Skip to comments.
I hated Rotk (vanity ranting thread) ((spoiler alert))
ME
| Today- december 18th, 2003
| Me
Posted on 12/18/2003 9:52:13 AM PST by Fire-Breathing_Freeper
I was soooo dissappointed with the return of the king. It started out ok (except for the first chapter) but after Gollum knoks out Sam in the craks of doom it got really weird, corny and just plain bad.
My list of reasons; 1. Everyone knew and understood Gollum/Smeagol without having or wanting to watch him murder Deagol. It was totally sick and unnecessary.
2. Frodo was somewhat 'normal' at the end of TTT, and in the beggining of ROTK Frodo is like corrupted and half dead. The transition from good to corrupted was divided in to threes instead of being smootly worked out.
3. Theoden being relctuant about comming to Gondor's aid. Then when the beacon is lit, he is like Yea, like you even have to ask me to come.
4. Everything about Denethor. Mostly bad, a little good.
5. The way Denethor treated Faramir. While it was close to the books it didn't have the same emotional feel. Alot of Rotk didn't envok the same feelings as the book did.
6. The Gollum and the lembas scene. Sam didn't have to be sent away for the effectiveness of Frodo being corrupted.
7. The women and children in Minas Tirith. It made the city look totally unpopulated.
8. When Eowyn gave Merry his armor and then she said 'why cant he fight for those he loves' She looked like it was her underlying motive. Instead of only wanting to die because Aragorn didn't love her and she thought that Aragorn might see her worth if she died in battle.
9. Arwen dying is Sauron isn't destroyed. That was so lame and unnecessary.
10. Frodo going into Shelobs lair alone. In the book it was really sweet how Frodo and Sam went in together. All the tenderness was ripped from that scene, again not envoking the same emotions.
11. Frodo ran around way too long in Shelobs lair. Ok we all know it's really a creepy place and Frodo is scared but the scene does not need to be drawn out too long.
12. How Denethor only cared that Faramir was gravely wounded because his line would end was not as good as it could ahve been. I'm not sure what could have been done differently but something should have.
13. How the dead glowed bright florescent green. And how they looked like soldiers of rohan and gondor when they were supposed to be another race.
14. Denethor at the pyre. It was a little to dramatic again not invoking the same feelings, and drawn out too long,
15. After Frodo was stung he didn't go down soon enough and it was just nasty.
16. I also thought Sam and Shelob fought too long. I think it would have been just as affective if a third of it was cut.
17. When gandalf and Pippin were talking about dying. I loved the scene in and of itself, but just moments before Gandalf was the feerless leader and was directing the men to stand there ground. Then he like sitting in despair and saying death is not that bad. I'm not sure it needed to be there, at all or at least not in that part.
18. It slightly bugged me when the dead army went into Minas Tirith. Slightly.
19. The battle between the witchking and Eowyn. It wasn't one sided enough. and again didn't envoke the same feelings or odds of winning.
20. The orcs in the tower died too quick.
21. When Sam finds Frodo in the tower, all the tenderness and love that was shown in the book was trashed and what was left not worthy of Frodo and Sam.
22. How It was strongly suggested that if Frodo and Sam were hiding behind the rocks that they would not be scene. totally contradicting what Saruman said in fotr.
23. How Frodo was so weary he couldnt walk and then suddenyl gets up and starts running. If we just staggered that would have been fine.
24. Gollum fought with the invisible Frodo for way too long, It made me want to laugh, which again didn't envoke the same feelings as the book.
25. Gollum in the lava.
26. Sauron died too slowly.
27. The orc armies being swallowed up.
28. When the eagles were carring Frodo and they were showing him flying over the lava, That was sooo cheesy and lame! I think that was one of the things that bugged me most.
29. How Arwen showed up. It could and should have been done more ceremoniously.
30. Gandalf's wagon
31. Bilbo looked like an orc.
32. The Grey Havens looked animated and fake.
33. Frodo didn't dry when he left his friends.
TOPICS: TV/Movies; The Hobbit Hole
KEYWORDS: lordoftherings; returnoftheking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 181 next last
To: Fire-Breathing_Freeper
"So that he is still a force to be reckoned with, but not a obivious one, kind of sneaky." Oh, quite the contrary. He is the most obvious of all...which, I believe, is why he is easily missed. What is the saying about hiding in plain sight. Sauron had no tangible substance of his own, other than whatever form he chose to take.
101
posted on
12/20/2003 12:46:12 PM PST
by
sweetliberty
(Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.)
To: Fire-Breathing_Freeper
"Kind of like when Galadriel helped him earlier" Something like that. Galadriel I see as being one manifestation of that light.
102
posted on
12/20/2003 12:47:56 PM PST
by
sweetliberty
(Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.)
To: discostu
7. The women and children in Minas Tirith. It made the city look totally unpopulated. I don't know where you were looking but Minas Tirith was PACKED with women and children all the way up until the orc assault started, I presume at that point the non-combatants were hiding and praying and staying out of the way which is what non-combatants are supposed to do during combat.
IIRC, Gondor was in a state of decline- many fields went untilled, many homes stood empty. So while, logically, the non-combatants would flee to and crowd the fortress, an overall feeling of 'emptiness' or 'decline' is quite true to the story.
103
posted on
12/20/2003 12:55:50 PM PST
by
Lil'freeper
(Now for wrath! Now for ruin! And a red dawn!)
To: Texaggie79
if Sam and Frodo got any more "loving and tender" in the movie, they would have started humping each other. This isn't directed at you personally, but at our society in general: I really despise how base our culture has become, that any hint of friendship between two people instantly becomes sexual. Tender moments between male friends who have been to hell and back together now makes them faggy. When Veterans hug are they gay? Or are they too 'old' for it to be funny to conemplate? Is it possible to have deep, plutonic love anymore?
If not, thank the homosexual movement for reducing a vital component of human existence to a sex joke.
104
posted on
12/20/2003 1:11:24 PM PST
by
Lil'freeper
(Now for wrath! Now for ruin! And a red dawn!)
To: Waryone
There is much in your argument about Aragorn's kingliness that I agree with. I found the installation of Aragorn as "KING" to be a bit abrupt because Tolkien takes great pains in the book to establish signs, symbols, and legends for Aragorn to fufill. The sword, the banner, calling the dead, healing the sick, etc. He respectfully waited outside the city and gave time for word and acceptance to spread.
I can certainly grant PJ leave (not like he asked me or anything) to develop Aragorn through periods of doubt and have him grow into his station. After all, during the chase across Rohan he despairs that all of his decisions have gone awry. But I hope that in the EE, PJ will include more of the moments that establish his claim plus a few opportunites to demonstrate "presence".
105
posted on
12/20/2003 1:33:48 PM PST
by
Lil'freeper
(Now for wrath! Now for ruin! And a red dawn!)
To: Waryone
I don't think it was a matter of being prodded to hope. Gandalf was coming to grips with how little chance Frodo ever had of success and the fact that he's the one that sent Frodo on the mission. Sending people to their death is a tough thing, sending them on a mission you now don't think can succeed is even tougher.
No I don't think Strider could have done the same thing. Part of how he convinced Theoden was by speaking for Gondor, something Strider couldn't do.
He doesn't look furtively towards Gandalf. You're inserting stuff because you don't like the actor.
He got the army out of the mountain with a bit more than "what say you", he demonstrated that he was the king and had the power to count the debt paid.
The insane plan worked.
How nice for your son, that speaks more for his own lack of fortitude than Arogorn's speech. It was a good speech given by a KING no matter what you think.
He did ALL of those things you list. You're just talking the character down because the actor is a pinko scum. Seperate the character from the actor, Aragorn does every single thing you were looking for REPEATEDLY.
Gandalf was the leader of the fellowship, after Gandalf fell Strider came up with their plans and was technically the head but did not lead. Notice it wasn't long after they got out of elf country that the fellowship disintigrated. He didn't become a leader until Helm's Deep, that's the first time he starts thinking about people's morale and not just about logistics.
106
posted on
12/20/2003 2:17:34 PM PST
by
discostu
(that's a waste of a perfectly good white boy)
To: Fire-Breathing_Freeper
1. It is, and i will enjoy the DVD where I won't have to watch it. Oh and one other thing, when I said it was like a horror movie i didn't mean scary but gory and sick. I thoght some scenes could have been handled with out the gore and would have been just as affective.
I saw almost no gore, and the only sickness I saw was a few very compelling portrayals of the sickness of addiction. I think a lot of gore is SUGGESTED but it's not actually there outside the imagination of the viewer.
3. i'd like a six parter. I just thought since there wasn't enough time they should have cut it, and used the time for character devlopment. Like Eomer.
They used a LOT of time for character development.
6. it was tense. but I didn't want to laugh there. It was a serious scene, and not supposed to be funny.Although i'm not sure what could have been done.
I didn't laugh there. Nobody in either of the showings I was at laughed there.
7. so why were they in the city?
Because they live there. Because they had lived in Osgiliath which was being sacked. Because they had lived in near-by farms which were defenseless once Osgiliath was overrun. That's the nature of Medieval society, when the feces hits the rotating device flee into the largest walled city you can get to (or past it completely if possible... which given the mountain range it largely wasn't). The difference between a fortified city and an inhabited fort is the number of women and children.
10. All the movies were hardened and not as soft as the books. Which I thought was so great about the hobbits. Merry and Pippin after they were captured in TTT were joking and as T put it 'if you had been listening you would not have known that they had just been in the jaws of death' (not exact words). But I guess it wasn't that way to show how the Ring was killing frodo, kind of turning him into a wraith, without the hobbity sweetness.
I'm confused by the people that think the books were soft. I see the story as very dark with the moments of lightness being foxhole humor men who are about to die use to stay sane.
12. Ok i understand now. But as someone commented; why is there a need to change who Denethor is simply because it is a movie and not a book? That question was not directed at you. Because they did not ask me weather or not I liked it.
Because books and movies have different needs from their characters. Really there wasn't a direct need to change Denethor but there was a need to change Faromir, to give him an arc. Denethor needed to be changed to facilitate giving Faromir an arc. All that is necessitated because movies need a regular pulse of peeks and valleys in tension that books don't need. Books can travel a flatter emotional path because there's an assumption that the audience will walk away and come back (how many people can read all of ROTK in one sitting). Movies the assumption is exactly the opposite, they're single sitting events and must hold the audience the entire time, in order to do that movies need a pulse, they need tension to be built and released, false climaxes, and characters to develop.
15. I didn't find Shelob scary at all, so I think it was important to show that she was indeed deadly.
It was a 12 foot tall spider with a stinger as long as a hobbit's arm. Seems pretty deadly to me.
25. I think the message could have been delivered just as affective with out having to see it. Who dosen't get that the ring is totally evil and Gollum is hopelessly emmersed in it? Although that scene did drive the point home.
In a wierd way Gollum was rewarded, he got to die happy. Not many characters in LOTR get to die happy.
26. true. I think it the eye should have gone through some king of change during its destruction. So it coulod be determined that Sauron was actually being killed.
It was twitching around really fast. Looked to me like Sauron was trying to figure out WTF was going on.
27. well they had to die some how.
Also notice only the orcs got taken out, when Sauron exploded the first time it took out both armies. Sometimes there's just no good way to do something.
28. I didn't mind the eagles picking him up off the rock, it was the next part that i didn't like.
I think that was primarily to give a nice cut.
30. yes and there usually assoiated with Laura and Mary and, going west to find a better life... NNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO. It wasn't really that bad just slightly shocking.
I usually associate them with going to Tombstone and taking the wagon tour. Guess I live in wagon country.
31. It was shocking to see him so ugly. It was like a different hobbit.
It was shocking, but remember Bilbo is aging rapidly now that he's out of the influence of the ring. The ring had kept him artificially young and the years were rapidly catching up to him... which also tells you just how close to the action Gollum had been staying since Bilbo took the ring.
32. I want to see this part again also. But it still had a bad acting (on the part of the elves)and cgi feel to it.
Yeah it had a cgi feel but it looked nice. I had a long discussion with a few sci-fi artists last month about why photorealism isn't all it's cracked up to be. A lot of times making things look real also makes them look dead, taking a step back and allowing it to breath isn't always a bad thing, especially in elf country.
107
posted on
12/20/2003 2:42:04 PM PST
by
discostu
(that's a waste of a perfectly good white boy)
To: sweetliberty
And even after the ring is destroyed some of the darkness remains with the scouring and Frodo's wounds. It's like Middle Earth can never truly be clean again, or at least not for a very long time.
108
posted on
12/20/2003 2:44:52 PM PST
by
discostu
(that's a waste of a perfectly good white boy)
To: Fire-Breathing_Freeper
Interesting...bookmarking this to re-read after seeing ROTK
To: discostu
Elrond drove it all home "we're leaving, she's not, if you don't become the king you were born to be she'll die, stop being a pansy, here's the sword, go do what we both know you have to and save my daughter's life you shlub" You should write for Cliff Notes.
110
posted on
12/20/2003 4:22:29 PM PST
by
Harmless Teddy Bear
(Prancer II: Pass the Mashed Potatoes and Gravy. - Delicious! A Holiday Movie for the whole family!)
To: Lil'freeper
"If not, thank the homosexual movement for reducing a vital component of human existence to a sex joke." I agree with your assessment in post #104 and it angers me as well. I first saw this trend in seminary, of all places, where there were those who tried to portray the friendship between David and Jonathan as homosexual, to which I say, BS. The left has effectively robbed our culture of everything that is pure and decent, and I resent it deeply. They will ultimately pay the price, but for now we all pay.
111
posted on
12/20/2003 4:25:05 PM PST
by
sweetliberty
(Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.)
To: sweetliberty
I'm sure there are those who would measure the decay of civilization by the decline in spelling skills:
plutonic= platonic
conemplate= contemplate
112
posted on
12/20/2003 4:46:41 PM PST
by
Lil'freeper
(Now for wrath! Now for ruin! And a red dawn!)
To: discostu
I never thought of Arizona as wagon country. I was born there and lived in Phoniex till I was 2. Way too hot.
1. You will never convince me on this one. While it probially helped the story, I hated it and would be happy never to see ti again.
3. Not Eomer, the hunk of Rohan. I wanted him to have a bigger part.
6. Really you didn't think it was weird at all? I don't remember it well enough, I was raging through that part.
7. I'd forgotten that people lived in osgiliath. I agree with you know.
Dinner break, I'll write the rest later.
113
posted on
12/20/2003 4:49:02 PM PST
by
Fire-Breathing_Freeper
(There can be no triumph without loss, No victory without suffering, No Freedom without sacrifice)
To: sweetliberty
I don't think that the difference is a merely a semantic one. In a side by side comparison, the contrast in Theoden and Aragorn is great. Maybe it's just a matter of Bernard Hill upstaging Viggo Mortensen. Whatever it was, Bernard Hill's Theoden was a much more noble (illustrious, lofty, superior, aristocratic) acting character.
This is particularly unfortunate for the character Aragorn because he is not to be just any old king, he is the KING OF MEN in middle earth.
The part that was particularly difficult for me to accept was knowing that in the book Aragorn did not dare enter the city of Gondor, even after leading the Army of the Dead. He wanted to be sure the people were convinced of his worthiness. The Aragorn in the movie did not have the opportunities to prove birthright or win the affection of the people of Gondor. That was PJ's fault.
All throughout LOTR Tolkien allowed the King of Men to show through Aragorn. Tolkien's Aragorn had many opportunities to give evidence of noble behavior and I never considered Theoden to be Aragorn's equal even though he too was a king.
Even within the confines of the Aragorn PJ wrote, there was still some leeway so that the acting would have added refinement to the character. A strong show of personality, a stately and noble bearing would have done a lot to make his character fit better, even with the missing book events that would prove his nobility. In this I fault both the director and actor.
I saw scenes of PJ doing take after take to get just what he wanted emotionally out of a scene. If PJ had wanted it in the movie, it would have been there. So I believe that if the character was not played with a kingly bearing it could either be PJ's fault in not requiring it or Viggo's fault for not being able to produce it. As is more likely, it may also be a combination of all three. PJ's writing and directing, as well as Viggo's acting.
This Aragorn as a character is more common, more like an ordinary human, than the one in the book. Perhaps PJ did this on purpose thinking it would be more easy for the audience to identify with him if he lost some of the kingly shine and behaved more like an everyday joe schmo.
I truly appreciate the tone you've taken and although I disagree I certainly respect your opinion.
114
posted on
12/20/2003 10:45:22 PM PST
by
Waryone
To: discostu
I don't think it was a matter of being prodded to hope. Gandalf was coming to grips with how little chance Frodo ever had of success and the fact that he's the one that sent Frodo on the mission. Sending people to their death is a tough thing, sending them on a mission you now don't think can succeed is even tougher. Gandalf's a maiar. He should know better.
No I don't think Strider could have done the same thing. Part of how he convinced Theoden was by speaking for Gondor, something Strider couldn't do.
How was Aragorn speaking for Gondor? He was not yet king, he did not even known if they would accept him as king. I believe that Theoden agreed to aid Gondor because it was the right thing to do. Theoden showed his own worth when he could put aside a slight he felt Gondor had dealt him. (None of this was in the book.)
I see a difference from Aragorn in FOTR and the other two movies, but I see no difference in the portrayal of the Aragorns in TTT and ROTK.
He doesn't look furtively towards Gandalf. You're inserting stuff because you don't like the actor.
I may not agree with what Viggo Mortensen says but if I have a problem with the opinions of any of the actors, it would be with Ian McKellan. However, McKellen does a fantastic job with Gandalf. Whether I like him or not, his acting is fantastic. So please don't insert "stuff" like I just don't like the actor.
If you see the movie again, watch what Aragorn does after he gets crowned. Watch his body language. Does it say, I king, I'm self assured and confident, I'm in command and control of all around me. Or does it say "what do I do next???"
He got the army out of the mountain with a bit more than "what say you", he demonstrated that he was the king and had the power to count the debt paid.
If I'm not mistaken he said the phrase "what say you" three times. He was almost pleading with them. Legolas was so confident of Aragorn's command over the ghosts that he tried to shoot one with an arrow. (This is not even close to Aragorn's command of the ghosts in Tolkien's book.)
The insane plan worked.
Great but what has that to do with kingly character?
How nice for your son, that speaks more for his own lack of fortitude than Arogorn's speech. It was a good speech given by a KING no matter what you think.
I think it was a so-so speech especially in contrast to the one given by Theoden. I also think that your very rude opinion of a 14 years old's fortitude is your own. Don't take this movie so personally.
He did ALL of those things you list.
No these are the "things" (characteristics) I listed -- regal, august, imposing. Here are some more: eminent, revered, majestic, resplendent, elegant, of the highest type or quality. These are things that made up the Aragorn in Tolkien's book. PJ and Viggo M. seem to have a different interpretation. I see few of these characteristics in the events that you mentioned above. In other words how does coming up with an 'insane plan that works' prove evidence of these characteristics.
You're just talking the character down because the actor is a pinko scum. Seperate the character from the actor, Aragorn does every single thing you were looking for REPEATEDLY.
1. As I have already mentioned, it is the performance that I am judging. Mortensen's Aragorn seemed to be repeatedly and consistently upstaged by Bernard Hill's Theoden. Which led me to wonder why. I began to realize that:
2. All the characteristics I've already mentioned were found in the King Theoden's character to a far greater degree than in Aragorn. They are characteristics of Tolkien's book Aragorn. They are characteristics of nobility. Thus I could easily see that what the movie Aragorn lacked was noble bearing which was the original comment I made.
Gandalf was the leader of the fellowship, after Gandalf fell Strider came up with their plans and was technically the head but did not lead. Notice it wasn't long after they got out of elf country that the fellowship disintigrated. He didn't become a leader until Helm's Deep, that's the first time he starts thinking about people's morale and not just about logistics.
Hama of Rohan is a leader of men. Gamling is a leader of men. That does not make either one of them the king of Rohan. In the same way Aragorn leading men does not automatically give him the characteristics that prove him to be the King of Men, the greatest of all kings in Middle Earth.
This is just a movie. Go out and have a blessed Sunday and a Merry Christmas.
115
posted on
12/21/2003 12:34:14 AM PST
by
Waryone
To: discostu
10. The book weren't full of wisecracks. For example when Frodo was leaving the Grey havens, the book dialog was much better that the movie. Much more hobbitish. True the movie replicated the books nicely, but was missing the depth, not that it was missing entirely, that I would have liked.
12. I understand Denethor now. I hate him even more. But he is understandable.
15. Other than being a huge spider, no she wasn't scary. The score was weird there too. Although it fit ni.cely.
I also didn't like how some of the movie was filmed. It was too 'i lost control of the camera', cut off half the actor's head and it was nauseating. I noticed it mostly when Frodo was crawling up Mt Doom.
25. I'm sure Gollum loved it, and it was very effective in showing Gollum's corruption by the Ring.
26. LOL. Now I'm going to start laughing during that part. Sigh, oh well its better than not liking it.
27. The elves didn't die in the prologue. And apparently the men didn't either because Isldur would have died, and Elrond would have too.
30. thats even worse. I have never been to a Tombstone though.
31. Yea I guess so.
32. With Rivendell it was fake and it was obviously, but not overpowering, like i felt the Havens to be.
116
posted on
12/21/2003 6:55:19 AM PST
by
Fire-Breathing_Freeper
(There can be no triumph without loss, No victory without suffering, No Freedom without sacrifice)
To: discostu
Exactly, that's an important part of the Strider/ Aragorn arc (even in the books, signified by him going through a name change), he's into the Ranger life because it has no responsibilities. Whoa....wait a minute! I hope you're talking about the movie only!
In the book, Strider is into the Ranger thing because of his responsibilities as the King to protect the people of the Northern Kingdom. Remember at the end of the book how Butterbur complained about the place going to pot after the Rangers left.
To: Overtaxed
His responsibility as king is to Gondor, a place he avoids. As a ranger he's just one guy in a troop, not even in charge, his responsibility is to be in charge.
118
posted on
12/21/2003 11:09:31 AM PST
by
discostu
(that's a waste of a perfectly good white boy)
To: discostu
Only he's descended from the kings of the northern kingdom and the Rangers are the Dunedain. Aragorn's Ranger gig isn't some happy-go-lucky "do what I want, go where I want" deal. He and his Rangers are protecting the Northern Kingdom and especially the Shire and Bilbo and the Ring from the enemy before he claims the kingship in Gondor.
To: Waryone
So Gandalf as a maiar is allowed to be sad that he sent a friend to his death and quite possibly handed Sauron the tool he needs to rule Middle Earth?! Sorry not buying that for a single second.
Let's see Aragorn said "Gondor needs you" and he'd indicated he was going one way or the other. It's a pretty simple assumption that if Aragorn is going to Gondor he'll probably stake his claim to the throne thus he would soon be in a position to officially speak for Gondor. He clearly spoke for Gondor, unequivocally and undeniably.
I've watched the movie twice already and I've watched Aragorn's body language after he is crowned and seen quite clearly that you are WRONG, he is VERY regal in his behavior. There are clear and obvious changed in his demeanor throughout the series. It say unequivocally "I'm the king, here's what I am going to do, here's what we are going to do, let's do it." He makes NO furtive glances, he is not lost and looking for guidance, he is THE KING (tm).
He wasn't pleading with them. Yeah Legolas shot at one, it demonstrated that they couldn't be hurt by the living, and it's not like they HAD to listen to Aragorn. So it wasn't exactly the same as in the books, big whup, that's the last dodge of the whiner. If you wanted it to be just like in the books you shouldn't have gone to the movie, just stay home and reread the books.
Well it was a good enough speech that they feature it in the commercials.
All of the characteristic you mention are ON THE SCREEN, you just don't want to see them. Which is your right, but just because YOU choose to ignore them doesn't mean they're not there it just means YOU have made a bad choice.
120
posted on
12/21/2003 11:23:02 AM PST
by
discostu
(that's a waste of a perfectly good white boy)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 181 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson