FAO Geoff! Let the LotR debate begin!

[The Curious Squid]

The Fellowship of the Ring

The Fellowship of the Ring is, in my opinion, the best Lord of the Rings movie of the trilogy, the reason for this is that it sticks closest to the book and the characters, with some minor exceptions, are all relatively well portrayed. I can watch Fellowship and not get angry like I do when "The Two Towers" or "Return of the King" are on.

That having been said, the movie manages to drag in something awful whilst miraculously managing to rush the story at a stupendously fast rate. You get no feel for the scope of the book or even the size of Middle-Earth.

The main come back to this is that there is too much source material to fit into the movie BUT Peter Jackson adds in so much unnecessary shit with Arwen (Liv Tylor) and Elrond (Hugo Weaving) that turns the film into a soppy love story instead of the adventure/journey that it's supposed to be.

The other thing that really pisses me off is the way Jackson intentionally leaves out action scenes (like the scene with the wolves outside Moria or the Nazgul above the Anduin), The only reason I can think of for him doing this is so that the first movie is a lot less 'magical' that the others making them seem more grand and epic by comparison.

The other thing he does is over simplify characters, He makes Merry and Pippin in to the fucking Chuckle Brothers when they're both quite intelligent in the book and goes to great lengths to make Gimli annoying so that people can get enjoyment from watching bad things happen to him in the later two movies. Add to that the fact that he makes every battle unwinable then magics a resolve out his ass from nowhere each time (like the Elves in Helms Deep or the ground cracking open to swallow the Orcs at the Morranan) when the pitted odds they had in the book were bad enough.

In short, He did a great job of making it look good but he just didn't have an eye for the story or feel of the film and the trilogy suffer because of it, granted, changes needed to be made in the adaptation from book to movie, just not the ones he chose.

I need to watch the other two again before I go into depth as to why they were shit.

[edited to correct title, freudian slip]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have just watched FotR again, just yesterday. In my opinion, it's a story about the world that Tolkien created, and is probably best viewed from that perspective.

[klr]

The Fellowship of the Ring

The Fellowship of the Ring is, in my opinion, the best Lord of the Rings movie of the trilogy, the reason for this is that it sticks closest to the book and the characters, with some minor exceptions, are all relatively well portrayed. I can watch Fellowship and not get angry like I do when "The Two Towers" or "Return of the King" are on.

That having been said, the movie manages to drag in something awful whilst miraculously managing to rush the story at a stupendously fast rate. You get no feel for the scope of the book or even the size of Middle-Earth.

Before the movies were made, I had done a ballpark calculation: LOTR has 62 chapters. Say 30 minutes of screen time for each chapter (obviously there are all sorts of complex issues around weaving together the parallel story lines that were told separately in the book). You can leave out some chunks of some chapters, but against that there is some very important material in the appendices. So you would probably need 30 hours running time (minimum) to do the book proper justice. The combined running time of even the extended versions is still well short of half that.

I got the impression myself that some of the 'extra' bits were brought in to help compensate for some of the large cuts that were made.

For me, one of the most glaring issues was that the pace was far too fast at times (and far too slow in others).

The main come back to this is that there is too much source material to fit into the movie BUT Peter Jackson adds in so much unnecessary shit with Arwen (Liv Tylor) and Elrond (Hugo Weaving) that turns the film into a soppy love story instead of the adventure/journey that it's supposed to be.

Agreed. There was a time and a place for that, and it was on the (digital) cutting floor. It represents an important subtext/backdrop to the main story, but it was completely overplayed IMHO.

The other thing that really pisses me off is the way Jackson intentionally leaves out action scenes (like the scene with the wolves outside Moria or the Nazgul above the Anduin), The only reason I can think of for him doing this is so that the first movie is a lot less 'magical' that the others making them seem more grand and epic by comparison.

The other thing he does is over simplify characters, He makes Merry and Pippin in to the fucking Chuckle Brothers when they're both quite intelligent in the book and goes to great lengths to make Gimli annoying so that people can get enjoyment from watching bad things happen to him in the later two movies.

Agreed, but this is again a consequence of the medium, and the lack of time. As for Gimli, I couldn't rid myself of the idea that Jackson et al were taking the piss a bit at Tolkien's depiction of Dwarfs.

Add to that the fact that he makes every battle unwinable then magics a resolve out his ass from nowhere each time (like the Elves in Helms Deep or the ground cracking open to swallow the Orcs at the Morranan) when the pitted odds they had in the book were bad enough.

Yes, I would have much preferred to see the final battle represented properly . Does the Mouth Of Sauron make an appearance in the extended version I wonder? That should definitely have been left in.

In short, He did a great job of making it look good but he just didn't have an eye for the story or feel of the film and the trilogy suffer because of it, granted, changes needed to be made in the adaptation from book to movie, just not the ones he chose.

I need to watch the other two again before I go into depth as to why they were shit.

You know that he is planning to adapt The Hobbit as well, with as much of the same cast as he can manage? And it's going to be in two parts, which is odd because it's obviously a single-movie book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_film_duology

And finally, you might get a chuckle out of some of these:

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/theories.htm

[Fanny]

My opinion is that the LoTR movies were not gay enough.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Does the Mouth Of Sauron make an appearance in the extended version I wonder? That should definitely have been left in.

The Mouth makes one appearance in the EXT version.

[Trolldor]

My opinion is that the LoTR movies were not gay enough.

I agree.

They set up this twenty hour long sequence of the growing relationship between Sam and Frodo and it goes nowhere!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My opinion is that the LoTR movies were not gay enough.

IMHO, Hugo Weaving covered that nicely.

[klr]

Does the Mouth Of Sauron make an appearance in the extended version I wonder? That should definitely have been left in.

The Mouth makes one appearance in the EXT version.

Which I've never seen, hence my uncertainty. I suppose I could go out and buy them on the cheap by now, but I prefer to keep a small movie collection.

BTW, I could start a right royal fight here by saying that Ralph Bashki did a better job of transferring some of the 'feel' of the book onto the screen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_o ... 1978_film)

... or maybe I was just very young and impressionable when I saw it.

My opinion is that the LoTR movies were not gay enough.

I agree.

They set up this twenty hour long sequence of the growing relationship between Sam and Frodo and it goes nowhere!

Priscilla, Queen of the Desert it certainly wasn't.

EDIT:

My opinion is that the LoTR movies were not gay enough.

IMHO, Hugo Weaving covered that nicely.

Snap! Now, why was I thinking of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert in the first place I wonder?

[Fanny]

If Haldir was an elf, I'm Orlando Bloom.

That guy had been on the KFC far too long. That's why he croaked it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Which I've never seen, hence my uncertainty. I suppose I could go out and buy them on the cheap by now, but I prefer to keep a small movie collection.

See the EXT version, it's worth it.

BTW, I could start a right royal fight here by saying that Ralph Bashki did a better job of transferring some of the 'feel' of the book onto the screen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_o ... 1978_film)

... or maybe I was just very young and impressionable when I saw it.

I really, really, really hated the Samwise character in Bakshi films.

[Fanny]

Which I've never seen, hence my uncertainty. I suppose I could go out and buy them on the cheap by now, but I prefer to keep a small movie collection.

See the EXT version, it's worth it.

BTW, I could start a right royal fight here by saying that Ralph Bashki did a better job of transferring some of the 'feel' of the book onto the screen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_o ... 1978_film)

... or maybe I was just very young and impressionable when I saw it.

I really, really, really hated the Samwise character in Bakshi films.

Yeah and Bakshi's Gollum was far too much like Kenneth Williams in Carry on <insert whichever here>.

[klr]

Which I've never seen, hence my uncertainty. I suppose I could go out and buy them on the cheap by now, but I prefer to keep a small movie collection.

See the EXT version, it's worth it.

BTW, I could start a right royal fight here by saying that Ralph Bashki did a better job of transferring some of the 'feel' of the book onto the screen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_o ... 1978_film)

... or maybe I was just very young and impressionable when I saw it.

I really, really, really hated the Samwise character in Bakshi films.

Yeah and Bakshi's Gollum was far too much like Kenneth Williams in Carry on <insert whichever here>.

I will also state in my defence that I hadn't actually read the book at that point (although I knew more than a few details about it). And character representation and development aren't the sort of things that a 14-year old zones in on ...

[Geoff]

Oh goody!

OK, first off, although I agree that FOTR was the best of the three (and TTT the worst) I always consider them all as one film (to rule them all). Also, I've never seen the cinema version since the first time I saw it/them (in the cinema...) so it's probably fair to say I don't remember all their faults - in contrast I've watched the extended versions many times, with all the different commentaries.

Sure, it has its faults for a "purist", but you have to remember it was also aimed at people who hadn't read the book, so a compromise had to be made. I objected to Arwen's role at the time (especially when she turned up instead of Glorfindel), but I can see the attraction (to some) of having a stronger female role (same argument applies to Eowyn, later).

Paco, I disagree with you about Merry & Pippin, too; sure they start off as "the Chuckle Brothers", but that's consistent with the book, and shows how they develop throughout the quest. Their setting off the fireworks is straight from the book, as is Pippins "Fool of a Took" moment in Moria, and the humour in their time with the Ents.

Even 12 hours or so total running time is too short to do the book justice, as klr says, but i think Jackson (and Fran & Phillipa) did an excellent job in getting very little wrong, and an awful lot right.

[The Curious Squid]

The BBC radiocast was also around 13 hours long and it was infinitely better why couldn't the film have used that as a starting point?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The BBC radiocast was also around 13 hours long and it was infinitely better why couldn't the film have used that as a starting point?

Because Peter Jackson didn't want to.