Is Helms Deep Where The Ring Went South?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Fellowship is a fairly close adaptation of the book, sure parts were ommited, truncated and moved around a bit. But overall it's an extremely faithful version of Tolkien's story in both style and theme.

 

After FOTR Jackson started to take more liberties. TTT is mostly structured around the massive battle of Helms Deep, which in the book is a one chapter affair. Reading it PJ must have seen the possibilities of it though. And the entire Helms Deep sequence of the film is a masterfull example of story telling. From building the tension, till finally going ahead with the massive battle, which isnt just a huge CGI fest, but has an eb and flow to it. It really shows that when giving his A game Jackson is a world class director.

 

But that marvellous sequence came at a price. By making it the focus of his film PJ essentially had to move a sizeable chunk of the novel to the next movie. It actually takes quite a while for all the storylines to catch up.

Whats worse is that PJ now had to essentially outdo the Helms Deep battle for the third film with one that was longer, bigger, more epic.

The Pellenor battle is great also, it really is. But somehow it doesnt have the tension, and realism. The stakes seem higher. But harder to care for. And while the darkness and rain of Helms Deep cleverly hid a lot of the early 2000 CGI work. In the daylight battle in front of Minas Tirith they are on full display. As are the CGI trolls and goblins.

 

In essense, PJ peaked too soon with this trilogy, and then had to come up with something bigger and more expensive to make up for it. Also, he had clearly started to believe the media and the internet that he was indeed as brilliant as they said he was. \

 

Discuss!

[Brónach 1,301]

The siege of Minas Tirith and the battle later never really worked for me. It's partly an aesthetic problem, and partly about a script which isn't entirely sure how to spend every precious minute and almost passes entirely on recreating Gondor like they did enjoy recreating the Rohirrim. Made worse by adding unneeded stuff and an extremely, anti-climatic slow start. And THEN there's Théoden charging against the Mumakil for no reason.

 

Probably recreating small fights following a bunch of characters worked much better for those movies than introducing massive battles while risking audience empathy.

 

Methinks you need four movies for the short version of six seasons for the long version, but as of now I'm out of interest for Tolkien adaptations besides fanart.

 

[gkgyver 1,645]

Having a climax at the start is literally the opposite of the meaning of the word, so not sure how a start can be "anticlimatic".

 

Return of the King was released in 2003, and was pioneering in CGI and effects. Not sure how it can have aesthetic problems. Only when seen in 2016.

 

I would say not a Single Minute in the theatrical cut was unneeded. Finding faults in the storytelling of RotK is extremely petty, considering it was "unfilmable". I find the movie unfolds like poetry. Particularly the transitions in the start, from Edoras to Merry and Pippin, to Arwen, to Minas Tirith, back to Frodo, are masterful.

 

RotK starts the problem of too much color grading, but that's really about the only flaw.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I'm sorry mate. ROTK might be unfilmable, but that doesnt excuse some of the decisions made. The resolution of the Arwen story line is pityful. Ommiting the very important character scene where Sam takes the Ring from the assumed dead Frodo, for the sake of some fake suspense is utterly misguided, and having your big epic battle end by having some green ghosts gobble up all the scary Orcs is of a saturday morning cartoon level.

 

ROTK is a good film still, but it's one where you can slowly see things fall apart. And some of the CGI looked dodgy even back then (The Grey Havens for examp0le)

 

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

In essense, PJ peaked too soon with this trilogy, and then had to come up with something bigger and more expensive to make up for it.

And he's been doing it ever since.

 

I love the trilogy. I think FOTR is just about a perfect film, and TTT is very close to it. But as much as I also like ROTK, I can't put it on the level of the first two, and I do think it's when Jackson's self-indulgence started to creep in. And I agree with you completely about Helm's Deep vs. Pellanor fields....the latter just lacks the visceral impact of Helm's Deep. And Pellanor fields looks most like what we got in The Hobbit to me...cartoon violence and superhero Legolas.

 

I would not remove a minute from the EE's of FOTR and TTT, but ROTK, particularly the EE, has flaws. Don't misunderstand me. It's still a great film..the first two are 10's I'd give ROTK an 8.5 or 9.  But I think it's the least among three great films.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

Isn't ROTK the one where David Wenham rides out to certain death, while Billy Boyd sings for John Noble, while he's eating like a pig? That scene alone is worth the price of admission (oh, and "my friends, you bow to no-one").

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That is a fantastic scene, yes.

Many parts of ROTK are astonishing.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

Actually my preferences would be:

TV - FOTR

         TT

          ROTK

 

EE -   ROTK

          FOTR

          TT

 

One thing I absolutely cannot do, is forgive PJ for not showing Sauraman's death in the TV of ROTK and, apparently, neither did Chris Lee.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I agree, that was stupid. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

"Where's Sauraman?"

"Oh, don't worry, he's locked in a tower, with some Richard the third wannabe, and by the w- oh, shit, how did that giant marble get there?"

[Brónach 1,301]

The Elrond-giving-Andúril scene was always particularly hilarious to me. "Hey, let's just complicate things for the sake of it".

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Actually Saruman should have died at the end of TTT.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

The "Edge of Night" sequence is outstanding. Most of ROTK is outstanding.  The issues I have with it only stand out, to me, because I don't really have an issues with the first two films.

 

But ROTK? Yeah, there are problems.  They're mostly minor, but since they're being compared to the perfection of the first two, they stand out. Off the top of my head (and I'm using the EE as reference, as it's the only one I watch)

 

• The second "this army" gag with the army of the dead coming of nowhere. It worked the first time when they board the pirate ship, but falls flat the second time at Pellanor. And the EE almost messes the gag up entirely the first time by extending the scene past Aragon's "what say you" to include the ridiculous mountain of falling skulls. Once the undead agree to fight for him, the punchline to the reveal is undermined. I understand this is only an issue in the EE, but to me everything past "what say you" was unnecessary and ruins the drama of the scene.
• Sam abandoning Frodo.  What? After making a huge deal about Sam promising Mr. Gandalf that he'd never abandon Mr. Frodo, he does. Why? Because an out of his mind Mr. Frodo tells him to. Even though Sam knows Gollum is a liar and murderer, he leaves his friend to the mercy of this cutthroat. At most, Sam would follow them in secret, not scamper down the mountain crying. And what makes him come back up? Finding the discarded bread. What, knowing Gollum tossed some bread made him REALLY angry? As opposed to hearing with his own ears that Gollum was planning on killing them both? I don't buy it. I've generally gone along with the changes to some of the character's character (e.g. Faramir), but this was a change in Sam's character, towards the end, just to suit the needs of the scene, that IMO didn't work (in context of the character).
• Tying Arwen's fate to the fate of the Ring. Ugh. As if the fate of Middle-Earth hanging in the balance wasn't enough, Aragorn (and the audience) must be given additional motivation to care about the ring getting destroyed. Completely unnecessary, especially when the beat in the film at this point is Aragorn finally coming to terms with who he is ("become who you were born to be") and what he's supposed to do.
• Related to this, Arwen "surprising" Aragorn at his coronation. What, sometime between the ring getting destroyed and becoming King Aragorn didn't ask someone "Hey, whatever happened to that elf girl I liked? Is she still around?"   After the made such a big deal of tying Arwen's fate to the Ring, this scene just seemed kind of off to me. And the kiss...ugh. In another movie it works fine, but here? Feels forced.
• Gandalf murdering Denathor. Enough said.
• Legolas superheroics & cartoon violence
• I'll forgive the early 2000's CGI, not much they can do about that. But the bright, slick colour scheme they chose for this film was in contrast to the gritty naturalism of the first two. It gives it a kind of unrealistic, "fantasy" feel that continued on into The Hobbit.

 

Wow. If it sounds like I hate this film, I don't, I love it. These are mostly small complaints and the film is still brilliant and contains some of my favourite moments in the trilogy..."You bow to no one" gives me a lump in my throat everytime, and Frodo's bittersweet homecoming was pitch perfect.  Shore is masterful. Though as I said, these flaws only stand out in contrast to the sheer perfection of the first two, and their small quibbles.

 

 

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

All good points!

[Wojo 2,453]

It wasn't the discovery of the lembas bread over the cliff itself that was supposed to enrage Sam. It was finding tangible proof that Gollum had lied and Frodo bought it, beyond simply overhearing Gollum, proof that could convince Frodo if he could show it. That artificial change of character isolates the two hobbits, creating time and suspense needed for Sam to charge to the rescue when the great spider attacks. I don't remember how it worked in the book. 

 

And I think Aragorn is supposed to be surprised by Arwen simply because he would have assumed she took the boat West, that Frodo's quest didn't end in time. So he was just overjoyed to see his girlfriend forsake immortality for his grizzled war weary face. 

[gkgyver 1,645]

1 hour ago, Nick66 said:

And he's been doing it ever since.

 

I love the trilogy. I think FOTR is just about a perfect film, and TTT is very close to it. But as much as I also like ROTK, I can't put it on the level of the first two, and I do think it's when Jackson's self-indulgence started to creep in. And I agree with you completely about Helm's Deep vs. Pellanor fields....the latter just lacks the visceral impact of Helm's Deep. And Pellanor fields looks most like what we got in The Hobbit to me...cartoon violence and superhero Legolas.

 

I would not remove a minute from the EE's of FOTR and TTT, but ROTK, particularly the EE, has flaws. Don't misunderstand me. It's still a great film..the first two are 10's I'd give ROTK an 8.5 or 9.  But I think it's the least among three great films.

 

I'd like to know specifically where in RotK PJ indulges in himself. Except for some wierd Gimli humor and the Oliphaunt scene, there is not a moment there where PJ compromises the story or the pace in favor of something gory or outlandish.

It's only logical Pelennor feels different because it's a siege and a longer battle.

 

And nobody should forget that by the time Tolkien arrived at RotK, the chapters became crammed as fuck.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

I don't think I said anything about "compromising the story or the pace in favor of something gory or outlandish".

 

As for my specific issues with the film, see my post above.

[Shoreboy 6]

For me, ROTK is too great a film with too big an emotional payoff for me to complain about it - unless we're talking about the EE version which has a lot of stupid shit in it. (Skull avalanche, Gandalf losing his staff, making "this army" a repeat, Aragorn beheading the Mouth of Sauron...) OK, Arwen's story and the soap-bubble ghosts are a bit dumb if you think about them but overall I think the TE really works. With the addition of Saruman's death I guess, though I don't miss it too much from the TE.

[gkgyver 1,645]

1 hour ago, Brónach said:

The Elrond-giving-Andúril scene was always particularly hilarious to me. "Hey, let's just complicate things for the sake of it".

 

You mean opposed to the totally not complicated Introduction of Elrond's sons?

Aragorn not being given Anduril in FotR was right on the money.

 

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

Actually Saruman should have died at the end of TTT.

 

No, he should have died in the beginning of RotK.

It's amazing how many people have no sense for pacing. That Saruman scene after Helm's Deep would have felt SO wrong, and not only because it would have been ridiculous to See Aragorn and Company arriving at Isengard just moments after the battle was won, when the Uruk's took a few days to arrive at Helm's Deep.

 

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Yeah, I didn't have a problem with either of those things either.

 

Aragorn pulling out a broken sword at the Council of Elrond and proclaiming himself heir to the throne of Gondor would have looked silly and destroyed the character in terms of the films.  i had no issue with what they did with Aragorn's story arc, even though it's obviously different than what's in the books.  Elrond giving Aragorn Andúril was fine, it was the dialogue about tying Arwen's fate to the ring that I objected to.   And I also had no problem with moving Saruman's death to the beginning of ROTK...though I do think it should have been included in the TE.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Elrond riding all the way to the borders of Rohan, on his own even though we just saw him in Rivendell is silly though.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

He uses the same maps Arya Stark does.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Or Little Finger!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

16 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Actually Saruman should have died at the end of TTT.

 

He should have died at the end of The Scouring Of The Shire, but that is, of course, a different story. 

[Quintus 5,399]

I love The Two Towers but The Return of the King is a more satisfying film for me. Pelennor was another level of thrilling to Helms Deep too. 

 

I don't like the Arwen material in any of the films. I'd still prefer it if Legolas met Frodo at the Isen. 

[gkgyver 1,645]

15 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Elrond riding all the way to the borders of Rohan, on his own even though we just saw him in Rivendell is silly though.

 

And yet you think Saruman should have died right after Helms Deep.

[Jay 37,287]

To me ROTK always feels more like a collection of scenes, instead of a cohesive movie, to me.  FOTR and to a lesser extent TTT are really cohesive movies.

 

Perhaps the constant starting and stopping of music in ROTK, combined with the fact that the cues are all written more as individual pieces rather than parts of a longer whole (imho) lead to this feeling too

 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Nick66 said:

The "Edge of Night" sequence is outstanding. Most of ROTK is outstanding.  The issues I have with it only stand out, to me, because I don't really have an issues with the first two films.

 

But ROTK? Yeah, there are problems.  They're mostly minor, but since they're being compared to the perfection of the first two, they stand out. Off the top of my head (and I'm using the EE as reference, as it's the only one I watch)

 

• The second "This army" gag with the army of the dead coming of nowhere. It worked the first time when they board the pirate ship , but falls flat the second time at Pellanor. And the EE almost messes the gag up the first time by extending the scene past Aragon's "what say you" to include the ridiculous mountain of falling skulls. I understand this is only an issue in the EE, but to me everything past "What say you" was unecessary and ruinst he drama of the scene.
• Sam abandoning Frodo.  What? After making a huge deal about Sam promising Mr. Gandalf sir that he'd never abandon Mr. Frodo, he does. Why? Because an out of his mind Mr. Frodo tells him to. Even though Sam knows Gollum is a liar and murder, he leaves his friend to his fate. At most, Sam would follow them in secret, not scamper down the mountain crying. And what makes him come back up? Finding the discarded bread. What, knowing Gollum tossed some bread made him REALLY angry? As opposed to hearing with his own ears that Gollum was planning on killing them both. I don't buy it. I've generally gone along with the changes to some of the characters character (e.g. Faramir), but this was a change in Sam's character, towards the end, just to suit the needs of the scene.
• Tying Arwen's fate to the fate of the ring. Ugh. As if the fate of Middle-Earth hanging in the balance wasn't enough, Aragorn (and the audience) must be given additional motivation to care about the ring getting destroyed. Completely unnecessary, especially when the beat in the film at this point is Aragorn finally coming to terms with who he is and what he's supposed to do.
• Related to this, Arwen "surprising" Aragorn at his coronation. What, sometime between the ring getting destroyed and becoming King Aragorn didn't ask someone "Hey, whatever happened to that elf girl I liked? Is she still around?"   After the made such a big deal of tying Arwen's fate to the ring, this scene just seemed kind of off to me.
• Gandalf murdering Denathor. Enough said.
• Legolas superheroics & cartoon violence
• I'll forgive the early 2000's CGI, not much they can do about that. But the bright, slick colour scheme they chose for this film was in contrast to the gritty naturalism of the first two. It gives it a kind of unrealistic, "fantasy" feel that continued on into The Hobbit.

 

Wow. If it sounds like I hate this film, I don't, I love it. These are mostly small complaints and the film is still brilliant and contains some of my favourite moments in the trilogy..."You bow to no one" give me a lump in my throat everytime, and Frodo's bittersweet homecoming was pitch perfect.   As I said, these flaws only stand out in contrast to the sheer perfection of the first two.

 

 

 

 

 

Great points Nick!

[Wojo 2,453]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

To me ROTK always feels more like a collection of scenes, instead of a cohesive movie, to me.  FOTR and to a lesser extent TTT are really cohesive movies.

 

Probably because of how much TTT story material was pushed out of its movie to be told in ROTK, ie the Shelob sequence. That forced PJ to accelerate the storytelling in ROTK, leading to a lot of geographic compression, ie you don't see the traveling between a lot of the story locales. 

 

And a lot of that deals with the scope of each movie. FOTR is all about the journey from the Shire to Rivendell to Moria to the Emyn Muil, so it really feels slow and organic. We might not see every step but it doesn't feel like we don't. In TTT, Sam and Frodo go just a few miles, less than they ought to, but no worries. The rest of the company goes west to be with the Ents and Rohan, again, not far. I actually think PJ burns unnecessary screentime on the journey to Helm's Deep, which isn't too far relatively from Meduseld, with the warg attack; its lasting function is to separate Aragorn from the company, give him his Arwen vision, and allow him to see the horde of the white hand. 

 

But ROTK has the biggest scope. Isengard, Rohan, Gondor, Cirith Ungol, Mordor, Gondor, the Shire, and the Havens. Of course it feels like a hodge podge of scenes because PJ ran out of runtime to show all the traveling between locations, even after saving time by excising the scouring. 

[oierem 151]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

To me ROTK always feels more like a collection of scenes, instead of a cohesive movie, to me.  FOTR and to a lesser extent TTT are really cohesive movies.

 

 

That's often the curse that the third chapters of a trilogy often have: they have to deal with a lot of the resolutions of previous storylines, and therefore, fail to work on their own as cohesive and complete movies. Both Fellowship and TTT have a proper movie structure, with a natural climax. Both work more or less independently.

 

ROTK on the other hand, has a wonderfully crafted third act (which Peter Jackson edited very carefully, before the rest of the movie), but it's the climax of the whole story, not of that particular movie. As a result, the structure of the rest of the movie suffers a bit. The big battle has to happen in the second act without the proper build-up and it doesn't really feel like a climatic battle like Helm's Deep (even though it's much bigger); Gondor and Minas Tirith are also much less developed than the Rohirrim. And the first act of the movie is really a series of scenes in which characters find each other, separate again, reagroup and move from one place to another, without a real sense of building up towards somewhere.

Another small problem is that TTT had three clear story-arcs, whereas in ROTK there are many more which appear and dissappear throughout the movie.

[Jay 37,287]

42 minutes ago, oierem said:

 

That's often the curse that the third chapters of a trilogy often have: they have to deal with a lot of the resolutions of previous storylines, and therefore, fail to work on their own as cohesive and complete movies. Both Fellowship and TTT have a proper movie structure, with a natural climax. Both work more or less independently.

 

ROTK on the other hand, has a wonderfully crafted third act (which Peter Jackson edited very carefully, before the rest of the movie), but it's the climax of the whole story, not of that particular movie. As a result, the structure of the rest of the movie suffers a bit. The big battle has to happen in the second act without the proper build-up and it doesn't really feel like a climatic battle like Helm's Deep (even though it's much bigger); Gondor and Minas Tirith are also much less developed than the Rohirrim. And the first act of the movie is really a series of scenes in which characters find each other, separate again, reagroup and move from one place to another, without a real sense of building up towards somewhere.

Another small problem is that TTT had three clear story-arcs, whereas in ROTK there are many more which appear and dissappear throughout the movie.

 

Well said! 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

2 hours ago, oierem said:

The big battle has to happen in the second act without the proper build-up and it doesn't really feel like a climatic battle like Helm's Deep (even though it's much bigger); Gondor and Minas Tirith are also much less developed than the Rohirrim.

 

And that's why I think Beregond (and possibly Bergil too) should have been in the movie. He may not be a very important character in the great scheme of things, but he would have definitely helped make us care for the Gondorians. As it is, apart from Faramir, there isn't a Gondorian we care about.

 

I mean, for Rohan, you had: Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn, Gamling and Hama (and even Haleth, you know, that kid Aragorn hangs around with before the battle of Helm's Deep), all likable characters. Even Gamling and Hama, whose role may seem insignificant, helped put a face on the Rohirrim and connect to these people.

 

But with Gondor, you had: Denethor, who's pretty much a dick, and Faramir (who's unconscious for most of the film), so you end up with Gondorians who are just a bunch of faceless people for the audience (there isn't a single Gondorian that has spoken dialogue apart from that one guy who says "Denethor had foreseen it!" or something like that), and ultimately, it's Shore, with his magnificent theme, that makes you care at least a bit for that proud kingdom. Having someone like Beregond (and maybe, who knows, even Prince Imrahil) would have added some much needed personality to the Gondorian people. I'm not saying he should have had a prominent role: just a few spoken lines here and there, as a recurring familiar face with a name. This would have helped the audience connect to Gondor like they did with Rohan (it seems PJ realized that with The Hobbit, and created characters like Percy and Hilda for that very reason).

 

Sounds like I'm complaining, but I definitely am not. I mean, ROTK is my favourite of the three! But what I mentioned above is something I noticed in recent years when thinking about that film (I originally didn't even realize that when watching the movie the first few times), and that I think would have improved it (at least a wee bit).

[Barnald 365]

3 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

As it is, apart from Faramir, there isn't a Gondorian we care about.

 

I wept when Madril died.

 

3 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

(It seems PJ realized that with The Hobbit, and created characters like Percy and Hilda for that very reason).

 

No one cared about Percy or Hilda.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

The shot in...oh, dear, I forgot what film...where Legolas flips under his horse, to come up and mount it, was so unexpected, at the cinema. In London, people applauded, at that.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

2 minutes ago, Barnald said:

No one cared about Percy or Hilda.

 

Percy was cool!

 

Hilda... Eh... At least, PJ tried!

[Jay 37,287]

9 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

And that's why I think Beregond (and possibly Bergil too) should have been in the movie. He may not be a very important character in the great scheme of things, but he would have definitely helped make us care for the Gondorians. As it is, apart from Faramir, there isn't a Gondorian we care about.

 

I mean, for Rohan, you had: Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn, Gamling and Hama (and even Haleth, you know, that kid Aragorn hangs around with before the battle of Helm's Deep), all likable characters. Even Gamling and Hama, whose role may seem insignificant, helped put a face on the Rohirrim and connect to these people.

 

But with Gondor, you had: Denethor, who's pretty much a dick, and Faramir (who's unconscious for most of the film), so you end up with Gondorians which are just a bunch of faceless people for the audience (there isn't a single Gondorian that has spoken dialogue apart from that one guy who says "Denethor had foreseen it!" or something like that), and ultimately, it's Shore, with his magnificent theme, that makes you care at least a bit for that proud kingdom. Having someone like Beregond (and maybe, who knows, even Prince Imrahil) would have added some much needed personality to the Gondorian people. I'm not saying he should have had a prominent role: just a few spoken lines here and there, as a recurring familiar face with a name. This would have helped the audience connect to Gondor like they did with Rohan (it seems PJ realized that with The Hobbit, and created characters like Percy and Hilda for that very reason).

 

Sounds like I'm complaining, but I definitely am not. I mean, ROTK is my favourite of the three! But what I mentioned above is something I noticed in recent years when thinking about that film (I originally didn't even realize that when watching the movie the first few times), and that I think would have improved it (at least a wee bit).

 

Good point BB!

[oierem 151]

1 hour ago, BloodBoal said:

 

And that's why I think Beregond (and possibly Bergil too) should have been in the movie. He may not be a very important character in the great scheme of things, but he would have definitely helped make us care for the Gondorians. As it is, apart from Faramir, there isn't a Gondorian we care about.

 

I mean, for Rohan, you had: Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn, Gamling and Hama (and even Haleth, you know, that kid Aragorn hangs around with before the battle of Helm's Deep), all likable characters. Even Gamling and Hama, whose role may seem insignificant, helped put a face on the Rohirrim and connect to these people.

 

 

 

Yes, but for Rohan you had a whole movie: basically, TTT didn't have much material to adapt and from the moment they decided to make Helm's Deep battle the climax of the film, they had a 3+ hour movie to develop that story. The result is a great battle, preceded by a great storyline about the Rohirrim. On the other hand, it can be said that the second movie is basically about Rohan (and Gollum).

The third movie doesn't have that luxury. The movie just can't be about Gondor. It has to be about the Ring, about Frodo's quest. And following the book structure, the battle of Minas Tirith couldn've be the climax of the movie either.

What I mean is... it is what it is. Yes, the second movie makes for a better stand-alone story and a better climatic battle, but the third movie couldn't copy it's structure even if they wanted to, nor could they focus on Gondor/Minas Tirith the way the focused on Rohan.

[Richard Penna 3,671]

I do imagine what would happen if PJ were given another year of pickups and post on RotK. I think the problems it has are to an extent a victim of the chaos of trying to finish it in time.

 

I think it's a great film, but I agree with the sentiments above that it suffers somewhat from having to wrap up too much story and quickly jump from one act to the next.

[oierem 151]

Just now, Richard Penna said:

I do imagine what would happen if PJ were given another year of pickups and post on RotK. I think the problems it has are to an extent a victim of the chaos of trying to finish it in time.

 

 

If PJ were given another year of pickups the movie would end up being even more chaotic. They guy just can't stop re-thinking and re-structuring his films. And part of the "problems" with ROTK are because there were (too) many changes to the structure of the movie made late in the game.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

15 minutes ago, oierem said:

Yes, but for Rohan you had a whole movie: basically, TTT didn't have much material to adapt and from the moment they decided to make Helm's Deep battle the climax of the film, they had a 3+ hour movie to develop that story. The result is a great battle, preceded by a great storyline about the Rohirrim. On the other hand, it can be said that the second movie is basically about Rohan (and Gollum).

The third movie doesn't have that luxury. The movie just can't be about Gondor. It has to be about the Ring, about Frodo's quest. And following the book structure, the battle of Minas Tirith couldn've be the climax of the movie either.

What I mean is... it is what it is. Yes, the second movie makes for a better stand-alone story and a better climatic battle, but the third movie couldn't copy it's structure even if they wanted to, nor could they focus on Gondor/Minas Tirith the way the focused on Rohan.

 

It's true, but really, when you think about it, what I suggested wouldn't add that much screentime. No more than 5 minutes of screentime spread throughout the movie (that's basically what Hama and Gamling's screentime must amount to in TTT) with one or two recurring Gondorian characters to make Gondor more than just a bunch of faceless people.

[Wojo 2,453]

4 hours ago, WojinPA said:

 

Probably because of how much TTT story material was pushed out of its movie to be told in ROTK, ie the Shelob sequence. That forced PJ to accelerate the storytelling in ROTK, leading to a lot of geographic compression, ie you don't see the traveling between a lot of the story locales. 

 

And a lot of that deals with the scope of each movie. FOTR is all about the journey from the Shire to Rivendell to Moria to the Emyn Muil, so it really feels slow and organic. We might not see every step but it doesn't feel like we don't. In TTT, Sam and Frodo go just a few miles, less than they ought to, but no worries. The rest of the company goes west to be with the Ents and Rohan, again, not far. I actually think PJ burns unnecessary screentime on the journey to Helm's Deep, which isn't too far relatively from Meduseld, with the warg attack; its lasting function is to separate Aragorn from the company, give him his Arwen vision, and allow him to see the horde of the white hand. 

 

But ROTK has the biggest scope. Isengard, Rohan, Gondor, Cirith Ungol, Mordor, Gondor, the Shire, and the Havens. Of course it feels like a hodge podge of scenes because PJ ran out of runtime to show all the traveling between locations, even after saving time by excising the scouring. 

 

Well said! 

1 hour ago, Jay said:

 

Good point BB!

 

Well said! 

23 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Actually Saruman should have died at the end of TTT.

Well said! 

1 hour ago, Richard said:

The shot in...oh, dear, I forgot what film...where Legolas flips under his horse, to come up and mount it, was so unexpected, at the cinema. In London, people applauded, at that.

Good point, well said! 

[KK 3,307]

I agree that ROTK is the most flawed of the three, but it's also my personal favourite if only because it succeeds so marvellously at resonating emotionally. Yes, there's the messy plotting, the strange colour grading and the excessive CGI at points but the moments that matter really hit it home. The Edge of Night Sequence, Lighting of the Beacons, the Minas Tirith introduction, Theoden's charge, the Grey Havens and other little scenes...after having made the audience invest so much with its brilliant predecessors, ROTK ultimately delivers the most emotionally charged experience.

 

By the way, Denethor's death scene is a guilty pleasure moment for me. But that might be mainly because of that brilliant brass cluster that accompanies the scene. Shore really knew how to stage the drama.

 

 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Just now, KK said:

Shore really knew how to stage the drama.

 

Yes, "knew"...

[KK 3,307]

He still does! I still blame PJ and the Pope for the mess we shall not speak of.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

Denethor's death is magnificent... and worthless. The way he goes flying off into the fray, just to be utterly forgotten, is masterful. It's a completely useless gesture.

 

32 minutes ago, KK said:

He still does! I still blame PJ and the Pope for the mess we shall not speak of.

 

Back the MODEM up a bit, KK!

The Pope? The pointy-hatted, religious, Italian dude? What's he got to do with fucking up TLOTR?

[Jay 37,287]

Conrad Pope. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The Savior of The Hobbit, actually!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

8 minutes ago, Richard said:

Denethor's death is magnificent... and worthless. The way he goes flying off into the fray, just to be utterly forgotten, is masterful. It's a completely useless gesture.

 

But also hilarious because he runs like half a mile WHILE ON FIRE.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

Never thought of that!

[Gnome in Plaid 219]

That's actually one of my biggest complaints about the EE.  It's great that we get more of the upper levels of Minas Tirith, and more John Noble is always welcome... but in the TE there isn't any context for where the tomb of the Stewards is (I figured they implied it was in the main complex of the citadel).  That way, yes, it's ridiculous that Denethor runs a few hundred yards while on fire, but vaguely plausible in a cinematic context.  The EE shows him running what is at least a half mile.