Mooters' RotK reviews

[squinteyedsoutherner]

And I agree about the lighting of the beacons - it was completely impractical. Just because it looked pretty you were supposed to forget how silly it was.

I thought the beacon thing was ridiculous.

Firstly, it made it seem as though the beacons stretched only to Rohan, as opposed to a tool to summon all of the surrounding people who lived outside the city (anybody else wonder where those people were? Like farmers? what were they eating in there?)

Secondly, real historical beacons used fire as a way of creating large plumes of smoke. Smoke is more easily visible than just fire. (One of the most famous sets of beacons were employed by the Chinese along the Great Wall. In a recent recreation it was learned that warning messages could be sent hundreds and hundreds of miles down the wall, in a matter of hours, and seeing a panoramic distance shot of the smoke plumes in the documentary looked better than the mountain top beacons to my eyes anyway, the plumes looked magnificent)

Hollywood does this “beacon” thing all the time and it keeps getting worse and worse. Common sense takes a backseat to the visual eye candy. It was one thing when someone broke a chair over someone’s back in a saloon brawl and the chair just shattered and the fight continued, but a flaming Denethor running 200 yards completely engulfed in flames? A beacon station alone above the cloud line? It looked like the top of Everest for God's sake.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
A beacon station alone above the cloud line?

This is the only problem I had with the beacon scene. I though, "Who's going to see that?" when it was lit. I didn't think of the smoke aspect, but now that you mention it, it does make sense.

[Flame_of_Udun]

Overall, I thought it was excellent, though the theatrical cut let me down ever so slightly. But this is only because of all the gushing reviews that said it was absolutely perfect. I read them for about a week before viewing the movie.

It still feels a little rushed - especially the transition from the siege of Minas Tirith to when they leave for the show down at the Black Gates. I personally felt like they needed a lot more time with the characters in between those two things. I didn't feel nearly as close to Aragorn because he had so little meaningful dialogue as I was used to.

Some random thoughts:

The Witch-king was awesome. When he rose up from Minas Morgul on the Nazgul, it was one of the few times in the entire trilogy that I felt some semblance of the fear that they are supposed to convey. I cannot believe the showdown with Gandalf was cut.

Gandalf was great, but I kept getting the feeling that he should have been more powerful - I mean, he defeated a Balrog when he was in a weaker form, yet he has his hands full with a squadron of orcs?

The Legolas stunt was the one of the only scenes in the movie that I really dislike. The other is Denethor running on fire. That seems to be the general consensus here, so no surprise there.

Shelob met my expectations. The CGI was seamless.

I wanted to see Barad-dur tremble on its foundations at the point when Frodo willfully set the ring to his finger and truly claimed it as his own - just like in the book.

The elephant man orc was ridiculous

The changes to the dynamic of Sam, Frodo and Gollum did not bother me too much.

The supposed multiple endings that the critics are griping about is fine. I saw absolutely no problems with it. People need to learn a little patience. I think they are used to the typical Hollywood crap where everything is happy, and you rush right out of the theater after the payoff.

Can't wait for the extended cut. Most of the problems will surely be fixed.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Flame_of_Udun
It still feels a little rushed - especially the transition from the siege of Minas Tirith to when they leave for the show down at the Black Gates. I personally felt like they needed a lot more time with the characters in between those two things. I didn't feel nearly as close to Aragorn because he had so little meaningful dialogue as I was used to.

I agree. Also, I felt the battle at the Black Gate was too short, and Pippin was robbed of his moment of glory from the book when he slew the troll.

The Witch-king was awesome. When he rose up from Minas Morgul on the Nazgul, it was one of the few times in the entire trilogy that I felt some semblance of the fear that they are supposed to convey.

That part was great, he was excellently scary. There were a few details in that scene that didn't sit right for me, but the most important part was that the Witch-King was properly evil and scary.

I cannot believe the showdown with Gandalf was cut.

That was a mistake, and the Witch-King even said he would deal with him. Maybe he meant after Theoden. He didn't expect to get smeared by Eowyn and Merry.

Gandalf was great, but I kept getting the feeling that he should have been more powerful - I mean, he defeated a Balrog when he was in a weaker form, yet he has his hands full with a squadron of orcs?

I disagree. Gandalf was dreadful in RotK, most unfortunately. Sir Ian McKellan is obviously a genius, since Gandalf was still wonderfully acted despite his terrible lines and random out of character actions (including murdering Denethor! )

Shelob met my expectations. The CGI was seamless.

The part where she comes out of another exit of her lair behind Frodo was really creepy and wonderously done.

I wanted to see Barad-dur tremble on its foundations at the point when Frodo willfully set the ring to his finger and truly claimed it as his own - just like in the book.

That would have been cool to see. I thought that scene was very well done, and so I didn't miss it. (I do now though.)
The only details I didn't like in that scene was
1) The absence of Sam showing Gollum mercy after they fight, and Sam could have killed him
2) Gollum jumping on Frodo (in Sammath Naur) instead of struggling with him normally. I just pictured them both standing and grappling, Frodo being invisible of course. (That's not a biggie.)
3) Frodo stupid falling off the stupid cliff and people thinking he's dead.

The elephant man orc was ridiculous

I prefer to think of him as the Popcorn-head orc. I mean, let's leave the poor Elephant-man out of this.

The changes to the dynamic of Sam, Frodo and Gollum did not bother me too much.

I was bothered by this change, but Frodo and Sam were still very good. Sam has been consistently awesome in all three movies, and Frodo showed huge development from his roles in FotR and TTT.

The supposed multiple endings that the critics are griping about is fine. I saw absolutely no problems with it. People need to learn a little patience. I think they are used to the typical Hollywood crap where everything is happy, and you rush right out of the theater after the payoff.

Yes, but they still should have done the Scouring. They had the time.

Can't wait for the extended cut. Most of the problems will surely be fixed.

I really hope you won't be disappointed. Denethor will still be randomly out of character, but at least Gandalf and the Witch-King will confront at the gates of Minas Tirith. (I've heard that anyway.)

[cassiopeia]

I had the same thoughts about the beacons as well. When I first saw the movie, all I could think about was the poor people who had to stay up there and light the beacons.

I also thought the scene at Mount Doom, where Gollum is fighting an invisible Frodo, was comical. It ruined such an important moment for me.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Flame_of_Udun
Can't wait for the extended cut. Most of the problems will surely be fixed.

Again - we shouldn't have to wait until the Extended Edition for things to be fixed. There shouldn't have been any "problems" in the theatrical version that needs to be fixed. The Extended Edition should only be containing extra scenes - not fixing problems.

[Nurvingiel]

Yes. I think I said that somewhere too, and I'm not just copying you JD.

If they needed the extended edition's scenes to fix something, then that scene should be in the theatrical versions that everyone gets to see. If they end up being too long, either delete Arwen and Elrond's pointless, non-plot advancing, and boring extra scenes, or put a bathroom break in the middle.

I'm not ranting at you here Flame_of_Udun, I don't blame you all for wanting the extended edition to be better. Edit: or thinking that it might be.

The reason I'm ranting about extra scenes, and this is a kicker, is because Jackson did not film the scouring of the Shire! After all the extra junk he added, he (apparently) made two awful claims: that there wasn't enough time (addressed above), and that he didn't like that part of the book.

To the latter I say, if you don't like all of the book you're adapting, then write your own darned plot.

[Entlover]

Originally posted by Flame_of_Udun

The supposed multiple endings that the critics are griping about is fine. I saw absolutely no problems with it. People need to learn a little patience. I think they are used to the typical Hollywood crap where everything is happy, and you rush right out of the theater after the payoff.
Can't wait for the extended cut. Most of the problems will surely be fixed.

I agree, FlameofUdun, the ending is fine. Its length is suitable to the length of the whole three movies, and is needed.

It's too bad the movie couldn't all fit into the theatrical version, but it's rushed enough as is-- so that leaves us needing the EE, to expand on important parts that weren't included.

Don't shoot me, but it seems to me the Scouring of the Shire would be merely anticlimactic if it had been added. It's long and complex enough to need another hour, which is clearly impossible. And people would really be complaining that the ending was too long then!

[Flame_of_Udun]

I agree that it was not really possible to include the scouring. But I also understand that the scouring was never a favorite part of the book for me, so I could be a little biased. Perhaps it could have been added on the dvd as a sort of appendix, but of course, it was never filmed, so it matters little.

With the scouring, I understand that it completes the story arc for the hobbits and is very important to the theme of the books, but it never really sat well with me, for some reason. I always liked the hobbits showing up and bringing order back to the Shire, but my dislike is probably because of Saruman - I had a very hard time believing that a maia could be reduced to such idiocy and weakness, even if he had been expelled from the order of wizards. The name "Sharkey" seemed too weird for me, and out of place in the book, especially in comparison with the other typical names. I think maybe, that in the movie, audiences would not have understood how he had fallen so far either. Just my opinion...

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Flame_of_Udun
I agree that it was not really possible to include the scouring. But I also understand that the scouring was never a favorite part of the book for me, so I could be a little biased. Perhaps it could have been added on the dvd as a sort of appendix, but of course, it was never filmed, so it matters little.

With the scouring, I understand that it completes the story arc for the hobbits and is very important to the theme of the books, but it never really sat well with me, for some reason. I always liked the hobbits showing up and bringing order back to the Shire, but my dislike is probably because of Saruman - I had a very hard time believing that a maia could be reduced to such idiocy and weakness, even if he had been expelled from the order of wizards. The name "Sharkey" seemed too weird for me, and out of place in the book, especially in comparison with the other typical names. I think maybe, that in the movie, audiences would not have understood how he had fallen so far either. Just my opinion...

I like the Scouring, however I have always had a problem with it. By that I mean this. It is clear that a few of the "wise" know that something is going on in the Shire. When I read the books it always seems like Galadriel and Gandalf know that something has happened in the shire. With that said, I always thought it was crappy that they just threw the hobbits to the fire to solve their own problems, even after they just saved Middle Earth. I also found it hard to believe that Aragorn and Eomer didn't send people with them as an escort in addition to the Elves and Gandalf who travelled with them. I just found those little things hard to swallow for me, ya know?

It's like a double edged sword for me, because I like it and yet had those concerns at the same time...

[Cirdan]

Well, since two of the hobbits went to Mordor alone I guess the Shire didn't seem too perilous by comparison.

I actually think the Scouring could work as the prologue for The Hobbit. Maybe reflected in the story teller style as in the BoLT, also recalling his discussion with Frodo about the great stories. This would make the prequel tie-in to LotR and beg the question of were Bilbo got the ring in the first place.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Well, since two of the hobbits went to Mordor alone I guess the Shire didn't seem too perilous by comparison.

Yes, Merry, Pippin, Frodo and Sam raised an army and had Sharkey's thugs out of the Shire in three days.

The Hobbits were more than equipped to deal with Saruman. Galadriel and Gandalf had faith in them, and knew they were strong enough. If they hadn't been, maybe they would have helped.

[Gerbil]

To the latter I say, if you don't like all of the book you're adapting, then write your own darned plot.

He did write his own plot. However, he called his films Lord of the Rings too, so it's easy to see where the confusion lies.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gerbil
He did write his own plot. However, he called his films Lord of the Rings too, so it's easy to see where the confusion lies.

He should have called them something else. Then he could have butchered the characters under his own title - instead of dumbing down Tolkien's title.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Gerbil
He did write his own plot. However, he called his films Lord of the Rings too, so it's easy to see where the confusion lies.

I see what you're getting at, but of course you know I meant write his own original plot.

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I see what you're getting at, but of course you know I meant write his own original plot.

Yeah I know, but my point is his is so unlike the book that to all intents and purposes it IS original!

The names and places are the same, but really, there's not many characters who survived unscathed from the butchery that is PJ and Co's script.

I wonder if they'd ever heard the phrase 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'?

Ah well, it was just my chance to have a little joke at PJ's expence.

Out of curiosity, do people here peruse other LotR film related forums, and if so, do they all like to give him as huge a bashing as we do here? This forum is pretty active and has been for years, so I'd be suprised if the annoyance, disappointment, and in many cases outright hatred of his butchery is not repeated globally.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by Gerbil
Out of curiosity, do people here peruse other LotR film related forums, and if so, do they all like to give him as huge a bashing as we do here? This forum is pretty active and has been for years, so I'd be suprised if the annoyance, disappointment, and in many cases outright hatred of his butchery is not repeated globally.

From all the forums I visit this one has judged the movies alot easier and given PJ more credit than the other sites.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
He should have called them something else. Then he could have butchered the characters under his own title - instead of dumbing down Tolkien's title.

He could have called it

"THe King Of The Bling"

with a picture of PJ sitting on a huge mound of Gold. But without the title Lord Of The Rings his stack of Gold wouldn't be anywhere near as much as it could have been.

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by thranduil
From all the forums I visit this one has judged the movies alot easier and given PJ more credit than the other sites.

YAY! That cheered me up immensely; thanks Thranduil

Originally posted by thranduil
He could have called it

"THe King Of The Bling"

with a picture of PJ sitting on a huge mound of Gold.

Actually that might inspire PJ to film the Hobbit, and play the role of Smaug

[Nurvingiel]

I guess he didn't read the Hobbit either, since Smaug dies.
Just some good natured teasing.