January 26, 2004

Back at Last...therefore Much to Say
Bob Praz

Well, exams were quite the trial, but they're over and I can finally post for the first time in over ten days. Not that I don't have any other life outside this forum (hehe). I've still been reading everyone's posts yet unable to respond due to a lack of time. Anyhow, enough whining on my part. Naturally I have a lot to say again, so bear with me, or just skim through what you’re not interested in. Don’t hesitate to say I write too much...

First, a kind of side question. I’m just wondering what was the most visually stunning/realistic/beautiful part or feature in ROTK for you, and which was the least? Personally, I think the visual effects were overall fantastic - better than TTT, in fact - but there were a few parts that looked slightly fake, like some of the shots at the final battle before the Morannon, and once again Legolas’ stunt on the Mumak was a little too cheesy. Although maybe if I see it all again I’ll change my mind. However, the Mumakil battle itself was great, even though, as others have said, it was slightly sensationalist. At least the visual effects were very realistic, otherwise it would have been too reminiscent of Star Wars Episode II, which was simply too artificial because everything in it was CG, and it showed. So I’m just wondering what your review of ROTK would be, from a technical point of view.

I’d just like to say that now that I’ve seen the movie (more than once), the absence of Saruman’s scene did not bother me too much, unlike others. Obviously I wasn’t expecting to see it in the first place, but I didn’t miss it as much as I thought I would. Instead, I yearned for many of the deleted scenes that were more directly relevant to the Return of the King: Aragorn challenging Sauron through the Palantir, Denethor going mad by using the Palantir of Minas Anor, the Silent Watchers, the Houses of Healing chapter (yes, even the Faramir-Eowyn romance), and the Mouth of Sauron. What deleted scenes did you miss the most? I’m curious to see if I stand alone with this opinion.
What I’ve realised now is that PJ took a somewhat different approach to ROTK; unless it’s just me. In both TTT and FOTR, the entire story was crammed into the movie by cutting out bits and pieces of various scenes, so as to try and cover as much of the plot as possible in a reasonable length of time. Overall, there wasn’t as much material that was cut from the first two theatrical versions as there was with ROTK. With the latter, however, Peter Jackson really wanted to make his best movie ever. The third movie would be the reason he had done the first two. Yet you can’t have an awesome, satisfying film when you need to rush through a huge, extensive plot. Return of the King had a lot to cover from the book, and it could only have done so if it was at least four hours long, which was out of the question. There are many, many people who complain about the length of the LOTR movies (especially the denouement of the third one), so imagine if ROTK had been over four hours long? Yet on the other hand all the fans of the novel will complain - no matter what - about everything that was cut or changed from the book. So let’s just say from the beginning that PJ cannot satisfy everyone: it’s impossible. He had to instead make an incredible movie that stands on its own. Instead of jamming the whole plot in three and a half hours, he cut out entire sections that were not completely essential, so that he could afford to embellish and develop the scenes that were really going to be the heart of the movie. Thus I’m sure he could have fit many of the deleted sequences from the book in the theatrical edition, but it would have meant that every scene would have had to be trimmed and shortened to a point where they lost their emotional or dramatic impact. Scenes such as the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, the Siege of Minas Tirith, the Beacons of Gondor, Cirith Ungol, Shelob’s Lair, Mount Doom...well you get the point: everything in the movie would have needed to be stripped to the very bones to make it work. Rather, The Return of the King was good because the material that PJ did keep was beautiful and took the time that it needed in order to be so. In the end, the movie remained true to the heart and spirit of the book, NOT the hefty plot.
If you read through all that, thank you for bearing with me. This is not a justification of every change from the book, simply an explanation of the overall philosophy behind the changes, as far as I see it. Of course there are things that I and many of you still would not agree with (such as, perhaps, Denethor the Falling Star and Legolas the All-Rider).

Alright, this next paragraph or two is about the whole Gandalf vs. the Witch-King debate. Just a warning for those who might not want to read my long answer or who have tired of the topic. Yet since I initially brought up the subject a while ago, I will certainly address it.
Firstly, let me just say I'll make my true opinion when I see how the whole scene plays out on the EE. In fact, the information we do have on that scene right now is somewhat unclear: the Witch-King stops and faces Gandalf and Pippin on their way to Faramir's rescue, then he brakes Gandalf's staff and supposedly leaves at the coming of the Rohirrim. That's all nice, but the only thing we know for sure in there is that Gandalf faces the Witch-King during the siege of Minas Tirith, almost definitely on the way to saving Faramir. We can also be confident that his staff is broken, if not lost, because after he rides off with Pippin to stop Denethor we never see him with his staff. Yet he carries it again at the Grey Havens, so what happened there? I find it odd that the staff would have been remade; sort of a deja vu of Narsil’s story, but I assume PJ will deal with it in the EE. Also, as I said previously, the Rohirrim arrive at the Pelennor Fields BEFORE Pippin tells Gandalf of Denethor's madness, so if the confrontation with the Witch-King really ends with the Rohirrim arrival, then that whole part of the movie will need to be reorganized or re-edited in the Extended Edition (which is a possibility, as similar things were done for the FOTR EE). So this whole deleted scene is something of an oddity. I understand why it could have been cut, though, because it's not really essential to the plot, and in fact it just gets into the way of the story, shoving the latter aside for yet another fighting scene (as if the movie is not long enough and doesn’t have enough action). In my opinion, the best scenario for Gandalf’s confrontation with the Witch-King was the one in the book; as I once stated, it’s one of my favourite moments in the novel which I had hoped would be included in the movie, but PJ had other things in mind.
I do agree that Gandalf's dignity and image had better not be sacrificed in the EE. I read (from what source I can't remember) that the Witch-King indeed uses his ridiculously large mace/flail to splinter the wizard's staff, but hopefully it won't be quite so simple, and hopefully Gandalf will emerge the victor without a staff and not the victim that was foolishly spared (especially since it wouldn't make sense on film anyhow if the great villain just spontaneously flew away when he could have finished his opponent).

And so ends one of my longest articles to date. Luckily, now that I have time to post regularly again, I won’t have to do this again.