[Just your average movie goer]

Good man, Lord Aquaman. Very good man. This is what I like to see.

More Lord of the Rings discussion and less... everything else. Very good.

You made a good point about Eowyn standing around without her helmet on. I thought she'd stand out from a mile away. Merry too... he's noticeably shorter than all the other soldiers but I guess that we're supposed to imagine that there were many more soldiers there and they could blend in with the crowd...

... it's kind of like The Two Towers when Aragorn sees Eomer and about fifteen horsemen... then later he tells King Theoden that he has three thousand good men riding north. Hm, a little odd.

Speaking of horsemen, has anybody else wondered this ~ why are the Rohirrim ON FOOT when they march on the black gate? These are horsemen. They prefer to fight on horseback. Putting them on the ground really puts them out of the element... almost as much as Aragorn's plan of letting the enemy orcs completely encircle them. Can anyone remind me again why Aragorn is in charge?

While watching the extended edition with my family, a criticism came up against Eowyn for disobeying Theoden's orders to stay with the people and keep them and dressing up as a man to go and fight at Gondor. After all, if the king's niece isn't there to lead, then who's gonna lead? Well, I think the same criticism could be made of Aragorn - he was supposed to be king of Gondor and he spent most of his life shirking that responsibility to go ride around in the wild and boink the elf chick Arwen.

Very good point. And I think with Eowyn, it comes back to how she was portrayed in the book, which in my opinion, was not a very sympathetic portrayal. In the book, she was basically a suicidal glory seeker. She wanted to die heroically in battle and damn the consequences, responsibilities or anyone who may have cared about her. However, while the movie still has her needlessly ride to war, endangering herself and neglecting her people, it did far more in the earlier stages to make Eowyn a sympathetic character. I also think much credit is owed to Miranda Otto for making such an ice-cold stone-fox into a likeable character.

Apparently, wizard staffs are built to be blown up in multiple pieces - not just Gandalf's but Saruman's.

Very true. I would have been much happier with them snapping in two. It would have looked not only far more realistic, but more dramatic as well.

If you were going out on an adventure and you had to pick from one of the four Hobbits - Frodo, Merry, Pippin and Sam - as companions, and you could only pick one, which one would you pick?

Tough choice there. Merry's probably the best fighter. Although Sam can hold his own... against Shelob even. Actually, I guess that brings Sam in just after Gandalf for the second most heroic deed in the trilogy (Gandalf VS the Balrog must be number 1). And Sam is steadfastedly loyal. Although that said, Merry also has a great sense of humour and would keep you amused throughout your adventure. Hm, I'd have to flip a coin there, I think.

[Madam Corvax]

Guys, thank you for keeping this thread alive.

And Civilian, nice to see you here at last

I only dip in for a minute his morning, before disappearing again, but I just can’t let you be here all alone. I am glad LA got his copy for Christmas, because I believe not many people have already watched EE (well, Barend did, but he has his own little project to look after), and the more the merrier.

Anyway, I will continue giving you food for thoughts. I am going to describe the two easily worst scenes in the whole film. You may disagree, of course. But I was deeply offended by both. Reason and good filmmaking was exchanged for cheap, flashy effects. Really, PJ surpasses even George Lucas and his infamous pod race and arena fight. Here it is:

22. One of the most ridiculous scenes about warfare I have seen, is the scene with Rohirrims charging the Mumaks. It made my cry of anger. Here is why:

Rohirrim’s riders are clearly a LIGHT cavalry, as opposed to Gondorians, who, in their heavy armour look like HEAVY cavalry (of course, in books, Gondor never had any cavalry, which would have been pretty useless in the stone city).

Anyway, light cavalry depends on agility and speed – this is their strength. Heavy cavalry operates like a road roller – it just flattens everything it encounters by the sheer impact. Not so light cavalry, which is not designed to withstand pikes of well-trained infantry. And if the infantry is reinforced by tanks, light cavalry has no chance whatsoever.

Now, mumaks are really equivalent of tanks. Light cavalry with their swords are pretty useless against tanks, the tanks -mumaks will simply trample on them.
And yet, Rohirrim FORM THE LINE against Mumaks.

Firstly, I can’t believe their horses were quiet when faced such beasts.
Secondly, this is bloody useless! And you can see, that when Rohirrims charge, they just ride between the legs of Mumaks, and then what? Ride on???? No, they would have to turn back and attack the beasts from behind. So why charge in the first place?????????

The only solution is to FLANK Mumaks, who are not so manoeuverable as light cavalry and attack them from the sides and back. This could be easily done. But for heaven’s sake, do not charge head-on!

23. And the scene where Legolas takes on a Mumak deserves 10 Gimlis out of ten.

I thought that Legolas roller-skating down the stairs in TTT was the bottom of things, but, as the saying goes in my country, there was still ten meters of mud below this.

I did not thing anyone can sink that low. Not after FOTR.

It looks artificial. It is worse than animated sequences from 1970s Bakshi film.

It looks ultimately cheesy with the Elf sliding down the Mumak’s tusk.

It looks as if the director thinks that at the moment of watching the scene the IQ of the audience momentarily drops below 40 just to believe that it can be done.

It looks as if it came straight from the Bugs Bunny, not a great epic film.

I just can’t abide it.

And really, if any of you thinks this is COOL, then I am wasting my breath with this whole thread.

Ok, that’s enough bile for one morning . See you.

This post has been edited by Madam Corvax: 28 December 2004 - 02:58 AM

[civilian_number_two]

And Civilian, nice to see you here at last


Well, ok, I guess I need to say something.

I want to remind you all that when the first film came out I said "This will be the best of the trilogy," because after that the material wears thin. The bad guy = ultimate, pure evil. This = boring. The conflict is so well documented, it's tiring. After all, it's been copied in ever fantasy film since LOTR came out: small group of heroes need to sneak behind enemy lines to destroy something, or to recover something else.

The best thing about the film series is that we get to see all of this stuff happen, rather than just read about it. We were going to see all of those great locations from the novels brought to life. In my opinion the most memorable moments of the trilogy were predestined to be the party in the shire, stopping the Nazgul at Rivendell, the Council at Rivendell, the Balrog, and Boromir's death. After that, I had high hopes for the seige at Helm's Deep, the Ents at Orthanc, Shelob, and Mount Doom. I hadn't counted on any of the battles from ROTK being interesting at all; since the main characters played smaller roles in them, I expected little to be made of them. So yeah, most of the good stuff, I figured, would be in the first film.

I was deeply saddened when the siege at Helm's Deep was no good. I had really hoped to see a modern interpretation of genuine medieval siege warfare and tactics. Had they done that all right, maybe the battles in ROTK would be good after all. Unfortunately, Helm's Deep was just a skirmish writ large.

I think the EEs of the films do the best jobs they can to make the films better. Smarter battle footage could have made the final two films a lot better than they are, but lacking that, a lot of attention is drawn to how drawn-out is the simple plotline. What is the dramatic question? "Will the hobbits make it to Mount Doom?" We ask that in the middle of the first film, or at the end of Book One of Six, and finally we answer it at the very end. So these films were doomed from the start to seem drawn-out and tiresome, once the story got going.

I think the weaknesses of the film series owe a lot to the source material, which is not as good as a lot of folks thnk it is. I read the novel a few times as a teenager, and while in those days I liked to skip over the Old Forest, recently when I tried to reread it I didn't mind that Tom Bombadill stuff so much but had a hard time carrying on after the Breaking of the Fellowship.

All that said, I liked the singing. And as I have said a few times in these pages, I like these films a lot and I'm not too worried about how they might have been better. I really dug the scenes with Sam and Frodo, and thought their friendship genuine and not the least bit homoerotic. I actually smiled to see the Shire again, because it had been my favourite set of them all, and even though it was an obvious choice, I was happy to see Jackson and Walsh end the film with Sam's "Well, I'm back." I figure if you're going to tell a long story, best not to let it end too quickly.

MC: I think all of your reactions to Arwen are derived from your affection for Eowyn. I don't see any reason why Aragorn wouldn't like Eowyn, and I think frankly too much was done to try to create a love triangle in the films. It was this overcompensation that makes here interest in Faramir seem off-the-wall. I think a better play to up the credibility of the Eowyn/Faramir connection woould not be to add more scenes between the two, but to trim the scenes between Arogorn/Eowyn.

: Everything you said about the Mumaks. Warfare is not realistic in these films, and too bad. Whenever folks make WWII movies, they work on the realism (everyone that is apart from John Woo). I don't think it would have been too much to ask for a little realism in a fantasy film.


MG: I know we've had this one out before, but I say again that Smeagol/Gollum sequence was the perfect opening to ROTK. It's a bit long-winded and time-consuming, and appears in the novels only as a prologue. It belongs in the films as a prologue as well, IMO, for the very reason that it has no place elsewhere in the story. We can't stop the film and dive into a five-minute flashback the moment Gandalf mentions Gollum in LOTR (can you imagine a sudden four-minute break in the narrative right there?), and naturally without having met the character before TTT a prologue that included him would seem a real non-sequiter (TTT begins nicely with a flashback to Gandalf and the Balrog). I should point out too that since all three films begin with prologue of some kind, this flashback to Smeagol finding and later losing the ring is in character with the series as a whole. Now I know you have a reaction to the fish-eating scenes; I haven't ever seen you critique this sequence or its relevance without referencing the fish guts. So ultimately this seems to be the real issue you have with Gollum. Not his narrative significance, or the pace and plotting of the film, but with this business of fish guts. So I guess this is your own personal business? You don't like fish?

LA: I'd take Sam. Loyal, strong back, good in a pinch. Maybe he couldn't shoulder me like a fireman, but dammit, he'd try. Pippin/Merry have their hearts in the right places, sure, and Frodo of course, who comes off a bit weak in the film series, is uncorruptible, but Sam is the sort of guy whose word is everything. He wouldn't make a promise or undertake a challenge without thinking it through first, so turning around midway wouldn't even occur to him.

However, it would take a little more to feed him.

[Just your average movie goer]

Ah, excellent. The discussion is under way. Good, good.

22. One of the most ridiculous scenes about warfare I have seen, is the scene with Rohirrims charging the Mumaks.

I agree wholeheartedly with your point on this. They should have flanked them as you said and attacked them from behind. In addition to this, there was so much CGI wankery in the Mumakul sequences that it felt like Attack of the Clones for a little while there.

23. And the scene where Legolas takes on a Mumak deserves 10 Gimlis out of ten.

I do not think anyone would argue against you on this one. I suspect that even the film-makers are quietly ashamed of this stupid, stupid sequence.

I think the weaknesses of the film series owe a lot to the source material, which is not as good as a lot of folks thnk it is.

I'm with you all the way on that one, Civilian. When I saw The Fellowship of the Ring at the cinema, I was skeptical. I thought "How are they going to make a worthwhile movie out of those damn novels?" They were tedious, long-winded and frankly speaking, they weren't really tight narratives. They had a lot of problems.

However, I was amazed by the films, all of them. Although, like most of us here, I think The Fellowship of the Ring is in a league of its own. A lot of people say it feels like unfinished business but to me, it's a complete story in its own right. It chronicles why the fellowship came about and follows their trials and tribulations through to its bitter end when the fellowship is ended. As far as the story of the ring goes, it's not complete, no. But this is the story of the fellowship.

After this, however, the final parts of the story, enjoyable as they are, feel more like a slow roll to an inevitable conclusion.

Although as I said earlier, mate, I am amazed by all the films. I really love them. So why do am I nitpicking at The Two Towers and Return of the King? Just for fun really. I'm enjoying a nice discussion about what we felt were some shortcomings and how things could have been done differently. Although, I suspect Madam Corvax's feelings on this matter might be a tad stronger than mine.

MG: I know we've had this one out before, but I say again that Smeagol/Gollum sequence was the perfect opening to ROTK.

Excellent - a fight. Yes, I will continue to fight against this. Raw catfish aside, I think this sequence would have been put to much better use in The Two Towers. There, it would have served a purpose. At the start of Return of the King, it serves none... other than to give some fans a chance to say "Wow... there's Smeagol before the ring corrupted him!"

If I was going to use this sequence at all, then there is only one place I would put it ~ right after Frodo calls Gollum by his real name Smeagol in the dead marshes. When he tells Smeagol that he (Smeagol) was once one of the river folk and Gandalf said his life was a sad story, we see Smeagol remembering and looking sad. Great! Here, we would fade in the flashback and then fade back to Smeagol in the dead marshes looking really sad.

A great bonus of doing this would be that it would give more emphasis to the later scene where the Gollum personality calls the Smeagol personality "murderer". The scene would play out a lot better if we had already seen the flashback.

Anyway, that's my 50 won's worth on the subject.

Good to see you finally in the conversation, mate.

[Private Zod]

I enjoy this forum a great deal though I do not post very often. I got hooked after reading ChefElf's brilliant thesis on the # of Reasons to Hate Ep1 & 2. I was sure that there were other original trilogy fans that disliked the new movies as much as I did and here I found them. It also amazed me that the majority of people who posted here on thoughts as to how teh new movies could be better, to a person, were infinitely better than the crap Lucas regurgitated on the screen.

While I always thought the original SW trilogy was my favorite movie series ever, that was to be trumped by the LoTR trilogy. I thought considering all the pressure PJ had on him when he started out on the project, he absolutely knocked it out of teh park when you combined teh screenplay, acting, scenery, special effects and all. Yeah, Tom Bombadil was not in it, some of Sam's dialogue in TT was corny, Liv Tyler as Arwen was not my 1st choice, and the end of RotK was a tad long. I thought the EE DVDs were a great move since he really could not release a film that was 4 hours long in the theaters. So some things get pushed off until the DVD release, who caares? Otherwise, this is just nitpicking. (Actually one thing I did find funny was how Sam got fatter as the films went on, you would think a cross continent hike and eating crackers most of teh way would make a hobbit lose a few lbs). Some of teh complaints I have read on this board regarding teh LotR are so petty taht I can hardly take them seriously. It seems that some here have standards so high that no movie can make them happy w/o some level of criticism.

My two cents..I have a soft spot for the LotR movies I guess.

[Just your average movie goer]

Oh we love these movies. I can't speak for everybody here when I say this but I'm just nitpicking just for the sake of interesting conversation. It is fun to think about how you could have changed things, what things may have worked better, etc. If I didn't love these movies, why would I have spent the money on all the DVDs? And when I say all the DVDs, I mean ALL of them. I've got all the theatrical cuts and the extended editions.

No, this is not serious. It's an enjoyable discussion, that's all.


Also, Madam Corvax, I've found the answer to your question about something festering in the heart of Middle-Earth. We heard Saruman say this and then go on to say that the Great Eye had seen it, so it couldn't be Sauron.

In the director/writers' commentary, they revealed that this comment was referring to Denethor. It's pretty far-fetched (and they admit it too) but they were trying to tie the Saruman scene in more with the plot.

Personally I don't think they needed to do it to the extent that Gandalf was asking Saruman for information - because as I've said earlier, it seems strange that anyone wouldn't know that Sauron was going to attack Minas Tirith.

I thought that the scene already had some great ties to the rest of the movie. The way Saruman calls Theoden a lesser son of greater sires... you can see it gnawing at the man because in his heart, he knows its true. It also ties in nicely with his dying words to Eowyn "I go to my fathers, in whose mighty company, I shall now not feel ashamed."

The doubt he puts into Gandalf's mind about whether Aragorn can reclaim the throne of Gondor and that he may have sent Frodo to his death also tie in to the rest of the movie very well.

So all in all, I see no reason why they had to play this angle that Saruman knew something that they needed to know.

And another thing, does anyone really think it was absolutely necessary for Legolas to shoot Grima? I know he died in the book but they were already departing from the book ~ and if Legolas was trying to save Saruman, it was already clearly too late for that. Thoughts anyone?

[Jordan]

How about the 2 hour battle sequence in the end of ROTK. By the time the great horse charge was underway I was already half asleep.

At first I loved the charge, but after watching it again, it's lame.

My biggest beef with every single LOTR movie was the terrible fighting choreography. Shaking camera, lame sword play etc...

What I like in a good sword fight/battle sequence

1) Minimal CG- Only use it for backgrounds and extra men in the back, keep the main actors on screen fighting HUMAN.

2) No crouching tiger hidden dragon 67 minute deuls with flying, walking on water and floating in trees.

3) Keep the camera at wide angles or at the very least do not shake it.


One movie that did a great fight scene was Troy. I really liked that movie. The battle between Achillies and Hector was great not to mention the main battle sequences. It looked real and the only time they used CG was to fill in the extra 100000 men in the BACKGROUND, where they belong.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 28 December 2004 - 10:35 PM

[Just your average movie goer]

The two hour battle... yeah, it dragged on, didn't it? On and on and on...

I think here is a clear instance where the writers should have steered away from the book. Now, I'd just like to state for the record that I am FAR LESS concerned with staying faithful to the books than making a good movie.

The books are there. They are always there so if people want everything to be the same as the books, they can read them. The movies are telling the same story, but it's a different medium. There's less time for starters but I also believe the movies can improve on the source material. The movie for The Fellowship of the Ring improved on the book. It axed a major section of the book with Tom Bombadil and was far superior because of it. It abridged the council of Elrond and was also better because of it.

Now, in Return of the King, I think there was a large story arc that wasted a lot of time ~ the army of the dead. Aragorn and co spend ages away from the main scene of the action to fetch these guys and when they arrive, they practically undermine all the heroism and sacrifices of the Rohirrim. If they had arrived a couple of hourse earlier, then Theoden and his mates could have stayed home. They also give the good guys a supernatural advantage over the enemy and in terms of creating a tense narrative, that's awful. If the battle of good against evil is to be of any interest at all, then it needs to an uphill struggle. Good has to triumph against overwhelming odds, otherwise there's not much point to the story.

Now, this whole problem of the army of the dead is something that came in the books. This is where the movies could have improved on the story, especially as the black ships didn't actually constitute a threat in the movie (just look at them and their crews). What would I do instead if I was Peter Jackson? I would have had Aragorn ride to Minas Tirith alongside Theoden with the Rohirrim.

When you watch the battle, the charge of the Rohirrim is where it should have ended. It was the big dramatic turn of the tide. Everything afterwards was just wankery, especially the charge of the Mumakul. I would have been happy enough not to see them at all but if we were going to have them, then why weren't they there originally with the rest of the orcs? Were they miraculously given orders to hold back unless thousands of horseriders suddenly arrived?

My understanding is that they should have been charging against the walls of Minas Tirith, maybe in place of those siege towers.

No, better to have them there already if you were going to show them at all.

So, my plan would be to have Aragorn ride with the Rohirrim. This saves a lot of time, which is good in a movie this long, and also makes a more dramatically balanced story - ie. we have one heroic charge, not two where the second one completely undermines the first.

Also, it would be a very nice way for Aragorn to be introduced to the people of Gondor, riding alongside the king of Rohan.

And there would be one more great benefit - NO green pirates of the Caribbean, washing orcs away like dishwashing detergent, a moment of stupidity the movie could really have done without.

[Lord Aquaman]

You know, after Aragorn rode off with Legolas and Gimli into the mountain and the Rohan warriors are kind of freaking out because it implies "no hope", Theoden more or less confirms that there IS no hope but says they'll ride into battle anyway. Now I'm no expert on military politics, but shouldn't you say something a little more inspiring to your troops? When the men are despairing, shouldn't Theoden say something to lift their spirits and boost their morale like "When we fought at Helms Deep we were cornered without escape or hope of victory, but our courage carried us through and we prevailed."? What happened to the "There is always hope" feeling that Aragorn gave to the little kid in "Two Towers"?

Nothing could possibly explain away the Rohhirm charging at the giant killer elephants (Oliaphuants or whatever the hell they're called). I mean, that's like sending an army of ants up against a dude with bug spray. Similarly, nothing can explain away why Aragorn and co. just let the armies of Mordor surround them during the last half. Apparently they went to the Monty Python school of military combat.

And shouldn't there have been more of a relationship between Theoden and Eomer? I mean, they did all this stuff to build up an attachment between Eowyn and Theoden, why didn't they put some time aside for Eomer and Theoden to have some male bonding or something? It's established that Eomer's a very loyal guy, so why wasn't his relationship with Theoden explored more?

For the record, I thought "Troy" was alright, but I found the battle between Hector and Achilles to be a little anti-climatic (but that is another thread I suppose...).

[civilian_number_two]

If I was going to use this sequence at all, then there is only one place I would put it ~ right after Frodo calls Gollum by his real name Smeagol in the dead marshes.  When he tells Smeagol that he (Smeagol) was once one of the river folk and Gandalf said his life was a sad story, we see Smeagol remembering and looking sad.  Great!  Here, we would fade in the flashback and then fade back to Smeagol in the dead marshes looking really sad.

We've had this out before, but for the benefit of anyone who cares, my opinion here is that since the scene is around five minutes long, it didn't belong in a flashback.

I know the counterargument is that TTT employed a flashback with Boromir (in the EE at least), and well, I love it, but it's out of place as well. The problem of course is that there's not really anywhere else to put the Boromir/Faramir flashback, since it'd be way too early in FOTR. And in TTT it serves to introduce Faramir, who we've just met, and to show how despite his father's misplaced favour he's really the brother with the stronger will.

So the Boromir flashback can stay where it is, and the Gollum stuff - seriously, if you have the means at home, cut it out of the beginning of ROTK and put it near the beginning of TTT where you'd like it. I swear the slow idyllic opening, the fishing and the swimming, will seem the wrong pace. Fine for a film opening, odd anywhere else.

I hear the argument, of course : "then speed it up in the first place!" Yeah, ok. It was filmed with the idea in advance that it would open the film. Yes, they could have done it another way, and summarized it. I myself like it the way it was, especially since it's a reminder of the world that once was, and how the ring has corrupted it all. After all, we go from the Shire to Mordor over the course of that sequence, and we don't see the Shire again until the Ring is destroyed. I personally like the arc there.

Anyway, I know we'll never settle this, but yeah I love the movies as well. I just happen to think all the good stuff in the books was spent under the first title, and so the films were doomed to begin well and then trail on. More realistic battles might have made it play better (In fact I am sure they would have), but FOTR deserved Best Picture more than ROTK did.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 29 December 2004 - 05:08 AM

[Just your average movie goer]

Yeah, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the Gollum/Smeagol flashback but you do make a very fine point about how the sequence shows the world of Middle Earth in a more idyllic state and how this ties in to the rest of the movie. I actually think you've got a really good argument for it being used as the prologue for Return of the King. I still think it'd be better in The Two Towers but I completely understand your point of view on the subject. And I guess in the larger scale of things, it's far less important than the shambles that befell the movie during the battle of the Pellenor fields (and Legolas's circus performance).

FOTR deserved Best Picture more than ROTK did.

I think we can all agree on that.

And Lord Aquaman, you made a good point about Theoden's speech to his soldiers the night before the battle. That kind of "we're going to lose anyway but bugger it" pessimism isn't very inspiring. Your alternative speech angles are much better.

And the charge against the Mumakul was not a smart move at all. I quite like your analogy of sending a bunch of ants against a guy with some bug spray. I smile just thinking about that one.

Also, I definitely think we should have seen more on the relationship between Theoden and Eomer. The two men exchange almost no dialogue in the film. It also would have been nice just to give Eomer some more dialogue period. For the most part, he was delegated the job of looking serious and saying dull lines such as "That mountain is evil."

Re:

For the record, I thought "Troy" was alright, but I found the battle between Hector and Achilles to be a little anti-climatic (but that is another thread I suppose...).

Agreed. And yeah, Troy was entertaining. It wasn't a good film, but it was an engrossing film so some credit is due.

[Jordan]

I haven't seen the ROTK EE. Does the battle between Angmar and Gandalf take place? What about the pink Orc, does his character die by the hand of one of our heros?

[Lord Aquaman]

Aragorn had a very weak response line to the King of the Dead after their swords clash and the KOTD says "That line was broken!" [in reference to Aragorn's lineage with the kings of Gondor]. Aragorn says to KOTD "It has been remade." That doesn't sound quite right, especially in a medieval sword/sorcery film. Wouldn't a more accurate of the time period line be "It has been reforged."?

More of a relationship between Eomer and Eowyn would have been nice too. Watching the extended edition of ROTK we see Eowyn get saved from that one annoying orc commander by Aragorn and Gimli. I don't know why, but I feel that it should have been Eomer rescuing Eowyn from the annoying orc, seeing as how they're siblings and all (trivia note: although Eomer is supposed to be older than Eowyn, as Tolkien's book state, in real life Miranda Otto is 5 years older than Karl Urban).

And did anyone notice that Darth Maul has a cameo as one of the orcs in "Return of the King"? I kid you not, there is an orc that loooks a lot like Darth Maul, with the red on black face and everything but no lance work. You can see him twice - first when he's biting some guy on the neck and later when he's being tossed out of the frame by a Gondor soldier.

I'd have to go with either Merry or Sam of the hobbits myself.

Now this is NOT an anti-Viggo Mortensen question here, but if you could recast the part of Aragorn with anyone else, who would you pick? I'd be inclined to use someone like Clive Owen, Eric Bana (in "Troy" mode), maybe Jim Caviezel if he were showing a darker side of his persona or Gerard Butler (who looked like an escaped Aragorn stunt double in "Timeline").

This post has been edited by Lord Aquaman: 29 December 2004 - 05:35 PM

[Private Zod]

Now this is NOT an anti-Viggo Mortensen question here, but if you could recast the part of Aragorn with anyone else, who would you pick? I'd be inclined to use someone like Clive Owen, Eric Bana (in "Troy" mode), maybe Jim Caviezel if he were showing a darker side of his persona or Gerard Butler (who looked like an escaped Aragorn stunt double in "Timeline").

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought Viggio did an outstanding job. However, if I could pick anyone else for the role I'd have to go with Michael Keaton. What the hell, no one thought he should have been Batman either. Seriously, maybe someone like Eric Bana I agree with.

[Just your average movie goer]

Eric Bana... now that would be interesting.

I haven't seen the ROTK EE. Does the battle between Angmar and Gandalf take place? What about the pink Orc, does his character die by the hand of one of our heros?

The battle between the Witch King of Angmar and Gandalf does indeed take place. However, it is utterly pointless and poorly handled. Also, they make the Witch King break Gandalf's staff. This didn't happen in the book and it damages Gandalf's character. Are they trying to tell me that the guy who defeated a Balrog was bettered by some cloaked guy who could be done in by a human (and had already had his ass kicked several times in the first movie)? Unbelieveable.

Regarding the pink orc, he dies by the hands of several heroes. It's a real tag team effort ~ kind of funny actually. Eowyn belts him in the head and slashes his leg, Aragorn hacks him through his side. Gimli then smashes him through the chest with his axe and then Aragorn kind of goes "Ah, bugger it. Why not? One more for old times' sake!" and whacks him again. I think they were overdoing it a bit but sometimes excessive unnecessary violence is fun. Although, I was surprised that the orc even survived the calvary charge.


And Lord Aquaman, I have seen the Darth Maul orc. He's rather odd looking... but most of the Return of the King orcs are. It's as if all the cool orcs died in the previous wars and Sauron only had a pack of rejects and retards left over when it was time to launch his final assault. It's a good thing he had so many of the little buggers because taken individually, those orcs weren't much.