<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Return of the King and time</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.steveersinghaus.com/archives/489/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.steveersinghaus.com/archives/489</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:53:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JRadke</title>
		<link>http://www.steveersinghaus.com/archives/489/comment-page-1#comment-1027</link>
		<dc:creator>JRadke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:46:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steveersinghaus.com/?p=489#comment-1027</guid>
		<description>I definately think that there are two versions of LOTR:

Tolkien&#039;s version, which focuses on the Hobbits

and Jackson&#039;s version, which focuses on Middle-earth.

I almost get the sense that Tolkien wrote &quot;Middle-earth&#039;s story&quot; as an aside to Frodo and Sam&#039;s because it &quot;had to be told&quot;. It&#039;s as if he doesn&#039;t want the world of men mucking up the journeys of the two brave Hobbits, so he seperates the two stories. This isn&#039;t a surprising revelation if you know Tolkien&#039;s background and how he felt towards the Age of Industry.

I am happy for both, because both tell the same story from different perspectives. Ut would have been a very tough choice, but Jackson should have remained consistent with his interpretation of the movies and ended ROTK with the story of Middle-earth in focus.

Your ending sentence is right on with how I felt at the end.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I definately think that there are two versions of LOTR:</p>
<p>Tolkien&#8217;s version, which focuses on the Hobbits</p>
<p>and Jackson&#8217;s version, which focuses on Middle-earth.</p>
<p>I almost get the sense that Tolkien wrote &#8220;Middle-earth&#8217;s story&#8221; as an aside to Frodo and Sam&#8217;s because it &#8220;had to be told&#8221;. It&#8217;s as if he doesn&#8217;t want the world of men mucking up the journeys of the two brave Hobbits, so he seperates the two stories. This isn&#8217;t a surprising revelation if you know Tolkien&#8217;s background and how he felt towards the Age of Industry.</p>
<p>I am happy for both, because both tell the same story from different perspectives. Ut would have been a very tough choice, but Jackson should have remained consistent with his interpretation of the movies and ended ROTK with the story of Middle-earth in focus.</p>
<p>Your ending sentence is right on with how I felt at the end.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://www.steveersinghaus.com/archives/489/comment-page-1#comment-1025</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steveersinghaus.com/?p=489#comment-1025</guid>
		<description>Josh,

I thought that Jackson&#039;s changes in the telling of ROTK were very ambitious. Imagine that in the novel you don&#039;t know whether Frodo is captured. In the movie you know he&#039;s escaped the orcs, thus the face-off at the gate has very little emotional power. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs. The return of the hobbits to Hobbiton, in my mind, was the true resolution to the tale of the 4 in the novel. They return and F,S,P, and M&#039;s changes are used to save their sweatest territory. They &quot;become&quot; at the end--it&#039;s the culminating test. But you&#039;re right, there are many potential endings here, depending on whose story you concentrate on, just one part of Tolkien&#039;s genius.

I find that LOTR is a sad tale all the way around, much as is the tale of Arthur. All the cool people leave &quot;us&quot; to fend for ourselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Josh,</p>
<p>I thought that Jackson&#8217;s changes in the telling of ROTK were very ambitious. Imagine that in the novel you don&#8217;t know whether Frodo is captured. In the movie you know he&#8217;s escaped the orcs, thus the face-off at the gate has very little emotional power. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs. The return of the hobbits to Hobbiton, in my mind, was the true resolution to the tale of the 4 in the novel. They return and F,S,P, and M&#8217;s changes are used to save their sweatest territory. They &#8220;become&#8221; at the end&#8211;it&#8217;s the culminating test. But you&#8217;re right, there are many potential endings here, depending on whose story you concentrate on, just one part of Tolkien&#8217;s genius.</p>
<p>I find that LOTR is a sad tale all the way around, much as is the tale of Arthur. All the cool people leave &#8220;us&#8221; to fend for ourselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JRadke</title>
		<link>http://www.steveersinghaus.com/archives/489/comment-page-1#comment-1024</link>
		<dc:creator>JRadke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:06:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steveersinghaus.com/?p=489#comment-1024</guid>
		<description>Return of the King was indeed very tough in the transition and time departments. The book actually ends like it begins: 60+ pages of Hobbit-tale. But the ROTK Hobbit stuff was much more annoying, and in my opinion should have been published as a seperate novella.

Well, not surprisingly, I found the endings of ROTK just as annoying. I say endings because by my count, ROTK &quot;ended&quot; at least three different times. It should have ended at Aragorn&#039;s coronation. I know that would have left Frodo&#039;s parting out of it, but at that point everything felt so anti-climactic.

Of all the movies, ROTK felt rushed as the end got nearer.. even at 3.5 hours. I&#039;m not really going to fault Jackson because the way Tolkien wrote the trilogy made it very tricky to translate to film.

Film is a medium that requires constant peaks and valleys. But the books have a lot of plateaus. And where you can put a book down and come back, movies don&#039;t really work that way. All in all, I throughly enjoyed the LOTR films, and of all the movies, ROTK definately benefitted the most from the extended edition.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Return of the King was indeed very tough in the transition and time departments. The book actually ends like it begins: 60+ pages of Hobbit-tale. But the ROTK Hobbit stuff was much more annoying, and in my opinion should have been published as a seperate novella.</p>
<p>Well, not surprisingly, I found the endings of ROTK just as annoying. I say endings because by my count, ROTK &#8220;ended&#8221; at least three different times. It should have ended at Aragorn&#8217;s coronation. I know that would have left Frodo&#8217;s parting out of it, but at that point everything felt so anti-climactic.</p>
<p>Of all the movies, ROTK felt rushed as the end got nearer.. even at 3.5 hours. I&#8217;m not really going to fault Jackson because the way Tolkien wrote the trilogy made it very tricky to translate to film.</p>
<p>Film is a medium that requires constant peaks and valleys. But the books have a lot of plateaus. And where you can put a book down and come back, movies don&#8217;t really work that way. All in all, I throughly enjoyed the LOTR films, and of all the movies, ROTK definately benefitted the most from the extended edition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
