This just in... (RoTK)

Remove all ads!

I assume that many of you are LOTR fans, so wanted to pass this on...ROTK has gone to copy, meaning that all edits are complete and the final cut has been sent out for duplication to send to theatres for the Dec 17 premiere. The final cut came in at 3 and a half hours! There is so much left to be told that I am pleased that Jackson is not knuckling under to the Hollywood brass and cutting it to under 3 hours. Anyone else up for a 10 hour marathon on Dec 16th?

Also the Extended edition of TTT had been finalized for Nov release. This will be great!

[ November 04, 2003, 13:44: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Woo Hoo!

Hey, does anyone know if the return to the shire was included? I was so annoyed at the loss of Tom Bombadillo, and the related old wood and Barrow downs in the first movie, but they were still rivetting.

 

No, the scouring of the Shire is not included. As far as I know, the last scene, or therabouts, will be the last of the ring-bearers (don't want to throw out a spoiler ), boarding a ship to head over the seas. The last chapters of the book have been deleted to make it more of a Hollywood ending.

I agree with the Tom Bombadil thing, it would have made a great relief point to FOTR (and also made it 4 hours long!) There is a very slim chance that I may be able to get in to see it the week before it is actually released at a special screening (I'm not a critic or anything, just might have a date with someone on the Film Commision...better start sucking up).

I am looking forward to the finale!

 

I liked Fellowship, I still like Fellowship. There are a few relatively small areas that made the final print that I don't exactly agree with. But the other movies are more than "adapted". I wouldn't necessarily call them "perverted" or "maimed". Maybe, "convienient" is the better term. At the Merry and Pippin and Treebeard meeting, I had to grit my teeth and bear the pain. Jackson could have waited until Gandalf and the Kind showed up before referencing the poem.

Above all else, I definately think New Zealand was the place to shoot. There is one damn fine call, with which, I will not argue.

I'm still not sure Gandalf was really gay, but I'm open to the argument...

 

I have determined that I will have to go to New Zealand someday! Here in the States some Travel Agents are selling tours to NZ, advertising them as a trip to "Middle Earth".

Gandalf gay?...do you mean Ian Mckellan, the actor? I've heard the claims that Sam was gay, but never Gandalf. I don't think that Ian McKellan is gay, though he played it well in "Gods and Monsters". Does it really matter?

 

The guy that played Gandalf is not gay. He is WAYYYYYY gay. As in one in each hand kind of gay.

 

Yeah. I didn't know that but I was flippin through one of my sisters mags one day a while back and I saw a thing on a bunch of actors and which ones are gay and which ones are straight. I figured, "hey, that's some top notch reading!" so I started down the list. I saw Gandalf. I inhaled quickly and made a "gasp" sound.

LOTR is one of my favorite movies, but as a book-to-movie it's not very good. In the second chapter, Gandalf was gone for 15 years! But in the movie he was gone for 15 minutes. There's tons of stuff like that. I'm not saying that's bad or anything, but I'm just saying *inaudible mumblings*.

 

I saw Ian McKellan on Saturday Night Live about a year ago and he was talking about the fact that he's gay, so I imagine it's true.


Uhh, just curious here but does anyone know if Patrick Stewart is gay?

 

I don't know but if it is maybe the next X-man movie will be XXX-men

On a serious note, good stuff I am waiting for months now to get the extended version of TTT in my hands.

 

Why do we care whether he is gay or not?

Gah! I so wanted to see the Battle of Bywater!

 

Yes, it was very disturbing just how much was actually changed, at least in the first movie it was just a lot missing, but in the second everything seemed to happen differently. But I still loved the movie. I knew one person who used to tell people who hadn't read the books yet to wait until after the movies, or they would get too angry.

I think they got a lot of the characters pretty spot on, Gandalf, Elrond, and Aragorn are alomst perfect (some of the elves seemed to have had the immaturity in their faces accentuated rather than timeless youth, soft lines instead of sharp, but I guess that's the problems you get when you have to deal with humans.) Merry and Pippin weren't as I had them pictured, but their banter makes up for it in laughs.

"What's that!?"
"That, is a pint."
"It comes in pints? I'm getting one!"

I missed the scenes in Cirith Ungol, but I guess that will be in RotK. *Sigh* I just hope it doesn't take too much time away from Gondor/Minas Tirith and The Paths of the Dead, and the numerous battles that are fought. Ahh, who am I kidding, of course the battles will be there, that's one of the movies strong points.

Heres a tough question for everyone. Which movie have you liked best so far (not the books, the films) Fellowship of the Ring or The Two Towers?

 

I think what Jackson and the rest of his team have succeeded in doing is making a monumental piece of film art that has satisfied both sides of the fence...most avid LOTR fans will grumble about this minor omission, or that representation, but in general are pleased with the movies. I frankly can't see them being done much differently than they have been. On the other hand, Jackson and Co. have very accurately depicted the "feel" and "message" of J.R.R. Tolkien to a world that knew nothing of him. Hobbits are now mass-market and fans of the story exist where never before. These near 12 hours of film are unequaled by anything Hollywood has done before (not even right to say "Hollywood", it was mostly a bunch of "Kiwi's")

@Manus: I have a strange answer to your question. If we are considering theatrical release, I would have to say TTT. Even with all of the problems inherent with a middle movie, it was still just better made than FOTR. But if we throw the Extended Edition of FOTR into the mix, it then becomes the better movie. Of course, haven't seen the EE of TTT yet! If you haven't seen the EE of FOTR, I strongly reccomend it...it is much better in many small ways.

I actually believe that ROTK will leave the two prior films in the dust!

You all have to check out this link it's like a bad dream for any LOTR fan.

 

The two movies i have seen so far have some good points but i fear that the biggest part of the movies was way too Hollywood and nowhere near the spirit of the book. I hate to say it but i really feel betrayed by Mr. Jackson who said IIRC that he would try to follow the book as much as possible. Well i see that this book is impossible to become a movie. I agree that photography is excellent and Ireland was indeed an almost ideal place for this movie but the process of making this book a scenario was pathetic at least. They have left out characters (Bombadil) that were beloved togive some more lines and scenes to Liv Tayler (Arwuen?) .For heavens sake especially the scene in FOTR on the river where the Nazgouls hunted Fronto and Arwuen showed up and challenged them, made me wanna cry from anger.
I don't have anything against Liv Tayler (in fact i think she is appart from very beautifull and a capable actress) but WTF this role is an outrage.
I could go on for pages but it has no meaning every one of us (who have read LotR at least once) has identified directors arbitrarinesses. So i will shut up for now after i say this: These movies are not better IMHO than the previous attempts of making a film for Tolkiens masterpiece. The others tried to put it all in one movie massacring the book, this one is using three movies and a lot more money, special effects to massacre the book
/me walking away mumbling curses

 

Fronto? Aruwen? Were the names changed in the greek version or something?

Anyway, I agree with Mithrantir (whose name is very LOTR). It was Glorfindel, IIRC, one of the elven ringbearers (and therefore a good match for the Nazgul) who gave Frodo his horse. Frodo passed out on the horse and it was Elrond's sort of Contingency spell on the river - whenever a Nazgul touched the water, **** hit the fan - and Gandalf added the visages of horses in the waves.

Arwen was a fairly insignificant character. All it is is she grew up with Aragorn, son of Arathorn.

All this is stricly IIRC.

 

Great idea! Everyone listen to this Hacken Slash's words of wisdom!

 

I am planning to move to New Zealand sometimes. The North is such a sorry place to live.

Arwen was in the movie so that everybody would understand, who she was. In the end she marries Aragorn and the expansion of her role fleshes out her point in the story, like it was done in the book appendixes. But a movie can't have appendixes. But that doesn't mean that I like the character, even if Liv Tyler did it well. (Cmon, she did what she had to do and succeeded, I think)

Tom Bombadil would have been interesting, but they didn't make a bad mistake, when they cut him from the movie.

 

I'm sorry to hear that both Mithrantir and Mystra's Chosen feel the way you do. I can't help but feel that if a Tolkien literalist were to have been given the task of making this literature into film it would have absolutlely SUCKED! It would have been filled with rambling, non-plot driven descriptions and bad impromtu songs. It would have pleased the Tolkien purists and been an absolute flop to the rest of the world. At least now JRR is widely recognized as the Father of modern fantasy literature instead of the refuge of hopeless, basement dwelling geeks! (Besides, I moved from my parents basement to the attic almost a year ago )

 

The 1st movie is IMHO better, because Jackson kept more to the story. Okay, Arwen is way to involved and the movie was to fast, but it's enjoyable.

In TTT, there are too many things that enraged me, both story and logic-wise. These things were simply not nessecary. The change of Faramir's character, for example. Gandalfs charge at Helm's Deep down a gravel filled 45% slope. (The orcs normally would have been crushed by horses and humans tumbling down.) The pathetic group of men leaving Edoras where should have been a host of 2000 - 3000 soldiers.
And wtf possessed Jackson to actually bring Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath?

Therefore, I did not enjoy the 2nd movie as much as the first one. But that's only my opinion as a Tolkien geek.

 

I don't see why they added the Worg Rider attack to the 2nd flick. It was in the first book. And why was Faramir a bastard, then suddenly have a change of heart? In the book he understoon almost immediately. IIRC from various TTT DVD featurettes, Faramir is still different (personality wise) from Boromir, so why the drawing to the ring like that?

I think TTT could've been better if Jackson followed the story more, but I do understand he's got a whole audience who havn't read the books.

 

The problem is that Viggo Mortensen can't act. He's got a descent enough look (except that half hearted beard), but he's a terrible actor.

My favourite so far is FotR as I think he was fine in the first one, in fact I think he was excellent, but in the second one, Aragorn's character seems like he's more interested in himself than others. Like when he finds the pile of burnt Uruk-hai, and screams, which seems to me is like he has failed himself, rather than failed Merry and Pippin. I doubt many folk will see it this way, but it's just my opinion.

[ November 03, 2003, 21:16: Message edited by: Morningstar ]