I've never read the books. I might give it a go now.
It should be pointed out that the Frodo/Samwise trek within the confines of Mordor were shorten significantly. I felt the preceived sentimentality that some feel as homophobic between Sam and Frodo should be understood in it's reality. The ring was a terrific burden and in fact, Sam did bear the ring for a time being (skipped in the movie) and realized what a true burden the ring was - especially so close to Mount Doom. The emotions were compacted and if some feel it to be homophobic - so be it.................I felt Jackson shorten because audience wouldn't want the "full" effect - the outcome was understandable - IMHO!!!!
I also missed the rock people.....
Of course, I missed things left out of the film -- the answer is, reread the books. There was the excitement on the first read of the mystery in the adventure. Where would this lead to next made the books definite page turners. There's nothing unique about the construction of the books nor the storytelling -- it's an engrossing tale with a lot of suspense that was necessarily lost in the film because one has already read the books! And most who have read them once, have read them again and again. I found myself floundering through reading them again recently -- the whole story is so implanted in my head that the sense of wonder was diminished. It's kind of attributed to becoming more jaded as one matures. It was difficult not to be adultish in approaching the film versions but I certainly tried to set aside my prejudices that they didn't give me the money to film them and enjoyed the experience to its fullest.
The extended DVD versions are even more enjoyable. Sorry that some came away dissapointed but that's life.
I don't know, Wilso, if reading the books after seeing the film would be a good idea until perhaps a year later. The books is in its umpteenth printing and the hardcover with the Alan Lee illustrations is wonderful -- it was available over here at Sam's Club for a reasonable price but I have owned the previous hardcover slip covered printing for many years. I don't know if I will read ROTK again but may start on the books again many years from now. There are paperback editions including in one volume (looks like a dictionary).
Homoerotic, BillW, not homophobic unless you may be speaking of the people who notice the plutonic love between the characters get pretty intense and decide in their own minds that it's repulsive.
Such is, is
I have always taken LOTR as a fantasy of epic proportion - there is absolutely nothing sexual about it and the world of today can not simply handle that - or am I just too simple, <sigh>
I would just prefer to be simple..............
I have always believed they were rather stretching the psychology of the piece -- there's no evidence that Tolkien was not devoutly heterosexual and I really doubt that any homoerotic inference was intended. However, we have a lot of armchair psychiatrists in this world, not to mention armchair film directors. I think if on if one did enjoy the film it would be better to say it wasn't their cup of tea. The criticisms I am reading are not just borderline sophistry.
Something I took from this movie and found in its simplicity to be spellbinding was the lighting of the Beacon fires. This was truly awesome and gave me an understanding of how fast "word" could travel in the time of yore
There was a lot of actual historical elements in LOTR that made it seem even more real. If one really gets lost in the books, the notion that it really existed before recorded history was very believable. It seemed like this could have been when the land mass that is England was joined to the continental Europe but, of course, that's not good geological science in that time frame. There's rather of a schoolboy quality to the maps Tolkien drew of Middle Earth. Everything is arranged to facilitate the story, naturally. These are all things I like about the books and the movie -- unabashedly and imaginatively inspired by a childlike inspiration even with some of the more adult fantasy material involved.
Something crossed my mind that seems important:
Anyone who reads "The Lord of the Rings" and doesn't see relationships to other written fantasy other than mytholgical references such as Frank Baum and the Oz series is just not awake. Even Tolkien's writing style is dervative but its a "good" derivation rather than a bad one. I feel the same about the films -- they are derived from the books which were derived from other written texts. There is less invention in Tolkien than there is compilation. Anyone trying to plow through "The Simarillion" can recognize it was a labor of love but somehow it's easy to say that it's overwrought. I am also glad to have seen Jackson having the courage to derive some of the film from that text and he genuinely felt they worked well in visualization and dramatic terms for a filmmaker.
Tolkien's map of Middle earth is a thinly disguised map of Wales and southern England. Mount Doom and Mourdor could possibly be the industrialized segments of Flanders which would fit well with both Tolkien's WWI experiences and the slightly xenophobic attitude Britain has always had towards the continent.
To say that any writing isn't a product of that that has passed before and is not in some sense autobiographical is nonsense. The author has got only his/her own life experiences as references.
I guess I have never cared to dissect something I read or see down to these elements. I prefer to stay naive and except my experience as they come, and accept my reactions as they occur.....
I loved
Return of the King! My only real gripe though, from the perspective of someone who hasn't read the books...
I've gotta go with Equus regarding the dead army in battle. They seemed more like a CGI tide than a real army, & I too would've liked a few scenes of orcs fighting vainly against the undead forces.
Oh, & everything Elrond said ended with "...Mr Anderson", in my head.
I'll prolly be picking up the extended DVD version when it comes along.
One does have to approach the books and the films with a certain childlike naivety -- to overanalyze them is ridiculous. Trying to interpret them as parables is the exercise of a fool. It's epic fantasy adventure and a story well told and that's it IMHO. We used to debate meanings of LOTR at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society in the 60's and nearly everyone recognized the books were meant to entertain, not to enlighten anyone to prehistoric or present politics (although there is necessarily some Machiavellian politics brushed by here and there, mostly in the form of character intrigue).
I would have to agree with Equus that the dead army sequence seems rushed and I wouldn't doubt that the Extended Version will include more of the battle. It must have been a horrific job editing the last part especially down to the length of three or four showings a day. The situation being compared to "the calvary to the rescue" is inevitable but rarely told with such scope and fervor.
Remember that the Extended Versions are not from the cutting room floor but are scenes specifically filmed for the DVD release.
The fact is that Jackson has still accomplished what everyone thought impossible and did an admirable job.
Boxoffice preview: Sony going 'Fish'-ing for a 'King'
9 Jan 2004 12:39pm EST - By Gregg Kilday
As the first weekend of the 2004 boxoffice year looms, the question is whether New Line Cinema's The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King will continue to reign as it has for the past three weekends. There is no question, though, that Peter Jackson's epic wrap-up to his J.R.R. Tolkien trilogy will cruise past the $300 million mark today. And heading into its fourth weekend, it's running about $30 million ahead of where its predecessor, The Two Towers, was at the same point in its life cycle. Towers dropped by 41% in its fourth weekend. A comparable decline for King, which took in $28.2 million last weekend, would mean that its upcoming boxoffice should amount to about $17 million. But that could still make it tough for a new contender to ascend to the throne. And if King performs more like the first film in the series, The Fellowship of the Ring, which fell only 30% in its fourth weekend, it could effectively lock out any challengers. The film with the best potential to rise to the occasion is Sony Pictures' Big Fish, director Tim Burton's PG-13 fable about a father-son reunion. Last weekend, playing in only 125 theaters, the film pulled in $2.5 million for a compelling per-theater average of $20,355. This weekend, it expands to 2,400 theaters. With its multigenerational cast including Ewan McGregor, Albert Finney and Billy Crudup, Fish is playing to a broad demographic and could find itself swimming in the $12 million-$15 million pool. Visit HollywoodReporter.com for more ...
