The Unoficial LOTR Thread

[Reply #280 on:]

Not so much in other movies, though; I think it's just in LOTR that he looks so feminine. If you've seen Orlando Bloom on talk shows or in Pirates of the Carribean, he doesn't look so girly.

I think it's the long blonde hair that does it.   

Not-girly, entirely-masculine TOTPD

[Reply #281 on:]

Or the facial hair in Pirates that doesn't do it.

[Reply #282 on:]

He does look slightly girly in Lotr, but that is because elves are meant to be in tune with nature and stuff. It doesn't make him any less hot 

[Reply #283 on:]

hated the first film, found the second one to be okay and the third to be enjoyable. However the end was far too long, should have ended on the rock and all that followed was meaningless drivel designed to prey on the bladders of the extremely dedicated filmgoers, especially after you've already been there for nearly three hours.
Gripe the second: the adverts for it on tv. Yeah it was a decent film. Maybe even a good film, but for christsakes, they make it sound like its the best film ever to be created, as if the sole purpose of the existence of the human race is to create this film. And on one advert someone describes the film as heartbreaking. Heartbreaking?    what film has she been watching? the only mildly sad part in the entire film is gollum (by far the best actor among the group) gets killed, and i can't really see anyone bursting into a huge flood of tears because they'll never see Gollum again.

[Reply #284 on:]

 

Originally posted by Cube_166:
And on one advert someone describes the film as heartbreaking. Heartbreaking?  what film has she been watching?

The part they're probably referring to is Frodo's departure from Middle-Earth, the tragic price he pays for being a Ringbearer. Even more tragic is that to save the world and the land he loved, he had to sacrifice his part in them -- when he leaves on that ship for the Undying Lands, he can never come back. Classic epic tragedy.

[Reply #285 on:]

Well, it's someone's opinion. You don' think is that good, some people think is excellent. And I found it heartbreaking. People react differently to films.

[Reply #286 on:]

There are 8 pages of stuff I didn't feel like skimming through, so sorry if this has been asked.

Can anyone explain the ending of the movie, where they all go on the ship? I've been told it's going to "heaven," but I don't understand why.

[Reply #287 on:]

In the realm that Middle-Earth exists in, heaven is a physical place. It's called the Undying Lands; it's where the gods reside, and is the place that the elves are leaving Middle-Earth for. Frodo's role as a Ringbearer grants him the gift -- or the curse, depending how you look at it -- of going to the Undying Lands, along with all the other Ringbearers (Elrond, Bilbo, Galadriel, etc.).

[Reply #288 on:]

can someone explain to me the purpose of the eagles? Maybe they were mentioned somewhere in the first 2 movies and i simply don't remember, but when i was watching this last one i was completely surprised by the seemingly random appearance of those eagles. And there was that weird scene with gandolf and the moth that i also didn't get.

[Reply #289 on:]

In the first one, Saruman, played by Christopher Lee (bloody hell, just rent the first films) imprisoned Gandalf in his big black tower (Orthanc, in Isengard) which you see at the beginning surrounded by water.
He told a moth (remember, wizard) to get his pal Gwaihir, lord of the eagles to come rescue him.

So in the final battle, the moth comes along to tell him the eagles are coming again, like cavalry (after he told it to get the eagles again, though I'm not sure when he did this, anyone remember?)

Edit: Also, Tolkien was obsessed with eagles, they're in many of his books.
Well two definately, The Hobbit aswell.

[Reply #290 on:]

Ah... that's cool. So they can't ever return?

[Reply #291 on:]

They can't. That's why Frodo's departure is so sad, because is some form of physical death. Its bittersweet in the sense that they know (the Hobbits and everyone else) he's not going to die, but they also know that they won't ever see him again.

[Reply #292 on:]

 

Originally posted by Cube_166:
...I can't really see anyone bursting into a huge flood of tears because they'll never see Gollum again.

I know its not what you meant, but when they eventually make the hobbit into a movie, Gollum makes an appearance in that too.

[Reply #293 on:]

 

Originally posted by LAN.gnome:
... of going to the Undying Lands, along with all the other Ringbearers (Elrond, Bilbo, Galadriel, etc.).

Well not entirely Elrond, Galadriel, and all the other elves (except Arwen) who don't get physicaly killed in some way, all go to the west at some point in their lives when they are ready to leave middle earth behind forever.

[Reply #294 on:]

 

Originally posted by mazaite:
Well not entirely Elrond, Galadriel, and all the other elves (except Arwen) who don't get physicaly killed in some way, all go to the west at some point in their lives when they are ready to leave middle earth behind forever.

Indeed, but Elrond and Galadriel must go, while the rest of the elves (albeit all of them) choose to go.

[Reply #295 on:]

 

Originally posted by Cube_166:
...i can't really see anyone bursting into a huge flood of tears because they'll never see Gollum again.

And that is perhaps the saddest thing of all; no one will mourn the passing of poor Smeagol.

 

Originally posted by LAN.gnome:
It's called the Undying Lands; it's where the gods reside, and is the place that the elves are leaving Middle-Earth for.

The Valar and the Maiar are not gods.  Middle-Earth has only one God: Eru, the One, who in the Elvish tongue is named Ilúvatar.

 

Originally posted by Venus:
can someone explain to me the purpose of the eagles?

The eagles make more sense if you've read The Hobbit.  In The Hobbit, Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarves befriended the lord of the eagles.  This fact probably should have been mentioned at some point in the films.

[Reply #296 on:]

 

Originally posted by David A:
The Valar and the Maiar are not gods.  Middle-Earth has only one God: Eru, the One, who in the Elvish tongue is named Ilúvatar.

Aren't they? Huh. I mean, I know the Maiar aren't, but I thought the Valar were... I guess it pays to read The Silmarillion. 

[Reply #297 on:]

I actually think the saddest thing is Smeagol's story. And I think it's sad that Smeagol was so close to getting rid of Gollum. Why did they have to rough him up for being in the forbudden pool, and why did they have to use Frodo as bait. That made him feel like the only person ever to trust him for a looong time just let him down... And Gollum made his entrance again. Maybe the ring would have made him succomb anyways, we'll never know. Also, when Smeagol and Gollum are arguing, many people in the theatre were laughing!!? Why? I found it very deeply touching. And I ended up hating the average moviegoer for being so shallow. It's like mocking and making fun of a junkie's OD spasms...

[Reply #298 on:]

 

Originally posted by Pikka Bird:
Also, when Smeagol and Gollum are arguing, many people in the theatre were laughing!!? Why? I found it very deeply touching.

Well, I laughed in spite of myself.  I thought it was touching as well, but it's also a storytelling device lifted out of a bad 1950's movie on mental illness.  I liked the fact that the two sides of his personality talked to each other, but I wish they had chosen a less cliched way to do it.

[Reply #299 on:]

 

some guy writing in to Ebert's "Movie Answer Man" column:
Consequently, Gandalf's physicality is not really untoward, given the fuller context of the mythos, but it's easy to see how a viewer would think otherwise, if they hadn't read the novels 15 times. It's likely this knowledge influenced Jackson's depiction of Gandalf, even if he didn't make it explicitly manifest to the audience (as he should have).

full text

This is one of the main problems I have with films like LOTR. People give these movies more slack than movies with original scripts. If an original script had as many plot holes and under-developed characters as movies like LOTR everyone would say it's crap. But LOTR gets a free pass because there are a lot of people fanatical about the source material (and many more willing to learn since being swept up in the media hype). A movie needs to be able to stand on it's own. period.

[Reply #300 on:]

I agree with that. I mean, I love the LOTR movies but it's true that there are some plot holes and under developed characters. That's a problem found in many movies, not only in the ones adapted from books, but also in all kind of epic films.

[Reply #301 on:]

right. of course many movies suffer from those problems. but it seems like LOTR is reaching some critical level where it's become the new god of all movies and as such can do no wrong. the amount of love that such a large amount of people have for it is astonishing to me, esp. in light of the reasons I posted above.

[Reply #302 on:]

 

Originally posted by Tikka Bird:
Maybe the ring would have made him succomb anyways, we'll never know.

It's very likely that Sméagol would have eventually succumbed anyway.  Gandalf said that, as far as he knew, Bilbo was the only person who had ever willingly given up a ring of power; and Sméagol was a rather greedy and grasping individual to begin with.

But you're right.  We'll never know what would have happened, if things had gone differently.

 

Also, when Smeagol and Gollum are arguing, many people in the theatre were laughing!!? Why? I found it very deeply touching.

People were laughing?  Tell them I hate them.  I was practically in tears watching that scene.

 

And I ended up hating the average moviegoer for being so shallow.

Well, take a look at the average movie.  That's what the average moviegoer likes.  These people are idiots.

[Reply #303 on:]

 

Originally posted by David A:
It's very likely that Sméagol would have eventually succumbed anyway. Gandalf said that, as far as he knew, Bilbo was the only person who had ever willingly given up a ring of power; and Sméagol was a rather greedy and grasping individual to begin with.

But we are only ever really  told of Sméagol's actions after the ring is present. (Unless it's in the book. I have terrable retention)

[Reply #304 on:]

 

Originally posted by mazaite:
But we are only ever really  told of Sméagol's actions after the ring is present. (Unless it's in the book. I have terrable retention)

True, but the way that he "acquired" the ring is a pretty good indicator of his character.

[Reply #305 on:]

You know what ticked me off?  Sarumon and Wormtongue(coolest character n the whole trilogy) not getting one second of screentime in Return of the King.  I'm so looking forward to the extended edition, which will rectify this travesty.

[Reply #306 on:]

 

Originally posted by VelourFog:
This is one of the main problems I have with films like LOTR. People give these movies more slack than movies with original scripts. If an original script had as many plot holes and under-developed characters as movies like LOTR everyone would say it's crap. But LOTR gets a free pass because there are a lot of people fanatical about the source material (and many more willing to learn since being swept up in the media hype). A movie needs to be able to stand on it's own. period.

You could say the same thing about almost any of the big religious epic movies like "Ben-Hur", "The Ten Commandments" and others. There are boatloads of plotholes and underdeveloped characters in those movies too, but that's because it's reasonable to assume most people are already familiar with the source material. The same reasoning can be applied to LOTR, as it stands as the most widely-read fantasy epic of all time. What's so wrong about making a movie that caters to fans? Frankly, I wish there were more, as "catering to fans" would probably deliver movies closer to their source material. "Fan-only" films stuffed with references and in-jokes  would be preferable to screen adaptations that try to appeal to every possible demographic.

And about the specific nitpick from the "Movie Answer-Man" article: I'd think it would have been pretty obvious that Gandalf is more than human, given his apparant reincarnation in The Two Towers. There's plenty of old people who die, but not many who come back as stronger versions of themselves.

[Reply #307 on:]

 

Originally posted by David A:
 True, but the way that he "acquired" the ring is a pretty good indicator of his character.

Not really. The ring make's people want to possess it no matter the cost. The Sméagol we see in the flashback is already insane from the ring.

[Reply #308 on:]

Right, it just means he was weak willed to be affected so quickly, not nessesarily evil.

[Reply #309 on:]

 

Originally posted by Pikka Bird:
I actually think the saddest thing is Smeagol's story. And I think it's sad that Smeagol was so close to getting rid of Gollum. Why did they have to rough him up for being in the forbudden pool, and why did they have to use Frodo as bait. That made him feel like the only person ever to trust him for a looong time just let him down... And Gollum made his entrance again. Maybe the ring would have made him succomb anyways, we'll never know. Also, when Smeagol and Gollum are arguing, many people in the theatre were laughing!!? Why? I found it very deeply touching. And I ended up hating the average moviegoer for being so shallow. It's like mocking and making fun of a junkie's OD spasms...

i adored Smeagol. Seriously he was the one reason i became a fan of the movie series. I could give a damn about the hobbits, the epic battles, all of it. Just give me Smeagol. I was really hoping for a happy ending for him and hated the way things ended up.

And when i saw the second movie in the theater during that scene where Smeagol and Gollum are arguing, people were laughing then too which was annoying cause it made it hard to hear what he was saying, but that's the scene that really sold me on his charactor and the movie in general.

[Reply #310 on:]

 

Originally posted by mazaite:
Not really. The ring make's people want to possess it no matter the cost. The Sméagol we see in the flashback is already insane from the ring.

 

Originally posted by Kid Ridiculous:
Right, it just means he was weak willed to be affected so quickly, not nessesarily evil.

Okay, fine.  He was weak willed.
[Fry]But my point remains valid.[/Fry]

 

Originally posted by Venus:
I was really hoping for a happy ending for him and hated the way things ended up.

Oh, I don't know.  I think it was a happy ending, of sorts.  He did destroy the ring; and in death, Sméagol is finally free of its hold on him.

It isn't the happiest ending that he could have had; but tragic characters usually don't get to live happily ever after.

[Reply #311 on:]

 

Originally posted by Venus:
  i adored Smeagol. Seriously he was the one reason i became a fan of the movie series. I could give a damn about the hobbits, the epic battles, all of it. 

Exactly. That is why the first film is so abysmal yet the other two are good.
[Gets pelted with rotten fish]
What? People can't have a negative opinion around here?

[Reply #312 on:]

don't feel bad, you're not alone in your hating of the first film. i was wholely unimpressed by it as well.

[Reply #313 on:]

I think the first was the best but I did like the character of Gollum/Smeagol,

I find Tolkiens choice odd because I assume it has parralels to bible teaching and christian belif,
And so if corrupted characters can become good again, that runs parralel to the new testament forgiving God, but it seems the rings affects cant be undone

[Reply #314 on:]

 

Originally posted by User_names_suck:
...it seems the rings affects cant be undone

The effects of the ring are akin to drug addiction.  An addiction can't simply be undone.

Think of an alcoholic who's been sober for years.  You could say that he's overcome his addiction, but he still wouldn't go have a drink, because the addiction is still there.

Remember Bilbo's reaction to seeing the ring, in Rivendell?  Bilbo was able to give up the ring, but as long as the ring was around, he would always be tempted to use it.

Unlike Bilbo, Sméagol never chose to give up the ring.  It was taken from him, and he wants it back.  To continue the analogy with alcoholism, Sméagol is like an alcoholic who hates being a drunk, but keeps coming back to the bottle anyway.

[Reply #315 on:]

I liked Gollum in The Two Towers and I really felt bad and sorry for him. But in ROTK I really wanted him to die! That little bastard! I loved it when Sam would go off and punch him in the face.

[Reply #316 on:]

Gollum had to die, but he also had to die right at that moment.  Frodo has several chances to kill him but he doesn't because he pities him.  That turns out to be good for Frodo because it's only because of Gollum that the Ring is destroyed.  It all goes back to what Gandalf says when he's telling Frodo about Gollum.

 

Originally posted by David A:
The Valar and the Maiar are not gods. Middle-Earth has only one God: Eru, the One, who in the Elvish tongue is named Ilúvatar.

Tolkien did refer to the Valar and Maiar as gods, but I think it was mainly a convenient term.

[Reply #317 on:]

I saw it! Oh my god, it was so awsome! The ending was dragged out way to long, but besides that it's my favorite of the LOTR movies.

Peter Jackson is truly a master of directing.
*Spoiler Alert*
The scene where the giant spider was sneaking up on Frodo is one of the most suspensful scenes ever I've ever witnessed. I felt like yelling "Turn around damnit!", at Frodo, and scenes in movies don't stress me out like that very often.

But as I said eariler, one thing I did not like is the fact that the ending was way too dragged out.

but overall three cheers to the cast, crew, and the best movie of 2003.

[Reply #318 on:]

I've just seen rotk today and I thought it was good, there are a few things I didn't get and I can't be bothered reading the whole thread:
1. Did Farramir and the rohan woman marry? I know it didnt say, but I thought it all should have rapped up nicely, anyway...
2. Why did the steward of Gondor go mad? I know his son was dead but geez, trying to burn the other one alive, and why did he do that?

Ok, thats my dumb questions for now. But overall I'd say it was good, but very long and Peter Jackson is a very good director.
Is it true hes working on the film of King Kong too?

[Reply #319 on:]

Yep, she married Faramir, who had become the new steward of Gondor and prince of Ithilien by then... But they omitted the fact that she went into a coma brought upon her by the Black Breath of The Witch King.
And on the subject of Denethor: I think the fact that he often used a palantir himself (we don't get to see this) has caused some of it. And he was about to be deprived of his power. And his favourite son had died... He thought Faramir had died as well (his coma was caused by The Black Breath as well), and this drove him mad.

Another thing I have been dying to get straightened out- The Athelas plant: I am not sure it was nicknamed "King's Foil" at the time of The War of The Ring. I am pretty sure that it was just called Athelas until Aragorn used it to heal the wounded during the War of The Ring... and THEN was it named King's Foil. If this is true, then why did he call it King's Foil when he asked Sam to fetch some of it in "The Fellowship of The Ring"?