The Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King

[Banky]

pillow right

what the hell is a pillow right?

[SoNowThen]

i just can't understand how someone who is as film literate as u are could be so bored w/ the first 30 minutes of this movie-- meanwhile, you can sit through a many of fellini films that are much more tiresome.

I'm actually tougher on Fellini than you think. Ask SoNowThen about my opinion on Satyricon (if he remembers) cause I think its one of his favorites by Fellini though I wrenched the film when last speaking about it.

I've never seen Satyricon. Maybe it was Roma you were thinking of.

BTW, Fellini is not tiresome.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I don't believe in endings saving or ruining a film.

Then what is their purpose?

[analogzombie]

I don't believe in endings saving or ruining a film.

Then what is their purpose?

to provide resolution to the story and/or emotional developments within the characters.

while endings can deviate from the theme of the movie as a whole, i am hard pressed to think of a film i have seen that i felt the ending either 'saved' it from being bad, or 'ruined' an otherwise good film

[Jeremy Blackman]

to provide resolution to the story and/or emotional developments within the characters.

Then aren't you missing something if you miss the ending? Maybe "save" is not the right word. Just think of how less you would like a given movie without seeing the ending. Think of how more you would like a given movie (AI, Matchstick Men) without the ending. The point is, it's crucial.

I'm just saying it's not fair, because if he saw the whole movie, his opinion would actually be valid, and undoubtedly different (if more negative).

Plus, walking out of a movie and then passing authoritative judgment on it reeks of pretentiousness.

[Ghostboy]

One of my best friends, who loves the books, walked out of Two Towers and isn't even bothering with ROTK. My mom will only watch them with the director's commentary on because the technical aspects are all that interest her. As much as I love the films, I think it's easy to see why someone might not like them much, or at all.

Although I'm still surprised that so many people don't think Two Towers is one of the best movies ever made of all time....

[analogzombie]

to provide resolution to the story and/or emotional developments within the characters.

Then aren't you missing something if you miss the ending? Maybe "save" is not the right word. Just think of how less you would like a given movie without seeing the ending. Think of how more you would like a given movie (AI, Matchstick Men) without the ending. The point is, it's crucial.

of course you miss something. i think my contention was on the use of the words save and ruin. although now that you mention it, AI's ending did just about ruin what had come before it.

I'm just saying it's not fair, because if he saw the whole movie, his opinion would actually be valid, and undoubtedly different (if more negative).

I definately agree there.

[Redlum]

There should really be a new thread but right now the only movie I can think of were the ending really did it for me was 'They Shoot Horses Don't They?'. It didn't save it but it really punctuated it. Had I not seen it I would have probably thought a little less of the film.

Plus I can't believe someone would walk out of a film, or make bets as to who would leave first. Very dissapointing coming from you GT. Where's the respect? If I can sit through the whole of Gone in 60 Seconds you can damn well sit through the whole of Return of the King.

[MacGuffin]

Bastard, copying my avatar theme!!!

[monodynamic]

that's actually quite cute if i do say so myself.
Some type of billy crystal fetish i suppose...

[Redlum]

W-w-whats this?

GT, I just rented Princess Mononoke and can't understand how you can have such polarised reactions to it and Lord of the Rings. I thought it was a fantastic film with one of the best scores I've heard but I can see so many similarities between it and LotR that your criticisms still make little sense to me. Why is Princess Mononoke so superior to the Rings trilogy?

[Gold Trumpet]

I'm just saying it's not fair, because if he saw the whole movie, his opinion would actually be valid, and undoubtedly different (if more negative).

Plus, walking out of a movie and then passing authoritative judgment on it reeks of pretentiousness.

You've lost your head. You essentially said this before and I replied to it but you aren't responding to what I argued in that reply. Instead of explaining to me how what I missed after Viggo being crowned King was anything crucial judging the movie, you continue saying my point isn't valid because i missed an inch of this film.

Plus I can't believe someone would walk out of a film, or make bets as to who would leave first. Very dissapointing coming from you GT. Where's the respect?

The respect is in the first two movies and the first half hour of the third film. With those minutes, I was open to the film being good and/or getting better as it developed. After that point, I realized the film would be tonally whole in its approach to content but that wasn't a good thing. But, like I said, I did enjoy later moments in Return of the King. Specifically Wood's acting and some minor battle moments so I wasn't completely closed to the movie. I do think the period of time I gave the trilogy to improve was fair, but I don't apologize for making the final film a sort of joke either.

GT, I just rented Princess Mononoke and can't understand how you can have such polarised reactions to it and Lord of the Rings. I thought it was a fantastic film with one of the best scores I've heard but I can see so many similarities between it and LotR that your criticisms still make little sense to me. Why is Princess Mononoke so superior to the Rings trilogy?

Like I did say before in this thread, Princess Mononoke is film simply made with the spirit that LOTR lacks. To get that, it has a better understanding of its place as an adventure film and follows through on trying to be the best film it can within those limitations. LOTR is an adventure film because it does have storylines that really just lead to battles and bigger battles only, but its also an event in which it is trying incapusalate as much of a series of books that it can so it doesn't really become an adventure story (too long to be an enjoyable in that sense) anymore nor even anything of higher value. I mean, fans petitioned to have a fight included in the film when it came on dvd because they thought it was too important. Them winning this is just a sign the film exists not for its own purpose of being a great film, but to transcribe people's favorite book to screen for their pleasure.

[Redlum]

So part of your issue is with the films not punching their weight? Aiming for areas outside of its designated genre and comprimising itself in both.

I strongly diagree with your comment about spirit. The movies are chock full of that, man. It's inherent in the story, the production and ultimately the film.

I do understand your take on it being made simply as a translation of a popular book, but what is wrong with this? Is it really relevant when there are many other film adaptations which do exactly the same thing. Most films are an adaptation of somebody else's work: screenwriters>directors.
This may be the most poular source material of all time but I don't think the fans held as much sway as you think. Perhaps the most strongest fan reaction was towards Liv Tyler's Arwen and the makers stuck by their decision to give the character more time on-screen.

Is your reaction not slightly over-blown to counter attack the huge popularity of the films in the perhaps the same way that Altman says he wants to get rid of 14 year old boys at the movies? Maybe I'm just being defensive or something but it's disheartening to hear someone treat the films so lightly.

Anyways Happy New Year, GT.

[Gold Trumpet]

I do understand your take on it being made simply as a translation of a popular book, but what is wrong with this? Is it really relevant when there are many other film adaptations which do exactly the same thing. Most films are an adaptation of somebody else's work: screenwriters>directors.

I think you miss what I mean. I'm not knocking adaptations, but I don't think this film is just another adaptation. Maybe the task of adaptating LOTR is impossible, but adaptations of books follow suit in usually a film still being two hours and constricting the story to a plot that can be adaquetely held in a movie. LOTR extends so long that I felt many of the restrictions in book to movie adaptations were being ignored and many things in the movies were too repititve and not really insightful to anything of higher meaning. They seemed to be justified because they were popular moments in the books and the people would demand them to be there. Thats where my example of fans petitioning for a certain fight to be included in the film comes in.

Is your reaction not slightly over-blown to counter attack the huge popularity of the films in the perhaps the same way that Altman says he wants to get rid of 14 year old boys at the movies? Maybe I'm just being defensive or something but it's disheartening to hear someone treat the films so lightly.

Prolly a little of both. I'd still stand by my same points, but I am carrying an angst to this film because of its acclaim for sure. Also, I'm sure it is disheartening because I've received a lot of negative replies but only a small percentage were actual argument to the art of the film.

[©brad]

I think you miss what I mean. I'm not knocking adaptations, but I don't think this film is just another adaptation. Maybe the task of adaptating LOTR is impossible, but adaptations of books follow suit in usually a film still being two hours and constricting the story to a plot that can be adaquetely held in a movie. LOTR extends so long that I felt many of the restrictions in book to movie adaptations were being ignored and many things in the movies were too repititve and not really insightful to anything of higher meaning.

what the hell are you talking about? what restrictions?

gt, do us all a favor; stay out of this thread. u've made ur point. after the much needed gold-trumpet-tranlsation-into-english-process, we've all managed to deduct from ur babbling that u didn't dig the movie. (even though that i have and will continue to question the validity of any of ur reviews, seeing as how u are so susceptible to walking out) I don't know how much more of this erroneous nonsense i can take. i fear that if i read much more, i may do something stupid. (especially if i've had a couple of drinks)