I decided to watch the extended edition hoping it would solve a lot of the problems I have with this movie


It didn’t

reply

You might want to expand on this. Which problems? How do you think the extended version could have solved them and what did they fail to do? No one can honestly agree or disagree with you with such a brief, uninformative comment.

reply

Filling in some of the plot holes that were in the theatrical cuts (such as why would Sauron think Pippin has the ring?) and making the characters not seem so stupid.

reply

the mouth of sauron is a good addition

reply

My biggest problem with this movie is the lax editing, absolutely everything is allowed to run on too long.

This movie didn't need and Extended Edition, where things run on longer and even longer, it needed a Properly Edited Edition!

reply

I think the main thing to keep the (many) endings working would have been to centre it more closely on Frodo. For example, in the coronation scene, all of Gondor is celebrating that the Shadow has passed. Aragorn is king, the hobbits are honoured...check in with Frodo, though, and we see that he's miserable.

If Jackson had hit that harder, we'd know (as an audience) that none of the endings are true endings, because they're not endings for *Frodo*. I think that's in there, but it's not underlined enough, I don't think.

I still like the movies, though. Love 'em. Near-perfect, even with flaws.

reply

I love the movies too, with a love that isn't going anywhere, but this is an imperfect world and nothing is without flaws.

The editing in this movie is like a beloved spouse's snoring. An imperfection that drives you nuts, because without it your movie or spouse would be perfect, but that's the reality. Some lovely people snore, and by the time the 3rd film had been released, Jackson had forgotten how to edit.

reply

The endings dragged a bit here, but I thought the editing was mostly fine.

reply

I love the trilogy, but with the awareness that Fellowship is the far superior film to its brothers. Fellowship is a nearly flawless film and an example of true filmmaking excellence. Two Towers and ROTK, though, I would say are VERY GOOD but are not without their issues.

I have watched the entire trilogy a few times, maybe three or four. But I've probably seen Fellowship upwards of 10 times.

reply

Fellowship's my favourite, too! I love everything about it. But, for me it's my favourite of the three novels as well. I love the start of the adventure, the building doom, the characters meeting, the tragedy of Boromir, the mines of Moria and Gandalf against the Balrog, and I love Lothlorien, too.

After that I like Return of the King, and then Two Towers - for films. It's almost a toss-up with the books - both have such great stuff.

RotK has the ending overkill we're all discussing/criticizing, so that bumped it down a bit. But also I prefer the action scenes in Fellowship and Two Towers. I do love the payoff, though, and the bittersweet end of LOTR is one of my favourite aspects of the books and films (take that, everybody who says Tolkien is just saccharine and sentimental!).

As for TTT, as a film it was (I felt) furthest from the books, taking huge digressions that didn't make sense. Okay, a LOT was cut from the Shire in Fellowship, but I get that. I know why Jackson left Farmer Maggot, Tom Bombadil, and Glorfindel out, so it didn't make me annoyed. Alterations to the Ents and Faramir bugged me more. I don't really care too much about elves at the Hornberg. Okay, they should be heading for the Grey Havens in the lore, but we get that sense in the films with Arwen's story, and I like elves.

reply

Extended version is much better than the theatrical version since it adds character development and story instead of focusing on the battle.

It may be better for you to read the books will have richer detail.

reply

I have read the book

reply

What were some issues you had with the extended version?

reply

Nothing that wasn’t already in the theatrical, my point was it didn’t solve any of the problems i had with the theatrical.

reply

The theatrical version was boring to me. The book too confusing even though I had enjoyed The Hobbit book.

reply

Ummmmmmmmmmm OK, the book really wasn't that hard but whatever you say.

reply

More confusing. The similarity of the names and too many characters introduced in the beginning pages. I gave up after a few pages. Ditto the crappy animated cartoon.

I consider the extended films to be masterpieces.

reply

It's too bad you didn't dig the books. I consider them masterworks of peerless quality. I'm glad you like the films, though. At least you get to experience the stories in some capacity.

reply

It happened many years ago and now my interest in reading the books has passed. I still set aside three weekends to watch the trilogy from time to time.

reply

It's great that you're digging Tolkien's story. It's amazing how many people he's affected with his tales. Did you read the Hobbit?

reply

Absolutely! I enjoyed reading The Hobbit so much that I couldn't wait to read LOTR. I was extremely disappointed when I didn't like the book.

The films are visually stunning.

On the other hand, I dislike The Hobbit trilogy. Horrible wannabe-LOTR.

reply

That's interesting, that you like the Hobbit book, not the films, and vice-versa for LOTR.

The books (and films) do have different vibes, so I understand it. I didn't like the Hobbit films, either - although I enjoy the Rankin-Bass cartoon, flawed though it may be.

reply

Few people like The Hobbit films.

They have a LOTR animated cartoon, too. Nice artwork, but overall not very good.

reply

The LOTR cartoon is, indeed, a mixed bag. I LOVE parts of it and am very embarrassed by others. I always cite things like the Ringwraiths and John Hurt's Aragorn as big plusses. Sam Gamgee's buffoonery and the truncated running time are bad. It's also a shame that the budget didn't allow for more elaborate battles with better fight choreo.

Still, it looks beautiful and has good performances; it's as close to the books as they could get. Overall I actually like it quite a bit.

reply

I'm going to say this here and now:

If you fans of LOTR movies have a problem, ANY problem with the Extended Editions of ANY of them, then you are not true fans of LOTR and you can F right off right F'ing now.

reply

So you're saying if you're a true LOTR fan, you should stare at your best friend with eyes longing for something more?

reply

You're not a true fan, I rest my case.

reply

I guess I'm not a true fan, not into homo erotic shit. When is the un-homo edition coming out?

reply

Legit LOL.

reply

The only problem longtime fans of LOTR have with the films is when Jackson alters characters (Faramir, for one), and when he throws in more contemporary humor & pop culture references, presumably to make the films more user-friendly to those who haven't read the books. When he follows Tolkien closely, he does a fine job.

While I would love to have seen Tom Bombadil & the scouring of the Shire, I understand the pacing reasons for leaving them out. A mini-series would have allowed for them; but at that time, no-one was going to make a mini-series of LOTR.

reply

Tom Bombadil doesn’t really do anything to advance the plot though, so I understand why they left him in out. The movies showed that the plot didn’t suffer at all without him.

I also kinda would’ve liked to see the scouring is the shire, but again, the main plot was the fight with Sauron, and that fight ended with the ring’s destruction. Let Frodo and Sam enjoy the rest of their lives in peace.

reply

What's important about Tom Bombadil is that he presents an ancient being of clearly immense power who has chosen a different path than Sauron, one who is immune to the lure of the Ring because of that choice. Also, Tolkien was concerned about more than just advancing the plot, as much as he desired to tell a gripping & compelling story. Which he did, all right! But everything is informed by Tolkien's spiritual beliefs & worldview. Who or what is Tom Bombadil precisely? Tolkien leaves him as a bit of a mystery, a reminder that not everything is known or can be known, even by the wisest of the wise. Both Saruman & Sauron are examples of those who want & need to know everything, in order to control everything. Even Gandalf & Galadriel admit to the lure of power & knowledge, even if well-intentioned. But Tom has freely rejected that, and is truly his own person, fulfilled in being himself.—Or so it seems to me, anyway.

reply

Well said; very, very well said. I love that evaluation of Tom and his importance in the world of Arda.

There's even an importance to his building the lore instead of/along with the plot. There are so many times when I've been reading LOTR and gotten lost. I start thinking of Weathertop as being real; that history seems real to me. So, when I read them, the characters and the story increase in value and truthfulness, and connectability (not a word...) because the world is so potent and alive..

reply

There is the creative genius of Tolkien: not just intellect & scholarship, astonishingly complex & convincing as they are, but heart & soul. Is it too much to say that what he gave us is real in some sense, just as the deepest & most powerful emotions we experience are real, however intangible & immeasurable?

reply

I don't think that's too much. It's dead-on.

Tolkien's use of his beliefs and spiritual connections, I think, is what grounds it - weird as that might sound. Because he believed in this stuff - on a fundamental level, not a literal one - the truth of that comes through in the work and feels real.

The "eternal aspects" of Middle Earth are real, so the world gains that reality from it.

reply

Eloquent response & heartfelt truth.

reply

Thank you, Owlwise.

reply

Yes. My only problems with the LOTR adaptations are changes that (a) add nothing, and (b) misunderstand Tolkien's point. Faramir is a perfect example. He's set up in direct contradiction to his brother Boromir and his father Denethor. Altering his character puts in plotholes (the Osgiliath detour) and vapourises his point in the narrative. My biggest disappointment is actually in the alterations to the Mt. Doom section, as I think Jackson misses some of the religious elements that are crucial to Tolkien's world, but I even forgive that because the rest of the films are so awesome and well-realized. It's not a huge deviation, it's just a disappointing one given the accuracy of so much of the rest of the films.

As a lover of the books, the deviations irk me sometimes (more or less, depending on the alteration), but I as a lover of film, I also understand the need to alter things for a different medium. I think there's even a Tolkien letter where he expresses his understanding of such alterations with an impending (potential) film adaptation. Now, I don't think he'd have liked any of the films and would have lamented the changes, but it's good to know that, in principle, he understood.

Bombadil's a perfect example. It's not going to work in a film. It could in a miniseries, as you say, because the time for deviation is there, but also because it would allow for smooth transitions in tone required for Tom. I also don't mind Arwen taking over for Glorfindel. In a book you can say, "Aragorn and Arwen are in love, and she's great," and that works, but in a film, I kinda need to see an example of "why is she great?"

These days, frankly, I kinda hope that they don't make a miniseries. When Jackson made these they were labours of pure love and that's why we got as faithful an adaptation as we did. The casting was dead-on, for instance. Now, I worry that they'd gender-swap Legolas, make Frodo and Sam lovers, and tokenize the whole Fellowship into racial diversity for virtue points.

The humour I don't mind so much. Some of it is a bit awkward, and they made Gimli a bit too goofy, but a lot of it is fine by me. "Don't tell the elf," is a good line. It works. So, yeah, I don't mind them finding the funny.

reply

I pretty much agree with your well-explained points. The humor I didn't care for was something like Legolas surfing down the stairs while shooting arrows—but humor is a highly personal thing, I know. As for changes, Faramir was the most egregious change in character, I'd say.

Yes, we did need to see more of Arwen, and I didn't mind swapping Glorfindel for her presence in the films. A good example of how what works in a book doesn't necessarily work as well in a film, and vice versa.

Definitely agree with you about the mishaps awaiting a mini-series of LOTR made today. Now, I'd love to see fantasy films with diversity—and there are quite a few fine fantasy novels that offer exactly that as an organic part of their stories—but forcing it where it doesn't belong & never did belong isn't the way to do it. As I've posted before, a really good Conan film would lend quite naturally itself to such diversity, because the different races & cultures are already an integral part of the Hyborian Age. But Middle-Earth is a different matter entirely.

The spiritual aspect of the books is what I really miss in the films. It's never preachy or overt in the books, but it's always there, woven into the experience & the very being of Middle-Earth & its creation. Still, I celebrate what Jackson got right, which was most of it, rather than dwell too much on his few missteps.

reply

I HATED the expansion of Arwen’s character, I would have rather they just cut her out completely so there would be time for the Scouring of the Shire.

reply

I didn't mind the shield-surfing, but I thought his Mumakil takedown was a bit much. Each movie seemed to up the Legolas super-powers, and then in the Hobbit we got the video game falling-brick-jumping... I get why the shield surfing could be an eye-roll. Honestly, the understated stuff is the coolest. In Fellowship, I don't remember which fight, he pulls an arrow from his quiver, stabs an orc through the eye with it, and then pulls it out onto his bow, and fires it into the next guy. It's astounding, simple, and effective.

Glorfindel just would've been, "Who was that masked man!?" to 99% of the audience.

I don't even think LOTR is impervious to non-European design influences, but it would have to be done subtly and judiciously - well thought-through and justified. Tolkien spent literal decades shaping these stories; he thought them through. Changing stuff is almost always a bad idea. And, I'll also say that he designed them as European/British mythology, and that should be respected. Gender stuff would be even trickier, since you'd be explicitly going against what Tolkien wrote.

100% agree. Conan would be perfect. Jason Momoa was the last Conan. There are other properties which would be more friendly to it (as Harry Potter and the Cursed Child kinda proved), and there is also the possibility of inventing new worlds. Most PC types tend to miss this, of course, but it already exists. Hayao Miyazaki, for instance, has given us worlds like Nausicaa, Spirited Away, and Princess Mononoke, all of which feature incredibly powerful female protagonists/main characters. They're not "diverse", but they are non-white, with two out of three being explicitly in Japan.

Tolkien baked the spirituality in so well, though, that Jackson couldn't have told the stories (a) well/accurately, and (b) without the spiritual message. Gandalf rides, blazing like the risen sun, to the cliffs by Helm's Deep, and the visual alone takes you there. Just one example.

reply

Great Britain is IN Europe (unfortunately).

reply

Yes, I know.

reply

I know you know.

reply

Now I know that you know I know. The question is whether you know I know you know I know, or not?

reply

Translation: If you don’t agree with me then I have the arrogance to determine that you aren’t a “true fan”

reply

Too much homosexuality is the biggest problem running throughout the trilogy.

reply

The extended versions helped The Two Towers the most. Made it the best of the 3 by far. Return of the king is the worst of the 3.

The extended cuts are outstanding editions for people who are fans of the trilogy.

reply

"Return of the king is the worst of the 3."
How?? You've got the Voice of Saruman, for a start, which wasn't in the Theatrical Shit. Christopher Lee as much as admitted he was pissed off with Jackson for excluding it in the Theatrical Shit, so he must've been pleased when it was reinstated.

reply

The Pirate Ghosts single-handedly overshadow any area the mouth of Sauron may have made better.

reply

What are you talking about, "pirate ghosts"?

reply

Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas travel into the mountains to discover a gang of pirate ghosts who swore an oath to Isilidur, it turns out they can kill whoever they want and they can’t be killed. However this turns Aragorn into a dumbass because he only requires that they win the Battle of Minas Tirith for them (and that is such a cop out BTW), yet he didn’t have the common sense to say “after that since Mordor is right next door go into Mordor, tear down the gate, kill all the orcs, get rid of that pesky spider running around and clear a path so two hobbits can throw a ring into a volcano and make sure they do it. Because once you have the pirate ghosts on your side you can pretty much do whatever you want, of course however that wouldn’t be such a stupid plot point if they simply stuck to the book.

reply

They weren't pirates, they swore an oath to Isildur to help him when Gondor's need was dire, but when the time came for battle, they fled into the mountains, and Isildur cursed them never to rest until they had fulfilled their pledge. So Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli went into their mountain stronghold and convinced them (with Aragorn's sword Anduril which the ghost army king couldn't defeat) to join them in the fight against Sauron's forces. They ultimately succeeded, but I think Aragorn held their oath fulfilled which allowed them to rest in peace finally because otherwise the ghost army may have turned on him (not sure about that).

Legolas says the story of the ghost army in the film, didn't you hear him?

And the only pirate connection is when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli and the ghost army commandeered the pirate Black Ships, killed their crews, and sailed them to where the main theater of battle was taking place and surprised and killed the Orcs waiting for them.

reply

I realize that but I choose to refer to them as pirate ghosts as a way of indicating how stupid Peter Jackson made them.

reply

Well, they did thoroughly turn the tide of battle in an unstoppable tide (not sure how it went in the book as I haven't read it for 20 years) but yeah, you're not the first one to point out the deus ex machina here.

reply

In the book all they could really do was scare the orcs

reply

I think Jackson was in a bind, he needed to end the big battle at Minas Tirith quickly somehow, otherwise it would've been too long.

reply

Well he had already made the battle like 40 minutes long prior to that, there was plenty he could have edited down.

reply

I think Aragorn considered their oaths fulfilled because he's fair. It's never explicitly stated, but this is a great example of why he's a wise king and just ruler, and why he's fit to fill this role: he believes in justice and doesn't try to milk the broken oath for more. Aragorn knows to dismiss the ghost army before the final battle. He knows that it's not fair to ask more, so he doesn't. In the books it's after taking the ships and stopping Sauron's reinforcements, while in the film it's after the Battle of Pelennor Fields, but it actually comes to roughly the same thing: either way he sends them away, their oaths fulfilled, before the fight at the Black Gates. Why not retain them? Because the oath is fulfilled; it wouldn't be Right and Good to keep them further.

There might be further speculation to be had (in a fun nerd way) about whether or not Sauron could have hurt them or obliterated them with his powers if they strayed too close to Mordor.

reply

If they were alive, I don't think their oath to come to the aid of Gondor would have been fulfilled after just one battle.

reply

Maybe... but it's not quite the same thing.

So, first, it is conceivable that somebody could come to fight, get their butts kicked by the Enemy, and then have to come to their allies and say, "I can't keep going." So, remaining until the very, very end might not be required.

However, I also don't think that the oath is, "Do what you would have done in life," so it's not necessarily what they would/could have done. It's what they must do now.

Finally, I think Aragorn's restraint here is about their oath, but also about his restraint. Manwe, Lord of the Valar and the Winds, doesn't just come over from the West and obliterate the forces of Mordor. Gandalf isn't empowered by Illuvatar to lay indiscriminate waste to all Evil. Why not? Because a big theme in Lord of the Rings is the repeated shouldering of burdens. Most prominent is Frodo and the Ring, but we also see Merry and Pippin swear oaths to Rohan and Gondor. We see Aragorn taking on the mantle of King. We also see him not trying to get out of fighting his battles by using ghost armies. At the same time, we see he is just and merciful (requiring no more than he needs/the oath demands; allowing the spirits of the army of the dead to finally have peace).

reply

Excellent & accurate analysis! Such thoughtful & judicious details all serve to reinforce Aragorn's worthiness to be King.

reply

Thanks!

reply

I just think ROTK was the worst of the 3 movies. Too many endings. And the extended cut added more endings. There are like 10 endings.

It’s funny you watch the extended cut and think wow it’s almost over, and there’s still 3 hours left.

reply

There needed to be stuff to wrap up, important stuff, closure.

It was funny for me as my sister told me she was bursting to go to the toilet by the time of Aragorn's Coronation, but didn't expect another half an hour to go, and this was a cinema viewing so she couldn't just pause it! xD

reply

It did need a wrap-up and closure - those endings are needed - but something is "off" about the pacing and tone. Each ending is shot, scored, edited (etc.) like it's the end of the movie. That cues audiences in that, "You've got another forty-five seconds," so when the credits aren't rolling twenty minutes later, our subconscious minds are gettin' twitchy.

I think it's a tonal thing. It's not that it's too long, it's that each section "feels" like an ending. The Fellowship reunite (ending), Coronation of the King (ending?), Return to the Shire (...ending?) and it's not over until the very, very end, but they all *felt* like endings. I think there was a way to shoot that stuff, or maybe do it up during post, that would have cued our brains, "Not over yet." I'm not exactly sure how, but... yeah.

Whatever, it's a minor flaw. I still love these films.

reply

I think you're right. If those previous (not quite) endings had been shot a little differently, presented more as milestones on the way to the real ending, then there wouldn't be the sense of dragging that many viewers feel.

reply

I also found that, on subsequent viewings, I liked them more. My brain knew that "this isn't the end" so it could override the subconscious.

I'm an avid fan of the books, so maybe some of that was there already; I can only imagine what newcomers to Tolkien thought...

reply

There's one of the problems the film had to deal with, which I can understand. The fans of the books, while certainly numerous, would not provide enough audience to let the films make back their cost. They needed to attract a much larger audience, so they had to keep in mind that a larger percentage of people would be coming to this story cold. It's a delicate balancing act, one that Jackson handled better than many might have. Like you, I can forgive occasional flaws & missteps because of that necessity.

I'm rather curious as to what such newcomers thought if they went to the books after seeing the films. Personally, I'm so very glad to have read & loved them long before the films were made, so that my own inner images of the characters & landscapes are still what I see when returning to the books. :)

reply

Honestly, there were two scenes that I read from the books that I later saw in the movies that Jackson did absolute justice in recreating:

The shot of the landscape when Frodo and Sam first see the Oliphaunts, before they're attacked by Faramir's soldiers, and

The forbidden pool shot when Faramir is beckoning Frodo to look down, and you can see the mountains behind him at nighttime receding into the distance with a full moon.

I remembered the vivid descriptions in the books when I saw those two moments. Captured perfectly by Jackson's cinematographers.

reply

Agree with you there! As I say, when Jackson was on form, as he was for the most part, he does justice to Tolkien admirably.

reply

Yes, and he did a great job of not dumbing it down (for the most part) and keeping things intellectually challenging. He doesn't explain everything, he hints, alludes, and shows it to audiences, but he very rarely condescended. A *rare* exception is Legolas' line, "A diversion!" to sum up the battle plan Aragorn just laid out, and it was (in my opinion) an obvious "summary line" to keep the plodding intellects of the masses up-to-speed with what the final fight at the Black Gates was going to be about. I roll my eyes at that one.

I, too, am glad that I came to the books first and not the films. That said, Jackson and Co. also were SO GOOD at replicating Tolkien's world (helped, of course, by obvious study of "it" Tolkien illustrators/painters like Alan Lee) that he basically just translated what was in my head already. Casting was perfect. Ian McKellen is Gandalf, yes. Elijah Wood was so right for Frodo. Costumes were impeccable. I loved that they managed to blend more "modern" elements into the hobbits' costumes so they looked like an English country village full of "respectable, quiet folk who don't truck with all these wizards and things!" yet with such good taste that they don't look out-of-place in the same realm as elves and Nazgul. The designs were brilliant. Top marks, all 'round.

reply

Alan Lee has been an excellent illustrator for Tolkien. I was never enamored of the Brothers Hildebrandt, who to my eye just made everyone look like stiff waxworks. But I also very much like Pauline Baynes' B&W illustrations for some of Tolkien's other work, e.g., The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, Farmer Giles of Ham, Smith of Wooten Major—that semi-Medieval but also hauntingly otherworldly style of linework.

For all my niggling over some of Jackson's choices—a pastime all of us fans probably indulge in, to be fair—I can only imagine how easily so many other directors could & would have made a Godawful mess of LotR.

reply

Lee and Howe I think are my favourites. I had to look up Baynes' work, but your description is quite apt; it's certainly otherworldly and reminds me of a lot of illustrations from 17-1800s faerie story books. They don't have the woodcut look of John Tenniel's Alice illustrations, but they conjured up that feeling, for me.

The Brothers Hildebrandt are good, but, yeah, they kind of bring up a "pulp fantasy" vibe to me. Like, if Lord of the Rings were written by a lesser author and could be found for $3.25 in a used book store's fantasy section with a lot of other '70s/'80s genre books... yeah, maybe then. In other words, their stuff looks more like it belongs on the imitators of Tolkien than the Man Himself.

I think all nerds - movie nerds, fantasy nerds, what-have-you - love to nitpick and debate minutae of their favourite stuff, but it's all done with love and care. It's seen nicely in an early episode of The Big Bang Theory. I know a lot dislike the show, but they got some stuff right. Penny says she likes Superman catching Lois and Sheldon says the scene is, "Rife with scientific inaccuracy," but doesn't care about "men can't fly," he dumps a lot of physics out as to why Superman catching Lois would slice her into pieces (gravity, speed, man-of-steel arms, etc.) And, to me, it's classic nerds. He LOVES Superman, yet he criticizes it, but not for a lack of reality, no, it's for a lack of logic within the illogic of the property. And that's me and basically every other nerd.

So I nitpick, I mock, I dissect minutae, but it's all done gleefully. I forgive Jackson his flaws (and Tolkien his (rare) flaws) because the work is so beautiful and I love it.

reply

Same thing happened to me in the theatre. I’m sure it’s affected my opinion subconsciously.

But still there are too many battle speeches. And too many endings. A movie gets 1 battle speech. No more.

Hence why I like the first 2 better. I think TTT is probably the best 2nd film in a trilogy ever. It’s the most difficult to do but it has a great beginning, middle and end. And the extended cut adds a bunch of stuff that should’ve been in the theatrical release. Like the Feramir and Boramir with their father scene. Great stuff.

reply

Agreed, the Boromir/Faramir/Denethor scene at Osgiliath solidifies their troubled relationship PERFECTLY.

reply

I agree I think it's the weakest one of the 3. Not only the various endings but in terms of the overall story through the 3 films, the brunt of the characters have done most of their adventuring up to ROTK and now they're mainly engaged in warfare, and I kind of end up getting battle fatigue and CGI fatigue by the end of it. We already had the Battle of Helm's Deep at the end of TTT as well. This might be why I consider The Fellowship of the Ring to be my favourite, because there is more adventure. It's similar with the less good Hobbit films too, whereby the sense of adventure diminishes as it goes on and by the third instalment it's one long battle movie. I guess you could say this might be an issue with the stories themselves?

As mentioned above, those ghosts were a weak element of the film and felt superfluous. I don't know how they compare to the book but they could have been written better in the film. They were like a cheat mode that wasn't really needed, because they seemed too powerful, as if they could have killed all the armies of Mordor themselves, yet appear late on in the battle, kill what little is left, then go. It's all a bit of an anti-climax after building them up to be the game changers.

reply