Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhettzky
You don't need to read the book because the point was that the Eagles saved them in both. You may need to read the books to understand why the eagles didn't fly them all over the place as their personal chauffeurs but that's only to satisfy Mr. Coffee's gripe about them, not fill a plot hole. Plus it wouldn't really answer that anyways.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AR_Six
There are a lot of things that require more explanation than you have time for in a movie. There were plenty of different ideas about how to deal with the ring that got shot down in Rivendell before they settled on Frodo taking it. My favourite was someone suggesting they just give it to Tom Bombadil, before someone points out that he wouldn't understand what it was for and would probably just lose it.
|
Alright (second, apparently) last post, because I know it's pretty annoying when you like a movie and somebody goes and trashes the crap out of it, but I can't let this go.
But obviously the eagles (the real heroes) were a vital plot hole, because it's been brought up several times by a majority of posters on this site, not to mention a parody trailer and / or article or three all over the internet. Fact of the matter is that when your protagonist is saved through flight, after hiking for 15 hours of film, people are going to ask the simple questions. I don't think it would take Nostradamus foresight to determine that viewers may wonder this point. The eagles thing, largely explained on here that the reason they don't just finish the adventure quite easily is some kind of unexplained arrangement or "logic" (if the eye can't see Frodo, why would it see the birds and furthermore, if the eye doesn't assume the birds are working against it, why would it know they have the ring but whatever).
Basically, bottom line is that when something as obvious as the eagles flying in and saving the hero is left unexplained as to the ultimate goal of the adventure, the normal reaction of the viewer is to question "well, but why?", and Jackson does himself no favours by fortifying the viewers confusion by subsequently having a little bird fly to the mountain at the end.
Finally, the argument that there is only so much time to tell a story, that's BS too because a) somehow other movies explain stories and b) why waste so much useless screen time on random unexplained scenes when you have a story to tell.
AR, I tend to generally agree with you on the riddles in the dark scene, I agree the acting was great. My only complaint was like I said, it dragged on and on and on and on.