Rewatching the LOTR EEs

[Pellaeon 596]

54 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

I'm trying to think of movies that are genuine "single films" that were split into multiple parts.

 

The Three Musketeers / The Four Musketeers

[Bofur01 247]

15 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

It’s really more common in serialized films than one might think: Michael Bay does it in some of his Transformers films, it happens in Return of the Jedi (and in the special edition of Empire Strikes Back), Rogue One, and we just now learned it’s going to happen for Carrie Fisher in IX.

 

I’m not a fan, but here it’s infrequent enough that I can look past it. This series also uses much more nonlinear editing (try rearranging the farewell to Lorien sequence chronologically, I dare you) so you can defend it on that grounds, too.

 

What about in RotK, where that shot of an orc fighting is used twice: once in Osgiliath, and again in the streets of Minas Tirith - that always bugs me a lot 

[Jay 39,744]

15 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Michael Bay does it in some of his Transformers films,

 

http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?/topic/24031-michael-bay-reuses-footage-from-the-island-in-transformers-3/

[Marian Schedenig 9,147]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I think extreme close-ups are typical of indie directors: it helps get around all kinds of limitations (who needs a set when all we can see in the frame is the actor’s iris?) and it’s the type of shot that’s most imbued with character: it’s perceived as very artsy and stylized.

 

 

It's certainly been a staple of PJ's pre-LOTR work. It's part of what makes The Frighteners so positively campy. It does at times come across as a bit too much in the LOTRs.

 

The tilted wide angle shots when Theoden throws out Grima also feels like classic PJ. Although Aragorn so actively holding back Theoden (a king, after all) is another of those bothersome exaggerated to out of character proportions bits.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,440]

5 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

The tilted wide angle shots when Theoden throws out Grima also feels like classic PJ. Although Aragorn so actively holding back Theoden (a king, after all) is another of those bothersome exaggerated to out of character proportions bits.

 

The only issue i have with thaf scene is that even though Theoden is trying to kill Wormtongue, they retain dialogue from the book. "Send me not from your side!"

[Marian Schedenig 9,147]

10 hours ago, Stefancos said:

The only issue i have with thaf scene is that even though Theoden is trying to kill Wormtongue, they retain dialogue from the book. "Send me not from your side!"

 

Well, Theoden is a monarch, while Aragorn at that point is basically a nobody, especially to the king of Rohan. Physically assaulting the king, without warning, is probably punishable by death. He could talk to him. He could try to get in between Theoden and Grima. Or he could wait until the last moment and throw himself at the king and hold his sword arm in a "hey look, we're in a film so everything has to be extra cool" way.

 

No, it doesn't bother me much, but it's really unnecessary.

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

I'm not sure what the problem with "send me not from your side" is? Makes sense to me.  It's basically saying..."don't kill me".

 

I do think, however, that Aragorn's trying to protect Wormtongue seems inconsistent and out of character.  Theoden's a King, and it wouldn't be Aragorn's place to tell him that even if he wanted to...which I don't think he would. Aragorn doesn't strike me as the type to care whether Wormtongue lived or died. If anything, he'd understand the need for the latter. It's just an example of needing to service the plot for that moment (i.e. letting Grima get away).  

 

That said, it's not as egregious as say, Gandalf's murder of Denethor.

[Marian Schedenig 9,147]

52 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

I do think, however, that Aragorn's trying to protect Wormtongue seems inconsistent and out of character.  Theoden's a King, and it wouldn't be Aragorn's place to tell him that even if he wanted to...which I don't think he would. Aragorn doesn't strike me as the type to care whether Wormtongue lived or died. If anything, he'd understand the need for the latter. It's just an example of needing to service the plot for that moment (i.e. letting Grima get away).  

 

 

It's really just the manner of intervention that bothers me. I think it's justifiable for Aragorn, in slowly assuming his kingly responsibilities, to show compassion for Grima. (Or if not, it's more a matter of him not knowing Grima and only having heard of him a few minutes earlier). Of course, it would be more natural to just have Gandalf council Theoden against killing Grima. And if that takes away from Aragorn's overall active influence in the films, just don't take away his own decision to pursue the Paths of the Dead...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,440]

You really think Theoden was rash in his actions? A King may slay a servant justly, if proven untrue of heart.

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

At a minimum, Grima is a security threat...something that came back to haunt them at Helm's Deep.  

 

But that's not even the most immediate reason. In Tolkien's world attempting to kill a King would mean the death penalty.  Aragorn understood that. To say nothing of all the other damage Wormtongue already caused.  It's just inconceivable they'd let him go. There's really no other reason for it than Grima needed to get back to Saruman for plot purposes.

 

 

[Schilkeman 1,331]

On 29/07/2018 at 8:40 PM, Marian Schedenig said:

As some can deduce from the "favourite shots" thread, I re-watched the LOTR EEs earlier this week. I'd last seen them when the Blu-rays came out, so about seven years ago. I'd been excited to finally revisit them for a while, waiting for an opportunity when I would have time to watch all three films on consecutive nights. I wasn't necessarily fully in the mood for them this week and mainly watched them now because I knew I had the time, so that may have influenced my experience a bit.

 

Still, after such a long time, I was more ambivalent about them than I was used to. On the one hand, I was more receptive to their missteps than I'd been after my first viewings of each. At the same time, I still know much of them by heart, so there was nothing to positively surprise me, and not everything had as much impact as I'd expected.

 

Also, because I was more aware of their issues while still being so familiar with everything, I was bothered by some things I had barely noticed before. There's a shitload of out of context dialogue in these films, mostly expositional. And mostly it's even taken straight from Tolkien, only given to different characters in different situations that make you wonder why that specific character would say that specific thing now, or even be aware of it. The best visualisation of this is perhaps something that's always annoyed me: Faramir and his second in command discussing their strategy on a map of Gondor. Pointing to Osgiliath, Minas Tirith, Mordor - as if they'd even need a map to find them in the first place. And it's not even necessary for unfamiliar viewers, since the camera clearly shows those locations anyway without fingers pointing at them.

 

There are the other familiar issues - out of context humour that's meant to lighten the mood of grave or dark sequences, which by definition has the effect of at least partly destroying that mood (goofy young Hobbit antics, comic relief Gimli). Characters acting decidedly out of character, and in fact out of everything Tolkien's moral compass for these characters dictates (Gandalf striking Denethor and actively taking command of Minas Tirith from him, Aragorn beheading the Mouth of Sauron; Elves showing up for the defence of Helm's Deep - and then either all dying (all of them?) or going home instead of aiding in the crucial Pelennor battle). Sam letting Frodo send him home (!) from the edge of Mordor (!), then tripping and breaking his skull, but seeing the missing Lembas bundle and deducing (how?) that Gollum had betrayed him (as if he didn't know), then running after Frodo, which highlights the films' often confused sense of time. Character arcs being shortened so much that they become goofy rather than tragic (Denethor). Stuff being blown out of proportion just for an iconic shot (I still like the beacons sequence, but burning Denethor running across the entire top level of Minas Tirith and climbing the balustrade just to plummet to his death; Legolas's heroic feats that make you wonder why they need entire armies at all instead of just a handful of Elves; the Ents are played nearly entirely for comic relief without the melancholy, gravitas or enigmatic other-ness (in a non-"funny", non-"obviously wrong" way) of their book counterparts). Christopher Lee is a brilliant Saruman, but his portrayal as a sadist lunatic and ally of Sauron doesn't do the character (or the fundamental concept of the Istari) justice. I still applaud the decision of incorporating the Arwen plot into the films (and the fact that they ultimately refrained from making her a badass fighter character), but the confused handling of her (non-)decision to stay with Aragorn is neither in character nor convincing (and was also badly received by non Tolkien enthusiasts).

 

The thing is, most of these can be summed up as variations of the same basic problem: Characters acting not out of their character's motivation, but either the film's need to further a plot, or simply to entertain the audience (or lightening a mood that doesn't need lightening), i.e. characters being aware that they're in a film. And that's the most effective way to destroy any suspension of disbelief, regardless of whether the source material is something as intricate as a Tolkien story or not.

 

But despite all this, where the films are not hampered by these things, they still work. The cast is excellent, the story (when it's not dumbed down too much) is obviously strong, the editing is mostly good (though there repeatedly are spots where actors completely switch their facial expressions and apparent mood with one edit - probably due to the extensive post production changes to pretty much everything). The locations are still so spot on that I can't bring myself to believe that these are NOT the original Middle-earth locations from the stories, and that includes the biggatures. The effects, with the exception of frequent putting Legolas on top of other things CGI shots that never looked good even in the theatre, still hold up. The scores are obviously iconic, although there are times when less might have been more.

 

Another point that has always disappointed me is that a number of the books' most (at least to my mind) cinematic moments never made it into the films. Pippin's view of the Pelennor battle from afar being replaced by tons of exciting scenes from right inside the battle is not surprising (but considering that the battle goes ever on and on, hurts only more). Gandalf's "hour of doom" proclamation could easily have been an iconic moment of cinema and probably fell victim to the heavy intercutting between the storylines (which I think does take away a bit from the tension of the Mount Doom confrontation, given how - necessarily - uninvolving the Morannon battle is - though at least they came to their senses and didn't have Sauron battle Aragorn personally). I fully understand that sometimes (often) a film version of a story must make changes to the book to work - in fact, at least given the limited time in the films, I think they did well with Faramir (in the EE). But I strongly disagree that necessarily everything must be changed to adhere to established film conventions, especially if the book versions of certain scenes feel so cinematic that I can still picture them in my mind just like the first time I read them.

 

With my increased awareness of the numerous flaws, not every emotional scene hit home, but most of the big ones still do and still make me cry (and I mean not just tears but genuine near-sobbing). I just wish they could do that without me being increasingly annoyed in between them.

 

As Steef said in the other thread, they're beautifully shot, although (especially in TTT and ROTK) the rather hectic storytelling actually gets in the way and leaves many iconic locations without actually getting iconic shots. That's another thing I noticed for the first time: Never mind that the films last some 11 hours in total, they're actually too short for everything that's been crammed into them! Many important sequences that deserve enough time to make an emotional impact just fly by like a bit of exposition that has to be gotten out of the way. It doesn't help that after the lengthy TTT battle, the Pelennor battle in ROTK "had" to be even bigger and longer, taking up time that's missing for other stuff.

 

I guess it's not that the films haven't aged well. In fact, I think they mostly have. All their problems were just as problematic when they came out. Although back then they could compensate by showing stuff that had never been seen before. That technical amazement, which distracted from the flaws, is mostly gone now, though to the films' credit that mostly means that special effects which stood out as amazing effects are now just organic components that don't stand out anymore *because* they're still convincing.

 

But I've also always said that I hope someone will make another attempt at filming this story before long. Considering that many problems stem from having too much story to tell in too little time, having too many characters to properly portray all of them, having to constantly top a previous big battle with an even bigger one, perhaps the time is ripe for a TV adaptation. In fact, a sufficiently lengthy TV version could stick more closely to Tolkien's original structure (after all, having selected episodes take a break from the surrounding storyline to offer a standalone flashback or different perspective is a staple of contemporary TV) and thus do justice to some moments from the books that couldn't possibly have worked in the structure of the PJ films. Like, just as an example, the TTT cliffhanger at Cirith Ungol, the mere memory of which still has as much weight for me as any of the most effective moments in the films.

 

Obviously, given the rights situation, the still healthy merchandising and the upcoming spinoff (?) series on Amazon, a LOTR series isn't in the cards at this point. But perhaps in another ten or twenty years...

A million years late, but as I've spent a chunk of this year trying to come to terms with a trilogy I once thought damn near flawless, I agree with almost all of this. I had hoped my biggest issue, that the internal logic of the characters is often sacrificed for Big Moments and contrived drama, and which makes the series progressively worse, would be lessened by watching the PJ preferred theatrical cuts. I spent months refamiliarizing myself with them after two decades of the EE's. I think now what I thought when they came out: they feel claustrophobic and abstruse.

 

As someone who knew nothing of LotR when I first saw them, I thought at the time, and still do, that they simply don't do a good enough job of explaining themselves, the world, and what's going on. They need the space of the EE. I also disagree with Jackson's take that the theatricals are better films. The editing is breathless, and his love of extreme camera work has no respite without the added material. The plot progresses at breakneck speed in Fellowship, and coming from such a leisurely book, that's a real shame.

 

So I guess to conclude, I would say the EE's are the better versions of the films. They just happen to also contain, by way of a longer running time, more of the issues I have with them. I seem to have a natural inclination toward media purism, and try not to judge film adaptations solely on their relationship to the source material, but when the source material is one of the more profound works of the 20th century, it's hard not to come up short.

[TolkienSS 470]

How on earth does one need MONTHS to "refamiliarize" oneself with three movies?

They are what they are. Either you like them or you don't.

[Schilkeman 1,331]

26 minutes ago, TolkienSS said:

How on earth does one need MONTHS to "refamiliarize" oneself with three movies?

They are what they are. Either you like them or you don't.

That’s why I like about you. You take so much time and care with your posts. I can really tell you’ve thought something through, and are not, in fact, spewing the first wretched toxicant that oozes from the orifices of your pimpled mind.

[Stark 565]

I think the extended FOTR is the closest thing ever made to a perfect film and the only problem with it is the silly floating Elrond head. The others have very minor (but more) issues.

[bored 453]

2 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

That’s why I like about you. You take so much time and care with your posts. I can really tell you’ve thought something through, and are not, in fact, spewing the first wretched toxicant that oozes from the orifices of your pimpled mind.

 

Meanwhile, you casually spew something even more wretched and toxic out from your self-aggrandizing mind, and at the same time, making a basic grammatical error in your first sentence. A pimpled mind indeed.

[Chen G. 4,705]

Okay, maybe its time to cool it? 

 

Herr Schilkeman is clearly engaging in some heresy, but let's not burn him at the stake just yet!

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

Of course I disagree with most of what "Herr" @Schilkeman said.  I find The Fellowship of the Ring (10/10) to be about as close to perfect as a film can get, with The Two Towers (9.5/10) and The Return of the King (9/10) not far behind. No, the films are not the books, nor can they be.

 

That said, in JWFan's spirit of peace, brotherhood, fellowship and finding common ground I'll concede I do agree somewhat with this...

 

13 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

the internal logic of the characters is often sacrificed for Big Moments and contrived drama

 

This does happen a few times, mostly in ROTK, and it does feel contrived.  There are instances of characters doing or saying things that are done simply in service of the plot or to try to increase the dramatic tension. Which is fine, that's what characters do in a story, but it shouldn't be done in a way that's out of character.

 

I'm thinking of Frodo sending Sam away, and Sam abandoning Frodo. I'm thinking of Elrond tying Arwen's fate to that of the Ring in order to make the stakes "personal" for Aragorn. I'm thinking of Gandalf dejectedly saying at Minis Tirith that "it's only a matter of time" until Sauron captures and kills Frodo. None of these things are consistent with the characters as we've come to know them. In fact it bothers me when any of the main characters words are used as a vehicle to tell us how hopeless everything is. Exposition, when necessary, should be used to explain some plot point, not try to increase dramatic tension.

 

Then in TTT, Gandalf's bizarre and awful military advice that Theoden should "ride out and fight" the enemy. This argument between Gandalf, Aragorn and Theoden is done simply to bring the characters into conflict. But, in the way the events of Helm's Deep unfold in the movie, the whole argument about what to do make no sense except to create tension. And then it's Legolas and Gimli fretting, out loud, how hopless the cause at Helm's Deep is, and Aragorn yelling at them about it.

 

That said, these are small nitpicks, few and far between, to be sure, and for me don't take away from my enjoyment of these films at all. The Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece of literature and cinema, albeit in different ways.

[Chen G. 4,705]

I personally cannot concieve of myself being a fan of a series, had I thought that it peaked with its first entry and had effectivelly been snowballing ever since. The reason I clicked with Lord of the Rings was, I liked Fellowship, I liked Two Towers and then was utterly overwhelmed by The Return of the King.

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I personally cannot concieve of myself being a fan of a series, had I thought that it peaked with its first entry and had effectivelly been snowballing ever since

 

This is a weird take. Acknowledging ROTK's flaws means you can't be a fan of the series? So you can't imagine being a fan of The Hobbit if you thought it peaked with DoS and BotFA was flawed? Or Star Wars if you thought it peaked with Empire and Jedi was flawed?

 

Just because (as frankly most Tolkien fans do) people think FOTR is the best of those films, doesn't mean they can't adore the other two entries, and the series as a whole. There's a thing called being first among equals. And I have no idea what you mean by "snowballing". Do you have to like each subsequent entry in a series to be superior, or at least equal, to be a fan of the series?

 

But if I'm reading what you wrote incorrectly, please set me straight!

[Stark 565]

I would rate my liking of the trilogy to all be roughly equivalent (and only a smidge removed from the optimal amount of like that can be given to a piece of media) - that’s independent of my thinking Fellowship is a holistically better film.

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

20 minutes ago, Stark said:

I would rate my liking of the trilogy to all be roughly equivalent (and only a smidge removed from the optimal amount of like that can be given to a piece of media) - that’s independent of my thinking Fellowship is a holistically better film.

 

Indeed. And my small complaints about ROTK are just illustrative of how good the rest of the film and trilogy is. It's only because so much of the dialogue is often so well done and achingly beautiful, that the relatively weaker bits stand out like a sore thumb.

[Doo_liss 6,604]

4 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

 So you can't imagine being a fan of The Hobbit if you thought it peaked with DoS and BotFA was flawed? Or Star Wars if you thought it peaked with Empire and Jedi was flawed?

 

 

Neither DOS or Empire are first entries.

4 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

And I have no idea what you mean by "snowballing".

 

 

I assume he basically means "going downhill"

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

28 minutes ago, The Great Gonzales said:

Neither DOS or Empire are first entries.

 

In this case, that's a distinction without a difference. If you think the Star Wars saga peaked with ANH, found Empire slightly less satisfying, and Jedi somewhat flawed, you can still be a Star Wars fan, right?

 

28 minutes ago, The Great Gonzales said:

I assume he basically means "going downhill"

 

If I drink Bushmills after Jameson, my preferring Jameson doesn't mean I regard drinking Bushmills as going downhill. And it certainly doesn't preclude me being a fan of Irish whiskey.

[Doo_liss 6,604]

This is a difference: one was what he said, the other wasn't.

 

I don't agree with his point BTW.

[Schilkeman 1,331]

11 hours ago, bored said:

 

Meanwhile, you casually spew something even more wretched and toxic out from your self-aggrandizing mind, and, at the same time, make a basic grammatical error in your first sentence. A pimpled mind, indeed.

And what do three wrongs make? It was a spelling error. My grammar was impeccable.

 

9 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

That said, these are small nitpicks, few and far between, to be sure, and for me don't take away from my enjoyment of these films at all. The Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece of literature and cinema, albeit in different ways.

Conversely, I did genuinely enjoy your response. I don't often agree with you, but I can see where you're coming from. I find it harder to handwave away the things you mentioned, which is why I posted in the first place. I agree with you that FotR is the best. 

 

Théoden's actions, in particular, drive me nuts in TTT and RotK. The whole Arwen being tied to the ring thing seems to come from nowhere, and again, seems to exist for the drama of it. Generally, the lack of competency from any character who isn't Aragorn or Gandalf is in stark contrast to the books, where characters have much more nuance, and, for lack of a better word, reason, to their actions. I give Jackson a lot of credit as a filmmaker, but nuance is not a word I would associate with him. I think King Kong was really more his speed.

 

9 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I personally cannot concieve of myself being a fan of a series, had I thought that it peaked with its first entry and had effectivelly been snowballing ever since. The reason I clicked with Lord of the Rings was, I liked Fellowship, I liked Two Towers and then was utterly overwhelmed by The Return of the King.

It's weird, I had a very similar reaction to the trilogy for a long time. Something has shifted in my thinking the past couple of years. That's why I've spent so much time watching and thinking about this series. At one point, it was as vitally important to me as Star Wars and Star Trek. The books still are, but the movies have left me.

[Chen G. 4,705]

5 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

In this case, that's a distinction without a difference. If you think the Star Wars saga peaked with ANH, found Empire slightly less satisfying, and Jedi somewhat flawed, you can still be a Star Wars fan, right?

One can, but I personally would have a difficulty. The reason I’m a fan of Lord of the Rings rather than or Fellowship, let’s say, is precisely because I feel it gets better with each entry, not worse.

[TolkienSS 470]

It does.

I don't think people appreciate enough the sheer difference in SCOPE between Fellowship and Return Of The King.

The roadmovie Fellowship of the Ring turns into a history epic. I really think people don't appreciate that enough.

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

It’s a historical epic with massive SCOPE from the opening scene of the first of the three films. 

[Chen G. 4,705]

I think the correct distinction is that Fellowship of the Ring (as well as An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation of Smaug) are quest narratives; whereas The Two Towers, The Return of the King, The Battle of the Five Armies (and The War of the Rohirrim) are war dramas.

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

I'll buy that...but they're all historical epics, certainly The Lord of the Rings. One of the first, fundamental and smartest things Jackson did was decide to treat, and film, the material that way.

[TolkienSS 470]

3 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

It’s a historical epic with massive SCOPE from the opening scene of the first of the three films. 

 

That's a short, very distant flashback. "Forgotten" history as the prologue says. 

There is nothing in Fellowship to indicate the scope the trilogy would eventually have for non-book readers.

[bored 453]

Well the fact that Sauron's returning through the ring implies that another massive battle like that will likely take place, plus the Isengard Uruk-Hai being born arguably does too. Though I do agree it never gets to the scope of the other two, and there is definitely a build across the series.

[Chen G. 4,705]

32 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

One of the first, fundamental and smartest things Jackson did was decide to treat, and film, the material that way.

 

That, and the decision to rely on the works of Lee, Howe and to a lesser extent Nasmith and Bakshi.

 

Perhaps no other decision made the films as perennial as that, because if you read the books, anytime between the late 1980s and today, you're going to have that Lee-Howe-Nasmith look in your head and its...well, its essentially the look of the films.

[Jay 39,744]

In the first 30 minutes of the movie Gandalf is worried about Sauron covering the entire world in darkness.  The stakes are set.

[Bilbo 3,860]

The Lord of the Rings Film Trilogy is better than everything! 

[Jay 39,744]

Yes.

[Chen G. 4,705]

No, no, no, no. When you're looking for melodramatic superlatives for a great work of art...you need look no further than the Wagnerians:

 

"'It took more skill to plan and make it than it took to plan and write the whole canon of Shakespeare." - H.L. Mencken

 

"The greatest accomplishment of any artist in any form of human endeavour whatsoever" - Paderewski

 

"The true opus metaphysicum of the whole of art" - Nietzsche

 

"It contains the Height, – the Depth, – the Breadth, – the Sweetness, – the Sorrow, – the Best and the whole for the Best of This world and the Next." - Elgar

 

"‘Dwarfs every other creation save perhaps [Beethoven’s] Ninth." - Britten

 

"Before it we are all mandolinists!" - Puccini

 

"I still cannot quite comprehend that it was conceived and written by a human being."  - Verdi

 

"one of the finest creations that has ever issued from a human mind." - Verdi

 

"The very peak of romanticism" - Mann

 

“Decidedly the finest thing I know” - Debussi

 

 

All apply here. 

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

The stakes are set.

 

The pieces are moving.

 

28 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

Star Trek

Star Wars

James Bond

Indiana Jones

The Lord of the Rings Film Trilogy

...is better than everything! 

 

FINALLY, someone gets this right! 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,440]

On 07/10/2024 at 3:32 PM, TolkienSS said:

How on earth does one need MONTHS to "refamiliarize" oneself with three movies?

They are what they are. Either you like them or you don't.

 

You obviously do not understand these works of art very well

[Chen G. 4,705]

[Jurassic Shark 13,351]

On 07/10/2024 at 5:39 PM, Stark said:

I think the extended FOTR is the closest thing ever made to a perfect film and the only problem with it is the silly floating Elrond head. The others have very minor (but more) issues.

 

How to say you've never seen Casablanca without saying you've never seen Casablanca. 

 

On 07/10/2024 at 7:43 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

None of these things are consistent with the characters as we've come to know them.

 

But the thing about real characters is that they sometimes say things that are out of character. 

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

But the thing about real characters is that they sometimes say things that are out of character. 

 

Yes. But we're talking about a movie, Jurassic Shark. A movie. You see, these characters aren't real. 

 

And FOTR is indeed a nearly perfect movie. Casablanca and the luminescent Ilsa Lund are perfect (sadly, she's not real either). 

[Jurassic Shark 13,351]

7 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

You see, these characters aren't real. 

 

You just have to believe hard enough. 

 

8 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Casablanca and the luminescent Ilsu Lund are perfect

 

Ilsa, please.

[Schilkeman 1,331]

6 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Casablanca and the luminescent Ilsa Lund are perfect (sadly, she's not real either). 

Indeed. My favorite movie of all time.

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

2 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

Indeed. My favorite movie of all time.

And mine friend! And mine.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,440]

The Fellowship Of The Ring, the theatrical edition is one of the best films ever made. 

 

The other two ultimately are better served by their extended versions.

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

2 hours ago, #SnowyVernalSpringsEternal said:

The Fellowship Of The Ring, the theatrical edition is one of the best films ever made. 

 

Agreed. It's probably my second favourite film of all time...in both versions.

 

Especially in the theatrical version, I think The Fellowship of the Ring is the least "Peter Jackson" of all Peter Jackson's films. It has a restraint and subtlety in it that's missing from most of his other work. 

[Jay 39,744]

7 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 I think The Fellowship of the Ring is the least "Peter Jackson" of all Peter Jackson's films. It has a restraint and subtlety in it that's missing from most of his other work.

 

Yes!

[Chen G. 4,705]

I actually feel that in some respects its the opposite: Jackson himself admits some of the earliest parts of the movie are ones where was still shooting in a more indie style characteristic of his early work. I'm thinking especially all the closeups from the beginning of the film right through the Bree sequence.

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

On 11/10/2024 at 2:50 PM, Chen G. said:

I actually feel that in some respects its the opposite: Jackson himself admits some of the earliest parts of the movie are ones where was still shooting in a more indie style characteristic of his early work. I'm thinking especially all the closeups from the beginning of the film right through the Bree sequence.

 

Hmmmm. Well somehow subtlety and restraint are not words I'd associate with Jackson's early work.  Even the fabulous Heavenly Creatures, which is arguably his best pre-LOTR film.

 

Why does the barrel fight and basically everything Legolas does in The Hobbit look more like the MCU than LOTR? Do you think this was intentional on Jackson's part to appeal to that audience?