Lord Of The Rings?

Question

i have these points on the movie please tell me if you do to

- its too long and it could have been shrinked without any effect on the story
- Saworon was defeted in a very silly way not compatable with how scary they kept saying all the movie
dont you think saworon army was so stupid ??? at least the final battel his army was supose to be all the same like the Black Riders
- at the end of part 2 and part 3 boath casels were rescued the same way !!! after a long fight the Aourks broke the gates and enterd then sudenly back up comes from up the hill , buy the way in both parts the back up came from the same direction
- why didnt the elfs nor anyone else fought ???? only humen ??
- if Gandorf can do so much with his stick why didnt he use it in war ?

in short i think for a movie so big it should have been better

Answer 1

what ever the movie is.....everybody enjoyed..and thats y it have completely whhite washed all the awards in every category.....

so if u think it would have been made in a better way...u must write to the script writer......or u do one thing release ur own one....ok then we all c how descriptive and how realistic u r....may be u ll b having better ideas with in u...

Answer 2

Sauron's defeat is consistent with what has been going on thru the 3 movies - Most of his power comes from the One Ring borne by Frodo. Once that was destroyed, his power is destroyed along with it. That's the reason why the Ring had to be kept away from Sauron.

Have you forgotten that the elves fought besides the Rohirrim at the battle of Helm's Deep in the second movie?

Gandalf's wand is not a super-weapon. If you have the extended version of the third movie, there is a scene in which the wand is broken when Gandalf faces the Witch-King of Angmar.

For most of us who have read the books, Peter Jackson's interpretation is a magnificent effort derserving of the Oscars won. Of course there are many characters, events and scenes which did not appear in the movie. If he did it may end up as a serial instead of a trilogy.

Answer 3

1. if the movie was shortened any more then major plot points would have to be eliminated to do so and in doing so certain characters would be rendered null. this would also create a story that does not flow.
2.1. the impression on the power of Sauron is built on what would happen if were to regain his physical form.
2.2.And if you read the book or listen carefully to the script of the film you will learn that Sauron bound his lifeforce to the ring.
3.1. the emphasis is not on the form of the rescuers but rather on the ability of men to come to the aid of each other. in the first instance Gandalf had to help, and in the second Theoden did it on his own.
3.2. have a look at the atlas of middle earth and you will see the the cavalry run of helms deep came from the East, and the cavalry run of Minas Tirith came from two directions: Theoden and his Eolingas from the north west and Aragorn and the Army of the dead from the East.
4. the elves do not fight because they have helped men long enough and their time in middle earth is over and they are leaving for Valinor. It is time for men to stand on their own. The elves fighting in Helms deep was added for the film but never happened in the book.... i dare you to prove me wrong.
5. Gandalf is a Maya spirit sent to middle earth to guide but not to directly influence the outcome of the age of men. Both he and Sauron are Maya. Gandalf is limited in what he is allowed to do and his power has been restricted by Alluvatar (God in the tolkien world)
6. as for the movie being better i agree, but do people have the patience to sit through a 6 hour film? That is how long each installment would need to be.

i hope answered you well enough.

PS: have you ever read the book?
The Lord of the Rings
The Hobbit
The silmarillion

Answer 4

it was a great movie and it's shortened already, if u read the book, u'll know that there are a lot of missing parts in the movie, and yes, you're analyzing too much...u'll miss the art of watching movies if you kept questioning them

read the book, u really should read it

by the way, why there are so many misspell in your questions?it should be:
-Sauron NOT Saworon
-what is casels?did u mean Castles?it's not castles anyway, in the 2nd it was a fort named Helm's Deep, and in the 3rd it was a city of the kings named Minas Tirith
-Orcs NOT Aourks
-Gandalf NOT Gandorf

sorry, I think since the movie begins, u already dislike it, maybe this is not your kind of movie...forgive my words =D

Peace Out

Answer 5

-you cant spell
-really not even in the ball park on many of it.
-They cut out a bit of each to make them only 3 hours
-nobody who answer this sounded like they have read the books, so you miss out on what was cut.
-While I don't know how they showed it in "return of the King" In two towers he fights with his staff.
But in return the 6 endings, are 5 more then the book, and that was one of only 3 major flaws in a triogly, which is the best I have ever seen done.

Answer 6

It was based on the wonderful trilogy of books. So no I don't agree w/ any of your points. Sauron was never meant to be the focus of the book. Part of his fear factor was being unseen. He's that powerful. You must read the books to understand the story if you couldn't follow the movie!

Answer 7

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is perfect!!!!! I loved every minute of it. You are analyzing things to much. Sit back and just enjoy it.

Answer 8

Peter Jackson got his money back and we get to fight about it in here.

Answer 9

Well have you seen the extended ones??? that might help you to understand it better, I don't know what they could of cut out of it... I love every part of it hehehe

*sp. ORK'S
*sp. GANDALF