Ways Peter Jackson Could Ruin The Return of the King

by **lil_Tigga** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 12:42 am

Top 11 Ways Peter Jackson Could Ruin The Return of the King

by **CapriccioSCOURG** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 2:16 am

And here's some actual ways it was "ruined":

0. Excluding Saruman and the Scouring of the Shrire from the entire production.

-1. Not having The Battle of Evermore or Ramble On as the end title music played during the credits.

Seriously though, I thought the movie was the best film I've ever seen despite those few flaws. I must have gotten teary eyed at least three times, and I've seen it twice and plan to go back more duing the winter break. I'm obessed.

by **Sannop** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 3:21 am

EDIT: WOW... after reading the post that you gave... what I wrote below really doesnt have anything to do with your topic. I am still going to leave my rant on because I am tired of hearing the anti PJ crapola... but Tigga your post was funny as hell!!!!

This is another lesson in that dont assume thing for me. Maybe the below could spark another discussion on the movie.

ORIGNAL SOMEWHAT "FROM THE HIP" POST:

Anyone that tears these films apart has no clue as to the undertaking that was accomplished.

PJ was able to do two things...
1) Make 3 over 3 hours films that are loved and understood by millions that have not ever read LOTR (and creting many new readers in the process... I know, I see many more copies at school now than ever in the past).

2) Keep to the core story for us old faithfulls. Hell I think that he even told the story better in some parts then JRRT did. (go back and read how unclimatic it was when Frodo decided to take the ring at the council of Elrond... PJ built the tension that truly sold the evil power of the ring.... also in the books I was like "why is this bad ass ranger out fighting orcs with a broken sword.. this is just stupid".... and finally a real Faramir.. honor AND brains. Not some mere plot device as in the books.)

JRRT is brilliant beyond compare for his creation.... PJ is brilliant for his adjustments and his bringing the best story ever made to millions of new readers.

I am sorry, but I think that many that are slamming on PJ are doing it out some snobbery. They are upset that their elitism has been robbed.. so they attack the movies to make themselves remian elite. Anyone acting like this should watch Frasier and see how silly that attidue is.. works in a sitcom.. but it is foolish in real life.

GO PJ

by **cavalierlwt** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 5:24 am

Yeah, Tolkiens had a tendency to create very flat characters that had all the complexity of BF1942 'bots and their AI. In this movie he made Aragorn a man torn by his sense of duty and his fear that he might fall short and doom all of middle earth. PJ made us actually understand Boromir and his plight. I used to think of Boromir as just a weak person of low character because he made a grab for the ring. Now I see it different. Even without the evil power of the ring, Boromir had plenty of reasons for wanting to grab it. From his point of view, his people are living a life under siege by blocking Saurons forces in and absorbing all their attacks, meanwhile the elves in Rivendell (along with the rest of ME) are enjoying a peaceful existance at Gondor's expense. They get the one thing that might turn the tide and save his country (literally) from being overun and some group of Elves and others who haven't lifted a sword in anger decide on an insane plan that is surely doomed to fail and deliver the ring to the enemy. Along comes Aragorn, who Boromir could consider to be the elve's little crony and nothing more. Then to find out that he is the true heir of the throne of Gondor and realize that this guy has been awol (as far as Boromir knows) for the last 80 years of fighting and now is probably going to take his throne back from it's stewards. Huge slap in the face, which is why he mutters that 'Gondor needs no king' at the council. Throw in Boromir's family situation, with his dad and younger brother and you have a pretty complex set of emotions for poor Boromir. Then toss in a little of the ole evil ring magic and *boom*.
I really felt bad for Boromir after this movie, and even worse for Faramir (and even more impressed that Faramir didn't just grab the ring on sight from Frodo!).
Yeah, PJ did an unbelievably great job. We can all find little things we wanted to see, but some things just wouldn't have worked in the movies. I would have loved to see the scouring of the shire on DVD, but in the theaters it wouldn't have worked to have this little anti-climactic battle after that insanely huge epic battle. It just would have made the movie drag and killed the emotional aspects of the ending.

by **mattdeez** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 11:58 am

Originally posted by CapriccioSCOURG
And here's some actual ways it was "ruined":

0. Excluding Saruman and the Scouring of the Shrire from the entire production.

-1. Not having The Battle of Evermore or Ramble On as the end title music played during the credits.

Seriously though, I thought the movie was the best film I've [B]ever seen despite those few flaws. I must have gotten teary eyed at least three times, and I've seen it twice and plan to go back more duing the winter break. I'm obessed. [/B]

The part of Saruman being left out...was done most likely for the theatres and time restraits...probably will be on Extended DVD.

I love Zepplin...but that would have been retarded to have thrown those songs in as part of the soundtrack....although, the references to LOTR's is cool.

Anyone who thinks these films were no good, or ruined, or whatever....have either attention deficit or are just the type of person who bitches to hear themselves speak.

by **CapriccioSCOURG** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 1:47 pm

0. I thought they didn't even film the Scouring of the Shire, so probably not.

-1. I was joking.

by **Bagginses** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 2:30 pm

The Scouring of the Shire was never even filmed, Saruman was going to meet his end when Gandalf and company showed up at Isendgard at the beginning of ROTK. However, that was cut from the theatrical version since Peter Jackson and company thought that it was ending the Two Towers more than it was starting Return of the King. I didn't mind that absence becuase it, for sure, will be in the extended edition (which several people who have worked on the films have pointed to it being close to 5 hrs).

Also, I have to admit, that even though I really do love the Scouring of the Shire in the book, the mood and feeling was so strong after Aragorn's coronation, that if the scouring was in, it would have killed the mood for me. Yeah, you can say tht without the Scouring there's no way we can tell how the Hobbits have changed, but I'd beg to differ because PJ has done that with the scene at the Green Dragon Inn at the end. The Hobbits are sitting there by themselves and they can't share their experience with anyone else except themselves because the other Shirelings just don't seem to care. I think that's a pretty tragic thought. All that trouble and sacrifice and they don't get any recognition from their peers, they don't even know what happened. Ack, this is longer than I wanted it to be...

-Bagginses

PS. Coincidentally, as soon as I hopped in the car after watching it the first time, Ramble One started on the radio.

by **Sannop** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 1:28 am

Great stuff folks.. I had hoped that my post wasnt taken too harshly.

Cavalier.. I completely agree with how the movies gave such depth to each character (well maybe not Gimli..lol)

by **CapriccioSCOURG** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:58 pm

I thought Gimli was great. His character had more feeling for me than Legolas, who I thought was the least talented of the bunch. Still, they were all pretty f'ing amazing. Jackson's directing and editing stole the show for me though. It was all almost perfect.

by **Buliwyf** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 1:03 pm

why anyone is upset of things left out is beyond me. Nothing is left out, it's ALL IN THE BOOK. go read the book

by **Slaughter** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 1:04 pm

you know your a geek when .......read all post above

by **Sannop** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 5:20 pm

Originally posted by Slaughter
you know your a geek when .......read all post above

I disagree with the untalent in Legolas. Tolkien's elves are much more like traditional "fae folk" from old. They have all of the beauty and grace and immortailty that mortals desire, but they are missing something. They do not have the same emotional responses that humans (and for that world dwarves, halfings, etc) do. He should have been a very bland character. I think that he did a great job and was directed very well.

by **Slaughter** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 5:28 pm

lol i feel i'm at a star trek convention, when the geeks are arguing about what show was better Star Trek, or Star Trek the next Generation. hehehehe lol rofl

by **mattdeez** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:35 pm

I think this is a tad deeper than Star Trek especially since the topic at hand is a literary classic.

by **Buliwyf** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:37 pm

Originally posted by Slaughter
lol i feel i'm at a star trek convention, when the geeks are arguing about what show was better Star Trek, or Star Trek the next Generation. hehehehe lol rofl

next generation of course

Ways Peter Jackson Could Ruin The Return of the King

Ways Peter Jackson Could Ruin The Return of the King

Who is online