Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 8

[Quasimod0]

Man that sucks. will be prayin for that guy. Love him as gandalf

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Ian McKellen has prostate cancer.


http://todayentertainment.today.com...-mckellen-reveals-he-has-prostate-cancer?lite

Damn. Just damn.

I hope he is right and it is as manageable as he seems to imply. He is a living legend and a personal hero and I hope he doesn't depart these lands for a very long time still.

 

[CoolCadaver49]

Four words. The Empire Strikes Back.

Four words: That film is irrelevant.

To this discussion, at least. The Star Wars movies have a large space of time between each of them (at least a year or two between 'A New Hope' and 'Empire'). That gives them waaaay more room to tell a story that is far removed from the one in the previous movie. The Lord of the Rings tells a story where there is a single goal identified early on in the story, and the next like, 10 hours is devoted to completing that goal. In Star Wars, a new goal is presented in each movie (rescue the princess, blow up the Death Star, redeem Vader). The Star Wars movies use the same characters, but tell very different stories with very different goals. That is not at all what LotR or The Hobbit does. That is not what they should do either.

That you have plot threads still existing does not preclude a film from standing on its own. No, you aren't suppose to get the whole story, but you are suppose to get the story of that film. FOTR and TTT do just that. That the overarching problem is not solved is irrelevant.

It really depends on what you mean by "standing on it's own". Because the major plot thread is still unresolved. Yes, each movie completes its own mini-arcs, but the whole point of the movie is still unresolved. We aren't talking about a subplot here, we're talking about the destruction of the ring. So no LOTR film is going to stand on its own like The Dark Knight or Skyfall (which are actually good examples of franchise movies that tell their own story).

Lets look at FOTR.

That last 30 mins is very much the climax of a film. The music, how the scenes are played, etc. That is the end of this tale. Hell Aragorn cuts off the head of the first movie's "Boss" character.

Just look at the title of the film. The Fellowship of the Ring. The film tells their tale and at the end said Fellowship no longer exist. Decisions are made, paths are chosen and our characters resolve to carry out missions. That the film is hitting its home stretch is apparent with the decay of the group. Gandalf is gone and Boromir is losing it. The ring is starting to win its game.

Frodo decision to continue on his own and eventually with Sam is the end of the Fellowship's tale. It also completes Frodo's arc for the film. Frodo never wanted the task. He took it reluctantly to start because Gandalf wouldn't, hell couldn't. At the council he has to accept because of the disaster that everyone else is. This is pure, honest acceptance. The last he will ever be able to make because TTT is where the ring starts working its magic on him, all the while having to look at what effect its burden has had on another (Gollum).

Aragorn's refusal to take the ring is also another character arc for the film coming to a close. He sees that he is not his ancestor. That that fear is gone.

Yes, these are all fantastic examples of how FotR feels like a complete movie (but NOT a complete story!). Clear progress has been made towards the main goal, and significant sub-plots have been resolved. But the whole point of the movie, the main plot thread has not been completed. This is how The Hobbit movies need to be structured. Doubtful that they will be though, since Jackson decided on 3 films.

That there is more to come does not negate this. That part of the tale is told, it is finished and wrapped up. Even ROTK is set up like this with Gondor and Denethor, it is just handle aimlessly and badly imo.

Again, it's not just that "there is more to come". The fact that the main plot thread is left unresolved means that the story is not over, and the film cannot be watched in a vacuum (it cannot "stand alone"). If you picked out a random chapter from a typical novel and read it, do you think that it would tell a satisfying story alone?

Stuff like the horrible ignore Saruman moment or the randomness of Faramir/Eowyn celebration shot are another examples.

I feel like soooo many of your problems with RotK stem from the fact that you watch the theatrical version. I saw the theatrical version 5 times in theaters, and the Extended Edition like 20 times after that. I think the EE is how these films are supposed to be viewed, but that's just me.

Look at the Harry Potter films.

Oh... I'd really rather not...

PoA and OoTP are great examples (and the two best films in the series aswell).

This almost made me spit out my orange juice. How anyody can call Order of the Phoenix a great example of anything other than a half baked, fragmented, chore of a film is beyond me. Seriously.

Do they solve the overarching conflict of the series? No, but they tell full and complete stories on their own. You don't need all the information in one film, yes you gather different things over the series, but what is important to that film is emphasized and treated with more care.

Yes, the Harry Potter movies do have their own major plot, and then the whole Voldemort thing. Harry Potter has the same advantage as Star Wars in that it is telling these stories with major gaps in time between them, making it easier to focus on separate, new plots. The earlier ones do stand on their own fairly well, but that isn't what The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings should be. TH and LotR tells a single story that takes place over a short amount of time. There are major events along the way that can be used to create climaxes, but they were designed from the ground up as a single story. NOT a bunch of smaller stories that come together to tell one big one, or a bunch of small, generally unrelated stories, or a bunch of stories with the same undercurrent subplot. TH and LotR each tell one big story and so by nature, their films can't stand on their own as well as other franchise films.

HOWEVER (and this is a big however) each film needs to feel like progress has been made. It can't feel drawn out or irrelevant, and it can't end on an anti-climax. Each film needs to resolve its own subplots, and have a natural-feeling "ending", like FotR and TTT. But, like I said before, I'm somewhat doubtful that will happen.

One of the great effects of the merry-go-round of directors on the first five Potter films, is that each director had a distinct style, making the difference more apparent.

It works for Harry Potter, I suppose. But having a different style for The Hobbit would create a huge rift in series, and negate the massive amounts of detailed world-building that went into the first trilogy.

Jackson saying that doesn't help the matter. Just confirms my point. Not that ROTK is a horrible film. Far from it. But it is bloated, while being incomplete and doesn't touch the first two films.

In your opinion. And I haven't met many people that echo that opinion. I totally get and agree with some of your problems with it, namely Denethor and his preposterous death, the Witch King v Gandalf thing, and Aragorn's battle with the troll. I still don't understand what you mean when you say it's "incomplete".

I respect your opinion. I do. But it gets a little annoying to hear you repeat it every five seconds (like it's some widely known fact at that).

"Hey guys, did you know that Return of the King sucks dust bunnies?"
"... And that's where babies come from. Also, did you know that Return of the King is an irreverent piece of cinematic filth?"
"I'm so sorry to hear that happened to your mother. At least she doesn't have to live in the world where Return of the King exists."

 

[redhawk23]

FOTR doesnt end. Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are running after Merry and Pippin. TTT picks up only a day or two after with them literally running. Frodo and Sam are walking at the end of FOTR and low and behold they are doing the same at the beginning of TTT only a day or two later. They have accomplished nothing at the end of FOTR other than Frodo deciding to abandon and go on hid own with Sam. If you stopped there nothing would be resolved. There is no conclusion in FOTR or TTT. They may have been structured like singular films but the plot doesnt work as singular films. Nothing is resolved. Yeah they won at helms deep in TTT but they still have to ride for Isengard in ROTK and depose Saruman in ROTK. So the Saruman plot doesnt resolve until ROTK . Merry and Pippin's story isnt concluded in either FOTR nor TTT. They are kidnapped in FOTR leading to treebeard and Isengard which continues until they are returning to Rohan in ROTK. All the plot started in FOTR doesnt resolve until ROTK. Heck even Arwen's plot of her going to the grey haven's in TTT isnt resolved in that film. She is still on the road in ROTK gets her vision turns back and that leads to Narsil being reforged which leads to Aragorn going after the undead army. Everything from FOTR onwards leads to the conclusions in ROTK. They dont work as singular films and were never meant to. You cant just watch one and get a whole story. Aragorn's reluctance and doubt about being king doesnt resolve until ROTK. Saruman plot resolves in ROTK. Merry and Pippin resolve in ROTK. Frodo and Sam resolve in ROTK. Arwen's story resolves in ROTK. Everything is unresolved til ROTK.

And ROTK was never meant to be its own film. It was always meant as a conclusion to the whole story. It is that way in the book and Jackson makes it clear in the docs covering production that it is a conclusion with everything coming to a head.

Which is why it fails as a film and other than a symbolic win for the whole trilogy had no business winning Best Picture.

 

[Victarion]

It makes sense for the film to be split three ways; I doubt it'd make a profit if they just gave you a 9-hour epic. Less showings etc.

 

[redhawk23]

Four words: That film is irrelevant.

To this discussion, at least. The Star Wars movies have a large space of time between each of them (at least a year or two between 'A New Hope' and 'Empire'). That gives them waaaay more room to tell a story that is far removed from the one in the previous movie. The Lord of the Rings tells a story where there is a single goal identified early on in the story, and the next like, 10 hours is devoted to completing that goal. In Star Wars, a new goal is presented in each movie (rescue the princess, blow up the Death Star, redeem Vader). The Star Wars movies use the same characters, but tell very different stories with very different goals. That is not at all what LotR or The Hobbit does. That is not what they should do either.

It really depends on what you mean by "standing on it's own". Because the major plot thread is still unresolved. Yes, each movie completes its own mini-arcs, but the whole point of the movie is still unresolved. We aren't talking about a subplot here, we're talking about the destruction of the ring. So no LOTR film is going to stand on its own like The Dark Knight or Skyfall (which are actually good examples of franchise movies that tell their own story).

Yes, these are all fantastic examples of how FotR feels like a complete movie (but NOT a complete story!). Clear progress has been made towards the main goal, and significant sub-plots have been resolved. But the whole point of the movie, the main plot thread has not been completed. This is how The Hobbit movies need to be structured. Doubtful that they will be though, since Jackson decided on 3 films.
Again, it's not just that "there is more to come". The fact that the main plot thread is left unresolved means that the story is not over, and the film cannot be watched in a vacuum (it cannot "stand alone"). If you picked out a random chapter from a typical novel and read it, do you think that it would tell a satisfying story alone?

I feel like soooo many of your problems with RotK stem from the fact that you watch the theatrical version. I saw the theatrical version 5 times in theaters, and the Extended Edition like 20 times after that. I think the EE is how these films are supposed to be viewed, but that's just me.
Oh... I'd really rather not...

This almost made me spit out my orange juice. How anyody can call Order of the Phoenix a great example of anything other than a half baked, fragmented, chore of a film is beyond me. Seriously.

Yes, the Harry Potter movies do have their own major plot, and then the whole Voldemort thing. Harry Potter has the same advantage as Star Wars in that it is telling these stories with major gaps in time between them, making it easier to focus on separate, new plots. The earlier ones do stand on their own fairly well, but that isn't what The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings should be. TH and LotR tells a single story that takes place over a short amount of time. There are major events along the way that can be used to create climaxes, but they were designed from the ground up as a single story. NOT a bunch of smaller stories that come together to tell one big one, or a bunch of small, generally unrelated stories, or a bunch of stories with the same undercurrent subplot. TH and LotR each tell one big story and so by nature, their films can't stand on their own as well as other franchise films.

HOWEVER (and this is a big however) each film needs to feel like progress has been made. It can't feel drawn out or irrelevant, and it can't end on an anti-climax. Each film needs to resolve its own subplots, and have a natural-feeling "ending", like FotR and TTT. But, like I said before, I'm somewhat doubtful that will happen.

It works for Harry Potter, I suppose. But having a different style for The Hobbit would create a huge rift in series, and negate the massive amounts of detailed world-building that went into the first trilogy.



In your opinion. And I haven't met many people that echo that opinion. I totally get and agree with some of your problems with it, namely Denethor and his preposterous death, the Witch King v Gandalf thing, and Aragorn's battle with the troll. I still don't understand what you mean when you say it's "incomplete".

I respect your opinion. I do. But it gets a little annoying to hear you repeat it every five seconds (like it's some widely known fact at that).

"Hey guys, did you know that Return of the King sucks dust bunnies?"
"... And that's where babies come from. Also, did you know that Return of the King is an irreverent piece of cinematic filth?"
"I'm so sorry to hear that happened to your mother. At least she doesn't have to live in the world where Return of the King exists."

Did anyone ever say that the main plot thread was resolved in either of the first two films?

What he explained was that the films AS WRITTEN AS FILMS, stretched and squished the material so that there are identifiable arcs around which to build a film and let them each be a satisfying experience.


Also you want to talk about identifying new goals to each film? What about "Form Group of People only to see that Group of People Fall Apart and go along their separate paths" or "Save entire Population of Rohan" or "Convince Race of Talking Tree People to Attack Isengard"?

That these events take place one after another doesn't mean that from a STORY TELLING PERSPECTIVE that they do not represent whole substories within themselves and important character arcs around which the first two films were clearly based.

The short amount of time between these events, and the film's availability on home video do not negate the fact that the major arcs of these films were pushed and pulled to be shown in an episodic fashion.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I'm surprised at all this hate for return of the king. I just don't get it. We see Sam become the hero of the franchise, Aragorn fulfilling his destiny, Rohan getting the stick out of its ass and coming to Gondors aid, Eowen becoming the warrior she spent an entire previous film wishing to be...the film had a lot of great things going for it. It was no less a "film of its own" than Two Towers was.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Personally I much prefer ROTK over the Two Towers. In all honesty, for me anyway, the only flaw ROTK had was it's ending(s).

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Which is why it fails as a film and other than a symbolic win for the whole trilogy had no business winning Best Picture.

Did anyone ever say that the main plot thread was resolved in either of the first two films?

What he explained was that the films AS WRITTEN AS FILMS, stretched and squished the material so that there are identifiable arcs around which to build a film and let them each be a satisfying experience.


Also you want to talk about identifying new goals to each film? What about "Form Group of People only to see that Group of People Fall Apart and go along their separate paths" or "Save entire Population of Rohan" or "Convince Race of Talking Tree People to Attack Isengard"?

That these events take place one after another doesn't mean that from a STORY TELLING PERSPECTIVE that they do not represent whole substories within themselves and important character arcs around which the first two films were clearly based.

The short amount of time between these events, and the film's availability on home video do not negate the fact that the major arcs of these films were pushed and pulled to be shown in an episodic fashion.

Four words: That film is irrelevant.

To this discussion, at least. The Star Wars movies have a large space of time between each of them (at least a year or two between 'A New Hope' and 'Empire'). That gives them waaaay more room to tell a story that is far removed from the one in the previous movie. The Lord of the Rings tells a story where there is a single goal identified early on in the story, and the next like, 10 hours is devoted to completing that goal. In Star Wars, a new goal is presented in each movie (rescue the princess, blow up the Death Star, redeem Vader). The Star Wars movies use the same characters, but tell very different stories with very different goals. That is not at all what LotR or The Hobbit does. That is not what they should do either.

It really depends on what you mean by "standing on it's own". Because the major plot thread is still unresolved. Yes, each movie completes its own mini-arcs, but the whole point of the movie is still unresolved. We aren't talking about a subplot here, we're talking about the destruction of the ring. So no LOTR film is going to stand on its own like The Dark Knight or Skyfall (which are actually good examples of franchise movies that tell their own story).

Yes, these are all fantastic examples of how FotR feels like a complete movie (but NOT a complete story!). Clear progress has been made towards the main goal, and significant sub-plots have been resolved. But the whole point of the movie, the main plot thread has not been completed. This is how The Hobbit movies need to be structured. Doubtful that they will be though, since Jackson decided on 3 films.
Again, it's not just that "there is more to come". The fact that the main plot thread is left unresolved means that the story is not over, and the film cannot be watched in a vacuum (it cannot "stand alone"). If you picked out a random chapter from a typical novel and read it, do you think that it would tell a satisfying story alone?

I feel like soooo many of your problems with RotK stem from the fact that you watch the theatrical version. I saw the theatrical version 5 times in theaters, and the Extended Edition like 20 times after that. I think the EE is how these films are supposed to be viewed, but that's just me.
Oh... I'd really rather not...

This almost made me spit out my orange juice. How anyody can call Order of the Phoenix a great example of anything other than a half baked, fragmented, chore of a film is beyond me. Seriously.

Yes, the Harry Potter movies do have their own major plot, and then the whole Voldemort thing. Harry Potter has the same advantage as Star Wars in that it is telling these stories with major gaps in time between them, making it easier to focus on separate, new plots. The earlier ones do stand on their own fairly well, but that isn't what The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings should be. TH and LotR tells a single story that takes place over a short amount of time. There are major events along the way that can be used to create climaxes, but they were designed from the ground up as a single story. NOT a bunch of smaller stories that come together to tell one big one, or a bunch of small, generally unrelated stories, or a bunch of stories with the same undercurrent subplot. TH and LotR each tell one big story and so by nature, their films can't stand on their own as well as other franchise films.

HOWEVER (and this is a big however) each film needs to feel like progress has been made. It can't feel drawn out or irrelevant, and it can't end on an anti-climax. Each film needs to resolve its own subplots, and have a natural-feeling "ending", like FotR and TTT. But, like I said before, I'm somewhat doubtful that will happen.

It works for Harry Potter, I suppose. But having a different style for The Hobbit would create a huge rift in series, and negate the massive amounts of detailed world-building that went into the first trilogy.



In your opinion. And I haven't met many people that echo that opinion. I totally get and agree with some of your problems with it, namely Denethor and his preposterous death, the Witch King v Gandalf thing, and Aragorn's battle with the troll. I still don't understand what you mean when you say it's "incomplete".

I respect your opinion. I do. But it gets a little annoying to hear you repeat it every five seconds (like it's some widely known fact at that).

"Hey guys, did you know that Return of the King sucks dust bunnies?"
"... And that's where babies come from. Also, did you know that Return of the King is an irreverent piece of cinematic filth?"
"I'm so sorry to hear that happened to your mother. At least she doesn't have to live in the world where Return of the King exists."

Redhawk did a great job at answering the the post at as a whole, but a few points.

ESB ends on a cliffhanger that is immediately taken up in the next film. There is very much an overarching goal in SW. The downfall of the Empire. You think they made a big point of showing Vader not dying for no reason? It is made very clear that the Emperor exist in the first film and we don't even see him until ESB and not for any real time until ROTJ.

I do watch the RoTK EE. I don't even own the blu-ray of the theatrical cut. But for purposes of talking about films released in theaters and reviewed, of course I am talking about the theatrical cut. I do prefer the EE, but it still has many of the same problems as the original film.

I am not staying the LOTR films needed different styles, I am just point out why the division is easier in some minds, though still some argue it is all "one film", which I find bizarre.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm surprised at all this hate for return of the king. I just don't get it. We see Sam become the hero of the franchise, Aragorn fulfilling his destiny, Rohan getting the stick out of its ass and coming to Gondors aid, Eowen becoming the warrior she spent an entire previous film wishing to be...the film had a lot of great things going for it. It was no less a "film of its own" than Two Towers was.

You could read my post for the answer to your question. t:

Astin's Sam, I no like. This is him at his worse imo. The more he took to center stage, the less I wanted to see of the ring's travel.

Love Aragorn and Viggo is my Aragorn, but the film waste his ascension. It is treated like plot number 3 in the film entitled Return of the King. He disappears for long length and feels more like a Deus ex machina then the leader of men.

I do like a lot of the film, especially the Aragorn/Eowyn scenes. Faramir isn't the same character as his book counterpart, but his arc is heartfelt and feels more natural then many of the others.

 

[redhawk23]

I'm surprised at all this hate for return of the king. I just don't get it. We see Sam become the hero of the franchise, Aragorn fulfilling his destiny, Rohan getting the stick out of its ass and coming to Gondors aid, Eowen becoming the warrior she spent an entire previous film wishing to be...the film had a lot of great things going for it. It was no less a "film of its own" than Two Towers was.

Don't get me wrong, I like Return of the King a lot, as you say, awesome stuff happens, a lot of it, but the film certainly is just one giant climax and resolution rather than a plot itself.

There are certainly some arcs, there, like you said, with Sam.

While the first two films work better as films themselves, Return of the King, for many obvious reasons, is very much Deathly Hallows part 2.

It does what it needs to do, its awesome, but isn't as independently satisfying for me. I'd certainly never argue against anyone who says its their favorite though.

 

[HowardStark]

I am not sure how ROTK could have ended any better although Lees death in the movie should have been in the theatrical cut. Most people feel ROTK only got an Oscar to make up for the last 2 entrys getting robbed.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Don't get me wrong, I like Return of the King a lot, as you say, awesome stuff happens, a lot of it, but the film certainly is just one giant climax and resolution rather than a plot itself.

There are certainly some arcs, there, like you said, with Sam.

While the first two films work better as films themselves, Return of the King, for many obvious reasons, is very much Deathly Hallows part 2.

It does what it needs to do, its awesome, but isn't as independently satisfying for me. I'd certainly never argue against anyone who says its their favorite though.

DH pt2 is a film I enjoy quite a bit, but I could never call it a great film. It just doesn't work as well as a film as other entries in the series. I'd say the same about ROTK, but I do see more problems in it then DH pt2.

 

[CoolCadaver49]

Yeah, I'm just going to have to agree to disagree. I definitely see the movies more like one cohesive story than three stand-alone films. I couldn't watch just one without going on to the next within a day or two. I guess that's just me though.

EDIT: It seems like your negative attitude towards RotK stems from the very fact that it was designed as the climax to the previous two films, because they are meant to be seen as one big movie (with intermissions)...

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I am not sure how ROTK could have ended any better although Lees death in the movie should have been in the theatrical cut. Most people feel ROTK only got an Oscar to make up for the last 2 entrys getting robbed.

Do you really want to know? Then please read my post. Not saying I could make a better film or anything, but I think there are obvious problems.

 

[HowardStark]

You could read my post for the answer to your question. t:

Astin's Sam, I no like. This is him at his worse imo. The more he took to center stage, the less I wanted to see of the ring's travel.

Love Aragorn and Viggo is my Aragorn, but the film waste his ascension. It is treated like plot number 3 in the film entitled Return of the King. He disappears for long length and feels more like a Deus ex machina then the leader of men.

I do like a lot of the film, especially the Aragorn/Eowyn scenes. Faramir isn't the same character as his book counterpart, but his arc is heartfelt and feels more natural then many of the others.

I did feel we had a bit too much Frodo and Sam and Viggo got less and the title says Return Of The King. Some person asked a while back how different Bilbo would be from the 4 hobbits IN LOTR. My guess would be he did it first and likely is the better Hobbit. Its when the ring after years takes its Toll on Bilbo did we question Bilbos strength.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah, I'm just going to have to agree to disagree. I definitely see the movies more like one cohesive story than three stand-alone films. I couldn't watch just one without going on to the next within a day or two. I guess that's just me though.

Why does an overarching story preclude there being three separate films?

A season of GoT is shorter then the three LOTR EE films together. They are telling one book over 10 episodes. Each episode has to be its own beast with its own self contained story, while still servicing the season long and series long arcs.

This is what I fear with the Hobbit. Some rudderless films.

 

[HowardStark]

Do you really want to know? Then please read my post. Not saying I could make a better film or anything, but I think there are obvious problems.

Not really for you idea of a better ending would likely be Viggo and Sauron dueling with Lightsabers or something and Sam shoving Frodo down the Volcano with a familure Emperor scream as Frodo hit the Lova.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I did feel we had a bit too much Frodo and Sam and Viggo got less and the title says Return Of The King. Some person asked a while back how different Bilbo would be from the 4 hobbits IN LOTR. My guess would be he did it first and likely is the better Hobbit. Its when the ring after years takes its Toll on Bilbo did we question Bilbos strength.

Bilbo is the man. Probably as clever and resourceful as they get, while still being more then a bit cranky and a fool.

I am watching RoTK right now. At the part with Aragorn and Eowyn's conversation. Aragorn is a fool. Even with the PC stuff they make her spout in this film, Otto's Eowyn is so much more likable and desirable then Tyler's Arwen imo.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Not really for you idea of a better ending would likely be Viggo and Sauron dueling with Lightsabers or something and Sam shoving Frodo down the Volcano with a familure Emperor scream as Frodo hit the Lova.

And this is why I probably should stop responding to your post. It is clear you either don't read or simply ignore what others post if you don't like it.

 

[CoolCadaver49]

Why does an overarching story preclude there being three separate films?

A season of GoT is shorter then the three LOTR EE films together. They are telling one book over 10 episodes. Each episode has to be its own beast with its own self contained story, while still servicing the season long and series long arcs.

This is what I fear with the Hobbit. Some rudderless films.

No, like I totally get that. I said that I get that. I agreed with you earlier. We are saying the same thing... A disjointed, structurally weak series of Hobbit films is something I hope we don't get, but I fear we are going to.

What I was trying to say is that the comparisons you drew to HP and SW don't work very well, imo. I don't think LotR or the Hobbit should be or can be anything like those in terms of plotting.

EDIT: By the way, about RotK... You did say what you thought was wrong with it, but how exactly would you change it? You complain about it feeling bloated, and then complain about lack of character development (which I agree with about Merry, Legolas, and Gimli but the latter two were given short straws throughout the whole trilogy). Whether you want to agknoledge it or not, these films were not about Aragorn, not even RotK. His plot line was sidelined because Sam and Frodo are the important ones. Now, they could have shifted the view away from Gandalf a bit and more towards Aragorn. I wouldn't have had a problem with that, except Gandalf's storyline is more interesting and better quality than Aragorn's (in RotK).

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No, like I totally get that. I said that I get that. I agreed with you earlier. We are saying the same thing... A disjointed, structurally weak series of Hobbit films is something I hope we don't get, but I fear we are going to.

What I was trying to say is that the comparisons you drew to HP and SW don't work very well, imo. I don't think LotR or the Hobbit should be or can be anything like those in terms of plotting.

It isn't about plotting like those films, it is about working the story and ideas of RoTK in a similar manner as the stories of FOTR and TTT were.

What really scares me about the Hobbit is that they clearly had a end point set up for the first film. It was how it was written, how it was paced and how it was filmed. Now they have changed that completely. They had to make two new end points.

I start to wonder what has now made the films that would have been EE material instead with the original 2 film format. What happens

 

[Vartha]

Don't forget something to cover up those Hobbit feet. t:

heh YUP I forgot to grab an image of Spats to go over Scrooge's feet too lol

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I did feel we had a bit too much Frodo and Sam and Viggo got less and the title says Return Of The King.

That is carried over from the book. In the book Aragorn is way in the back of the bus, not only behind Frodo and Sam, but Merry and Pippin as well. Aragorn barely even shows up in the second half of the book. He's only there for the coronation. He's completely absent for the Mordor and Scouring of the Shire sections. Aragorn's role was expanded a lot in the films.

 

[Vartha]

Ian McKellen has prostate cancer.


http://todayentertainment.today.com...-mckellen-reveals-he-has-prostate-cancer?lite

Aw Man that Sucks! I had two uncles, my Dad's Brother in Law and my Mom's Brother in law that got diangnosed at different times, but passed in the same month.
I hope Ian has the less draining like my Mom's Brother.