Your revised rough draft is much better — but please remember that this paper is about Return of the King, not about Lord of the Rings in General. Please read the general comments on the rough drafts that I posted on the “(Almost) Daily Bulletin from the Professor” page this morning. Lydia Fish September 22, 2008, at 02:51 PM
Hopefully you watched the commentary and got more good information from it. For not being your paper yet, it is almost as long as you need it to be lol. I like how you talk about characterization and how it changed from book to novel. The scourning of the shire was an important part to talk about. It’s good to also talk about how difficult the movie was to make and how the director over came obsticles.
Donald Turner September 18, 2008, at 03:30 PM
I like your insight as to why Jackson didn’t include the scourging of the shire in the film. It’s something that has bothereds me. I want to discuss this in my paper, but don’t really have any insight yet as to why this scene wasn’t included, besides the fact that there were time constraints. I like all of your points. Sarah Chudyk?
You definitely have some great points to talk about, but I agree with Brittany, in that you may want to focus less on the production of Return of the King, although that is still vital. Eligh Hanning?
So far it sounds very good, though I might talk a bit more about the more literary problems versus the production end of things. I can’t wait to read more!! Brittany Thrun ? September 17, 2008, at 10:46 PM
I am interested to see how you develop the idea of ending the film with “Well, I’m back.” I hadn’t though about the significance of the coloring of the dead army; I’m interested in what you find out or come up with for this idea. I like your ideas about the landscapes of the films. You might want to develop your ideas about Jackson’s difficulties making the Return of the King a little more for you final paper. Steven Wilser? September 17, 2008, at 11:27 AM
I like how you want to delve into character design. It must have been quite the task for people to take vague descriptions and bring them to full life on screen. You also have an intriguing view of the romance, that it was there to serve as a hook for those who weren’t interested in the battle scenes. You may, however, want to focus a bit more on the issues Shippey brings up rather than the nitty gritty matters of character design and scenery, as you can apply those questions to all three movies and not just the third. Devon Cozad? September 17, 2008, at 10:34 AM
You are on your way to a great paper! Love how you included details about the romance and as Jackson said in the appendices it was a very important thing to bring to screen. Great job! Jenelle Jones
Jackson really did have quite a challenge to make a character like Gollum into a pitiful almost lovable entity. Good point. I really like how you imply that Jackson goes the extra mile to incorporate Tolkien’s naturalist tendencies and that this reflects his dedication to the books. Wonderful start. Sarah McNutt September 16, 2008, at 11:34 PM
I really like the ideas you have come up with and I think you are on your way to a great paper. As much as imagination in making the films the way they are is important, I think you should focus a little more on Shippey and the director cuts because those are meatier topics to deal with. Definitely include some of the imagination aspects too though! Keilah Bradley September 16, 2008, at 05:18 PM]]
I liked how you incorporated the romance aspect into the film. I agree with the idea that it helped make the movie appealing to a larger audience. I think it also adds diversity to the film other than the constant fighting and war scenes. You have some very unique topics that were not mentioned in class and I think if you elaborate on them a little more you will have a strong paper. I would love to read more on the difficulties Jackson had in incorporating nature too. Carly Lopez?
You have some good points mentioned, but make sure that you stay on track and focus on particular examples and events from the third book. If you want to talk about Gollum, Orcs, or Landscapes, make sure you’re saying something specific from the third book, since that is what this paper is focusing on. I think playing on the equality of Pippin and Merry might be very useful to you. Can you think of any other examples from the third book that shows this? The scouring of the shire and Denethor are also points that you could try to expand on. However, when thinking about Denethor, make sure you take into account what difficulties Jackson had portraying this character in the film. One thing you could mention is how he differs from a King, since he is only a Steward. You have some nice overall themes going, so try to add in some specific examples. Nice job! Lauren Brych? September 15, 2008, at 12:13 PM
GREAT connection between Merry and Pippin having ‘equal’ heroic acts. I never thought of that before. Joseph Bella? September 14, 2008, at 10:35 PM
I like your description of the orcs and the point you made that Denethor is portrayed as more of a villian in the movie. Don’t stray from the paper’s topic too much; you need to focus on the challenges that Jackson faces first.Emily Marvin? September 13, 2008, at 10:24 PM
I thought that it was a good idea to include these points: the depiction of the dead in the Corsairs of Umbar, Pippin not slaying the troll but saving Faramir, and the increased romance in the movie to reach a larger demographic. I don’t think that you should start the paper with the ending of the movie, and some of your questions pertain to all three movies and not the third specifically (ex. the orcs, the scenery). You could probably mention those casually, but don’t put too much focus on them. Good job! Kelsey Till September 13, 2008, at 04:15 PM
I really like that you brought up some of your own ideas and not just what we saw in class. I think the idea you have of the increased romance is great. The ideas you brought up in your Scouring of the Shire paragraph are great. If you expand on these more it should make for a good part of your essay. I agree with Kelsey when she says that some of your points are more of Jacksons difficulties in general with the movies and not RotK specifically. You could maybe try to make the RotK specific. Elizabeth Delano? September 14, 2008, at 07:00 PM
You have really great points on the characterization of the movie. Most of these points are a deviation from what the main focus of this paper. The paper require you to look at the predictions made by Shippey for and movie and analyze. Most of the points mentioned in paragraph 1 would be worth focusing on and please try to avoid character ananlysis. Trudy Antwi September 15, 2008, at 08:33 PM
Dear Annika
You need to have more than this posted by Wednesday night. The other students and I need a rough draft of your paper, not just some points you intend to cover, so we can make comments. Lydia Fish September 10, 2008, at 09:57 AM
I haven’t started writing my paper yet, but I know some of the points I want to look at. The Shippey article discussed the many possible endings to The Return of the King. This is one aspect I want to look at to discover what endings Jackson does include, which ones were left out, and whether or not it was succesful in transferring the sentiments of the novel onto the screen. Shippey mentions the very end of the book where Sam states “Well I’m back,” and the difficulties of ending a movie with this line, but that is exactly what is done in the movie. I’m sure examining this idea would also be an interesting point.
In the second movie, instead of having Merry and Pippin speak of the ents destruction of Isengard, Jackson showed the audience the action. A similar scene occured in Return of the King with the dead and the Corsairs of Umbar. I found this part in the novel to be slightly confusing, but I think it’s worth looking at and stating why it was important for Jackson to show and not tell what happened. In the book there was very little physical description of the dead, if any. The reader only knows they are following because Legolas can feel it and the villagers take notice. It’s impossible to show the audience a general feeling and have them say, well yes, the dead must be going to battle. I’d like to research how Jackson created an image for these characters. Perhaps their green coloring is significant. Also, being able to combine animation with actual people must have been difficult, if this is even what was done.
Gollum is another character that was somewhat animated. It would be interesting to see how Jackson was able to portray him in a way that was not quite human, or a distant hobbit relative, and not quite a creature. I think this was very important in order for the audience to feel compassion and pity for gollum. If the audience was not able to relate to him, to see that he was not completely corrupt, they may not have held the same sentiments toward Gollum that the readers do.
The orcs are another set of characters that had to be created with quite a bit of imagination. With so many readers, Jackson had a lot of people to please. After seeing the movie, I feel that he captured the rotten, disgusting, and immoral qualities of the orcs and was able to transfer this to their physical appearance. Also, not all of the orcs were played by actors. How was Jackson able to create the massive numbers of orcs?
The landscape of the movies is also something I find very interesting. The journey of the fellowship takes place all over middle earth. How did Jackson find an area that was suitable for representing the vastly different locations, from the mines of moria, to woods of Lothlorien, to the plains of Rohan. Was it all done in one area, or did the crew travel to different places? Was any of the scenery false, or was it all natural? Nature plays an important role in the books and I think Jackson’s attention to the details of the setting reflect these ideas. This actually applies to all three of the movies.
Romance plays a much larger role in the movie than it does in the text. There aren’t any new romances created, but the ones that are present are given much more attention. For instance, Arwen and Aragorn, Eowyn and Aragorn (you can’t deny that there was a connection), and Sam and Rosie Cotton. The character of Arwen is given a much bigger role. I attribute the increased use of love stories in this story of war is to attract a broader range of an audience. I know this is stereotypical, but there might be some truth in it. I know my mother wasn’t very interested in the parts with a lot of orc slashing and oliphaunt slaying, but the tender moments between Aragorn and Arwen kept her interested. However, I know many females who enjoyed the orc slashing and oliphaunt slaying.
There is a difference between the movie and the film that I think is important to point out even though this paper isn’t concerned with the differences. Pippin does not slay the troll in battle. This was an important act because it created an equality between the heroic acts of himself and those of Merry, who assisted in the destruction of the King of the Wraiths. In the movie Pippin rescues Faramir from the blazing fire. In the novel, Gandalf is the one who does this. I feel Jackson switched these roles so that Pippin could still have his grand moment. The character of Gandalf was not hurt by this because he has so many other acts of heroism.
I understand why Jackson did not film the Scouring of the Shire, but it was one of my favorite parts of the novel. I feel it completes the characterization of all the hobbits, showing their complete transformation. This chapter suggested that while the hobbits in the shire were able to change and take charge, that they still didn’t completely acknowledge the outside world. Frodo is treated with less respect than Sam, Merry or Pippin, and yet he was the ring bearer. Another interpretation of this is that Sam, who was one of the reasons Frodo succeeded, finally gets the recognition he deserves. I know this wasn’t integral to the main story arc, but it was a personal favorite.
Another aspect I would like to look at is the character of Denethor. When I was reading I felt a lot of pity for Denethor, and I feel as though that sentiment didn’t transfer through the film. Denethor seemed too much of a villain, when he was really just a man without hope.
I haven’t watched the director and script writers version of the third movie yet, but I plan on doing so. Hopefully this will give me some more ideas of what to include in this paper. Annika Laughlin? September 10, 2008, at 09:16 AM
