[Just your average movie goer]

I can't keep silent anymore... I must get this off my chest.

Return of the King should have been a great movie but it wasn't what it could have been. This is a real tragedy because it would have been easily avoided if Peter Jackson had taken the time to ask me for some advice.

Okay, so here is the deal with Return of the King... you are looking at a movie that has got a lot of stuff to cover. You already know it's going to be very long and you know that you will need to make some fairly large deviations from the book in order to make it into a film.

Now, I could have helped Peter Jackson with this if he had just called me.

There is much to love about the movie that came out in the cinemas last Christmas so he basically knew what he was doing. However, he should have showed me what he was intending to do and then we could have fixed it up a bit.

Firstly... Gollum. I would have asked Peter Jackson the following questions:

"Since you worked so hard in The Two Towers to make Gollum into a character we sympathised with, why did you suddenly turn him into a malicious, 2-Dimensional villain who we couldn't give a damn about?"

"And if you were going to make him into such a bland, stupid character, then why waste our time with his back story at the start of the movie?"

Now, how should Gollum have been treated? Well, first things first - that back story should have gone. It was interesting and all, but it does not add to the story at all... and it wasn't done well enough to foster our sympathy for Gollum. Not even a moment passes after Smeagol kills Deagol before he pulls the ring out of his dead hands. He didn't show enough remorse or sadness to make any of those scenes worthwhile. Mr Jackson, this is what the cutting room floor is. And there was a slow, extreme close-up of Gollum eating a catfish as well. With all due respect, this should never have been filmed in the first place. Extremely poor taste there (and I'm not talking about Gollum's).

Okay, that done. Now let's look at why he lost our sympathy. It came when he tricked Frodo into sending Sam away. Now if he was going to lead Frodo into Shelob's lair and certain death, what's the point of tricking him into sending Sam away? I mean he hates Sam so you would think he'd be very happy to have him killed as well. But this little trick of his is very perverse and adds many minutes of unnecessary film to the movie... and the end result is the same.

While deviations from the book are often good (more on that later), in this case, Mr Jackson should have stuck to the book.

I would also like to add that the scene with Gollum talking to his reflection in the pool should have gone as well. He's already made his plan... and it's a pretty simple plan. I don't know why he has to go on about it - perhaps Mr Jackson was worried that there might be some intellectually challenged people in the audience who couldn't figure out how this plan would work out exactly.


Now onto Saruman, who was VERY CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT from the film. Now when you have a character like Saruman, who dominated the first two films and played such a pivotal role in the story, he deserves a proper curtain close and we the audience need some assurance that he is in fact, taken care of. And Gandalf's assurance that "He has no power any more." does not cut it.

I know for a fact that Mr Jackson made a sequence involving Saruman's death and that it deviated from the book... taking place in Isengard just after the Battle of Helm's Deep.... and that this sequence took a total of seven minutes.

Seven minutes!

It is not hard to find space for seven minutes. After correcting all the errors he made with Gollum, he probably would have found twenty minutes of space - which is more than enough.

Even without taking anything out, when you're sitting in a movie theatre for three hours, seven more minutes is not going to hurt.


Gothmog, the pasty faced orc who uttered such dreadful dialogue as "The age of man is over, the time of the orc has begun." and "Fear, the city is rank with it."........

The cutting room floor is almost designed for things like that.

That said, Gothmog's stupid ridiculous looking sidekick with the skull on top of his head should have gone as well. The comical cartoon appearance and stupidity of this pair of orcs really undermined the tension in the movie.



Gandalf telling Pippin about the Witch King should have gone. We don't need to know anything about the Witch King... most powerful of the nine, heh. As far as I'm concerned, you could call him Random Nazgul Number Three.

Gandalf should not have been afraid of him. This guy got his ass kicked by Aragorn in the first movie, when Aragorn was just a mortal guy. And there were FIVE Nazgul at the time. Now Gandalf is a WIZARD. We all remember what happened when Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas took him on in The Two Towers when they thought he was Saruman. We also remember that Gandalf killed a Balrog. Random Nazgul Number Three is not in the same league.

Also, Random Nazgul Number Three should not have said a single line in the movie. Every line he said sounded really lame and laughable. His type of bad guy is much more intimidating if they keep their mouth shut. Remember Sauron in the prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring? He didn't say a word. He just came out and kicked everyone's ass. Now, that's a terrifying enemy.

Now, onto a very big thing: the army of the dead.

This was probably the worst thing about the movie. It took up a lot of time for one thing... lots of wasted minutes. And there's worse problems.... it completely undermined the heroism and courage of the Rohirrim.

The charge of the Rohirrim was perfect. It was so wonderful seeing these normal men (and one woman) mustering the courage to save the kingdom of Gondor - one kingdom of men coming to the aid of the other. It was one of the better moments of the film by far and the battle of the Pellenor fields should have ended there.

Instead, it is underscored by another charge moments later - as Rangerman, Elfboy and Dwarfguy lead an attack of washing detergent (Super Sparkle effortlessly cuts through dirt, grime and legions of orcs...) that just ends the battle right there and then.

"Sorry, Theoden. I guess all you guys who died probably could have stayed at home. We could have just cleaned up all the orcs in Middle Earth ourselves."

Really stupid - a moment of comic book silliness that almost ruined the movie.

I think they should have deviated from the book here... have Aragorn and friends ride with the Rohirrim. This would have:

1. - saved a lot of time.

2. - been much more powerful and personal - as Aragorn would go to Minas Tirith
with men, his own people, not undead green ghosts.

3. - allowed for a perfect close to the Battle of the Pellenor fields.


After doing this, Mr Jackson should have edited out the stupid things he did in Mordor... making Minas Morgul let out a green flare (pointless) and turning the Tower of Baradhur into an angry lighthouse (STUPID, STUPID, STUPID... but not as stupid as the detergent army of the dead).


Had he done all of this, Peter Jackson's film would suddenly be A LOT stronger... and what's more, he would also find that now he had the room to include these two things that were sorely absent from the movie -

One - Saruman

Two - The scenes in the Houses of Healing between Eowyn and Faramir

And he could have even put in that confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch King because that would have been funny....

Random Nazgul Number Three: Don't you know death when you see it, old man?

Gandalf: I think you have me mistaken for somebody who hasn't killed a Balrog and vanquished Saruman.

Random Nazgul Number Three: Oh! I'm sorry. I thought you were someone else. Oh dear, look at the time.... would you excuse me?



If only Peter Jackson had asked me for my help, Return of the King would have been the great film it was supposed to be.

[Vwing]

I'm going to add to this, though I agree with most of what you said.

1. The battles - I love action, I love long battles, but these were just a little ridiculous. The sense of wonder is gone after 2 or 3 battles that add nothing more to the story other than more battles. Not to mention, it was too big to matter. There were too many people that I eventually became detached from the characters I DID care about, and wanted the damn thing to end. Not to mention, as JYAMG said, that after these long, protracted battles, the Army of the Dead comes and destroys the orcs in 5 seconds. I think he could VERY easily have cut the battles down by at least 10 minutes, maybe more (actually I shouldn't say that, I'm not sure exactly how long the battles run, but the point is he could have cut a lot out).

2. The Set-up to the battles - FOTR had a very long setup. However, it was necessary, to introduce us to the characters so we could care for them throughout this trilogy, and the settings of the movie, as well as the plot. The set-up for the battles, however, is just boring. A good set-up for this takes maybe 20 minutes, to build enough tension (see The Two Towers). Not an hour. We knew the battles would happen anyway, so build up a little tension and show the damn battles to us. Don't beat us over the head with how they're outnumbered and how Aragorn is all cool cause he has this sword now. Many unnecessary scenes could have been cut from the set-up.

3. Destruction of the Ring - This is more a complaint about the book than the movie, though of course it applies to both. The ring is destroyed BY ACCIDENT! Gollum dances around and FALLS! NO. There are so many better things that could have happened, but it was destroyed because Gollum slipped on a banana peel! That is horrible. This is one of the main cases where I wish Jackson had strayed from the book, because this sequence was just ridiculous, in both book and movie.

It's funny, the opening of Gollum as Smeagl with Deagl was the part of the movie that most entertained me. I thought, after seeing that opening, that this would be an unbelieveable movie. I was wrong.

[Just your average movie goer]

You're completely right, Vwing. The battles were overly indulgent and there was too much stuff going on - when you're watching lots random fighting without hanging onto a single point of reference for longer than five seconds, it really does make you feel unattached.

Re: Gollum's death. I remember someone having an idea that Gollum could have killed himself to be rid of the ring's power - smashing himself against a rock and falling into the lava or just taking the jump to end the pain once and for all.

That would have been a good way of doing it - not only would it make the scene more emotionally moving, but it would help maintain our sympathies for Gollum right until the very end.

[Jordan]

The movie lost me after the great horse charge of the rohim. I once said that I would enjoy a 7 hour version of each movie, so we could get all the goodness from the books.

Fuck that noise! I could barely stand the 3+ hours in ROTK. The movie dragged and dragged and dragged. After awhile the fighting just became senseless bull shite.

Also: The whole trilogy had the worst fighting choreography on the planet. I thought it would be dashing and brilliant like an old Aero Flynn movie. Instead all i got was hack and slash accompanied by a loud "argg" and of course a shaking camera.

I tried so hard to fall in love with those movies. They were beautiful, splendid, fun, but not great. And anything less than great is not good...or something.

[Just your average movie goer]

Also: The whole trilogy had the worst fighting choreography on the planet. I thought it would be dashing and brilliant like an old Aero Flynn movie. Instead all i got was hack and slash accompanied by a loud "argg" and of course a shaking camera.

I tried so hard to fall in love with those movies. They were beautiful, splendid, fun, but not great. And anything less than great is not good...or something.

Whoa... it's a bit hard to believe that you didn't like The Fellowship of the Ring though. That movie was the best thing that had happened to cinema for a VERY long time.


However, regarding Return of the King, our feelings are very similar...

The movie lost me after the great horse charge of the rohim.

That's exactly where it lost me too. That's why I think it would have been good to end the battle of the Pellenor Fields on that... not the detergent washing away all the dirt and grime.... um... I mean the army of the dead annihilating all the orcs.

[civilian_number_two]

I thought it would be dashing and brilliant like an old Aero Flynn movie.

Aero Flynn? Is that like a Nike shoe?

Say .... I think you should change your name to Aero Jordan. I think that would be funny.



PS: Everthing everyone is saying about ROTK: I think Denethor running off the pyre like a burning Daffy Duck, and the Beacons of Gondor going from the tops of hills to the most ludicrous mountain peaks. I think we all went over this before under another title.

I thought the movie was great, and will be greater when it's finished. FOTR is the greatest of the series by far, and we all may love it, but the source material is a little weak. It has little plot, but a lot of story. That makes a great SAGA (which is what Tolkien was writing), but a tiresome novel and a difficult movie. I think Jackson did a great job, even if he had to depict and characterize Tolkien's silly lower-class-English Orcs and Sauron as a big twitchy eye, and even if he had to cut out all the poetry that was really the whole point of the novel, in the same way that butter and salt are the only reasons anyone can stand to eat popcorn.

[Just your average movie goer]

Ah, the Denethor Human Torch.... yeah, there's blatant Hollywood commercialism.

And the lighting of the beacons. I think that was done truly for dramatic effect. Was it really needed? It was basically Gandalf asking for Rohan's aid, not Gondor... and Gandalf had already asked Rohan for aid.

Everyone knew that Sauron's army was going to attack Minas Tirith. So the lighting of the beacons, like a lot of other things in the set-up, was pretty pointless.


I do agree with you, Civilian, that Return of the King will be a lot better when it's finished - I'm assuming you're talking about the Extended Edition here.

It is strange though that we actually NEED the Extended Editions to see these movies properly.

Now with The Fellowship of the Ring, the Extended Edition was just a little bit of extra stuff for the fans. The theatrical version held its own and I think its better than the Extended Edition personally.

With The Two Towers, the Extended Edition is a much better version of the film... so much that from now on, I wouldn't bother ever watching the theatrical version again.

With Return of the King however, it has got to the point where the theatrical version feels like somebody pirated what bits they could from the actual movie - it's like a very long preview. It feels so rushed and so choppy (the amateur editing job does not help this at all).... and empty.

Until the Extended Edition comes out, Return of the King is only a half-completed movie.

[J m HofMarN]

Ok first let me say that TTT was the best of the series. It didn't leave much of anything out whereas the first movie removed Tom Bombadil and the third was, well, the third. As for RotK let me point out a few things. The worst part for me was, of course the lighthouse of Mordor (let me get this straight, the eye of ultimate evil and darkness proudces LIGHT???) but aside from that I was kind of annoyed that we got no closure on Saruman, who is of course the main villain of the series. Between Saruman and the orc with a facial deformity I'll take Saruman any day.

Next up in the complaint list is that they could have easily made the whole army of the oathbreakers plot make a lot more sense. It was NOT a plot device by Tolkien. It was to show us that Aragorn was leaving behind the image of Strider and taking on the call of his blood. This thing was designed to show that he is no longer a ranger, he's Isildur's heir. Instead it's just "Lookie I get a shiny new sword AND a shiny new army. I think they could have made Aragorn's inner turmoil a bit deeper than "I don't feel like being king... Oh alright I'll do it."

The scouring of the shire SHOULD have been in and I don't care what anyone says. That was the whole point of the book, one of the great morals Tolkien gave to us. First he said power corrupts. Underlying that is that men must take responsibility for our destiny. (For instance hte halflings didn't do jack for several ages and so they got in trouble for it but they took up their own destiny and htey were ok. Also the men kind of let elves run the show for them so when the elves left the world of men was in trouble. And also there was the whole deal with Aragorn that was rather symbolic of that.) The pertinence of this message in a pre-ww2 Europe where it was written is quite clear. and even prophetic.

Back to my point though the regular film ended in some completely insane fashion. I don't remember how times I got up, thought the movie was over and then sat down. Here's my ending. "Oh good we kicked ass and now Aragorn is king. He can marry Arwen and now we can all go our seperate ways. Let's all four of us hobbits go home. Oh no home is messed up by Saruman and Grima. Ok now we beat them up and Grima killed Saruman everything's fine. Mister Frodo dosn't feel well oh no! Oh look Mister Frodo has gone off with Gimli, Legolas and Gandalf as well as Elrond and Galadriel and Celeborn to the undying lands. The end.

(Yes, Gimli and Legolas did travel together to the undying lands I have read my stuff so don't even try it! )

There we have closure on all of the nine walkers. Aragorn and Faramir can hang out in Gondor and at his wedding we can drop a hint that Faramir and Eowyn are going to get busy. That is how you end a movie.

Also it seems like through most of the movie everyone is doing so much for no reason. (the detergent washes away the orcs and later when their lighthouse gets broken all the orcs just crash into some rocks and die) so maybe we could try to make the battle sequences have a little more meaning and danger to them.

And I do not care how cool it is the Legolas elephant scene should be banned. As should all use of Gimli for comic relief. They could have also gotten rid of the smeagol scene. However the lighting of the signal pyres was very cool. Oh and did I mention that I hate how they show Denethor eating? What the heck is up with that?

[Just your average movie goer]

Welcome to the forum, J m HofMarN. You raised a lot of good points and I believe you've read your stuff - you won't get any challenges of me.

I'd just like to say thank you for hating the Legolas/Oliphant scene. I thought I was the only one....

[Mike Mac from NYU]

Unfortunately, I have not seen ROTK yet. But i can give this viewpoint. Of all the LOTR novels. ROTK was my favorite. I aalways felt that Fellowship tended to wander of the subject a little. I'm talking about the novels, not the movies.


That being said, I really would look forward to a movie version of my favorite Tolkien book "The Hobbit". IMO THE HOBBIT is the best of the LOTR series. It has a great story and the perfect protagonist in Bilbo Baggins. It would be awesome to see it put to screen.

[Just your average movie goer]

I must have been too old when I got around to reading The Hobbit. It just seemed too childish for me - although I'm sure it'd make an excellent film if it was treated with the same maturity as The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I saw a trailer for The Hobbit, coming in 2005 - which looked really brilliant... until my friend saw it and released they'd stolen some footage from an old movie called Dragonslayer. But it was a very well done hoax. It looked pretty authentic.

I wonder if perhaps the reason I didn't enjoy reading The Hobbit so much was because I had just finished The Silmarillion.... that would certainly account for why it seemed so childish.

Ah, so you haven't seen Return of the King, Mike? Do yourself a big favour and don't see the theatrical release at all. Wait until September or whatever time it may be, when the Extended Edition is released. The above-mentioned flaws will still be there unfortunately (at least until I make my own edit) but at least it won't feel like you're watching half a film - which is how I felt watching the theatrical release. It just felt so empty - I couldn't believe it.

[Mike Mac from NYU]

"I saw a trailer for The Hobbit, coming in 2005 - which looked really brilliant... until my friend saw it and released they'd stolen some footage from an old movie called Dragonslayer. But it was a very well done hoax. It looked pretty authentic."

Ahh, Dragonslayer ., now there was a unique and interesting movie. Couple of points i wanna make on it

1. Does anyone realize that the guy who played Gailon(sp?0 is the same guys who played Pee-Wee in the Porky's trilogy? Peter MacNicol {although I could be wrong on that.....civ could probably find out) And the same guy who was in Ally MacBeal.

2. Interesting premise bringing Middle Ages realism to the fantasy drama. With the fuedal system and the emergence of the church.

3. Some really startling special effects for it's time. Especially that lake of fire scene.

4. Dragonslayer IMO has been the only good live action interpretation of dragon mythology in film. You would think that such a popular subject as dragons would produce quite a few good movies but many have fallen short {Dragonheart, Reign of Fire}. You would think that the plot concept of the hero defeating a dragon would lend itself to tons of really good movies. Yet Dragonslayer to date is the only good interpretation on an age old story.

[Just your average movie goer]

I'll have to check this out someday. It sounds pretty good.

[barend]

reign of fire wasn't that bad...

it had some moments... not a monument to filmmaking, but som cool looking dragons who moved well...

[J m HofMarN]

I'm quite glad as well. I've had people who've actually tried to justify using Gimli as comic relief and Legolas as the chick magnet. It aint right!

Did I just hear that another living being has read the Silmarillion? My DM hasn't even read the Silmarillion! My DM's jedi master hasn't even read the Silmarillion! I thought I was the only one. I'm curious, are you off the idea that this book was very byblical and a lot more interesting than the bible? I think Tolkien died too soon to finish it, there was a lot of characterization missing or maybe just too much plot. In any case I think it's safe to say that Tolkien was fuggin brilliant. I mean sure the hobbit and LOTR were gifts to man kind and they were intricate but who could create something like the Silmarillion and still be sane afterwards?

As for hobbit movies there is an animated version of it that I loved when I was a kid and should not be confused with the animated version of LOTR.

Oh and thanks for the welcome.