Lord of the Rings: Both sides of the argument

[Rose Cotton]

Here's an article that was I saw at <A HREF="http://www.theonering.net" TARGET=_blank>www.theonering.net</A> <P>It has two people giving their opinions about whether RotK deserves a big Oscar this year. <P>Here: <A HREF="http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2003/11/28/bflotrth.xml&sSheet=/arts/2003/12/01/ixfilmleft.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=1943 07" TARGET=_blank>http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2003/11/28/bflotrth.xml&sSheet=/arts/2003/12/01/ixfilmleft.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=1943 07</A>

[Lord of Angmar]

Having read over both articles, I must say, it really does not provide a sensible take on the whole Oscar business, nor on the movies themselves. The first article is from the hand of an exuberant enthusiast, while the second was written by a rabid, extremely Tolkien-critical caricaturist. Neither one provided any insight for me personally on whether or not <I>Return of the King</I> should win Best Picture at the Academy Awards, as the first one slapped me over the head with somewhat unsupported praise of the movies and the second one crudely denounced all aspects of the movie and made profoundly illogical comparisons (comparing the attack on the Death Star to the battle of Helm's Deep is like comparing Shirley Temple to Marilyn Monroe).<P>I obviously cannot say that <I>Return of the King</I> would get my Oscar vote, nor should anyone else since it has not yet been released to the general public. I would say, however, that if it is at least as good as the first movie (and from what I have heard it may well be much better), that it deserves a very serious look from the Academy judges. Right now, one of my top choices for the Best Picture Oscar to win would be <I>In America</I>, an excellent and moving story by all accounts and gradually becoming one of my favorites of all time. If <I>Return of the King</I> wins, I will agree wholeheartedly with the decision, as Peter Jackson and everyone involved with the making of the trilogy certainly deserves it, at least for the trilogy as a whole.<p>[ 10:22 AM December 06, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I have already revealed on the Downs that I will eat my hat if The Return of the King does not win the two big Oscars. It will be because its not just for this one film, but for all three.<P>But as for the two articles, I agree with Lord of Angmar. The first was a poor explanation of why the films are good. The second was a hopeless evaluation written by a man who obviously refuses to even try to enjoy the films.

[Luthien_ Tinuviel]

I also agree with Lord of Angmar. What annoying articles. The first is rather overly enthusiastic at some points because the author provides little physical evidence to back his claims. It seems one big rant about LOTR's greatness until the end- "Oh, yeah, it deserves the Oscar". <P>And the second... well, the second article, as Eomer said, was "written by a man who obviously refuses to even try to enjoy the films". If nothing else, he might at least admire New Zealand's physical beauty. But instead, he proclaims it boring. Sounds like a hopeless case to me.<P>But I think LOTR deserves the big Oscars, and will be very disappointed if it doesn't (and then there's my own private Best Supporting Actor for Sean Astin crusade, but that's rather beside the point).

[Iris Alantiel]

Hmmmm. I agree with what everyone has already said about the two articles - they seem really to be answering an entirely different question than they claim to be. They aren't referring to whether or not RotK has a chance at winning an Oscar, but whether each respective author, given the power to choose the recipient of the Best Picture award, would give it to RotK. I would have liked to see an article based on objective merit of the movies, or the internal politics of the Academy, or the fact that 85% of the movies that came out in 2003 were lame sequels that were just like their predecessors (case in point: Dumb and Dumberer, though I'm sure that won't be up for an Oscar). <P>Personally, I think Eomer is right: RotK really kind of has to win because, if it does, it will really be an award for all three films, just as, if it doesn't, it will really be an affront to all of the films. But then one of my friends has this theory that it might not win because fantasy is an underprivileged genre in the Academy, though I can't remember exactly what her argument is. (Apparently she's researched it, though.) I guess at this point, though, it's ultimately just a guessing game, at least until RotK comes to theatres.

[The Perky Ent]

IT HAS TO WIN!!!!<p>[ 6:50 PM December 07, 2003: Message edited by: The Perky Ent ]

[doug*platypus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the two big Oscars <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Surely this refers to Best Movie and Best Director. Time will tell whether Return of the King will deserve Best Movie. All the Tolkienmania in the world shouldn't have more weight than a fair judging of the cinematic value of the best movies produced in one year. The fact that Return of the King is part 3 of 3 should have absolutely nothing to do with it. There is no Best Trilogy category. Acknowledge this, and deal with it.<P>In terms of overall coordination and vision, Peter Jackson is surely in the very highest class of directors. But considering him for the incredibly worthy prize of Best Director, I would have to say his chances are not great. Of course, this would depend on the other films on offer during the year, but I have seen far too many well-directed movies to rate PJ a better than average chance.<P>There's a lot of great movies and directors out there. Some recent viewings of mine that belittle PJs direction of the last two movies include: "Misery", "Kagemusha", "Signs" and yes even "Death to Smoochy", directed by Danny DeVito. It's very competitive out there. In my humble opinion, the "two big Oscars" will be out of reach for Return of the King. Just be happy with soundtrack and special effects.

[Iris Alantiel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> All the Tolkienmania in the world shouldn't have more weight than a fair judging of the cinematic value of the best movies produced in one year. The fact that Return of the King is part 3 of 3 should have absolutely nothing to do with it. There is no Best Trilogy category. Acknowledge this, and deal with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>In a perfect world, this would be true, and movies would be judged solely on their cinematic value. However I think - and this is just my opinion - that the Academy will take into consideration the fact that Return of the King is part of a very popular trilogy that has not won any "important" Oscars yet. Maybe I'm just bitterly anti-Academy, but I personally believe that the Academy's decisions have less to do with which films are the true cinematic gems and more to do with politics and audience reaction. I mean, remember the hype around Titanic and how it won 11 Academy Awards? I watched Titanic again a few years later, after the hype was all finished, and wondered what it was we all thought was so great about it.<P>It's hard for me to remember all the way back at the very beginning of the year, but I went to the movies <I>a lot</I> during the summer, and it was a pretty slow summer - mostly sequels, nothing too outstanding, at least not that I can remember. (I admit to having a seriously bad memory.) So has anybody got any ideas what other movies might be a contender for Best Picture or any of the other main awards?

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Surely this refers to Best Movie and Best Director. Time will tell whether Return of the King will deserve Best Movie. All the Tolkienmania in the world shouldn't have more weight than a fair judging of the cinematic value of the best movies produced in one year. The fact that Return of the King is part 3 of 3 should have absolutely nothing to do with it. There is no Best Trilogy category. Acknowledge this, and deal with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Bravo, could not agree more.

[Essex]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The fact that Return of the King is part 3 of 3 should have absolutely nothing to do with it. There is no Best Trilogy category. Acknowledge this, and deal with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So why do we have so many Oscar 'experts' and websites mentioning exactly what you are refuting above? If the Acadamey do not think of the films as trilogies, why did they not allow the soundtrack to be nominated for the second film?

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So why do we have so many Oscar 'experts' and websites mentioning exactly what you are refuting above? If the Acadamey do not think of the films as trilogies, why did they not allow the soundtrack to be nominated for the second film? <BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Films are not reviewed by the academy as trilogies. That’s the bottom line. If they were then why did they waste everyone’s time by nominating the 1st two films as individual films the previous two years? Why would both Godfather I and II win? A film can only be assessed on its own merits and should only win if it is the best film out in that year. Based on that I believe that FOTR should have beat the TV-movie of the week “A Beautiful Mind” in 2001 but it makes no sense for a film that is not even out yet to be heralded as already the best in the year and that it should win based on the prior films (which according to the Academy were not good enough).<BR>The reason for critics etc tipping it is because that is what critics do. In the same way that they champion Miramax pictures each year because they know Miramax have an impressive lobbying technique which should not carry any weight but does.<P>As for the soundtrack? I believe there is a rule that a soundtrack cannot be nominated if any part of it has been previously used. That was the reason that Moulin Rouge was not nominated. One of its songs had been written for Romeo & Juliet although not used. Since many of the themes in TTT are taken from FOTR then that could be the reason.<BR>Of course they may simply have not though it good enough.

[Essex]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Films are not reviewed by the academy as trilogies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You talk as if the Academy is one THING. It is a group of professionals, each with their own mind, who vote as they see fit. How each views a film is up to him/her. Some may view the oscar for director/picture this year as a reward for the Trilogy. For example, Christopher Lee is a member of the academy, and I quote from an interview he gave to Empire magazine a few months back, talking about the LOTR trilogy: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Well it's been an epic journey for all of us. We shall never experience the like again, in my opinion, ever. You know, if Peter doesn't get the Oscar, I'm going to resign from the Academy. I mean, they've got to give the film, <B> or the films </B> Best Film. They have to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Here we have proof that at least one member of the Academy will vote for the FILMS to give Jackson what he deserves. I have heard on other interviews that Sir Ian, a fellow member, feels the same.<P>Therefore, in at least part, memers of the Academy will view the films, and Oscar nods, as one Trilogy.

[doug*platypus]

Well I read the yes/no articles in that link, and yeah I'd have to say they were of fairly average quality. I mainly enjoyed them for their Star Wars references, and the second one was an extremely humorous p*ss-take on the whole affair. <P>As a kiwi I found the New Zealand-bashing quite funny and very fair. It is beautifully boring here, and yes there probably was a bungee jump just out of camera at the Argonath. Maybe even one hanging off Isildur's arm that they had to move!<P>Although a few are exceptional writers, reviewers at the end of the day are just people. Often not even very talented people. I value the opinions of YOU on the Barrow-Downs much more highly. Cheers.

[Finwe]

I'm sure that many people on this site really appreciate being told that Return of the King is nothing compared to asinine movies like Death to Smoochy. Honestly, if you think Death to Smoochy is a good movie (considering cinematic quality, audience reactions, etc.) then you shouldn't even be criticizing Return of the King. Almost all of the movies that Hollywood puts out now are over-commercialized, over-hyped, re-written attempts to appeal to teenage humor. There are a few exceptions, like Chicago and Moulin Rouge, which showed some geniunely good acting. I think that Return of the King should win the Oscar not based on my personal beliefs, but based on the amount of work the director, producers, actors, and the entire crew put into the movie. I think it is the biggest project in the history of Hollywood, and it will go down in legend just by the sheer size of it, not to mention the incredible acting. True, it has its weak points. Don't all movies? If the Academy fails to award Return of the King this year, then we shall all know them for what they truly are, an intrepid, vacillating group of people who don't even deserve to be judging movies in the first place.

[Catherine]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I have already revealed on the Downs that I will eat my hat if The Return of the King does not win the two big Oscars. It will be because its not just for this one film, but for all three. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I totally agree with you...its the last movie that ties all three together. Its a classic and needs to win! I will be so madd if it dosent win!!!

[The Saucepan Man]

I did see an article that queried whether the film really deserves an Oscar when it does not represent the Director's true vision, ie the Extended Edition, which will only be available on DVD some months later.

[Tar-Alcarin]

Wow, the second guy sounds like my dad! Feaky! <P>As much as I would like (did i say like, I mean love) RotK to win, most likely it wont. It would have to be five times better than the Fellowship in order to do so. Anh honest to gosh, i hope i will be. But this year with the great movies such as Mystic River, Master and Commander and Seabiscut, chance are it wont win. But there is still hope left.<P>Personally I would like Mystic River to win, but thats just me.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Here we have proof that at least one member of the Academy will vote for the FILMS to give Jackson what he deserves. I have heard on other interviews that Sir Ian, a fellow member, feels the same. <BR>Therefore, in at least part, memers of the Academy will view the films, and Oscar nods, as one Trilogy. <BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So you have proof that one member of the academy will vote for ROTK. Manybe even another one too. That’s marvellous though of course you might want to bear in account 2 things.<P>These guys actually acted in the films so are not the most neutral of academy members.<BR>These guys presumably voted for FOTR and TTT with no effect so it means little.<P>There is only one way in which ROTK will deserve to be voted the Oscar for best film 2003 and that is IF it is the best film IN 2003. The prior two films do not matter a jot. <BR>If ROTK turned out to be the weaker of the 3 films and won because of the other two it would be a disgrace.<BR>Even if ROTK turned out to be the best of the films it will still be a disgrace if it wins though something better comes out.<P>I find it mind-boggling that the same people that moaned when FOTR was beaten find it perfectly OK if the rules are bent to allow some kind of “Special Award” for the work put into 3 films.<BR>If that is required than create a Special Award Oscar do not fudge the best film vote.<P>However hopefully ROTK will be the best film of the year and will therefore win deservedly.

[Essex]

Eurytus, you crack me up!<P>You start with the line <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Films are not reviewed by the academy as trilogies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I prove this is not the case with quotes above, and then you come back with <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So you have proof that one member of the academy will vote for ROTK. Manybe even another one too. That’s marvelous <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your point is still wrong.<P>As I mentioned before, the Academy is not a single entity, so treating it as such is incorrect.<P>PS Has anyone seen the list of films that have won the Best Film Oscar in the last ten years or so? It’s LAUGHABLE. The Oscar for Best Picture has gone to some pretty dire films. To me Best Picture is not so important as Best Director. I believe this is the key one that Jackson deserves. Unfortunately, a lot of the time both go hand in hand. We shall see, but even though I watch the Oscars and will root for LOTR, to me they are not so much important rather they are a nice to have.

[Eurytus]

All you have managed to do is to point out 1 (maybe 2) examples of biased voting in favour of ROTK. Since you later suggest that the list of films that has won is laughable perhaps you might like to point out how the actors who actually worked on a film voting for it is somehow an improvement.<P>I would also point out that nowhere in your Christopher Lee quote does it actually state that he will be voting for the film. <P>Tell me just how would films released in 2001 and 2002 be considered for best picture Oscar 2003?<BR>Perhaps when Aliens 5 is no doubt released then it should win best picture Oscar because 1 and 2 were great.<BR>Or perhaps The Phantom Menace should have won because the academy felt bad that they gave the Oscar to Annie Hall instead of Star Wars.<P>Sheesh, thanks for making it clear. A film that has not been released yet and which you have not seen should get the Oscar irrespective of its merits because the previous 2 films (which were themselves nominated as separate entities) were good.<BR>Thanks for pointing out the logic of your argument. It makes sense now.

[Essex]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Sheesh, thanks for making it clear. A film that has not been released yet and which you have not seen should get the Oscar irrespective of its merits because the previous 2 films (which were themselves nominated as separate entities) were good.<BR>Thanks for pointing out the logic of your argument. It makes sense now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I said nothing of the sort. I was only answering your incorrect point on the Academy's viewpoint of a Trilogy.<P>I did not say ROTK deserved the Oscar. I did not say that viewing the films as a trilogy was right or wrong.<P>I was just correcting your point. End of story.

[Eurytus]

In which you quoted Christopher Lee. Only problem was that nowhere in the quote did he actually say that he would vote for ROTK at all (let alone based on it being part of a trilogy of films.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I did not say ROTK deserved the Oscar. I did not say that viewing the films as a trilogy was right or wrong.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No, you said that Peter Jackson deserved to be awarded the Best Director Oscar for a film that you have not seen.<P>Does Lucas deserve to win the Best Director Oscar for Episode III or Wolfgang Peterson for Troy? I haven’t seen those either.

[lindil]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>over-hyped, re-written attempts to appeal to teenage humor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>hmmm sounds like more than a few PJ-ified parts of LotR...<P>anyway sorry to break in on the argument [which I imagine is heading for some sort of more official censure if it does not tone down a bit] but, I wanted to say only this:<P>JRRT nabbed many 'author/book of the century' polls after decades of offical/academic villification/dismissal, that is all the recognition I care for personally.<P>I really do not give a hoot if PJ wins any oscars, so what if he does, does anyone really believe that the Osacars represent anything objective? <P>As Eurytus pointed out Miramax poisons the well from the get go. It is 90% a big hollywood farce. Not interested.

[Eurytus]

Lets face it. Any award that gives an Oscar to Rocky over Taxi Driver and actually nominates Sylvester (Adrieeennnn!) Stallone for best Actor is not worth considering.

[Essex]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No, you said that Peter Jackson deserved to be awarded the Best Director Oscar for a film that you have not seen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I can see the work he is done on this film via trailers and reports of the movie. I can see the work he has done on the film via various documentaries. I can see that he has poured his heart and soul into this film. This is what Best Director is all about. It does not mean the film deserves Best Picture or not.

[Eurytus]

The fact that the trailers look good does not mean one should get best director. There is no “Best Director of Trailers” category in the awards.<BR>If you base your best director award on reports of the movie then you are awarding it based on other peoples opinion of his work, not your own. Hardly the correct thing to do.<BR>The fact that he has poured his heart and soul into the film does not mean he should win the best director nod. The best director award should go to the best director. The degree of effort he put in or how much the project meant to him means nothing in terms of the award. If it did then Ed Wood would have won a best director award.<BR>The only way that Peter Jackson deserves to win the best director award for 2003 is if he is just that. The best director of 2003.<BR>Any other reason would be no more than a fudge.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

A heated discussion over the merits of a movie that has not yet been released is premature, to say the least. When two members start exchanging their opinions in a way that is getting more personal than objective, I suggest that the exchange should be taken to PM. Better yet, let's all wait until we've actually seen the movie before we decide how good (or bad) it is!!

[Eurytus]

Actually I would like to point out that at no point did I actually say it was bad. My point can be summarised as follows;<P>1) Oscars should not be given to a film (or director) for some kind of joint award. Especially when the earlier films have already been nominated.<P>2) We cannot say whether the film or director award is the best in 2003 until we have actually seen the film.<P>3) Unless it is the best then the award is not deserved.<P>As far as I can see this does not clash with your opinion and at no point was I getting heated with Essex. I was merely stating how it seems bizarre and a bit hypocritical to complain that the Oscar is often awarded to unworthy films and then to advocate awarding one for a film/director whose finished product you have not even seen.

[Essex]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The only way that Peter Jackson deserves to win the best director award for 2003 is if he is just that. The best director of 2003. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Please then give us your opinion (as I did) on what merits giving a director Best Director. Is it only if the film wins Best Picture?<P>When a film wins best Picture, who is it awarded to? The Producers (and yes I know Jackson is one of them as well). The Best Director is a different prize altogether.

[Essex]

PS <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> A heated discussion over the merits of a movie <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I didn't actually really post on the merits of ROTK. I was just pointing out, with an example, where posts stating that the Academy does not review films as trilogies were incorrect.<P>But I am not ashamed in pointing out that the Best Director in the World at the moment, in my humble opinion, is Peter Jackson.<p>[ 10:57 AM December 09, 2003: Message edited by: Essex ]

[Eurytus]

I believe I made it quite clear. Peter Jackson deserves the best director accolade if he does the best directing job of 2003. Effort and enthusiasm does not come into it. Best director and best film are closely linked which is why the same production often wins both. That is why 10 out of the last 13 years the same production has won both.<P>And you have not made it clear how you have decided that PJ deserves the best director Oscar based on a 2-minute trailer.

[The Saucepan Man]

Erm, I seem to have wandered into a playground ...

[Essex]

In other words in your point of view is the Best Picture and Best Director are the same thing. Unfortunately, as I had already pointed out, that seems also to be the view of most of the members of the Academy over the last decade.<P>To make my point on why Jackson deserves the Oscar, I have looked at, amongst other things:<P>1/ Trailers (especially the quality of the acting which is a major plus point of Jackons's directors craft)<BR>2/ Website (offical an other) content<BR>3/ Interviews with the actors<BR>4/ Interviews with the film technicians<BR>5/ Reviews of the Film<BR>6/ Various documentaries on the Film<P>These show to me the quality work Jackson has done on ROTK.<P>As I said earlier, the Best Picture is for the PRODUCER. Best Director is to reward the qualities of the Director. <P>But for now, as I stated on another thread with the Saucepan Man, I am taking a break from the Net for a week until after I've seen the Film. We can then hopefully agree that Jackson DOES deserve a gong for his work.<p>[ 11:39 AM December 09, 2003: Message edited by: Essex ]

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> To make my point on why Jackson deserves the Oscar, I have looked at, amongst other things: <BR>1/ Trailers<BR>2/ Website (offical an other) content<BR>3/ Interviews with the actors<BR>4/ Interviews with the film technicians<BR>5/ Reviews of the Film<BR>6/ Various documentaries on the Film <BR>But for now, as I stated on another thread with the Saucepan Man, I am taking a break from the Net for a week until after I've seen the Film. We can then hopefully agree that Jackson DOES deserve a gong for his work. <BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You have 6 items in favour of Jackson but since you have not seen the film then to be honest the rest is just window dressing. Trailers do not show the quality of direction. Websites do not show the quality of direction. Interviews do not show the quality of direction. Reviews only show other peoples view of the quality of direction. Documentaries may show the work that has gone into the film but they do not show the quality of direction.<BR>The only thing that really does it, and the thing that will swing the vote, will be the actual finished film.<P>However your last sentiment I can agree with. And I would point out that I am a pretty vocal supporter of Jackson’s work on the two films to date. If the third film is as good or better and is the best of the year then it will deserve its accolades.

[dragoneyes]

Right, getting a little closer to the original topic (that not being about whether or not RotK should win anything). I must say I didn't read much more than the first two paragraphs of the first article as it seemed sickeningly enthusiastic.<P>The secon article, however, had a few points which I found quite amusing:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I woke up briefly when Liv Tyler appeared in one scene. Amid all the dark, dingy sliminess, her beauty seemed to have been beamed down from cinema heaven. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I find it sad that he was there to stare a Liv Tyler. If he can't watch a film where there aren't any women, what is he doing reviewing films?<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Ultimately, the series fails because you never root for one side against another <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I must say that he is very much speaking for himself. Even before I read the books I was very taken with the hobbits.<P>Perhaps if he just watched the movie without comparing it to anything *coughstarwarscough* that he seems to really love and actually getting into the story he might actually be a decent critic. Anyone who can't tell who were the evil guys in the battle of Helm's Deep is either deeply stupid, needs new glasses or was watching a different movie altogether.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

If the <I>Daily Telegraph</I> is still calling itself a quality newspaper, then it needs to buck its ideas up about what constitutes a good review.<P>That article (and it is one article - I'm sure the two journalists collaborated in its production) is clearly aimed at getting the paper well and truly onto the <I>Return of the King</I> bandwagon from well before the word 'go'. If we amateurs are not to judge the film until it's been released, then surely such speculation should be avoided even more assidiously by professional journalists writing for a reasonably respectable broadsheet. This is the sort of opinion reporting I'd expect from the <I>Mirror</I>.<P>That said, one can hardly blame the <I>Telegraph</I> for trying to use the rabid hype of the <I>Lord of the Rings</I> films to increase circulation. What we can do is avoid making the same mistakes with less reason. I've been an outspoken critic of the adaptations since <I>The Two Towers</I>, but I shall be reserving judgement on the last film at least until I've seen the cinematic release. To put forward an opinion of a film one has never seen is as foolish as to publish comments about a book one has never read.

[lindil]

Here, here!<P><BR>And <A HREF="http://www.elvesrule.com/rotk_review.html" TARGET=_blank>here</A> is a rather colourful [read: pg-13 language/ enlightened elf-chick style] review by a friend of a friend who HAS seen the review. With a mention of the whole Osacar thing to boot...<BR> and btw Essex, jennifer does not share your high opinion of PJ's directing skills, so you may want to skip it... <P>oh an it is <B>replete with spoilers</B>.<p>[ 1:29 PM December 09, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

That made very interesting reading, Lindil (although it wouldn't have killed the reviewer to use the odd capital letter). All in all, it's what I expected to hear after the last two films; but I'll still try to watch <I>The Return of the King</I> with as open a mind as I can, if only from morbid curiosity.<P>All carping about reported alterations aside, though: this is the appetiser that the serious film fans have been waiting for. There's also plenty of material for film-haters and film-lovers alike to ignore my advice above and start the inevitable debate early (let's hope that it <I>will</I> be a debate and not a slanging match). My thanks to you and your associate for sharing that with us, even if I did find the information it imparts dreadfully depressing.

[ArathorofBarahir]

Personally I think that ROTK deserves to win the Oscar for the Best Picture. I've seen the trailer and the trailer rocks and I can't wait to go and see the movie. Also I do have one thing to say about the man who wrote the article against ROTK. (Excuse my language but) WHAT AN A**HOLE! I mean it sounds like he was trying so hard not to like the movies or the books it is obvious that he bases his opinions solely on the movies and not the books. What a complete and total retard.