ROTK: Extended Version...

Hound · Post by **Hound** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:51 am

Fwiff, you are talking bollocks mate.

In my experience its usually the straight guys that imply that close friendship between men is homosexual, be that in jest or total seriousness.

As for Sam and Frodo, it IS homo erotic. There are many scenes where they stare at and pine for each other far more than they should. The long lingering looks, the constant 'oh Sam', 'oh Mr Frodo'.

I dont believe for one minute that they are supposed to be gay characters, but the way the film was made does more than enough to suggest this!

Post by **snarl** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:29 pm

Dont worry lads, Fwiff is just a BIG MASSIVE BIGGOT who uses his religion as a cop out defence mechanism because even though he is a biggot, he realises this isn't a particularly good thing to be labelled as, so does his best to say hes not.

Eline · Post by **Eline** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:48 pm

What does it matter if they are good friends or in love?

Both are positive things.

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:08 pm

Lord of the **** rings then? yes?no? right.. noones happy? good. now then can we please stop and talk about how happy happy this movie is making everyone?

Dylan · Post by **Dylan** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:13 pm

It seems people are either against Fwiffo, or... well, Fwiffo himself.

Again though I have to go with option number 3.

I myself am also kind of 'surprised' by gays and heterosexuals alike to put a 'homo' tag on close friendship.

And as far as I'm concerned that 'suprise' is regarding male-male, male-female and female-female bonding.

People can be close without wanting to get physical, really.

Or maybe I am just misinterpreting the entire concept. Maybe 'gay' doesn't pertain to physical intimacy.

But then I don't understand the distinction. In that case I'd certainly be 100% gay myself, because some of my best friends are male! And I feel a strong connection with them, I'd do almost anything for them. And I have that with a number of female friends as well of course.

On the other hand, I don't think I really experience any physical attraction to any of my male friends. In addition, I certainly do not feel attracted to all of my female friends.

So I personally am also kind of tired about the whole 'OMG they're gay!' yelling. It's just as stupid as when guys start drooling over two girls close to each other.

KingMob · Post by **KingMob** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:32 pm

Personally, me and the missus have been deriving endless amusement from muting Frodo and Sam's scenes and replacing their dialogue with lines from Are You Being Served?

The big, uh, interestingly-shaped battering ram is called Grond, btw, not...Krog.

I was also disappointed that Denethor's decent into barmyness wasn't shown as being largely driven by the Palantir....although I do really enjoy the spin they've put on him and his sons. Fantastic seeing Sean Bean edited into the film again. Every film would benefit from Sean Bean being digitally edited into it, IMHO. He's the bizness.

I thought Aragorn dropped the palantir coz he thought Arwen was dead. He's labouring under the belief that she is swiftly dying (thanks to Elrond's 'peptalk').
He larges himself up to Sauron ("Check out me big sword, fnarr fnarr!") and the Ringlord (snerk) responds by giving it 'wot about your girlfriend eh, she's a dead'un she is, ha-ha'. And the palantir, it shows you true things but twists your interpretation of them to whatever upsets you/disheartens you. Like what happened to Denethor. So Aragorn freaked, thinking she was dead/impossible to save (rather than just lying close to death) and his necklace breaking is symbolic, innit.
The recut makes it seem to me - esp with them believing Frodo is actually dead - that Aragorn thinks he's a dead man walking. His whole plan goes from being 'buy Frodo time' to 'go out with a bang' due to the new cut.

The EE doesn't seem to improve the ROTK as much as the EEs for the first two improved them, IMHO. There's some great new bits in it, but somehow...it's not as satisfying in terms of making the narrative better...with the exception of Isenguard and the Paths of the Dead.
It seems to make things different rather than better-told
Lovely new bits in the Pelennor Fields, though.

Master_Fwiffo · Post by **Master_Fwiffo** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:51 pm

Hound wrote:Fwiff, you are talking bollocks mate.

In my experience its usually the straight guys that imply that close friendship between men is homosexual, be that in jest or total seriousness.

Yes, and that irratates the heck out of me to. Nowehere did I say only Homosexuals say this, it irritates the hell out of me when ANYONE says it.

As for Sam and Frodo, it IS homo erotic. There are many scenes where they stare at and pine for each other far more than they should. The long lingering looks, the constant 'oh Sam', 'oh Mr Frodo'.

I dont believe for one minute that they are supposed to be gay characters, but the way the film was made does more than enough to suggest this!

And I think *you* are talking, as you put it, bolloks.

Dylan wrote:It seems people are either against Fwiffo, or... well, Fwiffo himself.

Yes, it sucks.

I refuse to dignify Snarls flame with a response.

Hound · Post by **Hound** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:53 pm

Master_Fwiffo wrote:[
One of my biggest problems with the gay movement (no offense Karl) is the absolute and other ****ing disgusting distortion it puts on close friendships between men. This right here is the biggest and most obvious example. Im going to try really hard to keep religion, politics ect. out of this, but it ****ing pisses me off.

WHY is it when two men have a close, loving friendship, it is immidiatly assumed they are homosexual? Does it reallysuddenly mean that they are atracted to each other and want to knock each other up in the bedroom because their ready to give their ****ing lives up for each other?

There is a MASSIVE diffrence between 'love' and 'homosexual atraction'. Im not saying Homosexuals can't love each other, but because two guys are the closest dearest freinds on Earth, DOESNT MAKE THEM ****ING GAY.

.

Sorry, I must have totally understood this entire quote then!

Seriously, if it really is a case of everyone against Fwiffo, does that not maybe tell you something? Or are we all wrong and only you are right?

Fact is you have pissed people off by coming to stereotyped conclusions. So don't be surprised if people bite back against your bigoted statements

Dylan · Post by **Dylan** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:12 pm

Generally speaking, whenever it's a case of a crowd versus an individual, I tend to stick with the individual, just in case. People usually get a little more excited when they're together against someone.

Ben, can you understand my sentiments then?

For what it's worth, I'm certainly open to other views, from time to time I do have to change my opinion on things because of new perspectives.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:13 pm

Expressive post alert... should possibly go in PM but would probably do more good here.

I'm not angry or upset with you, MF. I classically do have an exceedingly unpredictable temper which has had me flying off the handle for very little reason before, and yet (last year) being threatened with death in a bar and all I did was smile.

I think I've made improvements in understanding why I buried a lot of my anger and it vented in such bizarre ways (at you before, at least once). I've also changed my outlook on the world, and I'm still exploring and learning to see the world through the new things I'm learning. I'm sorry if you thought I was going to get upset with you, that is an image I'm going to have to work hard to change. The last major thread on religion was an excellent example, how I initially responded to CS and then afterwards answered him.

Without begging excuses, I have many things which I've only very recently been able to deal with. That's not to justify it, only to explain it.

Regarding the feeling, which I'm sure is held by several, of "<sigh> do you have to keep talking about this, Karl

", I will do my best to impart what little wisdom and understanding I have if I think, even by the tiniest degree, it will at least explain a view someone else might not have seen, or help me understanding something I previously did not understand... because I believe that will make the world a better place to live in.

Whenever I think that exploring an issue and getting people to question their motives and beliefs might achieve this, I will do so. If it upsets you or bores you then please don't read it- I appologise for disrupting whatever other elements in the thread you might have been enjoying.

So to anyone thinking that, I'm sorry for disrupting your enjoyment of this thread on RoTK.

Having given some background which I hope clears some skelingtons out of their respective cupboards, directly on (the new) topic-

Interestingly I don't think of Frodo and Sam as gay either, but I'm not averse to the concept. What I would like to explore is the idea that a close friendship being questioned as possibly homosexual should be insulting to anybody- close friendships between men and women do turn into homosexual relationships, physical or romantic, fulfilled or unfulfilled.

History is litered with them, to give one example homosexuality was rife throughout the British officer classes in the days of the British Empire. Comradeship, the company of other men, love of each other as brothers etc. can turn into a loving relationship in more than a platonic sense.

These same ideas followed through directly into the first world war, which heavily influenced Tolkein's writings.

So, I would like to know why do you consider it bad that a close friendship should raise the question of homosexuality? I don't think that's bad at all in and of itself. What someone might want to do, armed with that information, is a different argument. Frodo and Sam could well be considered to have a subtext to them which is read in by the reader- we already paint the picture of Middle Earth and colour it with our imaginations, I don't see why we shouldn't flesh the characters out more when we feel we need it. That's down to the person.

Whether Tolkein intended it or would have liked it is largely irrelevant, you can't control all aspects of a reader/viewer's mind and they will inevitably fill in some details for themselves.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:18 pm

People percieve things differently, that is the joy to be had from all great art. Nothing worth getting worked up over - if people want to see a gay subtext, good for them.

Certainly nothing so poetic is cut and dried.

Dylan · Post by **Dylan** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:25 pm

I like your post, Karl.

On another note: could you, or Hound, or anyone else, explain what the term 'gay relationship' would mean exactly? For example, regarding Frodo and Sam?

Are you 'hoping' the two 'get it on'? Are you hoping a romantic connection exists between them, for example as a rolemodel, or as a confirmation of your own sexuality?

I feel silly for raising such clinical questions. All I'm trying to do is to understand what exactly we are discussing. Ideally, we'd all realise something fundamental, and be able to be better humans for it.

And for completeness' sake: I personally am totally unbiased towards homosexuals. I can't really see the difference between straight and gay people (well, I do of course, but I am certainly not 'offended' or 'threatened' or anything).

I'd love to see everybody accepting each other just as individuals.

Post by **Best First** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:34 pm

Dylan wrote: Are you 'hoping' the two 'get it on'? Are you hoping a romantic connection exists between them, for example as a rolemodel, or as a confirmation of your own sexuality?

i don't percieve any 'hoping' or looking for affirmation - just a recognition that it is possible to recieve more to the relationship of Sam and Frodo than friendship.

No one is actually implying they are buggering off camera - the observations mainly made in jest as far as i can tell - there is an, assumedly, unintenional degree of camp humour to be derived from their interactions.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:44 pm

Dylan wrote:I like your post, Karl.

On another note: could you, or Hound, or anyone else, explain what the term 'gay relationship' would mean exactly? For example, regarding Frodo and Sam?

Are you 'hoping' the two 'get it on'? Are you hoping a romantic connection exists between them, for example as a rolemodel, or as a confirmation of your own sexuality?

I feel silly for raising such clinical questions. All I'm trying to do is to understand what exactly we are discussing. Ideally, we'd all realise something fundamental, and be able to be better humans for it.

And for completeness' sake: I personally am totally unbiased towards homosexuals. I can't really see the difference between straight and gay people (well, I do of course, but I am certainly not 'offended' or 'threatened' or anything).

I'd love to see everybody accepting each other just as individuals.

I don't see either of them as gay- I think the two love each other, but in a platonic way, albeit exceedingly deep. The two have been through something that they can never share with anyone else.

For other things I do interpret characters as being gay, normally where I see events or intonations which, to my mind, imply a more physical as well as emotional attachment. That varies person to person. Someone else will have a different view. In those cases there are many things involved.

Relationships on screen of any sort are nearly always fantasy, an ideal or idea of how we might want the world to be. The world isn't actually like that. That hurt me very deeply, regarding some gay anime which I very much like (Ai No Kusabe). it was only when I realised two things it didn't hurt me anymore:

It's not like that for you, yes. Nor for anyone else. You're not alone.
It could never be like that, because that is not real.

The last one sounds really silly, but you don't realise that your torturing yourself about not living up to something that could never happen, and even if it did it couldn't happen like that.

Another factor would be seeing a gay character on screen, assuming they are stated as gay (i.e. Colin Farrel in Alexander) gives me some happiness thinking that as a group homosexuals are slowly being brought into the world which most people occupy- albeit only at the moment as 'safe' homosexuals (think makeover programs, that sort of thing, gay people are rarely accepted as just normal human beings at the moment in the media).

That all has issues to do with my own sexuality, which links to damage done in previous relationships and by my father. I'm sort of dating someone at the moment, but I'm unsure of my motives or what I actually would want from a relationship. I'm not even sure I'm attracted to him. He knows this, I've made it quite clear. So until I get those things figured out I don't think I'll be having a loving relationship for a while.

The complete "More Than You Ever Wanted to Know About Karl" is available from WH Smiths priced 12.99.

Master_Fwiffo · Post by **Master_Fwiffo** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:01 pm

I don't see either of them as gay- I think the two love each other, but in a platonic way, albeit exceedingly deep. The two have been through something that they can never share with anyone else.

If thats the case then I completly misinterpreted your post, and I'll back off.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:02 pm

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding

Post by **snarl** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:24 pm

Fwiff, you're blatently a bigot:

"One of my biggest problems with the gay movement (no offense Karl) is the absolute and other ****ing disgusting distortion it puts on close friendships between men."

That's just dumb.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:38 pm

None taken

I know what he said, but MF doesn't want to talk about it

Master_Fwiffo · Post by **Master_Fwiffo** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:39 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:I'm sorry for the misunderstanding

And Im sorry for ranting on that misunderstaing.

So, I hear this Lord of the Rings movie is pretty good yo.

Hows the new stuff?

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:46 pm

BlackStar.co.uk has changed its name to sendit.com

Dear Daniel Bowman,

We thought you might like to know that we shipped a parcel today to:
Daniel Bowman
*************
*************
London
**** ***

containing:
Lord Of The Rings, The - The Return Of The King (Extended Edition)
(Four Discs) (DVD) (Widescreen) (Region 2)

WHOOOOO HOOOOO. Should be here monday.

Finally I'll feel complete and have closure on the whole thing.

I've loved this from when I first saw it. I was actually expecting it to be average at best. I'd never think they were making the best troligy of all time.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:41 pm

Jetfire wrote:the best trilogy of all time.

Blasphemy!

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:09 pm

I also like the look of surprised indignation on the oliphant in the background (when Aragorn is looking wistfully over the battlefield) as it gets consumed by the Armies of the Dead

"Hee hee! Smashy smas- hey! Who ARE you people! Ack! NOOO!"

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:58 am

Jetfire wrote: WHOOOOO HOOOOO. Should be here monday.

Finally I'll feel complete and have closure on the whole thing.

Me too. I was hoping it would arrive on saturday when I saw loads of copies for sale in the local HMV, but that wasn't physically possible seeing as they'd posted it friday in the afternoon.

Only problem now is that my DVD player has bitten the dust. Only option I've got at the mo' is to watch it on a laptop and that's really no fun for something as glorious as this.

Maybe tapping the player with a hammer lightly will jar it into life again

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:23 am

not wanting to fan a fire, but I dont see Sam and Frodo as gay just that they have been through alot and are close friends.

If Sam were to be gay, id say he was more Bi-sexual then anything, he seems happy with his wife at the end of Return of the King.

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:46 am

flame on!

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:08 pm

I still don't enjoy LOTR trilogy as much as the rest of you

I don't like the humour in the movies. It's to stupid.
Especially all the jokes with the dwarf - and the jokes between the dwarf and Legolas.
I like the serious tone of the movies - but those jokes ruine everything.

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:02 am

My copy arrived in the post and I watched it last night.

WOW!

So cool. Like Jetfire I was always a bit dubious of the final film, most probably because I was dubious of the final book because I knew the end of the story was coming, which makes me not want to like it. But despite that I still say WOW!

Effects coming out of its arse, really cool story, almost everything handled brilliantly well. I really wasn't looking forward to the oft reported turgid and mushy ending, but I didn't find it that way at all, I thought it was quite well done and enjoyable. Now a few things I want to question, which I'm hoping knowledgeable LOTR bods like Karl might be able to give me good answers to.

CAUTION: SPOILERS AHEAD!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

- The Witch King taking on Gandalf: So the Witch bloke flies in on his winged steed, goes up against Gandalf and busts G's staff into a million pieces. Pippin shits himself, Gandalf is probably shitting himself too... and then the Witch King sees the Riders of Roham about three miles away and decided to fly off and have a go at them. Hmmm.
The riders took about ten minutes to warm up and have their little pep rally, then another five minutes to gallop the distance to the Orc hordes. Isn't that plenty of time for the Witch King to slay Gandalf and THEN fly off and attack the riders? It would've only taken a couple of seconds to do Gandalf in. I didn't understand that.

- The armies of the dead. Well I just didn't like them really. If I was the director I would've looked upon them as too much of a plot device (despite their importance in the book), and tried to come up with something else. Just seemed too cheesy to me.

- Aragorn's poses. Too many of these.

- Sam and Frodo on the rock amidst the molten lava. Just standing too close to a bonfire is enough to singe your hair and suck all the xygen out of the near area. These two are on a rock in the middle of 50,000 degree lava and they don't feel much of anything?

- The old 'hanging onto the ledge' trick. Frodo takes himself and Gollum over the ledge by pushing forward with considerable force. So if they're falling forward, or if HE'S falling forward, how does he spin around in mid air and grab onto a bit of outcrop? And since WHEN was there any outcrop to grab? The camera pans over the top of Frodo when he's dangling the ring above the fires, he's blatantly standing as close to the edge as he can possibly get, there's no more rock there to stand on, and yet he hurls himself and Gollum off it, and manages to grab at it on the way down? Come oooooonnnn.

On the plus side, I could handle Gimli fine. He was okay, Legolas says about two words as usual, which is fine. Merry and Pippin weren't annoying as hell this time round (as they were in the Two Towers), making their scenes in ROTK really good. Pippin's song is also really cool. Minimum screentime for Treebeard, which is great as I found him a bit boring and not very screen light-uppable. Gollum was EXCELLENT. In TTT it was all about pitying him, in ROTK he's a right little bastard. And is it me, or is Gollum's CGI even better this time around? He looks so much like Andy Serkis.

One of the best things I found was that guy who comes out of the black gates, that Judge Death looking guy. If I was a kid watching this I would've shat myself. He's still pretty scary even at my age now, and so brilliantly done, the voice, the mouth movements. Perhaps best of all was Aragorn's Fast Show response to this guy, where after all the exposition Aragorn goes "Right, sod this. Anyone fancy a pint" and lops his head off! Brilliant!

Overall I loved this film. Totally great ending to an excellent trilogy. There'll be niggles with everything, but christ it was much better than I ever thought it was going to be. Absolutely top hole.

Oh and Eowyn, she forgot old Aragorn quick enough when Faramir arrived on the scene eh? Heh heh heh. Mind you, Faramir for all his honor and goodness knows to take advantage of a woman when she's vulnerable. The bounder, the cad. Supoib!

Redstreak · Post by **Redstreak** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:59 pm

Ah, the Mouth of Sauron...someone needs to tell him that gingivitis is the number one cause of all tooth decay.

This thing works on all levels for me; I have no complaints about anything. The complaints I see in here generally just look to me as nitpicks...stuff that works but that various ppl aren't satisfied with for whatever reason; perhaps seeking ultimate perfection and not getting it. Windy's complaints seem sourced on that predication. I'm not gonna complain unless you got something like Greedo shooting first, frankly. Gandalf isn't supposed to die so why complain about the Witch King; Frodo hanging on for dear life was made like that long before it became an overused movie standard, and they have no business changing the armies of the dead, and would have offended loads more ppl in trying to do so, plot device or not.

Try to remember also Windy, with regard to the witch king; something I've used a fair bit in my writing is a technique where a scene runs ahead, the other scene being left slightly behind, and you jump back to the other scene for something that takes place several seconds (minutes) before, then it catches up and runs evenly or intersects. That's done especially when two scenes as separate as those have to be merged into one, and is a technique easy to miss in a movie as opposed to a book where you can use scene breaks or words like 'just before this,'. So don't count the ten minutes or whatever as supposed time the Witch King had to kill Gandalf with. When he arrives on the battlefield is the standard mark you should use, and it is not, note, at the time they show the riders arrive, but rather a bit of time afterward.

This trilogy works so well because of how close it sticks to the book on most occasions. And that's why it's the best of all time.

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:14 pm

I'll admit I wasmaking gay jokes about Sam and Frodo. Especially at the end when they are all surrounding his bed and laughing. I picture Gandalf with his underrobes removed in that scene. HAHA Homo eroticism is not some serious science. Nor is it taboo and off limits to parody.

Having said that I really enjoyed the movie again and the extra bits, especially Sauramon's death. It reminded me of Wizard of Oz with the boots the last thing we see. However the constant head nods to assure the speaker of the seriousness of his speech was annoying. How official are you suppose to get? Perrigrin Toke and the Rohirrim general suffer the most from this affliction. Also there were scenes with no dialogue and you were just suppose to let the images tell you what is happening. Some may be able to decode this kind of meaning but I found it rather dull. It makes for good MST filler.

I loved the sense of despair and hopelessness that this movie brings. Like when Gandalf and Pippin are sitting behind the door being hammered by the troll. Pippin says this is the end. That scene was so subtle it was brilliant! They managed to keep the epic moody downer that the end is really a refreshing aftertaste and not the 20 ending marthon everyone complained about.

Also Faramir and Eowyn was just what the doctor ordered! Dr. Love that is. I loved this aspect in the book and was sad in the theaters when it was only hinted at. The Extended edition delivers just what I wanted. I really liked Faramir, and the Boromir flashback was ace!

bobaprime85 · Post by **bobaprime85** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:34 pm

Obfleur wrote:I still don't enjoy LOTR trilogy as much as the rest of you

I don't like the humour in the movies. It's to stupid.
Especially all the jokes with the dwarf - and the jokes between the dwarf and Legolas.
I like the serious tone of the movies - but those jokes ruine everything.

I don't believe it-someone who shares my opinion about LOTR! I love the sweeds! And their wookies!