[Madam Corvax]

I would like to start some discussion on the merit of LOTR trilogy.
My point of view is as follows – FOTR was a work of a genius. I would not go into details, it’s been done many times before, but let me just mention two things. First of all, wonderful acting of Sean Bean and Sir Ian Holm. And the prologue. Some people did not like Cate Blanchett voiceover, but I was simply transported into another world when I heard her hissing “I amar presta aerlen”. The only thing I did not like at first was Aragorn. He was supposed to be tall and handsome, but he appeared no taller than Boromir, and I was not entirely sure about his upturned nose. They must have done something to it later on. But the scene at the very end of the film, when he takes on the whole band of Uruk-hai and salutes with his sword won me over completely.

So, there probably was no-one else awaiting the sequel more eagerly than I did, therefore I was bound to be disappointed. I think that compared to the first instalment TTT is much worse than the first part, and ROTK just sucks. Please remember, I said COMPARED to FOTR. Probably on its own they are quite acceptable flicks, but it is just my high expectation and standards set by FOTR. And as the books were never intended as three separate parts, so I think it makes sense to treat the films comprehensively, too.

I will not discuss ROTK here. Everything I had to say had been said in a great review by Lee from warofthering.net. I agree with everything she says, so here is the link for your enjoyment.
http://www.warofther...tkfanreview.php

I will concentrate on TTT instead, because I have not come across any critical reviews of this sort. So, here are my reasons why TTT is much worse than FOTR. I hope Chefelf will forgive me for nicking his idea, but it is just because it works so well.

General remark. I watched the commentary to FOTR:EE and the dominating tone was like that: we have tried to change Tolkien, and we kept changing, until we eventually came to the original Tokien’s ideas, because they are the best possible. But the commentary to TTT is completely different. What they say is basically : Hey, I know Tokien was great, but this is my movie, and therefore I have every right to change all the details and who are you to complain? Quite a change of approach, isn’t it? And, guys from SW forum, doesn’t it remind you of another great director and his attitude?
So much loving care went into the first film, because PJ knew it was so crucial for him. He was a no-name before, a director with four films on his credit list and you can almost see him lovingly mastering the smallest detail of the film. It is not so in TTT. When he was editing TTT he already knew he made it, so I think he thought he was entitled to make these changes to the story, because he is a genius. And it is even more visible in ROTK. Hence all the infuriating little changes to the plots, motivations of the characters etc, which, in my opinion, in the end failed to produce a uniform creation.
So, that is why I think TTT is much worse than FOTR:

1. “Lembas bread… and look… more lembas bread”
Excuse me, what? Of course, those who read the books knew perfectly well what lembas bread is, but I think you should be able to understand the film without reading the books first (which many people failed to do, anyway). The reasoning of PJ was, that by the time TTT was realeased, everyone would have bought and watched Extended Edition, where we got an explanation. Now, I find this preposterous. It was a sequel to the theatrical edition, not EE.
2. “Not idly do the leaves of Lorien fall”
See point 1. Leaves of Lorien? What leaves? Besides, this is an awful spoken English. Does anyone speak like that? Also, the characters seem to change the register of their speech quite often. Writers seemed to mix Tolkien-speech (“Long have I desired to look upon my fathers of old…”) with normal contemporary English (“You look terrible…”).
3. Aragorn the Ranger
The guy could hear Uruk-hai, who moved on foot and were a day of march away, and failed to hear 3000 Rohirrim’s horses from 100 meters? I have heard galloping horses, there were only two dozens or so, and it is impossible not to hear them from quite a distance.
4. Gimli the Comic Relief
I could accept hobbits as comic relief in FOTR, but not Gimli the Dwarf in TTT. Gimli was supposed to be a serious warrior in the books! I understand that the Dwarf was an obvious material for the jester on duty, but I thought PJ would be a little more subtle. And Gimli belching at the King Theoden’s table! That was quite gratuitous.
5. The Original Walking Tree of Dahomey
The Monty Python sketch came to my mind the moment I saw Treebeard on screen. It looked so cool in the trailer, but the final result is just so bloody boring and tedious, that every time I watch the film now, I just jump to the next scene. I know many people love Ents, but I don’t.
6. The lack of colour in the film.
I know that 80% of FOTR was computer enhanced, and I loved the effect (watch the splendid green grass in Shire sequences), but in TTT they went over the top and sucked out every bit of colour out of already grey scenery. The scenes when Merry and Pippin are captured by orcs is almost black and white.

More reasons will follow – this is just a first instalment. I hope you enjoy it.

[Vwing]

Actually, I enjoyed TTT a bit more than FOTR, and I had not read the books when I saw them. I had heard everyone say how different it was from the book, I read the book, and I really don't think it was so horribly different. My one complaint is Faramir's character, he was a nice guy in the books, and while he was noble in the movie, he wasn't really nice. But I thought TTT was paced better than FOTR, which got a bit slow at times. It's close, but I do think it was better. Also, I only watched FOTR on video, and I watched TTT in the movies, so that could impact my view somewhat. However, as I've said before with JYAMG and others, I totally agree with you on ROTK. Very disappointing. And it's funny, ROTK is the only one where I read the book before seeing the movie, so maybe that had something to do with it, but if I hadn't read it, I think would still probably have been disappointed. It just was not nearly what it should have been.

[barend]

I totally hated TTT....

but i purchased the EE, and love every second of it...
there are parts i disagree with, but it's all good enough for me...

also RE: ROTK... i am also waiting for the EE, before judgement is made...
but i must say i disliked the fact that they made gothmog an orc. Although not the clearest thing in the book, it has spawned many arguments... but he was definatley not an orc. a black numenorian more likley...

I like many others reading the book thought he was the 2nd in comand of the ringwraiths (kahmul), but that theory is so so...

but an orc?
no. and not a puffy one at that.

[Just your average movie goer]

Couldn't agree more about the Gothmog-being-an-orc nonsense (see The Most Ridiculous Orc for more on that)....

Secondly, FANTASTIC! A new Lord of the Rings thread. You raised some really great points about The Two Towers, Madam Corvax. I'd like to add some comments of my own...

The Fellowship of the Ring actually covered more story than the book did. If you read the book, you'll notice that my character dies and the Fellowship breaks up at the start of The Two Towers.

But despite this, the movie was beautifully paced and never felt rushed. Vwing complains that it felt a bit too drawn out at times but I strongly disagree.

The Two Towers on the otherhand felt very rushed - yet there was no need for it, especially as it didn't cover anywhere near the amount of story in the book. It had a longer running time than The Fellowship of the Ring ... yet almost nothing happened in it. It made me wonder a few things.

Why did this movie need so much time to say so little?

The other problem with this relates to Return of the King. When I watched The Two Towers, I was worried. I thought "There is so much stuff they haven't covered that they should have... the fall of Saruman, the palantir and Shelob, among other things..."

And I knew that these things would be put in Return of the King... and I was frightened. I thought Return of the King is going to be a mad rush because it's got so much stuff to cover. Turns out, I was more right than I feared.

Peter Jackson gave a few reasons for pushing some of these things to the next film... but frankly, I thought those reasons sucked.

1. Moving Shelob over....

Peter Jackson said that this decision was made because a) it really took place during the battle of the Pellenor fields and he didn't want to chop and change between two climactic moments - ie. that and the battle of Helm's Deep.

I don't care about the chronology issue as the only time it needs to be adhered to is when Frodo and Sam are climbing Mt Doom and Aragorn and co were at the Black Gates.

As for chopping and changing between climactic moments, there's no need for that. Just put it at the end of the film. The way the book did it was great.

If you remember, the book ends with Frodo being carried away by the orcs. Now THAT'S a fantastic cliffhanger that would have been dramatically appropriate for the second installment of a trilogy like this one. With each installment, the stakes should be getting higher. But in The Two Towers, they were lowered.... which brings me to my last complaint about moving Shelob over.

Because of this, Frodo and Sam did nothing in the film. They got captured, they were let go. Wow!


2. Finishing off Saruman

This was supposed to happen in The Two Towers but was moved because Peter Jackson changed his mind at the last minute. His reasoning -

"I knew that after the battle of Helm's Deep, audiences would want to finish this movie off as quickly as possible."

You KNEW that, did you, Mr. Jackson? It turns out that you couldn't have been more wrong. If it were the case, why do so many of us prefer the Extended Edition? We want MORE, not less.

And of course, the most stupid thing about it was that after he moved this scene, he decided to cut it out. BAD MOVE! You do not leave the defeat of a major villain off-screen. And because the theatrical version of The Two Towers didn't have this scene and it was promised to appear in Return of the King, it SHOULD have been there! I was very angry about that and share Mr Lee's disappointment concerning that terrible, terrible decision.

And let's hear one of the reasons why it was cut (this one cracks me up) -

"I wanted to start the movie off afresh. I didn't want to revisit the last one."

But YOU DID REVISIT THE LAST ONE, MR JACKSON! Only, without any style. You went to Isengard. You showed us Treebeard and you gave us a scene that looks like something that was scraped off the cutting room floor... dull, disappointing and extremely uninspiring.



Okay, the next question is - could Peter Jackson have really fit Shelob and the fall of Saruman into The Two Towers? Easily! All he had to do was cut out some of his own junk that he had thrown into the story.

He could have fit the scenes in if he had -

- thrown out the Arwen flashbacks and dream sequences (which were painfully long)

and

- let Faramir release Frodo and Sam in Ithilien. There was no need for them to go all the way to Osgiliath. Nothing was gained from it, except wasted rolls of film.



And for the love of God, he should have cut down the time spent with the Ents.... they were probably even more tedious than the Arwen scenes. And having to cut away from Helm's Deep to watch them was most unwelcome.

Thank you, Madam Corvax, for your comments about them.

The Monty Python sketch came to my mind the moment I saw Treebeard on screen. It looked so cool in the trailer, but the final result is just so bloody boring and tedious, that every time I watch the film now, I just jump to the next scene. I know many people love Ents, but I don’t.

I don't either. I even suggested under a different thread that they could have done the movies without them entirely. But people didn't like the idea.... because it's not how Tolkien did it.

To be honest, I don't really mind departing from how Tolkien did things. I'm more interested in making the story as good as possible, and if that involves large deviations from the book, then I'm all for it.

They did it in the first film by cutting out the Old Forest and it was MUCH better for it. If the film had Tom Bombadil, I probably would not have watched it a second time. He would have ruined it.

Anyway, back to the ents. Even if we keep them, we don't have to spend so much time with them. My advice to Peter Jackson would have been to keep those scenes as short as possible... because they really dragged down the movie.


In summary, if Peter Jackson had -

1. Left out the Arwen crap.
2. Let Faramir release the hobbits in Ithilien.
3. Cut down on the Ents' screentime.
4. Included the fall of Saruman
_and_
5. Ended the movie with Frodo being carried away by the orcs....

The Two Towers would have been an infinitely better movie and Return of the King would have had a lot more room to breathe.

- Movie Goer

[Madam Corvax]

Movie Goer – thank you. I was going to comment on all these things you mentioned later on, and I think I will still make some comments, just to make my reasons complete. But I agree wholeheartedly. It is just so much more logical. And I do not mind departing from Tolkien, either, provided the departure is logical and works. That is why I think that leaving out Tom Bombadil was a good choice. Why people love him so much is beyond me, he does absolutely nothing apart from citing some awful poetry! And it was brilliant to let Arwen rescue Frodo, it made one of the best scenes in the film. Actually, I would love to see the version of TTT where Arwen joins Aragorn in Helm’s Deep. These scenes were filmed, but rumour has it, that fans found out about it and some forums started hurling insults at PJ, and forged the term “Xenarwen”, in general – hated the idea, so he changed it back. That is why the love triangle is in my opinion so, well, unbelievable. If Arwen travelled to Helm’s Deep, that would be good explanation why Aragorn gave Eowyn the cold shoulder treatment (and it would be an opportunity to se more girls in action). As it was (you remember, we spoke about it in another threat), I just find strange. But more of it later on, the romantic side of every film IS my favourite topic!
So, back to the reasons:

7.Dead Marshes
I was not convinced at all by the Dead Marches. Weren’t the hobbits supposed to be travelling there during the night? I was looking forward to seeing the ghostly scenery with lights and bodies in the water. I admit it did not have exactly the same effect on me seen in broad daylight. Seeing that bit in FOTR EE where hobbits and Aragorn go through the swamp it is immediately obvious that the Dead Marshes are fake, with every tuft of grass planted and that little tree growing just where the hobbits needed it to hide from Nazgul.
8.The look of new mounts of Nazgul.
Sorry, but it was not good at all. Nazgul on horses with their cruel harness were genuinely scary. The pathetic figure on that giant lizard cross-bred with a bat and a brontosaurus did not have exactly the same effect.
9.Pointless hunt
Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn ran for four days only to find Gandalf (whose first words spoken as the White Wizard sounded uncannily like Darth Vader voice. Didn’t anyone else got that impression?). Anyway, the minute they see Gandalf, the trio immediately forgets about Merry and Pippin and does not enquire even once what happened to hobbits. Gandalf informs them that “they met someone” and that’s it. I think EE elaborates more on that point, but at the same time throws in so much “political talk” in a meaningful whisper by Gandalf that it spoils the pace no end.
10.The Horse
I know a lot of people like the horse that played Shadowfax. I can’t abide it. I was chosen only for the milky-white sheen of its coat, I think. Otherwise it just looks stupid and fragile, like it would not bear even a hobbit, let alone Gandalf AND a hobbit.
11.Gandalf the Exorcist.
That Saruman possessed Theoden was just unnecessary plot device. What was Grima doing, then, when Theoden was possessed, was he needed at all? And why Saruman made the king senile? Wouldn’t it be better to give him full strength, so he would rule and thus serve Saruman better? Wasn’t he enough great wizard to do that? Of course, there is one explanation to it – because that is how the magic worked. The problem with the use of magic in a film is that you just cannot have a logical explanation to magic, just because the answer to every possible question is “magic”. (Just like the Force in SW films). This is why Tolkien used the magic quite sparingly, even in most obvious places where Gandalf’s or Saruman’s magic would be most helpful, because then all the toiling and sweat of the main heroes would be pointless - every problem could have been solved by magic. Quite a useful device when somebody is at a loss for a plausible plot solution.
So, how come that Gandalf was lost in Moria, and was found in Fangorn forest a few days later – simply, by magic! Magic, where needed, can also provide new hairpieces, horses, white robes and staffs.
12.Theodred
Theodred is absent in the books. Yet, he made quite an appearance in the film. Somehow the audience is forced to mourn a guy that hasn’t spoken a single line in the whole film. And EE even introduces a poignant, heart-breaking scene of his funeral. Why? What was the point? I find it a particularly bad choice in view of what happened in the next film. Theoden was a major character, and not a single line in ROTK was devoted to his passing. Gimli, Legolas, Eomer, Eowyn fared no better. Why Theodred, then?
13.Aragorn the Pacifist
This is quite a small detail, but it just narked me a lot. When Theoden tries to kill Grima, it is Aragorn who stops him. I mean, since when has be become such a pacifist? And later on, during the siege, he shouts to men and elves to have no mercy. It should have been Gandalf who stops Theoden.
14.Theoden Bitches for No Reason At All
In the books Theoden is described by Pippin as “a polite old man”. So, I was quite astonished when he says to Aragorn “when last I looked, Theoden, not Aragorn was the King of Rohan”. Now, that is curious. Aragorn did not say anything offensive, did not question the king’s authority (why, he was even the first to kneel before him), and yet Theoden bursts out like that. Why? Does he feel threatened by this upstart from the North? And, when I last looked, Thoden was not able to move and communicated in moans, so he should feel a little gratitude to those who freed him. And he does it again, when Aragorn suggests that he should send envoys for help. Now I cannot understand why he complains “where was Gondor, when orcs plundered our country”. Where were YOU, why did YOU let orcs plunder the country? I find it odd, that he should bitch like that.

More to follow...

[Just your average movie goer]

Great post, Madam Corvax. I agreed wholeheartedly with the lot.

Firstly, I have to comment on the love triangle too. In the movies, Aragorn clearly should have gone for Eowyn. He and Arwen had no sparks whatsoever. At no point do they seem like two adults in love.

7.Dead Marshes
I was not convinced at all by the Dead Marches. Weren’t the hobbits supposed to be travelling there during the night? I was looking forward to seeing the ghostly scenery with lights and bodies in the water. I admit it did not have exactly the same effect on me seen in broad daylight.

It was pretty dull, wasn't it? Made me wonder why they bothered with them at all. And what was with the stupid B-Grade horror effects with Frodo falling into the water? Pointless time wasting. Add that to the list of things that should have been cut out.

But speaking of broad daylight, that was one of the biggest problems with both this movie and Return of the King. There were so many scenes that should have been really dark and they were not. In Return of the King, not only was the great darkness completely dropped from the movie, but we even had glimpses of blue sky in Mordor. And the black clouds of that land were light grey in the films. Light grey? I see those sorts of clouds all the time - there's nothing scary about that.

8.The look of new mounts of Nazgul.
Sorry, but it was not good at all. Nazgul on horses with their cruel harness were genuinely scary. The pathetic figure on that giant lizard cross-bred with a bat and a brontosaurus did not have exactly the same effect.

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one. I liked how in the first movie the nazgul (like the orcs) looked real and frightening. Because they were on a horse, they could get you. Whereas, when they're flying high above you, they just seem like an opportunity for some archery target practice.

Personally, I think it was a mistake to bring the Nazgul back after they were defeated on the border of Rivendell. They had served their purpose. They were introduced as servants Sauron had sent out to find the ring. They failed - end of story. Bringing them back and making them into army commanders just seemed really pointless. Gothmog was the commander of the army that attacked Minas Tirith. He doesn't need the Witch King and Sauron's air force. As for the Witch King, why was he suddenly so important? As far as I care, he could be called Random Nazgul Number 5. It wouldn't make a difference.

And why was Gandalf afraid of him? Let's revisit some facts. With all his buddies, Random Nazgul Number 5 couldn't defeat Aragorn, a mortal. Gandalf is a wizard and more powerful than Aragorn. Gandalf also defeated a balrog and Saruman, another wizard. There is no contest between Gandalf and Random Nazgul Number 5.

It was a mistake of Tolkien's to bring the Nazgul back and it was a mistake of Peter Jackson to repeat it in the film versions. The only good reason to have the nazgul back is so Eowyn can cut Random Nazgul Number 5's head off in Return of the King. Sadly, we didn't even get that - as instead, she shoved her sword through his head in this really cheesy unnatural manner. And as this all happened against the dull backdrop of those wretched light grey clouds, it was even less inspiring.

12.Theodred
Theodred is absent in the books. Yet, he made quite an appearance in the film. Somehow the audience is forced to mourn a guy that hasn’t spoken a single line in the whole film. And EE even introduces a poignant, heart-breaking scene of his funeral. Why? What was the point? I find it a particularly bad choice in view of what happened in the next film. Theoden was a major character, and not a single line in ROTK was devoted to his passing. Gimli, Legolas, Eomer, Eowyn fared no better. Why Theodred, then?

YES! YES, YES, YES, YES! More time wasting... along with the whole Theoden being possessed thing. Actually, it's funny that you mention that because when I first saw the film, I thought they should have just done away with Wormtongue. He was pointless in the film, as was all of this Theoden-possessed stuff.

Also - Wormtongue? Nobody suspects a guy called Wormtongue , with his black clothes and his colourless eyes and EVIL gelled hair?

Unbelievable.

Another thing for the list of things that should have been left out of this film. Here's an alternative.

Gandalf - Rohan is under attack. King Theoden has sent many soldiers to the eastern borders to guard them from the orcs. But he does not understand that these orcs are coming from Isengard.

Then Gandalf and friends can ride to Edoras to warn King Theoden. Upon hearing this warning, Theoden decides to take his people to Helm's Deep. And Gandalf goes to the eastern borders to alert Rohan's soldiers there.

13.Aragorn the Pacifist
This is quite a small detail, but it just narked me a lot. When Theoden tries to kill Grima, it is Aragorn who stops him. I mean, since when has be become such a pacifist?

It does seem incredibly stupid to let a traitor go so he can run away to take shelter with your enemy and help him plot against you.

14.Theoden Bitches for No Reason At All

He was quite an A-grade prick, wasn't he? And in the battle of Helm's Deep, he made so many terrible calls. I hold him responsible for Haldir's death. Haldir and the others were doing fine until Theoden told them to get out of there. He distracted the Elvern lord and got him killed.

And then he nearly got Aragorn and Gimli killed later on when they were fighting off the Urak-hai on the causeway.

Theoden - Gimli! Aragorn!

Gimli and Aragorn turn around.

Theoden - Get out of there.

Gimli and Aragorn, distracted by Theoden, are grabbed from behind by a large brute.

Theoden then puts up a piece of wood, blocking them from view and leaving them, ditching the guys who may well have just sacrificed their lives to buy them more time. And if it wasn't for Legolas, Aragorn and Gimli would have died... and it would have been Theoden's fault.

One of the only good things I can think of about Peter Jackson's work on Return of the King is that somehow I felt sad when Theoden died. After seeing The Two Towers, I thought "It'll be good to get rid of this guy in Return of the King. What a prick he is."

But in that movie, Theoden was actually really kind and likeable. His scenes with Eowyn were really poignant and his leadership at the battle of the Pellenor Fields was a hundred times more inspiring than Aragorn's turn outside the Black Gates. I have to confess, when I saw the nazgul flying in to kill him, I felt so terrible about it. So someone did a damn good job in the writing department, turning this truly despicable character from The Two Towers into a noble human being.

Now I cannot understand why he complains “where was Gondor, when orcs plundered our country”. Where were YOU, why did YOU let orcs plunder the country? I find it odd, that he should bitch like that.

I remember watching this with my friend in Japan last year.... and we got our own little running commentary going. But we had a real problem with this as well.

"Where was Gondor when the west ford fell?"

"When did the west ford fall?"

"Where was Gondor when our enemies closed in around us?"

"When did your enemies close in around you?"

He bitches about things that don't seem to have actually ever taken place.


* * *

Legolas - " This forest is old. Very old. Full of memories and - "

Trees!

[Jordan]

I said this along time ago on the L&E board- I don't like the LOTR films. I warmed up to them more over time, but that is not saying much.

I fell asleep during ROTK.

There were too many f'in fight scenes. The initial orc seige and Rohan horse charge was fun- After that everything else was anti-climactic and exhausting. I felt like killing myself when our heros were surrounded and STILL FIGHTING at the gates of Mordor.

The book was nice because I could take a break and come back. The movie was not so nice because my lower spin turned to jelly due to lack of movement.

FOTR was boring as shit, save the first 10 minutes of the movie which showed the recap of the past.

TTT was ok, probably the best of the three.

My main beef with LOTR films was the sub-par fighting choreography. IT was TERRIBLE! I felt like crying in FOTR during the Moria battle. Peter Jackson gave the thumbs up on the ole' shake the camera around action-shooting method. It was hack and slash bullshit with little to no close quater parrying.

I hit, you block with sword. I hit again, this time my blade hits your stomach. You curl into a ball, I pull blade out of you screaming. Repeat

The only scenes that did a better job than my imagination were: Balrog, Tree Ents.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 12 August 2004 - 08:46 AM

[Just your average movie goer]

Disappointing, Jordan. You are missing something here. However, I hope that as you grow and mature, you will come to realise that The Fellowship of the Ring is one of the greatest films ever made.

As for the fighting choreography, this isn't fencing, Jordan. It's not that type of fighting. Nobody parries with a broad sword. It's more about knocking the other guy in the head or hacking him through the torso. And so I think what the films did was fine.

I will agree with you on the fact that Return of the King had too many fight scenes...

... but still, the fact that you find The Fellowship of the Ring to be "as boring as shit", is disturbing. What exactly is boring here, Jordan?

Is it the wonderful, realistically portrayed characters?
The sweeping cinematography?
The desperate flight to Bree?
The fight on Weather Top?
The flight to the fords near Rivendell?
The mines of Moria?
The balrog and Gandalf's dramatic sacrifice?
The breathtaking elvern haven of Lothlorien?
Queen Galadriel and the mirror?
Or the heart-stopping finale?

Or is it the fact that you got ALL of THIS in ONE MOVIE?

"Boring as shit" ? We can co-exist peacefully, Jordan, and most of the time, we get along well... but do not post under this thread again.

[Just your average movie goer]

Actually, I've one more thing to say on the matter....

Do you know how sometimes a prequel lover from the force.net forums will come over and post some obscenities in our beloved Star Wars forum?

Think about how that makes you feel.

Because that is exactly how your above post made me feel.

[Jordan]

As for the fighting choreography, this isn't fencing, Jordan. It's not that type of fighting. Nobody parries with a broad sword. It's more about knocking the other guy in the head or hacking him through the torso. And so I think what the films did was fine.

Brave Heart pulled it off, Gladiator did it too. Shaking the camera is a cheap technique, all it does is cause your head to spin.

Is it the wonderful, realistically portrayed characters?
The sweeping cinematography?
The desperate flight to Bree?
The fight on Weather Top?
The flight to the fords near Rivendell?
The mines of Moria?
The balrog and Gandalf's dramatic sacrifice?
The breathtaking elvern haven of Lothlorien?
Queen Galadriel and the mirror?
Or the heart-stopping finale?

Nevertheless, I did not enjoy it. Maybe If I had not read the book, I would have liked it. But I just found the whole movie to be boring. The black riders were cool, but not scary. Bree was ok, but not rustic and old. Boromir's death did not move me in the least. In the book he hewed the heads of 30 orcs before he died. He went down like a champ, in the movie he had a couple kills.

I use to think that making 9 hour versions of each film would improve things. Because I loved the book so much that I wanted all of it in there to get the full feel. But after ROTK I don't think I could've lasted another 10 minutes.

Because that is exactly how your above post made me feel.

Did I hurt your feelings?

I don't like SW forum guys because they attack your motives, agendas, and call you a basher (somebody who gets a kick out of downing things people enjoy).

And I've never really taken anyones opinions on movies, food, art to heart. Not once.

[Despondent]

Madam C, this is a great thread. thanks for starting it.

Long have I desired to gaze upon a web page so laborious in the telling,
ever since that temple of doom crap.

[Jordan]

"Boring as shit" ? We can co-exist peacefully, Jordan, and most of the time, we get along well... but do not post under this thread again.

WTF? That was a joke, right?

[Jordan]

I didn't mean to make anyone mad. I just don't like LOTR and the threat was so broad that I figured I could post my opinions on it. If it was labeled LOTR appreciation, then I would not have posted ranting reviews.

[Madam Corvax]

Movie Goer - Did Legolas really said that the forest is full of trees? I have to check it, I didn't have time, but it made me fell off my chair when I read it.

And you see, you DO share a lot of opinion about TTT. Gee, it warms my heart to find out that I am not the only one who thinks like that!

Despondent- thank you for the praise! I started this thread to went my feelings about the film, and if you enjoy it, it is an unlooked-for gratification. Please, look out for the rest of the reasons, which are coming out soon!

And Movie Goer, don't go mad at Jordan, he has the right to his opinion, I knew a guy who fell asleep watching ESB, if you can believe it I made this for fun, and I want you guys to enjoy it, not go mad!

So, for the initiated few, here is the nex installment of the reasons...

15. The Best Protection for Women and Children Is to Drag Them for Four Days across the Desolate Marshland with No Escort Save a Few Riders.
Can anyone explain that to me why the authorities of Rohan thought that a good idea? Apart, of course, the obvious: because it provided an opportunity for a few pointless chats between the main characters.
And, look what they did – in TTT they actually led women in children to a keep that was to be besieged, whereas in ROTK they FAILED to get women and children out of the keep. Why was it necessary to have women and children exactly on the spot where the fighting was going to happen?

16. Gimli the Horseman
Now, consider this scene. In the books Gimli hates riding, and even suggests that he should go on foot while everyone else rides, and only Aragorn’s reasoning convinces him to mount. Here, we have a princess from a royal family, walking like an ordinary servant, and leading the Dwarf’s horse. Would not a common chivalry demand that it was the princess who rides and would not the dwarf prefer walking anyway? Ah, but of course, then there would be no opportunity to show the dwarf falling off a horse in another comic relief attempt.

17. “Where is she.. the woman who gave you this jewel”
Now, here we are at last, the love triangle. But we have discussed that. I will just re-iterate my favourite bit of dialogue:

Eowyn: Well, I know that a gorgeous dish like you cannot walk alone for long before somebody snatches you, but is she prettier than me?
Aragorn: U-uh, she is, but she also has a prick of a father who convinced her that it would be best for her not to have anything to do with lesser species like us humans.
Eowyn (flutters her eyebrows and thinks): Does it mean I still have a chance?

And watch the scene at the end – they embrace like long-lost lovers. And then he suddenly decides she is not his type. Stupid! Stupid!

18. The Famous Stew from the Extended Edition
Of course, all our queries from the last point become clear the second we rest our eyes on the stew Eowyn tries to feed to Aragorn. No man would stand a wife who cooks so abominably. No wonder he went off her completely. This scene is also stupid from another reason. Eowyn is a princess, for heaven’s sake! She does not do the cooking herself. How could anyone do that to my favourite character! Woe betide Jackson and your Women!

More reasons to follow.

[Jordan]

  I made this for fun

Sorry about that, I'm a bit off track. :yuck: