CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Middle-Earth Films
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Middle-Earth Films - Page 2

post #51 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by erik myers View Post

Right.

In the film, The Ring still floats on the lava surface unharmed so long as it has another willing victim.

Frodo chooses to ascend, and The Ring melts.

His rejection of it is literally the complete opposite of his actions in the book.

 

Nah man, I think you are just confusing the editing with something intentional. The ring is destroyed once Gollum bites it. That's the whole operation: throw the Ring in the Cracks and its donezo. Its not like Frodo would have made any difference by diving in, even if the Ring was specifically waiting him out thats only gonna buy it the 5 seconds or whatever it takes for Frodo to melt. 

Book Frodo and Movie Frodo both claim the Ring and its destroyed by Gollums actions. 

post #52 of 552
No, I'm with you, Sands. The movies could never overshadow the books for me for exactly that reason. But, as you say, if we hadn't gotten it this way, we would never have gotten it at all, so I'm prepared to roll with it.

Now, the bastardization of The Hobbit in the New Line films, that I'm not okay with.

Also, re: the destruction of the Ring, it's been a while since I actually watched ROTK, but in the book the emphasis is on its absolute corrupting power; it's a sign of the hobbits' resilient willpower that they're able to get it to Mt. Doom at all, and Frodo is only truly overcome at the last minute.
post #53 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

Wouldn't the ideal adaptation preserve more of the spirit of Tolkien's work? His LOTR is really kind of a mythic downer. At best, it can be described as a bittersweet. But it's an epic about the fading of a mythical world, a world in which victory over evil always comes with some pretty heavy sacrifices and caveats.

 

Maaan I know ya'll are gonna default to haterism but this is what FIVE ARMIES is all about. LOTR lands soft, for me, once its all said and done because there really isn't a whole lot of lasting sacrifice. My mans Boromir - never forget - that's way back in the first one. Everyone else comes out fresh, Aragorn on the Throne, the Shire unburned. It does kind of pull that punch right where its most necessary for the authorial intent to actually land.

 

FIVE ARMIES actually does land that, in a manner that damn near every blockbuster shies from. The cost is there, in the final funeral procession. And for what? Not a lot accomplished, especially if you consider what happens after. Its not just about being victorious over evil, its about overcoming hubris at immense actual cost. Textually, Frodo should be beat the fuck out by the end of LotR but he wakes up in a nice hotel and sees his friends.

Contrast to Bilbo's final scenes in FIVE ARMIES. Whole different game man.

 

I'm all about Peter Jackson's The Hobbit. It doeasnt replace, or displace, or otherwise influence my appreciation for the native work. I read it with my daughter and its a rousing adventure tale. The movie is a whole different thing, about other things, and I think ultimately about more meaningful things than the supernatural road trip in LotR.*

 

*except for the whole addiction angle Jackson plays again and again with the Ring. That is heavy, and painfully accurate.

post #54 of 552
I hated AUJ and DOS, so I never watched BOTFA.
post #55 of 552

Yeah, that one would probably come off as absolutely reprehensible if you can't set the source material aside and let it be its own thing.

post #56 of 552
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post

Nah man, I think you are just confusing the editing with something intentional. The ring is destroyed once Gollum bites it. That's the whole operation: throw the Ring in the Cracks and its donezo. Its not like Frodo would have made any difference by diving in, even if the Ring was specifically waiting him out thats only gonna buy it the 5 seconds or whatever it takes for Frodo to melt. 


Book Frodo and Movie Frodo both claim the Ring and its destroyed by Gollums actions. 
No way. The Ring sits there, waiting for Frodo to choose.

Frodo chooses to take Sam's hand. The ring literally melts the moment Frodo turns from it.
post #57 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

 

Nah man, I think you are just confusing the editing with something intentional. The ring is destroyed once Gollum bites it. That's the whole operation: throw the Ring in the Cracks and its donezo. Its not like Frodo would have made any difference by diving in, even if the Ring was specifically waiting him out thats only gonna buy it the 5 seconds or whatever it takes for Frodo to melt.

 

Yeah I don't buy the idea that Frodo was destroying the ring at all. What reason is there to think he had any kind of power over it? He'd have melted same as Gollum.

 

Most likely it was edited that way so the audience wasn't busy worrying about what happened to Frodo during the ring destruction scene they'd waited three movies for.

post #58 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by erik myers View Post


No way. The Ring sits there, waiting for Frodo to choose.

Frodo chooses to take Sam's hand. The ring literally melts the moment Frodo turns from it.

 

Bruh. Aint no way he's reaching way down there and pulling that thing up. That's a big ass Crack.

https://youtu.be/FXpF3SUFaDw?t=1m57s

post #59 of 552
"It's just a little lava! It's still good! It's still good!!!"

I'm sure you know that the moment wasn't originally intended to be that way. (from the commentaries, Jackson said that those two moments were written as separate happenings)

It was something they found in the editing room that simply had more poetic oomph through cutting back and forth between it.

I think it can absolutely be read that literally. But to me, it's more a cinematic flourish where everything comes to the most excellent moment together.
post #60 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

"It's just a little lava! It's still good! It's still good!!!"

I'm sure you know that the moment wasn't originally intended to be that way. (from the commentaries)

It was something they found in the editing room that simply had more poetic oomph through cutting back and forth between it.

I think it can absolutely be read that literally. But to me, it's more a cinematic flourish where everything comes to the most excellent moment together.

 

I just watched it a week ago. That shit falls way the fuck down there. They would need a whole other movie showing Frodo stumbling down sharp rocks for him to get anywhere near it.

post #61 of 552

I think Jackson actually strikes a just about perfect balance between the more visceral Hollywood epic style and Tolkien's distinctive melancholy.  Yes, including the Scouring and some other bits would've been purer to the text, but absolute fidelity is not the metric by which to judge adaptations.  They need to adapt.  

 

I think the much-ballyhooed multiple endings do a pretty good job of striking that elegiac tone for the conclusion, without literally dragging things out for the extra hour everyone complains it did anyway.

post #62 of 552
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post

I just watched it a week ago. That shit falls way the fuck down there. They would need a whole other movie showing Frodo stumbling down sharp rocks for him to get anywhere near it.
I'm not seriously arguing that Frodo could have saved it. I'm saying that The Ring commands the will of its captives, and was able to sustain itself in those final moments by virtue of the fact that it could still claim one final victim who would be willing to die in a vain attempt to rescue it.
post #63 of 552
I maintain that the biggest reason people complain about the endings is because each one is made to feel like the actual ending.

It ended up coming off like a tease to all those people who were ready to wind down and get going with each beautiful fade to black or fade to white (which usually communicates an end during an ending). It tried people's patience when executed that way.

The one that really fooled me was the fade to white on the shot of Frodo sailing off. I was ONE ending off!!! Other casual people were probably ready to have the movie be over after the "bow to no one" ending.

And I say this as someone who doesn't mind the endings at all. At least back then.
post #64 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by erik myers View Post


I'm not seriously arguing that Frodo could have saved it. I'm saying that The Ring commands the will of its captives, and was able to sustain itself in those final moments by virtue of the fact that it could still claim one final victim who would be willing to die in a vain attempt to rescue it.

 

Well then Elrond probably needed to specify that you gotta throw the Ring into the Cracks and then dab on it in order to truly succeed in destroying it.
 

Crucial information here!

post #65 of 552
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

I maintain that the biggest reason people complain about the endings is because each one is made to feel like the actual ending.

It ended up coming off like a tease to all those people who were ready to wind down and get going with each beautiful fade to black or fade to white (which usually communicates an end during an ending). It tried people's patience when executed that way.

The one that really fooled me was the fade to white on the shot of Frodo sailing off. I was ONE ending off!!! Other casual people were probably ready to have the movie be over after the "bow to no one" ending.

And I say this as someone who doesn't mind the endings at all. At least back then.

(And as we all know, there was ANOTHER ending that was cut: an AMERICAN GRAFFITI-style montage that told the fates of the surviving members of the Fellowship!)
post #66 of 552
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post

Well then Elrond probably needed to specify that you gotta throw the Ring into the Cracks and then dab on it in order to truly succeed in destroying it.

 
Crucial information here!
post #67 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by erik myers View Post

(And as we all know, there was ANOTHER ending that was cut: an AMERICAN GRAFFITI-style montage that told the fates of the surviving members of the Fellowship!)

I was disappointed when that wasn't in the extended edition!
post #68 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

I maintain that the biggest reason people complain about the endings is because each one is made to feel like the actual ending.
Yep. It's just weird editing/scene construction. Those scenes all contain internal cues that suggest the film is resolving.
post #69 of 552
All of those endings should have played simultaneously, De Palma style.
post #70 of 552
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

I was disappointed when that wasn't in the extended edition!
Apparently, Jackson only omitted it due to disc space.

The scene that still remains on the cutting room floor that bugs me the most is Sam facing the Watchers of Cirith Ungol.
post #71 of 552
Disc space????

That's what they get for including 15 minutes of onering.net fan credits!!!!

What a waste of bitrate!!!
post #72 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Disc space????

That's what they get for including 15 minutes of onering.net fan credits!!!!

What a waste of bitrate!!!
No kidding. Talk about priorities.

And why wasn't it included on the Blu release?
post #73 of 552
I gotta say that one of the bummers about the HOBBIT movies is that it turns out Jackson isn't even that good at fanservice.

That whole Necromancer/Sauron subplot should have been an easy thing to knock out of the park, particularly for a filmmaker with such familiarity with horror filmmaking. But it's just so silly in the movie.

I noted once that you can see everything good and bad about the way Jackson treats Tolkien in the prologue to FOTR, where the way he conceives of Sauron's badassery is just Sauron goofily knocking people around like they're bowling pins like he's the Hulk or something.
post #74 of 552

I'm just glad that I have horrid taste and can enjoy all 6 movies...in their extended form even!

post #75 of 552
hahahahah

charge up my ring power and go for my 50+ combo with maximum damage!!!
post #76 of 552
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

No kidding. Talk about priorities.

And why wasn't it included on the Blu release?
Those blu rays were cash grabs. The Appendicies weren't even consolidated on blu ray discs, and were just the same DVDs from the original release.

On the other hand, you got ugly cover/box art, so there's that, I guess.
Edited by erik myers - 1/5/17 at 10:10am
post #77 of 552

Yup. We'll probably have to wait until the 20th/25th anniversary to see stuff like the Watchers or the extended "fate of the fellowship".

 

Who knows if things like Arwen at Helms Deep will ever be let out of the vault.


Edited by Dent6084 - 1/5/17 at 9:57am
post #78 of 552

It annoyed the hell out of me when they released the Extended cut of FIVE ARMIES and they still don't explain all that awesome swag Bilbo picks up on his way home. I guess its his cut of the Treasure that they buried at the beginning but you gotta let us see that shit man!

post #79 of 552
Thread Starter 
I was more annoyed that he didn't deliver the "Road Goes Ever On and On" poem.

Talk about a callback that would actually resonate, in addition to adding context to FELLOWSHIP.
post #80 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by erik myers View Post

(And as we all know, there was ANOTHER ending that was cut: an AMERICAN GRAFFITI-style montage that told the fates of the surviving members of the Fellowship!)
Please tell me it was set to the Isley Brothers' "Shout."
post #81 of 552
I heard it was going to have the Dragnet music over it.
post #82 of 552

I still think Aragorn should have fought -- and gotten his ass kicked by -- Sauron at the Black Gate. 

 

Come at me, Tolkienites.

post #83 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post
 

I still think Aragorn should have fought -- and gotten his ass kicked by -- Sauron at the Black Gate. 

 

Come at me, Tolkienites.

 

Woulda been tight.

 

The headchop is so good tho. Best part of that whole sequence, the actual fight itself is a hot mess.

post #84 of 552
Thread Starter 
First the cliff that Frodo and Sam were hiding on in THE TWO TOWERS disappears; then the horses vanish, too.
post #85 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

I still think Aragorn should have fought -- and gotten his ass kicked by -- Sauron at the Black Gate. 

Come at me, Tolkienites.
It wouldn't have made the movie worse, really, which speaks to larger failure of the films to imaginatively convey in cinematic terms the threat of Sauron (FLASHLIGHT EYE).

But that was always gonna be tricky.
post #86 of 552
Thread Starter 
What's to be gained by Aragon fighting Sauron if the battle was only going to be resolved by the destruction of The Ring? It doesn't add anything to Aragorn's story by appearing superficially to echo the Isildur battle; if anything, Aragon can't even achieve what Isildur did.
post #87 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


It wouldn't have made the movie worse, really, which speaks to larger failure of the films to imaginatively convey in cinematic terms the threat of Sauron (FLASHLIGHT EYE).
 


FLASHLIGHT EYE always makes me think they've stumbled into Metal Gear Solid.

 

Like if it seems them there's gonna be a big ass exclamation point over its head.

 

And then it sees Frodo and he does that weird jump in the air and fall thing.

 

loooooooool all that shit is extra dumb

post #88 of 552

NOOJ!

Use you powers of sorcery to get a quality screencap of the FLASHLIGHT OF SAURON, I can't find anything good on the internet.

 

You shall be rewarded!

post #89 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

 

Maaan I know ya'll are gonna default to haterism but this is what FIVE ARMIES is all about. LOTR lands soft, for me, once its all said and done because there really isn't a whole lot of lasting sacrifice. My mans Boromir - never forget - that's way back in the first one. Everyone else comes out fresh, Aragorn on the Throne, the Shire unburned. It does kind of pull that punch right where its most necessary for the authorial intent to actually land

 

Theoden's dead.  Denethor's dead.  Faramir and Eowyn are pretty badly wounded, and if Frodo is any indication, Eowyn's likely to have some emotional scars that aren't going to heal as easily.  Large chunks of the population of Rohan and Gondor are dead, and Minas Tirith is beat all to hell.  Frodo NEVER heals.  I'm not sure where you're not seeing lasting sacrifice.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by erik myers View Post


I'm not seriously arguing that Frodo could have saved it. I'm saying that The Ring commands the will of its captives, and was able to sustain itself in those final moments by virtue of the fact that it could still claim one final victim who would be willing to die in a vain attempt to rescue it.

 

Right, it was a last ditch effort by the Ring to grab even a few more seconds of its existence.

post #90 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
 

 

Theoden's dead.  Denethor's dead.  Faramir and Eowyn are pretty badly wounded, and if Frodo is any indication, Eowyn's likely to have some emotional scars that aren't going to heal as easily.  Large chunks of the population of Rohan and Gondor are dead, and Minas Tirith is beat all to hell.  Frodo NEVER heals.  I'm not sure where you're not seeing lasting sacrifice.

 

 

Theoden - righteous death, shit was tight

Denny - self-immolation followed by 500 yard dash. More hysterical than moving.

Faramir and Eowyn - they're fine!

THE BURDEN OF FRODO - film kind of skips this. Its implied, but they coulda fit an extra ending in there where you see Frodo strugglin.

 

the Extras of Middle Earth - RIP

post #91 of 552
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

Frodo NEVER heals.
This.

Every time someone cites a moment in the series that affects them emotionally ("You bow to no one," etc.), I come to that last shot of Frodo as he turns back to give his friends a final look; and his haunted expression has been replaced by hope. By going to Valinor, he is, literally and symbolically, dying...and he welcomes it. It's beautiful, and it's heartbreaking.
post #92 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

THE BURDEN OF FRODO - film kind of skips this. Its implied, but they coulda fit an extra ending in there where you see Frodo strugglin.

 

 

You see him not as fully enjoying Sam's wedding as the others are.  You see him wincing at the stab wound from the Witch King, and he flat out tells Sam it's the anniversary and it's never healed.  I think it's there.

post #93 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by erik myers View Post


This.

Every time someone cites a moment in the series that affects them emotionally ("You bow to no one," etc.), I come to that last shot of Frodo as he turns back to give his friends a final look; and his haunted expression has been replaced by hope. By going to Valinor, he is, literally and symbolically, dying...and he welcomes it. It's beautiful, and it's heartbreaking.

 

It's the Frodo we haven't really seen since the first thirty minutes of Fellowship, and yes, it's both joyous and heartbreaking.

post #94 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by erik myers View Post

What's to be gained by Aragon fighting Sauron if the battle was only going to be resolved by the destruction of The Ring? It doesn't add anything to Aragorn's story by appearing superficially to echo the Isildur battle; if anything, Aragon can't even achieve what Isildur did.


Because the threat of the story has always been in Sauron regaining physical form.  Sauron appearing to nearly kill Aragorn is the clearest definition of things being at their darkest just before the ring is destroyed.

 

It's the right creative choice, and Jackson only pulled back because fans complained that it wasn't in the book.

 

Also the troll just conveniently running off is silly.

post #95 of 552

I thought Jackson pulled back because without actually possessing the Ring, Sauron should not have been able to take shape anyway.

post #96 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
 

I thought Jackson pulled back because without actually possessing the Ring, Sauron should not have been able to take shape anyway.

 

The depiction of Sauron in FIVE ARMIES is fucking awesome (the eye turns into flames and then you see his silhouette outlined in exploding fire, it looks way better than it sounds).

post #97 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post

The depiction of Sauron in FIVE ARMIES is fucking awesome (the eye turns into flames and then you see his silhouette outlined in exploding fire, it looks way better than it sounds).
That's in DESOLATION, isn't it?

I thought it was really silly.
post #98 of 552

Ah you're right. 


About it being in Desolation. Not about it being silly.

 

I believe he makes a return appearance in FIVE ARMIES tho when he gets banished to Mordor by the combined ass-kicking trio of SARUMAN GALADRIEL and GANDALF.

 

Right. It is pretty fuckin silly. I admit that. I still like it.

 

Way better than FLASHLIGHT SAURON.

post #99 of 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 


FLASHLIGHT EYE always makes me think they've stumbled into Metal Gear Solid.

 

Like if it seems them there's gonna be a big ass exclamation point over its head.

 

And then it sees Frodo and he does that weird jump in the air and fall thing.

 

loooooooool all that shit is extra dumb

 

When I was 14 and saw it the first time, the lighthouse really bugged me. I have since grown to really like the visual - there are quite a few old biblical paintings where a person's gaze is depicted as a light stabbing from their eye, and an old concept of vision revolved around the idea of the eye projecting light. In the books, I'm a big fan of the weird, nightmarish way Tolkien writes Sauron and his weird, semi-metaphorical eye. I love that Tolkien never even seems to have considered having him appear 'on stage', but makes a huge deal out his impact on the world and Frodo - it makes the whole Satanic threat he presents seem more realistic, and way more frightening than if he were a snarling dude in a cape and armour. I think the way ROTK presents the eye is a bit literal, but I still think it's effective, and makes for some nice imagery (and the LotR trilogy's cheesiest 4 seconds - the bit where Frodo puts on the Ring and we cut to Sauron's eye, happily watching the battle, suddenly widen and swing round to look at Mount Doom. It's one of those bits that feels like it's in a different universe from the rest of the film).  

 

One thing that has always bugged me (only because the strength of the design weakens a little) - but which I've never heard anyone else mention - is how Sauron's design changes across the films, going from the very spooky eye in Fellowship to a slightly fakier look in the later films. 

 

Fellowship:

 

 

 

Towers: 

 

King: 


Edited by RexBanner - 1/5/17 at 12:01pm
post #100 of 552
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post

Ah you're right. 


About it being in Desolation. Not about it being silly.

I believe he makes a return appearance in FIVE ARMIES tho when he gets banished to Mordor by the combined ass-kicking trio of SARUMAN GALADRIEL and GANDALF.

Right. It is pretty fuckin silly. I admit that. I still like it.

Way better than FLASHLIGHT SAURON.
I'm getting the distinct impression you dig THE HOBBIT way more than LORD OF THE RINGS.

Which is fine.

I just can't agree.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Middle-Earth Films