The way the scene was laid out in the book was extremely touching, I always have too blink back the tears....the movie totally bugged me. Merry and Pippen should not have been included with Sam and Frodo.

Merry and Pippin did play crucial roles which directly led to the destruction of Orthanc and the elimination of Saruman as a power as well as the destruction of the Witchking. Those are two extremely large chess pieces that they helped take off the board. Their inclusion was warranted. Everyone played a part and each part was important.

True, but there were many other that did just as much if not more. For example, Eowyn and Aragorn. So, why weren't they included?

I agree on Eowyn...it does seem a bit strange that no-one seems to even mention her part in the victory on the Pelennor.

But Aragorn wasn't included...? Huh? He makes his speech, everyone cheers for him and then the other 'heroes' bow to him as he walks past them. Then the hobbits bow to him and he bows to them...to my eyes he was included.

I guess the prize for Eowyn was the Gondorian hunkster Faramir. All the hobbits had to look forward to was a long journey home to nobody in particular. :D

Good point. I've never looked at it that way...

Except Sam who had some hope with a certain hobbit lass...hmm.

I agree totally MatthewM.:) It was very awsome.

But there is an equivalent scene in the book, Gwaihir sings a song called "praise to the halflings" or somesuch, this could be seen as a way of doing that scene whilst peter jackson avoids putting in any of the songs that are essential to middle earth's middle-ages setting :p

I don't think that killing the captain of Mordor is quite as incredible an achievement as rousing the ents in open warfare (remember this is an event that had NEVER happened before in the history of middle earth)

Could it be that, to Big Folk, all of the four looked similar? Maybe, with the exception of those that stood side by side with the Hobbits (i.e. Aragorn), many in the crowd weren't really sure which did what. So out of ignorance and politeness (and Ent-draught Merry and Pippin appear more heroic anyway ;)), the crowd just bowed.

what is so bad about fanfic?

[post deleted]

How can ANYONE not tear up at this scene
 

I just saw LOTR -Return of The King ..and sure enough I teared up again ...even thinking about it. I do not cry or get emotional at movies but this one part (king and subsequently people bowing down to the 4 hobbits) did it again.

Well, I think, summoning Ents into battle, saving Faramir, slaying a troll and Witch King should not be underestimated :)

I liked that scene. But I won't say that it surpassed the book's. It was Touching and beautiful scene. Hobbits reactions were awesome. :) I also liked that look on Frodo's face. As if he was feeling "guilty" for succumbing to the Ring.

The bow was touching to me. It acknowledged that those four little hobbits had been through something that took the courage of kings, and showed the people of Minas Tirith that their new king would not let his station blind him to the deeds of those below him. As for the bedroom scene, I seem to be in the majority hating that, especially since it appears that Frodo forgot Legolas's name even though he remembered everyone else's.

The "You bow" line always seemed to me melodramatic, and unnecessary. Tolkien expressed the honour due to the Hobbits sublimely and adequately with the song at the Field of Cormallen, and Aragorn's simple bowing before Frodo and Sam before leading them to his makeshift throne. That's the trouble with so many movies. The makers assume one need to be beaten over the head with something before it's understood.

I don't care how Éowyn screamed, she looked pretty hot, and I'm not even sure if in the movies they showed her and Faramir hitting it off. I don't mind the Hobbits all getting their gratitude in the movie. They did all do important things in the story, with the Ents, the Ring, the Witch-king, Shelob, and saving Faramir's life.

I think that wasn't melodramatic at all. As someone previously said, Aragorn's bow meant that hobbits did something that took courage of kings and warriors. The bow meant the world owes a lot to these four hobbits. Without their selfless efforts the War of the Ring would have turned out differently. That is true for both, books and the movies.

It wasn't the gesture itself that was all that bad: it was the fact that dialogue was deemed necessary to hammer the point home. A simple, wordless bow would have been more effective.

Would you please elaborate why you think a wordless bow would have been effective?
IIRC, in the movie, first Frodo and Sam bow to Aragorn, the King. Moments later Merry & Pip do the same. That moment none of the hobbits were looking at the rest. How, do you think, without a word, things would have been fine? How would the hobbits know what is happening? And wouldn't this look rather silly? This way, we find out how humble these Hobbits are; and Aragorn has such a great respect for them. Not only because they are also the reason the world is safe, but because he loves them and respects them very much. "My friends, you bow to no one." This is why this scene in the movie, becomes so poignant. :)

I just think a bow, with a look into Frodo's eyes, would have been sufficient. In the book, all Aragorn did was to bow on one knee, take them to his throne, and say to all within hearing that they should be praised. That's quite enough.

I think, I explained why all of it was important. There's nothing more to add. What you said is right, but PJ & co. were fine in that too.

Dialogue. in film
 

I have a general problem with most film dialogue in the first place. It adds some detail and exposition that would otherwise be absent, but it is rarely an improvement on the overall experience. That being said, much of Hollywood has become dependent on dialogue to fill creative gaps in their effort to tell a story through visual images alone. Not that there is no place for dialogue at all. If you're adapting Shakespeare, for example, it's very much about the beautiful language, and therefore it needs to be there. My objection is the substitution of dialogue for the more creative challenge of imparting the same feeling and information in silence. The best films are enjoyable and engaging even with the soundtrack turned off.
That being said, I don't think that "Praise them with great praise!" is any less hokey (or more hokey, for that matter) than "My friends, you bow to no one." But books are all about the words that they're made of, and film is about the moving visual image. A wordless bow, without the line, would have been more universally effective in a visual medium.

I like the scene in question too.
Probably one of the more touching scenes from the three films. Why I like it even more is because it is such a wonderful compression of the whole closure-of-Gondor arc in the book.
We see Elessar's crowning - and if I may say - Viggo suits the kingly Aragorn really well, even though I prefer his Strider.

We see the re-union of him and Arwen - and with the sweet choral playing in the back and the two looking at each other as if they haven't seen each other in ages - great touch. Even Elrond looks happy! :P Of course, I don't really think the kiss was necessary. Atleast not in the way it was done.

And finally, we see the hobbits getting their due recognition. I particularly like Viggo's delivery here of the concerned line. Which an average actor would have made it sound corny, as it is. I also like Frodo's expression. Visibly moved but also redundant, thinking that in the end he failed in his quest and did not deserve it.
I like the fact that Merry and Pippin were acknowledged as well. They after all did have one of the most significant impacts on the events - killing the Wiki, riding to Isengard, the Palantir (an accident, but still)

I would not have liked the inclusion of "Praise them with great praise!" song here, as while it reads great in the book, it would have been quite cheesy onscreen.


Also, I seem to be the only one, but I really like the bedroom-scene. Having them entering one-by-one is of course impractical but this is one of the cases where I can see what PJ means by "dramatic effect". I think the scene - a silent scene completely driven by music- was meant as a soothing balm, as a relaxation after the harrowing Cirith Ungol, and the torturing walk through Mordor along with the battles.

Besides Frodo's super-awkward laugh, I like everything about this scene - especially the Sam-Frodo look at the end with the Shire music.

I think one of my problems with that scene is that Viggo Mortensen is nothing near my idea of Aragorn. He doesn't impart sincerity with the words. Doubtless, many will disagree. No drama.

Oh my God! I agree fully. Frodo's expressions? Yes, wonderful and powerful. The thing that we get from Tolkien's letters, PJ, thankfully, showed in the movie. Viggo as Aragorn? Obviously. He was perfect as Aragorn. I agree with the kiss thingy as well. I find that rather awkward, yes, the way it was done. In India, such aren't 'allowed'(but today movie-makers do that anyway. But I always find them weird and AVOIDE them). Bedroom scene? Yup! Liked that too. Frodo-Sam interaction was perfect. Sam comes with a look of "Mr. Frodo got his friends. Does he need me anymore?" And Frodo gives a smile, shows their friendship's strength. Sam's behaviour also reminds me of Tolkien's letter where he said that Sam loved Frodo but did not understand him much. The scene in the movie reflects that perfectly. :D

Radagastly, you make a good point. And I would add, if I may, that one of the reasons to read Tolkien, as well, is the language- whereas PBJ's dialogue is flat, generic, uninspired, sometimes downright clunky. Notice how much better the movies suddenly get when we are given a section of Genuine Tolkien Text(tm), such as the conversation between Eowyn and Wormtongue (even if swiped from Gandalf)?

It was really funny when the Hobbits kept referring to Viggo as "Strider". All 5'10" of him. Far too cute with the Hollywood scruffly beard, and with a voice too reedy and thin. I don't think Aragorn should have had a beard, canonically speaking, and I would have preferred a casting along the lines of T.H. White's Lancelot: not at all good-looking in a conventional manner, but hard and weatherbeaten (a Ranger spends most of his time in the elements, after all, and not in a salon).

One of several miscasts, particularly Theoden and Denethor, both of whom did not appear as Tolkien described.

The beard bothered me too. I actually prefer the John Hurt-voiced version in Bakshi's film, though he looks rather Amerindian to me there.

Agreed on both. The "healed" Théoden doesn't look old enough, and Denethor reminds me of Rowling's Argus Filch. Ah! So that's Denethor's problem: he's a Squib! :D

This RotK scene was one of the few in PJ's trilogy that was emotive. Another was Boromir's death.

Sadly there wasn't much between them.

While arguing from First Principles would mandate that no descendant of Elros would have a beard, Tolkien either had a more complex view of the matter or simply goofed, since the statue of the old King at the cross-roads above Osgiliath is bearded.

Yes, I do realize that; however, I never felt while reading the trilogy that Aragorn had a beard, particularly the metrosexual one from the movies.:D

Well, while I realize that the dog that didn't bark is always a dangerous line to take, Holmes notwithstanding, it might be postulated that Tolkien was of a generation whose men simply did not wear beards (ancient Victorians like Joe Wright might sport grey ones); it was something so unusual that, like long hair, it would have been remarked upon. Tolkien makes a point of telling us that Boromir's hair was "shorn about his shoulders," but mentions no facial hair; Wizards, Theoden, Beorn and all Dwarves (and Cirdan!) are expressly bearded, but elsewhere he is silent and, just maybe, we can "read" that silence.

Certainly in Tolkien's real world even those few men who had beards had genuine beards, not a week's stubble! (Query- how did Aragorn out in the wild for months on end maintain that 7 days' growth look?)

But "canonically speaking" I fear we're on no firmer ground than we are with Legolas' hair color.

In the LOTR Prologue, it is noted that among the distinctions of the Hobbits in the Eastfarthing was that

The Stoors being the most "mannish" of the Hobbits, would that presuppose a general beardedness of Men, at least those of non-Númenórean descent?

You only think that was hair. Strider just didn't wash up very much. ;)