My God, It Was Horrible (Part III)

Beorn · Dec 19, 2003

From the guy who brought you My God, It Was Horrible, Part I and My God, It Was Horrible, Part II is the following: My God, It Was Horrible, Part III.

To those who haven't seen the movie, spoilers lay within. The Way is Shut to you.

Let me first list my grievances, those that I could remember at least since the mental list ran out of paper.

Saruman? Who's that?
...At least we know for sure now that Eowyn killed The Witch King
Frodo broke up with Sam
The Shire wasn't scoured
Lothlorien wasn't sacked
Eowyn cut off a Nazgul's head (retracted)
There are only 6 levels of M.T.
The white tree wasn't replaced
Denethor went flying like his own molotov cocktail...

And now I shall explain them!

Who the heck is that Saruman guy? Where did he go? Hrm....I guess Pippin just had to grab the Palantir out of the water....
So, at the Battle of P. F., Eowyn stabbed Los Witch King straight through the face, and all the way out through the other side of his helmet? OK. We are now 100% sure that she killed him, not the minor characters (i. e. Hobbits). Remember, The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King is a story of how resilient Hobbits are, and how they can prevail in the worst of cases. So much for them....
Frodo & Sam broke up. In the book, Frodo recognized that Gollum/Smeagol was a necessary evil. He remembered Gandalf's words, regarding giving life & death, and that he may have a part in the end. Frodo and Sam were the best of friends, and although Frodo followed Smeagol/Gollum, he didn't trust him entirely. He trusted the oath sworn on The Precious.
The Scouring of the Shire was cut. We knew that. It's still a major faux pas. Don't you just love how the Battle of P. F. was made an hour long, the destruction of the ring about 20 minutes, and the ending (from the return to The Shire to blackout) was 25 minutes. They had to stretch their return to make up for the fact that SotS was sacked (unlike Lothlorien).
Lothlorien was sacked three times. Is it mentioned? No. Who gives a rat's hindquarters (as I believe RD put it once) about the Elves? Apparently Peter Jackson doesn't. If he doesn't, I suppose it doesn't matter.
Simply put, could you cut of that thing's head? (Sorry about that. I forgot, and Tal so kindly reminded me. It reads, "A swift stroke she dealt, skilled and deadly. The outstretched neck she clove asunder, and the hewn head fell like a stone. ")
Count 'em
Gandalf took Elessar to a small plant, sprouting out of the ground. There was a seed planted there, nigh on 1000 years ago. It was to replace the White Tree of Gondor, but according to Mr. Jackson, it didn't exist. So much for the White Tree shown in the crowning of the king as the camera panned away...
What the heck was that?! He launched himself, as though he were on the enemy's side, like a molotov cocktail into his own city. Oh, wait, wasn't he almost in league with Sauron in the books? Something about a palantir? Oh, wasn't that the thing Saruman threw out the window? No! Pippin picked it up! That Fool of a Took!.

Most of you know my extremely sarcastic style. If you didn't, you do now. This style is evoked by an anger. A Plague. A Pestilence. Peter Jackson deserves to see King Kong bomb in the box office, since he showed how well the term 'hack' fits him when his master plan of making movies of The Lord of the Rings to get his foot in the door for King Kong.

We, the People of The Tolkien Forum, in order to form a more perfect Community, establish truth, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense of Tolkien's Works, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of The Lord of the Rings to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Nit Picking Weenie Guild of The Tolkien Forum"

Ladies and Gentlemen, the time has come. Our discussions will rage. Our words will issue forth like fire. Although I won't start up the Nit Picking Weenie guild again, I will say this: anyone who has a decent respect for The Lord of the Rings would agree that this is nothing less than a mockery of our complaints for the past two years. Peter Jackson, as he has shown in the past, is quite full of himself and believes his ability to "flawlessly" cut out parts and add in his own is unmatched and perfect.

Remember, you didn't see J. R. R. Tolkien's The Return of the King. You saw Peter Jackson's The Return of the King. Are you a Tolkien fan, or are you a Jackson fan?

- Mike B

Thorin · Dec 20, 2003

I was wondering when we'd see another infamous MGIWH post from you. Your's and my "A Purist Review" series are things this forum can look foward to, hey (heh heh).

I was not bothered by all the changes like I was for the first movie. Yes there were instances, but it was a better movie and adaptation than what I was expecting.

The biggest problems I had with the movie were:

1) Frodo banishing Sam and Gollum, the lying grade school bully
2) Denethor the piggish crazy guy and all scenes with him in it (it was even worse then what TTT did to Faramir)
3) Gandalf the scaredy pessimist needing advice and 'pep' from Aragorn from Rohan to the Black Gates

That was it. Considering the amount of garbage I had to deal with from the first two movies, I consider myself lucky and found myself fairly pleased and surprised. I also went into this movie prepared for 1) and 2) so I could get over it quicker and enjoy the movie. I was pleasantly surprised that the horrific changes were not continuously slapping me in the face like FoTR and TTT. It was a better movie than the other two and a better adaptation considering what PJ had to work with.

Were there grevious changes? Yes, but did we expect anything else from PJ?
Were there character flaws? Yes, but definitely not as bad as TTT
Were there annoying, little things? Yes but again not as bad as TTT and FotR

Regardless of these things, RoTK followed the story (comparitively to the book) much better than FoTR and TTT and was a more cohesive, emotional and better character developed adaptation then the others.

I hated the FotR theatre version but loved the EE. I can only imagine what good the RoTK EE will do.

redline2200 · Dec 20, 2003

Haha, I love your logic, and I agree completely. I thought RotK was a great movie by itself, but compared to the book it didnt kinda suck. Oh well.

Oh and i think you forgot one thing..........the random visit of a solitary ELROND to Gondor. He just kinda rode by himself all the way to Gondor to speak with Aragorn and deliver to him the sword that was actually supposed to be re-forged in the Fellowship. like i said before, oh well

..........ooooooh yeah. I also really liked how well the Mouth of Sauron was played. I mean i thought that PJ did a SUPERB job with him.....

aragil · Dec 20, 2003

The movie is too beautiful to be nit=picked by my- it was far and away the most beautiful movie I've ever experienced. Still, it's fun to pick apart those who complain, and since you could only come up with eight this time around ...

2) What from the books makes you feel that Merry had a larger role in killing the Witch King than he did in the movie? Just curious. You realize, of course, that it's a little difficult (i.e. impossible) to portray on film a passage like "No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.", right?
IIRC (and I do), we saw how important the Hobbits were when the entire city of Minas Tirith (King included) bowed before the four of them. What greater tribute is required? Frankly, I think complaining that the Hobbits didn't get their fair share in this movie is a pretty untenable argument, but if people feel up to it ...

5) I'm positive you mean attacked, not sacked. If Lorien had been sacked even once in the books, it would have been bad news. Out of curiousity, when should the attacking of Lorien have been mentioned in the movie? The attacks are never even mentioned in the body of the text, only in the appendices. Is PJ now also required to bring the entire appendices to the screen, along with the narrative in only three movies?

7) How in the heck could you tell? Looked like seven levels to me- you'd need freeze-frame and a magnifying glass to be able to tell any different (if even then).

8) The tree didn't need to be replaced, as it began flowering again after Aragorn's coronation. Poifect!

Hadhafang · Dec 20, 2003

I respect the purists opinions as a fellow fan of Tolkien. However, I absolve Jackson of any sin in his minor changes to the story. The changes he made for the most part streamlined the story for a films sake. Tolkien probably wouldn't have liked that and I would have liked to seen it closer to the book myself. But...the guy is a great film-maker. His fans far outnumber his detractors. Which is precisely why he was entrusted with 300 million to make LOTR and the purists on 'the tolkien forum' were not.

Elessar II · Dec 20, 2003

You also have to remember that a majority of the things PJ added or subtracted from the film was for the NON-BOOK readers only. He knew he would come under a heck of a lot of fire from the purists for a lot of the things that he did, but most of the things he had to do for the sake of the pace of the movie. And although I don't agree with a LOT of the things that he did, you can't forget that, he had one of the most difficult tasks trying to please both the reader and the ignorant

.
Also, remember, it's a LOT easier to portray things in a book than in a movie, and I commend Peter Jackson for putting together a fantastic film for us devout Tolkien fans as well as for the non-book readers.

Two thumbs WAAAYYY up!

Gandalf White · Dec 20, 2003

1. Show some patience for the EE

2. Yeah, Eowyn killed him...and perhaps you missed the last part of the movie. At least it seems that way with your hobbit speech.

3. A change... Brilliantly placed, acted, and tension building.

4. Anti-climactic

5. LOL!

6. Just a comment: I was very glad to see how it took Eowyn 3 hacks to get through the neck.

7. I'll check on my second viewing

8. Aragil pointed out that it was blossoming during Aragorn's crowning.

9. Although I don't like how he ended up on the pyre, his jump was the logical step.

Beorn · Dec 20, 2003

Originally posted by aragil
2) What from the books makes you feel that Merry had a larger role in killing the Witch King than he did in the movie? Just curious. You realize, of course, that it's a little difficult (i.e. impossible) to portray on film a passage like "No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.", right?

Here is the Witch-King's Killing:

But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.
'Éowyn! Éowyn!' cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling into many shards.

PJ extended this into Merry cutting him behind the knees, being flung back, falling under the Nazgul, Eowyn getting up, valiantly walking forward, and driving it straight through his head and all the way out the back again. No tottering, struggling, no last strength.

It has been...argued over.

5) I'm positive you mean attacked, not sacked. If Lorien had been sacked even once in the books, it would have been bad news. Out of curiousity, when should the attacking of Lorien have been mentioned in the movie? The attacks are never even mentioned in the body of the text, only in the appendices. Is PJ now also required to bring the entire appendices to the screen, along with the narrative in only three movies?

Well, it's a mix of both. Sacked works with the previous gripe, but it is also fitting in a way. There were three attacks on it by Sauron. It is 'sacked' in the sense of 'ravaged'.

7) How in the heck could you tell? Looked like seven levels to me- you'd need freeze-frame and a magnifying glass to be able to tell any different (if even then).

In the first shot of it, you can count 'em. My eyes may have been deceiving me, but I counted 6, as did my friend.

Foe-Hammer · Dec 20, 2003

Beorn, beorn, beorn.....tsk, tsk, tsk...Shame on you! The depth of Nit-picking-weeniery that you strive to reach, just for the sake of it, staggers the mind! Tolkien and PJ arrived at the same destination with Merry, they just did it in different ways. That scene took nothing away from eowyn, nor did it add anything to more to merry.

You need to accept the fact that tolkien was at best a mediocre writer and PJ did his work a favor by finally making sense of it in many areas. I know you NPW's think that is an insult to you because you march in lockstep with his mistakes, but it is only meant as a criticism of his writng skills. The story in itself is pretty good, but it aint flawless. True tolkienites can admit that.

simbelmyne · Dec 20, 2003

Originally posted by Hadhafang
The changes he made for the most part streamlined the story for a films sake.

??? How does adding bad scenes and bad dialogue streamline the story? Aragorn falling off a cliff and Gimli's bad taste antics?
An HOUR at Helm's Deep, complete with buck-toothed villagers and whiny children?

Beorn, your PJ photo cracks me up. Gandalf the Gangsta beating up Denethor and asking Aragorn for advice? Frodo the Frail giving up the close friend who has suffered everything for him for months over some lembas?

Saruman's story left blowin' in the wind? What about that dumb looking deformed orc (I miss Lurtz)? The eye of Sauron looked like a beacon to a used car lot, but worse. NPWs unite!

Ol'gaffer · Dec 20, 2003

Originally posted by simbelmyne
??? How does adding bad scenes and bad dialogue streamline the story? Aragorn falling off a cliff and Gimli's bad taste antics?
An HOUR at Helm's Deep, complete with buck-toothed villagers and whiny children?

We're talking about RotK now. TTT had some low points, but alltogether it worked well as a bridge between two complete movies.

Beorn, your PJ photo cracks me up. Gandalf the Gangsta beating up Denethor and asking Aragorn for advice? Frodo the Frail giving up the close friend who has suffered everything for him for months over some lembas?

Frodo did not leave Sam over the Lembas, he left because gollums words had poisoned his mind, he believed that Sam wanted the ring, and the ring had consumed him so badly that he would rather give up his best friend than harm the ring. Watch the movie next time why don't you.

And Gandalf didn't ask Aragorn for advice, I did not see one part in the movie were Gandalf would have gone to Aragorn and say "Do you think that I should do this?" Toward the end he doubted the plan that Aragorn conceived but never asked him for advice. As for beating denethor? He was trying to beat some sense into him, should he have gone all Tolkien on him, well, let's just say that I doubt singing and story telling would have done much good in that situation.

Saruman's story left blowin' in the wind? What about that dumb looking deformed orc (I miss Lurtz)? The eye of Sauron looked like a beacon to a used car lot, but worse. NPWs unite!

Saruman will be seen in the EE, for the non fans who just watch the movies for entertainment have atleast to my knowledge been satisfied with the "Sarumans power is no more" ending that was given. Myself, I'm waiting for the EE.

The deformed orc? I had no problem with him until the stupid catapult part where he just dodges the boulder. But I'm not a NPW so I let it slide.

The eye, I agree, it was horrible. But, let me ask you, how would you have done it? Myself, I really wouldn't have done anything differently expect removed the lighting that came from it.

simbelmyne · Dec 20, 2003

Originally posted by Ol'gaffer
Watch the movie next time why don't you.

OG, please! Denethor may be a complete jerk, but he is still (at this time) in the highest position of any human in ME...it isn't honorable for Gandalf to stoop to this level. All he needed was magic.

And excuse me, but the lembas is a big deal in the scene where Frodo tells Sam to "go home" - at least PJ thought so by the amount of time he spent building it up, complete with Sam finding it crumbled on the ground later (what makes him go back after Frodo). It's Sam asking to take the ring COMBINED with Frodo believe Sam is lying to him and Gollum teling the truth ("proven" by the food) that convinces Frodo - as incredibly lame as that is.

And advice is too strong a word...more like A's opinion because G can't figure ANYTHING out for himself. It happens twice: when G asks A what he thinks happened to Frodo and Sam (like Aragorn would know more than Gandalf about this!!!) and when G initially rejects Aragorn's plan to storm the black gates...even though it makes complete sense, as the most powerful being in ME should know full well.

Foe-Hammer · Dec 20, 2003

Originally posted by simbelmyne
OG, please! Denethor may be a complete jerk, but he is still (at this time) in the highest position of any human in ME...it isn't honorable for Gandalf to stoop to this level. All he needed was magic.

And excuse me, but the lembas is a big deal in the scene where Frodo tells Sam to "go home" - at least PJ thought so by the amount of time he spent building it up, complete with Sam finding it crumbled on the ground later (what makes him go back after Frodo). It's Sam asking to take the ring COMBINED with Frodo believe Sam is lying to him and Gollum teling the truth ("proven" by the food) that convinces Frodo - as incredibly lame as that is.

And advice is too strong a word...more like A's opinion because G can't figure ANYTHING out for himself. It happens twice: when G asks A what he thinks happened to Frodo and Sam (like Aragorn would know more than Gandalf about this!!!) and when G initially rejects Aragorn's plan to storm the black gates...even though it makes complete sense, as the most powerful being in ME should know full well.

Magic? What magic? The only magic used was in the wizards duel (which I'm sure sends you to a wretching fit every time you see the movie) and the defensive shield used when the balrog attacked him on the bridge. You act like magic is less destructive than a whack with a stick. Denathor DESERVED to be hit with a stick, I don't care what his station was at the time. I suppose you think polititians and the like should be handle with kid gloves for their crimes too?

Your lembas argument is BS. He didn't tell Sam to go home because of the lembas. The reason were explained to you once already and I'm not going to waste my time repeating it.

GO WATCH the movie at least once, OK?! Take off your gandalf hat and leave the book and flashlight at home and pay attention next time.

Gandalf White · Dec 20, 2003

Originally posted by simbelmyne
And excuse me, but the lembas is a big deal in the scene where Frodo tells Sam to "go home" - at least PJ thought so by the amount of time he spent building it up, complete with Sam finding it crumbled on the ground later (what makes him go back after Frodo). It's Sam asking to take the ring COMBINED with Frodo believe Sam is lying to him and Gollum teling the truth ("proven" by the food) that convinces Frodo - as incredibly lame as that is.

Must I go over this yet again? Apparently so. Those scenes are completely logical; TTT had been building towards it, as had the first part of RotK. We must member that the Ring weighs heavily on Frodo, and he is not really thinking straight. That is a big point. In TTT Frodo sees himself becoming more and more like Gollum, he sees what Gollum is, and is trying desparately to convince himself that it is possible to come back. But Sam's 'mistreatment' hinders this effort, in essence frightening Frodo and causing him to be short tempered with Sam. Gollum plays this perfectly, putting little whispering doubts in Frodo's head. Remember, Frodo has the Ring dominating his thoughts, so when Sam asks to help bear it, Gollum's little comments no longer seem little. Compound that with the apparent fact that Sam is eating the supplies while pretending to give his portion to Frodo. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

Sam finds that Lembas later on, realizing how Gollum tricked Frodo and his rage builds into resolve as he heads back to find 'Stinker.'

Beautifully filmed, completely logical, perfectly enjoyable.

Sephiroth · Dec 20, 2003

Originally posted by Gandalf White

Sam finds that Lembas later on, realizing how Gollum tricked Frodo and his rage builds into resolve as he heads back to find 'Stinker.'

.

but he already knew what Gollum had done as soon as Gollum pointed out the crumbs to Frodo

Gandalf White · Dec 20, 2003

Originally posted by Sephiroth
but he already knew what Gollum had done as soon as Gollum pointed out the crumbs to Frodo

I should have said "Sam finds that Lembas later on, realizing how Gollum tricked Frodo, his rage builds into resolve and he heads back to find Stinker."

Of course Sam realized what Gollum had done, but there was seemingly nothing left to say at the time. The finding of the bread was the catalyst to his change of attitude.

BTW, if you seek to refute what I say, do so with my entire post, not just the last sentence.

e.Blackstar · Dec 20, 2003

I hate the kung-fu elves! (They are not by far the biggest problem I saw, but they are my pet peeve) When I went tonight, I was sitting right behind a group of simmpering Legolas-occultists who whimpered at his every move. (I particularly hated the whole Oliphant bit.)

Narsil · Dec 20, 2003

Something about a palantir? Oh, wasn't that the thing Saruman threw out the window?

Wormtongue threw it out the window..and Saruman wasn't happy about that.

In any case...none of this was in the movie. The Palantir was just floating around, glowing....

simbelmyne · Dec 21, 2003

THE POINT: The stupid lembas doesn't matter except to show at THIS moment Frodo believes Gollum is honest and Sam is lying.

In TTT Frodo sees himself becoming more and more like Gollum, he sees what Gollum is, and is trying desparately to convince himself that it is possible to come back.

OK, I'll buy it. Frodo identifies with Gollum because he begins to understand Gollum's consuming desire to possess the ring

Frodo has the Ring dominating his thoughts, so when Sam asks to help bear it, Gollum's little comments no longer seem little.

Frodo has become paranoid that he will lose the ring - that obsession dominates his thoughts. Why is he so worried about Sam stealing it and not the slightest bit worried about Gollum stealing it? He knows Gollum has gone to any lengths in the past to get it back, and he now has a window into his mind and how much Gollum wants it. If he was REALLY so paranoid that he can't see Sam is his friend, he would surely be paranoid about Gollum taking it from him too...he would trust no one, even if he picked Golum to go forward with him and left Sam behind.

Not to mention if he's gotten to the point where he has zero ability to tell right from wrong, why does he keep going on a journey to destroy the ring at all?

Morvran · Dec 21, 2003

My God, It Was Horrible (Part III)

In the shadows

LOTR Purist to the end

Well-Known Member

Just another loremaster

Member

The Clark Kent of ME

Gone Missing

In the shadows

Member

Member

The Dawson

Member

Member

Gone Missing

New Member

Gone Missing

wanderer, not lost

The Sword that was Broken

Member

New Member

Share this page

Similar threads

Today's events

Similar threads

Search Wiki

Share this page

Most viewed threads of 2026