wakobi Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 *****************SPOILERS********************* *****************SPOLIERS********************* Apparently Return Of The King will have twevle 'endings' because Director Peter Jackson couldn't decide on which ending he wanted in the movie, so he just put all twelve in. Basically what this means is, when you think you've seen the conclusion of the movie, you have to sit and wait beacuse there are something like eleven other endings to watch. What a stupid, stupid way to end one of the best film trilogies ever made. What a frickin' waste. Here's the link: Yahoo! Article on LOTR ROTK's 12 Endings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abombz!! Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 WTF? How does that make any sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlightman Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Re-reading the article, I don't think it's liek the same thing re-edited 12 times... I think it's just different things happening. Like... it shows what happens to each character, not 12 different endings per se... Just individual wrap ups to each character. Bad choice of words on the part of the article, it's pretty misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abombz!! Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Re-reading the article, I don't think it's liek the same thing re-edited 12 times... I think it's just different things happening. Like... it shows what happens to each character, not 12 different endings per se... Just individual wrap ups to each character. Bad choice of words on the part of the article, it's pretty misleading. It makes some sense now. SO its basically like the book. I just hope they skip that part with Saruman and the hobbits in the end. That totally ruined the book for me. <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southpaw Samurai Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 The book isn't too far different in this aspect. The only real difference is that you get a better sense of time between the events (and partially because some are just narrated to you as the time passes). Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy has always had this high speed pace, where it seems like Bilbo's birthday happened only a month before the Fellowship broke up (whereas in the book, it was years). That might be what makes the ending so odd feeling. I like the way ROTK (book-wise, anyway) ends because each character still has something of a life afterwards before coming upon his or her 'happily (or otherwise) ever after ending'. It's always disappointing in a story when every character reaches the finale of their arch at the same time. Basically, that reviewer just said it was sort of an emotional ride because you getting all prepped for the finale and suddenly you have to reset yourself because there's a little more story (he probably also needed a bathroom break ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007-vf1 Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 (edited) Did any of you read the book??? That would make sense though. On the book each character goes on its own for several years to finally come together to a conclusion except for Pippin, Merry and Sam which still goes on. How else could you finish the movie faithfull to the book in little time unless you take some time to end each/set of character first. It might actually be the best approach faithfull to the book. I just wanna see how does the director accomplishes this... Abombz, Southp...you guys beat me to it...darn it..!!! Edited December 12, 2003 by 007-vf1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_xavier Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Basically what this means is, when you think you've seen the conclusion of the movie, you have to sit and wait beacuse there are something like eleven other endings to watch. What a stupid, stupid way to end one of the best film trilogies ever made. What a frickin' waste. What a waste of time.... I want my three minutes back. Next time, how about you actually watch the frigging film before you start spouting crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wakobi Posted December 12, 2003 Author Share Posted December 12, 2003 (edited) Thanks to everybody who chimed in with answers about the multiple endings, so thanks again for clearing that up for me. And to my dear friend red_xaiver... What a waste of time.... I want my three minutes back.Next time, how about you actually watch the frigging film Ah so I misread it, BIG DEAL. before you start spouting crap? Right back at ya friend. Now you can stop being a dick. Have a nice day Edited December 12, 2003 by wakobi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 What it seems he's done is exactly what I hoped he does: Go back and read LOTR's Appndix B, beginning on page 1071 "LATER EVENTS CONCERNING MEMBERS OF THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING". Since many people want to know what happened to our heroes lives afterwards, this is great stuff. The last one makes me weepy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Re-reading the article, I don't think it's liek the same thing re-edited 12 times... I think it's just different things happening. Like... it shows what happens to each character, not 12 different endings per se... Just individual wrap ups to each character. Bad choice of words on the part of the article, it's pretty misleading. It makes some sense now. SO its basically like the book. I just hope they skip that part with Saruman and the hobbits in the end. That totally ruined the book for me. I have the exact opposite opinion. The ending with Saruman and the hobbits is part of what made the books so damn good, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wakobi Posted December 12, 2003 Author Share Posted December 12, 2003 What it seems he's done is exactly what I hoped he does:Go back and read LOTR's Appndix B, beginning on page 1071 "LATER EVENTS CONCERNING MEMBERS OF THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING". Since many people want to know what happened to our heroes lives afterwards, this is great stuff. The last one makes me weepy. Defo, it's like total closure. Can't wait to see it all pan out on screen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaine23 Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Re-reading the article, I don't think it's liek the same thing re-edited 12 times... I think it's just different things happening. Like... it shows what happens to each character, not 12 different endings per se... Just individual wrap ups to each character. Bad choice of words on the part of the article, it's pretty misleading. It makes some sense now. SO its basically like the book. I just hope they skip that part with Saruman and the hobbits in the end. That totally ruined the book for me. I have the exact opposite opinion. The ending with Saruman and the hobbits is part of what made the books so damn good, in my opinion. Abombz, be relieved. Radd, be sad. PJ's already stated that there won't be any Saruman VS. the Shire stuff in RotK (Hence, the complete lack of Saruman in the movie that folks are bitching about). Personally, I'm glad it's not going to be included... the whole "Sharky" bit was out of place and further dragged out the ending, which wouldn't work at all in the movie. I'd rather see the Shirefolk have to defend themselves from Orcs or something less stupid than "Sharky". I also just hate the name "Sharky". And as far as the 11 different endings... duh... the story has tons of characters and spans 3 films and 12 hours. Of course there's going to be some serious wrap-up issues. Sounds like one of those whiny reviews from someone who just doesn't "get" the series in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDisco Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 lord of the rings: the return of the fanboys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander McBride Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 My friend saw a screening of it last night, and while I only talked to him for a minute, he said it totally kicked ass. So, it probably will turn out pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_xavier Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Misread it? So you're dyslexic as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriku Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 My god, people, the film is going to be great and you wont be disappointed. I don't know why so many people are scaring themselves sh!tless thinking that ROTK is going to be a failure. Some sort of doom fetish or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Jenius Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Peter Jackson sucks balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriku Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Peter Jackson sucks balls. Moderating makes one...bitter...doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dies Irae Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Peter Jackson sucks balls. Thank you for that disturbing mental image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vostok 7 Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Peter Jackson sucks balls. Thank you for that disturbing mental image. Thanks Dies, I couldn't imagine it until you said something. :puke: Vostok 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Jenius Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Peter Jackson sucks balls. Moderating makes one...bitter...doesn't it? No, its just that he's getting all this credit and he really had nothing to do with it except the stupid parts that he felt the need to add. Tolkien had mad reference materials, including art. Look at all his other movies and you'll see what a no-talent hack he is. I hope he doesn't get his hands on any other beloved franchises. PS- On the whole, I like the LOTR movies, but I know that he had little to do with this fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsu legato Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 I hope he doesn't get his hands on any other beloved franchises. Does his forthcoming remake of King Kong count as a franchise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Jenius Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 I'm not too big a fan of Kong. So he can do whatever he wants to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriku Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Peter Jackson sucks balls. Moderating makes one...bitter...doesn't it? No, its just that he's getting all this credit and he really had nothing to do with it except the stupid parts that he felt the need to add. Tolkien had mad reference materials, including art. Look at all his other movies and you'll see what a no-talent hack he is. I hope he doesn't get his hands on any other beloved franchises. PS- On the whole, I like the LOTR movies, but I know that he had little to do with this fact. Well, considering I like Dead Alive, Feebles and Heavenly Creatures, I guess I can't hop on your train. I can't say I'm looking forward to Kong though since I've never thought the concept of Kong was very interesting. I like monkeys and apes and everything...but...meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlightman Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Peter Jackson sucks balls. Moderating makes one...bitter...doesn't it? No, its just that he's getting all this credit and he really had nothing to do with it except the stupid parts that he felt the need to add. Tolkien had mad reference materials, including art. Look at all his other movies and you'll see what a no-talent hack he is. I hope he doesn't get his hands on any other beloved franchises. PS- On the whole, I like the LOTR movies, but I know that he had little to do with this fact. Er, you're quite wrong on this one. He managed to do a damn good job translating an incredible difficult and complicated story into film. He did it well enough that not only are most of the hardcore fanboys happy, but the mainstream public digs it as well. That's a hell of an accomplishment, and people really don't give him enough credit for that. Translating such a volume of work into film isn't easy, so don't be so quick to write it off as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GobotFool Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 (edited) I get the impression this ending will be done in the same style the opening of the 1st movie was done in. Can anyone who has seen a preview viewing confirm this? And what is the running length of this one? Edited December 13, 2003 by GobotFool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoryHolmes Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Same running length as the others: Long. Longer even on DVD. But long, nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GobotFool Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Same running length as the others:Long. Longer even on DVD. But long, nonetheless. hehe, I just thought perhaps with this 12 different wrap up stories it might have run a little longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Jenius Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Er, you're quite wrong on this one. He managed to do a damn good job translating an incredible difficult and complicated story into film. He did it well enough that not only are most of the hardcore fanboys happy, but the mainstream public digs it as well. That's a hell of an accomplishment, and people really don't give him enough credit for that. Translating such a volume of work into film isn't easy, so don't be so quick to write it off as such. Er, no. People liked the animated one just fine. PJ had nothing to do with the screenplay except the addition of worthless scenes. Plus, consider the amount of FoTR sold after the movie... I wonder how many finished that. Having mainstream appeal isn't everything. Like I said, everything was set up, he just had to knock em down. I strongly suspect that he was something of a last resort in the selection process... someone who would do it cheap since Tolkien already set up EVERYTHING. The story really isn't that complicated, its cutting through Tolkien's jungle of a writing style. I see people suggesting that PJ should direct all kinds of movies on forums etc. when it really would be a waste of time. You want a director for LOTR? Something with such a large amount of reference material? *hands you a phone book* As I said before, I like the movies. There is just not much relevancy in his contributions. <_< As for Dead Alive and Meet the Feebles et all; sure they're fun as novelties, but they both could have been directed by a 100 foot ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Now that I definately dissagree with. The animated movies were ass, just pure ass. 100% ralph bakshi suck ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Jenius Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Now that I definately dissagree with. The animated movies were ass, just pure ass. 100% ralph bakshi suck ass. Haha, those were utter crap. Though, everytime I hear about them, people say they like them. *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_xavier Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Same running length as the others:Long. Longer even on DVD. But long, nonetheless. Ummm... no. TTT is a few minutes longer than FOTR (both just under 3 hours), and ROTK is 3hrs 20 mins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myersjessee Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 I wonder how long all the unused footage will make it? This will be 4hrs plus on DVD I suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueeyes Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Peter Jackson sucks balls. Indeed he does! Space balls to be specific... Glad to see I am not the only one who thinks that PJ gets more credit than he deserves. Thank Tolkien for setting up the characters, story, and background so well. That said, I did enjoy the first two movies and I'm looking forward to ROTK. (still wish we would get to see the scouring of the Shire..but I'll live... ) Also, wasn't Jackson's name mentioned at one point in connection with a possible future Godzilla movie? <_< I am wondering if Hollywood's golden boy can hold on to his image when he moves on to other projects? Hack or Genius? I'll wait for his next few movies before I join the hordes worshipping at his feet.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoryHolmes Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Same running length as the others:Long. Longer even on DVD. But long, nonetheless. Ummm... no. TTT is a few minutes longer than FOTR (both just under 3 hours), and ROTK is 3hrs 20 mins. Both count as "long" in my book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts