go through with that though.

[Pesty]

I just hope that Peter Jackson gets the rights to make The Hobbit.

I haven't seen ROTK yet, but I thought I'd mention that him getting the rights wouldn't be a problem, but he doesn't want to do the Hobbit. Three very long movies in a row takes a lot out of everyone involved, and he's said he just doesn't have the energy to do another. Maybe eventually, though. I'd love to see it.

[Isegrim]

I haven't seen it yet either. I did love the first two parts and I sure will enjoy part three.
But, there is one small thing which I fear the movie to omit:
After having read the book several times (eight times so far and not having enough), I found out that the journey leaves Frodo a broken man (Hobbit). He even fails to resist the Ring's power in the final moment.
I DO hope, they got that, for this is in my opinion another thing that distinguishes Tolkien from popular Fantasy authors: The 'Hero' does not emerge from the story all full of glory and fame, but as a sick man who is no longer fit to live in this world and the 'final deed' has been done by someone else (Gollum).

But now one thing that does irritate me: I've seen in the trailer that Aragorn NOW gets Narsil. Why not earlier? In the book, it was given to him in Rivendell and its fame kinda helped him becoming a friend of Eomer... I do not understand why this was done!

But, well, I'll just have a look and then I'll see.
("Schaun' ma mal, dann seh' ma scho"-Der Kaiser)

[Fuzzpilz]

I've only seen the first movie so far (on DVD; I'm very reluctant to go to the cinema for these, as they'd be German versions and I hate translations from languages I know, especially since for some reason they're always bad, no matter how much money there is to be made), but if that's any indication I'll probably like the others.

...but Tolkien gives waay too much information about the history of middle earth...

For many exactly that is an important part of what makes Tolkien's work so great. I, for example, would have been happier if he had found time and room for more details on some matters. Remember - it's not as though LotR is the central work, and all the rest just stuff surrounding it; the novel is merely the largest individual story.

Spoiler

(quote author=Isegrim) (not using proper quote tags because the spoiler tag doesn't work on quotes)
After having read the book several times (eight times so far and not having enough), I found out that the journey leaves Frodo a broken man (Hobbit). He even fails to resist the Ring's power in the final moment.
(/quote)

I don't think they would be horrible enough to change THAT. If they did, there would be no point in letting Gollum tag along at all, except for comic relief... but I've read reviews by people who know the book, and I'm sure they would have yelled bloody murder about this, which they haven't; so it probably didn't happen.

I'm very annoyed to hear they completely dropped the Scouring of the Shire, though. That's a major mistake to my mind. I know the movie isn't the book and all, but I do think the movie should have something to do with the original book if it's going to call itself based on it, and I'd say the Scouring is a very important part of the story.

[close]

Basically, I'm in two minds about the movies... on one hand, they're insanely great, and insanely great movies are always a good thing. On the other hand, they're leaving such a big impression in the audience's minds and in the film world in general that nobody's going to make an attempt to be truer to the book for decades, which is sad.

[MillsJROSS]

Here's a few books, in the fantasy realms I think are better than LOTR

The Wheel of Time, by Robert Jordan (The first books anyway. He now is trying elongate the series as much as he can)

The Amber Chronicles, by Roger Zelazny

I'd say Terry Pratchet, too, but even in the fantasy realm, its more satire than anything else.

Enchantment, Orson Scott Card

I probably know a few more, but I don't have my collection of books with me at the moment. I'd go into sci-fi, which I enjoy better anyway, but since I have that biased oppinion, I won't mention those books.