11. That's a pretty easy one, the bridge was unstable after being split in half and no one with any common sense would run out to try and grab him with risk of the rest of the bridge collapsing. Also, the point that Doug brings up about not wanting to get shot by the orcs chasing them is a much more valid point than I think he's giving credit for.
10. I agree with him on this one, it's not the "number" of endings that's the problem - the audience needed closure on all of these storylines after three films - it's just the way they're edited together.
Far too many fade-to-blacks, the reference to Clue was fucking great.
9. I've never minded Gimli's comic relief moments, I think he was a nice contrast to the self-seriousness of Aragorn and Legolas. Sure, a lot of the humor around him was a bit lame, but hardly worth getting upset over. Besides, his character wasn't incompetent when it mattered.
8. This I agree with as well, albeit only to a degree. We never get the impression that Legolas is ever in any real peril. That said, these are fantasy movies. If you're going to show me an epic battle sequence, don't just show me stuff I can see in a zillion other historical epics; get creative and use the material to your advantage. You have elves and 50-foot elephants? Hell
yes I want to see them fight head-to-head. But yeah, he was a little too perfect.
7. Meh, the number of close-up shots never really occurred to me.
6. Yep, Denethor was really simplified for the films. He was just constantly pissed and screaming at everything. His death was also made out to be far more ridiculous in the film (in the books he just dies on the fire, none of that getting up and running silliness).
5. With the exception of the Aragorn fake-out death from The Two Towers, all of those others were in the books.
4. As Doug mentions, this whole thing with Arwen dying was another invention of Jackson & Co. It serves no real purpose other than to add more drama. So yeah, it doesn't make any sense.
3. This is where Doug is a bit off. Sam and Frodo's relationship isn't meant to show just "friendship", it's supposed to mirror the bond that forms between soldiers on the battlefield (Tolkien was a WWI veteran), specifically the bond that grows between a British officer and his batman (assistant). Although I agree that a lot of their dialogue is pretty cheesy at times, a lot of it straight from the book - so I can't get too upset about it.
2. Yep, this is definitely a big gripe that fans have with RotK. Saruman never gets a big payoff.
He does in the books, but that would have added another hour to run-time, so it's understandable why that particular moment was cut. However, even Christopher Lee was saddened that his death was cut from the theatrical version.
1. Saw this one coming from a mile away. I am
so tired of having to explain the eagles to people that I don't even bother anymore. People don't
really want to know why the eagles couldn't just solve everything immediately, because if they'd did they need only do a quick Google search to find out and this would never need to be brought up again. I completely agree that the films could have one or two expository lines of dialogue that completely explain why the eagles can't just fix everything themselves. But at this point I'm over people complaining about this (although it didn't help when they appeared in The Hobbit and started this debate all over again). Doug can bemoan the explanations that people have come up with all he wants, but it doesn't make them any less valid.
