|
We now join a Lord of the Rings "debate," in medias res...
|
|
|
|
 | |  |
| Okay, well what about the eagles at the end? The eagles ex machina. Where do you get eagles from all of a sudden to save the day? | |
 | |  |
|
 |
| | |
| That's mostly from the book. In Fellowship there's a moment where Gandalf saves a bird, and they're on his side forever after that. Also, that'll explained much better in the extended edition. | |
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
| But you can't do that! It's an ADAPTATION of a novel. Some stuff has to be left out or explained better. You can't make a completely different movie for DVD and then reference it. I saw the first two. | |
| | |
|
 |
| | |
| Well you obviously didn't pay enough attention then. And a lot of stuff was left out actually. Entire characters, entire plotlines. But they did a very good job of incorporating important elements. | |
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
| They should have! It's four fucking hours! Look, Blake. I'm not going to pretend it's the greatest movie of all time. Some of it is completely inaccessible. That's not how movies or sequels work. | |
| | |
|
|
| | |
| It's not really a sequel. I see Return of the King as part of a much larger story, The Lord of the Rings, the best movie ever. Maybe that's your first problem. Didn't you want to have sex with Viggo? | |
| | |
|
|
|
