So I'm going to talk about one last oft-overlooked but still very important contribution
that this film trilogy had for the world of film, and that is...
this business.
Nine and a half hours whadn't enough for ya?
Well guess what, we have like every excruciating detail of the production of this thing
in like 27 DVDs or something.
It's actually really cool. I think this is awesome.
I mean yeah, the cuts themselves are cool because they put all this time, effort, and money
into something that was effectively just for the DVD.
But there's also all the stuff that comes with them.
Hours and hours on technique, on music, on sound design, on miniatures, on digital grading,
on special effects, on the actors and their rigorous schedule.
I feel like a lot of people have this idea about filmmaking that the movie studio, like, calls the movie stork,
and then they push the movie button, and then a movie gets made!
There wasn't a huge demand to know how movies like these got made. You know, they just did it.
But it was these DVDs that really started to sell the process as a part of the product.
And you learn a lot about filmmaking just from these extended editions.
And when studios realized that there was actually some serious demand for really in-depth DVDs like this
about the process and the filmmakers and the art...
Hell, everyone started doing it.
I think that's great.
But the extended cuts of the films are interesting in their own right, especially for Return of the King.
We only really see the conclusion of Aragorn's Arc in the extended cut.
In the extended cut we also get the "where there's a whip, there's a way" scene.
Also, this.
[sad thud]
Then a whole lot of character development stuff,
stuff the casual movie goer doesn't really want or care about. But if you're a fan? What up!
The battle scenes in Return of the King are the only battle scenes in the trilogy that I really love,
like when Theoden gives the speech,
This movie also benefits a lot more from variety in terms of shots and framing and lighting and the editing.
Hell, the most poignant battle scene ends up being one that we don't even see.
And another interesting aspect that you don't see in a lot of war movies that this one really pushes
is the fact that the characters seem genuinely hopeless about their prospects.
They're not fighting to win. They fight despite the fact they know they're going to lose.
"Is there any hope, Gandalf?"
[Gandalf] "There never was much hope.
Just a fool's hope."
So there's this great contrast between the Rohirrim, and Gandalf versus Denethor who has lost all hope.
This makes the stakes much more emotionally complicated.
What do people do when they're fighting in the face of such hopelessness?
And I feel like the hopelessness thing is handled way better here than in the Two Towers.
"They say that it is hopeless."
Though Legolas hasn't improved much.
"But we can give Frodo his chance if we keep Sauron's eye fixed upon us."
"A diversion."
Thanks, plot summary guy.
"Never thought I'd die fighting side-by-side with an elf."
"What about side-by-side with a friend?"
B'AWWWW, okay, I forgive your stupid one-liners, Legolas.
I'm gonna just touch on this one a little, 'cause there have been many essays
and even books written on the subject of Tolkien and race and divine right
and imperialism and all that fun stuff.
I'm talking more about the movies, and you know, that is an issue with the books, but...
Tolkien did write it that way.
And Peej did make the decision to go with it.
Like a lot. Like a whole lot.
He might have even embellished it... a lot.
It's not not there.
Make of that what you will.
So back to the threads that need tying up.
I'd say the biggest is the ring getting destroyed.
And here, as in in the book, after all that, Frodo fails.
"The ring is mine."
One of the big changes they made, well, it's actually pretty little, really, is at the mouth of Mt Doom.
Frodo fails in his quest, claims the ring as his own,
and then Gollum comes and bites his damn finger off
and now HE has the ring!
And in the book, Gollum's happy dance ended with him and the ring going into the fire a bit of a whoopsie-daisy.
Yeah, after all that, that might have been a little bit of a letdown.
A small difference that they added, but it works so much better,
is that Frodo is so entranced with the power of the ring, finger bitten off and all,
he gets up and fights Gollum over it, and then they both go down
Either way the result is the same.
Oh hey, while we're here.
And then we get deus ex... eagles.
Oh, Tolkien.
"Eagles."
"The eagles are coming!"
You know, I'm not gonna defend that.
You know, suffice to say that needs of the plot sometimes outweigh the needs of the logic.
And despite the fight fight fight fight fight fight fight the emotional mechanizations of this movie
are fascinating to me.
I'll use the Dark Knight trilogy as a contrast.
And the reason I cite the Dark Knight is that, in those movies,
female characters aren't just in there to fill a quota, they're there to fill a function.
An emotional function.
With the exception of Alfred, the father figure, none of the other dudes form emotional attachments
to any of the other dudes.
Bruce didn't form an emotional attachment to commissioner Gordon, to Joseph Gordon-Levitt,
to Morgan Freeman.
They are just allies in a shared venture.
They don't love each other.
Most Hollywood movies are like that,
so it's surprising that this movie has the nards to really and truly go there
with the emotional attachments between all these male characters.
They're not just allies in a war who form emotional attachments only to women
and the occasional father figure, they LOVE each other.
Brothers, allies!
Hell, Legolas and Gimli expressly stick with Aragorn out of love and for no other reason.
"Have you learned nothing of the stubbornness of dwarves?"
"You might as well accept it. We're going with you, laddie."
So of course people went on and on and on about...
"I'm glad you're with me."
♫ Secret Lovers ♫
That was an actual ad that actually ran on TBS, by the way.
So in the interest of getting an outsider perspective, I hired a sassy gay friend
named Rantasmo.
Hello, Rantasmo.
Oh hey Lindsay. What's up?
....giiiiirlfriend.
So please enlighten us with your gay wisdom.
Is the gay interpretation valid?
Well because Lord of the Rings is such a sausagefest, most of the meaningful relationships
in the trilogy are between male characters.
The power struggle between Gandalf and Saruman, the rivalry between Sam and Gollum,
the romance between Merry and Pippin, and especially the very strong friendship
between Frodo and Sam.
Since the only Hobbit with any real love interest is Sam, and we hardly see her at all,
this is the closest that our main protagonist gets to a romance subplot in the cinematic sense.
And I would argue that this relationship is significantly more compelling
than the one between Aragorn and Arwen.
"Don't you lose him, Samwise Gamgee.
I don't mean to."
You know, I think there's at least one instance where women are actually at an advantage in our society,
and that's that they have more latitude when it comes to forming close relationships
with others of the same gender.
Whenever men try to do the same, even if it's just as simple as basic proximity,
they tend to fall under what we academic types refer to as
"homo suspicion."
All it really took was a hug between two guys in a very extreme situation for audiences to start yelling
GAAYYYY
f***in' gaaayyy.
But on the whole, this didn't seem to interfere much with anyone's enjoyment of the movie.
Maybe it was ambiguous enough that people could look past it.
Or maybe the possibility that the Hobbits, who are generally the least powerful
characters in the story were gay, just didn't seem all that threatening.
And yes, for some people, the possibility of Hobbit-on-Hobbit love was a benefit rather than a feature.
So this film became like a bastion of hope for gay culture?
Not really.
Not really?
Well I mean, as far as the gay stuff goes, it's just subtext.
And probably unintentional subtext at that.
It's fine. It's just, we've seen it before. It's nothing special.
Well, Ian McKellen said it did.
Name one Ian McKellen movie with no gay subtext.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Sassy gay friend out.
Well, I've seen people on the side of it's gay as hell,
and I've also seen people get like really defensive and mad
at the mere implication that the Hobbits might be gay,
but my position is this:
Who cares?
First off, even if one day down the line, Frodo and Sam realized their big gay love for each other,
(and yes, trauma does sometimes forge romantic bonds)
that is not what their bond is right now.
So what if they're gay? So what if they're not?
I mean yeah, the movie does pull a touch of the 'not gay' with Sam here,
"If ever I was to marry someone,
it would've been her."
[Lindsay as Sam] "I Know I haven't mentioned this in like nine hours of movie, but no homo, Mr. Frodo."
So regardless of the nature of their relationship, but I do think that nature is up for interpretation,
the important thing really is the strength of their bond.
But regardless of how many people point it out,
which side you might sit on in the "are they gay" debate, the point is
you liked it!
"I'm glad you're with me."
Their relationship made people uncomfortable, but it was just so damn touching,
so damn sincere.
Hell, Frodo even gives him a kiss at the end!
In this day and age it takes real nards for men to even hug in a movie,
but Frodo gives him a single, tender kiss.
Hell, they even used the imagery in the teaser posters. The teaser posters!
They didn't stick it in under the radar, they used it as incentive to go see the movie.
So it did become a joke in the wider cultural sphere,
but only because you liked it!
It touched you emotionally, admit it!
Yeah.
So then after they destroy the ring there's this really silly scene
where they're like jumping on the bed and laughing.
[all laughing]
"Gimly!"
[Lindsay] "Giiiimlyyyy!"
Yeah, we need some happiness as a reward for the last three hours of heaviness and misery,
but okay, the laughing is weird, guys.
What's funny?
Seriously, did someone tell a joke?
What's funny?
And they come in one at a time like it's the end of a broadway show
and we're supposed to be giving, like, standing ovations.
Everyone out there who complained about the multiple endings,
I gotta say "cry more" on this one.
The thing I really like about this compared to Harry Potter,
which is also a book where the protagonist suffers a lot,
is that the Lord of the Rings follows Frodo for a while after the end of the plot
and shows that, no, he doesn't really get a "happily ever after."
And I get a lot of pushback for this opinion on the Harry Potter franchise,
but battle and trauma doesn't come with a reward. It drains you. It changes you.
In Frodo's case, it's killing him slowly.
"How do you go on?
In your heart, you begin to understand.
There is no going back."
So Harry gets his happily ever after, marries the girl he's shown like a tiny little bit of interest in,
and then he pops out some kids and yay...?
Yeah, I just don't buy it.
If anything, I read this as just a facade.
So if you ended the movie in Minas Tirith, and imply that the Hobbits were honored forever
and la-dee-da and happy ending,
it really undermines the sacrifice they made.
So I'm really glad they didn't leave those scenes for the extended cut.
Frodo didn't really get his happy ending.
His story, therefore, is a lot more poignant than Harry's
because after all he's been through, he can't ever return to the very thing he set out to save.
"We set out to save the shire, Sam.
And it has been saved.
But not for me."
And there's this great little scene at the end with the four hobbits just sitting and looking at each other like, wow,
we have been outside the cave.
We can never relate to these people again.
The damage done to Frodo wasn't just there for some shallow drama.
And we, the viewer, actually get to see that it had some real consequences.
Frodo ends up having to leave the very thing he set out to save, and that's some real poignancy
you don't see in big blockbusters.
So these films I think are pretty much the best we could have realistically hoped for.
When I look at them, particularly movies 2 & 3, you know, I see flaws,
but only flaws in a great, wide, deeply complex, very elaborate piece of art.
Some of the flaws come straight from the source material,
some involve a man running a kilometer while on fire to jump off a cliff.
I had this guy the other day tweet at me that he considered the Back to the Future trilogy to be
completely without flaw.
Um.
See, this is the thing about any work made by human hands.
It's gonna be flawed. And in the case of adaptation, they're easier to spot,
because you can see where it might have worked better based on the source material
that you're already familiar with.
The Lord of the Rings hit that increasingly rare sweet-spot in this day and age
of critical darling beloved by the masses
and maker of lots of money.
Return of the King, which was the only one of the three to win Best Picture,
was also the last one to be in the top ten grossing movies of its year.
In Nerd Culture, general acceptance by the masses is too often used
as an excuse to discourage critical thought.
But to me, it's upon things like this that we need to employ the most critical thought.
Why this franchise? What appealed to it about us?
Why did they change what they changed so we'd like it more as film goers?
What does it say about the medium of film that they needed to make changes in the first place?
All discussions I think are worth having.
What? No, I'm legitimately out of things to say.
We can move on.