Oh, also: I suspect another reason for the changes in Denethor are to make Aragorn less of, er, well, a usurper. I'm guessing that they may have been worried that audiences would start saying "hey! How come he gets to just waltz in and be King?" if Denethor were the really-mostly-sane person he starts out as in the book.

And, oh, the crownless again shall be King! Yay, poetry.

Saw the TT EE last night and am off to RotK tonight! Bounce bounce bounce.

Last night, in a classic Freudian slit, my mum referred to Viggo as "Vigour Mortensen". Actually, I'm very hopeful that this is a realistic description.

I particularly love Caryn James' assertion that women don't read Tolkien and women don't like these movies.

No, maybe my favorite bit is the description of a movie with more crying and hugging men than--well, than any comparison that comes to mind as "an FX extravaganza tailored to an adolescent male's fear of sentiment and love of high-tech wizardry."

Last night, in a classic Freudian slit, my mum referred to Viggo as "Vigour Mortensen". Actually, I'm very hopeful that this is a realistic description.

And Fiona, let us admire for a moment, the gorgeousness of a Freudian slip--induced by Viggo's-vigour, no less--that is classified as a "Freudian slit."

Whee!

Also, Micole? Wrod. I read that essay. I couldn't even start, now that you've posted, I don't have to.

the description of a movie with more crying and hugging men than--well, than any comparison that comes to mind as "an FX extravaganza tailored to an adolescent male's fear of sentiment and love of high-tech wizardry."

It's comments like this that make me wonder if the author either a) went into the movie with her mind already made up about what she'd say, or b) didn't see the movie. Aside from the sentiment, the amount of wizardry in the movies seems relatively low, especially in comparison to the various character moments. I also wouldn't classify the wizardry in LotR as "high-tech."

Katie, I had the same reaction to your #4.

And Fiona, let us admire for a moment, the gorgeousness of a Freudian slip--induced by Viggo's-vigour, no less--that is classified as a "Freudian slit."

Psss, Cindy - that's how we (intentionally) used to refer to a Freudian slip around these parts. I can't really take the credit.

Oh yes, that was another LOL moment reading the James essay. Fear of sentiment my flat white fanny. If anything, I would have knocked the whole trilogy for being too sentimental.

Eowyn is brittle and deadly, with a needy core underneath, and Eowyn would have been the first to cry "Death!"

Katie and I are one. I have some patience/forgiveness on this matter, because so much of her storyline will have to wait for the EE, but yeah. More despair! I sort of wonder if the filmmakers didn't quite trust us on the despair front.

More despair! I sort of wonder if the filmmakers didn't quite trust us on the despair front.

Frankly, although I eagerly await extra pain in the EE, I'm pretty okay with the amount of despair RotK presented me.

But that may be my Pippin issue.

Kathy, I am with you on Pippin being carried out to escort the soldiers from Gondor back in. It makes no sense, except to compress the story so that Faramir can see Pippin right then, and tell them about Frodo and Sam.

In general, the heroes were less heroic in the movie than in the books, and the bad guys were less evil. Eowyn was obviously less psychotic, but I think it's a reader thing to be able to associate with her psychosis; I doubt it would come through well on the screen. Sam may have come across as more heroic in the movies, which is cool, since I've always maintained that he's the hero of the books.

The line "Now that I'm here, I don't think I want to do what I came to do" was truncated and moved to the entrance to Shelob's lair. Funnier in that setting, but talk about sucking the power out of the dialog.