The way a film ends...

[TomTowers]

There's certainly no set rule, but I'm always intrigued by endings that make you think differently about what you have seen previously, and you could even watch the film again and see things very differently. (Prime examples; Fight Club, 6th Sense, Usual Suspects, Donnie Darko)

Totally agree with that. Although the rest of the film has to be entertaining, having an ending which totally flips the story that you've just seen on it's head it just brilliant and deserves multiple watches just because of it.

[twister!]

Originally posted by Alex:
IIs the ending true to the book?
<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ March 30, 2004 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font></font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Okay - on goes my geek hat...

It's fairly similar to the book. Frodo had become seduced/corrupted by the power of the ring (as do all that wear it). So he could not throw it away or give it to Sam (which probably is less clear in the film than it is in the book). Smeagol does bite the ring off Frodo's finger in the book - this was made more 'cinematic' in the film though - and the cheesy bit with Frodo dangling from the edge after you think he's fallen in too is only in the film.

The Grey Havens is in the book (where the ringbearers leave on the ship - Frodo leaves to die as he has changed and can no longer find inner peace in the shire) and the last words of the film are the last words of the book. There is a big part of the ending missing - the mouth of sauron, the scouring of the shire (where Sauraman has taken control and destroyed the shire). The mouth of Sauron is apparently going back into the extended version as are lots of other VERY important bits from elsewhere in the film.

I agree that the ending didn't work that well in the film version. I think ROTK was my least favourite of the three films (although it was possibly my favourite poart of the book). Hopefully some of its problems will be rectified in the Extended version.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 06, 2004 04:57 AM: Message edited by: Justin M. ]</font>

[Kev Owens]

Ha ha, Justin [img]graemlins/smarty.gif[/img] ; your inner geek is certainly showing recently- your knowledge of LOTR is second to none! [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

[Alex]

Hey Justin, thanks for explanation.

When Frodo decides to take a nap on the final climb, and Sam has to hoist him on his shoulders for a bit...that's when the characterization aspect of LOTR started to fall apart for me.

The technical aspect of the three films is so well done, (except for the thousand blurry can't see anything in the heat of the battle hand held shots) that it confounds me to see such self-absorption attached to Frodo, whom we have been rooting for all along as the underdog.

I guess that was what the book was about, but somehow when translated to film, I don't think it plays as well havig the protagonist suddenly put his own goals above for all those who fought and died and those who were at that moment fighting and whose only way out was for him to off the ring.

Maybe the film should have deviated from the book just a bit for the purposes of giving a more classic, but not predictable, ending to the story.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Alex:


When Frodo decides to take a nap on the final climb, and Sam has to hoist him on his shoulders for a bit...that's when the characterization aspect of LOTR started to fall apart for me.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All that was missing was either a laugh track or some classic British humor to get us through.

"Wait a minute Frodo, you're going to sit here and sleep, just minutes away from offing the ring, while your friends die creating a diversion for you? Would you like a pillow? Oh wait, I've got a marvy idea, let me hoist you on my shoulders and carry you the rest of the way up this gravity defying mountain so you can "dunk" the ring and get all the glory."

That basically is what happened. Could one imagine the reaction if they had given LOTR a John Cleese type of ending.

Well actually, they did give it a John Clesse style of ending, they just haven't acknowledged it.

I guess books shouldn't always be turned into movies without some modifications.

[twister!]

Originally posted by Kev O.:
Ha ha, Justin [img]graemlins/smarty.gif[/img] ; your inner geek is certainly showing recently- your knowledge of LOTR is second to none! [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tee hee - shhh [img]wink.gif[/img]

Anyway - now I've started I can't stop [img]confused.gif[/img]

I do agree with you about the ending of the film, Alex. I think the extra hour Jackson will put back in to the extended cut will help a great deal in adressing some of the issues.

I don't think the problem is that they deviated too far from the book (which they didn't really) I think it suffers for all the bits that had to be cut out to get it a cinema-friendly length. The film was basically just one big battle - the Frodo and Sam story (which is actually the most important part) was the bit that sufferred most in the cut (not to mention Christopher Lee's Saruman). Frodo is not actually meant to be 'sleeping' he has no energy/strength left because of the burden of the ring and being right under the eye of Sauron - in his own land. Frodo had almost completely 'fallen into darkness' as Tolkien describes it. I think (hope) things will be put a bit right in the Extended version where Peter Jackson can focus more on the characters and story rather than just the crowd-pleasing battles.

Another problem I had with it was near the end it kept fading to black as if it was the end (that is how we are used to films finishing) and then we'd have another scene - it did that about three times and was quite irritating. I'm sure that could have been done better.

[thelaughingduck2001]

Don't ask me why, but I hate Lord of The Rings.

I've seen all of them at the cinema, and put them in my top three once I got out. But ten minuts later I was saying how crap they were.

Now I know-They are some of the most amazing movies ever made. But for some reason...I don't know, I just don't like them.

But they will go down as possibly the best trilogy of all time (as Godfather 3 wasn't all that good)

[twister!]

Not taking anything away from Peter Jackson's fantastic achievement but he was working with some fairly rich and impressive source material (another man's life's work).

[sn-films]

Originally posted by thelaughingduck2001:
Don't ask me why, but I hate Lord of The Rings.

...

Now I know-They are some of the most amazing movies ever made. But for some reason...I don't know, I just don't like them.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't get me started on the trilogy. The protagonists won despite themselves.

[ SPOILERS ]

A magical army of ghosts magically appears late in the third act to save the day, and the quest to destroy the ring (the whole point of the trilogy) was only successful because one of the antagonists had poor dancing skills. WTF?!

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that the protagonists should have more to do with the successful completion of the quest.

[sn-films]

Originally posted by Justin M.:
Another problem I had with it was near the end it kept fading to black as if it was the end (that is how we are used to films finishing) and then we'd have another scene - it did that about three times and was quite irritating. I'm sure that could have been done better.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I had a tough time trying not to laugh in the gay-porno ending when Frodo was laying in bed and all the main characters have their very own diffused glamour shots. I kept waiting for them to break into a slow-motion pillow fight. Suddenly, I had a very different understanding of the nature of the relationship between Sam and Frodo.

Justin, it sounds like you have read the books, so I'm going to consider you an authority on the films. One of the things I've noticed about most films is that characters are supposed to grow and evolve. How was Frodo different at the ending than he was at the beginning of the trilogy? Was something lost in translation between the novel and the screenplay? I've only read The Hobbit, and I felt that Bilbo was definitely a different person at the end than he was at the beginning of the story. I didn't get the same impression about Frodo, and it making me feel a bit jaded toward the movies.