[Fire-Breathing_Freeper]

Sorry, but I need to tell someone how mad and dissappointed I am. Please feel free to post your complaints here.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Complaint? No complaints except you give away spoiler info for people who haven't seen it. Thats worse than someone taking the movie too seriously in the first place, IMO.

[HairOfTheDog]

I think we should open up a can of Metamucil on his.... eww.

Fire breather! I wouldn't have expected this out of you!

[HanneyBean]

As I have not seen it yet, I am in no position to say, but yours is the first negative post I've seen about the movie.
I'm sure it was a bummer to look forward to a movie and be disapointed.
I must say that I'm glad I'm watching the movies first - and then I'll read the books for the first time. I think those people who read and loved the books are finding it much harder to appreciate the movie. I believe I'll appreciate the book much better after having watched the movies - at least I hope I will.

On a lighter note, my only "true" hope for this movie is that Aragorn will be as sweaty, dirty, and hunk-a-licious as in the past (and I'm only saying this partly tongue-in-cheek!) Too bad Viggo is such a wimpy, liberal idiot in real life!

[HairOfTheDog]

I am not gonna read all your rants btw.... I loved the film and don't belong here. Hope you find some other nattering naybobs to commiserate with....

[LadyDoc]

I'm a LOTR freek, but you know, both the first and second movie left me disappointed...until I saw them a second and third time and then they grow on you.

I found myself "comparing" the movies to the books and making talking points, and trying to figure out what was being changed and why. But on rewatching, I could enjoy them as a movie period, not as the book visualized, and they became more enjoyable, and I found a lot of things I disliked weren't that bad, and I had overlooked some visual clues while trying to absorb the whole thing...

I even refused an over to see TT with a friend I disliked it so much...but after it was released and I watched it again, I found it got better and better...and the "extended versions" were the best, since they often filled out what was lacking, and of course the extended versions have the authors etc discussing why things were done a certain way, and I found I agreed.

The problem is that two medias have different artistic needs, and filmmakers have to re do stories to make them good films.

Now, go spend another 8 bucks and see ROTK again, and watch for visual clues/expressions etc. that tell the story that words tell in the book, and then let us know if you still feel that way.

[Corin Stormhands]

[Humbug]

I haven't seen the third film yet but i can understand your disappointment as i was very disappointed with the first two films, especially the second one. Just curious, were you disappointed with those as well or just this one?

For myself, the things that didn't work for me in the first two were the way that Jackson seemed to interpret most scenes with an eye toward horror. Too much of that, in my opinion, such as the scene in Fellowship with the Elf Queen, where she seemed to become possessed, or the one where Biblo suddenly transformed into a vampire for an instant, or at the end where Sam appeared to have drowned before finally being fished out by Frodo.

The books though wasn't nearly so dark, at least that's not the way i read them. For instance, the scene with Sam in the river always struck me as much more of a lighthearted, humorous affair. So perhaps too much of Jackson's background with horror films keep finding their way into the movies for my taste.

The second film bothered me even more though, this time not only with the tendency towards the macabre but also the deviations from the book that weren't necessary (ie, not necessary in the sense they weren't done due to time contraints). The changes in the Faromir and the Ent characters, for example, making them seem less noble or even stupid. In the case of Faromir, i understand that Jackson wanted to keep emphasizing the corruptive power of the Ring but still, i think showing at least one man being able to resist it's temptations wouldn't have been a bad thing. I also believe this desire to show the corrupting influence of the Ring diminished a scene at the end of Fellowship, where Strider (deviating from the book) meets Frodo after Frodo's frightening encounter with Boromir and Strider agrees that the hobbit should go off on his own to Mordor so that he wouldn't further risk the temptation of the Ring (or something like that, i don't remember exactly how the scene went now). It made no sense though, when you think about it, for wouldn't it better to take that risk than to let a little hobbit go all alone toward Mordor and thereby almost certainly deliver up the Ring to Sauron?

Other minor things bothered me too, like throwing in the gratuitous emotional scene where everyone thinks Strider has been killed (this didn't happen in the books and plus it seemed gratuitous and somewhat cheap since it was virtually identical to the way everyone had thought Gandalf had died in the first film). Also didn't care for Gollum. Maybe because he kept reminding me of the infamous "dancing baby" you'd see on the internet a few years ago. That, plus the scene where Gollum and Smeagol "chat" was strange, and had everyone in the theatre giggling. I couldn't decide whether it was meant to be funny or not but it definitely took me 'out of the film' for a few minutes and it was a while before i could become immersed in it again.

I kept wanting to like the movies, and i was willing to overlook the minor quibbles i had, but what it really comes down to is that i'm just not a fan of Jackon's interpretation, which is a much darker take than i would prefer. Unfortunately though i think it is this interpretation that will now be ingrained on the minds of most as being the definitive take on Tolkien's work.

[rosyposy]

*Gandalf knocks Fire-Breathing-Freeper out*

[Trampled by Lambs]

We can pick the movies apart endlessly but the fact is, they (all 3) were by far the best movies of their type that I've ever seen and certainly more faithful to the novels than anything up till now.

It's sure nice to not feel like I wasted my money as I leave the theater and that held true for all 3 of them.

Besides, I've been dreaming of seeing a really good film version of LotR ever since I first read them (what, 30 years ago?) that I am willing to forgive much.

Things like Bilbo turning monster-like to illustrate the power the ring still held over him are neccesary in film since there is no text to describe his thoughts. Unsubtle, perhaps but it got the point across.

[Waryone]

I agree with many of your points. I loved FOTR, I hated TTT, and I think ROTK is just ok. I should not have listened to all the glowing reviews. I'm not exactly sure what movie the reviewers were watching. There are some fantastic stunts filmed, but the editing in some scenes was downright poor, events in the book that evoked pathos were laughable in the movie, and many in the audience laughed out loud. Peter Jackson may be the king of effects, but he needs help with laying out and editing stories.

The thing that stands out most for me is the lack of nobility of the characters. In FOTR Aragorn, the ranger, exhibited little noble, kingly bearing. I could accept this because they said they wanted the characters to "grow." In TTT, I waited to see Aragorn grow into his future, but all I saw was a Ranger -- still no kingly sword, still no growth. Oh well, wait for Return of the King, surely then I'd see Aragorn, grow into his high position.

Once again I'm disappointed. Even though he finally gets the sword of his ancestors, he still is just a ranger in a high position. At no time does he exhibit the bearing of a king. Bernard Hill, Theoden, is such a great example of nobility. He dies on the battle field a beloved king.

Later, they clean Aragorn up and dress him up in a crown. He glances around nervously as if begging Gandalf to tell him what to do. This is the King of Men? The King never returns! I'm still waiting for The Return of the King. Maybe PJ will make another movie.

This movie was ok. Best picture? No way. Best directed? Not hardly. Make a mint? You betcha!

I could go on, but I'm sure there are those lurking here, Jackson apologists in the worst connotation of the word, wondering why anyone would have the nerve to rain on their love-fest of a parade. I would hate to raise their ire. So I won't continue. Although I don't hate ROTK as much as I hated TTT, I understand how you feel.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

I agree that should should have filmed the Grey Havens scenes on location

[Samwise]

Perhaps Donald Trump's new television show will be more your speed.

[Alas Babylon!]

I just saw it a few hours ago. Here's my observations...

First, I would see it again. The effects and scenery was breathtaking. I do have several complaints and likes, though.

I was really upset they didn't show or in anyway talk about the Scouring of the Shire. We see the old man scowling at the 4 hobbits return, and then they're back in the Green Dragon as if they (to the hobbits left behind) never left. Sam going up to Rosie in the inn almost seemed put in there to assure everyone that Frodo and Sam weren't fags but just loved each other platonically. And Merry was supposed to be later known as "Merriadoc the Magnificent" in the Shire. Sam was to be Mayor about 5 times. The movie needed a better vehicle to show how our four hobbits grew in stature in the eyes of the Shire folk!

Minas Tirith was supposed to be depopulated of all women and children (by order of Denethor). Pippin had met a soldier who introduced him to his son, who Pippin befriended and was only one of a few children left in the city. I think they had too many women and children there in the movie.

The White Tree in blossom again in the crowning scene. OK, that was not bad, actually. But it was dead, and Aragon was supposed to find a sapling in the King's Seat on the mountaintop.

When Sam returns to Rosie after Frodo left on the ship--wasn't Sam supposed to be living in Bag End? Frodo left it to him in his will. Was that house different--not Bag End? It seemed so to me.

The Oliphants were so big in the battle scenes, but later when we see Pippin find Merry, the dead oliphant is about 10 times smaller, almost regular elephant size.

The Men of Dunedain were missing. In the book, Aragon had about 25 fellow Rangers join him and go through the Mountain of the Dead with him. I wish they had included them.

In the book, after Sauraman's defeat at Isengard, there is a very heavy feeling of urgency to assemble Rohan and go to the aid of Gondor. Instead we see feasting and Merry and Pippin dancing on tables and Theoden vetching about Gondor not coming to his aid.

Legolas climbing up on the Oliphant was awesome. However, didn't we see a similar scene in Star Wars "The Empire Strikes Back" with Luke climbing up a land walker the same way? Still, a very cool scene. Legolas was very well played in all the movies. Orlando Bloom did an Oscar winning job!

The whole Hidden Staircase and Shelob's lair was awesome, but I would have left Sam going in with Frodo, too.

The movie didn't show all the orc's fight over Frodo's mithril mail, just two of them fighting over it. The whole scene made little sense to those who didn't read the book. It was too fast.

I thought Aragon was every inch the King. The movies showed his growth into the role very well. It was just different from the book, but played out well here.

As I digest what I saw today, I'll probably change some of my initial opinions.

[Texaggie79]

When Sam finds Frodo in the tower, all the tenderness and love

I don't know about the book, but if Sam and Frodo got any more "loving and tender" in the movie, they would have started humping each other. They got just a LITTLE too close for comport a number of times. I was just waiting for them to start kissing.

Now as to my view on the movie (I have never read the books mind you) I think they should have done one of 2 things. EIther cut a lot of the crap between the start of the movie and the battle at Gondor, or make 2 movies out of ROTK. They kept the normally slow pace leading up to the battle at Gondor, but then after that, it was like they had to cram 3 hours worth of movie into 1 and a half. The Battle at Gondor and Mordor were WAAAAAAAAAY too short. They took forever to get to them, then they just breeze through them. I went for what I thought was going to be an awesome war movie. Then after the Gondor battle they had to hurry and get Frodo to Mordor, get the riders to Mordor to make a diversion, get the ring to the fire, get frodo and sam saved, get Aragorn crowned as king, get Aragorn and Arwen together (which it do agree it was hardly made a big deal when she came), get the hobbits back to the shire, get sam married, get Frodo and Bilbo on the ship..... It just went too fast.

[Sloth]

2. Frodo was somewhat 'normal' at the end of TTT, and in the beggining of ROTK Frodo is like corrupted and half dead.

Yeah, threatening to stab Sam in the throat at Osgiliath is "somewhat normal" for Frodo.

You are a cretin.

[SgtSolomon]

Regarding the first complaint, I think you're absolutely correct (if you disregard the 5% self-blinded moron - uh, I mean, uninformed - population)...but it was priceless to see Smeagol as Michael Jackson. Am I the only one who noticed that? You know, about two-thirds of the way into his "decomposition" into Gollum - right before (as I remember) he eats the fish, which was incredibly gross, didn't need to see that either....