PJ's LoTR: Return of the King

[CatInASuit]

It's aged really badly hasn't it.

From the glorious epic I saw in the cinema several years ago to watching it at home this weekend, my only thoughts were what went wrong. The effects looked awful, the dialogue seemed hammy and it was just not enjoyable any more. I can sit through Fellowship of the Ring several times, but it seemed that the further into the story he went, the more changes Peter Jackson just had to make.

After this, I fear for the Hobbit, if he is bought back in to make it.

And to top it off, following it I saw two episodes of Legend of the Seeker from Sam Raimi based on the Terry Goodkind books. They seemed a class act by comparison.

[What Exit?]

Well I've been one of those that PJ drove crazy with the changes for no reasons crap but there are still moments in RotK that are amazing and awe inspiring like the beacon scene. Then there are the damn hyena like wargs and the scrubbing bubbles army of the dead that followed Aragorn. The confrontation between Gandalf and the Witchking and Gandalf and Denethor were so much less than what Tolkien wrote. PJ prevented me from ever completely enjoying his work. But I was a tough sell to start with.

[OneCentStamp]

Yeah, it has not aged well even compared to the other two LotR films, and as mentioned above, the two big problems are the visuals and the dialogue. In between the monster battles and set pieces, too much of RotK is Frodo and Sam talking to each other under bizarrely colored, washout lighting. And that's bad, because neither of them is an amazing actor, and between the two of them their chemistry is not greater than the sum of the parts.

[CatInASuit]

At least Gollum still looked respectable, but that's more down to Andy Serkis than anything else.

[OneCentStamp]

At least Gollum still looked respectable, but that's more down to Andy Serkis than anything else.

Andy Serkis did an amazing job with Gollum's voice, movements, and mannerisms. Also, it seems the special effects people played to their strengths and limitations in creating Gollum: he's practically solid gray in color (easier to pull off convincingly than bright color, Exhibit A: Jar-Jar Binks), and mostly naked and hairless (little stuff that flap and blow, like hair and clothes, are notoriously fake-looking).

It's as if they realized that Gollum was going to have a ton of screen time and they'd better make something that wasn't going to be embarrassing in ten years. The cave troll is similarly conservatively rendered (in fact, he's pretty much the same color as Gollum and similarly hairless), and also looks good even now. The wargs that were covered in brown fur? Not so much.

[vison]

In a movie full of dreck, the dreckiest bit was Elrond peeking out from behind something (an arras?) and smirking at Aragorn before handing Arwen over. I barf at the recollection:

But so many candidates for dreckiness! So many awful, idiotic scenes and so much drecky dialogue! So many numb-making stupid changes!!!

Such a bad way to start the day. I gotta change my mental landscape here and remember something nice.

[What Exit?]

{warning grumpy fanatic}

Damn troll, it was just a Large Orc Leader type that speared Frodo. I hated the troll scene. Also not even close to my picture of a troll.

[Rube E. Tewesday]

I've never seen it all the way through. But whenever I land on a couple minutes of it when I'm channel surfing, I'm like "WTF? Why did they change that? It was better in the book and there's no cinematic necessity for the change."

I haven't even read the books in years, but those movies turn me right back into the Tolkien fanatic of my childhood, and not in a good way.

[vison]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the SFX sucked. They did. They did, I tell you.

I thought Gollum sucked, too. I think the actor should have just played the part. Gollum never looked "real" to me at all.

As for that troll? Not only was it a stupid troll, it was such bad SFX. Ray Harryhausen would have made a better troll, and he's been dead for about 500 years.

[CatInASuit]

The funniest SFX through out the entire three movies is still the Fellowship running for it in the Mines of Moria grand hall. The transition from live action to computer generated is hilarious, watching them change to little animated figures floating above the floor with their little clockwork legs going.

[Rube E. Tewesday]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the SFX sucked. They did. They did, I tell you.

I thought Gollum sucked, too. I think the actor should have just played the part. Gollum never looked "real" to me at all.

As for that troll? Not only was it a stupid troll, it was such bad SFX. Ray Harryhausen would have made a better troll, and he's been dead for about 500 years.

Actually Ray Harryhausen is still alive and working as a producer. PJ should have called him in.

[OneCentStamp]

Wow, there's a lot of hate for the FX going on here.

The troll didn't look like I envisioned a troll looking, but I think my idea of trolls was informed from a very early age by the Rankin-Bass and Bakshi interpretations, and by Dungeons and Dragons artwork. So my mental picture was probably no more valid than PJ's.

I can't agree re: the Harryhausen thing. Every time I see Clash of the Titans or The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, there's a Monty Python-esque voice in the back of my head that pipes, "It's only a model!"

[vison]

Wow, there's a lot of hate for the FX going on here.

The troll didn't look like I envisioned a troll looking, but I think my idea of trolls was informed from a very early age by the Rankin-Bass and Bakshi interpretations, and by Dungeons and Dragons artwork. So my mental picture was probably no more valid than PJ's.

I can't agree re: the Harryhausen thing. Every time I see Clash of the Titans or The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, there's a Monty Python-esque voice in the back of my head that pipes, "It's only a model!"

That voice is in the back of my head, too. Every time some stupid creature appears in LOTR (and they appear constantly!!!!) I hear that voice and it says the same thing.

[What Exit?]

I had a pretty good picture of the trolls in my head from the Hobbit I guess. Nothing like the D&D trolls BTW. Very large but mannish looking craggy faced creatures. Not odd lumps of flesh like the CGI.

[Feirefiz]

[...] and the scrubbing bubbles army of the dead that followed Aragorn.

I've never understood that one. Several times I've read that Jackson hated the army of the dead. That makes the decision to expand its role hard to understand. Staying closer to the book would have been easy to achieve and I don't see how it wouldn't have worked better.

[OneCentStamp]

I honestly would have been happy if the whole Dead Men of Dunharrow subplot had gone the way of Bombadil in the film adaptations. Like Bombadil, the Dunharrow subplot was unnecessary to the plot as a whole (which is rare; normally, trying to excise plot from Tolkien is like pulling on a loose sweater thread), jarringly at odds with the rest of the story, and would have been missed only by completists.

[Orual]

I agree that RotK has aged less well than the other two movies. The CGI went overboard and the Frodo/Sam scenes really drag. This is also the movie that I think the Extended Edition actually was worse than the theatrical release.

However there are two bits that I find intensely awesome, despite the movies flaws: the lighting of the beacons and the arrival of the Rohirrim.

[vison]

The beacons hit all the buttons, all right. But the stupid business of Merry climbing up there . . . .

Well, the less said, the better.

[What Exit?]

I honestly would have been happy if the whole Dead Men of Dunharrow subplot had gone the way of Bombadil in the film adaptations. Like Bombadil, the Dunharrow subplot was unnecessary to the plot as a whole (which is rare; normally, trying to excise plot from Tolkien is like pulling on a loose sweater thread), jarringly at odds with the rest of the story, and would have been missed only by completists.

Going through the Paths of the Dead was important as it was a major step in proving Aragorn's claim and of course his use of the Palantir rattled Sauron, but it could have been quickly summed up by Gimli and Legolas to the Hobbits as largely happened in the book. The Boats turning out to be allies to Gondor was way more impressive then the army of the dead being misplaced anyway.

I knew Tom had no hopes of being in the movie but I held out hope that PJ would film a bit of it at least as a DVD extra. What I really missed the most in the films was losing Glorfindel and of course the Scouring of the Shire.

I agree that RotK has aged less well than the other two movies. The CGI went overboard and the Frodo/Sam scenes really drag. This is also the movie that I think the Extended Edition actually was worse than the theatrical release.

However there are two bits that I find intensely awesome, despite the movies flaws: the lighting of the beacons and the arrival of the Rohirrim.

Those were very good.

[OneCentStamp]

But the stupid business of Merry climbing up there . . . .

Well, the less said, the better.

I know you said "the less said, the better," but i'm going to say more anyway.

I think making Merry climb is symptomatic of a larger problem: PJ felt he needed to put one of THE MAIN CHARACTERS into every single scene, even though the original story is epic in scope and involved hundreds of "speaking parts." Same reason PJ had Arwen meet Aragorn and the hobbits, instead of Glorfindel.

I don't know whether I should be insulted (since I'm evidently not smart enough to keep up with all these bit characters) or they just did it do make their own lives simpler, but it's maddening.

[Myrnalene]

I'm in no position to re-watch this movie, as my DVDs are now several states away, but I'm saddened to see so much ROTK hatred in this thread. To my mind it has some of the best acting in the entire trilogy (Billy Boyd, Ian McKellan, and John Noble are especially excellent). And there are incredible scenes in it (the opening which shows how Smeagol transformed into Gollum, the scene where Pippen and Gandalf discuss the afterlife, the bit with Shelob, the lighting of the beacons that Jim mentioned). It was, the last time I saw it at least, my favorite of the trilogy. There's some stupid crap in it (the bad special effects in the battle scene for sure, and well.....anything involving Orlando Bloom) but I noticed that stuff way back when I saw it in the theater.

[Orual]

The beacons hit all the buttons, all right. But the stupid business of Merry climbing up there . . . .

Well, the less said, the better.

I think making Merry climb is symptomatic of a larger problem: PJ felt he needed to put one of THE MAIN CHARACTERS into every single scene ...

THAT WAS PIPPIN! :Shake:

[Myrnalene]

Oh, and the goofy look and delivery of Merry when he said, "My lady!" sucked too, but that is because the actor who played Merry sucked throughout, and that's a moment I also noticed in the theater.

[Feirefiz]

But the stupid business of Merry climbing up there . . . .

Pippin. The two are totally different!

Pippin, the annoying one, goes to Minas Tirith, a safe distance from the palatir, and enters Gondorian service (and in the books that ties in nicely with his future role as Thain.)
Merry, the smart one, stays with the Rohirrim.

ETA: Ok, I should have known that you wouldn't get away with that.

[OneCentStamp]

THAT WAS PIPPIN! :Shake:

[Orual]

To my mind it has some of the best acting in the entire trilogy (Billy Boyd, Ian McKellan, and John Noble are especially excellent). And there are incredible scenes in it (the opening which shows how Smeagol transformed into Gollum, the scene where Pippen and Gandalf discuss the afterlife, the bit with Shelob, the lighting of the beacons that Jim mentioned).

I heartily agree on these points. I absolutely loved all those scenes with Pippin and Gandalf in Minas Tirith. And Faramir's suicidal cavalry charge, and the whole riding-out scene before it.

And what about Theoden's face when the mumak show up?

[Orual]

After this, I fear for the Hobbit, if he is bought back in to make it.

At this point, I don't see how The Hobbit is going to be anything but a giant cluster-fuck, no matter who directs it.

[What Exit?]

At this point, I don't see how The Hobbit is going to be anything but a giant cluster-fuck, no matter who directs it.

It has taken so long to happen and the gap is growing larger from the Trilogy that it looks bad, but keep in mind that it took 35 years for the Fellowship to come out and for all my complaints as a fanatic it was a great fantasy film.

Shelob did work out pretty well and Mordor and the journey to Mordor was as dreadful and depressing as Tolkien wrote it so I guess that worked.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

... I absolutely loved all those scenes with Pippin and Gandalf in Minas Tirith. ...

Yes, that is great (even if the description Gandalf uses is actually that of Frodo's dream of approaching Eldamar, that he eventually experiences). It's especially good when you remember that Gandalf has actually died and been resurrected, so he knows what he's talking about.

...And what about Theoden's face when the mumak show up?

Yeah, that is good. And then he says "Reform the line! Sound the charge! Meet them head on!" Yeah, that'll work!

[Skald the Rhymer]

Pippin. The two are totally different!

Pippin, the annoying one, goes to Minas Tirith, a safe distance from the palatir, and enters Gondorian service (and in the books that ties in nicely with his future role as Thain.)
Merry, the smart one, stays with the Rohirrim.

ETA: Ok, I should have known that you wouldn't get away with that.

I despise that movie, as you may know, but even *I* don't think Merry & Pippin are interchangable on screen. Excepting the bit with the fireworks dragon at the very beginning, Merry is a smarter and more mature from the get go.

Well, that bit and the bit on Farmer Maggot's farm.

[vison]

I'm going to pretend that I knew it was Pippin all along, okay?

[Orual]

And then he says "Reform the line! Sound the charge! Meet them head on!" Yeah, that'll work!

IT IS FOR DEATH AND GLORY. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT "WORKS".

[/rampaging Rohirrim]

Excepting the bit with the fireworks dragon at the very beginning, Merry is a smarter and more mature from the get go.

Also he does that weird, crooked jaw clench thing. And he doesn't sing.

I'm going to pretend that I knew it was Pippin all along, okay?

If you didn't like the movie to begin with, I can understand why you would't be paying close attention to the backup hobbit duo.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

...


Also he does that weird, crooked jaw clench thing. ...

Yeah, what's up with that? It gets more annoying the more times you watch the trilogy.

[eleanorigby]

The beacons hit all the buttons, all right. But the stupid business of Merry climbing up there . . . .

Well, the less said, the better.

It was Pippin.


ETA: oops. Should have finished reading first...

I really don't mind 90% of what you all are on about. What bothered me from the get go and still does is Aragorn NOT getting a new tree/sapling/flower/whatever the hell he goes on the mountainside with Gandalf to go get in the book. Hell, if the tree of the king is dying, (and yes, the lone bloom was a nice touch--but that's all it was), why not incorporate that somehow. It would have helped the symbolism of the movie. That and tying Arwen's fate to the fate of the Ring--how fucked up is that?

I still like the movies a lot, though. I do skip ALL of the scenes with the Ents, except the "release the damn!" one. I loved the Ents in the books, but they talk too damned slow and grind the plot to a halt.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

... Hell, if the tree of the king is dying, (and yes, the lone bloom was a nice touch--but that's all it was), why not incorporate that somehow. It would have helped the symbolism of the movie. That and tying Arwen's fate to the fate of the Ring--how fucked up is that?...

Um, the tree is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Until, at the very low point of the battle, when all seems to be lost, it suddenly has a bloom on it because Aragorn (and the Rohirrim) are coming. There's your symbolism.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

I've never understood that one. Several times I've read that Jackson hated the army of the dead. That makes the decision to expand its role hard to understand. Staying closer to the book would have been easy to achieve and I don't see how it wouldn't have worked better.

I don't know. I think following the books exactly on this would be harder from a cinematic/storytelling point of view. I just recently re-watched ROTK with an intelligent, interested group of people who had never seen it before and had never read the books, and they were confused by several different locations, namely Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith and Osgiliath.

Explaining how Aragorn goes from Dunharrow to some OTHER location in Gondor, that is being attacked by a DIFFERENT army of Sauron's, only this one consists only of humans, who naturally are frightened by the Ghost Army, so they drop their weapons and run away, so the army of Gondor (not the one in Minas Tirith, a DIFFERENT army of Gondor) could now get on the Black Ships and rescue Minas Tirith which is beseiged by one of Sauron's OTHER armies, only this one consists mostly of Orcs and Trolls (and some men)...

It makes what is already a pretty complicated story more complicated. But on the other hand it eliminates all the Ghost Army issues (the scrubbing bubbles effect, and how do their weapons work anyway, if they themselves are invincible to regular weapons?)

[Laughing Lagomorph]

...Shelob did work out pretty well and Mordor and the journey to Mordor was as dreadful and depressing as Tolkien wrote it so I guess that worked.

My beef with movie Shelob is you don't really get the feeling of malevolent intelligence from her that is evoked so well in the book. Movie Shelob could just be a giant spider, rather than an ancient evil being in spider form.

(Also I don't like that Shelob was apparently modeled on a type of spider native to New Zealand...they obviously should have used some type of spider native to England/Europe, and I think Shelob is described as having long legs with joints higher than her back, which the movie Shelob doesn't. But that's a nit that probably only I feel a need to pick).