Favorite LOTR

[Ajax]

Considering how long it's been since I've picked up the ROTK (high school), I can understandably be remembering the spelling of the name wrong... However, I can't be too far off, as you undoubtedly know whom I'm talking about.

[Gurm]

Ayuh.

It's ok, I've just gotten used to people wandering in here going "LOTR sucks! I read the original Czechoslovakian version and it made no sense and sucked! Why do you people like this book?"

Gpar_

[Ajax]

I'm a huge Tolkien fan. Will be enjoying my new TTT DVD tonight. I just wish they wouldn't wait to release the special edition.

[stcynic]

Books: I voted for RotK but I may be forgetting what happened in which book. I am a sucker for the individual acts of heroism and self-sacrifice by the hobbits, Eowyn, etc. when doom seemed certain.

Films: I prefer FotR extended version so far. I am looking forward to the extended TTT also. I felt the theatrical version went too far in plot changes from the original but perhaps it will not seem that way with additional scenes.

Anyone heard how much additional footage there will be for TTTs? I hope that the additional scenes are comparable to FotR in quality and relevance.

[Ajax]

Originally posted by stcynic
...Anyone heard how much additional footage there will be for TTTs? I hope that the additional scenes are comparable to FotR in quality and relevance.

About 30 minutes, is what i hear.

[stcynic]

Originally posted by Ajax
About 30 minutes, is what i hear.

Fully integrated including the soundtrack like the first one I hope. The extended version of FotR was a real high-class piece of work.

[Gurm]

Yes. In fact, TTT will be BETTER integrated, because Howard Shore completed more of the soundtrack ahead of time. He didn't have to go back and "recompose" like he did with FOTR.

Nobody is certain EXACTLY how much extra footage will make it into TTT:Ext. We know for sure there was 4.5 hours of footage finished. (Yeah, for real!) but the odds are it'll top out around 3:30 - 3:45, much like FOTR:Ext.

We fans are REALLY hoping that the continuity and plot problems all get fixed in the extended edition, and it's looking promising. People who have seen dailies and extra footage report that there WERE scenes of Huorns at Helm's deep, that there WERE alternate takes of the Hobbits and the Ents... etc. etc.

The thing that bothers me the most is the way they changed around who said and suggested what. Aragorn suggests they ride out and fight, and the implication is that Gandalf supports him. In the books, however, Aragorn and Gandalf BOTH counsel retreating to Helm's Deep, and it's Theoden who wants to fight.

Also, I'm still puzzled as to why they "banished" Eomer. Maybe to show how powerful Wormtongue had gotten without giving him much more screen time. Either way it's silly. It accomplishes much the same thing (Eomer rides to the northern march ANYWAY and has to be retrieved by Gandalf) but mucks things up. It's supposed to be EOMER who says to Aragorn "perhaps there will come a time when we draw swords together".

*sigh*

Perhaps the MOST upsetting thing about the entire trilogy so far is the way they're bungling Aragorn and his sword. In the books, the sword is reforged before they ever leave Rivendell... and he uses it as identification repeatedly. "See? See what sword I have? Yeah, that means I'm the KING, bitches."

In fact, they bungle swords a LOT. Gandalf's sword should glow blue, just like Frodo's. And there ought to be one heck of a blue glow coming off Legolas' back, not to mention HIS swords. They're all elven swords... guess the effects people either got tired, or they decided that it wouldn't make Sting seem "special enough". Either way it's irritating.

We shall see how good or bad the TTT:Ext. is in November, but I enjoyed the movie nonetheless... fully aware that it wasn't the book.

Gpar_

[moreau]

I would say the most grievous deviation from the books is how they portrayed Faramir. MHO.

Looks like in the TT:Ext, (just as in FOTR:Ext) they added some Boromir/Faramir footage. That added a lot to fellowship, the added Boromir footage. Really fleshed out his character a lot. Made him more sympathetic to the viewer.

The EE preview on the TT theatrical DVD shows being added among other things: Smeagol dialogue, Boromir/Faramir/Denethor flashbacks, Huorns at Helms Deep, Gandalf/Aragorn dialogue, Saruman/Grima dialogue.

My hopes are high that the TT:EXT will do as much, if not more, for TT as FOTR:Ext did for FOTR.

Go Peter. Hope he gets some props this year at the awards for pulling of a modern day Cleopatra type production.

Cheers.
CEM

[moreau]

In fact, they bungle swords a LOT. Gandalf's sword should glow blue, just like Frodo's. And there ought to be one heck of a blue glow coming off Legolas' back, not to mention HIS swords. They're all elven swords... guess the effects people either got tired, or they decided that it wouldn't make Sting seem "special enough". Either way it's irritating.
Gpar_

Double check the Legolas thing... the blue glow was the swords made in Gondolin by the Noldor way back when...

Legolas was a green (or gray if you prefer). His native garb certainly wouldn't glow. As for the things given him by Galadriel, she was certainly Noldor, but lived in Nargothrond with Melian the Maia, and was therefore unconnected to the works of Gondolin. Actually, nobody was connected with Gondolin, since it was hidden and everyone ended up dead.

Gurm: double check those for me... I'm too tired now to dig out my Silmarillian.

Cheers
CEM

[Gurm]

Hmm. That sounds right, actually. So skip Legolas.

In the segment of FotR in Moria, Gandalf's sword was blue, and Aragorn's was shining a golden hue.

'Course they never gave Aragorn his sword in the movie, so that's more of an intentional oversight, I guess. But Gandalf had ... *ahem* was it Glamdring? Glamdring, I wanna say, although that might have been Thorin's sword which was buried with him along with the Arkenstone.

Gpar_

[Ajax]

Why do all of the forces of evil hate the trees? I can't remember if that was ever explained in the books.

[stcynic]

Originally posted by Ajax
Why do all of the forces of evil hate the trees? I can't remember if that was ever explained in the books.

Well one academic analysis (that I overheard) of that is that it reflects Tolkien growing up in a town (cannot remember the name) that went from a sort of idyllic English country village to a polluted, dirty, ugly, industrialized town. (That was probably on one of the DVD extra features.)

By the same token, I think Tolkien rejected a lot of the allegorical type analysis applied to his work. But I would think that the anti-industry themes are pretty apparent in the books even if they are not literally allegorical.

Hmmm getting heavy here. I will refrain from descending into a technology vs. industry diatribe. What is clear is the man like midgets.

[Jammrock]

Gurm,

Glamdring, yes. Beater as the Goblins called them in the Hobbit:

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/glamdring.html" target="_blank"> http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm?http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/glamdring.html

AFAIK, there were on ly three swords that ever glowed in the books. Glamdring, Gandalf's Sword, Sting, Frodo/Bilbo's sword and Orcrist (Biter as the Goblins called it) held by Theodin, and buried with him in the Lonely Mountain.

Ajax,

Because trees are a natural symbol of the health and strength of the land. Since the orcs and all the dark creatures want all things living and good destroyed, it would be natural to destroy the trees. THat and they needed them to fuel the forges.

Jammrock

[Gurm]

Jamm,

Thank you yes. Any weapon forged for the Goblin Wars would glow blue, but it's unclear if there are more than just those three.

Additionally, Aragorn's sword is know to have shone gold/yellow when he was wielding it in battle.

As for the trees - there IS something to the "anti-industry" sort of thing. I don't want to get into a long discussion, but Tolkien was very fond of idyllic British country life.

Gpar_