Kevin's Watch

Most of us could probably pick up on all kinds of little mistakes in our favorite movies after we've watched them a nauseating number of times; however, I guess in your case, your experience in video editing gives you an eye for spotting those types of errors.

As for the movie itself, I must have offered some opinion on it somewhere a long time ago. I'm sorry to say TTT was a bit of an emotional letdown after FOTR. Fellowship was the only one in the trilogy that I can say I loved ferociously, to use your words. Everything clicked in FOTR. Whereas TTT felt disjointed to me; I could not connect emotionally with what was happening, save for a few outstanding scenes - primarily the great opening "recap" of Gandalf's struggle with the Balrog and the Helm's Deep battle. I sorely missed Gandalf the Grey. Sorry, but for me Gandalf the White lived up to his title in an unintentional way - as in bland, devoid of color and interest.

Faramir...I don't know if it was the actor's fault or the character's, but he came across even less dramatically interesting than the Bored Lord of Whiteness himself. Yes, midway through TTT I was about ready to slip into a coma. I really felt the absence of Sean Bean's kicking-and-screaming Boromir. Now there's a guy I could rally around, fatally flawed and all.

I'm afraid I was never sold on the Ents either. Every creature in Fellowship came across convincingly, but in TTT the WETA folks failed to conjure up the Ents I had been hoping to see - the brooding entities that should have inspired awe, and at least some measure of terror. Instead, the only thing Treebeard inspired in me was a desire to throw something at the screen. I mean, really, the low-budget Robot Chicken animated Great Pumpkin that I saw just recently was way scarier -- that's the kind of spine-tingling fright the Ents should have elicited. But seeing the Ents kick the hell out of Isengard was admittedly very satisfying. At least it got me out of my coma.

The best part about TTT is Gollum.

I hadn't joined at the time, so I'd like to add that watching TTT was like being presented with my favorite cake, crafted to perfection, and then the person carrying it into the room stumbles and drops the plate as they're setting it on the table, leaving just a few, trivial-seeming flaws. It's still good, but just not what I expected.

Most unfortunate line in all three movies; Sam to Frodo in Osgiliath during his end-of-the-movie speech: "We shouldn't even be here."

That took me right out of the movie, since they weren't suppose to be in Osgiliath. I missed the next couple of lines because of it.

I enjoyed it a lot more the second time too, which speaks to my expectations. There were too many storylines (Frodo, Aragorn, Rohan, Ents, Saruman) progressing to have so many scene changes, and I think following Frodo for the first stretch, through his meeting with Faramir, would have solved some of the disjointedness. I felt short-sheeted at the end of Helm's Deep. The Riders drive into the Uruk-hai, music swelling, and then poof, it's over? Instead of that as the climactic end, we get Sam's speech?

I understand the difficulties time-wise in the screenplay of LOTR, but there were scenes added that did not forward the story (Aragorn off the cliff) that took time that could have been used better.

Clearly the movie was intended to beef up the slim middle of the trilogy. Overmuch was added in order to add more story arc for Aragorn, and for Faramir, and perhaps for Frodo. I agree with the sentiment, but I think that perhaps it went a bit overboard. The result was that there was too much pushed from TTT into ROTK, leaving that movie choppy and rushed.

Aragorn entering the Paths of the Dead, Frodo captured by the Orcs, Pippin rushed on his way to Minas Tirith, leaving poor Merry behind. What delicious cliffhangers! Which Jackson and company seemed to throw away. They hunted for silver and overlooked the gold.

Well, I think if the trilogy is watched in it's entirety it works but as a stand alone film, not so much.

ItisWritten wrote: There were too many storylines (Frodo, Aragorn, Rohan, Ents, Saruman) progressing to have so many scene changes, and I think following Frodo for the first stretch, through his meeting with Faramir, would have solved some of the disjointedness.

I think you nailed it. The movie felt crammed with too many things, to the point that the story lost focus for me.

I felt short-sheeted at the end of Helm's Deep. The Riders drive into the Uruk-hai, music swelling, and then poof, it's over? Instead of that as the climactic end, we get Sam's speech?

Yes, I had the same reaction!

I understand the difficulties time-wise in the screenplay of LOTR, but there were scenes added that did not forward the story (Aragorn off the cliff) that took time that could have been used better.

I agree.

Cameraman Jenn wrote:Well, I think if the trilogy is watched in it's entirety it works but as a stand alone film, not so much.

I recently (Oct 12) attended a all day, three extended version screening of the trilogy (in Cambridge). Wow, was my butt sore before the end. But now I can proudly say I did it!

I'd say the nitpicky moments for me primarily happen in FOTR and ROTK. I don't notice many throughout TTT, but TTT is the most dull of the lot. I still don't get why they made Helm's Deep such a big thing. I would much rather of seen them build up Pelennor Fields. And yes, I agree completely with Wayfriend that TTT was the biggest waste of screen time because they did add so many things that the other two movies were a lot more rushed as a consequence.
Think about it:
The ending of FOTR movie included bits from TTT. Many bits of TTT were present in the ROTK movie. TTT is one of the most boring books of the series. Why did it take such a center stage for the movies?

Regardless, it is a masterful achievement, and I am a big fan. But little things like how they put the films together and even smaller things like the hobbits' ears at Mount Doom looking PARTICULARLY fake are my bigger gripes. And that they demystified the Force and threw in the midichl....oh...sorry, wrong series.

Just remember - Aragorn shot first.

I didn't think TTT was the most boring book of the series. Actually, I don't think of it as three books at all. Maybe six, but not three.

I recently got the 1992 50th anniversary edition with the Alan Lee watercolor illustrations for $23 bucks! That's one third the original price. I've been wanting the Holy Trilogy in one book for decades, but didn't want to pay $70 for it. I can't wait to read it for the first time as one big book.

Just wanted to add: TTT was one of my favorite parts of the story, where it broke off into multiple tales. You didn't get this powerful sense of "here's where they split up for the first time" in the movies. But that's not the fault of the 2nd movie, it's the fault of the 1st. In Fellowship, the book, you didn't get multiple perspectives. It followed very closely to Frodo's perspective, and that's it. Very intimate, very linear. Everything that happened "off screen" was told in a flashback. And if someone wasn't telling the story to Frodo, you didn't know it (except, I believe, one small portion in Buckland when the Nazgul attack after Frodo has escaped into the Old Forest). But in the movie, we see the prologue. We see Gollum, Bilbo, wars, Isildur, even Sauron. And then we see scenes at the party from Gandalf's perspective, Merry and Pippen, Bilbo, etc. Even Gandalf going to Isengard.

There is never this exclusively Frodo-centric POV in the movies that the books have. So when they split up in TTT, the narrative impact isn't as great. In fact, I don't believe I've ever read another book that does this, changing it's major POV structure in the middle of the story. That alone produces a much greater sense of "Breaking" for the Fellowship than was apparent in the movies. The stakes felt like they were higher in the book, and the dramatic tension was greater by making use of this technique. The result was more jarring in the books--a result that was heightened by how long it took to get back and forth between the various perspectives. With shorter cuts between the groups, the dramatic tension is lessened. There's not as much time for our curiosity and anticipation for the off-screen groups to grow. So they had to fill the movie with lots of little cliffhangers instead, to replicate this sense of tension. This is why we got Aragorn falling off the cliff. And lots of other little cliffhangers (usually involving someone falling, for some reason). After seeing this done over and over, it doesn't create tension. It's just a mess.

So it wasn't merely the changes to characters that resulted in a diminished experience during the movie. It was structural changes to the way the story was told. Jackson claimed that this was necessary, because it was a movie, not a book. But I disagree. Story telling is story telling. I don't see why waiting longer to reveal the fates of individual characters, and staying longer with them, would be impossible in a movie. I've seen lots of movies with unconventional, nonlinear structures.

Like I said, watching the movies. I must say and I will stand behind this and anyone who disagrees with me is foolish. Sean Astin. He's brilliant. He's wonderful. He makes "Return of the King" Frodo (Elijah Wood) says at one point, I want to hear more about Sam, Samwise the brave and I say ME TOO. Gah I just love him as Sam. The casting people did ok, elijah wood, meh, matrix guy as elrond, bleagh, Viggo, hell yes, Sir Ian, can't go wrong, Cate Blanchette? Good casting, terrible direcing, the rest, good job but stellar on Sean. He should have won an oscar.

I remember reading that Sean Astin was disappointed that one take on the scene on the slopes of Mount Doom, just before carrying Frodo, had to be redone (don't remember why), because he felt he nailed it. That might have been the difference in getting nominated, maybe.

Book 3 of TTT is my favorite part. I just devoured it the first time, which is probably why I was so disappointed in the movie. Breaking it up with the much slower Frodo and Sam stuff really messed with the flow. Books 3 & 4 are so different, mixing them was like trying to combine ... well, I can't come up with a fair comparison. Anyway, I think it was a mistake.

ItisWritten wrote:I remember reading that Sean Astin was disappointed that one take on the scene on the slopes of Mount Doom, just before carrying Frodo, had to be redone (don't remember why), because he felt he nailed it. That might have been the difference in getting nominated, maybe.

Book 3 of TTT is my favorite part. I just devoured it the first time, which is probably why I was so disappointed in the movie. Breaking it up with the much slower Frodo and Sam stuff really messed with the flow. Books 3 & 4 are so different, mixing them was like trying to combine ... well, I can't come up with a fair comparison. Anyway, I think it was a mistake.

I agree completely with the mixing of different Books. And changing the structure necessitated adding and padding. Boyans, in particular, irritated me with her opinion of Tolkien's work. Her opinion seemed to be more that Tolkien f*cked up, not that a different treatment was necessary for film.

Regarding the Astin comment on his Mount Doom scene, I remember that, too. I think it came from the commentaries. I'm one of those freaks who listened to all four commentary tracks for all three movies. It has been a while, but I used to know waaay too much about these movies. But I still haven't watched all three Extended Editions back-to-back. I told myself I was going to wait for my first widescreen HDTV. Now that I've got my HDTV, I think I might even wait until the Blueray version comes out. I've just seen these movies too many times, I feel I still need a break. Sadly, a Blueray version probably won't be out until after the Hobbit, in 2010 or 2011.

Speaking of watching it back-to-back...

When RotK came out, one of our local theatres had a "Trilogy Day". Fellowship Extended, break, Two Towers Extended, break, RotK premier

WOW, that was a long day in the theatre!

Hey Rigel, I did that too. I showed up at 10:00am and there was a lot of people in line who had been there since 5am. And ROTK let out at 1am. It was beautiful to sit through all that and feel the full force of it all, knowing that the last movie was coming up, but it was a recipe for a sore ass. Especially since the seats at the theater in my area were not the most comfortable to begin with. I'm just glad I wasn't in costume. Those poor saps must have really had it hard.

So what was your prize for sitting through it all? Was it like ours? We got one frame of film from the three films. Just curious if that was what they handed out at each.

And yeah, Malik, I was totally obsessed as well, and watched pretty much everything on the DVDs.

I just did it recently as well (see earlier post). Yeah, that's when good theatre seats REALLY pay off.

I was slated to see all three EEs in a row. However, the theatre got the Theatrical ROTK shipped to them in some snafu. At first we were disappointed. But, at the end, our bottoms didn't object too much.

wayfriend wrote:I just did it recently as well (see earlier post). Yeah, that's when good theatre seats REALLY pay off.

I was slated to see all three EEs in a row. However, the theatre got the Theatrical ROTK shipped to them in some snafu. At first we were disappointed. But, at the end, our bottoms didn't object too much.

Wow, and you didn't even have the enticement of seeing the last one for the first time. My invisible hat is off to you.

I finally purchased The Two Towers and Return of the King, the extended editions. It helped that they were dirt cheap, but I still debated with myself for a long time in the store before getting them. I don't believe I've ever bought a movie that I disliked seeing the first time...until now, in the case of The Two Towers. But I wanted to revisit these two films from the perspective of having read the books. (Fellowship I already know and love and have seen many times.)

So I watched TTT...and overall I did like it better than before. Still, as soon as Faramir showed up...aaargh! I never liked his character in the movie the first time around, but now he seemed even worse, now that I knew what he was like in the book - a compassionate and wise man every bit the equal of his brother Boromir. It's inexplicable to me why Faramir and the subplot around him were altered so much for the movie. What good did the changes serve? (Maybe the writers give their reasons in the commentaries, but I haven't gotten to them yet.)

The stunning opening with Gandalf fighting the Balrog remains my favorite sequence of the film. The remaining 3 hours had a hard time living up to those first few minutes.

The battle at Helm's Deep was still exciting. Jackson depicted all the battles very well, and in that respect, improved on the books. Tolkien's descriptions of battles in the books did not fire my imagination or engage my emotions as well as they should have. (In that, I also think Donaldson is the better writer - but that's for another thread.) The scene of the uruk-hai sprinting into the tunnel to set off the bombs still makes me smile; it's like a parody of an Olympic torch relay. The other thing I liked about Helm's Deep was the presence of the Elves fighting alongside Men. That was a welcome deviation from the book, though it still didn't make up for turning Faramir into a nitwit.

Last but not least, I felt that Frodo's struggle of will with the Ring was more poignantly portrayed onscreen than in the books. All kudos to Elijah Wood. He really gave the sense that the Ring was messing with Frodo's mind and heart. Whereas in reading the books, I did not feel the urgent danger that Frodo might lose his "soul" to the Ring and Sauron.

It's interesting to see this post at this late date.

I'm sure that the changes to Faramir's character have been explained before. But let me try to explain it a new way.

You admired Frodo's struggle with the ring. (As do I.) You thought they did a better job of capturing the urgent danger the ring presents to its wearer. (As do I.)

What would have happened had Faramir been as noble as in the book, learning of the ring and letting it pass into Mordor? Wouldn't it undermine the whole idea of the danger of the ring? Could Boromir's brother easily shrug off the lure of the ring where Borimir himself failed? If people could have the ring in their grasp, and not covet its power, then what is all the fuss about anyway?

The writers felt that the rings lack of influence on Faramir, as presented in the book, derailed their strategy for portraying the ring as a corrupting and alluring power. (As do I.) A movie doesn't have as much luxury of time as a book, and some things that can be smoothed over in a book, can't be in a movie.

wayfriend wrote:It's interesting to see this post at this late date.

I'm sure that the changes to Faramir's character have been explained before. But let me try to explain it a new way.

You admired Frodo's struggle with the ring. (As do I.) You thought they did a better job of capturing the urgent danger the ring presents to its wearer. (As do I.)

What would have happened had Faramir been as noble as in the book, learning of the ring and letting it pass into Mordor? Wouldn't it undermine the whole idea of the danger of the ring? Could Boromir's brother easily shrug off the lure of the ring where Borimir himself failed? If people could have the ring in their grasp, and not covet its power, then what is all the fuss about anyway?

The writers felt that the rings lack of influence on Faramir, as presented in the book, derailed their strategy for portraying the ring as a corrupting and alluring power. (As do I.) A movie doesn't have as much luxury of time as a book, and some things that can be smoothed over in a book, can't be in a movie.

There was a line of Faramir's from the book, which I can't quite quote, "If I came upon this thing in the road, I would not take it." He said this to Frodo before he knew what it was, before he felt its lure.

It's the honor of Faramir that defeated the Ring. He made this vow to Frodo, and he would not betray it. He saw Frodo and Sam's fear and figured out Boromir's failure in an instant. How hard would it really be to portray that in a movie?

I can think of one reason why they couldn't, and that was Frodo's characterization. Frodo was too weak and doubting in the movie. They didn't even try to give him and Faramir any dialogue outside of the basics.

Frodo practically handing himself over to the Nazgul at Osgiliath did not seem to be a valid turning point. Would you let someone in possession of a great power, who didn't seem to be in control of it, go off by himself in a war zone? Jackson's point seemed to be, "See how much Frodo suffers? Do you want to?" Frodo's performance at Henneth Anun(sp) and Osgiliath should not have inspired confidence toward his stated goal of destroying the Ring. No wonder Faramir took him to Osgiliath. The wonder is he let him go.