Lord of the rings: Return of the king

This is getting worse and some posters should start thinking about how they view life before using the term homoerotic. It's one thing saying you saw signs of a gay relationship in the portrail, it's another to imply that homosexuals would find this homoerotic i.e. gay porn.

I'm sorry but I think some have missed the point completely. Hobbits are not human, that are desribed as having a child like innocence. It's like saying M Jackson is a peado becuase he can't see anything wrong with sleeping with children through his Peter Pan eyes. Yes, we see it as wrong because we don't view life through the eyes of a ten year old. So you have to view the hobbits through the eyes of child, remebering that the books where written for children.
 
Yer but M Jackson is a paedo. ;)

I didn't find the scenes homo-erotic at all, I just thought Sam was a gentle hero, whereas Frodo was his weaker master (maybe the ring caused this)

I can't help but comment on how my attention was taken for the last half hour on the scale of the characters, it must have been a bit of a bitch for the film makers to keep having to film shots with body doubles and from various angles just so Sam can be half the size of gandalf, when in truth he is just as tall. Kinda stupid the things that distract you during a film, but this was one of them :rolleyes:
 
The first film was just as distracting. Perhaps we forget that the Hobbits spend all of there time in the Two Towers away from humans and so the problem dosn't arise?
Also perhaps we become less tolerant as we start to expect better as the Trilogy progresses. Unfortunately the live action scenes where all filmed together so that the same techniques of scaling used in part one would be used in part three. Only the digital special effects got the time to develop over the three films.
 
I think what PJ and his team have achieved in the full 3 film set is a magnificent depiction of Middle Earth - which I never thought would be possible outside of an animated feature.

The whole production was obviously put together by people who care about the story n characters and whilst many of the points raised here are valid criticisms the overall impression of LOTR is quite freakn AWESOME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cool:
 
I always felt that after Star Wars episode 1 that anything was possibly, cost permitting.

This could be the film that makes TV battles become unwatchable. It has often been said that the quality of the Star Wars films upped the anty for Sc-fI and eventually killed off, sorry, retired Dr Who. Well I recently watched the Boudica TV film with it battles scenes with 20 a side and all I could do was laugh. It did look they where using some modern technologyfor the long shots, but they didn't merge with the close-ups. Nothing like the Mt Doom battle in the prologue where the line of computer generated elves merged seamlessly with the actors as the Orcs first reach the line.
 
That is your own small mindedness implying that... Homoerotic simply means "concerning homosexual love and desire." and I personally think this film shows the two lead Hobbits to have quite an ambiguous line between the frienRABhip and relationship between them.



M. Jackson has nothing to do with this. Thats the relationship between and man and a child, the Hobbits are capable of sexual relationships and feelings, which is evident as Sam eventually gets married and children.

To suggest that they are child-like in their innocence so they don't have sexual relationships is quite simply incorrect.

The relationship between Sam and Frodo in the book and the movie are different. In the movie it is very much a frienRABhip to begin with, then it moves onto a bond of love that is blurred between frienRABhip or otherwise. In the book the relationship is a completely master-servant one. They have altered the relationship in the movie, so any application of the books sentiment has to be ignored.

People don't seem to seperate the movie and book into two seperate things. The story of the movie might be JRR Tolkien's but the screenplay and direction of Peter Jackson along with the co-writing Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens is going to differ from the feeling that each person gets out of the book as its their view of how the book reaRAB with their own modernisational ideas applied.

So I believe the ambiguous nature of Sam and Frodo's relationship is there to see and has been by many people, and for people to question that is completely valid
 
My point was that seeing a "sexual" aspect in something depenRAB on the the watcher/reader. M Jackson has the mind of a child and see thing's differently. Children never thought Big Ears and Noddy where gay lovers despite sleeping together, yet many adults complained that this was suggested. How much you read into the Sam/Frodo relationship be it book, or film, is down to you, although in the film you also have PJ direction to deal with.

I find it strange that those seeing "gayness" in the portrail should then argue a innocent interpretation for the word "erotic".
Just as the word "gay" no longer has the non-sexual meaning of 100 years ago, the word "erotic" has been takon over by the porn industry.
 
Back
Top