LOTR: Return of the King

[Nacho]

Mmm... And in #AGS more people is agreeing... Maybe we´re seeing the "Expectatives effect". If you expect something "spectacular" and you don´t get it, your vision of it gets down.

Of course, people whose expectatives have been accomplished won´t agree...

[Igor]

Lance Farlandstrong: you shall burn in hell!!!11

Nah, i'm a member of secret super-exclusive "I don't like LoTR" club too.

I think movies are quite good though... but nothing earth shaking. Too big&pompous for my taste.

[Gonzo]

Well each to their own, but I did struggle with the early part of Fellowship when I first read it, I don't think I got through 10 chapters before giving up. It may have been that I was too young, but I think there's a certain amount of effort you have to give in getting into this book.

Eventually I did get further into the story and it became a breeze shortly after that. Some people will never like this kind of stuff, or the way its written, but for me there was one special point in the story where the I realised it had taken hold of me, and I cared about the characters and what was going to happen to them all.

I would say that it isn't really until almost a third of the way through that the story really tightens up and takes you by surprise, and from then on it just gets more and more interesting I think. At that point it becomes as easy as an airport thriller to read IMO.

[Domino]

i haven't seen any of the Lord of the Rings movies, but my dad went and saw Return of the King the other night and said it was non-stop action from beginning to end. So, i guess i will have to see it. Non-stop action is what i like.

BG  

[Darth Mandarb]

Well each to their own, but I did struggle with the early part of Fellowship when I first read it, I don't think I got through 10 chapters before giving up. It may have been that I was too young, but I think there's a certain amount of effort you have to give in getting into this book.

Eventually I did get further into the story and it became a breeze shortly after that. Some people will never like this kind of stuff, or the way its written, but for me there was one special point in the story where the I realised it had taken hold of me, and I cared about the characters and what was going to happen to them all.

I would say that it isn't really until almost a third of the way through that the story really tightens up and takes you by surprise, and from then on it just gets more and more interesting I think. At that point it becomes as easy as an airport thriller to read IMO.

I so know what you mean!  It took me forever to get past the starting of Fellowship.  The part with Tom Bombadil (who I really didn't miss in the movie) was just so uninteresting to me and it wasn't until they got to Bree, and meet Stryder, that I really got into the books.

Also, as you commented on, Tolkien had a unique (almost old English meets Yoda) style of writing which took me some time to get the hang of.  Given that, and a plot that I felt was draggin', I just couldn't get into it.  But once it started (the plot) and I got used to his style I flew through the rest of the series.

On a related note ... I found out after the release of tFotR that my father is a huge fan of the series and had read them several times when he was a younger man!  He actually went and saw FotR with me.  (My father NEVER goes to movies)  He knew all the character's names and remembered so much about it, even though he hadn't read them in over 20 years!  Talk about a great story that sticks with ya!

[MillsJROSS]

I'm glad to see, it isn't just me, who thinks LOTR is the universe. Note, I do not hate the LOTR. I thought it wad a GOOD book, but I don't deem it a great one. I think a lot of people just hop on the bandwagon, so to speak. When it was written, it WAS the best fantasy out there, and I feel Tolkien nudged writers into another direction. So this book still remains a classic, because it was the first, and it still has passed the test of time, I just think there are other better written books out there. I'm not sure I'd like Micheal Chritchton's(sp?) rendition of this book, as his writing style isn't my favourite (he's better at making a good tense story line), but to each their own.

-MillsJROSS

[Nacho]

I´m not very into early/mid XXth century books (The time when LOTR was written, I think), but in deffense of Tolkien, I think that he was the first to separate main characters into groups, writing one chapter for one group (Frodo/Gollum/Sam) and the other for the other (Legolas, Aragorn, Pippin, Merry, Gimly...)

That was thrilling, and maybe the only aspect on the book that made it easier to read, because you needed to finish one chapeter to know what was happening to the other group. The funny thing is that when the chapter changes, you were deeply interested in the facts of that very chapter, and all the feelings had to start again. I really liked that, and that was the only thing I´d save, specially because nowadays novelers are using this resource wisely, specially Chrichton, IMO.

Maybe Goldmund, literature student, can give us light about this... Blazej, was Tolkien the first who sepparated characters into groups?

[La Lore]

Thanks Chris for saying that you only read 20 pages, I was able to keep to the 50th. I thought I was the only person in the World who wasn´t able to reach to the 100th page!

[Barcik]

None of you will ever reach the West!  

A little side note: Return of the King hit #3 on the IMDB Top 250 list, and although it is bound to drop a little later, damn, that's one strong entrance.

[Goldmund]

I sincerely doubt that history of literature took note of the first author who divided chapters between characters, dear Lance... but how about Homer (not Simpson)?

My 2 eurocents:

Putting together in one post Heart of Darkness and LOTR is, in my opinion, laughable.
LOTR isn't a deep book contrary to what some people claim. It isn't any more complicated than an ordinary fairy-tale, it just has some gore in it. I do like it, though, because it appeals to our simple, somewhat infantile fantasies about a different, glorious world, sense of having an aim (The Quest), etc.
Thus, it's as intellectually stimulating as ice-cream, but equally necessary and nice to have from time to time.

As for LOTR movie, I enjoy it when I'm sitting in a theatre, but sadly I remember little once I get back home. I think it's too fast-paced.

[Gonzo]

Well 'Homer' (or the collective of storytellers he represents) didn't divide his work into chapters at all, as he didn't write it down, his work was part of the oral tradition. The division of the epics into the 24 books was done at a much later date, but of course that predated Tolkien too.

But I think the real point that you missed, was that the division of the 4 *books* in the last 2 volumes of LOTR draws the reader along wanting to know about the other narrative strand. In the first half of The Two Towers, we find out about the fellowship minus Sam and Frodo, and then in the second half it's Sam and Frodo. There's very long periods where we learn nothing about what happens to certain major characters. He doesn't just split narrative strands by chapter. We actually go weeks back in time after Book 3 to see what's happened to Sam/Frodo meanwhile.

This separation creates a lot of suspense I think, and is really unusual, at least for the time it was written. I doubt it was a first, but it was pretty inventive/risky. A class on good writing would probably advise against it - you'd think it's bad practice to forget about two major characters for such a long stretch of story. But Tolkien's instinct paid off there I think, it works a treat.

I'm not sure when the last time you read LOTR was Goldmund, but it is more deep than a fairy tale, at the very very least. A fairy tale is usually a simple, short children's fable, like Hansel & Gretel. LOTR is a massively detailed world with a huge cast of characters and an epic storyline.

[Las Naranjas]

I think we're having a collision of depth of meaining and depth of detail. Whilst the second is certainly true, Goldmund is commenting on a lack of the former, and that was never intended to be there anyway.

As for the division, it's just one of many decisions made in the writing of the book that look rather bizaare from the perspective of those who have Learnt To Write. The description of the flooding of Isengard in flashback being another. The fact that several chapters are given to a diversion in the old forest, yet more pivotal events such as the walks of the dead or the freeing of Theoden are told in more mythological prose and speed by in pages. It all seems to point to the fact that he was writing here, as with all his writing, for himself.
I don't think the division into the two strories was one made on the basis of structure. As only the very beginning and very end were preconcieved, the large body of plot developed as it was written, so I tend to think that he chose to follow the remainder of the fellowship for 10 chapters merely because he had little idea as to what would happen to Sam and Frodo.

And all this I find funny.

[DGMacphee]

I also agree that it is like a simple fairytale.

William Goldman used the term "comic book movies" to describe them -- i.e. a hero struggles against evil and ultimately triumphs.

I don't think LOTR contains any moral ambiguity and the film makes pretty clear who is a hero and who is a villian, while in retrospect a film like Mystic River is shrouded in moral ambiguity.

Don't get me wrong cause, like William Goldman, I like comic book movies.

However, I think some people treat the LOTR trilogy as something more than it should be.

[Trapezoid]

What LOTR is: extremely immersive, spectacular entertainment. It's very highly detailed, state of the art, and thousands of hours were put into it by the creators. It doesn't need any more story than it already has. What it has is a chunk out of Middle Earth's imaginary history that lends itself to an engaging storyline which lends itself to many interesting characters and situations. The underlying gist of the story is simple; everything else, save for maybe the depth of the characters, is vastly detailed and masterfully illustrated in the films.
And it's a perfect example of it was dreamed to be. I can't wait to see the third film.

[Paper Carnival]

I think that the moment where Frodo decided to use the ring to get all the powers of Sauron and then he killed Gandalf once and for all was very good.

Spoiler

Dudes, I was only kidding!

[close]

[Alynn]

Well I finally watched it last night, so now with the film trilogy planted firmly under my belt, and the loose fitting garb of the trilogy read for the first time over 16 years ago I have to say this....

Nitpicking and everything put aside, this was a well made movie (and trilogy).

For those that had a hard time with the books, the movies could make some things more clear to them, for those that havent read it at all, they may be inspired to read the books. For others, it was just another movie in a sea of movies.

Personally, I read the books, I remembered the major plot points characters, and the like. I remembered how I envisioned the world. It was great. However, when I finally got to see it on film, that world was so much better to me. No, this is not an insight to my imagination, but ...

Spoiler

When the swarms of the ghost armies overran the battle field, and at one point in the movie where they swarmed over the elephant beasts taking them down I acutally said out loud Holy Shit

[close]

I just never saw it like that, at the time of being 10 years old and reading the books, the image I percieved was grand, but watching it last night seemed epic to me.

When I go to the movies, I don't go looking for impurities, bad cuts, cg elements badly placed, looking for those things means you missed the movie (like staring at a forest for one sickly elm tree and missing the 500 year old redwoods towering above it). The only place where it poped out at me was legolas and the "trunk surfing" but it was forgotten when the smartass dwarf has his one thing to say about that... (LOL)

Jackson kept the parts that needed to be kept and removed those that werent as important, he did the best he could to keep the spirit of the story, while keeping it easy enough for the most ignorant of middle earth to comprehend....

In the end... Just like i still watch the starwars trilogy today I will be watching the LotR trilogy in 2033.


Ok, somebody needs to make the Hobbit now...

[Barcik]

Ok, somebody needs to make the Hobbit now...

Peter Jackson promised to do it one day. I am sure funding won't prove to be a problem.

[Nacho]

I sincerely doubt that history of literature took note of the first author who divided chapters between characters, dear Lance... but how about Homer (not Simpson)?

I was only mistaked by 2,500 years, not much...  

Greeting from Lorena and me, to Dominika and you!

Edit: I have just seen the movie... Enjoyable as an entertainment, but IMHO the second was better.

I´ve read that Remixor preffers the "Community". It was a surprise when I read it, because it was the one with less action, but taking the view back, I must say that I´m closer to that oppinion than before... The second and the third have a lot of fights and not a moment for resting. I´d put them together in the same bag, so, the first one is special, IMO.

[DragonRose]

I just saw it. I got out of the theatre only about an hour ago, and I can't remember a lot of the second half. Because I was STUPID and bought a large pop, and drank most of it during the previews.  Three and a half hours and no intermission? AAAAAARGH!!!

I'm another one of those ones who didn't like the books. I zoomed through them because my Dad claimed it would take me three months to read them (took me six days, and I won a $10 bet!).  But because I read them so fast, I don't remember a lot.  

Parts I forgot:

Spoiler

The ghost army
The steward of Gondor lighting himself on fire
Samwise getting married.

[close]

As for the rest... wow. Just... wow.

[Timosity]

I finally got to see it, I guess most people have seen it by now, it only came out here on boxing day and I broke my tradition and saw it the day after.

I must say, I wasn't as excited about going to see it as the others, but I guess it's just soooo loooong between them, that the excitement wore off a couple of years ago.

I did enjoy it, but I thought they left out some important bits and didn't emphasize other bits I thought were important to me. But hey, it's a movie and not the book, I do realise that.

here's some spoilers to describe some of my thoughts:

Spoiler

note: it's been I while since I read it so I may be wrong about some things, and some names, spelling etc
At the end of the second book they were in shalob's lair, but it was well into the third movie when they decided to insert that part.

I though Faramir's dad, can't remember his name, actually killed himself behind the door, not by Mithrandir, though I could be wrong, but that's the way I remember it.

When Eowyn killed the head Nazgul there was a bright light that shot up into the air or something which was mentioned in three seperate parts of the 3rd book, it was a land mark point that linked to where the different parties were positioned at the time, I thought the movie didn't highlight the importance of that event.

The order of events was changed but it was probably not that bad a thing cause the book was written in seperate chapters following the different characters paths and then going back to do other characters, and in the sense of a movie I think it worked well the way they did it.

The end of the movie was a bit drawn out and a bit girly, but not nearly as much as the book. (eg. the destruction of the ring was about halfway through book 3 if that)

I was very dissapointed that Sauraman was left out in the third part cause it was really important to know what happened on the journey home and the path of destruction leading all the way back to the shire, and finding out that that bloke was Sauraman. (not that you didn't know it was him anyway)

They did slightly brush on the fact that Eowyn eventually fell for Faramir, for about 2 secs, if you blinked you missed it.

That's just a taste of my thoughts from the 3rd part, It's pointless to go on cause the movie isn't the book, but some bits could have been better.

I've already mentioned other thoughts last year so I won't go back there.
Tom Bombadil, woops!

[close]

Definately worth seeing, and I'm sure I'll get the box set next xmas