The official thread for Lord Of The Rings - The Return Of The King [LOTR ROTK TROTK ROK] (NOW CONTAINS SPOILERS)

Shouldn't "Gandalf" = "Sarumon" here?

There were ewoks in Matrix Revolutions, I'm sure of it.

x-post ha ha that woulda been the greatest thing ever

[The] Saruman thing you describe is a muddle of half-truths.

We have decided to save the Saruman sequence for the DVD. It's a great little scene. 7 mins long. Chris is wonderful, as usual. Brad is in about 6 shots. It was a film maker decision - nothing to do with the studio.

The problem is that the sequence was originally shot for The Two Towers, as it is in the book. Since The Two Towers couldn't sustain a 7 min "wrap" after Helm's Deep, we thought it would be a good idea to save it for the beginning of the Return of the King. The trouble is, when we viewed various ROTK cuts over the last few weeks, it feels like the first scenes are wrapping last year's movie, instead of starting the new one. We felt it got ROTK off to an uncertain beginning, since Saruman plays no role in the events of ROTK (we don't have the Scouring later, as the book does), yet we dwell in Isengard for quite a long time before our new story kicks off.

We reluctantly made the decision to save this sequence for the DVD. The choice was made on the basis that most people will assume that Saruman was vanquished by the Helm's Deep events, and Ent attack. We can now crack straight into setting up the narrative tension of ROTK, which features Sauron as the villian.

It was a very similar situation to last year when we decided to take a nice Boromir/Denethor flashback out of The Two Towers, and put it in the DVD. It was causing us pacing problems in the theatrical version, but with the Extended Cut just coming out now, fans can see this great little scene. Thank God for DVD, since it does mean that a version of the movie, which has different pacing requirements, can be released later. The Saruman sequence will definately be a highlight of the Extended ROTK DVD.

We have a lot of great DVD material this time around. As we crafted the movie, we reduced it from an over 4 hour running time, down to 3.12 (without credits - about 8 mins long). This was done by us. There were no studio cutting notes. We now have a movie with a pace that fells ok for it's theatrical release. One more week to go. We are nearly there. Will we still be standing? It's going to be a close run thing.

Cheers,

Peter J

It doesn't break the film as theatrically released and it shouldn't cause a worry even with the extended TT. Lee himself seems to have been taken offguard, so that was handled poorly, but beyond that I'm utterly unfazed.

He is very prone to exaggeration and playing up tenous connections to celebrities, so I never believe something that is published on aicn until it is independently confirmed on some other site.

Nothing about the explanation [with El Diablo's caveat in mind, though it's now been some days and no denial has been issued] as provided strikes me as an impossible thought to make, especially given the differences between theatrical and DVD releases so far with the other two films. To be utterly honest, given the scope of the story, I was hoping they would get away from Orthanc as quickly as possible anyway -- there's still a lot of material to get through. About the only thing that doesn't work, as someone on AICN noted, was how Aragorn et al get hold of the palantir now.

that said, I gotta say I'm really looking forward to this movie.

Spencer, I loved FOTR in the theater, LOVED the expanded edition of FOTR (with mild exception to the ubertwee Concerning Hobbits chapter), liked T2T in the theater and hoped to increase on that with the expanded release.

I wonder if T2T set will come with a free ticket to ROTK like the first set did (which I bought for $25.99+tax, that combined with movies in SF = $9-10 makes that 4xDVD set quite a value).

it's Saruman, actually.

http://www.ortadunya.com/dbimage/client/gollum.gif

And for that alone, I could kiss you.....but I'll just send flowers.

You know you've been around too long, when we can second guess your dreams.

Piss-up, brewery, etc.

THAT is a LIE. I'm weary of your malcontent.

Wait, only twice? Tsk. (Two times through as it is, four further times through for each of the commentaries.)

Haha yes, without makeup he looks like Pete Burns.

"AND I!"

I'm not very cool about multiple DVD releases myself. Particularly not when they're carefully timed so that people desperate for it will buy the regular version first. Cynical cynical cynical.

I still think it's a bit shambolic.

To my mind, cynical would have been not telling anyone there was going to be an extended version and then releasing one later.

If you got wise after Fellowship, you knew patience is your friend. (And no, I STILL don't have the Extended Edition yet. I'm thinking of my own solo marathon before the 17th)

Hm, couldn't imagine what you mean...

i'll let you know how it is, ned :)

Yes, you will.

Not if they just rent it.

I bought extended boxes for FOTR for $25.99 (which included a free pass to see T2T) and T2T for $26.99.

That's 8 DVDs for $50.98 at a cost of $6.37-ish per. Not sure how much cheaper it can get frankly.

I'm actually not convinced Jackson himself has much to offer as a director, really. Sure, this was a tremendously ambitious project, but beyond getting the project supported and having a decent cast, who could go wrong? The cast are mostly great. Otherwise, it lives on the back of the FX (which are brilliant) and the scenery.

I realised watching The Two Towers how repetitious and banal the directing actually was. I got thinking, 'This has a lot of great things in spite of the direction, not because of it.' Those bloody endless, interminable fight scenes... incredibly boring, drawn-out stuff, in spite of the excelent visual quality. So they (originally) cut a seven-minute scene that was probably quite interesting so we can have more SLASH! CUT! THRUST! WAM! BAM! It could stand to lose more than seven minutes of that junk.

I think it was after the 3,000th identical tracking shot that I started feeling that, beautiful scenery or not, this is a director with a small bag or tricks and not much imagination. Lose the cast. Lose the locations. Lose the FX. What remains is actually kinda crap, and that's PJ's contribution.

He ain't no Orson Welles. [cue abuse!]

WELL DUH.

And as to renting: who wants to rent stuff these days?

The book was great just on story and characters. The film has those things too. It practically doesn't need anything else to be good if a good director's making it happen. Really. I'm not convinced these films have a particularly good director. I know, this is rocket science. Never mind, eh.

I'm up for reinventing rocket science. If Jackson didn't float you, Chrissie, name someone you think could have directed it better? Twist: also say why?

Sorta find it hard to think it would work if it didn't have one -- arguing that the film would somehow film itself because of the source material is an astonishingly slippery slope, and we can all point to adaptations that fail badly despite exquisite source material.

but if they're the things that actually make it, then obviously there are other factors that are failing somehow (i.e. the direction).

Nothing is 'obvious' in a realm of (yes, here I go again) subjective opinion. Concluding that people responded to the film solely because of casting and FX is not an argument I would be prepared to make.

I can't think of anyone else, Nichole. There aren't that many directors around doing interesting stuff in the mainstream. I'm not saying Jackson is BAD -- but I am saying his contribution to what's on the screen is, oddly, not that important. He's done it in formulaic fashion. The cast, the FX people, I think they deserve the bows ahead of him (and behind Mr. Tolkien). He didn't invest anything in it that struck me as positive or distinctive. (The film looks distinctive as hell, but that's because of the locations, the FX, the costumes, etc.) The direction is passive, more than anything. 'What shall we do now? Another swooping shot over the landscape! YEAH!'

I like these films a lot. But I guess my point is, I'm not going to hail PJ as a great director because he did them. Any decent director could have done the same job with those resources, crew, cast, etc.

Oh, I might have suggested Sam Raimi a few years ago. But it appears he has wilted into safe, journeyman work himself.

also he did that edit-cut between arwen and aragorn's horse kissing aragorn!! i larfed non-stop and so did dr vick

I find this baffling. You can stick to your guns (and should), but I think you are arguing from a fairly untenable position of "Clearly anyone else can and should have done this and therefore they would have and it would have the same effect." This is a bit like saying that all interpretations of Shakespeare are the same.

A perfect counterargument already exists -- Jackson vs. Bakshi. If that doesn't float your boat, compare the American radio production with the BBC production. Same source material, same basic approach to the story, miles apart in terms of final end result. Insisting that everything would have been THE SAME no matter who was at the helm is sheer perversity.

A nice snippet from Jackson himself at the premiere:

Peter Jackson: "We made the movie but you guys (the public) have given us the party. These movies are made for people to enjoy them and it makes us incredibly humble and proud that so many of you have turned up today, so thank you very much." He mentioned that 23,000 New Zealanders were employed on the films, then went on to say: "I'd like to thank Mark Ordesky for the promise he made a year ago to get this premier here, so thank you very much Mark." He gave his biggest 'thank you' to his wife, Fran Walsh. "(She's my) absolute collaborator, my support - she's directed, she's written songs, she's edited ... she's my other half. Fran, thank you so much."

I don't hope for JUST those things from a film.

And Ned: I liked the film because it had a good story and characters, firstly, then a good cast and great FX and beautiful locations. They way in which it was directed, I felt, did nothing for these things. With the endless fight stuff, it almost sunk the second part, for me. I was getting decidedly bored. Try explaining great things about the direction.

Spot on. Saying he's brought a 'formulaic' approach to the films ignores what he (and Walsh and Bowens) did as screenwriters, namely look at the books not from the perspective of unchanged scripture (Bakshi had noted Tolkien fanatic Peter Beagle as a cowriter and the end result was a stumbling mishmash with no flow) but as something that could be interpreted into another medium and had to stand or fall as something in THAT medium. Then two of that team, Jackson and Walsh, were core directors of the script as evolved.

Try explaining great things about the direction.

Off the top of my head -- the tense scene between Aragorn and Theoden on the walls of Helms Deep, the concluding scene on the river between Frodo and Sam in Fellowship, Andy Serkis's performance in the Gollum/Smeagol confrontations (all scenes that were in the theatrical cuts, f'r instance). I could go on.

Er... no. It's nothing like that. You're ignoring the 'resources, cast and crew' condition. And maybe I should say an 'equally good job' rather than 'the same.' I believe this to be true.

Comparing Jackson to complete shit again (this time Bakshi) doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm saying. I didn't say he'd done a bad job. I just fear he's taking more credit than he deserves for ORDINARY (and rather repetitive) direction. Simple.

I remain unconvinced that the above can be credited to the genius direction of Peter Jackson, esp. the latter. Let's try the genius of Andy Serkis instead for that one.

Spot the contradiction!

One thing Jackson and his editors noted in the extended DVD commentary and documentaries was that they intentionally broke up the battle sequence at Helm's Deep precisely because they figured an audience in general would be wearied by nothing but a constant assault -- thus they various cutaways to other locales (the Entmoot, Osgiliath). Jackson also spoke about wanting to show the build-up to the battle as being as important and mood-setting as simply the battle itself. To my mind that strikes me as cogent editing skill brought to bear.

You're ignoring the 'resources, cast and crew' condition.

You are also willfully overlooking the intertwined combination of resources that revolves around Jackson's various decisions of who to work with and why -- WETA, due to his longstanding relationship with Richard Taylor/Tania Rodgers, designers John Howe and Alan Lee due to his particular response to their interpretations (it could have just as easily been Ted Naismith or -- god help us -- the Hildebrandts), Howard Shore as the scorer of the music (John Williams would have been the obvious choice for most and he would have been a boring disaster with nothing new to add that he hasn't already), the choice of locations itself [Hollywood thinking might well have tended towards the Lucas/ILM thought of visual scope and set construction, ie, take it to studio almost entirely]. I think the only person who could have worked with that exact combination would be Jackson and trying to imagine someone else able to create that specific combination in the first place is a mug's game.

Implying that all anyone had to do was set up a camera, ask him to do some takes, chose which were the best takes, edit those takes together into something for WETA to realize digitally and then make sure that WETA did exactly that. Of course, Serkis would have been the only candidate to do all that, I see.

the action in the first movie is some of the best ever filmed. (and i think the final battle in Fellowship may be my favorite ever). plus he is able to impart, with pacing and editing and camera moves, a sense of urgency and emotion--that's the real miracle of his directing.

he has a great eye for the epic i think too -- the shot of Frodo almost giving in to the ring wraith at the end of TT was BREATHTAKING to me and if i remember correctly it's not in the book at all!

(lot's of x-posts so i will just add my two cents!)

Two out of three of the script writers WERE directors! They wouldn't be writing them without thinking about how the shots would be made and the takes done and they would and did rewrite and retake scenes based on if something didn't work (a notable example is the complete removal of Arwen from Helm's Deep, which is how that sequence was originally shot).

Peter Jackson was solely responsible.

I don't believe I said he was. I DID say he was the one who, being a producer as well as director/screenwriter/editor, had final say, gave directions to his staff, actors and crew to carry out their jobs and then put the final seal on the effort. Saying he was somehow not involved in that scene and that Serkis deserves the bulk of the credit is, again, baffling.

the attribution of *any* film's qualities to just one person's vision is fairly daft, i think: in that sense i totally agree with chrissie, this is was a monumental team effort, and jackson's just the ringmaster

So what if the scriptwriters were directors? I wasn't talking about the script. The quality of the script is a separate issue. I have no problems with the script, overall.

(even the "auteur theory" was intended as a way of discussing group creation coherently, but it turned into this daft director-as-poet ideology)

Let's just be clear that I personally did not say the direction was 'bad.'

Then what is it exactly? As it stands, I am not sure what in fact you are so annoyed with now -- you have nothing bad to say about the script, the crew, the effects, the locations. The only specific thing that gets your goat is a mention of too many sweeping camera shots, in which you're either annoyed at Andrew Lesnie as cinematographer or Jackson and his editing team as editors (again, if we're to take this as an instance of sole isolation of efforts, which I find strange).

Which is why I said he ain't no Orson Welles. OW made something like Othello out of nothing, with a cast of unknowns, no budget and locations that shifted on a regular basis. PJ made Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles.

It's one of the funniest movies ever...and of course done out of nothing, with a cast of unknowns, no budget and locations that shifted on a regular basis.

Didn't I use the word ordinary? If you're equating that with 'bad,' we have a serious communication problem.

And it doesn't get my goat, either. The too much credit thing probably does. It's no big deal. I wondered if anyone had interesting thoughts about it, but apparently, all I'm likely to get is a lot defensive idolatry that is really not very fascinating...

I could be wrong, but I believe you're confusing script with direction again.

Well then, what is ordinary about it in particular? What is missing? Since nobody else would have created the project in exactly the same way, how would the perceived strength of another director than Jackson in categories you find Jackson lacking in automatically meant that everything else would be of the quality you approve of?

I believe you're confusing script with direction again.

I humbly note that you were the one saying that Jackson has to 'ride on the back' of other factors, such as an epic book -- or a centuries old revered play, alternately.

Yeah, well, that'd go perfectly well with my point that the direction was ordinary and that other factors made it a great show. If you're trying to find a contradiction, you're failing miserably.

As to the old revered play... oddly enough, that film's qualities certainly don't rest on its source very heavily, since the thing was dubbed, and not particularly convincingly.

I'm really going now. Have fun.

I'm just ensuring that I have it perfectly clear that Welles's reputation in general has nothing to do with Gregg Toland as cinematographer or Herman Mankiewicz as co-screenwriter or Boothe Tarkington as original author or anything like that and that he apparently stands out as a great director from all his talented assistants and inspirations who deserves sole final credit for his successes while Jackson owes everything to his own talented assistants and inspirations. That's all.

The core of Christine's argument, that this is not a fantastically directed movie, is true. As regards pure shot-zoom-lighting stuff, it's pretty good but not great, and he's certainly never met a slow-mo shot he didn't like (the Sam drowning at the end juust lost it the 100%, IMHO).

But the question "what would (name of most other directors) have done" isn't even a sensible query. Without a telepathic link to PJ the producer, PJ the writer, PJ the final-say on all design elements, another director would almost certainly have given up in rage before the first film came out, or made a complete dogs dinner of it.

Am I right in think that Christine's position is not without a certain irony, as its arguing that Welles would beat Jackson as shots-on-screen director (no contest), but Welles was one of the first to start to kill that job in favour of complete-ringmaster-director?

Ned, check yer mail-space.)

In the first movie, where does Gandalf go to learn about the ring near the beginning? What city?

(note: I've only seen the movies)

Gandalf goes to Minas Tirith (sp? the city of men that will feature big in ROTK) to learn more about the ring.

Minas Tirith is the chief city in Gondor (where Boromir and Faromir are captains* of the city)

*I may have their title wrong, but they are stand-in gubenatorial ambassadors of the city, which was formerly a kingdom.

The city that Faromir takes the Hobbits to in T2T is another city of Gondor: Osgiliath (sp?) which is being attacked by forces from Mordor, Sauron's evil kingdom bordered by the sharp jagged mountains that is adjacent to Gondor. The river runs through the middle of that city and Sauron's army is attacking the city from the East bank.

http://www.lordoftherings.net/legend/lands/minastirith/images/lineofgondor_minastirith.jpg
http://www.lordoftherings.net/legend/gallery/images/pelennor/image4.jpg

I got bored because I didn't get the kind of discussion I'd hoped for... I had to spend half the time repeating myself in a futile attempt to get responses that had anything to do with what I was on about. That's definitely boring.

Ned:
I'm just ensuring that I have it perfectly clear that Welles's reputation in general has nothing to do with Gregg Toland as cinematographer or Herman Mankiewicz as co-screenwriter or Boothe Tarkington as original author or anything like that and that he apparently stands out as a great director from all his talented assistants and inspirations who deserves sole final credit for his successes while Jackson owes everything to his own talented assistants and inspirations. That's all.

I don't even think Kane is Welles' best film. And Ambersons clearly isn't, though that's a whole story in itself. Anyhow, as it happens, nope, I don't think it's the scripts of the average Welles film that's earned him his reputation or made him influential. I've never heard anyone say, 'I want to WRITE a scene just like that one in Kane,' but a heap of big-shot directors have cited techniques and shots they've lifted. (Scorsese borrowed from the battle sequence of Chimes at Midnight in his Gangs epic, to give a recent example. Do you think he'd cite Manc as an important factor in his DIRECTORIAL influences? It's just vaguely possible that he wouldn't. No, really.)

In any case, unless you're trying to say Welles wasn't a very good director (and if you are, we disagree), then you're making no sense whatsoever. I wasn't talking about Welles' reputation! Gee, I was talking about direction! Didn't I say that about 1,236 times before? In talking about direction, I mentioned the name Orson Welles as a -- wait for it -- director. Smoke and mirrors, maaaaaaaaan...

Andrew:
The core of Christine's argument, that this is not a fantastically directed movie, is true. As regards pure shot-zoom-lighting stuff, it's pretty good but not great, and he's certainly never met a slow-mo shot he didn't like (the Sam drowning at the end juust lost it the 100%, IMHO).

Well, yes, and this is all I was saying. I don't know why this idea seems to bother/baffle so many people.

But the question "what would (name of most other directors) have done" isn't even a sensible query. Without a telepathic link to PJ the producer, PJ the writer, PJ the final-say on all design elements, another director would almost certainly have given up in rage before the first film came out, or made a complete dogs dinner of it.

You know, since all I referred to was the direction, and you've agreed with me on that point, I don't think my idea that any other competent director could have handled THAT SPECIFIC ASPECT equally well (though probably a bit differently) is even remotely radical.

And people don't even see that I actually like the films, as a whole. I could live without them, but they're good entertainment with occasionally stunning visuals and great source material. Separating one component for discussion seems to cause some people immense difficulty. I don't understand that.

Am I right in think that Christine's position is not without a certain irony, as its arguing that Welles would beat Jackson as shots-on-screen director (no contest), but Welles was one of the first to start to kill that job in favour of complete-ringmaster-director?

No Irony, really, no. Because as I've been saying all along (to no avail), I was only speaking of the direction. I guess it has some irony. Do I think LotR is a better film than Othello? Probably not. It's a better-made film. Othello was badly-made even by 1952 standards. But, you know, he could've autographed every damned frame of the thing personally. That's what makes it for me.

Thinking about other directors, it'd be interesting to speculate about someone like Ang Lee. He's INTERESTING. About 50% of the total shots he makes, to me, it's seven or snake eyes. It's like, what's gonna happen? Something astoundingly beautiful or horribly cack-handed? That's kinda fun. Meanwhile, Peter Jackson gives up New Zealand Travelogue #4,289. Fine, but do something DIFFERENT with it, for fuck's sake. Just my personal reaction. Not the end of the world. The man is not god.

(That's Orson Welles, obv) :-)

I half-expected someone far more into it and knowledgeable than me to step in and dazzle me with science, and maybe I'd even learn something. That'd be a cool deal. My expectations are always far too high for reality to match up...

Well, these days you also get someone making detailed storyboards and there's often a lot of shooting ideas in the scripts... but theoretically, all the final choices should be the director's. How receptive he/she is to others' ideas is an individual thing.

(Interesting point about Toland's cinematograhpy on Kane: he found it interesting working with Welles because Welles wasn't entirely clear on what he was doing -- it being his first film and all -- and the challenge of making seemingly impossible things work was part of the fun of it.)

FWIW, Jackson storyboards his films very carefully well before shooting, as well as working closely with his pre-vis specialist Christian Rivers.

As for where I think this is all ultimately coming down to:

Separating one component for discussion seems to cause some people immense difficulty. I don't understand that.

Yes, bluntly put, it does cause difficulty -- essentially you seem to be the only one arguing that the direction CAN be separated out for discussion, especially in a case where Jackson is as thoroughly involved in the overall production in particular. You haven't convinced me, at least, and my sense is that you haven't convinced others either.

But this is like saying "That guy's clumsy. I bet if we put someone else's hands on him, he'd be great". The director can't be someone different to the other jobs I mentioned (I think). Because the idea of a director who can be inserted lego-style, well it might still work in Hollywood, but I don't think it could ever have worked here. This is the sort of thing that needs a ringmaster-director.

So you're saying that the quality of a particular aspect of a film is inseparable from every other aspect of the film? Er... WHATEVER.

As I said above -- why is it so hard to look at the quality of a particular aspect of a film, for the sake of discussion? You're point is fair and right, but it doesn't need making when discussing the perfectly measurable quality of a particular aspect. Think out of the box for a second; you already agreed with my quanlitative judgement, so in essence, you're seeing my point but just NOT seeing it. Hm.

apart from orson welles, who would have disappeared to mexico seven years ago and spent the entire budget on rushes of the hobbiton introductory sequence, seen through crazy circus mirrors with a hammy voiceover. ;-)

And yeah, the film is cool in a lot of ways. I hadn't realised just how elevated PJ's sacred cow status had become, though. My mistake!

Yeah, I very much think you are. But I doubt it matters much.

The Balrog sequence was great, actually. It wasn't shot similarly to the stuff I mentioned, though... it's almost 100% CGI for starters.

Pulpo: I know it was a joke. And quite funny. I just don't reckon you'd need to avoid PJ to get any laughs on here, see.

Ooh Madchen well do bear in mind that we've not yet seen Saruman leave Isengard so he could easily do the chucking down/finding of the palantir at the start of the next film.

Or perhaps they'll just come across a Carphone Warehouse.

Friend-making tip #2: stop being so fucking rude.

I think we got (and mostly agree with) what you're trying to say about Peter Jackson's skills as a classical director, it's just that when you started talking about how Sam Raimi would have done that we fell off discussing directors into discussing what a director on this film is. Though Ned and Nichole did bait you into that one.

I know, it's a terrible question. Ned? :)

"Orcs (the word is as far as I am concerned actually derived from Old English orc 'demon,' but only because of its phonetic suitability)..."

Rah.

Incidentally I can't believe you did that so quickly!!

Mopesalot, I CHOOSE YOU!

Eh, I'm at home sick today and the collected letters are close to hand. No trick, really. :-)

I get bored easily and I can be rude. This is true. No argument.

What was #1?

I think we got (and mostly agree with) what you're trying to say about Peter Jackson's skills as a classical director, it's just that when you started talking about how Sam Raimi would have done that we fell off discussing directors into discussing what a director on this film is. Though Ned and Nichole did bait you into that one.

Well, yeah, because I didn't want to discuss alternatives particularly. Also, I don't see why I should be challenged for having a personal opinion about something that is as valid or as worthless as anyone else's.

I am treading in the wrong thread/place, because to me this film is a bit of flashy, interesting hokum, and that's all. I realise it's probably a lot more important to other people. Everyone's right and everyone's wrong, and ultimately, none of it means a single damn thing.

Actually, it was that declaring yourself bored is never polite.

Also, I don't see why I should be challenged for having a personal opinion about something that is as valid or as worthless as anyone else's.

It is sort of all we do around here.

I wish! Have you checked theonering.net -- they seem to have a fair amount of pre-sale info around, though it might take some digging to find it.

Er... sorry to be rude (I'm sure this qualifies as rude, as does almost anything else I'm ever going to say), but isn't that the same as being rude? So #1 and 2 are actually the same?

Thinking about it... while I admit to be being capable of extreme rudeness, I don't actually consider 'declaring myself bored' to be impolite. Not on here. Wrong context. I hadn't noticed anyone observing any particular kind of etiquette -- this is, after all, the board that loves talking about wanking on a regular basis. The concept of being rude is dead in the water.

I think the Golden Rule about making friends obviously is to tell a lot of lies and say exactly what Whoever wants to hear under all circumstances.

I can't be arsed.

It is sort of all we do around here.

And this kind of rudeness (as valid a definition as any other on offer) is better than mine because...?

Oh, don't answer that. It's probably 'u r all gay' or something.

(BTW, that was sarcasm, not rudeness. Okay, rude sarcasm, maybe. I can live with that.)

(I knew I should've just posted: 'LotR is a pile of worthless shite and Peter Jackson is a fat, sweaty toad.' That woulda been a lot easier.)

interesting that someone brought up sam raimi, though. where i find the touches that are especially jackson's are something like what old-school (pre-blanding) raimi would have brought. i'm thinking of wacky horror-style shots: the crazy closeups of merry and pippin with looney tunes faces after blowing off the fireworks; smash-cuts to closeups of nasty orc-y faces, the fantastic shot that wheels in to show gandalf atop the tower then dives off into the orc mines.

for a director of GIANT EPICS i think he is smashing his competition in terms of actor's direction, too. i'm sure there are plenty of directors who could do the job well also, but just the direction of the king's poem before battle in the 2nd film ("where is the horse and the rider," etc) is a fantastic actor's moment that most director-ringleaders would have missed or fumbled entirely.

Maybe.

You keep repeating this as a validation of whatever you feel like doing, which is odd. The discussion is hardly mandatory, or regular. Or, for that matter, rude.

I think the Golden Rule about making friends obviously is to tell a lot of lies and say exactly what Whoever wants to hear under all circumstances.

I can't be arsed.

There is a middle ground between that and saying whatever you want at all times, you know.

also:
is it too much to suggest the haters take the PJ malaise to another thread? i don't mind any negative criticism here but it seems to be one-sided not to mention off-topic.

I can't help being a fuckwit. You don't like it, I'm not losing sleep.

This thread hasn't done much for my feelings about the film, but it has sparked an interest in reading the book again, bizarrely.

Also: gygax, who said anything about hating the guy? I finally succumbed to irony with my 'toad' comment. I think I'm no more responsible for off-topic tangents than others on here, for that matter. Never mind. I already said I regretted posting here at all and I meant it. I ought to have better things to worry about.

I don't mind discussion of peter jackson's merits wrt: the trilogy; however, this thread was supposed to be a discussion of the third installment of the film trilogy, and here we are 192 posts in with very little content to speak of.

I think you are indeed on to something. Perhaps you should start a thread entitled: "I realised watching The Two Towers how repetitious and banal the directing actually was" and have a go... but seeing as this thread was intended to be for ROTK, perhaps we should give it a chance?

This will brighten everyone's snowy weekend.

SPOILER - Pippin picks it up from the mess at Isengard, and Gandalf takes it from him. But Aragorn never uses it. - END SPOILER

I feel better I only saw the last 15 minutes of it then, though I shot out of here to try and catch the whole thing.

Just found out there aren't any theaters near me showing the Extended Editions (closest one is 100 miles away). Guess I should consider meself lucky there is ONE theatre nearby showing ROTK.

Bloody boondocks.

Lars, I haven't had time to watch TT once, yet--though I snagged my copy Sunday.

(Before anyone can beat me to it, "WTF?")

(seeing it at 9AM was really trippy btw)

I am finishing up work, I am cleaning up some stuff...I am off. I will post something incoherent and babbling at 3 am. (Not that this is different from most times.)

Anyway. Trilogy showing! Ned happy! ROTK fucking awesome! The world is great! I need sleep! More later! Good night!

I haven't seen TLOTR: TROTK (I love these abb.), but I'd like to
chime in and agree with Chrissie H that the first two movies were
directed averagely at best. Keep in mind that I'm a Tolkien fan
(though not a rabid one), but even more I'm a film buff. And I
wasn't too impressed with Jackson's screenplay from either
standpoint; his Fellowship was fairly cohesive, with Gandalf
playing the wise, all-knowing wizard, while Tolkien's Fellowship
was a bickering, contentious gang, with little sense of direction
or purpose.

Meanwhile, Jackson's direction seemed perfunctory. His style was
way too overbearing, desperately trying to convert the viewers
- "yes indeed, this is an epic! epic epic epic!!!" Observe the
endless closeups and slow-motion shots in part 1 - and part 2's
long, boring battle scenes. These had little drama or excitement -
just more CGI's furiously thwacking. Overall, I agree that Jackson
added nothing new or interesting to this movie. Fortunately, the
original story is so compelling that the films are modern
classics. But I still can't help but wonder what a great
director like Gilliam, Scorsese, or Doug Liman could
have done with the series.

I think what might be key in all this is to remember two things about Jackson's approach that are objective as opposed to subjective:

1. He made it clear from the start that he was not interested in an ironic approach from his actors et al, that the story as interpreted had to be taken at face value. In otherwards, a story conceived in an epic tradition would be treated as such.

2. Within that framework he was also interested in keeping it as 'realistic' as possible, quotes intentional. This covered everything from focusing on the characters to specific camera choices, ie hand-held 'documentary' approaches at points and so forth.

Whether or not you think these approaches were justified or successful is up to the individual beholder. Personally speaking -- as a reader of Tolkien, my favorite author, but not one interested in a slavish reinterpretation where it would not work in another medium -- I think this conception was exactly what was needed and that he hit the bullseye. It will not be to everyone's tastes.

liked/loved:
-minas tirith, which was incredibly awesomely realized
-the battle at minas tirith, obv
-everything in mordor, incl. the spider
-the very end, which "got" me
-the beasts that the nazgul ride on (sorry I forget their names, but I thought they looked and especially SOUNDED incredible--kinda freaked my shit out, actually)

didn't like:
-the opening sequence with pre-gollum smeagol, which I thought was really awkwardly shot and not a very strong beginning
-most of the humourous stuff
-the fact that the battle of minas tirith came over an hour before the movie was over, which felt anti-climactic
-the battle at the gates of mordor, which felt even more anti-climactic considering the greatness of the minas tirith battle
-the fact that we didn't get to see more awesome gandalf-with-glowing-staff stuff (though when he chases the nazguls away it was awesome)

Heh heh heh...the sounds were altered donkey howls. Really!

Aren't they the fell beasts?

actually, all the oversized beasties--the spider, the olyphants (wicked), the things the ogres were riding on, these were all incredible

I loved the huge sweeping shots of the beacons being lit on the snowy mountaintops. The spider was fascinating, how she was so neat and quick about wrapping the body up and it made a cool, weird dry sound.

I didn't love the cursed ghost mountain people. I don't know what the alternative is, but all ghosts in movies look the same.

Sam and Faromir are my favorites. I hope Faromir marries Eowyn and they have like 10,000 babies. But I hope they live in Minas Tirith or wherever, not Rohan. I find Rohan drab and depressing.

and yeah, the ghosts weren't that impressive but I really liked the long shots of them making there way up minas tirith

Where did those eagles come from again? They felt so deus ex machina-ish

Awesome movie though. Minas Tirith = !!!!! And teh funny worked way better than in part 2 (the dwarf's comment on Legolas' AT-AT action was perfectly timed)

Ha! My friend Misty thought the same thing (and approved). Pretty spectacular.

Very important question: is Ghan-Buri-Ghan in it?

No. Maybe extended DVD will have it, who knows.

I have no idea about those eagles though.

It's in the original text, blame Tolkien if you must. (The moth reappearing was a movie invention and I *KNEW* it would show up again -- loved it).

Beacons -- pretty damned awesome. They're in the book but the version here was the way to go.

The one moment I looked at completely askance -- the exact death of Denethor. He does indeed immolate himself and all but in the book he simply lays down on the pyre -- the movie variation was just a little too much.

The reworking of Sam/Frodo/Gollum in the Minas Morgul/Shelob's Lair sequence was intriguing but I'll have to wait until I see it again tonight to judge better. The telescoping of the Cirith Ungol to Mount Doom sequences was abrupt but understandable. The expanded role of the Dead rooled and the actual breaking into Minas Tirith nicely ratcheted up the tension.

Anyway, back to work.

thanks for those with the spoiler warnings... perhaps a mod can add a spoiler title to the message title?

:*(

And for my money, "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote"
would likely have been
as brilliant as the rest of them, had it lived.
I mentioned Gilliam because his fantasies (_Baron Von
Mucnchausen_, _The Fisher King_) have been stellar, and
Scorsese because _Gangs Of New York_ had a dreamlike,
mythical visuals that would have suited Middle Earth quite
nicely.

Er, I fear we have nothing further to talk about here if this is the example given. (The argument that one can take Tolkien's example in order to myth-create in different styles and approaches, however, is perfectly fine in and of itself, though the sense that a later/different approach will automatically be superior as a result seems forced.)

Sometimes I think the only reason Tolkien is considered the best
is that he's usually the first (or only) fantasy author that
people read. Of course, there's nothing wrong with holding this
opinion (Tolkien's the best) but I strongly disagree.

I only mentioned _SOS_ because it was the first book to come out
of Tolkien's tradition, not because I consider it the best.
Still, it was addictive and hard to put down, qualities that are
of utmost importance in fiction. In contrast, I found Tolkien's
books to be long, long slogs indeed.

If you're talking about Williams's fantasy trilogy, I found that to be astoundingly dull, much more so than Tolkien has ever been to me -- it was overarching but overstuffed, a couple of great characters aside. Kay in contrast I'm deeply fond of but the Fionavar books were a formal exercise in comparison to the alternate histories since, all of which have shown a much greater sense of range. Kay's ability to foreground moral ambivalence is indeed wonderful but I think this obscures Tolkien's own abilities in this field, something which I'm sensing you are dismissing all too readily.

(xpost Ned, Robin Hobb is really, really great and George Martin is even better. You should give them both a look.)

I actually have the Martin series building up 'on hold' for a read when it's done. Hobb I've not heard of, though, thanks!

Wot Dan said about Brooks, many times over.

SPOILER sPoIlEr!!

SPOILER sPoIlEr!!

SPOILER sPoIlEr!!

SPOILER sPoIlEr!!

My favorite part was by far the bit where Denethor was eating, having Pippen sing to him, while the gondor soldiers rode back out. It was kind of heavy heanded, but he syned the sounds & visuals so well that it came out very nicely.

But what was up with the dragging on of the endings? I know it's all in the book, but it felt like it was really dragging along. Although it was neat to the ring that Gandalf had on his hand as they left on the boat. It was kind of cool that they included that, even without calling it out by saying anything about it.

Lyra very much OTM with the Denethor/Pippin sequence juxtaposed with Faramir's charge. And I was thinking of Gandalf's ring tonight, noticed it too!

Just got back from my second showing. Shelob's second attack really is fucking unsettling.

the slate review correctly identifies the beacon sequence as the moment where the film really takes off.

i thought legolas' little escapade was an explicit star wars reference!

In the extended Two Towers it is talked about a bit more -- Saruman identifies it as the Ring of Barahir, indicating his descent from Isildur. That is indeed part of the backstory in Tolkien's work -- to try and keep it quick (ha) Barahir was a Man in the First Age who assisted the Elves in their struggle against Morgoth; the ring was given to him by an Elf lord who he had specifically rescued in battle. Through Barahir's son Beren and then through the line of kings and lords of Numenor the ring became a symbol of descent and kingship.

There were pacing issues and the lengthy endings (whilst cock on for the book) dragged a touch. Also odd that Arwen didn't want to see her Dad off on the boat. There also seemed something a bit off with Gollum at the end, I always remember him being a bit satisfied with his own death / destruction of the ring which did not quite come across (the perilous escape from the cracks seems a little bit overblown too).

All in all though thoroughly satisfying.

I remember this being such a powerful moment in the book. I haven't seen the clip yet and was hoping this was going to be included in the final film. Yes, NOW I really want to watch it!!!

Can't wait to see it.

Lego-lass on the oilyfunt was the best

the Theodyn/Gandalf "what does your heart tell you?" line was the BAD Star Wars ref

has no-one mentioned how fucking great the 360 degress pans were?

fear not Madchen, the Shelob bits are absolutely stunning

the ghosts reminded me a lot of POTC more than anything else - i thought they were fine

biggest irk = no Saruman

when Aragorn and everyone kneel down before the hobbits for a split second i 'wished' it would cut to the fanfare end theme and the 'Directed by George Lucas' caption on starfield, haha

also very annoyed that we got trailers for the new Farrelly Brothers film (OH DEAR GOD IT LOOKS SO FUCKING TERRIBLE I WANT TO PUNCH THOSE STUPID PEOPLE) and the new Mask film (it's a baby.....a BABY.....) but not Spiderman 2 or that one with JUde Law and Nicole Kidman which might be good

has no-one mentioned how fucking great the 360 degress pans were?

Damn straight. Aimed for the epic and nailed it.

More coherent thoughts later tonight, though I'll probably chime in more throughout the day.

I meant the latter more, but the Smeagol origin I wasn't crazy about; something about the way it was shot made it seem a little awkward to me (maybe because most of it was in close-up). also, when Smeagol's buddy gets pulled underwater I thought it looked pretty silly.

I thought the whole sequence worked even better second time around -- the way it's edited and presented (and narrated for that matter) goes against much of the film style elsewhere, it nicely conveys a sense of how Gollum isn't part of/much for the world if you like. As for the close-ups, that's been a hallmark of all three movies, surely -- most of the sequence itself was directed by Fran Walsh.

You mean at the start of the film? At the end of Two Towers it shows the two of them embracing and being thankful for getting through Helm's Deep in one piece, so in ways that moment had already happened, if you like.

I guess travelling sequences woulda made the whole thing even longer though (though I guess they wouldn't have to)

of course it wz terrific, fite-wise especially

they exactly didn't go with my personal reading of gollum's triumph over sauron, but it wasn't ruled out either

(oh yes: when sauron's eye turned north to the gates of mordor, it was actually turning from north-ish to east, unless they moved orodruin)

Maybe by way of Rocketeer and the Blackhawk comics. I'm a sucker for art-deco steampunk, so I'll probably go see it even though I expect it to thoroughly suck.

The next Pitch Black film, Chronicles of Riddick(should I see the first one?)

Ehhhhh... A couple of good scenes, but mostly crap.

he kinda sorta intends to fall into the cracks of doom cz that way no one else gets it - there's a bit in the book, in the gollum vs smeagol dialogues, where one of them says something (i completely forget what at the moment) which wd be of relevance in re: intentionality at that point

Yeah, they were playing around with that more than once! Maybe Barad-dur's secret power lies in the fact it's the biggest and most badass trailerpark home ever.

plus

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

oh, yes haha also: sauron's eye = activity out of a tex avery cartoon once everything goes wrong!

end SPOILERS

I liked the sense of scale and comparitive scale, so when the Rohirrim arrive at Minas Tirith you can see both that they have an enormous army and that they're complete fucked.

The dead are the Ents of this film. Much as they are in the book, in fairness.

I'm looking forward to the DVD, with more Saruman and Bruce Spence as the Voice of Sauron.

The ending was both quite long and much shorter than it could have been. It and the scenes outside Mount Doom do keep the sense of "normal folk don't always come back from war the same".

And it keeps what's probably my favourite last line in any book.

Heckle #1: I liked the look of disgust Theoden gives Aragorn when he left him alone with Arwen. I turned to my friend and whispered "Elf-fucker!". This was only improved by it turning out to be Elrond :)

Heckle #2: After Frodo says goodbye to Sam and turns to Pippin "Which one are you again?"

Yes!!! Actually Mordor = one giant Tex Avery wolf :

gate opening = jaw dropping
orkish hordes = tongue rolling out
the eye popping = well ditto
volcano eruption = grannie mallet action

I absolutely loved the movie; Jackson's still getting (let's say) no less than 70% of everything right (where even getting 50% right would be astonishing); I probably respect even more of the various elision/alteration decisions (even those I disagree with.)

(that said)

Denethor is a completely different fucking character; I guess they wanted to distinguish him more from Saruman and Gandalf (which is to miss the fucking point), but making him a petty pathetic dickhead idiot was just stupid, and I can't see what else it achieved (while sacrificing so much). Connected and similar is the baffling cut of all the palantir stuff. (Given what's left, I can't see why they even bothered.) Holdover criticism from TT: flying Nazgul steeds still seem like they'd be better as vulture-pteradactyl things than dragony things. Witch-king should, alas, be cooler and scarier. Tex Avery eye OTM. Apparent Watchers set-up with no payoff disappointing, all of Cirith Ungol a shade too cursory and not scary enough. The pacing/elastic distances thing is fucked-up (most glaring: for all the time wasted doing nothing or saying goodbye for the 20th time, the Captains of the West sure get to the Black Gate fast--same deal with emptying of Gorgoroth). Personally saddened by elision of Mouth of Sauron. Too much Sam, and almost no 'alpha' end to Frodo's arc (especially a shame at the end). Ultimately I suspect the weakest of the three.

(but still)

Minas Morgul: perfectperfectperfect!!!! Shelob's lair damn good. Cracks of Doom really really nice. Glimpse of Narya lovely. Eowyn, Eomer, Theoden, Merry, whole Rohirrim plot strand = awesome. Paths of the Dead take a little different, indeed a little Pirates of the Caribbean-y, but totally worked, totally great. Minas Tirith, mountains, hell all of Gondor fucking unbelievably gorgeous and OTM. Best movie for Gimli. Legolas 'set piece,' oliphaunts, Hoth tribute supercool. Fall of Witch-king, Barad-dur kick-ass. Pippin = best hobbit in show. Mortenson and esp. Serkis and McKellen terrific. Maybe too much battle-sequence-after-battle-sequence, but they all look and play soso right. Sososo much killer stuff going on in every frame, way more than I could catch the first time through; staggering regardless, FUCK ME for picking nits.

so

Back to the theater!

As I noted, I have not seen the third part of the film yet. I pray that I am yet proven
wrong!

Good Points:
1) Best battle scenes EVAH! ("I see your rock throwing catapults, and we'll raise you a trebuchet that can hurl a Winnebago!")
2) Oliphants and Dragonriders and Shelob, Oh My!
3) Set design is still excellent.
4) Same with costume and prop design.
5) Not as tear-jerkingly hammy as the first movie. It's all 3 1/2 hours of ass-kicking.

Bad Points:
1) No Christopher Lee at all.
2) Maudlin, overlong denouvement.

Let me avow up-front that I share the more recent, upstart belief in universities, democratic accountability, science and human improvability -- one that questions the fated persistence of "eternal" stupidities.

SHOCKAH!!!!!!!!

Also what's the deal with sleeping right on the edge of the cliff?

And I was really impatient with how drawn out the ending was. Some of that stuff should have been saved for the extended version.

Chronicles of Narnia being made into a film, not directed by Jackson, but being worked on by his Weta Workshop.

*************************************

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guesses as to Extended DVD inclusions:

1. The long slog through Mordor. Surely Sam and Frodo don't just discard that orc armour so quickly. I hope there's a section detailing their unwilling march with a troop of orcs as suspected deserters.

2. After Mordor falls, and the dying/wounded are gathered within the walls of Minas Tirith, I am hoping there will be a lengthy section in which those who require healing bond enough for Faramir and Eowyn to "connect".

3. Which will require a slower build up to Aragorn's coronation. In this theatrical version, his crowning seems almost perfunctory.

But as an overall observation, I don't think I've encountered a film with so many waves of emotional payoff breaking so regularly and so relentlessly during the last (what? 30? 40 minutes?) portion. I missed so much as I was trying to deal with the tear leakage and throat lumpage without looking like a complete dork (I don't do public crying too well). I mean, fuck. I now need to see this again, of course.

Quick summary after first impression.

Good Stuff:

Oliphaunts

Continuing Frodo/Sam/Gollum stuff handled fantastically, even up to Gollum's look as he fell into the lava.

Eowyn, Theoden and Merry vs Witch King.

Shelob was genuinely creepy and frightening.

Shagrat!

Staging of battles felt real, and as Andrew pointed out above, the scale was just right.

Bad Stuff:

The Arwen stuff was terribly integrated with anything else, and was at totally the wrong time to be a handy toilet break.

Minas Tirith's battle wasn't siegey enough. Over too quickly, not enough boiling tension.

Denethor is a nutter from the word go. Shaving off the two minutes or so required for a bit of palantir action to explain his otherwise barmy seeming actions was the second most false economy of the film

Too many endings. Missing out the scouring of the Shire, whilst a good idea in itself resulted in too many natural finishes piling up against each other.

Really, really, WTF, I can't believe you did it like that potentially great bit of cinema screwed up:

Corsair ships coming up from Pelargir. Why no sighting from Minas Tirith 'NOW we're fucked' turning to hurrah hurrah as banner of Gondor unfurled in lead ship?

The little speech from Gandalf to Pippin during the lull in the battle "turn to silvered glass ... a swift sunrise" sounded familiar because it's the description of what happens at the end of Frodo's last voyage over the sea.

Lyra still OTM about Pippin's song/Denethor's meal/Faramir's charge.

I do worry that because we got away lightly with the elves in the theatrical version that they're gonna be all over the extended version. Arwen's part was a rubbidge bit of shoehorning.

I really liked MORGUL VALE, especially the creepy green lighting and the hem hem ISSUING OF THE HORDES. Also the whacking grebt bit of the corruption of Gollum at the start = v creepy! Sad to see no mention of the yellow face.

What Ricardo said about the Corsairs AND Denethor but they might might be able to recover this in the extended.

Boo to elves! Also I was retroactively annoyed at the Elves fighting at Helms Deep in TTT. If they fought then then why didn't they come and fight again in Gondor AND why didn't anybody notice, esp the fighters from Rohan! It would have made much more sense if they hadn't fought AT ALL grr argh.

Who else thought Frodo was looking like Marilyn Manson after he got all webbed up?

1. There's a cut-out plot where Eowyn meets Faramir as he's recovering in the Houses of Healing (=the hospital) and they fall for each other. Which they sort of hint at in the film (what with the clearly erotically-charged standing next to each other that they're doing at the end).

A smart friend of mine points out that because they don't resolve Saruman one way or the other, he is basically the only serious power left in Middle-Earth at the end of the film.

x-post Wormtongue is the black-haired wizard that was kinda "handling" Theodren pre-Gandalf-freeing-his-mind.

ROSIE COTTON = GEORGE DAWES!

well Jackson would deny that vehemently - and is it right to just read sexuality into these things. can't two men (or in this case hobbits, who are not men thus different) just say they love each other and be charmed by each other's astonishing displays of courage, honour, loyalty, trust and generosity without it being read as some hobbo-erotic thang?

Still great, of course, still thinking about it, already waiting a bit impatiently to seeing it with my family on the 25th. Watching all three movies in a row was instructive because it actually showed to me how each movie was different for all that it was telling a part of a larger story. In part this was because of the need to be able to give each section a proper general sense of a smaller story and ending, I think, but there were other differences and choices as well -- a lot of it comes down to Howard Shore's music, I think. It may seem strange, but he found some extremely sharp themes and worked them very, very well, to astonishing effect.

My bets for the extended edition, besides the known Saruman, Mouth of Sauron and Houses of Healing sequences, include the Gandalf/Witchking confrontation (shown in the preview), quite possibly Denethor's palantir, an extended section showing the time spent for Frodo/Sam to get to Mount Doom across Mordor matching Aragorn's march to the Black Gate as taking some days for both of them.

Some of the technical points still leave me so amazed...I'm thinking in particular of the part where you can see Faramir and his men about to start their doomed attack on Osgiliath. Behind the line of horsemen in the distance, you can see Minas Tirith looming up, shimmering in the heat of the day. It's a subtle but crucial touch. Then there's the sudden second of silence before Minas Morgul sends out the streaming signal of pale light, or how the flames in Mt. Doom suddenly pulls away to reveal Frodo standing over the abyss.

Having seen all the films now, I think about how in my head I always shoot a movie of LOTR every time I read it, much like I do with any fictional narrative I read. I think of angles, lighting, sometimes even music. Peter Jackson and crew made something with visions I never thought of and approaches I couldn't have conceived because I was always filming an unedited version in head -- it was worth every edit, reduction or simplification, every one.

Favourite moments include: the beacons being lit (but I didn't wholly understand that) / Gandalf knocking down Denethor and organizing the defence of Minas Tirith / the Rohirrim forming their lines and readying to attack the orcs, and indeed doing so / the subsequent scene with dismaying elephants attacking the heroic Rohirrim / the fightback vs the elephants / Aragorn and co getting off their boat, esp. the surprise factor cos we were meant to think they were pirates; includes Legolas on the elephant and his encounter with Gimli when he gets down / Eowyn fighting the ringwraith.

(I saw the first two films for the first time on Saturday.. does this make me uncool?)

Wasn't it just to summon assistance from the other armies?

I was pleased that we didn't get many elves especially because MAKING THEM GO TO ROHAN MADE NO SENSE and if they came to GONDOR as well that would just be silly but it's also silly they don't arhgrhrhrh WHY DID YOU DO IT JACKSON WHY WHY WHYY?

Except for Denethor. Have seen twice now and he's just WRONGWRONGWRONG, just this complete ass, and the alteration adds nothing. Even the effective-nevertheless doomed sortie/Pippin sings scene gets ruined; the steward and lord of Gondor, "in whom the blood of Westernesse runs nearly true," who "looked more a mighty wizard" than Gandalf, who retook Osgiliath in the first place WOULD NOT DROOL GOO ALL OVER HIS CHIN!!! He WOULD NOT GET SLAPPED AROUND, EVEN BY GANDALF!!!

And his coat is gay. And his running 200 yards while on fire is fucking supergay too. (I don't see how they're going to incorporate the palantir into the pyre scene later, either.) I don't think it's an accident that this, the grossest case of rewriting in Jackson's trilogy, is also the most problematic (I think it beats the Elf problem--am I forgetting anything else?).

My favorite latent contradiction born of cut-to-the-chase reduction so far:

Gandalf: Frodo has passed beyond my sight.
Somebody Else: Oh yeah?
Gandalf: That's right. And there are 10,000 orcs between him and Mount Doom.
Somebody Else: But I thought you said he'd passed beyond--

then again, the slow stuff was even slower

Which is why the second Shelob fight was SO EFFECTIVE when it sinks in that (even consciously knowing it from the books) that there is no one to swoop in behind Sam and save him, that the quest hinges on him defeating this giant fucking spider.

Elves? Elves are RUB!

(* especially if its a male elf wearing the gown.)

I'm going to hide behind the sofa before typing this next bit, because you're going to throw stuff at me, but I thought the beacons were a bit rubbish. It looked like they'd sat the work experience kid down at a computer and said "here, click on this, then on this mountain top and see how it makes a fire? Now do that on every other mountain top. It should only take you half an hour, then you can do this pile of photocopying". Or something. Maybe, having read all your spoilers before seeing the film, my expectations were too high.

Shelob was very scary, even more so because I knew what was coming. I gave Ally a dead arm from squeezing. And the bit that brought me closest to tears (nb. I don't cry easily) was "I can't carry it for you, but I can carry YOU". Lovely Sam. But when he got back to the Shire and was living with Rosie, I thought his garden was a bit of a mess and a disgrace to hobbitkind, especially considering its special fertilizer.

it's a thankless part,
all that suffering, gazing,
heroic sadness

but I don't buy him
in this one, his long soul-takes
showed no soul AT ALL

I also think Bob Hoskins should have been in it somehow.

Yeah, well, you're a punk. As is everyone who criticizes. (I kid, of course.)

Denethor's added scene in The Two Towers helps flesh out his collapse in ROTK more but I think it will be down to the extended version to really get it all in perspective, as will be the case with a number of other sequences.

In a larger sense, the problem Jackson and company had (but not a problem they were unaware of, I think) is that anything changed with later impact to the story had to be addressed somehow and that resulted in a forced solution at point -- combined with the editing crunch of the theatrical version, things had to give here and there. I don't think it broke the story at all, though -- I say this thanks to the viewing evidence of my dad and my sister, both of whom are emphatically not Tolkien fans or readers and who have only seen the previous films one time each on the previous Christmases. They both enjoyed ROTK as it stood.

(Now seen it four times myself. Hee hee hee. At least once more in the theaters for me...and probably more. Meanwhile, Jesus H., that's a lot of cash made. They're already almost at half a billion worldwide.)

the comical aspect of the opening riverfolk scene was okay, but andy serkis' voice in the opening as smeagol was over the top, i wish he could've talked more "riverfolk-ish" like deagol. that voice was (as i understood) cultivated over the 600 years of exile that he spent in the lonely mountain.

i think christopher lee's gripes of being cut (part. saruman holed up in the orthanc with grima) are completely legitimate. i thought closure with saruman (at least knowing beforehand that the scouring had been scrapped) would be more crucial to the plot than at least one of the false endings.

the palantir: cheap plot device used as is, might as well just saved those scenes for the extended cut.

i thought the shots of minas tirith (and minas morgul) were muchly improved over the brief treatments we get of them in the first film.

the one-dimensional "batty" treatment of denethor (as noted above) was too simple and convenient (esp. in contrast of the treatment of Faramir in the T2T). mark s otm "gandalf's whipping boy"... a disservice to tolkien's character.

The shots of the boy (Eldarion?) seen in Arwen's vision kind of bugged me.

elrond informing aragorn of arwen's sickness when delivering anduril reforged from the shards of narsil at dunharrow: cheap plot device, unneccesary.

the last scene of eowyn and aragorn I thought showed arrogance on the part of aragorn. eowyn came to defend her people and to defy "life in a cage", "the honor of her people", etc. yet he thinks she's come along solely for him.

felicity otm wrt: the dead looking corny (stevem noted the strong similarity to pirates of the carribean). compared to the way the ringwraiths looked to frodo in the shadowworld on weathertop, i thought this was unfair treatment to the look/appearance/convenience of the dead (esp. the convenience of the black ships as well! this was a huge climax/matter of strategy in the book!!! only to be treated like an afterthought).

the pig battering ram looked kind of silly too.

after frodo gets stung by shelob, the awkward pause while he froths is a bit much (a harkening back to earlier p.jackson?). also, i thought shelob got it good from sam, the film version seemed more of a taming than a defeat.

the speed of which frodo and sam get to mount doom from this point forward:

+ the convenience of the orcs killing themselves... you'd think that the last orcs standing after several hundred have been battling would put up a little more challenge than just to be tossed aside by sam
+ the ease of their frodo/sam's entry to mordor and journey across the gorgoroth
+ the ease at which sauron is distracted at the gates of mordor once his ring was in his gaze was too easy...
+ all ofthe above took monumentally longer in the book (i think ned says something similar upthread).

all of mount doom (the climax of the whole trilogy!) was a real let down. i thought sean astin and elijah wood's acting was very poor, esp. in comparison to the strength of their acting in some of the earlier films. in particular the "strawberries in cream" speech sam gives at the foot of mt. doom rang esp. hollow and worthy of a product placement ad/flashforward for readi-whip or something.

the blossoming of the tree in the courtyard of minas tirith i thought would figure larger symbolically, rather than providing party confetti.

a lot of the cgi looks better in the dark scenes (gollum, the eagle(s), etc.) the blue-screening i don't think will age well as technology improves, it already looks a little dated and obvious in certain scenes.

okay i'm done. i liked a lot of the cinematic cut of ROTK, but i still think the first was the best.

Uh, it was a wolf.

but tell me this doesn't look the slightest porcine:

http://www.quintessentialwebsites.com/lordoftherings/movieshots_rotk/pv_grond_circle.jpg

i'm not sure it's a weight gain with aragorn (i think more obvious is sean astin's yo-yo weight during the pick up scenes now that the directors/writers pointed them out) but rather, his wig is combed rather than scraggily and he has grown a full beard rather than sporting the scruffy stubble look which he had all through the first 2.85 films.

I suppose a red 'x' could be a pig kiss in a way. ;-)

I thought the battering ram was kind of scary, and almost cried during the strawberries-and-cream speech. Honestly.

:-) So did Jackson when they were filming it. You are in fine company.

The whole Denethor's Pyre thing was woefully anvil-handed. Even aside from that, THAT LANDING STRIP THING ON TOP OF MINAS TIRITH WAS FAR TOO LONG FOR A BURNING LUNATIC TO RUN ALONG AND JUMP OFF. It cut to a battle scene straight afterwards and I sort of expected him to hi-lariously squash an orc in the background ala the 'K' from the Kwik-E-Mart in the Simpsons.

I think Viggo Mortenson and a lot of the NZ actors forgot what their accents were supposed to sound like over the course of the three films. Mortenson was increasingly plummy-English having sounded Irish in Bree. Legolas again hardly got any lines that weren't summarising things that were already very obvious ('a DIVERSION!') - is this because Orlando Bloom can't actually act or some shit? Shame, he looked good in his big sleeved fop-gown at the end and the oliphaunt mauling was great.

The Gollum prologue was a bit dumb to start with but it was good when he got all haggard and mental. Not sure the gradual link between the SerkisHobbit and the CGI Gollum was entirely convincing though. But still, the man has gusto. And he was Martin Hannett.

Cutting out the Nazgul-Gandalf talkoff in Minas Tirith seemed a bit stupid especially when they'd already had the Witch King say he was going to fuck him up. This added to the overall impression of the Nine being total fucking pussies. They also set up that pink, porcine orc with the squashed face to be the guy everyone REALLY WANTED TO SEE GET KILLED and then didn't show him die. This is perhaps a really obtuse ploy to boost sales of the extended edition.

(Is the Mouth Of Sauron thing definitely in the extended one? In the vidyer game Aragorn just cuts him up instead of out-talking him.)

The latter.

Actually, I found in my reviewings a nice subtle touch -- the final flashback scene has protoGollum closing his eyes and then they *very* slightly CGI them so that way when reopened they are now larger and much more like Gollum's in the final state.

But still, the man has gusto. And he was Martin Hannett.

Damn straight. My sister, who saw and liked 24 Hour Party People, was very surprised when I pointed out it was the same actor!

Cutting out the Nazgul-Gandalf talkoff in Minas Tirith seemed a bit stupid especially when they'd already had the Witch King say he was going to fuck him up. This added to the overall impression of the Nine being total fucking pussies.

In the sequence as filmed, the Witchking actually defeats Gandalf by shattering his staff (this is why Gandalf is shown without his staff later on). Presumably that scene will be restored, it's too iconic not to be reincluded.

They also set up that pink, porcine orc with the squashed face to be the guy everyone REALLY WANTED TO SEE GET KILLED and then didn't show him die. This is perhaps a really obtuse ploy to boost sales of the extended edition.

I'm not so cynical...but you're correct that Gothmog (ze character's name) is obviously the 'goddamn SOMEBODY kill him bloodily!' character. I'm guessing Eomer is who offs him in the EE if that is shown.

Is the Mouth Of Sauron thing definitely in the extended one?

I'm almost positive. One of the tie-in books showed the character's helmet -- no eyeholes, only shows his mouth, which is appropriate. It's hinted in said book that Aragorn also slices him up as per the video game result.

There was a scene in the extended edition of the second one that was really effective, I thought, where Eowyn is giving him some soup and he lets slip that he's actually like 80s years old (I vaguely remember this being right out of the book?). It was funny too, they should have kept it.

this is kind of silly. the article writer is outraged that jackson's left an hour out, but really, the movie would be 4 1/2 hours long otherwise! it's obvious why he had to cut stuff out!

I'm not arguing with you there! The only way they could have put something out like that would be to include an intermission, and these days that would not fly (doesn't maximize profit, see).

but also, i think a 4 1/2 hour cut would perhaps be best for home viewing, my ass was pretty numb by the end!

http://www.rjh.weber.k12.ut.us/new%20razor1.JPG

vs.

http://warofthering.net/images/newsimages/grond.jpg

if that doesn't work then:
http://warofthering.net/images/newsimages/grond.jpg

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:bMXaiPDUHnAC:warofthering.net/images/newsimages/grond.jpg

or

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:bMXaiPDUHnAC:warofthering.net/images/newsimages/grond.jpg

I was so scared when Frodo and Sam were cowering on the rock surrounded by lava and the screen went white and it seemed like it was the end. I like how they handled the mood of the final ending.

(I also nicked TFOTR off my brother (in book form) and am contemplating whether to actually try to read it. If I do, I feel I'll have betrayed a part of my soul. Evil ring and your seductive charms, damn you!)

i forgot to mention the little gasps that echoed around the cinema when this happened, on both occasions that i saw it - awesome.

I love the non-score musical moments in these films: Merry and Pippin singing and dancing on the table, Pippin singing to Denethor, Eowyn singing at Theodred's funeral (in the extended ed Two Towers). Of course, I also love the score, especially Howard Shore's thorough constant reinterpretations of the hobbit theme to match their circumstances.

You merely seek to justify a way to smoke weed. Nicely done!

It wasn't the exact quote, but he talked about loving the films (fine enough) and then made some sort of half-assed 'reminds me of my own struggles' followup. I'm so glad I only read my news these days, I can't imagine what hearing that would have made me do.

The seventies Medved is long, long gone.

He and his brother Harry helped codify bad movie love as an art form in the seventies with their (very funny if often sophomorically so) books The 50 Worst Films of All Time, The Golden Turkey Awards (and its later sequel) and The Hollywood Hall of Shame, which specifically looked at big budget bombs. To give you an idea of their impact, a poll in 50 Worst was reported and tallied up in Golden Turkey and the winner was Plan 9 From Outer Space, which at the time was the first real codification of that film and Wood himself as the ne plus ultra of bad movies. To a large extent, the cult started right there. There's next to nothing in the books which would indicate that Medved would first turn into a boring flack and then a self-righteous hard-ass conservative (and apparently his brother Harry has followed suit, alas). A real loss to populist film mania for its own sake.

Long and short of it

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040114/capt.mil10501141644.italy_men_fashion_mil105.jpg

Italian fashion label Etro unveiled its own little and large show in Milan yesterday as two hirsute models hit the catwalk to show off its latest collection.

Sporting checked suits, the models looked more like they had stepped off the set of a Lord of the Rings film than the glamour fashion houses of Milan.

The Etro label was created in the 1960s and is characterized by a Paisley motif, which is its hallmark.

x-post

Hurrah! (Well, you have to start somewhere.) I'm more just surprised at the existence of a piece which functions as an attempt to fight a rear-guard action in the name of Edmund Wilson and modernism -- did literature stop for this guy in 1940 or something?

Another magnificent achievement, which I would like to see again (in a more comfortable environment than the local multiplex - so roll on the DVD!)

Visuals: I had thought before that the Elves at Helms Deep were reminiscent of the fallen angels in Burne Jones' The Fall Of Lucifer , & I was struck by the same similarity as Faramir led his troops back to their doom at Osgiliath down the twisting street of Minas Tirith.

Then again, the Grey Havens are a dead ringer for any of a dozen of Turner's seaports (colour/light), take Dido Building Carthage as an example, with the final shot of the ship melting into the light even having echoes of Ulysses Deriding Polyphemus

Gripes: the second seeing confirmed to me the crassness of juxtaposing barmy old Denethor's "blood" (from a tomato?? wtf) stained lips & chin with those of the Orcs occupying Osgiliath who have presumably been feasting on a few Gondorian soldiers. I wish there had been some exposition of the reason WHY he had been driven bonkers.

I dislike the introduction of Frodo's rejection of Sam on the stairway up Cirith Ungol for the same reasons that I find the mistrust between Rohan & Gondor irksome - it doesn't ring true with my memory of the book.

Shelob, for some reason looked more male than female to me. I missed the dragging belly, but most of all I couldn't see any eyes on the beast! which I remember as being its central feature, expressing all the creature's emotions. It also seemed a little dangerous using the light of Eärendil to ward off a descendant of Ungoliant, but I checked that chapter & if it is an inconsistency it is paralled in the book.

The compression of all the action sequences contrasted unfavourably with the too long drawn out Hobbit-hugging farewell shots.

Maybe my seat was too uncomfortable but I find the hobbit love scene music reminiscent of the old Hovis ad theme which makes me expect them to break out into a Yorkshire accent at any time.

That enough bollocks from me.

When's The Hobbit coming out?

Yep, still brilliant. Now, the extended version. *sets some part of brain to somehow wait patiently for seven months*

I BLAME GORGE LUCAZ

::waiting anxiously for the multi-hour orgy to come when all three extended editions are in my hot hands::

I haven't watched this properly yet, just a skim through the extended or new chapters. Favourite part so far: Gimli tiptoeing delicately across the floor of skulls in the Dwimorberg.

Voila:

The thread for the _Return of the King_ extended DVD

Shocking fans who had assumed that director Peter Jackson, who was responsible for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, would direct The Hobbit -- a kind of prequel to those films -- and another Lord of the Rings epic, Jackson said on theonering.net website Sunday that he had been advised by New Line that the studio "would no longer be requiring our services on The Hobbit ...[and] was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker." Jackson said that the studio cited the ongoing lawsuit that Jackson filed against New Line in June of 2005, charging that the studio had committed fraud in reporting the revenue for 2001's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, which allegedly resulted in Jackson being underpaid millions of dollars. If the notice from New Line was a ploy to induce Jackson to drop or settle the lawsuit -- as Jackson seems to suggest in his message to "Ringers" -- it apparently failed to achieve its objective. In the message, Jackson said that he was "very sorry our involvement with The Hobbit has been ended in this way. ... This outcome is not what we anticipated or wanted, but neither do we see any positive value in bitterness and rancor. We now have no choice but to let the idea of a film of The Hobbit go and move forward with other projects."

You say that now, but wait until McG is attached.

XPOST DAMMIT

xpost re Shyamalan

Harvey Fierstein as the voice of Smaug.

So obviously Ahmed Best would have to take over.

Only if he does the theme song.

Joe: there's a hypergeeky answer to that even I'm not going to get into, for once.

In one of the DVD commentaries for Fellowship for that scene where Bilbo first finds the ring, it is explained that Ian Holm was wearing something which literally was pulling his skin smooth so he could seem younger in the context of the storyline.

SHYAMALAN:"Stop complaining Ian, you only have to wear this 16 hours a day."[throws money at Ian Holm]

Problem solved.

I got those new money-soaking editions through a couple of Amazon deals so I only had to pay 6 bucks for each, and basically just for the behind the scenes documentary stuff, which is pretty cool (if you're me). Haven't actually seen the movie disc on each.

dvd's expressly disclaim that the bonus material is unrated

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Gollum3.jpg

I had a dream once that Peter Gabriel's RAEL character looked like this Gollum, so I can't hear "Carpet Crawlers" w/out seeing this hissing cavedweller.

AND THE RIIIIIIIIING GOES DOOOOOOWWWWWWN TO MOR-OR-ORDOR

AND THE RIIIIIIIIING GOES DOOOOOOWWWWWWN TO MOR-OR-ORDOR

Nickalicious I love you.

I'd never heard of it before this story came up, anyone read it?

20 years!

We had thoughts on the podcast!

https://www.megaphonic.fm/bythebywater/57

(Settle it, it's about two hours long...)

Settle in rather, but you could settle it too.

im watching them again- some extended for the first time- an hour a week with neighbours

surprisingly they are now separate enough in my mind again from the books that the sharpness of my irritation with some of the decisions has eased-

Healthy approach, that.

my amazing idea: a sequel series featuring hobbits trying to escape from revived sauron's revived nazgul but this time they're after that giant ass key that unlocked mordor.

doing our yearly watch of these, and my kid has been consulting this excellent atlas by Karen Wynn Fonstad which he's found totally fascinating and helpful. anyway, going thru ROTK and some of the flaws are more evident, but they're hardly an issue for me since it's such a strong, epic finish. but the thing i perhaps newly noticed is some of the slight disconnect between settings within the final battle (maybe it's a result of this being the extended cut and some awkwardness remains?), Gandalf and Pippin running around and being waylaid by the Witch-King, who then flies off to see what's up just before the Rohirrim charge. And the absolutely game-changing epic charge is never acknowledged from within the walls, even as just a confidence boost to the troops in Minas Tirith. it might as well be happening in another battle entirely. there's a bit of editing awkwardness around Eowyn after she slays the Witch-King, her crawling around looking for Merry and chased by that Orc chieftain, then bidding adieu to Theoden, then being found unconscious by Eomer. It's certain things that just ever so slightly undercut the final stretch of the battle, plus the fearsomeness of the dead army being undercut by the comical way in which they're depicted effortlessly dispatching the remaining legions of Mordor. but it's not crippling, i think just as much as the Rohan aspect of The Two Towers made it a really rich film, the Rohan storyline concluding on this field of battle is what absolutely makes it succeed. The storylines for Theoden and Eowyn are so truly well done, even if i really do wish they had preserved Tolkien's absolutely heartstopping dialogue in the latter's moment of heroism, perhaps shifting around slightly for more maximum cinematic impact...

'Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!'

A cold voice answered: 'Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye.'

A sword rang as it was drawn. 'Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.'

'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'

Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed.... 'But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.'

thou fool

whomst is the fool now foul dwimmerlaik

this is the dialogue in the film

EOWYN: I will kill you if you touch him.

WITCH-KING: Do not come between
the Nazgul and his prey.

(break for army of the dead showing up at the river w/Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli)

WITCH-KING: You fool.
No man can kill me.
Die now.

EOWYN: I am no man.

considering how well they preserved much of the excellent dialogue in other areas, it's disappointing they didn't do the same here. that's a moment that deserved a bit more buildup and genuine fear and would have resulted in a better payoff (again, it would have to be altered slightly bc one couldn't hide Eowyn's identity without creating some type of secondary character as a red herring, but that would take up a lot of time.)

That scene in the animated Return of the King (1980) is more faithful to the book, including using that dialogue. It seemed so heavy on top of the death of Theoden when I first saw it as a kid age 8 or 9.

i just watched that scene for the first time last night, it was a bit less fearful maybe due to the Witch-King sounding more like Cobra Commander crossed with the Knights Who Say "Ni", but Eowyn as depicted in that was thoroughly unshakable.

Yeah the Rankin-Bass films are…uneven but have moments.

The Fonstad atlas has been a standby for me for four decades now.

Yeah, I should have added that it was not as heavy watching it now at 51 but I was terrified of the witch-king as a kid. He had a crown without a head! Terryifying!

"I AM NO MAN" works as a more iconic moment than the wordy banter imo

thou fool!

'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'

See, at this point he's just asking to get utterly hindered.

I think I just wanted her to say "foul dwimmerlaik" and WK to get in some threats about the lidless eye and the house of pain. "I am no man" works vv well though and really vv few complaints about what was done beyond feeling it could have been drawn out a bit. if Denethor can have a doomy brooding emo monologue en route to the murder/suicide pyre they could have given WK a couple more choice lines to chill the bone. However every time I watch it, it never ceases to be a wholly thrilling sequence (from the charge to Theoden's passing). And I always forget that there's still an hour and a half remaining from the moment Gandalf walks across the battlefield, surveying the horror left behind.

Needless to say we've talked about this film (and the Rankin-Basses) on the podcast. Another thing that Rankin-Bass does that Jackson didn't was have the proper faceoff between the Lord of the Nazgul and Gandalf at the ruined gate right before the Rohirrim arrive -- the Jackson version was in the extended cut and didn't have anywhere as much impact as the book, due to changing when and where it happened.

I think also the impact of that moment in the Jackson film is a bit lessened for me when you stop to think and wonder where the witch-king went between going to see what was up with that horn and finally showing up on the battlefield. Far be it for me to question his military strategy but idk pal, maybe don't take the long way around Minas Tirith.

He had to call HQ for tips. (Don't ask me how. I might be lying.)

"I AM NO MAN" works as a more iconic moment than the wordy banter imo

― assert (matttkkkk), Monday, 10 June 2024 01:17 (six hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

its up there with the girlboss sequence in the avengers fingersnapemoji fingersnapemoji

i think it might be on cringe par if Galadriel and a revitalized Arwen had materialized behind Eowyn, with Rosie from the Shire striding in from another direction and maybe the rediscovered Ent-Wives popping up carrying boulders.

I AM NO MAN. I AM IRONMAN!
snaps fingers

"I AM NO MAN" works as a more iconic moment than the wordy banter imo

― assert (matttkkkk), Sunday, June 9, 2024 9:17 PM

otm

Needless to say we've talked about this film (and the Rankin-Basses) on the podcast. Another thing that Rankin-Bass does that Jackson didn't was have the proper faceoff between the Lord of the Nazgul and Gandalf at the ruined gate right before the Rohirrim arrive -- the Jackson version was in the extended cut and didn't have anywhere as much impact as the book, due to changing when and where it happened.

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, June 9, 2024

It made sense to cut it given how it's directed. The Witch King is about to strike, the horns blow, and he turns around and goes, "Uh, brb, I left the oven on" and flies away.

and due to his lack of intervention w/the Rohan charge, that's apparently what he went off to do.

the wordy banter could have really worked, if directed and staged well. just to return some supernatural menace to the Nazgul. and you could have still ended on the same verbal coup de grâce from Eowyn. but it's all good, she took down that Witch-King hard, damn.

My preferred version is the one in Tolkien's third manuscript, reprinted in one of the oversized folio editions, but I admit it might work better on the page than on the screen:

'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'

Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed.... 'But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.'

The winged creature screamed at her, but then the Ringwraith was silent, as if in sudden doubt. Eowyn, daughter of Théodwyn, had torn him open. His guts had fallen out.

He was naked to the Lidless Eye, and his terror was extreme.