The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

That one needs to go in the glossary….

Personally I think his initial post was due to a lack of attention in some of the other threads… and I am having Harry Potter flashbacks… not one of his posts in this thread leads me to believe he has actually seen Return of the King, much less FOTR or TTT…



Bravo Yoda… and thanks… I knew Sméagol was a mix of Scandinavian/Old English for cave dweller/digger… but I wasn’t sure about Gollum… I always thought Tolkien was a genius when it came to names… Saruman was perfect since it was derived from the Old English word “searu” meaning treachery or cunning… and Middle Earth was taken from Middan Geard… the name of Earth in Old English Poetry that was the battleground between good and evil…

__________________

No, it has parting of seas, burning bushes, great fingers of lightning that scrawl commandments in stone, water from a rock. I mean this stuff happens every day right? Nope, this is called metaphor. The bible and beowulf are FULL of metaphor. So is LotR. These wild concepts are used as representation of other, more mundane ideas, that really just wouldn't make very interesting stories. If you don't like the current incarnation of these metaphors (they ARE the same metaphors that appear in the bible, The Odyssey etc.), it is strictly due to personal taste and you probably just don't like the subject matter. Seeing as how entertainment is subjective, this is totally fine.

On the other hand, lobbing comments about how the metaphors don't exist in a work, when they obviously do, escapes reason. LotR has these concepts in spades. They are, by no stretch of the imagination, new concepts. They have been around since the beginning of recorded language and history, and I'm sure, before. Pure escapism doesn't sit well with people, it's a fad, flickering out at the first sign of the next one. The reason stories like Star Wars, Harry Potter, LotR, The Oddyssy, and many others persist longer than a few weeks or months, is because they rooted in something deeper than what they present superficially. There is hidden context and lesson about life and history that we as a race are obsessed with.

Something like:

A young would-be hero, stuck in a task based mundane life style, struggles to escape the rigors of everyday life. A problem (usually created by ancestors/parents) presents itself and becomes the young would-be hero's problem. The hero is then whisked out of his mundane lifestyle only to be faced with a much larger, twisted version of the world. Inextricably caught in this now massive strugle vs a mechanistic, totalitarian hegemony, these hobbits/rebels/wizards/heros become an icon for the idea that one must not be swept up by the world...dissolved and broken down.

Still not seeing any metaphor?

Stormtroopers maybe seeming a bit like Nazis perhaps? I mean, hell, that was the name of the nazi troops for crying out loud. Stormtroopers!! It's the same story mechanics. Orcs and Mordor, Stormtroopers and the empire, machines and the evil A.I.

If these stories were just random events with no rhyme or reason and no relation to our society, pure escapism at it's essence so to speak, we wouldn't care about it...at all. We want to know about us!! Not the regular us, oh no. The super hero fantastic us. The giant spider killing, courageous us. As stated before, the evil must come from us as well. The problem has to be created by our ancestors in family or race. An ever growing snowball of terror crashing inexorably towards us with little time to spare.

To me , the LotR Trilogy, and many others before them using the same paradigm, are absolutely dripping with social allegory and historical metaphor. A lot of the same metaphor and allegory adjusted for the current society, to be sure. So, I guess that means it all comes down to presentation.

Now just what films present these ideas with the most expressive, high quality art through acting, production design, and filmmaking?


Only the names change.

Cheers all

Sedai (just getting home from RotK)

__________________

Damn, I'm impressed.

Very good post.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Okay, first of all, I have seen all three of the LOTR movies and I have read Beowulf and much of the Bible (which I continue to read even today).

Yoda, your etymology lesson is appreciated. I don't deny that considerable scholarship went into LOTR. I also don't deny that there is a lot of meaning in the story. However, that said, the fact remains that the content of the story is that of an allegorical fantasy, much in the mode of a fairy tale. I wouldn't go so far as to call it mythology, because I don't think it makes the cut. A glorified, grandiose fairy tale is what I still think it is... not that it lacks in content or meaning... it is a fairy tale, much in the way that the Harry Potter books are also fairy tales. About C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia--yes, they are also fairy tales, of a sort, but more than that, they are Christian allegory, like Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress, so that makes them a little more weighty.

About the Bible--Sedai mentioned the supernatural elements of the Bible and stated that they were metaphorical, in the same way as the fantastical elements in LOTR are, apparently, metaphorical. Not even in the same league--the supernatural elements of the Bible are all attributed to Divine intervention and are documented as factual occurrences--whether or not you believe in them is another issue. The fantastical elements of LOTR are clearly and obviously intended to be fantasy and metaphorical. In the same way as a fairy tale contains metaphorical fantasy elements--a fairy tale like, e.g., Harry Potter.

Comparing LOTR with Homer is another error--I agree that Homer contains fantasy elements, but they are of a totally different nature as those of LOTR. Homer is solidly based in historical reality and whatever mythical elements it contains are purported to constitute a part of the real world--that of the Mycenean Age. Basically, the fantasy elements of Homer seem to have been documented as fact--Homer sticking to his consistently realistic tone. If it is fantastic, then it can either be attributed to hyperbole/exaggeration or poetic license or basic ignorance. LOTR was clearly constructed to be a fantasy and does not have Homeric realism--Tolkein created a fantasy world filled with fantasy characters--and no one's denying his skill as a writer... all I'm saying is that it's fantasy, not mythology. The difference is that mythology is documented as factual--though it reads as fantasy today, back in the day when it was originally written, it was intended to be historical. Fantasy, on the other hand, is obviously fantasy. So there's no comparison.

Anyway... what I'm saying is that LOTR is entertaining, and meaningful and insightful. But it lacks the depth of mythology. It remains, essentially, a glorified fairy tale. No one is denying it's merits. However, it is what it is... and it is overrated.

First of all I totally respect someones right to like or dislike a film for whatever reasons they have. I understand that you feel the LOTR movies were somewhat bland, if I may use that word. Well thats your opinion and I genuinely appreciate your ideas and your convictions about said film. What I have issues with is how you go about trying to get your point across. Defend your thoughts, but do not offend with them. You assume to speak for others...example: "But let's face it..." No let's not. Everything you mention past that statement assumes that everyone must agree with you or they are wrong. I think that is, to put it simply, rude and audacious. Okay now that thats out of the way I will move on to what the thread is about and debate the film with you. Keep in mind, once again, that I truly am not trying to convert yours or anyone's feelings towards the movie these are just my thoughts such as they are.

"there was no plot to speak of, other than a totally arbitrary chain of events"

You must have an extremley high expectation of movies to say this, and thats your right, but to say that there was no plot to speak of seems a bit amplified. Also saying "totally arbitrary chain of events" to me means that in it's entirety the events that occured were not necessary. Please enlighten me as to what an unarbitrary chain of events could have been? The events that occured were definitely necessary to the plot of the story, even if it was a weak plot, these events were IMO totally unarbitrary. Also you say: "the special effects were good" Do you think they were only good, truly, or are you downplaying one of the things about the movie that you did like in order to not admit there was something spectacular about the movie at all? To me the special effects were most definitely awe inspiring, and I have seen many a movie to comapare it to. By no means am I saying special effects make a good movie, but they certainly added to the magic of this movie. Same goes with "and the music wasn't bad..." Does that mean it is good? Please elaborate on this. I thought the music was amazing. I wont go into the statement you made about emotional depth other than to say I saw alot more laughs and tears and sighs from the audience I was with than I have seen from any movie in a long time.. All in all I thought they were great movies, not in my top 10 but very close. In closing I think your complaints are too maginified and your expectations of the movie are farfetched, and the reason for your post in general is more to get a reaction than whay you may actually think, of course, as I have said many times, thats your right. Peace.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

I appreciate what you said about respecting my right to express and opinion, but you are contradicting yourself when, having said that, you say that by expressing my opinion, I am being offensive. Fact is that you find it offensive because you disagree with me, plain and simple. I haven't said anything remotely offensive... merely stated my opinion in plain terms.

Okay, moving on... my point about the special effects and the music was simply that that was pretty much all the movie was about--that there wasn't any real depth to the movie beyond that. Not to say that that's a bad thing, necessarily--it makes for entertaining viewing. But, on the other hand, I have seen many powerful, intense dramatic films without any of the special effects or high-flown musical score attached to it. Stanley Kubrick's movie Paths of Glory comes to mind. My point is that the add-ons make entertaining viewing, but do not necessarily make a great film.

About the plot--okay, maybe arbitrary was not a perfect choice of words--"superficial" maybe a better choice of words. The plot was superficial and, in a sense, arbitrary, because there was no real substance to it. It was about an artifact and the history attached to it--a fairly common motif--and a series of violent confrontations involving an assortment of characters, some fantastical, others more realistic. All entertaining, at some level, but hardly classic material, I'm sorry to say.

Comparing LOTR with the original Star Wars trilogy, I think Star Wars has more of a plot and character development than LOTR ever had. The plot of the Star Wars movies is hardly arbitrary, because the motivations of the characters are quite explicit and the characters are also more fully explored and developed. So... in short, LOTR was fun... but still, kind of superficial, ultimately.

Just my opinion, though!

I think either I stated it wrong or you misinterpreted it. Never once did I try to say your thoughts about the movie itself were offensive, but the way you go about assuming people should agree with you is (to me anyway). If I read into that then I am the one who is wrong, but I usually take things at face value unless otherwise enlightened.

From Websters

Myth 1 : an allegorical narrative

Ok so clearly, Myth is allegory, by it's very nature.

I also believe that Tolkein intended his works to have historical meaning and reference. I stand by the idea that this stuff is all rooted in the same ideas, with different back drops. I also believe Star Wars is directly templated off of mythology. Mainly because George Lucas said so himself. I watched a show on cable, "The Directors", and George stated this exact fact. I will choose to believe the creator of the films on this one.

Really, reading your post again, It seems like you just don't like the material they use to portray these ideas.


I just don't see it. I grew up watching these films and have seem them far too many times for my own good Better plot? IT"S THE SAME PLOT.

Frodo/Luke dream of adventure until they are actually involved in one, only to find out an ancestor (Bilbo/Vader) has gotten them caught up with a totalitarian regime (Empire/Mordor) and they are forced into a destiny and must complete a task that the whole world/galaxy depends on. This can't be any clearer. The fact that there is an artifact involved means that tolkein borrowed an idea from a different myth than George did. George decided to push the religion (force) aspect, where Tolkein went for the magical artifact. Also, aside from scattered comments about old jedi and a father's poor choices in life, there is little to no historical background in the SW tilogy. LotR on the other hand attempts to fill in the history of many entire races of people. It does so successfully for the most part, while still fantastically developing many of the main players (Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, the brothers of Gondor, etc. etc.)

I won't rag on the character set in SW, because it is also great, but I think not as well acted.

Both trilogies also put a ton of credence in faith and the belief in a greater good, or a belief in something important. Star Wars uses religion for this while LotR explores the belief in companions and one's self for strength.

A Quote from Lucas:

[coler=red]LUCAS: "I'm telling an old myth in a new way. Each society takes that myth and retells it in a different way, which relates to the particular environment they live in. The motif is the same. It's just that it gets localized. As it turns out, I'm localizing it for the planet. I guess I'm localizing it for the end of the millennium more than I am for any particular place."[/color]

A couple of scenes:

Satan takes Christ to the mountain, offers him kingdoms of the world if only he gives up his journey.

Vadar offers luke power and rule if only he gives up his journey.

Ah, I just found some information regarding Tolkein's framework for LotR. Apparently the exact myth it was based on is called "The Kalevala", an anglo saxon myth. Beowulf is also specifically listed. The Kalevala apparently had sacred objects, fantastic creatures and valliant heroes. There is a SLEW of info corroberating these concepts, do a quick google and check it out.

Another LotR metaphor:

The one ring: a weapon that should never have been created.
Now you just HAVE to be able to find something in todays' society that this represents....

So if, according to Django's infinite wisdom, this movie is "lacking" because it's main plotline and characters are too "fantasy-esque" and could not be realistic. That may be the dumbest movie argument I've ever heard.

Let's see, some of the best movies (and literary works) were based off cars that travel back in time, ghosts that haunt you if you're cruely stingy, men traveling through all the levels of hell and returning, a land consisting of pirates and small boys who seem to keep them at bay, a group of guys who make livings zapping ghosts and "slimers", an adventurer who is looking for a grail used by Jesus himself and, of course, men using a power called the force.

Yep, definitely too far-fetched to be a great movie - what were they ever thinking to make it.

This sounds like another person who has brainwashed by religious critics saying the LOTR is a work of the devil all because these same people never understood D&D 10 years and have damned everything ever since that is similar to it.

Oh, and btw, I grew up in a strict Baptist school, so please do not try to argue the grosely un-informed arguments over the Fantasy Fiction world with me.

__________________
Get on your knees and tell me you love me!!!!

Saw ROTK on Sunday and was very impressed with the battle scenes especially

After seenig the Two Towers I really did wonder how they could beat it but they did. Fantastic! ***** and then some

__________________

Please edit in some spoiler tags, thanks

Hey all its slopescorcher,
LOTR was a great movie that met all its expectations. It beat almost the other two Rings films and alot of other movies. Good plot. Great action. I would definately see it.

Slopescorcher

Done...


Everyone please remember that some people have not seen this movie yet... so don't spoil it for them... thanks...

Ok, so I have just seen The Return of the King.

Usually I need a film to sink in a bit before I really decide what I think about it but reading some of the posts here helped me make up my mind. Seriously, just a few "first thoughts"...

I think it was almost as good as the first film of the trilogy. There were a few scenes here and there that I didn't like very much. Like, as Silver has allready mentioned, the bedroom reunion was nothing but embarrassing to me and the farewell scene between Frodo and Sam felt a bit forced as well. As if Jackson thinks that the cheesier the more heartfelt. Yes, he worked hard to tie all ends together during the end of the film and maybe he should have saved us one or two of the endings. Another scene that made me laugh but probably wasn't suppose to have that effect was the scene were the giant spider had spun Frodo into a white little babushka. That looked.. yeah, funny!

Other than that I thought it was a great adventure film overall. The Two Towers was a disappointment to me, but now I almost suspect that Jackson made it a bit weaker deliberately to make The Return of the King appear much more impressive. The battle scenes were magnificent, most of the characters and creatures were really cool and I really liked the darkness of the first half of the film. And I haven't read the books but I thought it was cool that Jackson focused on the relationship between Sam and Frodo so much and emphasized the power of their friendship. How was this depicted compared to the books? It kind of surprised me after The Two Towers that the trilogy actually ended with the delivery of such a relatively "deep" message.

hmmmm... what else. I thought the scenery was breathtaking, just like in the first episode. When Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli encountered the King of the Dead and his ghost soldiers, that was comparable to when they went into that ..eh.. other scary mountain hall in the first film. I was a bit disappointed though about when Aragorn came to the rescue with the ghost soldiers. I thought they would make a much more frightening entrance and scare the crap out of the orchs.

And the spider scenes... *shiver* My fear of spiders has become much better the last years but this film pushed me up the scale of arachnaphobia at least four steps. Damn you, Jackson! And thank you, Sam!

Oh, and a tear actually ran down my cheek when Aragorn was crowned and when he spotted Arwen. But that kiss... hmmm.. That kind of made me laugh a little bit again. Something tells me that Jackson should stay out of the romantic drama/comedy genre.

Ok, let's wrap this mother up...

The Fellowship of the Ring: 5/5, The Two Towers: 3/5, The Return of the King: 4+/5. The Lord of the Rings (entire trilogy): 5-.

Great post on here, guys!

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

If you have read the books, the endings make more sense because they sum up like 4 chapters of reading.

Basically, in the book, the part at Mt. Doom (trying not to spoil much here) is just past half way thru the book. There's a lot of "tying up loose ends" that happen past that (like finishing up the story of Saruman).

So, it was important to the die-hard "tolkienists" out there that they inserted at least some of that and I think that's a major part of why this movie is 3.5 hours instead of the standard military issue 3.

I concur..

They also left some of the loose ends untied, or they would have had to go 4 hours or more..hopefully some of it is on the Extended DVD, especially the Saurman stuff....

Howdy all, this is my first post here, so do correct me if I inadvertently overstep any boundaries of forum ettiquette.

Having watched the movie and read the book, I couldn't help but wonder about PJ's embellishment of the Mount Doom struggle between Gollum and Frodo. Specifically, PJ adds a scene in which Frodo attempts to regain the ring from Gollum (as he dances happily with it) along with a cliffhanger scene in which Sam rescues Frodo. It's not clear to me whether Frodo was (1) trying to regain the ring for himself or (2) repenting for having tried to keep the ring and was now trying to wrest it from Gollum so as to destroy it. Regardless of PJ's intent, I thought these extra scenes were at best unnecessary and at worst misleading. I believe Tolkien's original intent was to show that even characters with the best of intentions (such as Frodo) can fall prey to overwhelming desire and fail when put to the final test. Frodo may have succeeded as the Ring-Bearer, but he failed as the Ring-Destroyer, contrary to what the extra scenes seem to imply. That latter role was left to Gollum, as Frodo rightly puts it (from the book):

But do you remember Gandalf's words: Even Gollum may have something yet to do? But for him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring. The Quest would have been in vain, even at the bitter end.

Also, I did not feel that multiple endings are inappropriate for this movie. Afterall, this trilogy is not just a story about the triumph of good over evil, with the story ending as soon as evil has been defeated. It is also a story about various characters who were involved in the tale and how each character was differently impacted by the events. I suspect one reason people why people found this movie long is because they treat it as yet another action movie, which terminates right after the action ends. In real life, the horrors of war continue to haunt and influence the participants well after its conclusion, and Tolkien clearly reflects this understanding through the postwar development of his characters (e.g. Frodo's unhealed wound and unfulfilled expectations of living out his days in the Shire). So I do think PJ had done quite a good job of closing the story, in keeping with Tolkien's original intent, and I certainly disagree with the theory that he was indulging himself with not wanting to end the story quickly. At best one can lay that charge on Tolkien (if one dares to do so). I also think that it makes sense to read the 3 books first so as to get an accurate basis for assessing the the movies.

Mythology is what people recorded as truth when it was in fact mostly fiction. Unlike mythology, nobody pretends or thinks of LOTR as truth. So in that sense wouldn't mythology be more overrated (read pretentious) than LOTR?

I'll pipe in on this one as I have not read the books. First off:

Welcome to MoFo

Anyway



I really want to see the Extended edition of this film, as I could tell some scenes had been cut short in this version, for instance:



As for forum ettiquette, just remember to tag any film content for spoilers and be courteous to others, and things should be fine.

Great post btw, definitely good for a few rep points

Before you ask, I haven't read the books because although I recognize Tolkein as the creator of modern day fantasy concepts, and the creator of a world of amazing in scope and life, I just think he wasn't a very good writer, and I can't get through all the digression and all those accursed songs he feels he must include every three pages. For fantasy I perfer someone like Geroge R.R Martin who is just an incredible writer and, although admittedly borrowing from Tolkein, can spin quite the yarn.

Thanks Sedai Good point about the spoilers; I had clean forgotten about it.