Disappointed in LOTR III

Minas Tirith is not handicapped accessable.

Well, I did have lots of ramps.

Yeah... but no guard rails to protect the inhabitants from flaming stewards. OSHA would shut 'em down in a heart beat.

And there's nothing quite so skeevy as an un-scoured shire.

Mrs. SealPoet said to me about three minutes into it "No sushi tonight..."

I liked "In America", too, plainoldme. Succumbed to it, despite being determined not to. But the director and actors earned it, fair and square.

Re Tolkien and Wagner: The latest New Yorker includes an article suggesting that the former owes a debt to the latter. Not taking anything away from Tolkien's achievement, of course....

Minas Tirith was created following the artwork of the two conceptual artists on the film, Alan Lee and John Howe. I find Howe's illustrations to be closer to my idea of what the city looked like. Actually, Tolkien was rather sparse describing the total look of the city and this is Jackson and Co's interpretation. I liked it -- the production design of all the films is top notch.

"...a little like that..." is a tentative and qualified statement. Sing out, Louise!

I've read all the nit-picking at the film for Jackson's and his artistics staff's interpretation as cinema and didn't find a like objection. The more positive characterization of women in the film certainly helps belie the homoerotic nature of the books which has been brought up time and time again.

I can't short the director for not including the scouring of the Shire, at least in the theatrical verson, as that would have added another storyline and another half-hour to the film. The majority of movie goers would have been impatient with this part of the tale. It does add to the poignant sadness of the book when one knows all these characters are slipping into a fictional oblivion and we can visit them no more. BTW, there is an LOTR thread already on the boards.

I didn't read your comment, D'artagnan, but it is true that Tolkien could be accused of being derivitive. Howard Shore certainly picked up on the Wagner epic complexion of the books (not to mention Biblical) in the musical score. That was the idea of creating the book, to write about a mythology that England didn't have up to then. The extent of the true English mythology is ingrained somewhere in the slivers of history of the Druids.

There's too many things right about these films to begin sobbing about the liberties taken in Jackson's interpretation of the film. It's really like criticizing a conductor for playing the theme Ode to Joy of Beethoven's Ninth a bit too slowly. If there is someone who isn't inspired and stimulated by the film, I want to feel their pulse.

Britain does have a mythology, but it is very different than that of continental mythology. See: "The Age of Arthur "by John Morris.

The production design of the LOR was in my opinion one of the great strengths of the film trilogy.

This is the first I've heard of a homoerotic component to LOR. If that is the case most of the "barbarian" folklore/mythology of western Europe (which Tolkien's novels accurately reflect) is homoerotic which I doubt. Women just did not count for as much in the non Roman world.

I've said this before on Lightwizard's thread, I think Jackson should have made four rather than three films. There was no need to follow the tripart organization of Tolkien, he is working in a different medium.

He was lucky to make three films -- originally it was two and New Line executives told him they believed it would be better as three films, thus the revolutionary process of making them all in one long shoot. Four films is just logistically impractical. Wait and see what is in what is said to be nearly an hour longer version of ROTK on DVD!

The Arthurian historical legends are a singular element of a still rather sparse mythology (they might even be factual to some degree).

Jackson deserves praise for what he's accomplished, the little darts being thrown and his film edifice are pricking but ineffectual.

Haven't seen the film, but the fact that it's been nearly universally acclaimed means that there will be some revisionist sniping going on. Has to happen...

It's in the top three poll of the best film ever made on IMDb, a has quotient of 97.5% in favorable critical acclaim, is on more top ten list than any other film, is on the number one spot over any other film of the year. It's put the benchmark many notches higher for epic films -- "The Last Samurai" as well done as it is pales in comparison.

I was rewatching "The Two Towers" in the extended DVD version and it is a much better film with the added material (plus you can pause and go to the bathroom!)

(But there's always some who are difficult to please).

Lightwizard, I don't think it so much difficult to please as the fun of intellectual engagement with a film. Almost every film that I have seen, that I have cared about, I have replayed in my head and thought how would I do things differently. LOTR was one of the few films where I did not do much of that, with the exception of the last half hour and some of the character development. It was a great film trilogy and almost everything I was looking for in those films was there, and most people I know who have seen them have thought the same. But even so it is fun to compare different responses to the films, explore different experience and understand why those response differ. That does not mean they films a not appreciated. The fact that some people are so intense in their opinions would seem to me to say that they were very much appreciated.

I can, of course, appreciate the need to fantasize one's own concept of a film but its being a collaborative effort makes it impossible to place oneself in the position of being qualified for all of the seperate responsibilities. Jackson admitted his ignorance to Howard Shore of the musical aspects of the film but was like I was highly impressed with the results. Jackson was given free reign by the studio to make the film he wanted to make. He did it in my estimation with bravado and artistic competance and integrity. This is as the majority of critics have state, the best of the three films. I also know people who think Mozart's music contains too many notes.

Wow. Several points.

1.) I didn't say I disliked the film, only that I was disappointed. I think I would have moved Shelob back into film two as she appears in book 2 and included the Scouring of the Shire. BTW, I have severe archophobia and while I looked at the screen during this segment, I removed my glasses so I wouldn't see the details. I read The Trilogy for the first time at 19 and could not sit in a room alone when I read the Shelob part.

2.) LOTR is not derivative but rather synthesizing. There is a big difference. Tolkien was, as at least one critic put it, a man of myth. The names of characters and events recall the myths of all of the people of the British Isles and northern Europe: P-Celts, Q-Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Norsemen, Norsemen who were Frenchified, Germans.

3.) I read the trilogy five or six times and never found women placed in a disrespectful posture nor had I found any homoerotic elements in the tale. The Lady Eowyn is responsible for the killing of the Nazgul chief which can be argued is the turning point of the action, placing the destruction of the ring in the denouement. While Goldberry, Arwin, the other Elf ring bearer played by Cate Blanchett and Rosie Cotton are not human women, they are females treated with great respect and admiration. I named my daughter partially after Rosie Cotton: Emily Rose.

4.) Back to derivative. WHile I think Jackson's film is an achievement and he did a much better job than the partial attempts at filming the story to date, there is much that is derivative about his vision, even allowing for the difference between a film and a book. One critic wrote there were weird references to Wizard of Oz and while the word references was wrong, there was a sort of homage paid to Baum. Some of the sets looked like the Moon of Endor sets from Star WArs and some of the creatures resembled Imperial Walkers.

To fully accomplish what Tolkien wrote, the film would have to be at least six 3 hour movies. Even then, a majority of the character development wouldn't be accomplished and much of the torturous, monotonous trekking skipped.

I feel it is to Jackson's credit that parts of the appendices (which are extensive) and Silmarillion are included in the movie. A lot of the criticisms I read of "changes" Jackson made to the trilogy and characterizations are actually included here.

I think I would have moved...? I think I would have included the scouring? More tentative statements and I'm sure this was considered by Jackson and the writers but discarded as not working as a movie.

Synthesized? Tolkien consciously derived all of the elements from other mythology. There isn't one original thing in there except for renaming some of his little people Hobbits. Synthetic is a far more pungent criticism. Of course, who cares if he used other mythologies to create his world, it is still a magnificent feat and the world was recreated on the screen very much intact.

Woman were definitely tertiary characters even with the warrier Lady Eowen who could have put on a biker's uniform and roared down the street in the next Dykes on Bikes. Definitely derived right out of Wagner and the legends he used in his operas. She was kind of Brunhild without the horned helmet (however, the Vikings really didn't wear horned helmets).

Comparing the sets to other fantasy and science fiction films is natural -- except that John Howe and Alan Lee's illustrations (which were used faithfully for the sets) precede Star Wars. Who copied who?

Didn't pick up on the references to Baum or the Wizard of Oz. Where were they again?

There are no new storylines, just new quips and quotes......