All you people will be signing a different tune when the Extended Edition DVD of Return of the King comes out. I was in a key scene and had the titular line but PJ decided to cut it at the last minute for personal reasons. In the scene, Gandalf is teaching Frodo how to drive and I'm sitting in the backseat and I go "I'm just so sick of this war. I can't wait for the return of the king."
Gender: Female Location: Don't know, don't care !!
Bennett...............sweetie..............did you take your medication ?? My guess is not. Now be a good little boy and pick up your lose screws and take the red pil first.
I really think this could have been an interesting discussion, but because a bunch of people just started flaming at someone who was simply saying what he was thinking. I just hate it when that happens (there has to be some forum where something like this doesn't happen ) I'm just peeping at this board and I thought, yeah, (almost) no flaming (only for joking) but well ... then this thread came allong.
JohnMatrix did even politely ask not to respond with flames ...
and the flames ruined the thread.
common people, a little respect for someone's opinion ???
And Sauron, just to make sure, I am one of those who do like Matrix and LotR (all the way) and if you think Rev spoiled TM triology, you're wrong (to me it is). Rel and Rev are 1 movie and Rev isn't that different from Rel. If you say you liked Rel, didn't you have to think about it alot before you knew what it was al about? Same with Rev, if you don't bother to really think about the movie, you just cannot like it, 'cause if you don't 'think' about it, it's just a plane old Holywood film with empty dialogues and cool action. (to be sure : it isn't !! )
that's the problem of the matrix, the mass doesn't want to think when they come out of the theatres. and that's why it did what it did.
Wow, even on here there are still trolls...oh well, what can you do.
I'm really dissapointed they left out the Choices of Master Samwise, probably my favorite chapter in the book (the Two Towers, actually.) It's quite an important chapter, and it's also important that Sam not only bore the ring, but wore it, several times. I think they should have kept the trilogy in the same the pieces, and left in all the parts of TT that they cut out, because without them it's nothing more than Frodo playing with Gollum and a giant epic battle that...wasn't. Oh, and they DEFINETELY shouldn't have messed up Faramir, he was a great and important character.
That's all I have to say right now, as I unfortunately haven't seen the movie yet. Looking forward to it, though. I have a large feeling that although Aragorn shines through the first two movies, his character will greatly diminish in the third, and i'll be dissapointed in that regard. He's easily my favorite character. Him, Sam, and Gollum are the best (in both movie and book.)
In general though, even without seeing RotK, I can easily say that it was a great film adaptation although it COULD have been better (even much better.) PJ deserves alot of credit, as does his amazing cast and crew, every single person deserves an award of some sort (as does New Zealand for that matter.) It's inevitable that things will piss us Tolkien fans/purists off (of whom the original topic creator is not,) especially considering the nature of his work, and the large depth that lets your imagination do alot of work that the movie(s) contradict. It's amazing how people complain about things like the split personality Gollum and the physical affection shared by Sam and Frodo, which to us seems blatantly homosexual, but that isn't the point, and even the multiple endings, when these were ALL in the written material quite clearly. It's fine if you straight out don't like them, but if you say they are bad in comparison to the book (which is the case in this example,) you are greatly mistaken. There are quite a few major changes that are bad, but most of my qualms lie in the details that were ruined, lines changed for no reason, that sort of thing...
Finally, I can also say, with absolute certainty, even though I haven't seen RotK just yet, that quite frankly I don't believe someone who LOVED the Two Towers can find the movie bad or greatly dissapointing.
Wow...what a long post. Sorry.
Last edited by nephalim27 on Dec 20th, 2003 at 02:24 AM
ok well considering there are eight pages here, i havent read much, but im sure im agreeing w/most when i say that johnmatrix what were you thinking??? i wont go into details about my opinion considering it was basically all covered in the 1st page...
__________________
"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." - J.R.R. Tolkien
JohnMatrix>
” Im sorry, I honestly didnt remember that does not make me any less of fan than you. I dont go to sleep with book under my pillow, that doesnt make me and less of a fan than you. I said dont take my opinion personal, but apparently you have.”
Well, how can you sit and complain about the adaptation of the book ROTK when you don’t even remember key events of the book??
Why do you think I sleep with a book under my pillow? Isn’t that horribly uncomfortable? And why in Neo’s name do you start to take things personal? When you dish up nonsense, I’m afraid you get the answers you deserve.
Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli do not play constant, major roles in the BOOK Rotk. But I suppose you kinda forgot that, too??
“It was a joke. I was trying to make a point. Im sorry if i offended your family.”
Oh, so you CAN’T prove it after all? Quick retreat, now it’s a joke? Very well, how am I suppose to take the rest of what you say serious now?
“You seem to also be a fan of the matrix. What if Neo started singing in the third movie?”
Show me the BOOKS “The Matrix”, “Matrix Reloaded” and “Matrix revolutions” where the authors explicitly write about singing. Aha. What a nonsense argument.
Singing is in the LotR BOOKS.->Singing ok in movies.
No Singing in Matrix. Why should there be?????
“What are you talking about the ending was different than the books.”
You said you wanted rotk to end on the Mount Doom side. I asked why the ending of the movie should be different than that of the books?
Ah, goodness! So you do NOT know that PJ made the fade scene on Mount Doom to get a cheap thrill, as you explicitly wrote you KNOW FOR A FACT? Know it’s because it’s your opinion? Newsflash, Matrixjohn: Your opinion does not constitute fact.
__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
"That includes ruining Halloween because someone swallowed a Bible."
"I just thought you were a guy."
"... Most guys do."
I've been given an Idea now, I think I WILL sleep with ROTK under my pillow to keep it safe from people like you!
I can't belive that people can read the book so many times and STILL be wrong about pretty much everything! Is'nt that impossible?
BTW, dunno if anyone's picked this up but its GIMLI not GAMLING!
Maybe you should go and find a website for Peter Jackson bashers like yourself, we don't wanna hear it.
__________________
I fear a cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them, and all chance of valour has gone beyond recall or desire.
If you look at my post i say, most of my problems where cinematic not story adaptation. So stop saying this.
Is that Denmark humor? Cause if it a joke how do i take you seriously?
What are you talking aboutt? I said if you make them your focal points for the first two you need to make them that for the third. That has nothing to do with the book.
Ok than tell me what went through your mind when that happen and the cinematic reasons behind it? Cause it wasnt to show their content for dieing on the mountain.
ls : just looked quickly through the last pages (4-7) so if I repeat something, I'm sorry
You clearly say things have to be cut (was a big issue in your first post), where the hell is that not problems with story adaptation ?
I would like you to point what your specific cinematic problems were, if that is what you want to discuss, because, it's not clearly put, and the thread is about 8 pages long and I don't feel like going through it again ...
> Omega, he took things personal because people were flaming, I think he acted quite calmly to that. And doesn't matter if it's nonsense, the flaming wasn't necessary. If JohnMatrix didn't understand something, or thinks differently about some stuff, that's okay, either you try to (politely) discuss with him to tell him otherwise, or you just shut up!
> JohnMatrix : one of the things I can agree on you
Dunno where you get the idea that PJ made A,L&G the ?? focal ?? points for the first two films. Here you are totally wrong ...
FotR : first half of the movie you only see Aragorn, no Gimli or Legolas, and after the council, you have Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Boromir, Gandalf AND {A ,L & G}
TT : 3 (+1) story lines
1) Sam & Frodo (& Gollum) (& Faramir ..)
2) Merry & Pippin (& Treebeard)
3) A, L & G AND Theoden&Eowyn&Eomer
*) Saruman & Wormtongue (& Urukhai)
there are alot of main characters in this movie ....
so maybe Aragorn is important, but not more than the hobbits for example.
But Legolas and Gimli (& Aragorn) THE focal points in the first two movies ??? nope no way
I found it quite pleasing, like I said, after the blackout at Mount Doom, I was thinking ... "please do not stop here, DO NOT make it a Holywood ending, PLEASE"
As for the other so called 'endings' -> all the last chapters look seperate also, think PJ was holding to JRR here and I loved it
Last edited by Clockwork on Dec 20th, 2003 at 10:52 AM
Originally posted by JohnMatrix Im sorry if you dont like my opinion of this movie your choice. But dont tell ppl to leave cause you dont want to hear them.
Good point
as for reading it sooo many times i read it once, doesnt make me less of a fan than you
You have regular fans like yourself and you have fan-fans, who have read the books over and over, and/or who have seen FotR and TT again and again and ... , and/or who might already have seen RotK 1-2-3-?? times. So, yeah, that can make them more of a fan than you (or me )
Peter Jackson will be provent on "King Kong" not this. He wrote "King Kong" and is directing it.
Can't understand this, could you explain this ?? (I speak dutch, so english is not my native language)
as for GAMLING, I got that off of so why dont you go cry to them. And tell them how they are disrespecting your movie.
I tried to find a relation between John Rhys-Davies and Gamling but only found .... Gimli son of Gloin
Gamling on the other hand is a horserider of Rohan I think, played by Bruce Hopkins (see attachment)
Now something that IMO should have been changed by PJ : why elaborate more about Aragorn and Arwen if you have a trough love story of Eowyn and Faramir. I would have liked it if the love between A&A was cut (a little bit!), in exchange for the love of E&F (with the House of Healing.
The other changes PJ made, I can understand them completely, especially from cinematic view [SPOILER - highlight to read]: like Saruman's death, move the Army of Death from the coast to Pelenor Fields, scouring of the Shire, ...
BTW, nice discussing with you
Attachment: gamling.jpg
This has been downloaded 31 time(s).
To elaborate on your first post (sorry if I repeat myself)
Inappropiate name of RotK
Been discussed, JRR didn't like the title, about PJ I don't know if he likes it or not, but I guess they had to keep the title = IRRELEVANT DISCUSSION (imo)
Choices of Sam
If they showed Sam had the ring, [SPOILER - highlight to read]: => the moment when Frodo awakens (spelling ?) and looks for the ring, would have been ultemately cheesy
The only cinematic thing I guess you had a problem with ... (imo)
A, L & G focal points in FotR and TT, and (almost) not in the great battle at Minas Tirith
Been discussed, = WRONG OBSERVATION (imo)
Sam and Frodo socalled 'Love'
Been discussed, actually this is cinematic quite adequate to the book
Aragorn from Ranger to Backstreet boy
Also been discussed, actually this is cinematic quite adequate to the book
To conclude, the most problems you had are imo disproven, leaves us with
The cutting part
Gollum flashback
btw : this flashback goes even back before 'The Hobbit'
Necessary for the public that didn't read the book
Cinematicly nice to refer to [SPOILER - highlight to read]: when Gollum decides to kill Frodo & Sam (let killed actually)
Can't be put in the first film (inappropiate: Gollum ? in this movie just a side character (when Bilbo finds the Ring and when he gets tortured by Sauron and also he is 'following' the fellowship - offscreen! )
Not really necessary for the second film, he could have put it in the end somewhere, but it has (cinematic) more significance where it is know (imo)
Denethor
Been discussed, imo we see too little of the background of Denethor, but to cut Denethor completely, how would you justify that? Go defend Minas Tirith, only with Gandalf who just comes to help to Gondor, with no 'leader' what so ever of Gondor itself ??? => would be cinematicly very incorrect imo ..
Stop the film right after Mount Doom
Been discussed, would make it a Holywood film, and I respect PJ especially because he did not do that.
If you look at my post i say, most of my problems where cinematic not story adaptation. So stop saying this.
Your cinematic problems were wrong imo (and to the rest I think), so that leaves me and them to discuss you about the fact to cut the film in 2.30h you say, 'like the FotR and TT', but if I remember correctly, those two films were 179' and 178' long (=3hrs ), again a wrong
observation/statement
And about the singing : go hire the Extended Edition and see how much people are singing in those versions (btw, those EE are so much better than the theatrical versions) I recommend you to really see them, and I am looking forward to the EE of RotK
Damn three long post, hope it wasn't too much to handle, I'm surprised of myself
Greetz,
Clockwork
Last edited by Clockwork on Dec 20th, 2003 at 11:41 AM
JohnMatrix>
“Is that Denmark humor? Cause if it a joke how do i take you seriously?”
Uhhhhhhh, playing a little nationalistic card now, are we??
No, what I wrote is the way things are. And stop stooping to simple copy-cat argumentation, when you run out of real answers. It’s not only silly, it’s hilarious and not a good starting point for serious debating.
Once again :” Why do you think I sleep with a book under my pillow?”
“What are you talking aboutt? I said if you make them your focal points for the first two you need to make them that for the third. That has nothing to do with the book.”
Aragorn, Legos and Gimly play bigger parts in the first two books than they do in the third. Why should PJ change that? I’m asking if you, not being able to remember how Gollum dies in RotK, perhaps also forgot that the AGL-trio didn’t play major roles in Rotk either.
This has indeed everything to do with the book, as RotK is an adaptation of the BOOK Rotk.
“Ok than tell me what went through your mind when that happen and the cinematic reasons behind it? Cause it wasnt to show their content for dieing on the mountain.”
You do not KNOW that for a fact, Matrixjohn. You can claim that from now until the release of the extended DVD, and your opinion STILL is not fact. I’ve already told you how I viewed that scene, I suppose you… forgot that, too?
I also still would like to know, why you want a different ending to the movie than there is in the book.
Clockwork> Yes, I saw that some people flamed very… hrm… harshly. I do not, hence there is no reason for Matrixjohn to take things personal when I write them. And you telling ME to shut up is as polite as… ? How about you organise your replies instead of writing three quite confusing and very long posts?
__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
"That includes ruining Halloween because someone swallowed a Bible."
"I just thought you were a guy."
"... Most guys do."
I thought the movie was brilliant and it ended the trilogy nicely. The whole Gollum open scene was brilliant, it gives us an insight as to he was and it dont necesarly had to be done in the first or 2nd and to me ROTK means not thathe assumed leadership but that he united both countries and in one part even Theoden admits that it wasnt him that led the victory at Helms Deep but Aragorn even though their part in the war was short it was good even though i wouldve liked to see more of them in it, the Steward of Gondor made me sick, he was the worst of the world of men, at any point during the trilogy i thought that Sam and Frodo were in love, pure friendship and it was well portrayed and i loved the fact that Sam had a huge part in the film and that everything ended nicely for him the only thing i didnt like was that Aragorn chose Arwen, i thought Erwyn was more deserving, cuter and her fighting scenes were awsome, the way she took down the oliphaunt and the Nazgul witch was terrific, i was sad that Aragorn picked Arwen, since all she did was show up at the end and i was hoping that at the end when Gollum was dancing that it wouldve been Sam thet threw him over since he had so much harm to Sam during the movie, overall it was a great movie, an instant classic!
__________________
"A lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths." Deep Throat.
I am sad to say, but I was a little dissappointed of the movie. I don't think that it's because it was bad, but it's just hard to tell yourself that the trilogy is actually over (or it is for me). I thought it was an excellent movie, but like someone said before, Aragorn becoming the King of Gondor wasn't really recognized like it should have been, but that's okay. Some of the scenes weren't made like I was expecting. Some of them went too fast.
Example: Eowyn and Faramir, I understand that they couldn't have done too much with them because they cut out the Houses of Healing, but we didn't even see them meet.
Another: Aragorn rejecting Eowyn, it really made him look like an a**, or that's what my friends thought. I couldn't really accept it at first since I adore him, but I could see why. He didn't really have anytime to give an explanation, but still, I thought that was sad.
One thing that I was really happy about was that PJ made Theoden look a lot better in this film. I thought he acted like such an ass to Aragorn. This time, he looked so much better.
John Noble did a good job with Denethor. I thought it was so sad when he told Faramir that he wanted him to die in the place of Boromir. I know that someone said that wasn't needed, but it was. It was sad that he sent his son's army to die. I'm glad that he came back, because if he didn't I would be pretty mad.
Out of 5, I'd give it a 4. It was an excellent movie, but I think that everyone that was disappointed, was disappointed because it's just so sad that the movie is over.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 19th, 2003 08:45 PM
) I'm just peeping at this board and I thought, yeah, (almost) no flaming (only for joking) but well ... then this thread came allong. 
)
,Sauron
Attachment: 
