I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Incoming Signals is one of those great eclectic websites that posted tons of good ROTK stuff. The guy even wrote a review for msnbc.com
Agreed. As far as mass-market films go, ROTK was very good.
As far as ANY movies go, ROTK was great. I can't wait for the extended edition, whcih will most likely clock in around 5 hours.
I just finished watching the video release of the Two Towers this afternoon. I loved reading Tolkien's books as a kid, so the bookish feel of the movies was fine by me. I haven't seen the latest movie. Hopefully, the winger-orcs don't destroy Middle Earth like they're trying here with their War on Terra.
I'm wondering when Tolkien/Jackson come in for a little bashing of the West-Good, East-Bad variety. Most of the bash-worthy stuff is in the original: the evil Africanish/middle eastern men with their elephants. The (American) eagles helping to save the day at the end after the Brits and their Western-Euro allies held evil at bay. But Jackson plays it up in ROTK, especially with the middle-eastern bad dudes riding the elephant which was being driven by a bald guy in black face.
Other than that, I thought the movie was great. Preferred the ending in the book, however.
But I think Jackson deserves a swipe for bringing modern prejudicial politics to middle earth the same way the Lucas deserved to be thumped for Jar Jar Binks and the evil Asian Frog people who dominated the trade federation.
Not to take away from the dialog/music or sound effects but this movie would be a great Silient movie. The movie is visually stunning.
This movie makes me sad for star wars fans.
Barryus Manilowas - I haven't seen ROTK yet, but I've read the books a bunch of times and unfortunately, that's the way Tolkein wrote it. Lots of "swarthy easterners" and dark people in the enemy's forces.
Barryus is a bit too PC for me.
This is a great movie.
Jackson commented that he put up with making the first two films in order to have the oppurtunity to make the third.
He also commented that he originally only wanted to make the third film and was convinced to do all three.
Rumor has it that he is in production for King Kong and that he is planning on bringing "The Hobbit" to the big screen.
Preferred the ending in the book, however.
I haven't seen ROTK yet (next week; can't wait!), but I'm guessing you mean the mini-war at the end of the book? I heard Jackson didn't like it, so left it out--I would agree with that decision because a) you can't cram everything into a movie, even a long-assed trilogy, and b) I didn't care for that stuff either, as it felt like an anti-climax.
Sometimes when one of the ROTK trolls went on screen, I could'nt help but reflect on some of the trolls who surface online. I finally have an image to associate with the Freeper types that show up and start pounding on the barred entrance with battering rams, pushing siege towers to the walls, etc. ...
OT here....I saw the second Matrix film the other night. When it was over I felt I had been watching someone else playing a Video Game.
Watching the Two Towers, I was struck that there were no blacks among the defenders of The Keep. But neither were there blacks in Viking mythology. There were Orcs, Dwarves, Wizards, Elves, Trolls and Hobbits. I think it this case it would have detracted from the movie had blacks been included. It's a fantasy film and you're supposed to suspend belief. Including blacks in futuristic films is one thing but not in medievalist fantasy films. Jackson was right to forego that bit of political correctness for the quality of the film.
I also rented, 28 Days Later which I watched last night. It was a futuristic fantasy film that included black characters. The movie sucked, though.
I loved the animation of The Hobbit as a kid, too.
We don't want to go to war today, where there's whip --snap! -- there's a way.
Crosby: there is an unholy union between the game industry and the cinematic special effects industry. increasingly, the game and the action film are indistinguishable, and the product is released in both formats. It is another example of how corporate Hollywood studios (think Sony, for example, which has both video game and film production subunits) has become the nemesis of the cinematic art form.
Tolkien definitely wasn't anti-semitic, but whether you'd call him a racist depends on what you mean by racism. There are a few unfortunate passages in LOTR that would make anyone wince, and I suppose that's a bit of evidence, but he also writes an internal monologue for Sam viewing a Haradrim corpse (spoken by the movie Faramir in the Extended Edition of TT) where he assumes the poor guy was probably tricked or forced into going to war. So I don't think Tolkien was guilty of anything more than a rather typical mid-20th century insensitivity. He wasn't a hater, judging from LOTR.
(Well, he hated orcs and trolls and Nazguls, but not Haradrim.)
Tolkein's books were, by todays standards, racist (and sexist.) He did seem to be quite pro-gay rights, though. Heh. Anyway, Peter Jackson got stuck with a tough dilemma, and I'm assuming he thought about it: change the whiteness of the books and possibly upset fans, or leave the prejudices of the original intact.
With the sexism, he did make changes, namely, making Arwen a much stronger, more important character, as opposed to the window-dressing she was in the books. The racism of the civilized nations of men being white, though, sadly remains.
I noticed this most when I saw a Duracell commercial showing a kid playing with LOTR toys. The kid was black. None of the toys were.
I prefer the movie Arwen to the book Arwen, but Eowyn is about as feminist a character as anyone could ask for. Sort of a proto-Buffy.
I liked the blonde elf woman of Lothlorien, myself, simply because I thought the actress was kind of hot.
Hope that is'nt sexist 
I'm with Donald Johnson. Women are, for the most part, left out of the story because the third age of middle earth is a really patriarchal age, and we're getting official, "high" history here (someone should write a hidden women's history, except it probably wouldn't be very good. But it could be).
The key female character is not Galadriel (who is entirely of the 3rd age) or Arwen (who is a transitional figure between the two ages), but Eowyn. Her transgression of assigned gender roles is a foreshadowing of what is to come in the age of man--enlightenment, ideals of equality, trangressions of traditional roles, etc.
That's how I always chose to read LOTR on gender, anyway. I've no idea if Tolkien had any intention of saying anything like that.
I think people are also missing Tolkien's own version of multiculturalism and diversity. Take the woodwoses or "wild men" (not found in the movie) who live in the woods outside of Minas Tirith. I think he portrays them as having white skin, but if he'd made them dark people would be probably be pointing to them as another example of Tolkien's racism. They speak in cliched primitive-speak. In fact, if you read Unfinished Tales he has a high regard for this imaginary race of humans who are very very different in appearance from his Numenoreans. And it's clear from the comments of their chief in RoTK that they've been treated like beasts by the Rohirrim, hunted as though they were animals, so Tolkien is allowing one of the oppressed to criticize the tall white European types for their barbaric behavior.
Slightly OT, but Did anyone else get the impression that Thomas Kinkade was designing sets for these movies?
I also rented, 28 Days Later which I watched last night. It was a futuristic fantasy film that included black characters. The movie sucked, though.
Nemo
Bullshit!
One of the most interesting straight forward films I have seen recently.
I am a fan of the zombie/living Dead films, so I may be a bit skewed.
The only thing better was an Australian film called Undead.
Versus is interesting as well, but not as unique as Undead.
So how come the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit stuff makes crappy rpg's?
(think Sony, for example, which has both video game and film production subunits) has become the nemesis of the cinematic art form.
Coperfilmsnobnicus
I thought it was Disney and Miramax.
They have been buying up rights to asian films and either butchering them or not releasing them, Shaolin Soccer for example.
I had the opposite impression of ROTK from Atrios; It was very good, but it felt to me like there were too many holes in the story that seemed to come from heavy editing. The pace of the movie changes too rapidly from slow to fast, and too many of the details ended up on the cutting room floor. As I point out in heavy detail over at my site, I think Peter Jackson just ran out of time; he left himself too much stuff to put in the final movie, and I think that the story itself did suffer because of it.
yeah, can't cut out the part where denethor is driven mad by looking at the palantir. that makes the madness so much more understandable, instead of just being from losing his son.
still an AWESOME movie, and Minas Tirith looked exactly like i'd always imagined.
I love this film. The sequence of the lighting of the watchtower fires is the most gorgeous thing I have ever seen. Amazing.
balta,
Just saw it this afternoon and I have to agree. The edits definitely transitioned too hard and you could just feel that Jackson was forced to make some significant cuts in order to fit a 'reasonable duration.' I read somewhere that his original cut was actually 4.5 hours, so obviously he left a lot on the floor.
One scene from the book that looks like it was intentionally dropped was the confrontation with Saruman and Wormtongue in the tower after their defeat. I always enjoyed that scene and was sorry to see it gone, but it made sense to get rid of it if you wanted to avoid the 'Saruman's Revenge' part of the ending, which I always thought was pretty lame.
I think people are also missing Tolkien's own version of multiculturalism and diversity.
That strikes me as a "noble savage" thing. Tolkien was an Englishman of the Empire--born in South Africa, remember. But it's interesting that at the end of the book he has Aragorn give Druadan Forest back to the Wild Men. Like Mountbatten giving Injah back to the Punjabs.
I don't see how having a few black guys in Gondor would have ruined anything. After all, some of the residents of South Gondor in the book were "swarthy"...
Jackson has a weird way of leaving out moments from the book that would seem to be no brainers for cinematic drama. Why doesn't Gandalf face down the Lord of the Nazgul at the gates of Minas Tirith? Where's the whole business with the Mouth of Sauron? Scottie McLellan must be irked at the short shrift given his analogue.
Anyhoo, it was a fun flick.
I think the Southrons were so made up with gold paint that their race was indeterminate. Tolkien was telling a story about a middle class Englishman going to save the world, which he and his classmates did in WWI. Or thought they were doing.
It really succeeded in showing how hard it is to come back after war and how no one understands what a soldier goes through when they're there. I thought it was very relevant.
It was also the most amazing movie I've ever seen. I've loved the books since the early 70's and I could never imagine the movie being done this well. All three were wonderful and ROTK is the best.
I was slightly disappointed that the Scouring of The Shire wasn't included, supposedly Christopher Lee boycotted the premiere because of this, I'm not sure, but other than that I loved it. The pseudo-racism is unfortunate, but that is the way the story was originally written.
The only problem I had was not due to the movie. At the point when we first see Denethor, Pippin + Gandalf together, some thrice-cursed assclown pulled a fire alarm in one of the theaters, and all of us had to evacuate the building and stand in the rain for about 20-30 minutes before the Fire people gave the all-clear. A tad distracting to say the least. Fortunately, as we filed back in, they gave us all free movie passes, so I'll be seeing it again on Monday when the crowds aren't so big.
All these Lords Of The Rings films are tiresome. Pretentius, and especially.... humorless. I can't think of 10 less witty hours ever recorded to film.
Special effects without soul. I really don't understand intelligent people getting their panties all in an uproar of this masturbatory crap.
Not known for the subtlty of my opinions on this matter.
The (American) eagles helping to save the day at the end after the Brits and their Western-Euro allies held evil at bay.
Wow, way to read crap into the books that Tolkien never intended. There's a difference between being offended because of something the author wrote and being offended because of what you invented for him to mean.
But Jackson plays it up in ROTK, especially with the middle-eastern bad dudes riding the elephant which was being driven by a bald guy in black face.
There was no bald guy in blackface. It was a white guy with face paint, sure, but it was very clearly multi-colored, and there were stripes of it, not a flat color.
---JRC
ROTK was a complete movie...unfortunately. What I mean is that this film offers more closure than any film in history, and it takes an extra half-hour to do so. Bet me that at least half the people watching that movie were thinking "Boy, this'd be a great place to end it," about ten times before the actual ending. But, except for the horible deus ex machina and the extra minutes at the end, I liked it.
As for "28 Days Later," I rented it last Saturday. Well done movie, but much less than it could have been with the premise. Meh.
People tell me I'm the most opinionated person they know.
Hey look, I understand Tolkien was a man of his time and his work reflects his ideas. I was a huge fan of the books at 12 and remain one now, despite all their shortcomings (not the least of which are all the god damned poems and songs that infest the thing).
I also thought the movie was pretty great.
All I was really meant to comment on were the choices that Jackson made in what is essentially about five minutes of the movie: the battle scene with the so obviously middle-eastern looking dudes. IMO, that was pretty clearly a statement on Jackson's part. You can write it off as being faithful to the book. But then consider all the other places he took liberties with the original story.
I was happy to see that "Return..." was so ebulliently queer. It's about time we had some good, strong heroic queer figures in mainstream cinema.
Evidence:
- the hobbits frolicking in Gandalf's bed toward the end
- that hot nelly elf, the one in love with the butch dwarf, and his aching platonic interactions with a species that he's apparently not compatible with
- the cruise scene at the end
- pretty much any scene with a hobbit
- pretty much any scene with an elf
- the individual scenes with the orcs did raise a lot of questions about repressive sexuality identification and frustration - but maybe that's just me
Good flick, could have lost the last 25 minutes (would have lost the cruise scene, though), and the 80 minutes of climbing (what, did Leni Reifenstahl make this movie?) could have been compressed.
Elija Wood said in an interview he saw the final cut in February so Jackson had all the time he needed to make the movie. As for those complaning about how un pc Tolkien was, how about that Homer. Maybe we need to re write the Iliad. And all that Asian literature. Very un pc. Might need to re write that as well. Can have a national literature where all they write about is themselves.
good lord
Tolkein was not telling the story of WW1 or WW2. He was not talking about Hitler or blacks or arabs or anything. These stories are meant to be myths. The character are archetypal. They're not meant to be allegorical to anything in the real world. If you read the opening of LOTR, he says that he hates allegory, and that his work should not be read as being representative of historical events or anything like that.
Not everything has to be politically or racially motivated.
Wasn't Tolkien writing a mythology for England, a mythology with a very small realm of existence (i.e. no "new world" or Africa or Asia existed)?
Why would the originators of an ancient mythology of England know anything about black people or view swarthy southern people attempting an invasion as anything other than hostile, awful people (except Faramir, in the film, probably speaking from Tolkien's own very human empathy about his experience fighting the "others" in WWI)?
To Joe Briefcase--
Tolstoy felt the same way about King Lear. Not to say that Tolkien is up there with Shakespeare, but the fact that he (or Jackson's interpretation) doesn't appeal to everyone doesn't really say much. It's probably a better approach to ask yourself why intelligent people can see something great in a film (or book) that you think is utter crap.
Though of course when I think something is utter crap, I usually don't take my own advice.
To someone else (too lazy to scroll up, since I'm about to go to bed)
Someone else refuted the American eagle nonsense, but just to add to it, Tolkien vehemently denied any connection between his fantasy and current events and said that if he'd meant it to be an allegory of WWII, both sides would have been doing research into ring manufacture and both sides would have held hobbits in contempt.
As for the prolonged ending, many of us Tolkien lovers would have rioted if Jackson had screwed that up, but he didn't. He took some unnecessary liberties with the novel (and some justifiable ones as well), but at least he stuck pretty close to Tolkien's final chapter. Good for him.
Joe Briefcase:
It's simple. As we all know, there's one in every crowd. This time, it's you.
Well, I cried like a baby through the movie and had a hard time getting it together afterwards. I have a feeling it will be like Two Towers though: the more I watch it, the more the flaws will be like sand in my eyes.
All the stuff they cut out was a huge bummer, nearest and dearest to my heart being the secondary romance (Sam and Rose are a distant third). Spent today reading all of Faramir's bits in the books and cried just as hard as at the movie.
"He looked at her, and being a man whom pity deeply stirred, it seeemd to him that her loveliness amid her grief would pierce his heart. And she looked at him and saw the grave tenderness in his eyes, and yet knew, for she was bred among men of war, that here was one whom no Rider of the Mark would outmatch in battle."
What duketg said.
... and here's my own little rant:
Get a grip people!!! You know this is just like people who said georgia o'keaf (sp?) was drawing vaginas instead of flowers. For God's sakes, who are you to say what Tolkien was thinking inside his head when he wrote The Lord of the Rings. Sure, you can guess, but you can't accuse someone of racism or prejudice with such certainty because you're upset there aren't any black people in the movie or the book because you think that's only because the guy was racist. You know, I read Julius Ceasar and I don't recall anyone of importance being black so Shakespeare must've been extremely racist. It couldn't possibly be because it ALL happens in ANCIENT ROME!!! No. Definately not it. What a racist that Shakespeare guy.
Like all art forms literature is interpretive. That one's reminded of WWII or current events or whatever when reading Tolkien says far more about that person and their thoughts than the artist himself. The fact that you chose to view the eastern men as middle eastern is a direct result of what you see on TV and current events. You were expecting the bad guys to be middle eastern so it just clicked. The same way, if you are sensitive on racism, you're bound to notice every sitcom that doesn't have a black co-star.
Liberalism is about equality, but that doesn't mean you have to police people about it. It means that people's race should NOT be a factor. By acting like proportional representation is necessary to ensure fairness you're making race more significant than it should be.
The character are archetypal. They're not meant to be allegorical to anything in the real world.
No, but there's stuff in the books that is pretty amazingly racist. As is the whole "racial" structure of Middle Earth. Hey, I'm a fan, but I'm not blind, either. I know what Tolkein said, but much more to the point is what he wrote. We could have had black dudes in Minas Tirith and I wouldn't have wanted a nickel back from my ticket price because of it.
Like, say, there came "out of Far Harad black men like half trolls with white eyes and red tongues."
One of the less discussed but nonetheless obvious influences on Tolkien was British popular "adventure" fiction. Yes, JRR could be pretty sophisticated with the phoneme fricatives from the Old Norse, but his stuff about "Khand" and the "Haradrim" is straight out of the kind of boys' magazines most people now only read about through Orwell's famous essay, if at all.
Talking about this stuff doesn't spoil the fun of the books or the films for me. If it does for you, that's your barbecue.
Just to clarify about the story cuts: though Jackson dropped Saruman completely out of the *theatrical* release of ROTK, he did film the final scene of Saruman and Grima and it will be in the extended version. The Scouring of the Shire wasn't filmed at all, and Christopher Lee would've known that when they were actually shooting the movies way back when, so I presume he was just pissed at not appearing in the theatrical release.
Also, supposedly there's some more of the Eowyn/Faramir relationship in the extended version, and a bit more about Denethor. That would be good.
I hope there's not also another 10 minutes of hobbits bouncing on the bed in slow motion. That would be bad.
Hoss,
There's nothing in Julius Caesar that says the characters aren't black. Is every character introduced as "Brutus, who is white" or "Julius of the fair skin."
You're assuming that, because they AREN'T introduced as non-white, that they must be black.
Bad assumption.
Sorry, that should read "AREN'T introduced as non-white, they must be white."
Got a little confused with the double negatives.
Speaking of racism, how about the treatment of the Celts/Irish? The Red-haired "Dunlending" "Wild Men" whom the (Germanic) Rohirrim expropriated from their lands? They're evil too! My people are being prejudiced against!
But, I mean, sure, there's some stuff that's vaguely racist. The Haradrim are clearly vaguely Middle Eastern. The Black Troll-Men are also rather disturbing (although one can imagine that they're *literally* black, monstrous semi-human folk, rather than actual black people). But, at any rate, one thing that Tolkien does make clear is that the various men who work for Saruman and Sauron - Dunlendings, Haradrim, Easterlings - aren't inherently evil. They've been tricked and terrorized into fighting for Saruman. Aragorn gives them generous terms of surrender, according to the appendices. There's that monologue by Sam which expresses his thoughts on the Harad killed by Faramir's people...
So, yeah, it's a little distressing, but Tolkien was probably fairly advanced for a Briton writing in the 1940s. Certainly one can imagine much worse (although there is some disturbing eugenics stuff about the blood of Numenor...the "master race" as it were...but let's not get into that)
As far as including black people in Gondor, I suppose they might have...but it'd have been odd. The Haradrim, who come from well south of Gondor, are clearly not black (at least, from TTT - haven't seen ROTK yet), but are seemingly played by Maoris. If so, black people in Gondor would seem rather hard to fathom.
I saw ROTK Saturday on a really big screen, best theater in town. Wonderful, wonderful movie, best of the 3 definitely. An epic worth seeing again while it is still in theaters. I'll watch it again when the DVD comes out but it's not the same on a small screen.
As violent as it was, there was surprisingly little visible gore. And pardon me for being a wet blanket but it's a remarkably WHITE world!
oh and LOTR trilogy blows away Star Wars. Like comparing the Divine Comedy to a Tom Clancy novel.
Points well taken Rowan and Thersites.
I guess what I meant to say is that we shouldn't change a great piece of literature just to make it politically correct. I'm actually of middle eastern origin and in now way did I find the discriptions of the eastern men offensive. Although I did notice some geographical references in the lingustics involved in the names (orcs seems to have turkish sounding names like grishnakh for example) I did not think too much of it.
To me the motifs and themes expressed in the novel are of much greater importance. The values of bravery and sacrifice, the idea of fate and 'what we do with the time that is given to us,' and the way each character is tested and judged seems to be more important, imho, than the geographical origin of 'the bad guys.'
As for the description of 'black men like half trolls' I think we're being too picky. We should not overlook that in ancient literature and mythology black has represented evil while white has represented good. Gandalf is white. Mordor is dark. The black riders, the white rider. I think these are all done for purposes of symbolism and not in reference to the color of skin or race. Yes, Tolkien does group the ethnic groups of Middle Earth together and you could say that stereotypes are rampant throughout the novels, but as a previous poster pointed out the Lord of the Rings trilogy is told in the form of the history passed down by those who lived through it.
As for Shakespeare not pointing out that Brutus and others were 'not black' you're right Rowan. I used a bad example but the point is still valid. I'm saying that sometimes the context of the story is such that people of a certain ethnic group are absent and that on its own does not necessarily indicate racism. I guess a better example would be to ask why none of the high ranking senators or the emperor in Gladiator are black and accuse Ridley Scott of racism.
Tolkien once said he wrote the story because he felt the British had a major disconnect with their own cultural traditions, and needed their own mythology.
He brought that back to life quite effectively.
As for the story being meant as any kind of allegory, he also said that if the Lord of the Rings had been meant to tell the story of his time, the West would have used the Ring against Sauron and set up their own dark Lord.
The only safe thing to do with a ring of Power is to destroy it.
Now as then as always.
Don't worry, Joe Briefcase, there are plenty of so-called "witty adult" movies like SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE or MONA LISA SMILES for you to enjoy.
The rest of us will enjoy something that doesn't put you to sleep within 5 minutes or less.
BTW, 28 Days Later sucked ass, you're better off sitting through THE OMEGA MAN again.
Hoss, my comment to you should be taken with what I said earlier, which was that Tolkein wrote as a product as his times. I'm not going to judge him or his story as being especially racist.
What I am saying, though, is that Peter Jackson could have done a better job of correcting those biases. As the movies stand, the complete lack of black characters, combined with the darker-skinned orcs and elephant riders from the east is more than slightly allegorically disturbing.
Why not toss some black soldiers into Minas Tirith? Or have Asian elves? Couldn't Aragorn be a person of color? If you're going to change anything about the books, and Jackson certainly did that, then why not a skin-deep change.
I say all this as someone who enjoys the films, but am slightly disturbed. Just trying to keep my critical eyes open.
From the heated tones here, I'm assuming that for some of you LOTR's is like a religion: Don't you dare analyze my god, dammmit.
It's a friggin book and movie. Sheesh.
Next up: Queer theory and Captain Piccard.
He Blasphemes! Stone Him! The Heretic!
Don't often disagree with you, Atrios, but I do on this one. FAR too many battles and not enough character development. And NOT NEARLY ENOUGH Viggo Mortenson. 
Actually, despite what the critics have said, my favorite is the middle one... don't know what's wrong with me.
Thomas Kinkade designing the movie sets? More Maxfield Parrish, I think.
Points well taken Rowan and Thersites.
I guess what I meant to say is that we shouldn't change a great piece of literature just to make it politically correct. I'm actually of middle eastern origin and in now way did I find the discriptions of the eastern men offensive. Although I did notice some geographical references in the lingustics involved in the names (orcs seems to have turkish sounding names like grishnakh for example) I did not think too much of it.
To me the motifs and themes expressed in the novel are of much greater importance. The values of bravery and sacrifice, the idea of fate and 'what we do with the time that is given to us,' and the way each character is tested and judged seems to be more important, imho, than the geographical origin of 'the bad guys.'
As for the description of 'black men like half trolls' I think we're being too picky. We should not overlook that in ancient literature and mythology black has represented evil while white has represented good. Gandalf is white. Mordor is dark. The black riders, the white rider. I think these are all done for purposes of symbolism and not in reference to the color of skin or race. Yes, Tolkien does group the ethnic groups of Middle Earth together and you could say that stereotypes are rampant throughout the novels, but as a previous poster pointed out the Lord of the Rings trilogy is told in the form of the history passed down by those who lived through it.
As for Shakespeare not pointing out that Brutus and others were 'not black' you're right Rowan. I used a bad example but the point is still valid. I'm saying that sometimes the context of the story is such that people of a certain ethnic group are absent and that on its own does not necessarily indicate racism. I guess a better example would be to ask why none of the high ranking senators or the emperor in Gladiator are black and accuse Ridley Scott of racism.
Screw you all... this was the best adaptation of a book ever. Most of the dialogue was verbatim from the book, with the exception of the comic relief of Gimli and some of the dialogue between Aragorn and Arwen (which we could've done without.)
And how the hell do we get started on the political correctness of the movie? I know this is a political site, but JEEBUS MAN, this is the greatest epic of all time and Tolkien's trilogy will remain to be some of the greatest books ever written. Before everyone starts being critical, imagine bringing to life this story and condensing it into three watchable, marketable movies.
Kudos Jackson... I'll be having wet dreams about this flick for weeks.
We could have had black dudes in Minas Tirith
Allow me to point out the fucking obvious - the movie was shot in New Zealand by a New Zealander. T'ain't a fuck of a lot of blacks in New Zealand, nor is there any problem or historical baggage associated with blacks in New Zealand.
Maoris, sure - but there were plenty of Polynesians involved in making the flick.
I can't comment on Tolkein, but don't assume your racial obsessions are everybody else's...
Sorry, but I see this as a case where such anal political correctness can be a bad thing.
This is an Anglo/Saxon myth cycle. If such things bother you, simply don't see the movie.
I agree a Phoenician in a time of Roma . Peter Jackson is from New Zealand, not America. Might as well complain about about Japanese and Chinese not having blacks as well.
"I was struck that there were no blacks among the defenders of The Keep."
The explanation might simply be the racial makeup of the pool of extras avvalable in New Zeeland rather than any conscious casting decision.
"I liked the blonde elf woman of Lothlorien, myself, simply because I thought the actress was kind of hot. Hope that is'nt sexist"
Not at all. I think it very open-minded of you to be attracted to Arwen's grandmother.
I hope I'm adding to the discussion, and not repeating someone else, but here's my feeling on this whole issue:
If the film was of an African myth, or an Asian myth, would we hear complaints about there being not enough white characters? What about a native american myth? Adding characters of different races wouldn't hurt anything, but it seems pretty silly to make an issue out of it. White characters wouldn't be left out because of slight, but because it wouldn't make sense to put them in.
Again, I'm not saying the films are less fun because I don't see any black people in Minas Tirith. I just don't see why it would be less fun if there were black people there. Tolkien was a thoughtful person but the geography of Middle Earth is very much the geography of the early 20th century British Empire. This is pretty obvious. If thinking about this stuff makes the books or films less fun for you, then don't think about it. But I don't see why a critical sensibility has to be suspended in order to enjoy a product of mass consumer culture. Sheesh.
If the film was of an African myth, or an Asian myth, would we hear complaints about there being not enough white characters?
What did you think of Disney's Aladdin, with its very very Western soundtrack?
Tolkien once said he wrote the story because he felt the British had a major disconnect with their own cultural traditions, and needed their own mythology.
Actually, he wanted to create a mythology for the English. The other "British" peoples had plenty of mythology of their own. And they get to be crappy Dunlendings in LOTR (why no response on my earlier comment about the Dunlendings? Come on, anti-Irish prejudice! Woo!)
At any rate, the mythology for the English set-up was not at all LOTR, but the very earliest versions of the Silmarillion, written during and immediately after the First World War. Tolkien had mostly given up on this conception of it by the time he started writing LOTR. While there may be some elements of Anglo-Saxon stuff, I don't think it can really be described as an Anglo-Saxon or English mythology any longer - too idiosyncratic and so forth. For the real "mythology for the English", check out Book of Lost Tales, but be warned that it's virtually unreadable, what with the consciously archaic style and what not. I've started it a number of times and never gotten anywhere.
I forgot who mentioned this, but whoever was complaining about the portrayal of middle-easterners as bad guys in ROTK, could I just point out that the filming for all these flicks took place 3 years ago? In say... 2000.
Stuff that I really wanted in ROTK that will be in the extended edition:
-Faramir & Eowyn romance
-Saruman!!!
-More character development for Denethor, I think
and most importantly of all.. the Mouth of Sauron! I must admit I was a teensy bit unhappy when the gates of Mordor opened to reveal a completely leaderless army.
And they get to be crappy Dunlendings in LOTR (why no response on my earlier comment about the Dunlendings? Come on, anti-Irish prejudice! Woo!)
I always thought that the Celtic peoples got their props in certain aspects of the Elvish folk.
The uncouth and barbaric Dunlendings I always took as frighteningly accurate representations of Dallas Cowboys fans.
The third movie was good, but not as good as the first two. The battle of Minas Tirith was over the top. Who needs giant elephants? - Having them around made the Nazgul seem like not so bad - whereas the Nazgul should be the scariest stuff out there.
Jackson's decision to leave out the "Scouring of the Shire" was ok...the 4 hobbits returning unappreciated to the shire was just as good in its own way.
But the multiple endings (especially the interminable grey havens scene) collectively were a big waste of about 20 minutes of running time that could have been spent on Faramir/Eowyn and Denethor and the palantir.
In my opinion the best scenes of the 3rd movie were the best of the series but the first film was clearly the best, particularly due to editing.
I may change this opinion when the extended DVD comes out.
It was fucking boring. Get up the mountain already. Get on the boat already geez!!!!!
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
