Skip to content


The Lord of the Rings

Salem Witch Trials, koala bears, SpongeBob: what's on TV and at the movies!

Re: RotK

Postby SySnootles » Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:55 am

Well, I'm back from the midnight showing, and wow. Just wow.



For those who are worried about the running time of the movie, it was 3 hours and 11 minutes, not including the end credits. And no, there is no intermission, so bladder breaks will have to be strategically planned. If you're arachnophobic, I recommend heading out about 1 hour and 50 minutes into the flick.



I don't want to spoil anyone, but I do want to state my opinions about some things.



:applause The movie in general



:eek :paranoid Shalob



:pride Mary & Pippen :p



:clap :bow Eowyn



:D :bounce The battle scenes



:sigh :sleepy The last 10 minutes



That, in a nutshell, is how I felt about the movie.

Catie



"The purpose of life is not to be happy - but to matter, to be productive, to be useful, to have it make a difference that you lived at all." -- Leo Roston

SySnootles
 


Re: RotK

Postby Warduke » Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:36 pm

Just came back from seeing it (driving 35 miles through rain and freezing rain) and all I can say is WOW!



This film did not disappoint. I won't say much more simply because I would want to comment on everything I saw and I’m still digesting the whole thing.



One thing I will say is that after I saw The Two Towers and the Battle of Helm's Deep, I said that there would never be a more incredible battle on film ever...I was wrong!



The Battle of the Pelennor Fields was unbelievable, the most amazing battle on film ever. It's something that has to be seen to be appreciated, just mind-blowing.



The worst part now if having to wait several months until the DVD comes out and then having to wait a few more months to get the Extended Edition.


Firebird: One Browser To Rule Them All.

Warduke
 


Re: RotK

Postby sam7777 » Thu Dec 18, 2003 12:45 pm

Yes this film does not dissappoint. I saw it at a midnight showing and all five screens were sold out. I'm still digesting it as well and plan to see it again Sunday. The movie is fantastic and LOTR for me is the first perfect trilogy with 3 great movies beating out Matrix, Star Wars, Alien, Terminator and Godfather. Yeah the wait for the extended edition of this one will be tough. I plan to preorder mine as sooon as possible. I don't plan to review till I see it again but it's definitely a keeper. Peter Jackson does not dissappoint.

sam7777
 


Filmforce interview w/Ian McKellen

Postby Ben Varkentine » Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:09 pm

Filmforce has a witty and thought-provoking interview with Ian McKellen in which he discusses everything from his party-going stamina to his outspoken-ness as a gay man:



"...gay people have been forced to be silent for so long that the rest mustn't be too surprised if, given the chance, we speak perhaps at length about something that hasn't been spoken about at length for far too long and still isn't in certain areas of the world, like in this country and mine.



When I got my knighthood, I was very pleased that the government decided to give me that honor two years after I'd come out. Most actors, not most actors, but some actors have hidden their homosexuality all of their lives and received knighthood en ... but I came out and then was knighted. ... I often talk to gay groups. ... In Florida, I was talking to a gay group in an appalling situation. I met two middle-aged men who, in their time, have fostered seventeen children and they have two at the moment and want to adopt and it's the only state in the union where gays are not allowed to adopt... If the Supreme Court finds against them those kids are going to have to go back into public care and into a home. Public care with a matron when they've got two loving parents. It's a wicked, wicked, wicked world. And, there's was also a boy at this reception who, at age 16, had told his friends he was gay at school and been expelled. Not allowed to have an education because he'd told the truth about himself. ... To me those people are just reminding what I can easily forget. That it isn't over. There's a fight still going on."



filmforce.ign.com/article...100p1.html

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

Ben Varkentine
 


Re: RotK

Postby Warduke » Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:56 pm

From Yahoo...



Quote:
'Rings' Sets Record for Wednesday Opening



By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer



LOS ANGELES - Call it return of the cash. "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" took in $34.1 million domestically on opening day, easily beating the debuts of the fantasy epic's first two installments, distributor New Line Cinema said Thursday.

       

It was a record debut for a movie opening on Wednesday, surpassing the $28.5 million take for "Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace" in 1999.



The film also had the sixth-best single-day gross ever, behind "Spider-Man" with $43.6 million and $39.4 million on two different days, "The Matrix Reloaded" with $37.5 million and $34.4 million on two different days, and "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" with $34.2 million.



Those films ran far shorter than "Return of the King," whose three-hour, 20-minute running time limits the number of screenings theaters can squeeze in each day.



By Sunday, "Return of the King" should have handily passed the $102 million that "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" grossed domestically in its first five days last year.



The film also took in $23.5 million in 19 other countries where it debuted Wednesday, including Great Britain, Germany and France. The movie was opening in about 10 more countries Thursday and Friday and gradually expands to other territories over the next couple of months.



New Line executives hope the final chapter of the saga will ultimately top $1 billion worldwide, becoming the second movie to cross that mark, after "Titanic" with $1.8 billion.



"Everyone wants to have closure and see the last part of the story, so I think we should be able to hit that mark," said Rolf Mittweg, New Line's head of worldwide marketing and distribution. "People are storming to the theaters. All shows have been sold out virtually."



Unlike many sequels, which can lose steam with each successive movie, "The Lord of the Rings" has expanded its audience as the story unfolded.



Part one, "The Fellowship of the Ring," took in $18.2 million domestically on day one in 2001, topping out with a total domestic haul of $314 million and a worldwide tally of $861 million.



The middle chapter, "The Two Towers," opened last year with $26.2 million domestically on its way to a $340 million domestic total and $921 million globally.



The release of "Return of the King" closes a seven-year odyssey to adapt J.R.R. Tolkien's mammoth chronicle about an alliance of humans, wizards, elves, dwarves and hobbits aiming to destroy a ring of ultimate power and stop an evil lord from enslaving the mythical land of Middle-earth.



The films were shot simultaneously in New Zealand by relatively untested director Peter Jackson, who had been best known for a series of cult-horror flicks and the acclaimed 1994 drama "Heavenly Creatures," which helped launch Kate Winslet's career.



With about $300 million committed to the production by New Line and other investors, the project was a major risk if the first film flopped. But by the time New Line dazzled critics with 26 minutes of footage at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival, the studio knew it had a winner.



"This may have been the biggest gamble in cinema history," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations. "For New Line, this is a feather in their cap. This is their legacy. To me, it's the strongest intersection of critical acclaim and box-office success in a series of films that I've ever seen."



Firebird: One Browser To Rule Them All.

Warduke
 


Re: RotK

Postby urnofosiris » Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:18 pm

I guess a lot of people did not go see the first and second parts in a cinema and they finally saw it on DVD and now visited the big screen. I can't imagine that a lot of people would go see RotK without having seen the first two parts. It speaks to the quality of this trilogy, a mere hype would not be enough to keep the numbers of viewers growing.

urnofosiris
 


Fan Fiction!

Postby GreenNeutron » Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:21 pm

I thought I'd post a link for some good hobbit fan-fiction... seeing as most people on these boards seem to be into fanfic. :applause West of the Moon Also has some fun slash... :devilish naturally.



Have fun seeing the new movie and everything... and of course drawing connections between blue-eyed frodo and green-eyed sam that certainly aren't meant to be there.

Edited by: xita  at: 12/18/03 10:59 pm
GreenNeutron
 


Re: Fan Fiction!

Postby Cicca » Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:26 pm

Bwwwwaaaaaaaaaahahahahaaaaaaaa!

Great link, thanks!



And check this story out. hee!!



Quote:
The Fellowship of the Ring, All-Slash-All-the-Time Version


hee!

It's very funny.

Is there a hyphen in anal-retentive?

Cicca
 


Re: ROTK

Postby Hemiola » Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:23 am

Well, I finally saw it and here follow some random comments. For safety's sake I include the standard warning



1. First of all, I must add my praise for Peter Jackson's accomplishment--this was truly the best of the three films.



2. I must also express disappointment with the loss of some of my favorite parts of the book: The Gandalf/Saruman confrontation and the Scouring of the Shire. This feeling was somewhat mitigated by the fact that the film is 3 hours and 20 minutes long as it is, and adding these scenes would surely have extended it to 4 hours:eek . Oh well, maybe on the extended edition....:wink



3. I must express delight at the inclusion of a totally unexpected scene: the depiction of Smeagol in his "pre-Gollum" state with his brother Deagol.



4. All the actors were splendid and absolutely at the top of their form, with special commendations to Sean Astin (who deserves as Best Supporting Actor Oscar; my other choice for this award would, of course, be Andy Serkis:wink ), Viggo Mortenson and Miranda Otto:)



5. I must echo the previous posters, who have mentioned the Battle of Pelennor Fields as probably the most spectacular battle ever depicted on a motion picture screen. I would also like to add to this the magnificent depiction of the "last stand" before the Black Gate.



6. My special praise to John Rhys-Davies as Gimli, who gets to deliver my favorite line in the whole film: "That still counts as one!": -->>: lol



7. My praise to the screenwriters who managed to be more faithful to Tolkien's scenes and dialogue in this film than in the other two. I was a little dismayed that the "Field of Cornmallen" scene got moved to the top of the citadel; I also would have liked to have seen the presentation of the crown to Aragorn by Faramir, followed by Aragorn's statement that he is not abolishing the office of Steward.



8. Speaking of Faramir, I was disappointed not to have the whole Eowyn/Faramir love story...



9. Speaking of Eowyn, all praise to the Screenwriters for depicting the Eowyn/Angmar confrontation exactly as it is in the book. It was just like I always pictured it:)



10. Conclusions: you must see this. We are unlikely to get a superior version of the Trilogy. This will go down in film history as one of the great classics of the cinema :bow


Edited by: Warduke at: 12/20/03 8:32 am
Hemiola
 


Re: ROTK

Postby Jennpurr » Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:29 pm

Can anyone tell me if the amount of time between the movie being in the theater to when it was put on DVD was the same time for both of the first two movies? If so, can you tell me how long it took?



I'm just just curious to how long we might have to wait for the Return of the King DVD?



Jen


||My Fan Fiction and More!|| ||My Yahoo Group||
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Then the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger." Luke 2: 10-12

Jennpurr
 


Re: ROTK

Postby Hemiola » Mon Dec 22, 2003 8:27 am

Hi Jennpurr!

My guess would be about six (6) months for the "theatrical" version, and about one (1) year for the "extended" edition:) .

Hemiola
 


Re: ROTK

Postby urnofosiris » Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:42 pm

I hope you are wrong Hemiola, a year is far too long. :happy

I think we may get the DVDs sooner this time. For the past two years they had the next part they could plug using the DVDs ,so it was a strategic move to release the DVD 3 months and 1 month before the premiere of the next movie, but now I think it would probably be more prudent to release the DVDs sooner. Cash in while you can. I'm guessing the DVDs will come out in 6 months or so, followed by the extended version after 8 months or so and finally the "all in one mega DVD super exclusive collectors DVD set" with even more extras and goodies.

urnofosiris
 


re

Postby Alia16 » Mon Dec 22, 2003 6:22 pm

I saw this movie on Friday and it was amazing. It made my cry throughout the whole thing, and if I wasn't crying I was on the verge of it. Either that or a giant grin on my face. It just evoked a lot more emotion than the first two, which is one reason why I liked it so much.

Alia16
 


Disjointed thoughts less than four hours after

Postby Ben Varkentine » Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:55 pm

I know what you mean, Alia--I was tearing up, smiling or laughing with delight all the way through. The amazing sense of resolution, the payoffs from things two years ago...



That may have been the best thing I've ever seen.



I can't remember the last time a movie made me feel this way.



Can I just say, oh my goodness gracious?



And when I say, "best thing I have ever seen," I don't just mean movies, BTW. I mean Best Thing I Have Ever. Seen.



Or to put it another way, Oh. Wow.



Joss Whedon only wishes he was this good....





Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

Ben Varkentine
 


...

Postby MellindraX » Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:08 pm

That movie? Was absolutely brilliant.



I was this close to tears (which is an amazing feat for movies) at one scene.



And *small spoiler alert*, I know I wasn't the only one giggling maniacally at Mary saying to Pippen "I found you." and muttering "I'll always find you." No I was not. :whistle

I’ve never purposely gone out to take somebody out. Well, maybe, in elementary school I once did try to trip somebody. –Amber Benson


I'm an idiot. Ask me how.

MellindraX
 


Re: ...

Postby Ben Varkentine » Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:53 pm

Quote:
I know I wasn't the only one giggling maniacally at Mary saying to Pippen "I found you." and muttering "I'll always find you."




No sweetie, you weren't. Well, maybe not giggling maniacally, but I did smile inwardly...

:wink

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

Ben Varkentine
 


Re: ROTK DVD rumors

Postby urnofosiris » Tue Dec 23, 2003 3:16 pm

Oh let it be true, please let it be true. I have not even been to the cinema to watch RotK yet, but already I long for the extended version. It cannot be long enough.

Edited by: DrG at: 12/23/03 2:17 pm
urnofosiris
 


ROTK DVD rumors

Postby sam7777 » Tue Dec 23, 2003 4:12 pm

DrG and Hemiola: The latest rumors on the DVD release are:

www.dvdtown.com/announcem...rumor/235/

Quote:
Return of the King Extended Edition is over four hours long?

According to The Hollywood Reporter Peter Jackson has mentioned that the Extended DVD version of "Return of the King" should run in at over four hours long. Making it at least 40 min. longer than the theatrical version.



Ultimate Trilogy DVD version?

In an article from the Montreal Gazette costume designer Ngila Dickson may have said just a little to much. From the article: "and I'm already hearing rumors about next year." Pressed, she will say only it's for a "vast, gigantic" future DVD release of the entire trilogy." When this will be released we do not know but a guess is late next year.
and

www.theonering.net/static...00980.html

Quote:
RotK EE Rumored "longer than 4 hours and 50 min"



Editor's Note: I cannot confirm the accuracy of this report!



Nothing clear yet on the release date, let alone the disc specs for the third installment of The Lord of the Rings, however since both previous films had Extended Editions released on DVD it is fair to assume this will happen again, especially after it is rumoured Peter Jackson said the following at the Copenhagen premiere. Basically he commented that the first cut of Return of the King had a running time of four hours and fifty minutes. When asked why this was too long for theatres but acceptable for DVD, he said:



"It is different with the DVD version. People watch it at home. They can lay on the couch or spread the experience over two or three nights. That is the amazing thing with DVD. It gives a whole new dynamic and I can assure you that the DVD version of Return of the King will be longer than 4 hours and 50 min."
and still more on what might be included:

www.thedigitalbits.com/rumormill.html

AICN is also reporting a list of the scenes to be added back into the film for the extended DVD. These include Gandalf confronting Saruman at Isengard, Merry pledging allegiance to Theoden at Edoras, Aragorn using the Palantir to reveal himself to Sauron, the Witch King confronting Gandalf during the battle of Pelennor Fields, the Houses of Healing scene in which Faramir and Eowyn meet, Frodo and Sam joining a column of orcs on the way to Mt. Doom and the infamous 'Mouth of Sauron' scene at the Black Gates. Glimpses of a few of these appeared in trailers for the film. We've also heard that the drinking game at Edoras between Gimli and Legolas will be added back in, along with possibly more footage showing other characters going into the West at the end of the film. Peter Jackson has said that approximately 65 minutes of material was cut from the film for its theatrical release, so a good portion of that could find its way back into the extended cut. We'll post more when we hear it.

sam7777
 


Re: ROTK DVD rumors

Postby willowsgirl » Wed Dec 24, 2003 10:17 am

Hey, went to see return of the king last night, it was sooooooooo good! lol. I was really glad they didnt cut all the cute returning home stuff from the end of the book, it made me all teary eyed :)

Just a shame Orlando Bloom (Legolas) is from my home town; the first time he came on screen a group of young girls all whooped and cheered...*shakes head* oh dear. For some reason they seem 2 think cos he comes from here (canterbury) he's more likely to marry them or something lol.

So yep, ROTK met every expectation of mine, I walked out of the theatre with a big grin on my face. Cant say the same for this morning when I woke up after dreaming about Shelob chasing me for hours though...



willowsgirl xx

Tara ignored him. "Your interruption has left me high and, well... I hardly think dry is the word." Returning home by tempest duer

willowsgirl
 


Re: ROTK DVD rumors

Postby TaraBaby77 » Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:04 pm

Okay, well, I am not good with reviews and stuff so I am just going to express what I thought about ROTK. WAHOO, AWESOME, SUPER, EXCITING, and SIMPLY AMAMZING!!!! Enough said, heehee. =)

Aaron

'TaraBaby77'


"It's about two people,
regardless of sex, who love each other and treat each other with compassion and
respect."

TaraBaby77
 


Re: ROTK DVD rumors

Postby Jennpurr » Sat Dec 27, 2003 9:37 pm

Ditto to what Aaron said! :)



You know, a very small part of me actually felt sorry for Gollum.



Not for long though.



DUDE, I so have to go see this again. I love Sam and Frodo in this movie. There's definitely a whole lot of subtext there, huh? :heart Lovely!



That's really all I can say. I'm still kind of reeling. Maybe I can comment more after I see it again. :grin



Jen


||My Fan Fiction and More!|| ||My Yahoo Group||
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"We wants it, we needs it. Must have the Precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!" ~ Gollum, "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"

Jennpurr
 


Re: ROTK DVD rumors

Postby xita » Sun Dec 28, 2003 12:18 am

Finally got to see it. I loved it, love the fights loved the legolas moment and of course the Eowyn stuff, she rocked.



It was really good but I have a thing against sentimental, corny things and that's exactly what the drawn out long ending was about to me. After 3 hours, I was tired of seeing Sam and Frodo crying over each other. I felt like yelling just make your mr. frodo yours sam and be done with it. That's my only complaint, the rest was great.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"


xita
 


Re: ROTK

Postby urnofosiris » Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:55 pm

One of the writers explains the Faramir story in the extended version of the TT. They don't mention Aragorn, they did it because they felt that having Faramir not being tempted by the Ring at all would rob the Ring of it's power. Frodo is struggling so hard after all and there is Faramir who can just say "no thanks, I would not pick the thing up if it were lying there by the way side". I can see their reasoning but I still do not agree with it. Sam was not tempted by the thing either and Frodo was not infallible. I think Sam would have tossed the ring into Mount Doom, his love for Frodo was always greater than whatever temptation the ring held. Faramir's love for Gondor was greater than whatever temptation the ring held. I don't see why they needed to rob Faramir of his character.



I am not sure what you mean by Eurocentrism, the notion that blond and pale would somehow equal wise and virtuous may still be the philosophy of some blond and pale people, but certainly not all and millions of europeans are most certainly not blond, but none the less wise for that. Maybe it's an expression? Anyway, given the time it was written in and what J.R.R. Tolkien went through himself I seriously doubt he would support that philosophy himself. Granted in his books there are only three women who play a relatively important part in the events and the prevailing skin color seems to be white, but there are many different races of another kind in the books. Hobbits being one of them, the other races in Middle Earth hardly know they exist. They are not described as blond or wise, yet they are the ones that change the fate of the entire world. What I read into that it does not matter what you look like or where you come from, you can make a difference.



Edited to add: I had some time to rethink what you said and I need to clarify myself a bit methinks. because I think I basically agree with you, heh. I love the LotR books, I have reread them three times, but there are a couple of things that always bugged me a bit, even before I found this board which made me think about a lot of complex issues. First there was the lack of female characters. Eowyn was my favorite character, she is the strongest female character in the book, but even there her part is relatively small. She is followed by Galadriel and lastly Arwen. That's it, all the other characters that play any part of consequence at all are men, no matter what species they belong to. Another thing that bugged me is the Elves. Seriously, I found them rather annoying, especially Legolas. Their 'superior and noble' qualities, their perfect good looks combined with a dose of snotty arrogance did not really make me admire of even like them. That "oh you mere mortal children" attitude came close to offensive at times. Just because they have been skipping around in the woods for thousands of years does not really make them all knowing.



Anyway, they are all pretty blond beings. I don't believe it was Tolkien's intent to say that blond people are somehow superior to non blond people, but I can see how it can come across that way. I really don't believe that he himself would have thought that, but he has been dead for quite a while and even if he were not, I can't look into his heart. LotR is set in a world that can best be compared to ancient Scandinavia, and maybe that explains the lack of non white races. When he wrote his books Northern Europe was much less multi cultural/racial than today and women had a different position as well. If he had written his books in this day and age maybe his characters would have represented today's society better, maybe some of the fellowship members would have been women, black and -if only- really gay instead of subtextual gay.



I can understand the way he wrote his books, but I think the movie makers could have changed this, like they have changed a few other things to better appeal to the movie going audience. They put the Arwen/Aragorn love story more into the forefront, they tried and make Eowyn (hurrah to that, and to a lesser degree Galadriel and Arwen) more visible. They could have cast a few more non white actors into certain roles though and not just as the villains. Wormtongue and Denethor are still white men, but their greasy dark hair reminds me of the black hat villain of the old western movies. Given that these movies were made to be watched by the entire world a little bit of casting liberty would not have been uncalled for. I don't think they really considered the way it looked. I have not yet seen the RotK, but do they at least show the army from the south that comes to aid Aragorn with their ships? It has been a while since I last read the books, but I recall the prince of that army being a black man, and he is the one that actually saves Eowyn. Eomer thinks she is dead, but he discovers that she yet lives, so she gets taken to the houses of healing where Aragorn saves her. Gatito, you just finished the book and saw the movie, do I remember this correctly and does he even play a part in RotK on screen?

Edited by: DrG at: 12/29/03 11:08 am
urnofosiris
 


Re: ROTK

Postby Gatito Grande » Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:09 am

Well, finished the book last night, and today was off to the theater!



Inconsistancies w/ the book(s) I didn't like:



*Denethor: not at all as I pictured him in the book. This man is Boromir's and Faramir's father, for Gandalf's sake, where would they get their dignity if not from him? (OK, leaving their mom out of the picture ;) )



*that Merry was at the Last Stand at the Black Gate, when he should have been healing at the Houses of, well, Healing! (Of course, that's also where the Eowyn/Faramir falling-in-love happens. *That* I expect will be on the DVD: they showed E/F as hand-in-hand at Aragorn's Crowning. They must have grown close sometime!). I felt that Merry generally got shorter shrift than Pippin here; maybe they stuck him in the final battle to make up for it.



*the fact that so much of the Frodo/Sam/Gollum story was in The Two Towers which, having read it over a year ago, I've forgotten much of. But wasn't the Frodo/Sam dynamic different from the book? I didn't remember Frodo sending Sam away (nor Gollum's lembas scheme: is that just my lack of memory?). It really was weird, though, that more than halfway through the movie, we were still in parts of the F/S/G narrative in TT.



*the "Impugning of Faramir" (from the movie The Two Towers) was still not explained. [Does Jackson comment on this in the DVD? Cuz I have a theory: in a monarchist's mind, like Tolkien's, the steward giving way to the king would have been obligatory. In our democratic, and meritocratic mindset, it isn't (obligatory, or obvious). Ergo, for Aragorn to ascend, the steward (and his heirs) have to descend, in merit. Ergo, Faramir must be shown to be less worthy (in deeds and character) to rule than Aragorn. Ergo, his character must be impugned. Ergo, the insulting "Gives in to Ring's Temptation" scene in TTT. JMO.]



*the "Arwen is tied to the Ring and is therefore dying" sub-subplot. As if Aragorn didn't have enough motivation already?





Inconsistancies w/ the book(s) I did like:



*the lack of the "Scouring of the Shire." I really didn't like this chapter of the book. It felt forced, like Tolkien was giving props to Orwell: "See, (Saruman) ism is Bad."



*the general truncating of the post-victory show: I know Tolkien loves all this heraldry stuff, but it really was anticlimactic.





Let's see, what else? Like everybody, loved Miranda Otto's Eowyn, especially her *ss-kicking! Exactly as written, down to the Nazgul Boss's breaking of her arm (actually, that's where it stopped being "as written," because Eomer, etc. are supposed to think she's dead. Did I see *her* at the Black Gate also?). When she offed the NB, I let out an involuntary whoop! :applause



Generally speaking, it was just great: faithful to the book, gorgeous to look at, terrific performances (Billy Boyd's Pippin was a fave), stirring themes.



GG The definitive LOTR for a generation, until 1) the subtext becomes maintext: C'mon Sam and Frodo, kiss already! and 2) we get rid of JRRT's nearly-explicit Eurocentrism (which is admittedly worse in the book): enough w/ the "UberBlonde & Pale = Wise and Virtuous." Sheesh! :rolleyes Out

Gatito Grande
 


ROTK and Eurocentrism

Postby Gatito Grande » Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:23 pm

DrG:



I am in No Way saying that all (or even most) contemporary Europeans are Eurocentric. I am saying that JRRT was a man of his time, and his time was one born in Eurocentrism (and reared in the British Empire).



Start w/ the map of Middle Earth: note how the world is defined by the *North* and especially the *West* (in the movie, they keep Aragorn's "Men of the West!" rallying cry at the Black Gate). I contend that this is *not* accidental, but rather reflects a Eurocentric view of the Northwestern part of the Eurasian landmass. Subsequently, Tolkien's worldview disparages (if only subconsciously) parts of *humanity* from the "South" and "East." All the humans from the South and East in LOTR side w/ Sauron, and are disparaged as "swarthy" and "mingled" (w/ non-humans). (Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth is somewhat south of Gondor, but he's explicitly described as being "tall, w/ sea-gray eyes": i.e. Numenorean, which is in turn elf-like, n'est pas?). G, the Black Fleet of the South was on Sauron's side, till captured (off-screen, in both film and book) by Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli (and a bunch of elves who were left out of the movie) and the Army of the Dead.



When Tolkien describes elves as the "fairest" of races, it's seems very likely that he meant "lightest-skinned" in that description, and that's how they're portrayed. If "fair" is taken to mean beautiful, then there's no reason whatever why elves couldn't be portrayed w/ dark skin and eyes as well (but that's for the next version). For that matter, why couldn't hobbits be dark-skinned? I think it goes back to that "North" and "West" thang: hobbits are supposed to look like little Celtic peasants, and that's how this film has cast them. Next time however. . .



[Interesting how Tolkien's contemporary fellow-Christian scholar/novelist C.S. Lewis has done *exactly* the same thing in the Narnia books: Narnian humans are "fair," others from the South are dark (and bad). Thank goodness our vision is less solipsistic today. Vive l' human rights!]



GG Won't even begin to try to fix JRRT's vision of gender: at least he's not as bad as Lewis on that! :spin Out



*********************************************************************************************************

ETA: Over on the "Xena: Warrior Princess" thread, I've started a game to name all the Kiwi actors (along w/ their respective characters) who are in both XWP and LOTR. C'mon over and play!

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 12/29/03 5:26 pm
Gatito Grande
 


Re: ROTK and Eurocentrism

Postby sam7777 » Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:02 pm

Agreed. I mentioned this in my Matrix review. Though Matrix 2 and 3 are nowhere near the quality of LOTR, one thing they do have is an amazing diversity of casting. My standard is that the crowd should look like the folks at a SoCal mall. I still love the films and Eowyn rocks but that is in spite of the all-white casting and that counts as one of the flaws of the Trilogy for me. I mean jeez, Orlando Bloom (who has brown eyes) had to wear blue contacts so he could be blond and blue eyed as an elf. That's on the eeeewww side for me. At this point, someone with a real tan would be a big step in the right direction.

_____________________

I see dead lesbian cliches

sam7777
 


Re: ROTK and Eurocentrism

Postby urnofosiris » Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:31 pm

Quote:


(Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth is somewhat south of Gondor, but he's explicitly described as being "tall, w/ sea-gray eyes": i.e. Numenorean, which is in turn elf-like, n'est pas?). G, the Black Fleet of the South was on Sauron's side, till captured (off-screen, in both film and book) by Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli (and a bunch of elves who were left out of the movie) and the Army of the Dead.






Thanks Gatito :) Yeah now I remember the thing with the black fleet, d'oh. :stink That was the big surprise, the Orcs were cheering when they saw the fleet until Aragorn unfolded his banner, it was a turning point in the battle (or am I still remembering it wrong?). I really remembered Imrahil as being a dark man, but you just finished the book and it has been like ten years for me the last time around. It is amazing how much I have forgotten, which is why I did not even notice many of the alterations in FotR until I reread that part (I stopped after that because I realized it interfered with my enjoyment of the movies). Some scenes and characters I remember in great detail though, like Eowyn and Faramir, but they are my favorite characters so that might explain it. In any case you make great points, and I do agree, but I don't believe the man himself meant any harm so to speak or to put a slight on other races. He was -like you say- am man of his time, and those times were different, with different awarenesses. I think/hope nowadays most authors and movie makers take greater care in 'varying the menu' when it comes to men/women and people of different races, with varying degrees of success obviously :joss , maybe one day LGBT characters will be included in equal numbers, but that is another very familiar discussion.





urnofosiris
 


Re: ROTK and Eurocentrism

Postby Gatito Grande » Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:43 am

G, like I said, I think the extended DVD will have more Eowyn and Faramir (their romance, and maybe Faramir's elevation to Prince of Ithilien). I also hope they include the fact that Denethor's nuttiness could be explained (at least in part) that he (similar to Theoden before him) was having his mind poisoned, in this case by Sauron and another palantir.



As far as LGBT characters go: Frodo and Sam! (Rosie Cotton? Classic beard! :lol )



GG Thanks to Cicca for posting that link to the All-Slash version of "Fellowship": that was hysterical! Favorite line: Gandalf at the Council of Elrond "Look, Aragorn is right. We cannot control the Ring. Also, Legolas is right; Aragorn is a whore." :rofl Out

Gatito Grande
 


Slashy Fellowship

Postby Cicca » Thu Jan 01, 2004 10:09 pm

My pleasure to post that link! And thanks again to the kitten who posted the original site in the first place. I'm not generally such a slashy girl, but Sam and Frodo are just so sweet. And Legolas and Aragorn are.... :devilish



I just finished rereading RotK. Merry and Pippin are so gay, I can't see how Tolkien couldn't have meant for them to be. He even says how they set up house together back in the Shire. Awwwwwwwwww!

And thanks (someone) for pointing out the bit where Merry said "You found me". I'm a dolt and it didn't twig for me the first two viewings. It did this time, and oh so sweet! :)



Rosie Cotton... She's a darn cute girl for a hobbit and Sam does seem awfully sweet on her. But.... He seems even more stuck on Mr. Frodo. Ah well...

Is there a hyphen in anal-retentive?

Cicca
 


Re: Slashy Fellowship

Postby Gatito Grande » Fri Jan 02, 2004 2:17 am

A little slash (m/m) goes a long way w/ me, but every once in a while it's a guilty pleasure . . .



You know who Sam reminds me of, w/ the "Mr. Frodo"?" Benjamin in The Graduate: even after he'd boffed her, she was still "Mrs. Robinson"! :lol



Seriously, Sam is even slashier in the book than the movie: when JRRT writes (para.) "Sam cradled Frodo's mangled hand to his breast" I was like "Guys, get a room already!" (or ala the movie, a cozy island in the lava . . . Hey, I just realized something: that's the reason the screen mysteriously went black then! :devilish )



Re: Legolas. I think this came up often on the "Play for the Other Team" thread, but Orlando Bloom is so pretty that he hardly seems like he's on that other team anyway! :p



GG I really hope the author of that All-Slash "Fellowship" does a TT and ROTK as well (they weren't at that site). Too funny! Out



Hey, a new emoticon that accurately portrays GG's So-Called Life! :gnome

Gatito Grande
 

PreviousNext

Return to Board index

Return to Genuine Molded Plastic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


Powered by phpBB The phpBB Group © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007
Style based on a Cosa Nostra Design