Jump to content

Change Mode

The Trilogy Is Complete...


bacterozoid
 Share

Recommended Posts

So...the other LoTR geeks out there...I got the final extended edition yesterday and watched all the new scenes. (Not the entire movie as I had just watched it the day before) I must say, I am glad it's all finally done...been a GREAT job by Peter Jackson - can't wait till The Hobbit.

 

So anyways...any thoughts on the extra scenes? I thought the most impactful were the Breaking of Saruman and The Mouth of Sauron. Both great scenes.

 

The one thing that kind of bugged me was that the added scenes did not flow quite as well as the rest of the movie. It's like they filmed them, then mainly ignored them in the rest of the film. The one scene that got to me was the Mouth of Sauron...The gang goes up and talks to this guy right before the armies of Orcs and friends march out, but as Aragorn and them are riding off, there is no notice at all in the ensuing scene of the body or horse of the thing...and he wasn't going anywhere.

 

Oh well. It still "roxored." :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gang goes up and talks to this guy right before the armies of Orcs and friends march out, but as Aragorn and them are riding off, there is no notice at all in the ensuing scene of the body or horse of the thing...and he wasn't going anywhere.

Well, if you go by these sites, Movie Mistakes - The Fellowship of the Ring, Movie Mistakes - The Two Towers, and Movie Mistakes - The Return of the King, there were 646 mistake in the three films. Which at a total of 681 minutes for all three extended versions, that is nearly 1 mistake per minute... I surely couldn't find that many though.

 

And then of course you also have to count some intentional ones as well, because they re-wrote some scenes to make them work in the movies, and others that they re-wrote because... Well, who knows why? They just did. Some were blatantly obvious, and you don't need to look very hard to see them. (Such as the one you cited.) Others I couldn't find what these sites were talking about at all, and I was looking closely.

 

But all that aside, and remembering that some things that are wrong with these films probably couldn't be helped (they are movies after all) I think they turned out very well. Peter Jackson and company did a great job. I have always said that as far as movies and books go, it is far easier to make a movie then write a book based on that movie, than it is to write a book and then make it into a movie. Because it is easier to write what you see than it is to create a visual version of what you read. However, that doesn't mean it can't be done. Peter Jackson not only did it with the Lord of the Rings books, he did it very well. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I dunno.... The Hobbit is pretty complex when you think about it..

 

It doesn't have all the parallel threads of LOTR, but there's a lot going on: orcs, wargs, trolls (the encounter with the trolls is about where Tolkien stopped being kid's-book-cutsey and got down to serious business), the Forest of Spiders, the underground kingdom of the elves, the lake town, Smaug's cavern, the burning of laketown, the War of the Five Armies.... Enough here to keep us amused for a couple of hours, I believe.

 

God, I haven't read it for years--just thinking about it makes me drag out the old drool towel!

 

PJ's work is subject to criticism (omission of the Scouring of the Shire the most serious flaw), but his great gift is that his Middle Earth LOOKS right (yep, that's a balrog, O.K... ).

 

Cain't wait!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really can't stand those LoTR movies.. It was torture to me.. 3 hours of horrible horrible torture!

 

I will never watch that movie of my own free will..

If that's true, it makes me wonder why you would even post in a thread that was obviously intended for LoTR geeks... :rolleyes:

 

I know, I know.....this is General Discussions and I can post anything I want to anywhere I want to anytime I want to... :P -kd5-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first one was ok.. I didn't see the second one and I saw the third one a year ago.. when I was first going out with my girlfriend.. haha, ohh the memories. :lol:

 

If the movie were a little shorter and if it weren't for the uncomfortable movie seats, perhaps I would have liked it. :mrgreen:

Edited by AdamMAXIS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have the complete trilogy in one paperback volume. It's 1008 pages long (excluding Appendices), broken up into 3 books that were each printed a year apart. I don't think the movie would've had nearly the impact that it does, nor do I think Mr. Jackson could've told the story nearly as well, if he would've abbreviated the movies any more than they are. And even as long as they are now, there are parts missing. But Peter Jackson did the best he could and I think he did a damned fine job of it. I honestly don't think anybody could/can/will ever do a better job at recreating the Lord of the Rings. -kd5-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same here kd - hardback, cost me 20 bucks brand new. :D

 

Those movie mistakes are interesting to look at Ax. I don't think I'll be paying close attention though. Some of them are funny...my favorite is in the Fellowship with Aragorn fighting the "Master" Uruk-Hai...he drops his sword twice without picking it up.

 

But when I get to looking at too many it takes away from the overall effect of the movie.

 

As for The Hobbit...not sure why Jackson didn't do it first - probably because he was more of a LoTR guy. What I heard was that after King Kong or Godzilla or whatever he's filming now, he was going to start The Hobbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a 'given' that Peter Jackson will be doing the Hobbit. As far as I know, the movie rights are separate to the Lord of the Rings rights and they are not owned by New Line currently, so everything is still up for negotiation. It could be some time before a film starts production.

 

Anyway, I also got the ROTK for Christmas. Looking forward to it, but I need to watch the FOTR and TTT again first! :mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the abscence of The Scouring of the Shire was a real loss but I understand the decision cinematically. The rest of the narrative or continuity errors I mostly forgive because PJ did such a sweet job of bringing Middle Earth to life. And he really did yeomans work keeping all the various threads working together. A stunning feat, really.

 

The one feature I didn't like was how Galadrial was presented. The elvin queen of the movie couldn't have been further removed from the character I read in the book. Of course it didn't help that Cate Blanchett, pretty as she is, is a wooden skank of an actress to begin with.

 

I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just shows the depth of PJ's characterization...

 

Don't you remember in The Two Kings where Legolas speaks with Gandalf: "In truth, Galadrial is a passing decent cook, but otherwise she is a wooden skank".

 

Spooky!

Edited by poru
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...