Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: The Lord Of The Rings

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> RE: The Lord Of The Rings Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 7/5/2007 12:04:26 PM   
TheGreatEye


Posts: 1476
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: King_Bard

quote:

ORIGINAL: curtain twitcher

quote:

ORIGINAL: King_Bard

i hope your not calling me a knob for expressing my view....if you are your being a knob yourself....

No no, you said why you didn't like it and that's fair enough, it was The Great Eye and darth Silas.Sorry dude, didn't mean to piss you off or nowt. They didn't really say why they hated it, they just came out and said it and that always really pisses me off when people don't give reasons as to why they don't like a film. It's not hard, i don't understand why people do that.....


oh........now i feel really stupid .....soz if  i was a bit mean

Surely you didn't think someone with my username would actually dislike LOTR? I was taking the piss! FOTR is the greatest freakin film ever

(in reply to King_Bard)
Post #: 91
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 11/5/2007 12:16:26 AM   
Harry Lime


Posts: 5147
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: doncopey1

Seriously has a better trilogy ever been made?

 
It is indeed spectacular but Ray's Apu Trilogy, Fords Cavalry trilogy and Coppola's Godfather trilogy are all superior, in my opinion.

Still. Jackson's three The Lord Of The Rings films are a huge and impressive achievement. Not perfect. Heavily flawed, in fact. However, the sheer scope of Jackson's vision is breathtaking and the verve and passion he breathes into the films is extraordinary. However, because of the scale of the novels he is adapting, Jackson inevitably simplifies the stories themes and paints them with broader brushstrokes. More and more so as the trilogy progresses

As such, The Fellowship Of The Ring is by far the best of the trilogy. An exquisitely paced epic that, when called for, delivers some genuinely roistering action but, most importantly, offers the richest thematic seams of the entire saga… Or at least the most incise and profound mining of them. Heroism, friendship, loyalty, love, duty, greed, weakness, strength, corruption, loss of innocence. Jackson’s ambitious sweeping vision embraces the very core of man’s imperfect nature and, as the quest comes up against each new challenge, uses them to both test and forge the bonds that hold the fellowship together.

Jackson sets the scene intelligently; making it impossible to ignore the parallels between the brewing battle for Middle Earth and the Second World War from the very start. The bloody history of both the ring and Middle Earth is laid out in an outstanding opening sequence before cutting to the rustic, idyllic environment of the Shire. The storm clouds are evidently gathering and, as soon as the nature of the ring is confirmed, the film really begins. For what The Fellowship Of The Ring is, above anything, is a breathless chase movie; the fearsome Black Riders relentlessly hunting down the Hobbits and their companions as they firstly attempt to bring the ring to safety and then after they choose to destroy it. Indeed, it is only in the final moments that the tables suddenly turn.

Maybe because of the more linear nature of The Fellowship Of The Ring, Jackson’s direction and pacing seems most assured here. The characters are introduced neatly and given enough time to bed in whilst the natural drive that takes the protagonists from Hobbiton to Bree to Rivendell to onwards to Mordor keeps the story ticking over nicely as it happens. The truly huge action sequences don’t arrive until Part Two but the skirmishes in the opener are exciting, fierce and extremely well edited… Cut with a pace that sits perfectly with the rest of the film as a whole. The movies big sequence in the Mines of Moria stands as one of the very highlights of the trilogy. The claustrophobic last stand against the orcs and the cave troll giving way to a desperate flight from the ferocious Balrog.

Even the ending sits right; the sense of defeated despair of the finals last quarter finally shifting into a mood of low-key hope and reinvigorated determination. A great set-up for what was to follow.

The Two Towers, for all its flaws (and it has many), is both engrossing and exhilarating. Where most middle sections tend to sag, the second instalment here cranks proceedings up to a frantic pace. Well, as frantic as a four hour epic can be!

This time around the tables have turned; the hunted of the first film become the hunters here. As such we have Sam and Frodo labouring towards the gates of Mordor whilst Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli start the film giving chase to the orcs that have captured Merry and Pippin. Later comes the rally to arms. An urgency to face the Uruk-hai of Saruman head on before the resolve of Man dissipates before it has even He has issued his first battle cry.

The World War Two parallels are even more apparent here. The industrialisation of the war machine tearing the trees from their very roots. The fractured aims and mistrust of the allies in the face of a great evil. The poisoned words of the Machiavellian Grima Wormtongue rendering Théoden impotent. Even the Urak-hai themselves are a master-race of Saruman’s own creation. If Sauron is the Hitler figure of The Lord Of The Rings then Saruman is very much a Mussolini. Taking these themes even further, is it really that hard not to see the rest of Middle Earth as a metaphor for the political and social conditions of Britain? The Hobbits representative of an honest agricultural based England that had been more and more forgotten, the dwarves as the workers in this Industrial age and The Elves the upper-class elite whose time is passing and power waning, It must not be forgotten that the age of Man was not only dawning upon Middle Earth when Tolkein began to weave his tale.

But I digress!

Technically, The Two Towers is a fine bridge between its counterparts. Less measured and sure footed than its predecessor but with such a head of steam that it glides over most of the more ugly bumps. The splitting of the fellowship causes some problems with Jackson sometimes struggling to keep all the various story strands in control as he tries to maintain the films dynamic and momentum. On the whole he succeeds. The much vaunted introduction of Gollum creates a new dynamic in the odyssey of Sam and Frodo; giving this strand a much needed shot in the arm that just about sustains it into the next film. Similarly, the rallying of Rohan is well-handled throughout; the character of Théoden emerging from a catatonic impotence into one of the most interesting characters of the whole saga. Aragorn’s growing acceptance of his destiny also simmers up a very welcoming notch.

On the downside, the characters of both Gimli and Legolas slump even further into almost superfluous comic relief territory whilst the adventures of Merry, Pippin and Treebeard in Fanghorn Forest drag immensely before a merciful resolution is eventually offered. Similarly, although she seizes her chance to shine in the final chapter, Eowyn is ill-served by her besotted eye-candy purpose here. What is more, another two “he’s not really dead” moments see this device begin to wear extremely thin.

However, what matters most in The Two Towers is the action. And in that sense it more than delivers. When it finally comes, the march of the Ents upon Isengard is a great sequence; the bursting of the dam in particular. However, it is the siege of Helm’s Deep that stands as the ultimate highpoint of not only this film but of the entire trilogy. An outstanding sequence that is as ferocious as it is intense. The competition between Gimli and Legolas hits a slightly bum-note but apart from this there can be few cinematic sequences that have come so close to showing the brutality of close quarters slaughter and irresistible force of near-medieval battle. The first sight of the oncoming masses is terrifying, the explosive breaching of the walls is a stunning moment and the last honour and glory charge of Aragorn and Théoden is incredibly rousing. The dawn arrival of Gandalf and the riders of Rohan, sun rising at their backs, is the kind of moment that cinema was made for.

Unfortunately, in comparison, The Return Of The King does disappoint somewhat. The final chapter seeing Jackson’s direction become rather heavy handed as he increasingly signposts themes to the point where he is virtually patronising his audience (a major flaw of King Kong also). Likewise, he overboils the sentiment to the most saccharine levels in order to achieve yet another “moment”, panders to almost every cliché in the book (soft focus reunion, longing looks, crass moments of derring-do, etc) and he clumsily allows Howard Shore's breathtaking score that has served so well in the previous two instalments to become over bearing and intrusive.

The performances are hardly the greatest aspect throughout the saga (Orlando Bloom, Jonathon Rhys Davies, Christopher Lee the worst offenders) yet it is in Return Of The King where the more crucial performers of McKellan and Mortensen start to flag somewhat. Of course, there are redeeming features (Bernard Hill and Miranda Otto are terrific whilst Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan finally shine) but on the whole most of the cast struggle with the emotional key changes throughout the film. Especially in the touchy-feely last hour.

The script isn’t too bad dialogue-wise (although there are, of course, some inevitably clunky lines) but it is more that Jackson finally loses control of all his narrative threads that started to unravel with The Two Towers. Of course, this is partly due to the disbandment of the fellowship on their separate ways but it is also partly due the directors somewhat dot-to-dot style of film making and his inability to bring all of his strands of storyline under control at once. Just like the Eye Of Sauron struggles to focus on his fractured enemies throughout the trilogy, so too does Jackson too. The Extended Editions certainly do go some way to rectifying this but the problem is still very much apparent even when watching those.

That’s not to say that The Return Of The King is a disaster. Far from it. It’s not even a poor film. There are some truly great moments in fact. The lighting of the beacons is a moment of pure epic majesty. The siege of the magnificently realised city of Minas Tirith is almost as resounding as that of Helms Deep. The Ride of the Rohirrim is absolutely blistering. One of my favourite moments of the entire trilogy! Yet these moments are fewer and farther between here; giving way to the tedious (and badly acted) Denethor-Faramir sub-plot and the increasingly arduous (and increasingly ludicrous) march towards Mount Doom of Frodo and Sam. After the all-too-abrupt ending of The Battle Of Pellenor Fields, the film just loses its remaining fluidity and simply shudders to it’s climax.

I can see why those who were more invested in the story than myself might find The Return Of The King rousing. It gives them the generic cliché Hollywood ending(s) that audiences expect and it does it as well as anything since Star Wars. However, for me, the trilogy ran out of steam in its final third and left me somewhat dissatisfied.

In many ways The Lord Of The Rings reminds me of a great warship. It looks great at full steam and is immense in battle. It’s just that it takes three miles for it to lumber to a stop…

The Fellowship Of The Ring5
The Two Towers 4.5
The Return Of The King3.5

Overall – 4.3

_____________________________

"People think I have an interesting walk. Hell, I'm just trying to hold my gut in."

If I get there early will it be the right time
our heaven is just waiting so put your hand into mine.

(in reply to doncopey1)
Post #: 92
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 11/5/2007 5:12:29 AM   
Gimli The Dwarf


Posts: 77562
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo
What a fantasic review, Mr Lime. Brilliant. I agree and disageree with various aspects in equal amounts but that's a truly great review of these films.


_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to Harry Lime)
Post #: 93
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 11/5/2007 11:09:27 AM   
BobM70


Posts: 958
Joined: 29/12/2005
Teriffic post! Mr. Lime! It's so good I almost would (re)watch the films. Almost.
I have tried to watch 'em all but I failed. I wrestled my self thru the Fellowship and my Gawd...what an ordeal that second one was! So I swore I would never watch these films ever again.
But this review is very, very good. I wish more people would view films like this: objective, passionate and on the right side of bragging.

One of the best reviews I have read on these forums.


Bob


_____________________________

It's not how long it takes, it's who's taking you...

(in reply to Harry Lime)
Post #: 94
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 11/5/2007 12:34:02 PM   
ElephantBoy

 

Posts: 8410
Joined: 13/4/2006
In short The Fellowship is just about a life changing Master piece and is perfect,  The Twin Towers is not as great but does have some truly epic and scary fight scenes and Return of the King is good up to a point but is over long.   So i would go 1.TFOTR,  2. ROTK, 3. TTT.  Although i've not watched them for awhile.

(in reply to coolstar)
Post #: 95
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 11/5/2007 1:02:24 PM   
BobM70


Posts: 958
Joined: 29/12/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: ElephantBoy

In short The Fellowship is just about a life changing Master piece and is perfect,  The Twin Towers is not as great but does have some truly epic and scary fight scenes and Return of the King is good up to a point but is over long.   So i would go 1.TFOTR,  2. ROTK, 3. TTT.  Although i've not watched them for awhile.




Bob


_____________________________

It's not how long it takes, it's who's taking you...

(in reply to ElephantBoy)
Post #: 96
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 12/5/2007 11:03:23 PM   
Rob_Gordon

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 1/9/2006
Yes, it's been all said before. Yes, they're nearly twelve hours long with breaks - if viewed in their majestic EE form. Yes, the Two Towers theatrical version had definite failures and, yes, there are few very short sequences that could have been cut from all films.

But it takes a special kind of cynic to claim that they're boring, or without heart and soul. They (the films) are a colossal monument to pure cinematic joy and glory. They're painted on such a vast canvas that only the magic of celluloid could hold onto it. Within it's mind boggling runtime there's enough passion, hope, sadness and humour to fill a small country.

From the pitch perfect opening segment to the final moment where Sam closes the door to his home, Rings offers spectacle after spectacle, and still manages to grasp onto it's humane story at it's core. Without it, there would be no excitement. Even Elijah Wood, the one actor whom I had doubted as far as the premiere, manages to bring life to Frodo so well, that within five minutes you've forgotten he's an actor playing the part. Same goes for every single person in the film.

Add to that the amazing EE extras, displaying that same passion behind the camera that brought the films to life. There are no chinks in the chainmail. It's the work of a lifetime, easily rivaling the majestic scale of such films as Citizen Kane or the much lauded 2001: Space Odyssey. Jacksons film is ultimately more compelling though, enough to captivate audiences big and small, far and wide, hopefully remembered as classics in the years to come.

(in reply to King_Bard)
Post #: 97
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 12/5/2007 11:08:04 PM   
King_Bard

 

Posts: 6300
Joined: 25/9/2006
Its not so much their rubbish films for me it is that Jackson made so many changes form the book while claming he was "sticking to the books"

(in reply to Rob_Gordon)
Post #: 98
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 12/5/2007 11:11:18 PM   
Gimli The Dwarf


Posts: 77562
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo
quote:

ORIGINAL: King_Bard

Its not so much their rubbish films for me it is that Jackson made so many changes form the book while claming he was "sticking to the books"



But surely changes are made in every book-film adapataion?


_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to King_Bard)
Post #: 99
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 12/5/2007 11:16:02 PM   
King_Bard

 

Posts: 6300
Joined: 25/9/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gimli The Dwarf

quote:

ORIGINAL: King_Bard

Its not so much their rubbish films for me it is that Jackson made so many changes form the book while claming he was "sticking to the books"



But surely changes are made in every book-film adapataion?



Yes i know that but some changes were clearly unesseacesy and some didnt even make sense....

(in reply to Gimli The Dwarf)
Post #: 100
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 12/5/2007 11:38:29 PM   
TheManWithNoShame


Posts: 6767
Joined: 1/8/2006
I think Harry Lime's review has pretty much summed up all my feelings on the movie, its a great trilogy and one that is becoming unfairly maligned despite the fact that it is an awesome piece of film-making. Many thought that Tolkiens book could never be done justice, and while I dont think the films touch the book, it is a far better adaptation than what most people thought it would be at the time.
One thing Id like to disagree with Harry's review on is the WW2 parallels, which although are faintly present throughout the book, are still just too weak to merit any in depth discussion. Tolkien did say he didnt mean any of the book to be an allegory (and indeed detested allegory, even when it was being done by his chum C.S. Lewis), and I think to read that much into it by suggesting it is an accurate microcosm of the war is exaggerating any parallel that might be there.
Tolkiens influences I think come from a few places, there are many more obvious parallels with Christianity (much, much more evident in the Silmarillion) and also Norse myth, but in terms of modern problems, LOTR is more likely to represent the battle between technology and nature, the Shire representing the epitome of natural beauty and untainted land, whilst Mordor and Isengard show the destructive effects of factorys and tainting whats natural.
Also, in regards to the changes Jackson made, as a Tolkien fan I think he did a decent job but not a perfect one. All literary adaptations need to be made their own beasts (a maxim that Harry Potter seems to have ignored) and Jackson did make some good changes (I dont think Tom Bombadil could have ever been done justice onscreen) and some bad ones (the aforementioned abandonment of Frodo, and also his baffling trip to Osgiliath). The ending is one that I am mixed about, because it would have made a long film even longer, but Ive heard its on the Extended Editions (correct me if I am wrong) so thats not too bad. I also think that Jackson handled the character of Gollum expertly though, and Id cite it as one of the things that Jackson actually does as good as, if not better, than the book itself.

Its not better than 2001: A Space Odyssey though, despite what Rob_Gordon says

_____________________________

sorry jbg :( i promise to stop being such a silly boy.

(in reply to King_Bard)
Post #: 101
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 13/5/2007 2:00:03 AM   
Harry Lime


Posts: 5147
Joined: 30/9/2005
To be honest, I found that most of the problems that were found in The Lord Of The Rings movies were actually from the novels rather than inspite of them.
 
The one biggest bugbear that I have is the scene in which Sam and Frodo are forced to fall into line with the massed orc army... Without any of them noticing! Considering that an orc can smell man-flesh from miles away and that Hobbits are only three and a half feet tall (as we saw earlier an Uruk-hai can carry one on their back is if little more than a satchel) I found the whole scene nonsensical. It's not massively important in the scheme of things but it is just one of those moments that niggle whenever I watch it. For two or three minutes they seem to grow 36 inches and none of the orcs even realise when they start drawing more attention to themselves initially when they pretend to fight!!
 
As I mentioned in my main post, the only other thing that really irks me is the constant "he's not really dead" device that Jackson uses. Again a direct lift from the novels.
 
***SPOILERS***
 
We see Frodo stabbed (seemingly fatally) twice only for him to miraculously survive and later the same thing happens in Shelobs lair when he turns out to be "just stunned". Not only this, we see Gandalf plunge to his death in Moria, Aragorn presumed dead after being dragged of a cliff in Rohan and Gollum thrown off the dizzying stairs into Mordor by Sam. All of them reappear.
 
***END SPOILERS***
 
A couple of times is fine but by the fourth or fifth time I began to start rolling my eyes!
 
quote:

One thing Id like to disagree with Harry's review on is the WW2 parallels, which although are faintly present throughout the book, are still just too weak to merit any in depth discussion. Tolkien did say he didnt mean any of the book to be an allegory (and indeed detested allegory, even when it was being done by his chum C.S. Lewis), and I think to read that much into it by suggesting it is an accurate microcosm of the war is exaggerating any parallel that might be there.

I dunno, I think it's there. If it's not a direct allegory then Lord Of The Rings was certainly shaped by events around Tolkein. He notes World War I as an inspiration in the novels preface and much of The Two Towers was written whilst he was serving with the RAF in Africa. I don't think it is coincidence that the most heavy World War parallels are to be found in this installement. As much as Tolkein refuted it there can be little question that he was absorbing what was around him at the time.. Even if he was reframing in a more mythical context.
 
Not that Tolkein was completely consistent on the allegory subject either. He once refered to Lord Of The Rings as "an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power".

< Message edited by Harry Lime -- 13/5/2007 2:01:02 AM >


_____________________________

"People think I have an interesting walk. Hell, I'm just trying to hold my gut in."

If I get there early will it be the right time
our heaven is just waiting so put your hand into mine.

(in reply to King_Bard)
Post #: 102
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 13/5/2007 8:15:08 AM   
Gimli The Dwarf


Posts: 77562
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo
Not wishing to stray off-topic here, but I've never really fully accepted the whole allegory/parallel way of looking at films. I know that films are highly personal and obvious influences and comparisons can be found, but I find all to often people look for hidden meanings that aren't there. You can give a deeper meaning to anything if you want to. On the whole I tend to shy away from looking for such meanings. I once read this regarding Jaws

A deeply allegorical study on the oedipal complex man has with Mother Nature, infused with subtle metaphors and thematic motifs which all hint at the cravings and desires within all humans to become one with their inner beast, and an underlying subtext that symbolises the eternal struggle of good vs evil.

I read that and thought “Or it could just be a cracking good film”. I don’t even know what all that means.

Anyway, like I said, I don’t want to go off-topic, so I’ll stop here.


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheManWithNoShame
All literary adaptations need to be made their own beasts (a maxim that Harry Potter seems to have ignored) and Jackson did make some good changes (I dont think Tom Bombadil could have ever been done justice onscreen) and some bad ones (the aforementioned abandonment of Frodo, and also his baffling trip to Osgiliath).





How was this baffling? It made sense within the information given on screen. Denethor wanted the One Ring to defeat Mordor, Boromir died in the process, so in order to earn his father’s grace and complete his brothers mission Faramir takes Frodo and Sam back to Minis Tirith, getting sidetracked in Osgiliath. Or did you mean the events that took place once they were there?


Anyway, here's what I wrote about the films at the tail-end of last year, in the Mini-reviews thread in F&G. I realise it's far from objective and I certainly don't expect anybody to agree, it's just some thoughts and opinions as to why I love these films so much.


The Lord Of The Rings trilogy


Positives


- Howard Shores wondrous score - I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have never heard a score that so perfectly compliments the scenes it accompanies, yet remains essential listening away from the film. So many separate tunes, in various forms, linked over the course of 10 hours. I'm always amazed that we hear some Gondorian music in the Council of Elrond, yet it never gets a full airing until over 4 hours later. The Fellowship theme is the best bit of film music I've ever heard.
- Gollum - Not only one of the finest CGI creations, but as a character, he is more believable than many real-life ones, with an incredibly expressive and emotional range.
- Ian McKellen - Words don't do justice for how much I love this mans performance. From his arrival ("A wizard is never late, Frodo Baggins”) right up to the Grey Havens. McKellen never misses a beat, creating a wonderful Gandalf (two actually). He also has the most expressive eyes, and can convey dismay, panic, acceptance and fear with one glance in ways most actors can only dream of.
- The Ride Of The Rohirrim - One of the most thrilling scenes ever captures on film.
- The Bridge of Khazad-dum - As above, aided by the Balrog, another perfect piece of CGI.
- The sets. - Has a fantasy world ever been so perfectly realised as Middle-Earth and all it's domains? I don't think so. Hobbiton, Bree, Rivendell, Moria, Isengard, Lothlorian, Rohan, Edoras, Helms' Deep, Fangorn, Osgiliath, Mordor and Minas Tirith are all beautifully crafted, A perfect mixture of sets, miniatures "bigatures", CGI and matte work create a hugely authentic world. From the horse motifs of Rohan to the writing on the walls of Moria, the amount of little details is a joy to behold. The basis of much of this comes from Alan Lee and John Howe, and their influence can be felt in every scene.
- Costumes and weaponry - Just look at the BBC's Robin Hood to gain a sense of the importance of costume. All the races are kitted out differently and distinctly  - the Rohirrim, Hobbits, Elves, Easterlings, Gondorians etc - and the attention to detail is mesmerising. The weaponry at an authentic edge as well. No flimsy stuff here. The swords, daggers and cleavers used actually do look like they could cause great damage
- Makeup and prosthetics - Uruk-Hai; Orcs, goblins, dwarves, the hobbits, Gandalf and elves all make use of make-up and it looks superb
- Bernard Hill - A close second to Ian McKellen as performances of the trilogy. Perfection. From the possessed Theoden of the Two Towers to the inspiring king and soldier in Return Of The King, you can't take your eyes off him.
- Viggo Mortensen - As above. He is Aragon, and nothing will ever change that.
- Cate Blanchett – Just because
- The rest of the cast - I'm not suggesting that the entire cast is Oscar worthy (as it isn't, although just one Oscar nomination for acting is a disgrace) but as a whole, the cast work perfectly and none of the 20 principal performers ever let the side down. Special mention has to go to David Wenham and Sean Bean. They are excellent when apart but, in just one scene, they convey a lifetime of brotherly affection.
There is so much more, but if I picked up on every thing I loved I'd never finish.


Negatives

There are a few (unfortunately)

- For some reason, when Gandalf arrives at Hobbiton, the scene with the hobbit children shouting "Gandalf, Gandalf" annoys me. It always has, but it gets better with time. Maybe I just don't like kids enough.
- The timeline and geography - Have you ever tried to follow events in the films and create a timeline that makes sense. It's very hard. For instance, if we accept that the events at Helm's Deep occurred simultaneously to Sam, Frodo and Faramir being attacked at Osgiliath in The Two Towers, then Gandalf has to leave Helm's Deep, go to Isengard, get back to Edoras and then take a three day journey with Pippin to Minas Tirith,. That's a hefty amount of travelling, yet when he meets Faramir, he is informed that Frodo & Sam left just two days ago. 'Tis confusing, so I try not to think about it.

That's about it for the negatives I think.

It's been almost 5 years to the day since I saw The Fellowship Of The Ring. Although I'd seen thousands of films before then, it became my favourite film after just one viewing. Over 30+ viewings, countless people trying to tell me I'm wrong and about 2370 more films seen since, it's still my favourite film of all time, and, the film I consider to be the greatest. It is matched only be The Two Towers and The Return Of the King. They are not perfect, as no film is, but taken as one film (as I tend to do as it's the only film series I know of in which it has to be seen in it's entirety) these three films are the most satisfying, most complete, most wholly affecting cinematic experiences I have ever had the privilege to watch. They get more emotional, more inspiring, more engaging with every single viewing, and I honestly cannot see anything surpassing them, and in truth, I hope nothing does. These films have literally changed my life and I will always, always hold them dear. 5/5.




_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to TheManWithNoShame)
Post #: 103
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 13/5/2007 6:03:13 PM   
TheManWithNoShame


Posts: 6767
Joined: 1/8/2006
quote:

The one biggest bugbear that I have is the scene in which Sam and Frodo are forced to fall into line with the massed orc army... Without any of them noticing! Considering that an orc can smell man-flesh from miles away and that Hobbits are only three and a half feet tall (as we saw earlier an Uruk-hai can carry one on their back is if little more than a satchel) I found the whole scene nonsensical. It's not massively important in the scheme of things but it is just one of those moments that niggle whenever I watch it. For two or three minutes they seem to grow 36 inches and none of the orcs even realise when they start drawing more attention to themselves initially when they pretend to fight!!

 
Yes, I suppose Id have to call artistic licence on that one, although to be fair the Uruk-Hais are an anomaly in height. It works better in the book, but does look a bit silly on screen.
 
quote:

We see Frodo stabbed (seemingly fatally) twice only for him to miraculously survive and later the same thing happens in Shelobs lair when he turns out to be "just stunned". Not only this, we see Gandalf plunge to his death in Moria, Aragorn presumed dead after being dragged of a cliff in Rohan and Gollum thrown off the dizzying stairs into Mordor by Sam. All of them reappear.

 
In the first case there is no doubt about the seriousness of the stabbing so thats not really a trick. In the second case, the books dont go from the angle that Frodo is dead but rather from Frodo's point of view, so that isnt really a trick either (although it is in the film). The third case Ill give you, but the fourth case is much more complex than ' he was dead but now he's back'. The fifth and six cases werent from the book though, and I agree that they are unneeded.
 
quote:

I dunno, I think it's there. If it's not a direct allegory then Lord Of The Rings was certainly shaped by events around Tolkein. He notes World War I as an inspiration in the novels preface and much of The Two Towers was written whilst he was serving with the RAF in Africa. I don't think it is coincidence that the most heavy World War parallels are to be found in this installement. As much as Tolkein refuted it there can be little question that he was absorbing what was around him at the time.. Even if he was reframing in a more mythical context.

 
Oh it influenced him alright, but I dont think in an allegorical way. Tolkien was undoubtably absorbing lots of what was going on around him, and that is evident in the battle scenes. Also lots of the backstory was written before the events of World War 2, so I just dont see how it could be an allegory.
 

quote:

How was this baffling? It made sense within the information given on screen. Denethor wanted the One Ring to defeat Mordor, Boromir died in the process, so in order to earn his father’s grace and complete his brothers mission Faramir takes Frodo and Sam back to Minis Tirith, getting sidetracked in Osgiliath. Or did you mean the events that took place once they were there?

 
I mean the events while they were there. Frodo offering the ring to the Nazgul really doesnt make sense as the whole point in the book is that Sauron has no idea where the ring is. What should have happened after that scene is the whole of the Nazgul being mobilised against Frodo so they could take it, which doesnt happen.


 

_____________________________

sorry jbg :( i promise to stop being such a silly boy.

(in reply to Gimli The Dwarf)
Post #: 104
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 14/5/2007 12:49:44 PM   
JagLover

 

Posts: 457
Joined: 11/5/2007
I am a big fan of the books and love the films too, and have watched all of them in their extended glory.

I will say that by far the best conversion of book to film is the first one. As a book that can be rather slow, but the film is far better paced and gripping. On the whole all the changes by PJ from the source material are well judged for the first two films, from what he misses out, Bombadil etc, to what he adds, Aragorn/Arwen romance (that was in the appendices).

However nearly every single change he makes to the final film is ill judged. From the lighting of the beacon farce to the way he potrays Denethor. It still remains a great film, because it is based on a great book(the best of the trilogy), but it is almost in spite of the director.

< Message edited by JagLover -- 14/5/2007 12:50:58 PM >

(in reply to TheManWithNoShame)
Post #: 105
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 15/5/2007 8:37:35 PM   
random13

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 14/5/2007
From: Neverland
Lotr trilogy are my fav films so brilliant.. and kept to the book... unlike harry potter !
my fav lotr gotta be rotk.. so amazing........................
but i cant watch the films too often.. get a bit repetitive and boring.. do u kno what i mean?


_____________________________

what would life be without films......DEAD BORING!!!

(in reply to coolstar)
Post #: 106
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 16/5/2007 5:28:30 AM   
Gimli The Dwarf


Posts: 77562
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheManWithNoShame


I mean the events while they were there. Frodo offering the ring to the Nazgul really doesnt make sense as the whole point in the book is that Sauron has no idea where the ring is. What should have happened after that scene is the whole of the Nazgul being mobilised against Frodo so they could take it, which doesnt happen.





I see now. Yes, I certainly understand the point you making.

quote:

ORIGINAL: random13

but i cant watch the films too often.. get a bit repetitive and boring.. do u kno what i mean?



Nope!

They just get better and better for me.

_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to TheManWithNoShame)
Post #: 107
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 16/5/2007 7:52:33 AM   
KissMyConverse


Posts: 132
Joined: 23/4/2007
From: A place in my head
quote:

ORIGINAL: random13

Lotr trilogy are my fav films so brilliant.. and kept to the book... unlike harry potter !



The fact that the Harry Potter films only have the very very basic storylines really annoys me because  they miss out on some great story points.

_____________________________

I was nothing more than an almost innocent bystander.

(in reply to random13)
Post #: 108
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 16/5/2007 9:20:26 AM   
King_Bard

 

Posts: 6300
Joined: 25/9/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: random13

Lotr trilogy are my fav films so brilliant.. and kept to the book... unlike harry potter !
my fav lotr gotta be rotk.. so amazing........................
but i cant watch the films too often.. get a bit repetitive and boring.. do u kno what i mean?



Nope they did not keep to the book at all....

(in reply to random13)
Post #: 109
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 16/5/2007 9:26:58 AM   
KissMyConverse


Posts: 132
Joined: 23/4/2007
From: A place in my head
They kept to the book better than the Potter films.

_____________________________

I was nothing more than an almost innocent bystander.

(in reply to King_Bard)
Post #: 110
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 16/5/2007 9:30:20 AM   
King_Bard

 

Posts: 6300
Joined: 25/9/2006
well that wouldnt be hard......

(in reply to KissMyConverse)
Post #: 111
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 16/5/2007 3:25:06 PM   
KissMyConverse


Posts: 132
Joined: 23/4/2007
From: A place in my head
Is that a hint of sarcasm there?

_____________________________

I was nothing more than an almost innocent bystander.

(in reply to King_Bard)
Post #: 112
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 16/5/2007 3:42:34 PM   
pauljthomas


Posts: 726
Joined: 15/11/2006
From: a more wretched hive of scum & villainy
quote:

ORIGINAL: JagLover

I am a big fan of the books and love the films too, and have watched all of them in their extended glory.

I will say that by far the best conversion of book to film is the first one. As a book that can be rather slow, but the film is far better paced and gripping. On the whole all the changes by PJ from the source material are well judged for the first two films, from what he misses out, Bombadil etc, to what he adds, Aragorn/Arwen romance (that was in the appendices).

However nearly every single change he makes to the final film is ill judged. From the lighting of the beacon farce to the way he potrays Denethor. It still remains a great film, because it is based on a great book(the best of the trilogy), but it is almost in spite of the director.


In a way, It was a shame they missed him out in FOTR. Would have been interesting to see how he would be portrayed. The only poor portrayal I would say was Faramir. He didn't seem as effective in the films.

_____________________________

You know how I know your gay? You like Coldplay

BUS WANKERS!!!!

(in reply to JagLover)
Post #: 113
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 16/5/2007 4:32:35 PM   
rich


Posts: 4945
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe
Never got around to checking the books out, but the films are all excellent fantasy flicks, and I enjoy all of the extended versions. I reckon 4/5 each. Stuff like this doesn't seem to get made very often, the sheer amount of work and detail that seems to be on screen is impressive. Also the soundtracks are very good.

_____________________________

Meanwhile...

(in reply to pauljthomas)
Post #: 114
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 16/5/2007 5:14:53 PM   
King_Bard

 

Posts: 6300
Joined: 25/9/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: KissMyConverse

Is that a hint of sarcasm there?


soz if i was a bit harsh.....i was in a bad mood ......

(in reply to KissMyConverse)
Post #: 115
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 16/5/2007 5:34:59 PM   
TheManWithNoShame


Posts: 6767
Joined: 1/8/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: King_Bard

quote:

ORIGINAL: random13

Lotr trilogy are my fav films so brilliant.. and kept to the book... unlike harry potter !
my fav lotr gotta be rotk.. so amazing........................
but i cant watch the films too often.. get a bit repetitive and boring.. do u kno what i mean?



Nope they did not keep to the book at all....


To be honest, they kept to it more than most other literary adaptations.

And in the case of Harry Potter, I think they shouldnt keep to the book so much, but its rare that they make a change that works well.

_____________________________

sorry jbg :( i promise to stop being such a silly boy.

(in reply to King_Bard)
Post #: 116
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 16/5/2007 5:35:34 PM   
curtain twitcher


Posts: 4816
Joined: 9/4/2007
From: The Hotel California
Quiet Bardy boy.

_____________________________

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.

There are two kinds of people in the world, my friend. Those who have a rope around their neck and those who have the job of cutting.



(in reply to King_Bard)
Post #: 117
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 16/5/2007 5:38:53 PM   
King_Bard

 

Posts: 6300
Joined: 25/9/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheManWithNoShame

quote:

ORIGINAL: King_Bard

quote:

ORIGINAL: random13

Lotr trilogy are my fav films so brilliant.. and kept to the book... unlike harry potter !
my fav lotr gotta be rotk.. so amazing........................
but i cant watch the films too often.. get a bit repetitive and boring.. do u kno what i mean?



Nope they did not keep to the book at all....


To be honest, they kept to it more than most other literary adaptations.

And in the case of Harry Potter, I think they shouldnt keep to the book so much, but its rare that they make a change that works well.


I suppose so.....it wouldnt of been so bad if Jackson hadnt kept saying how he was keeping the spirit of the book....in FOTR yes he did but in the other two especially ROTK i just thought he lost it a bit.....

and twitchy boy...

(in reply to TheManWithNoShame)
Post #: 118
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 16/5/2007 5:47:27 PM   
TheManWithNoShame


Posts: 6767
Joined: 1/8/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: King_Bard

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheManWithNoShame

quote:

ORIGINAL: King_Bard

quote:

ORIGINAL: random13

Lotr trilogy are my fav films so brilliant.. and kept to the book... unlike harry potter !
my fav lotr gotta be rotk.. so amazing........................
but i cant watch the films too often.. get a bit repetitive and boring.. do u kno what i mean?



Nope they did not keep to the book at all....


To be honest, they kept to it more than most other literary adaptations.

And in the case of Harry Potter, I think they shouldnt keep to the book so much, but its rare that they make a change that works well.


I suppose so.....it wouldnt of been so bad if Jackson hadnt kept saying how he was keeping the spirit of the book....in FOTR yes he did but in the other two especially ROTK i just thought he lost it a bit.....

and twitchy boy...


He mainly was keeping in the spirit of the book though, you cant include everything in the book you know. For all its flaws, its about 10 times as faithful as what you would have expected a Hollywood production to be. Just look at the cartoon version, now thats an example of how to not be in the spirit of the book.

I do agree he lost it a bit in the last two films, but theyre still pretty decent adaptations.

_____________________________

sorry jbg :( i promise to stop being such a silly boy.

(in reply to King_Bard)
Post #: 119
RE: The Lord Of The Rings - 16/5/2007 5:52:42 PM   
King_Bard

 

Posts: 6300
Joined: 25/9/2006
I see your point.....maybe the reason im so critcial of the latter two films was because he had kept so faithfully to the books in the first one.
But you have to admit some of the changes were stupid like Frodo telling Sam to go away and the descruction of Denethors and Faramirs character. I also hated the way the ghosts won the battle of the Pelanor fields...it almost felt like Jackson had run out of ideas by than.

(in reply to TheManWithNoShame)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> RE: The Lord Of The Rings Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172