»Just saw the Lord of The Rings The Return of the King«

thank you my love....and thank you splintey. but i must say this, hobits are marshmellows!

Splinterinyourmind wrote:

Frodo so incredibly WEAK (he was resisting putting his finger anywhere near the ring sucessfully up until they were in the middle of Mordor, and in the movie, he fails on his FIRST TRY, dammit!), and Sam a marshmellow who can't do anything. That's NOT how they do it in the book, and they KNOW it!

If you are talking about the bit in the pub in Fellowship Of The Ring, I think you'll find that was pretty faithful to the book. Frodo accidentally puts the ring on there almost as if the ring guided itself onto his finger. Strider (as he's known then) criticises him for it.

It was the second movie where the interpretation of the books really went downhill. I didn't feel like we got to know Wormtongue properly at all, and both him and Saruman seem to vanish in the last movie without sufficient excuse.

I read about Sarumans exclusion from ROTK.
Christopher Lee was quite upset about it and didn't attend the prem...I can't blame him can you?

However, I bet those scenes will be available on a special edition!

and thats a fact jack!

My problem is that the first movie, as seen at the cinema was great. I really enjoyed it. When I was told that there was an extended edition, my reaction was "why change it?".

But in the case of the 2nd and 3rd movies it seems like they wouldn't make any sense without the additional parts. It basically seems to mean that the movies we see an unfinishes movie. It's annoying that Peter Jackson can't show us the movies as he would like us to see them in the cinema.

It might sounds silly but they could have had the movies in six parts rather than three. There were six books in the LOTR series. Each of the three individual novels is split into two 'books'. Maybe if he'd used that as the boundary for each movie we might have good movies as Peter Jackson intended them which were short enough for us to watch in a cinema.

i think it has to do with more of the film industry doesnt allow movies to go beyond 3 and a hlaf hours. some weird rule. if they didnt have that rule there would be 6 hour long movies that suck....so you see its not his fault he has to cut things down.