Film Roar

Good to see you back on form, Leopoldo! Thirteen days is one of the longest interruptions I know of at Geekroar, and I'm happy to see it end!

Those sons of bitches, making us wait til December. Say it with me: I want my ROTK!

Bugger, we gotta wait til december, aarrgg, hey wait, wasnt there a battle scene inthe shire with Sauramon and Wormtail eh eh!

I want to see that part so much it will wrap more of the story up on screen. unless the fab mr jackson doin a george lucas n bringin them out with new filmed scenes in 10 years aarrggg hope not.

guys.. of course the scouring of the shire wont be included. jackson and co. have stated long ago that they never filmed it. this scene works in the books, but film is a different format (something many people dont seem to understand about these films) and adding this type of scene at the end of the rotk would completely kill the momentum and pacing of the rest of the film. as for waiting for december, the cast and filmmakers have gone their separate ways at this point, so they needed the extra time to get together to get the commentaries done. if you are a fan of the extended dvd's, you'e listened to and greatly enjoyed these... let's give them the extra few weeks. oh, and i would expect the date to be december 14.... they wont want to release it the same day as the matrix box set (the 7th) and the 21st is too close to Christmas... its only a guess, but i'd put money on it...

there is a picture of the collectors package at http://dvd.ign.com/articles/533/533531p1.html. Enjoy!

I cannot believe that they are making us wait this long. I don't think I can stand it any longer! I heard the Houses of Healing are being included, and the scouring of the shire isn't. Damn them. That's so important! Otherwise, how will we know what happened to Saruman? Only devoted fans remember him by the end of the movie. Anyway, I can't wait for it to come out, and in the meantime I watch the theatrical version whenever I can. Bugger the movie release idiots.

Cheers-
PWP

You commented about the multiple conclusions at the end of the film, which apparently annoyed a few non-reader fans.

The explanation for this is two fold.

Firstly and most obviously they were included because the movie was based on the book - and these (and even more that were excluded) were in this book.

Secondly (and the reason they were in the book) was because Tolkien hated the "lived happily ever after" segment of major stories. As Sam says in the movie "ah, but where do they live, that's what I'd like to know" Tolkien felt the story was not complete without detailed explanations as to what happened to the main characters after the main parts of the story were complete.

How many times have you come to the end of a book or movie and wished for just a little bit more? A regret that the story you've just read or watched is at an end.

The scouring of the shire and the historical like descriptions that follow (in the book - and it was just one book, Tolkien was often annoyed that his "long yarn" was refered to as a trilogy - it was one book split into three parts - and yes each part is in itself split into two books, but now this is getting far too complicated and anal) were Tolkien's way of ending a story without the abrubt "they all lived happily ever after.".

hey,does anyone know,when IN that bloody december we can get our ROTK ee???which day?????????????????1st,2nd......31st??????????

I've said it before and ill say it again, Mr Jackson gets 11/10 for effort and achievement but the trilogy is ruined by shifting Shelob from the end of book 2 to near the end of film 3. ROTK is too crammed to achieve any good drama. Two Towers ends on too much of a high note, Sam facing mordor alone is the dramatic climax of that storyline. I fear Peter J got too attached to his amazing Gollum to let the story develope naturally. Here's hoping the extended dvd will rescue a badly edited 3rd film which sours feast!!

I remember seeing a clip of Legolas and Gimli in a bar and Gimli had a line like "We call it a drinking game." I'm not sure though.

Details on the Extended Edition DVD are at:Film Roar: LOTR Return of the King set for December 14 release

What happened to the Easterlings? In the breaking of the gate scene, some are visible behind orcs after the trolls kill some Gondorians. Will they return to enlighten our miserable existances?

Some people are too impatient. Like me! However, it is best to wait for a very good dvd, rather than have a crappy one right now. Folly to the former! but not to the latter.

If only Tony F had written, produced, directed and, maybe acted some of the key roles, what a better film we would have got. Shame on you Peter J.

The cast was amazing of LOTR! Really i liked all the characters, perhaps least of all Elrond. But Gandalf, Sam, Aragorn, Boromir, and all the others really have done a great job. The only problem with this movie 3 is ofcourse like others have said here: Shelob. I thougth that the beginning was a bit weird with Gollum, it somehow was to much.. he didn't have to put in such detail, like a juicy fisshhhh!!! And you see his nice teath into this raw fish, brb. Well anyway the books are ofcourse much better, because they have more time then movies. If they would have split up the movies in 4 or even 6 parts then it probally wouldn't have as much succes as it has now.

The only thing that i really found annoying were: Aragorn "losing" against this troll, with Anduril or before its reforging called Narsil. I mean this sword killed together with Gil'Galad's Spear (*** how was it called, a bit drowsy at the moment) killed Sauron, okeey they were controlled by to great kings. But Aragorn also is a king and heir to the throne of Gondor.

Another part was the things about Sam, he didn't showed his loyalty, and Frodo was much dumber in the movie then he was in the books. He never would have trusted Gollum 100% in the books like he did now, i prefered Gollum over Sam. Really that was irritating. And this thing about Denethor he wasn't this stupid in the books, although he was crazy. He did send all the woman and children out of the city to other cities and villages in Gondor. And the catapults of the enemy couldn't destroy the wall of Minas Tirith in the books. Why not do this in the movie, if would have shown us that Gondor still had strength, and where were the armies of Gondor, their were just a few... He should have receiver Anduril of Narsil much sooner (i mean Aragorn) and we should have seen that this really is a great weapon, not only extra in defeating the dead armies (although their wasn't a sword fight in the book) and why those stupid ghost in the battle of minas Tirith? I mean they weren't there, they defeated another army, that came from the river. A army of Gondor was waiting there, and then Aragorn used the boats of the enemy to land near the battle of minas Tirith. This would have shown us more that he really is the King, the way he would come out of the ship with a army behind him. Anyway is is a great movie, with a lot of bad points if you would compair it with the books of Tolkien.

WOW the list was longer then i thougth and i could go on like this....

Just one thing:
Permanent Darkness...
The main attack on Minias is at bride daylight and sunshine...
So much for Saurons powers...
It would have been so much better.....

I think you will find that much of what has just been mentioned would have been very hard to explain in a movie made largely for an american audience.
No offence to any american reading, but when they spend their lives watching stuff like the fast and the furious, how do you explain to them the detail of LoTR in three hours?

That is exactly my point. They should have made the movie for the fans, and trust me the fan base is big. And people that are wondering, about all the things that they didn't understood, will they then read in the book. But mostly i always hear from people that i'm crazy for reading such books. :)

Well, I am an American. And in need of no such explanation. Tolkien was a Master craftsman. I agree also that much of what passes for "movie entertainment" here in the states is largely a waste of film. Having gotten that out of the way...

These films, while amazingly faithful in their interpretation of Tolkiens vision, they naturally -- for no other reason than that print always translates poorly to film -- fall short in telling the story Tolkien himself spent a lifetime chasing. But that's not necessarily a bad thing... just the nature of the beast.

I can forgive doing away with Tom Bombadil; he really plays no part at all in the telling of the war of the ring, except as an aside in deliberation at the council of Elrond (Tom Bombadil would not have made a good steward of the ring). Shelob appeared where she needed to as far as story goes, irrespective of where Mr. Jackson chose to place her in the body of the whole. But to do away with the scouring of the shire all but ruins the entirety of the films.

Another point:

A lot of folks I've spoken with here (United States) are troubled by a perception of "gay" overtones throughout, though primarily at the end. But these ignorants just don't understand the bond that develops between compatriots who not only share a quest, but hardship, loss, privation, etc., as well. The love Frodo had for Sam... the love they all had, and showed, for each other, is so "NOT" gay, and one of the greatest saving graces of the last film. Beside which, in Tolkiens day/world it was not at all unmanly to love a genuinely friend. A man was considered better for having such feelings.

I read somewhere a few years back, that a few sequences of "the scouring" were actually filmed but they looked "comical" -- for lack of a better word -- and didn't mesh well with what would preceed and follow said scouring. I hope, and desperately so, that some of that footage might be added in to the extended edition as a sort of "remembrance" sequence, with a voice over, much like Galadrials monologue at the start of the "Fellowship of the Ring." That alone would make the film better... everything else would simply be icing on an already scrumptious cake.

Oh, and anyone who thinks it crazy to read "such books" doesn't deserve the experience of hiding "such" treasures in their hearts.

Peace to all...

Eric

Well what are your opinions about how Sam was in the movie? Really different then in the book, he was less loyal, strong, had lesser will power, and love in the movie. And Frodo was really a lot dumber in the movie then he was in the book. But i agree on most parts of your comment.

i would just like to say that LOTR the movie was AWESOME and one of the best movies ever!
ok there were a few bits missed out but once you watch the appendices on the extended dvds you can understand why he changed bits of the movie.
for instance PJ moved the shelob bit to the start of ROTK because shelob bit would have been at the same time as the battle at minas tirith, so it makes sense to put two scenes that happened at the same time in the same movie instead of separating them.

ANOTHER THING Sam is not gay! he is the best! Sean Astin is a great actor!
although some people might think that part of the movie was a bit too gay, just think if you had been through all the stuff frodo and sam had, you would feel the same - not GAY, but with a very strong friendship bond between them. Sam as a character is meant to be a simple little hobbit from the shire who only got mixed up in the ring business because he was being loyal to his master and loved him (in a non - gay way)and im sure if he was really gay gay then he could do better than frodo - im sure there are some much hotter hobbits in the shire.

A great film....HE HAS NO POWER ANYMORE.