LotR: Return of the king

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 2:06 pm

Originally posted by VonDondu
More like "lotcher".

Ah, I see. I am new to this language. Thanks.

Next question: How will Elvis be involved in the Return of the King, and will he be singing any of my favorite songs such as "Viva Las Vegas?"

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:54 pm

Originally posted by Morlock
They're wrong, and so are you. The hair colour is too light to be Frodo.

I can see this contest cannot be decided by our knowledge of the Force, but by our skills with a Lightsaber.

Okay, that line's not from LotR, but Christopher Lee says it, so it close enough!

I guess we'll have to wait until the movie or another trailer clarifies things.

Originally posted by Morlock
@K: I just have one question for you- is TTT still best movie ever?

It's definitely on my top ten list.

I like the fact that it gets right into the story (no holding back Gollum, etc.) though the Fellowship hewed closer to the source material. I'm still not happy with Faramir's portrayal (a complete 180 of his character) but I'm hoping the extended edition fixes that (like the extended Fellowship did with Galadriel and Lothlorien).

Originally posted by Morlock
(Now- you've had a few months to think about this redicules statement, so hopefully the Jackson hypnosis has worn off)

*Covers ears ala Gollum* Not listening! Not listening! Peter Jackson is my friend! My friend!

Originally posted by Morlock
(Morlock- who'd do anything for one of those congenial Kayless flames

Hmmm... Let's see, how about "Stupid fat Morlock" then?

Originally posted by Georgi
*sigh* *takes another puff of hobbit weed* Honest mistake, all that stuff about Shelob and Mordor... you know what I mean. The question stands, how are they going to work that in?

From what I've heard (and seen in the trailers) Sauron thinks that Pippin has the ring (when he looks into the palantir) so Gandalf takes him to Minas Tirith for protection and to distract Sauron from the real Ring Bearer.

Originally posted by Georgi
Hmmm, maybe I had heard that and just forgotten. I was just having a discussion with a friend at the weekend about whether or not they would put it in, and I thought they wouldn't, so I probably subconsciously remembered hearing that. Or I could be psychic. My friend thinks it would ruin the ending to take that out... but I can see why they would.

I never did like the Scouring of the Shire. It always felt weird to me. The story should have been winding down at that point. Plus, after going through everything they had (Mordor, Shelob, Wraiths, etc.), there just wasn't any tension (for me at least). I understand that Tolkien put it in there based on his war experience (i.e. things change and you can't go home again), but I think the movies will be better off for having omitted that part.

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 4:36 pm

Originally posted by Kayless
...I'm still not happy with Faramir's portrayal (a complete 180 of his character) but I'm hoping the extended edition fixes that (like the extended Fellowship did with Galadriel and Lothlorien). ...

I've said this before, but I will say it again (because it has to be said! dammit!): Jackson wussed out just about everybody. As Vondondu remarks about the hobbits, and as Kayless points out about Faramir. The same is also true of Theoden, who is portrayed in TTT as really, really depressed and hopeless about the future. Or, Elrond who is bitter ("Man is weak"). Or Arwen who is sad. Or Aragorn who doubts his abilities. Everybody is just made out to be weaker, less heroic, more troubled, and more full of self-doubt than they are in the books.

And, (sorry Kayless) I cannot and will not forgive Peter Jackson for those changes. They really, really, really change the feel of the story - for the worse.

Still - fun films.

Peace.

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 4:48 pm

Originally posted by der Moench
I've said this before, but I will say it again (because it has to be said! dammit!): Jackson wussed out just about everybody. As Vondondu remarks about the hobbits, and as Kayless points out about Faramir. The same is also true of Theoden, who is portrayed in TTT as really, really depressed and hopeless about the future. Or, Elrond who is bitter ("Man is weak"). Or Arwen who is sad. Or Aragorn who doubts his abilities. Everybody is just made out to be weaker, less heroic, more troubled, and more full of self-doubt than they are in the books.

I prefer to think of it as humanizing the characters more by giving them more pronounced character flaws.

Most of these changes worked for me, but of course some didn't (Faramir and Theoden to some extent). However, Gollum was picture perfect and I dare say I liked Sean Bean's Boromir more than the novel version.

Originally posted by der Moench
And, (sorry Kayless) I cannot and will not forgive Peter Jackson for those changes. They really, really, really change the feel of the story - for the worse.

"Thief! Jackson! We hates it! HATES IT FOREVER!!!"

To each his own.

Originally posted by der Moench
Still - fun films.

Peace.

Wha?

You just said you'd never forgive PJ for changing the characters and ruining the feel of the story. Now you say they're fun?

Reminds me of the Banshee annoyed sound from Warcraft 3: "I hate you! I hate you... Call me."

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 5:59 pm

@Kayless: Well, it is just a matter of degree. There was a lot in the films to like - I needn't list what here, as you have done such a good job elsewhere

- but I do feel that Jackson made a mistake in "humanizing" his characters. I would have been happier with a movie more true to Tolkien in that respect. It didn't ruin the films - just made them less good. IMHO.

Peace.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 6:25 pm

Originally posted by Kayless
I'm still not happy with Faramir's portrayal (a complete 180 of his character) but I'm hoping the extended edition fixes that...

I didn't like the portrayal of Faramir in the movie, either. For that matter, I think that the portrayal of Boromir was also flawed for similar reasons. The two of them are supposed to be the noblest, most widely admired people you'll ever meet. That's why it was so devastating when Boromir could not resist the temptation to seize the Ring (a great man fell that day), and that's why it was so heartening when Faramir brushed off the Ring with a laugh in the book.

Nevertheless, in the book, Sam and Frodo were very wary of Faramir and his men, and they gave him as little information as possible. When Sam blurted out too much information, Frodo cried, "Sam!" Sam pleaded with Faramir, "Please don't make my Master suffer for my stupidity. This is your chance to show your true colors." So in a way, I can see why the movie portrayed Faramir the way it did--the hobbits felt that they were in danger.

Originally posted by Kayless
I never did like the Scouring of the Shire. It always felt weird to me. The story should have been winding down at that point. Plus, after going through everything they had (Mordor, Shelob, Wraiths, etc.), there just wasn't any tension (for me at least). I understand that Tolkien put it in there based on his war experience (i.e. things change and you can't go home again), but I think the movies will be better off for having omitted that part.

I'll wait until I see the movie before I pass judgment on the inclusion or omission of any scenes from the book.

I'll say this, though. The Scouring of the Shire serves several purposes. First of all, once the Ring of Power is destroyed, Gandalf and the elves will lose much of the power, and they won't be around anymore to protect the hobbits. When Pippin asks Gandalf if he's coming to the Shire with them, Gandalf tells them (paraphrased), "It's up to you to protect the Shire now. That's what you've been trained to do." Galadriel gave Sam a special gift, so she too anticipated a special role for the hobbits. Second of all, the Shire did not go unscathed during the war; the war affected all of Middle Earth. There had to be some kind of consequences to deal with. And finally, the Scouring of the Shire shows us what finally happens to Saruman and Wormtongue.

We also need to know what becomes of Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, and Bilbo. That's not necessarily related to the Scouring of the Shire (which you could skip if you did some appropriate editing). But you could argue that unless they save the Shire from a direct threat, in a way that the other hobbits can see for themselves, then the other hobbits might not appreciate everything that the heroes have done for them, since hobbits don't concern themselves with the affairs of the outside world. The people of the Shire wouldn't make a big deal out of what Frodo and company did in "some faraway war"; but if they saved the Shire itself, then their status as heroes would fall right into place, and their story would be important to everyone. That's what it's all about.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 6:40 pm

Originally posted by Kayless
I prefer to think of it as humanizing the characters more by giving them more pronounced character flaws. Most of these changes worked for me, but of course some didn't (Faramir and Theoden to some extent). However, Gollum was picture perfect and I dare say I liked Sean Bean's Boromir more than the novel version.

Well, I didn't really like the way that Gandalf and Aragorn were portrayed in the books (too haughty, too one-dimensional), but I think they're great in the movies. I also appreciate the way that Arwen and Eowyn were portrayed. Their love stories added a warmth and depth to the movies which, frankly, was missing from the books. Gollum's part in the movie was also clarified a bit--he was fully "tamed" by Frodo (restoring Smeagol almost to his original self), which was then undone when Frodo betrayed him to Faramir. The books don't possess that kind of clarity.

And you have to admit that it was pretty cool when Aragorn killed the orc who killed Boromir. That wasn't in the book at all.

So all in all, even though Peter Jackson took some things away from us, he gave us a lot in return, and I for one think the result is good drama.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 6:43 pm

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:00 pm

Originally posted by der Moench
I do feel that Jackson made a mistake in "humanizing" his characters. I would have been happier with a movie more true to Tolkien in that respect. It didn't ruin the films - just made them less good. IMHO.

Yep. It's all a matter of personal taste.

Originally posted by VonDondu
I didn't like the portrayal of Faramir in the movie, either. For that matter, I think that the portrayal of Boromir was also flawed for similar reasons.

I never liked the way Boromir was portrayed in the books. IMHO Sean Bean added a great deal of charisma and likeability to a character I never really warmed to in the books. It's the little things (like his training duel with Merry and Pippin and his telling Aragorn "Give them a moment, for pity's sake" after Gandalf falls) that made him a much more affable character to me.

Of course they did the exact opposite with Faramir, turning a likable character into a bitter and suspicious one. PJ says that Farmir's dismissal of the ring would have undermined the power of the ring, but I wish they would have found a happy medium (keeping Faramir likable but still showing some temptation from the ring).

Originally posted by VonDondu
I'll wait until I see the movie before I pass judgment on the inclusion or omission of any scenes from the book.

A wise decision.

Originally posted by VonDondu
I'll say this, though. The Scouring of the Shire serves several purposes. First of all, once the Ring of Power is destroyed, Gandalf and the elves will lose much of the power, and they won't be around anymore to protect the hobbits.

Minor nitpick: Gandalf didn't loose any power after Sauron's destruction (unless you count Narya being powered down). He's a Maia spirit (the same class as Sauron and the Balrog) with his own independent power. While his purpose in Middle Earth is gone, his power is unaffected. Also the elves wouldn't be directly affected by Sauron's destruction either. However, their rings would. The elven Rings of Power were primarily made to slow the passage of time and preserve their creations of beauty (that would otherwise wither and die). So while their creations (and places like Lothlorien and Rivendell) would ultimately fade with time, the elves themselves would linger (though most decided to sail west to Valinor rather then watch their world decay).

Originally posted by VonDondu
But you could argue that unless they save the Shire from a direct threat, in a way that the other hobbits can see for themselves, then the other hobbits might not appreciate everything that the heroes have done for them, since hobbits don't concern themselves with the affairs of the outside world. The people of the Shire wouldn't make a big deal out of what Frodo and company did in "some faraway war"; but if they saved the Shire itself, then their status as heroes would fall right into place, and their story would be important to everyone. That's what it's all about.

It's not really important (to me at least) the Shire views the gang as heroes. They didn't set out to destroy the ring because they wanted glory, they did it because it needed to be done. Besides, nobody knew firsthand what Bilbo's adventures were (in the Hobbit) and that didn't bother me in the least.

I just think the Scouring undermines the whole theme of the story: i.e. survive a harrowing ordeal only to see that your home still gets thrashed regardless of everything you've fought and suffered. Not exactly a positive message that you'd want to send to kids.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:15 am

Originally posted by Kayless
I never liked the way Boromir was portrayed in the books. IMHO Sean Bean added a great deal of charisma and likeability to a character I never really warmed to in the books. It's the little things (like his training duel with Merry and Pippin and his telling Aragorn "Give them a moment, for pity's sake" after Gandalf falls) that made him a much more affable character to me...

I guess the problem is, Sean Bean just doesn't seem very charismatic to me. Boromir seemed decent enough, but not any more likeable than the next guy, and more troubled and bitter about the sacrifices his people had to make than anything else. He reminded me of the character Sean Bean played in Goldeneye, and it seems to me that's just the way that Sean Bean portrays all of his characters. Compared to James Bond, he wasn't very charismatic or confident for a "double-0" (although he was certainly tough and highly skilled, just like Boromir).

Originally posted by Kayless
Minor nitpick: Gandalf didn't loose any power after Sauron's destruction (unless you count Narya being powered down). He's a Maia spirit (the same class as Sauron and the Balrog) with his own independent power. While his purpose in Middle Earth is gone, his power is unaffected. Also the elves wouldn't be directly affected by Sauron's destruction either. However, their rings would. The elven Rings of Power were primarily made to slow the passage of time and preserve their creations of beauty (that would otherwise wither and die). So while their creations (and places like Lothlorien and Rivendell) would ultimately fade with time, the elves themselves would linger (though most decided to sail west to Valinor rather then watch their world decay).

Here's my line of reasoning. NOTE: There are SPOILERS ahead.

Gandalf wears one of the three elven Rings. (Elrond and Galadriel wear the other two.) When the Rings lose their power, so do the people who wear them. That means that Gandalf loses some of his power, right? One or two of them told Frodo that they have mixed feelings about destroying the Ring of Power, because they know that they will lose their way of life in the process. That seemed significant to me. Also, Gandalf and the elves have decided to leave Middle Earth (for reasons I admit I don't understand all that well). Sauron's wars have taken their toll (remember Elrond's wife?), hastening the Elves' departure, and Sauron's destruction will also hasten their departure because the Rings will lose their power. Gandalf might retain his original powers (besides those bestowed upon him by the elven Ring, which are never really made clear). But the point is, he won't be using his powers to protect the Shire any longer, which is why it falls to Merry and Pippin to take charge and build up the Shire's defenses.

Since I mentioned Merry, I might as well mention another one of my disappointments when I saw the first movie. In the books, Merry is Frodo's best friend, and Frodo trusts Merry to manage his personal affairs in his absence. For example, although the movie made significant changes to the plot, in the book, Frodo tried to leave the Shire gradually to avoid arousing suspicion, so he sold Bag End and bought a house on the outskirts of the Shire. Merry found the house for him and helped him move. Pippin, who was the youngest of Frodo's companions, was one of Frodo's favorite travelling companions. (Frodo did a great deal of travelling.) Frodo enjoyed the company of younger hobbits. He was 51 when he left the Shire (you couldn't tell that in the movie, could you?), Merry was about 33, Pippin was 28 (not yet of age for a hobbit), and Sam was about 37. I suppose keeping the Ring in his possession might have "preserved" Frodo to some degree (as it did Bilbo), but Frodo wasn't a kid. (Merry and Pippin made fun of him for being so fat.) Merry and Pippin knew that Frodo was planning to leave the Shire, so they had Sam spy on him for them for nearly a year. They weren't about to let Frodo go somewhere dangerous without them. That got lost when Peter Jackson made the films.

To be honest, I think that Peter Jackson (unconsciously) drew upon Harvard Lampoon's Bored of the Rings for his inspiration when he tried to decide how to turn the books into a series of movies. I haven't done an exhaustive study yet (I'll wait until I see the movie and read all the books again), but I'm suspicious enough to undertake one.

Originally posted by Kayless
It's not really important (to me at least) the Shire views the gang as heroes. They didn't set out to destroy the ring because they wanted glory, they did it because it needed to be done. Besides, nobody knew firsthand what Bilbo's adventures were (in the Hobbit) and that didn't bother me in the least.

The point I was trying to make it that it's important to us that Frodo and company be heroes to everyone, because that's what the story is all about. But if it's not important to YOU, then I guess I was wrong.

Originally posted by Kayless
I just think the Scouring undermines the whole theme of the story: i.e. survive a harrowing ordeal only to see that your home still gets thrashed regardless of everything you've fought and suffered. Not exactly a positive message that you'd want to send to kids.

I think you're putting the emphasis on the wrong things: "Do a great deed and you'll still lose your house." But I don't think that's the true message. Instead, it's this: "There will come a time when you have to fight your own battles instead of relying on other people to save you while you sit back and watch. And you can take your inspiration from Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin, You never thought they could do it, did you? But if they can rise to the occasion, so can ordinary people just like you." If you ask me, that's a positive message.

I could compare that to the messages in a series like Star Wars, but I'd rather not.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 1:15 am

Originally posted by Kayless
I never liked the way Boromir was portrayed in the books. IMHO Sean Bean added a great deal of charisma and likeability to a character I never really warmed to in the books. It's the little things (like his training duel with Merry and Pippin and his telling Aragorn "Give them a moment, for pity's sake" after Gandalf falls) that made him a much more affable character to me.

I actualy think that Bean did the best acting job in the movies so far.
I despise Elijah Wood.
Sean Astin is too one note and too much a caricature.
Ian McKellen captures Gandalf perfectly, (Except for that awful glue on beard which is a different shade of white- but that's makeup) but Gandalf is one of the least complicated characters. I think, with an actor as good and charismatic as McKellen (Who whould have won the oscar for God and Monsters), simply put a beard and costume on- and he's Gandalf.
Viggo Mortenson has a whole bunch of moments, but IMO, overall he's only slightly more than effective.
Something happens to me when Liv Tyler comes on- I contemplate suicide. She cannot act in anything serious. I think of her as Joey in Friends- she may be good enough for soap operas, but air heads can't do LoTR. Her voice is probably the most irritating one I've ever heard.
Christopher Lee is playing Christopher Lee, as only Christopher Lee can play him.
Bernard Hill is very good- I've always liked him. IMO his performance in Titanic is wrongfully forgotten or ignored.
Brad Dourif is also very good. He has the right attributes and right vibe, without going too over the top.

But Been brought acting of a higher level to Boromir. His character had real deapth, real emotion, real rational thought. His death scene IMO is a tribute to that.

And BTW- how many times have you seen FoTR and TTT? for me it's: FoTR- 8, plus watching sections dozens of times for Howard Shore's great score (any opinions on this?), plus 4 times with the commentaries.
TTT: 4- First time- thought it was one of the best movies ever. Second time- thought it was crap, simply eye candy. Third time- thought it was ok. Fourth time- thought it was techinacaly as amazing as any movie ever made, but the abandoning of a lot of the book makes it a fantastic movie, but a terrible adaptation.
I can't stand what they did to Gimli. LoTR doesn't need comic relief, especialy not from an actor as talented as Rhys-Davies (Also, all of his jokes sounded like they were written by a humorless screenwriter, and none of them were true to the character in it's entirety).
My only real problem with the movie (aside from Wood being a tealentless buffoon) is that Aragorn is the hero, with Legolas and Gimli as his loyal sidekicks, occasionaly skipping back to Frodo -who's supposed to be the hero- where Golum is the hero, and steals every scene from the fat idiot and the imbecile who happens to be carrying the ring.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 2:39 am

Damn all these Tolkien fanatics

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 2:43 am

Originally posted by VonDondu
I guess the problem is, Sean Bean just doesn't seem very charismatic to me. Boromir seemed decent enough, but not any more likeable than the next guy, and more troubled and bitter about the sacrifices his people had to make than anything else.

I dunno, I really like the guy.

I wish he'd get more good guy roles (since he's usually a villain). The scene where Boromir is talking to Aragorn in Lothlorien really embodies what I love about his character (and Sean's portrayal of him).

"My father is noble man but his rule is failing, and now our, our people lose faith. He looks to me to make things right and I would do it. I would see the glory of Gondor restored. Have you ever seen it Aragorn? The white tower of Ecthelion, glimmering like a spike of pearl and silver, it's banners caught high in the morning breeze. Have you ever been called home, by the clear ringing of silver trumpets? One day our paths will lead us there. And the tower guards shall take up the call, the Lords of Gondor have returned!"

This scene shows Boromir as a deeply patriotic man who loves his country and his family but is burdened by many troubles that he is uncertain how to make right. He desires the ring not because he seeks power for it's own sake, but because he thinks it's the only way to save his countrymen from an overwhelming threat ("I ask only for the strength to defend my people!"). The literary Boromir never really inspired much sympathy or affection from me. He (like many of Tolkien's characters) seemed very aloof and cold.

Originally posted by VonDondu
He reminded me of the character Sean Bean played in Goldeneye, and it seems to me that's just the way that Sean Bean portrays all of his characters. Compared to James Bond, he wasn't very charismatic or confident for a "double-0" (although he was certainly tough and highly skilled, just like Boromir).

Personally I don't see any correlation to Alec Trevelyn and Boromir, aside from the fact that they look a lot alike.

Sure, he's not as charismatic as Bond, but nobody is. That's why Bond is Bond (and on a semi-related note, Connery was the best Bond).

Originally posted by VonDondu
Gandalf wears one of the three elven Rings. (Elrond and Galadriel wear the other two.) When the Rings lose their power, so do the people who wear them. That means that Gandalf loses some of his power, right?

Not according to my studies of Tolkien's work. Sauron went to Orodruin (Mount Doom) to forge the Ruling Ring because he wanted to enslave the users of the Elven rings and only by putting a large portion of his own inherent power into the ring could he create a means by which he could do so.

Originally posted by The Silmarillion
"And much of the strength and will of Sauron passed into that One Ring; for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency; and Sauron forged it in the Mountain of Fire in the Land of Shadow. And while he wore the One Ring he could perceive all the things that were done by means of the lesser rings, and he could see and govern the very thoughts of those that wore them."

Gandalf, having no special connection to Narya (neither putting his own essence into the forging, as Sauron did with the One Ring, nor becoming enslaved to it, as the Nazgul did with the Nine) shouldn't be weakened by the One's destruction.

Originally posted by VonDondu
One or two of them told Frodo that they have mixed feelings about destroying the Ring of Power, because they know that they will lose their way of life in the process. That seemed significant to me.

It is significant, but because their rings will loose their power and thus Lothlorien would start to die, etc. (because the Elven rings' primary purpose was to preserve things). The elves themselves would be unaffected, but the places and things that they loved would. Many lamented that sad fact.

Originally posted by VonDondu
Also, Gandalf and the elves have decided to leave Middle Earth (for reasons I admit I don't understand all that well).

Gandalf leaves because his purpose in Middle Earth is gone. The Istari were sent to Middle Earth in the Third Age to help guide and inspire the people to destroy Sauron. Once that task was completed Gandalf could go back home.

Originally posted by VonDondu
Since I mentioned Merry, I might as well mention another one of my disappointments when I saw the first movie..... Merry and Pippin knew that Frodo was planning to leave the Shire, so they had Sam spy on him for them for nearly a year. They weren't about to let Frodo go somewhere dangerous without them. That got lost when Peter Jackson made the films.

A sad fact of adapting a large novel is that things get cut.

Maybe if they had done a LotR mini-series...

Originally posted by VonDondu
The point I was trying to make it that it's important to us that Frodo and company be heroes to everyone, because that's what the story is all about. But if it's not important to YOU, then I guess I was wrong.

If we, the audience, know they're heroes, what does it matter what the Shire thinks?

Originally posted by VonDondu
I think you're putting the emphasis on the wrong things: "Do a great deed and you'll still lose your house." But I don't think that's the true message. Instead, it's this: "There will come a time when you have to fight your own battles instead of relying on other people to save you while you sit back and watch. And you can take your inspiration from Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin, You never thought they could do it, did you? But if they can rise to the occasion, so can ordinary people just like you." If you ask me, that's a positive message.

I think the whole theme of the books is that small people can do big things. If a person isn't inspired by all the material that has come before, then I doubt the Scouring will suddenly reach them (and to me it's actually discouraging).

Originally posted by VonDondu
I could compare that to the messages in a series like Star Wars, but I'd rather not.

I think Star Wars has nice (if rather simplistic) coming of age/redemption message to it.

Originally posted by Morlock
And BTW- how many times have you seen FoTR and TTT? for me it's: FoTR- 8, plus watching sections dozens of times for Howard Shore's great score (any opinions on this?), plus 4 times with the commentaries.

Fellowship (theatrical version): About 6 times.
Fellowship (extended edition): Over a dozen times.
Two Towers: I'm on my ninth viewing.

I've watched the Special Features and select parts of the films more times than I can count (when I'm painting my LotR models I usually pop a DVD in or listen to the soundtrack). I love Shore's music and usually listen to it when I'm surfing the net (I'm actually listening to the remix "Breaking of the Fellowship" music that plays turning the fan credits of the extended Fellowship DVD as I type).

Whew! Replying in this thread is hard work!

Originally posted by Tamerlane
Damn all these Tolkien fanatics

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:39 am

Originally posted by Morlock
watching sections dozens of times for Howard Shore's great score (any opinions on this?)

Yes, I think you should buy the soundtrack CD.

Originally posted by VonDondu
There's a significant difference between the books and the movies. In the books, the hobbits are very stealthy (not clumsy), and they can hold their own in a sword fight. In The Two Towers (the movie), when Merry and Pippin drew their swords against the orcs, the orcs simply swept them up and carried them off. That's not what happened in the book.

FotR, you mean.

In the extended edition, Merry and Pippin put up more of a fight - they only stop fighting when Boromir falls, and are then swept off... It's an improvement on the theatrical version though.

In Return of the King, we'll see Sam rise to the occasion in spite of his modesty.

I think by the end of the books, Sam is my favourite character. Or at least my favourite hobbit.

"I can't carry it, but I can carry you" - awwww.

I dunno, I really like the guy. I wish he'd get more good guy roles (since he's usually a villain).

Well, you should check out some of his British/TV work. Ever heard of Sharpe?

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 10:34 am

Originally posted by Georgi
Well, you should check out some of his British/TV work. Ever heard of Sharpe?

Definitely.

Though I wonder if the Richard Sharpe character will appeal to all who have posted in this thread?

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 2:14 pm

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
Definitely.

Though I wonder if the Richard Sharpe character will appeal to all who have posted in this thread?

Don't ask me, never watched it.

I just know Sean Bean is in it and very dashing and heroic.

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 7:21 am

I've heard of Sharpe but have never seen it. The only BBC stuff I see are old comedies and mysteries that PBS plays and that new MI5 show on cable.

I can't wait to see the new RotK models Games Workshop comes up with (though I probably shouldn't buy any more models until I paint all the ones I have already).

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:17 pm

Originally posted by Georgi
FotR, you mean.

Yep, that's what I meant. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by Georgi
In the extended edition, Merry and Pippin put up more of a fight - they only stop fighting when Boromir falls, and are then swept off... It's an improvement on the theatrical version though.

I'd like to check that out. (I haven't seen the extended version.) Despite my previous remarks, though, I kind of liked the original version where Merry and Pippin couldn't do anything to keep the orcs from capturing them. It makes the plight of the hobbits more dramatic, and it makes their actions (and the people who protect them) more heroic.

The main point of my previous remarks was that Merry and Pippin don't have the same stature (no pun intended) in the movies as they do in the books. When I mentioned that the hobbits have decent fighting skills in the books, I was mainly trying to anticipate what will happen in the third movie, where (if it follows the book), the hobbits will have to do some serious fighting on their own. You'd better watch out for Sam, Merry, and Pippin.