Lord of the Rings fillum

http://freeside.elte.hu/levlap/images/band2.jpg

Levellers

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0120737/1

Anyway, thanks for the heads-up, Alan -- got my tickets for the wide- release opening night here next Wednesday. I'm starting to get fired up!

The Sam/Frodo thing -- I'm not sure Tolkien knew himself was he was getting into with that! He valued male friendship highly, but would have been deeply perturbed at the homoerotic associations.

Frodo and Sam smile, look into each other's eyes and seem like they're about to make out. Astounding!

----------

Mmm, yeah I'm starting to remember that scene. Come to think of it it's all kinda obvious. There's hardly any women in the books and the ones that make an appearance are untouchable mother figures. You've got one character obsessed with his axe and a host of characters obsessing over a ring. Buncha poofs I tell ya!

Though I seem to have forgotten all about Tom Bombadil. He is the Jar Jar of Middle Earth right?

Ah, why should I waste my breath. You'd go and see Walking With Beasts: The Movie.

Most of my favourite films (to the extent that I have favourite films) combine strong visuals with an intriguing narrative. Character and suchlike bother me less, a strong script is a winner. Clearly LOTR will have a fairly plodding narrative, broadbrush characters and the script is likely to be hampered by archaisms. So thats why I'm pinning my hopes on enjoying the visuals.

Speaking as a guy that all but avoided Thee Trilogy (since I knew enough about it from my friends naming their computers Isengard & swapping "how cool is Strider / Legolas kicks ass" stories back in the day), I thought the flick (on every level) succeeded on every front. The plot isn't turgid @ all - exposition amounts to "we have to do this", and then they do it (with a few opportune places to catch one's breath). And, yes, Tom, it looks amazing, so you'll be happy. ;)

And what's with all the trainspotters noting these vague homoerotic rumblings between Sam & Frodo? Fuck, hobbits are friendly, jovial creatures with big eyes - even when they're frightened, they have the Manga come-on face working in fulleffect. I think noticing this li'l foible says much more about the people noting it than the characters, you sillies.

And the less said about BASHKI, the better.

And, Anthony, dear, perhaps you should reacquaint yourself w/ Heavenly Creatures.

There are plenty of potential hints in the original story itself, though it's certainly a matter of interpretation. Think of it this way -- Tolkien himself was familiar with/relied on a world of close, very close, friendships with other men, whether fellow soldiers or scholars. He saw nothing wrong with it at all, with his own particular prism of experience via Catholicism seeing it as an example of love for one's fellow men. But without that approach needing to be known or used as the way to read the story, what becomes apparent throughout the book is how closely Frodo and Sam regard each other, and the word 'love' is used more than once. I think Tolkien would have choked with indignation at the thought of Frodo/Sam slash fiction and all, but hey...

That's a good movie and all, but he should watch Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles. I really hope all the Peter Jackson hype will bring about a Meet the Feebles dvd release.

I promised myself I will not see LOTR until I finish my paper, so the only trolls I will be seeing for the next few days are shitehawks on ILM.

Oh GOD yes.

"You mean they discriminate against Scots?"

"No! They just don't like assholes in the clubhouse!"

Going for teh visuals is like listening to music solely for the production values.

Can we have some grammar police in this bitch cracking the whip when us anal-retentive writerly types drop the ball? I could use a good horsewhippin'.

there were many people in ren faire garb at the (midnight) showing i went to.

Man! *pouts* There's no way they could make it short without killing it entirely, though -- refer to Bakshi's take.

there were many people in ren faire garb at the (midnight) showing i went to.

Oh *GOD*, how horrible. There better not be any nonsense like that today (but I fear I'll be out of luck).

"The director of the first Lord Of The Rings film is furious with film-maker Peter Jackson for not talking with him before his Fellowship Of The Ring remake. Ralph Bakshi, who directed the animated Lord Of The Rings in 1978, is irate that neither Jackson, nor anyone else who worked on the new three-film series, thought to consult him about the production. Bakshi fumes, "For a start, the guys doing the picture really don't have the authority to - my contract reads that I have all sequel rights - but I think I'll let it go. And second, none of them have spoken to me, and I find that ungentlemanly. I think Jackson is a good director, but leaves a lot to be desired as a gentleman." The 63-year-old Bakshi, who has met with little success and significant critical drubbings in the past decade, may have some words about Sam Raimi next year as he also produced and directed the animated Spider-Man TV series in the late 1960s."

I don't care if he had some had in the super terrific Spidey cartoons, the utter CRAP that was LotR (& the following flix he made) earns him a place in ... well, it just irks me, s'all.

Actually do we have a better thread for this?

Did they give you breaks to go to the toilet / eat?

the credits were ten minutes and there was a ten minute interval between screenings. Plus there was a rambling, unrehearsed and fairly boring intro to each film by Peter Jackson at the start of each film. I somehow managed to miss the start of Two Towers as I was getting a coffee, which was a shame as I feel like I missed some sort of important introduction to Gollum or something. When I walked in, he was already capering around and alternately moaning/grovelling/scheming, so it felt like he'd been introduced a little quickly.

I was surprised to find that it was only the Two Towers that let my attention slip. It sagged quite badly in parts. The Ents especially. I'd grown to really enjoy any time Merry and Pippin were on hand to provide a bit of light relief in the first film, but here they spend most of their times trying to stay awake while Treebeard bangs on about god-knows-what because I couldn't make out what he was saying.

Meanwhile I just didn't feel terribly involved in the Helm's Deep battle, whereas the Minas Tirith one in RotK put me unmistakably right in the action. The best bits of that film, for me, are all about Gollum (and there wasn't as much of him as I originally remembered), and the bit with Theoden and Wormtongue.

I haven't watched the theatrical versions in a loooong time, but I gather the current consensus is something like:

Fellowship of the Ring: added scenes and lore are nice, but the theatrical is much tighter, so a draw.
Two Towers: benefits the most from extended scenes/lore
Return of the King: theatrical is better

The challenge for me is that the extra footage added to each film is high quality, regardless, and never conspicuous in its inclusion. When I watch the extended there are no scenes that jump out at me as being lower quality or out of place or somehow unfinished, they all feel like they fit (even if/when they fuck up the flow), and since I can't immediately point to something I would once again excise that to me more or less confirms that the extra scenes all worthwhile. The one somewhat persuasive exception I've heard has been the confrontation between Aragorn and the ghost kings (whatever they are called; I'm a nerd, but not *that* much of a nerd), which arguably steps on what might have been a surprise during the final battle.

I'd say the Saruman-Fellowship extra scene in ROTK suffers from repetitiveness and redudancy.

However, all the stuff added to Denethor gives his descent into madness more texture.

I have been watching all three in their extended versions for as long as I can remember. I don't know anything about the differences between versions.

I would love to watch a theatrical triple-feature like dog latin did. However, I just binged the whole thing about a month ago. And I did check my local listings, but all the theaters around here are closed for winter weather anyway.

I have been watching all three in their extended versions for as long as I can remember. I don't know anything about the differences between versions.

It's wild, because the extra footage iirc adds close to three hours across the three films, which is a lot, but if you asked me now to identify the added footage, let alone what should be cut, at best I'd suggest a few minutes here and there, not hours.

The Mouth of Sauron bit from the extended TRotK is genuinely unhinged, I wish it had gone on for longer.

General consensus, even from Jackson himself, is that the theatrical cuts are the best cuts and the extended ones are "for the fans" but night slow the action for more casual viewers

It was Two Towers that dragged for me. It had been long enough since last viewing that I honestly didn't know which bits were original cut and which were extended.

I cannot imagine choosing the theatrical cut of fotr ever again

Mouth of Sauron bit was great, although it wasn't clear to me at the time that it was the mouth of Sauron - just thought it was an urukhai in a fancy helmet

When we talked about the films for the podcast, we specifically rewatched the theatrical versions, to give us a sense of what it was like when we first encountered each of the films. We definitely collectively fall in the grouping of Fellowship = best of the films, no notes, TTT = choppy, and Helm's Deep really drags for us now, ROTK = sticks the landing in spite of it all. If you want to hear us talk about it all:

https://megaphonic.fm/bythebywater/33

https://megaphonic.fm/bythebywater/45

https://megaphonic.fm/bythebywater/57

Thanks to being near an Alamo I've seen the extended versions theatrically a few times now over the years, it's always a treat. I saw one of the limited opening night screenings back in 2003 for ROTK where they screened the first two films in the extended version before the midnight premiere -- hell of an experience, wouldn't trade it for the world.

So wait, you guys thought Helm's Deep still dragged in the theatrical version? Interesting. Maybe dumb question, since I'm not well versed in the books, but do you think it drags *because* it is a battle/action sequence, which means less no lore and drawn-from-the-books character beats? How long is the sequence (as such) in the novel?

I prefer the Helm's Deep battle to the one in ROTK.

Funnily enough our latest episode (out next week) is on warriors as such in Tolkien, and we kinda collectively noted that he doesn't really write big battles like a lot of writers would. The Helm's Deep episode in the book is comparatively swift -- it's important and detailed, but it essentially happens over the course of a chapter; more time is spent in the aftermath and going to Isengard and the fallout from that. Jackson, meantime, is on record as saying that the inspiration for the film Helm's Deep was in large part the film Zulu -- which itself is, let's say, a bit of a CHOICE these days -- and clearly thought of it as the big crescendo for the second film above all else.

(This gets into larger points about how by making Aragorn's story more central in the films undercuts what the book itself is doing, but that would take a while to unpack!)

I prefer the Helm's Deep battle to the one in ROTK.

You freak oh wait. (There's a lot to like about both in and of themselves.)

Two Towers a bit of a slog in writing too imo - of course the Frodo/Sam/Gollum side has to feel endless and opressive, but sometimes that spreads from the characters as well...

Fellowship = best of the films, no notes, TTT = choppy, and Helm's Deep really drags for us now, ROTK = sticks the landing in spite of it all.

Hard agree with this. In my mind ROTK was the weaker link, but I loved it all and the protracted ending wasn't half as dragged out as I remembered it. It felt deserved.

But Ned was talking about the theatrical versions, right?

yeah, but that's how i felt watching the extended cuts too

making Aragorn's story more central in the films undercuts what the book itself is doing

would like to hear more about this. in my very non-expert memory there is something very cool about how aragorn "the king" of the climactic volume's title and clear bad-ass is actually the B-story

(in the books)

and the movies too, i guess? but he definitely gets more of the limelight

How long is the sequence (as such) in the novel?

(re: helm's deep) this has always been one of my gripes. It's about ten pages, or 2.5% of the book. 20 pages total in the chapter. What is it in the film, about forty minutes? I don't think I've watched them since they came out, I wouldn't mind doing so tbh.

would like to hear more about this. in my very non-expert memory there is something very cool about how aragorn "the king" of the climactic volume's title and clear bad-ass is actually the B-story

We have an episode about that as well!

https://megaphonic.fm/bythebywater/65

but of course!

Without reading more than five pages of the novels I could tell the movies fucked up to what degree Sauron/Ring Wraiths can detect the ring on Frodo. I'm aware after watching several explainers that the Ring is not a homing beacon; a bearer has to claim it as his own. But in the films it doesn't explain (like the novels purportedly do) how Bilbo can slip it on and off without detection or why Sauron sees Frodo in the Prancing Pony but not when Boromir confronts him much later.

rotk big battle rules because of the terrible beauty of the last charge of the rohirrim, i have noted this before on here but every single time i've watched rotk, when the riders go full tilt all shouting 'deaaaatthhhhhh' i start crying

xpost Tolkien never drew up an exact 'how the ring works' text at any point -- smartly, I think, it avoids it becoming a D&D manual entry avant la lettre -- but he does emphasize the idea that Frodo wearing the ring is different from Bilbo in that the latter was using it when Sauron still thought it was lost somewhere as opposed to actually being with someone. Once he's aware that it IS with someone (the Gollum "Shire! Baggins!" bit in the film is derived from the text, indirectly), he's essentially on the hunt one way or another, and Frodo is increasingly and explicitly aware of being sought for in that fashion, but that doesn't emerge at once. The Prancing Pony scene in the movie's resolution with the Eye is NOT the same as in the book at all -- there Frodo just feels embarrassed by what's happened while a couple of people who are meant to be in league with the Nazgul leave with a bit of a knowing look -- but the hilltop scene in the movie with the Boromir confrontation, as with the vision of Sauron's eye in Galadriel's mirror, are derived directly from equivalent book moments (the version in the book on the hilltop has a wonderfully vivid description of what's almost a projection of Sauron's presence literally about to touch Frodo; he removes the ring and he almost feels like pass above him like a shadow in the daylight).

thanks!

Here to help!

What happens if you swallow the ring?

Rectum-wraiths come looking for it.

"They walked as it were in a black vapour wrought of veritable darkness itself that, as it was breathed, brought blindness not only to the eyes but to the mind, so that even the memory of colours and of forms and of any light faded out of thought. Night always had been, and always would be, and night was all. Up your butt."

okay thanks

Hauntingly accurate quotation.

Anyway, the text of the hilltop/Amon Hen scene:

“But against Minas Tirith was set another fortress, greater and more strong. Thither, eastward, unwilling his eye was drawn. It passed the ruined bridges of Osgiliath, the grinning gates of Minas Morgul and the haunted Mountains, and it looked upon Gorgoroth, the valley of terror in the Land of Mordor. Darkness lay there under the Sun. Fire glowed amid the smoke. Mount Doom was burning, and a great reek rising. Then at last his gaze was held: wall upon wall, battlement upon battlement, black, immeasurably strong, mountain of iron, gate of steel, tower of adamant, he saw it: Barad-dûr, Fortress of Sauron. All hope left him.

And suddenly he felt the Eye. There was an eye in the Dark Tower that did not sleep. He knew that it had become aware of his gaze. A fierce eager will was there. It leaped towards him; almost like a finger he felt it, searching for him. Very soon it would nail him down, know just exactly where he was. Amon Lhaw it touched. It glanced upon Tol Brandir he threw himself from the seat, crouching, covering his head with his grey hood.

He heard himself crying out: Never, never! Or was it: Verily I come, I come to you? He could not tell. Then as a flash from some other point of power there came to his mind another thought: Take it off! Take it off! Fool, take it off! Take off the Ring!

The two powers strove in him. For a moment, perfectly balanced between their piercing points, he writhed, tormented. Suddenly he was aware of himself again. Frodo, neither the Voice nor the Eye: free to choose, and with one remaining instant in which to do so. He took the Ring off his finger. He was kneeling in clear sunlight before the high seat. A black shadow seemed to pass like an arm above him; it missed Amon Hen and groped out west, and faded. Then all the sky was clean and blue and birds sang in every tree.”

(A little more context: Amon Hen is shown to be a place where someone seated can have a sudden far-seeing vision of nearly all of known Middle-earth, per the passages just below the quote. Frodo turns around and is able to take in views going almost hundreds of miles. It's a really intriguingly vivid moment, and again, Tolkien doesn't explain exactly what this power comes from and how, just that it's there. So I tend to read the suggestion here as a combination of Frodo wearing the Ring and his sight accentuated by the hill or the seat or whatever is causing it combining with Sauron's own particular powers sensing something firing up and searching. Later in the book Gandalf explains to Aragorn and crew it was he, having recovered from the battle with the Balrog, with the "Take it off!" command from a long distance in turn, and again, *how* it all works is undescribed and doesn't need to be. It just is.)

just below the quote

Well THAT makes no sense -- just *prior* to the quote.

Amon Hen

saw his okay set at Pitchfork 2019

You want Tolkien-derived band names, you gotta start going to Maryland Deathfest, Wacken or Roadburn instead, my friend. (Though I am always interested whenever a Tolkien reference escapes that universe. Even Graham Parker had one!)

Isn't, er, Burzum a Tolkien reference?

I always misheard Echo & the Bunnymen as singing about "Minas Tirith" in "Villiers Terrace."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nYcYccDbC8

the one where they sing "higher and higher, kissing the spider" was about shelob

I remember my dad forcing me to sit down in the lounge and listen to his Zeppelin song that referenced gollum, when he found out I was reading lotr

which was almost equally as cringe as when he forced me to sit down in the lounge and listen to his Queen, to demonstrate how Stereo sound works on his hi-fi system.

equally as crunge, you mean

Cannot conceive of having a dad that cool.

"cooler" parents just play Summoning albums now