LOTR: Return of the King

Bony Fella · 19 December, 2003, 05:59:14 AM

I think that (more in the extended version) the comedy moments in part 2 are handled very well, and give the film greater emotional depth with a lighter side revealed. But that's just me!

Mangamax · 19 December, 2003, 06:51:37 AM

Sorry, but the last 20 mins is the biggest load of sugary piffle since i last saw a Doris Day film.

The Amstor Computer · 19 December, 2003, 07:26:35 AM

"It mentioned the chances of The Hobbit getting made."

IIRC, Christopher Tolkien is *not* happy about the possibility, and I suspect he may well block it. The only reason he couldn't stop the LotR films was that JRR Tolkien had sold the rights in the '60s. After his son came out in favour of the films and attended the FotR premiere, Christopher pulled him from the Tolkien Company board & disowned him (seriously - they haven't spoken and he won't see his grandchildren.)

As the rights to the Hobbit - and the rest of the estate - still rest with Christopher Tolkien, I don't think you'll be seeing a film adaptation of Bilbo's adventures anytime soon.

The upside of this, of course, is that there's little chance of a movie version of The Silmarillion... ;-)

Bony Fella · 19 December, 2003, 07:30:29 AM

The Hobbit rights don't rest with Chris Tolkein - they've been sold around quite a bit, but nobody's actually USED them yet!! I have no respect for the lad - nothing he's done has been good!! Everything of his father's that he pieced together felt shoddy, unfinished and just generally wrong. He shouldn't have bothered. Then the films, which were quite clearly magnificently handled and got a whole lot more people reading the books, are in some way totally unacceptable to him! Honestly, what a muppet!

The Amstor Computer · 19 December, 2003, 07:45:58 AM

"The Hobbit rights don't rest with Chris Tolkein - they've been sold around quite a bit, but nobody's actually USED them yet!"

Really? Everything I've read says that New Line are still negotiating with Tolkien's estate over film rights.

I'd agree with your sentiments re: Christopher Tolkien. I remember reading that he used to check his father's work for continuity errors and thinking: "Yes. That explains a *lot*..." :-)

Quirkafleeg · 19 December, 2003, 09:24:27 AM

Well it's pretty good but not as gobsmaking as seeing the first one for the first time... though the battle scenes take the sfx level. And there were points were I was thinking: this scene is dragging and that is so obviously a kid pretending to be a hobbit there. And no Scouring of the Shire... best bit in the bloody book...

Something Fishy · 19 December, 2003, 01:51:18 PM

saw it last night... bloody late night and i'm shot now.

still, it was worth it. a truly great film.

i am so pleased they pulled it off.

sad about Christopher Tolkein and his son Simon. It certainly stood out that Simon received the Big Read award and not his Dad.

Woolly · 19 December, 2003, 02:19:50 PM

There has been an animated version of the Hobbit, (which ive got but cannot bring myself to watch due to the cheesy songs in it!) but i dont know wether that needs the same rights as a filmed version would.

Just hope no one makes a tv movie of it. THAT would suck big time!

judge dreddd · 19 December, 2003, 02:40:12 PM

animated hobbit is fairly good, hobbit would make great film but i think it would have to be done to same scale as lotr now

Mangamax · 19 December, 2003, 02:54:42 PM

Most annoying part is how there are patently filmed scenes that have been excised clumsily ready to be put back into the DVD.
As evidence:
Frodo in the tower with Bad Orc A, Sam approaches those talking statue things at the doorway.
Next scene is Sam through the doorway unhindered, back to Frodo this time with Bad Orc B.

Tiplodocus · 19 December, 2003, 03:10:20 PM

There's a rather marvellous Hobbit song by none other than Leonard Nimoy bouncing around isn't there?

stupidvideo.com is probably a good place to look if you really have to...

I'm off to see this tonight and am quite looking forward to it.

Woolly · 19 December, 2003, 04:19:42 PM

'Tha Ballad of Bilbo Baggins', i believe!

It does exist, and its bloody awful!
(But not as awful as Shatner's 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.)

Bony Fella · 19 December, 2003, 06:17:07 PM

Yes, I think the animated Hobbit film needed the same rights as a film would, and they still rest with the company that did that. Or they were sold to someone else. There's a complication of some sort, but it'll probably get sorted out eventually

Richmond Clements · 19 December, 2003, 06:31:32 PM

Saw it last night. Bloody out of this world, it was!
Could someone who's read the books tell me how much the end differs in the movie from the original source?

Oh, and Shelob was great... you could feel everyone in the cinema holdong their breath when*CENSORED*, brilliant.

El Spurioso · 19 December, 2003, 06:54:14 PM

SPOILERS

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Given how much the ending of the film felt like it dragged (all those protracted 'goodbyes' - ugh!) I think Peter Jackson made exactly the right decision in changing the ending. Basically he was faithful-ish up until the point when the four hobbits go back to the Shire.

In the *book*, they get back to discover the happy hobbit folk are in the grip of an evil overlord by the name of 'Sharkey', who is industrialising the land, being a bit of a bugger and generally causing a bit of a ruckus.

Sharkey turns out to be Saruman, with his snivelly little pal Wormtongue - who knew about the Shire thanks to the constant references to tobacco and how 'the hafling's leaf' is so very good and yadda yadda yadda. Anyways, our Hobbity heroes see him off (can't remember if they kill him) and everyone lives happily every after.

The sequence is called 'the Scouring of the Shire', and Peter Jackson's excuse for not including it was that he'd hinted at its possibility in Galadriel's mirror. What he *should* have said was: it's fucking boring, and the world's biggest anticlimax (or, rather, anteclimax), so I thought for the sakes of everyone's sanity I'd leave it out.