Smell this, I think it's expired...

[Ainaserkewen]

It was the first time I'd seen a Lord of the Rings film on regular cable TV. The Fellowship of the Ring was broadcast over two days on Canada's channel so out of loyalty I watched it. I hadn't seen the first movie in a little while.

I noticed something though. I was a movie gal first when it came to Frodo and his ring and I have vivid memories of being in that theatre the first time wishing before it had started that I had gone to see Harry Potter instead. I remember being captivated from the first scene and ending all thought process throughout the movie.

The Fellowship of the Ring, I noticed not being a lover of fantasy movies at the time, was a truly flawless movie. The cutting was beautifully done and the script was seamless and I remember, not cheesy in the slightest. The screenplay was so wonderful that I can remember most of the script as if it were a song I'd learned off the radio.

But you all know how much some people loved the first movie. It didn't win the Big Award, but it was still fresh, clean and exciting.

I remember seeing the next two in much the same fashion. However, I noticed that I wasn't as impressed with them. It came back to me as I was watching Fellowship. The second two have less melodious movement, less flowy language and more awkward moments, some which made me cringe.

So my question to all of you is if you a) agree with me over the "flowy-ness" of the movies, b) think that it's just me in noticing what I do. I did fall madly in love with the Fellowship, so maybe my observations are just in comparison. And c) what could have made the second two less wonderful.

Like the Matrix series, which critics agreed that the first was amazing but the latter were tired and used feeling, do you think that after the first movie, the other two just seem expired?

[the phantom]

I'll say more later if I get a chance, but for right now I would just say that I agree with you.

Fellowship is by far my favorite of the trilogy. It's more magical, I guess- it's not as typical as the other two movies (which were great and all, just not as great as FOTR). Fellowship is more... Middle-Earthian, somehow.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I do agree with your feelings about the first movie. It was amazing, and remains one of the best I have ever seen. It really was an incredible experience, watching it.
I, however, do not agree at all with your feelings about the other two. I was wowed, then wowed again. If anything, I got the feeling that the movies were getting better and better. After Fellowship, I lovedlovedloved the Two Towers.
Return of the King is my favorite movie. Ever. It took my breath away. I found it so powerful, so moving, so filled with sad beauty....

The three movies have very different "feels" to them. Fellowship is green and happy, with less heavy material than the other two. There is more genuine humor, light, and joy in it than the others. The same is very true of the books. The tone that Tolkien used when writing Fellowship is very, very different from the tone of the other two installments.

The Two Towers will always be sort of strange. It's the middle movie in a trilogy, which makes it difficult, no real beginning, no real end. That alone takes away somewhat from the "flowiness" of the movie. I do agree that there were some awkward moments (some of the Gimli comic relief comes to mind), but I'm willing to overlook that.

The Return of the King is in my opinion the best of the three. If there were any awkward moments, I entirely ignored them. It is certainly the darkest, most intense movie of the three, but that is as it should be. It is also the most powerful, at least for me.

I guess I never really got a sense of a decline in quality. I was completely amazed by each movie, and I definitely had the general feeling of them getting better and better.
Each to her own, I guess.

Phantom, as for Fellowship being more "middle earthian", how so do you mean? It certainly is more happy and hobbity, but middle earthian, no. The circumstances in Middle-Earth changed as the story went on, and so did the movies. If the last two are more intense, darker, and perhaps grittier and more realistic, it is because the story changed that way as well. The next time you read Lord of the Rings, try comparing the tone of Fellowship, especially at the beginning, to the tone of the other two books. There is a very obvious difference, and I think that the movies conveyed that quite well.

[The Only Real Estel]

Well, I know exactly where you're coming from when you talk about the "flowy-ness" of The Fellowship. That movie kept me in my seat, eyes glued to the screen the entire time. It had it all (imo)--action, but not enough to bore you; scenery, but not enough to slow down the movie; some laughs, but not enough to make you roll your eyes; perfect music, and even some romance (although I'll admit that was not a requirement on my list). Sure, I didn't like Arwen's extended role at first, but I had been warned about that so it didn't shock me out of the fantasy world I had entered. And I quickly got to the point where the changes from the book never tripped my train of thought.

The second two have less melodious movement, less flowy language and more awkward moments, some which made me cringe

I agree. The last two movies were still great and I love them, don't get me wrong, but I was less impressed with them than I was with Fellowship. Or maybe 'less impressed' isn't quite the term I'm looking for. I was impressed with last two enough, the battles, the visuals, the creatures, but they didn't have the same feel that The Fellowship was able to retain despite repeated viewings. Part of it might be that, or course, neither TTT nor RotK had the privilege of being the first Lord of the Rings movie. Consequently, neither of them had the fresh, clean feel that you, Ainaserkewen, described that an all-time first would have had (forgive me for not counting the animated attempts as firsts), though the last two were no less exciting and flashy. But it seemed the more that Jackson and his crew of writers tinkered, the more the movie and script started to snag. Faramir's change went over like a lead balloon to most audiences that had read the book, although they did deal with it pretty adequately during the extended edition of Towers (it still makes me cringe every once in awhile). Aragorn 'dying' and Arwen 'reviving' him came across to me as a forced deviation so that they could slip another A&A scene in. Arwen's time in RotK really distracted me from the movie, and I found myself having to get back into the movie after her 'changing her mind' bit. The humor became stale with repeated short jokes (as we all know), etc. The scene where Frodo tells Sam to leave really stuck me and, even though I 'understand' why PJ felt the need to do it, I still have serious reservations about it. Now obviously I'm not going to list everything that bothered me about the last two movies, but those are some of them.
Now, I reiterate that I still love the last two movies...just not as much as the first one. So I think that it's obviously not just you noticing things Aina (it's at least you and me :p). As to what could've made the last two more wonderful the juries out as far as I'm concerned. I'm not entirely sure exactly what could've been changed or added to improve the feel, but there must have been something. It's not like the Matrix movies that you mentioned, where I think the W Brothers simply ran out of new ideas, there were always things in the books to build off of and plenty of extra ideas that PJ could've/did use to enhance the movies without reaching to far. They were great movies, but in the end they just didn't have the same "flowy-ness" that the first had for me. The feel of films that are expired? I don't think so. The feel of films that are nearing their due date? In some ways. Still great movies? Duh.

[Encaitare]

I remember renting FotR when I was sick and it was relatively new, and since I had nothing to do I watched it over and over and over. It never got boring for me -- I was new to LotR and thought the whole movie was fascinating and exciting. I know I could not do the same thing with The Two Towers, simply because it's that awkward middle stage, as has already been mentioned.

It's when it comes to RotK that I disagree with you. I found this movie to be the most beautiful of the three. It brings tears to my eyes, and rarely does a movie have that effect on me. It still doesn't seem old to me even though I don't watch it very much (simply out of practicality due to its length). It's like reading a familiar fairy tale many times over: the dangerous parts still make you feel anxious and the climax still places something in your heart you can't explain no matter how well you know the story.

[Larien Telemnar]

I love the first movie with a passion, and always will. I think part of the reason I love it so much is because it shows so much of Hobbits in it, and me being Hobbit, weel that just makes sense, doesn't it? (Yes, Hobbit at heart. :cool: )

I don't really agree with you about the other two not being as good, though. The others, you have to remember that the fellowship is visiting less refined cultures and new surroundings. As to the dialogue no being as flowy in the other two, the different cultures had different ways of saying things, in their tone and mannerisms and stuch. The Elves use a lot of beautiful words and show great expression, whille the Rohirrim are warriors, not trained for great halls and fine speach, but for battle. The Gondorians were also a little rough, and yet they knew how to express themselves more. Cultures have a lot to do with the dialogue in the movies, I think. Someone dissagree with me if I'm wrong in this, and it may not have any bearing on the film, I suppose.

The story altogether is an amazing story, intricate like a tapestry and delicate. It also is a grand adventure, which is what caught my attention, I finally found out where I come from! (Just kidding)

Good questions, I just loved all the movies, but FOTR and ROTK are my favs. :D

[alatar]

I would have to agree with Ainaserkewen.

This is not to say that TTT and ROTK are not great movies; it's just that FOTR was the best of the three. I own all three in EE DVD format, and on any given night could watch any of them. Most times I choose FOTR as (to me) it was the movie closest to JRRT.

TTT was too PJ, and though he corrected this somewhat in ROTK, it also smelled more of PJ than JRRT.

To me PJ saw how well FOTR was received and thought that this permitted him to (a) add more of his own material to TTT and (b) hype it up a bit with more special effects. After TTT, he did the same in ROTK, but also must have heard some of the grumblings from the faithful, and so tried to get back on course a bit.

But he also wanted to show what some cash and WETA could do.

Another problem (think that I've stated this many times now, so sorry if I'm playing the tape again...) was that the characters became less interesting as they became more and more caricatures of themselves. Gimli the clown, Legolas the ultimate surfer/warrior, etc. Some characters grew, yet not as much as they did in FOTR.

And I didn't like the ents. And don't get me started (again) regarding Gandalf's staff, which is why I'm here in the first place. :mad:

Anyway, note that I'm not saying that the three movies weren't wonderful nor not popular, but just that FOTR will always be my fav.

[Saurreg]

TTT was too PJ, and though he corrected this somewhat in ROTK, it also smelled more of PJ than JRRT.

Hear! Hear!

[Ainaserkewen]

Yes, well said. Followship felt more Tolkien-e than the others. It was playful and scrumptuously detailed.

Am I right in saying that it was cut better?

Also, the phantom, you were making sense...you should continue.

[Holbytlass]

As far as 'flowy-ness' goes, in FotR, there was just one storyline, Frodo's. As we all know in TTT and RotK, they split and split and split then some reunite and then all reunite. Fellowship is my favorite because I tend to like quests a little more than epics. One thing I like about the movies is they clarified some things for me especially in TTT. I am a visual person and even though PJ didn't put everything in, I understand whats going on in TTT, Helm's deep part, better in the books. That I'm greatful for. Still FotR is my favorite.

[Saurreg]

FoTR was in my opinion the most fateful adaptation of the original work. Aside from some minor changes for drama, the overall script followed the original book quite well. The other two installments were more loose based and there were several deviations from the fundamentals of the book. Some of the changes that were debatable were;

1. Theoden's on-screen persona
2. Denethor's on-screen persona
3. The manipulation of the AoD by Aragon (which, in term reflects on Aragon's on screen persona)
4. Elrond's on-screen persona
5. Omission of the scouring of the Shire.

It is very easy to attribute the debatable changes to PJ's and PB's combined ego and that was exactly the notion I held when I first saw the two movies. I was abit disappointed with the final cuts and even the EE did no justice for me. However with time I have learned to accept what the two sequels were - darn good films and even learned to like them base on their own merits.

Recently, I read an article based on an interview with the incomparable Ghassan Massoud who played the great Saladin in Kingdom of Heaven and this is what he had to say on drama and fidelity;

"Who said drama had to be historically accurate? Who said that drama’s role was to recreate history? If you want history, go to a bookstore. Drama is drama. Drama’s role is to create a story that has a central conflict; and the story doesn’t have to be constrained to historical factuality; so it is any innovator’s right to grab a portion of history and recreate a sample of what life may have been like,"

That was perhaps the fairest and most truthful statement ever spoken on the need be fateful in adaption whilst creating drama. The same idea can be applied here by substituting history with original literature. The dramatics were needed in TTT and RoTK for the films to succeed in conveying its theme. And though these changes might have altered some of the fundamentals, they were instrumental in taking the casual audience into ME and introducing the vision of Tolkien with the rest of humanity a way the books can never achieve.

P.S: Ainaserkewen - How did you come up with such a title for this thread? It brought a smile to my lips because those were the exact same words my sister spoke to me last night when she rummaged through the fridge and produced a jar of honey. She popped open the lid, frowned and turned to me,

"Smell this. I think it's expired..."

[Ainaserkewen]

As far as 'flowy-ness' goes, in FotR, there was just one storyline, Frodo's. You know, maybe you're right. There was one plot line that had everything to do with itself. Perhaps the others would have done better had they kept the same order as the books and completely separated the two stories. Then at least they could have used the Mouth of Sauron part better...

How did you come up with such a title for this thread? It brought a smile to my lips because those were the exact same words my sister spoke to me last night when she rummaged through the fridge and produced a jar of honey. She popped open the lid, frowned and turned to me,

"Smell this. I think it's expired..." Must have read your mind. Does honey ever expire?

[The Saucepan Man]

Perhaps the others would have done better had they kept the same order as the books and completely separated the two stories.Although it works well in the books, this, to my mind, would have worked shockingly in the films. Perhaps it's just that we're all used to seeing the various threads of a story develop simlutaneously, rather than sequentially, on the screen, but it seems to me that there must be a reason why this is done in films. Maybe it's because people tend to invest less time and emotion in films than in books and so audiences would forget the first storyline by the time the second came to the end. Or perhaps, as films are more immediate, it would just have confused the time-scale in people's minds. Whatever, it would have seemed very strange to have the two stories develop sequentially in the films, as they do in the book.

EDIT: A further thought. Presenting the two threads of the story sequentially on film would have produced two climaxes, in TTT at least - one halfway through the film and the other at the end.

[Nimrodel_9]

I completely agree with Aina.

FotR had the same affect on me. To this day I prefer to watch it over the other two. I think the reason is (to me anyway) it seemed for fantastic. It seemed to draw me into Middle-earth. The feeling was there in the other two but I feel the "magic" of Tolkien's more strongly in the Fellowship.

[Ainaserkewen]

But why? I think most of us agree that the first was made the best, but why? The nature of the movie, the single stream of consciousness, or perhaps that's just how it happened? What do you think?

[Saurreg]

FoTR was a novelty - the first of its kind. We haven't had a LoTR movie since the Bakshi animation and were yet to be introduced to the great cinematography nor the mindblowing special effects. Secondly as I have stated before, FoTR was the most fateful adaptation of the three films. We went in the theater with high expectations and a background knowledge of the books hence were gratified when the film followed closely to the book and provided us with what we expected.

Those in my opinion are what made FoTR more endearing to some of us.

Must have read your mind. Does honey ever expire?

Ah, a psychic in the house! It looked an unnatural shade of cream and had a funky fermented smell to it. Could have saved it to brew mead, if I knew how.

[drigel]

saureg u got the jump on me for your point. :)
there was such an anticipation by the time FOTR came out, and then PJ came through so well on it - just awsome. the 2nd and 3rd movies came and i wasnt dissapointed, but to me (and of course theres really no way around it) the adaptation work of PJ came through more. Thats when I, as a Tolkien fan, thought oh - i would do this and that different... but the FOTR was a wonderfull introduction to the movie trilogy for both the hard core fans and the complete newbies.

As for style, i do agree with this thread. There was a sense of grace that wasnt relayed to the 2nd and 3rd....

[Gurthang]

One thing that I've noticed from the first film that's not in the second two was the sense of urgency. For the entire first half of the movie Frodo is being closely pursued by the Ringwraiths. Even when they are defeated, its 'let's get headed for Mordor'. Next they were trapped in Moria and then were being pursued by the Uruks down the Anduin. The whole movie had that feeling of hurry-or-you'll-get-caught that kept us all on the edge of our seats.

The Two Towers did not have this at all. I remember actually looking at my watch wondering why it seemed so long. I don't mean it was boring, I just wasn't into it as much. RotK was a little better, but still didn't have that same urgency that was in the Fellowship.

[Ainaserkewen]

That's a good point. It was as if there was a single plotline dotted with various details and sub-stories but all contributing to this single, clean line that was urgently movie forward. This was all helped by the dialog (best of the three movies), the scene cutting and timing and the fresh faces of the actors in new realisations of specific things. Nobody knew at that point that there was "no hope" or the possibility of failure.

It looked an unnatural shade of cream and had a funky fermented smell to it. Um, ew...we keep our honey in the cupboard...

Also, though it probably helped other people see the first movie with more of a light, the fact that it was the first movie and in great anticipation did not contribute to the feeling of superiority the Fellowship gives me. I didn't want to see LOTR in the first place. The only time I'd heard of it before that was geeky kids in my elementary school classes reading it. "It's about a magic ring" they'd say...I though, "Borrrinnngg". Heh, now I've surpassed them all in LOTR geekiness..."Fate is not without a sense of irony."

[Firefoot]

Well, I guess I get to be the odd one out.

My favorite movie is certainly RotK. I am not really sure whether I prefer TTT or FotR better anymore (It's been too long!). I do love all three movies, but somehow Fellowship manages to disappoint me (at least the first half, until the Company sets out from Rivendell). Truth be told, I had not actually heard of LotR (book or movie) until some three months after Fellowship was first in theatres, so this very much lessened my excitement over the movie. Perhaps another six months after reading the books, I finally decided to see Fellowship, and I was extremely disappointed. Extremely. I enjoy it much more now, but I still have a hard time with some of the changes. I do not tend to have this problem with the other two movies - it is a lot easier for whatever reason to overlook them. For example, I dislike much of the Rivendell footage (not the sets or anything, just the way it goes), especially the Council of Elrond.

I considered going to see TTT in theatres, but eventually opted out. I enjoyed it a great deal when I finally did see it - I was more 'into it,' and was starting to appreciate much more the movie in itself, including the music.

Now RotK, I was extremely excited about this one. I downloaded the trailer and watched it frequently in anticipation. I counted down the days, and was absolutely enraptured when I finally did see it. I thought it was fantastic (still do). The month preceding the premiere of RotK was the real start of my second LotR craze (the first being immediately following the reading of the books). It was in this time that I joined the BD's.

So maybe it was just a process, having to grow used to the fact that there were going to be changes, that the movie was not the book but a rendition of it. Also to be considered was my anticipation: Fellowship: okay, I guess I'll see it. Two Towers: Sure, I want to see it, but I can wait. RotK: How many more days!? So for me, it was really RotK that had that 'fresh' feeling that most of you describe for Fellowship. In my first viewings of each, RotK was the only one that held me absolutely enchanted.

[the phantom]

First, I agree with Gurthang's point about urgency.

Second, fighting is not a suitable replacement for tension and suspense. Sure, I love a great fight scene as much as the next guy, but fights should be breaks in the overall suspense and tension and not actually try to contain all the suspense and tension. I believe that Fellowship did a much better job sustaining suspense and tension throughout the movie, where as the other two movies had more fights but less substance between.

A good example of what I'm trying to say is what happened in Moria. The fight with the cave troll and orcs was great and all, but the part that followed where the group was running through the columns as thousands of orcs chased them was just as exciting. And then the orcs have them surrounded and you're thinking "How in the world are they going to get out of this?" Tension and suspense galore. And then the orcs run off as if they are scared and a fiery light is moving towards the fellowship, and the audience is thinking "Oh my goodness, what in the world is going on? What were those orcs scared of? What is that light?"

That sort of drama is immensely superior to non-stop fighting. The ideal movie mixes the two together. The fights do entertain, but the parts in between grip the audience and keep them enchanted.

I was gripped much more by the Fellowship.

In addition, I agree with what alatar said-
the characters became less interesting as they became more and more caricatures of themselves. Gimli the clown, Legolas the ultimate surfer/warrior, etc. Some characters grew, yet not as much as they did in FOTR.
Also, I stand by what I said earlier about the other movies being more "typical". In other words, more like other movies. There were too many cliché lines, looks, and moments that had more of a modern movie feel to them than a Middle Earth feel.

Examples (some of these might be from EE versions in case you don't recognize them)-
1) Gimli's "humorous" bodily functions.
2) Gimli getting drunk.
3) Legolas surfing down the stairs of Helm's Deep.
4) Aragorn's disdainful/grossed-out look at the Mouth of Sauron.
5) Denethor as a crazy mean old man rather than a once great man driven to dark deeds by grief and despair.
6) Faramir's lack of the nobility and magic that made his men love him in the book.

That's all I have time to list now, but I am sure some of you can think of some more. There were just too many moments that seemed to be gunning for a "That was sweet!" or "Ha ha ha" or "Yeah! All right!" sort of reaction from the audience. That is what a typical modern movie shoots for, not a Middle Earth movie.

I hate to say something that would bring to people's minds the infamous "Dumbing it Down" thread, but it seems to me that Fellowship was not as dumbed down as the other two movies.

[Lathriel]

CBC really likes showing LOTR. I guess its because that is the only time anybody actually tunes in. (They showed fellowship about three times already)

The first time I saw FOTR is theatres I didn't like it very much because a few things really bothered me. Things like the cave troll (the fight seemed to last forever) the orc breeding, Lothlorien was way tpp dark and Galadriel became just way too creepy for my taste. Actually FOTR EE cleared this all up and of all the EE's I believe FOTR is my favourite.

However, I also really love TTT and ROTK. In fact I can never decide which movie I like better. One thing that I find with ROTK is that I am emotionally exhausted after watching it since my emotions just run so high during the movie. Usually all I want to do after watching it is to go to bed.

It just boiles down to the fact that I love all of them to bits.

[alatar]

Just a quick post...

In FOTR, Frodo went from the peaceful Shire all the way to Parth Galen. A lot had changed\happened along the way.

In TTT he walked and walked and walked to Mordor. He started 'almost there' and ended the movie 'almost there.'

In ROTK, he walks some more and after some 'stuff' he finally gets to Mount Doom.

Using my Frodo-meter, I would then rank the films 1, 3 and 2 respectively.

[Lathriel]

To add to Alatar's post
Legolas's journey
FOTR he used his bow and fought
TTT fought some more but added a surfing stunt
ROTK before ending his journey he fought and surfed some more. (Cause he knew he wouldn't be able to get this chance for a long time afterwards :D

[Gurthang]

How about Gimli...at his worst.

FotR- Was snoring during Sam's poetry recital.
TTT- Can't get up after falling on his back. Gets beat by Legolas at drinking.
RotK- Burped, belched and pouted(after getting beat by Leggy again) his way to Minas Tirith.

It's like alatar said earlier; they just became "caricatures of themselves".

[Legolas]

Fellowship is by far my favorite of the trilogy. It's more magical, I guess- it's not as typical as the other two movies (which were great and all, just not as great as FOTR). Fellowship is more... Middle-Earthian, somehow.

That's exactly how I feel. There was a little redemption with Minas Tirith in Return of the King, but The Fellowship of the Ring was still well above the others.

As with these newer Star Wars episodes, I wish they'd leave these serious, epic movies just as their storylines really are...serious. Humor has obviously got to be there, but I'd suggest that they use a tenth of the amount they attempted, and lose the cornier out-of-character jokes (i.e. Gimli). The only resemblance between book Gimli and movie Gimli was his appearance and heritage.

[Saurreg]

And to add on to the accolades already heaped on FoTR; none of the other two movies had a scene as powerful nor sniff-sniff as Boromir's death/redemption scene. That was one of the major highlights of the film for me. Sean Bean was brilliant as usual.

[The Saucepan Man]

And to add on to the accolades already heaped on FoTR; none of the other two movies had a scene as powerful nor sniff-sniff as Boromir's death/redemption scene.I would have to disagree, as far as RotK is concerned.

Powerful: The lighting of the beacons.

Sniff-sniff: The arrival of the Eagles (the Eagles always bring tears to my eyes for some reason).

Powerful and sniff-sniff: The charge of the Rohirrim and the whole Mount Doom sequences from Frodo's "Wheel of Fire" speech through to the end of all things.

Just my opinion, but I found RotK to be a very powerful and tear jerking film in a number of places.

[Saurreg]

Well, I kinda disagree with all that you have posted. So I guess it's ok by me also! :D

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, I kinda disagree with all that you have posted. So I guess it's ok by me also!Fair enough. But your comment does surprise me, not least because there were a number of moments in RotK which, it seems to me, pretty much accurately visualised the powerful moments that Tolkien himself wrote. The charge of the Rohirrim, for one.

[Garen LiLorian]

I think I'll add my voice to the general acclaimation of FotR. Although for me, sadly, the reason I liked it the best is because the changes didn't really change the story the way they did in the other two movies. I mean, yeah sure. I wondered why Aragorn could take out all those wraiths on weathertop and so forth, all the things that have been gone over and over. But the little changes happened and then the story got back on track. I suppose the exception to that is the cutting of the old forest and the barrow downs, but I was well aware of that ahead of time and it didn't bother me from a storytelling perspective either.

However, with the second two movies, many of the changes not only seemed extremely extraneous and not at all neccessary, but actually changed the story. (like the elves at Helm's Deep and all that Army of the Dead nonsense, just to name the two biggest offenders in my book) And it seemed like the more PJ changed, the more he had to change, too. The Faramir escapade leaps to mind to illustrate that, although the Army of the Dead is another example.

Also, there's the whole idea of nobility, which is my absolute biggest qualm with all the movies. No-one had the gravitas ascribed to them in the book, but the second two movies -and books- deal more with great and noble men, so perhaps it's just more visible there. Although I must say that Boromir, of all people, was probably the most noble character in the whole series of films.

I also totally agree with the point about the characters caricaturing themselves.

And I'm pretty sure honey doesn't go bad unless it's boiled. Isn't it famous for that? Didn't they find a stash of honey in a pharoah's tomb that was still good?

[Gurthang]

Garen just pushed another thought into my head. The characters themselves made a huge difference in the 2nd and 3rd movies.

We've already discussed how off-book Gimli and Legolas became after FotR. I'll not get into it again.

Yet Faramir and Denethor are even worse. They come in so different from the book, it's almost stunning. I guess I shouldn't mix book and movie, they will be different in the telling, but changing a persona completely is just more than I can take. I was ready for a very noble and honest Faramir, and was sorely shocked. Denethor not as much. At least Legolas and Gimli put the right foot forward in the Fellowship. It was almost like Faramir and his father jumped in with two left feet each!

Those character changes may have had some impact on my ratings for TTT and RotK.


Doesn't honey turn into sugar as it gets old? And doesn't heating it up(boiling) turned it back to honey?

[Saurreg]

Fair enough. But your comment does surprise me, not least because there were a number of moments in RotK which, it seems to me, pretty much accurately visualised the powerful moments that Tolkien himself wrote. The charge of the Rohirrim, for one.

Different tastes, my good man. Different tastes.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

For me TTT was a little disappointment because after FotR I had had a whole year to get excited about the second film. FotR had certainly set the expectations high. In FotR everything was new and amazing whereas in the other two films I had a feeling "I think I have seen an orc getting decapitated like that a few times before..."
It (FotR) certainly is more happy and hobbity, but middle earthian, no. The circumstances in Middle-Earth changed as the story went on, and so did the movies. If the last two are more intense, darker, and perhaps grittier and more realistic, it is because the story changed that way as well.
I feel quite the opposite. I think FotR is the gloomy one and TTT and RotK are rather inappropriately cheery compared to the first film. That's probably because of the infamous characterizing and the lack of suspense.

Phantom makes a clever observation about the relation of fight scenes to tension. As he said, fighting in the films is nice enertainment but it's not really the best way to keep the spectators on their toes. For example, I found it more interesting to watch Frodo trying to escape from Shelob's lair than watch Sam and Shelob fighting.

I also agree with SpM about RotK's sniff-sniff-ness (what a word) and powerfulness. The sudden coming of the eagles is one of my favourites. For me one indicator of a good movie is that it raises emotions (mostly tears, though). In RotK the beacons scene is so breath-taking that I don't even care that they show eleven (?) beacons though there should be only seven. :p

But what I missed throughout the last two films was the feeling of history. In the book there was a name or an ancient place mentioned here and there without any detailed explanation what it was. It made the book intriguing. In FotR I can sense the presence of history and I think that makes it special.

Btw, for further information about honey, please click here. (http://homecooking.about.com/library/weekly/aa060997.htm)

[Saurreg]

My gawd...

I have been ripped off. I will never buy made-in-Malaysia Polloney honey again.

Oh wait...

So honey turns cludy/creamy after a while eh? Well, I have no idea how long that jar had been sitting in my fridge already. Dis i just throw away a perfectly fine jar of honey?

[davem]

Fair enough. But your comment does surprise me, not least because there were a number of moments in RotK which, it seems to me, pretty much accurately visualised the powerful moments that Tolkien himself wrote. The charge of the Rohirrim, for one.

Actually I found this to be a major change from the book. In the book the Rohirrim sound their horns & charge, taking advantage of the surprise & shock of their sudden appearance, & charge straight into the enemy's flank, throwing them into confusion & so gaining the upper hand. In the movie they hang around giving the orcs time to prepare & set up a pretty effective defence. What would have happened in that case would have been that the Rohirrim charged onto their pikes, the front rank of riders would have been skewered, the horses & riders would have been thrown into chaos, the following riders would have tried to halt to avoid the confusion & the ones behind them would have crashed into them. Result: the Rohirrim would have been destroyed on the field & the enemy would have won. Similar to what happened to Boudicca's army.

Its all very cinematic, but ridiculous from a tactical viewpoint - just like their charge down a 45 degree scree slope onto pikes at the end of TT.

[Saurreg]

The charge of the Rohirrim was IMO centered on old King Theoden. When the Rohirrim arrived, Rohan was stunned by the spectacle before him and it seemed to those closest to him that the king strunk in both body and spirit and was reverting back to the old Worm-tongue controlled dotard before Gandalf's healing.

But as if through divine intervention, a breeze blew and set Rohan's standard fluttering and the supernatural overcast sky suddenly broke and a ray of light shone through. Theoden surprised all when he suddenly grabbed a horn and blew so hard that it shattered. And then he charged, calling out to this riders but seemingly unperturbed should they not follow - the only thing that mattered was Rohan himself, and he was attacking. And onwards the rohirrim charge but Theoden was always before the swiftest rider

Now that was powerful and had it been filmed well could most probably be sniff-sniff also. :D

[alatar]

Actually I found this to be a major change from the book. In the book the Rohirrim sound their horns & charge, taking advantage of the surprise & shock of their sudden appearance, & charge straight into the enemy's flank, throwing them into confusion & so gaining the upper hand.

Its all very cinematic, but ridiculous from a tactical viewpoint - just like their charge down a 45 degree scree slope onto pikes at the end of TT.

Was too annoyed with the change - the horns should have blown and the charge started. Not sure how that all works cinematically, but at least it would make some sense - what a moment! I was talking about sense and PJ...forget that I even brought it up. ;)

What is even more annoying is that I remember some pundit or reviewer talk about PJ's understanding of 'battle' and how he strived to make it (tactically?) real.

[The Saucepan Man]

Not sure how that all works cinematically, but at least it would make some sense ...It wouldnt have worked cinematically, or at least not without excluding Theoden's rousing speech. On screen, it wouldn't have worked nearly so well to show the pre-battle speech, then cut back to the battle (or, as in the EE, Gandalf and the Witch-king) for the horn call then cut back to the charge of the Rohirrim. The moment would have lost much of its on-screen power.

Actually I found this to be a major change from the book. In the book the Rohirrim sound their horns & charge, taking advantage of the surprise & shock of their sudden appearance, & charge straight into the enemy's flank, throwing them into confusion & so gaining the upper hand.My, some people are so pernickity! ;) Having looked back at the relevant passage in the book, it seems to me that the Rohirrim were sufficiently distant from MT when they commenced their charge for the armies of Mordor, if sufficiently well-disciplined, to have had time to set up a workable defence. But, they were not well-disciplined (when were Orcs ever so) and the ferocity of the charge and the feyness (is that a word?) of the Riders struck fear into them and brought about their disarray. That seems to me to be pretty much how it happened in the film too.

Of course, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to portray the moment on screen exactly as Tolkien wrote it, by virtue of the fact that we are talking about two different types of media, which employ different techniques. But I would maintain that the power of the moment in the book is pretty well reflected in the film.

[davem]

Yes, but...Cavalry would never willingly charge into pikes because its a really stupid thing to do. The Rohirrim aren't there to go down in a blaze of glory, they're there to try & save Gondor. Besides, I think its the death of Theoden & the percieved death of Eowyn that pushes them over the edge into 'feyness'. When they arrive they are very organised & have a strategy for taking on the enemy. Their whole approach was based on secrecy & surprise. The point is, what the Rohirrim do at that point in the movie is just stupid. In the book they may have a lot of ground to cover before they get to the enemy, but they don't hang around waiting for the orcs to get organised. My reading of the episode in the book is that the reason the orcs, Easterlings, Southrons, et al, panicked was not because they were afraid of the 'feyness' of the Rohirrim but because they didn't have time to organise any defence - which is the way cavalry were used most effectively - hit & run & hit again. These were the tactics they used against the orcs who captured Merry & Pippin. If the enemy had had the time they had in the movie the Rohirrim would have been toast.

[The Saucepan Man]

Theoden was certainly fey, or seemed so, as the Riders charged towards the enemy. I would imagine that those following him were similarly "charged" (*groan*). It seems to have been the way of the Rohirrim in battle.

In the book, the coming morning seems to have played its part in inspiring the fear in the Orcish army. I cannot recall whether this was a feature of the film (although the rising sun and Gandalf's dazzling brightness was portrayed as the reason for the Uruks failing to hold firm as Helm's Deep).

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, davem. I think that it's a wonderful moment in the film and it brought (and still brings) tears to my eyes. Enchanting, even. But if you want to bring your book-reading, tactically aware "baggage" to the film, then so be it. :p ;)

[Lalwendë]

But, they were not well-disciplined (when were Orcs ever so) and the ferocity of the charge and the feyness (is that a word?) of the Riders struck fear into them and brought about their disarray. That seems to me to be pretty much how it happened in the film too.

The orcs in the film seemed very well disciplined to me, scarily so at times. Which would probably make the charge of the Rohirrim even more 'wrong' and incorrect in terms of tactics. But in any case I particularly like Theoden's stirring speech, even if it is wrong tactically. :p

I liked FotR the best of all the films too, but I have a theory about it... I think that as it was the first film, and bearing in mind that PJ had spent huge sums of money and it had to be a success, it was much more carefully made than the following two films. The story seemed more coherent and it was clear that more attention had been paid to this. It was also important to establish this as a trilogy which had quality, and not least of all, to appeal to the Tolkien fans. Let's face it, LotR was an unusual prospect for a film and if the Tolkien fans did not like it then it was not likely that everyone else would go to see it. There have been several cases of big money adaptations of cult stories and comic books which have not met with the approval of the fans of the originals, and have therefore been deemed not to be good (e.g. Tank Girl, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). After success was assured, PJ was free to add a little more of his own vision.

[The Saucepan Man]

After success was assured, PJ was free to add a little more of his own vision.Except that all three films had largely been written and filmed by the time that FotR was released. You could have a point on the editing, though, I suppose.

I find it difficult to choose between FotR and RotK as my favourite. FotR amazed me when I saw it and, as others have said, it was our first experience of Jackson's screen adaptations. But RotK, for me, has a lot more powerful and tear-jerking moments.

I would agree with the majority, though, that TTT was the weakest. Partly because it is the "middle of the story" and so has no real beginning or end. But also because the changes made in TTT were the ones that bothered me the most, in the sense that many were either gratuitous, introduced internal inconsistencies or just didn't work as well as the original story.

That said, I still greatly enjoyed all three films.

[davem]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, davem. I think that it's a wonderful moment in the film and it brought (and still brings) tears to my eyes. Enchanting, even. But if you want to bring your book-reading, tactically aware "baggage" to the film, then so be it. :p ;)

Maybe I am bringing 'baggage' to my viewing of the movies but I think the problem with this scene (among many) is that the internal logic of the story breaks down. The characters must obey certain rules. For instance, Gandalf may be a wizard but he 'cannot burn snow'. What the Rohirrim do at this point is suicidal & 'breaks the spell' for me. As soon as you start thinking 'that is a really dumb thing to do - why would they do that? you're pulled out of the secondary world. I feel Tolkien went to a great deal of time & trouble to create a secondary world that was rational & internally logical.

Just as in the discussion on Gandalf & the WK there is no internal logic to the event. These events are there for cinematic reasons - there is no thought about whether what happens on screen makes sense, only about whether it looks good. I could pick out others - when Frodo falls off the High Seat on Amon Hen he falls, given his size, the equivalent of about 18-20 feet onto his back & just gets up a little winded. He would probably have broken every bone in his body! Or when Boromir is hurled across the Chamber of Mazarbul into a stone pillar only to end up a bit dazed. These scenes may look good on screen but they are plainly silly & shatter the internal logic of the world. It turns the characters into cartoon figures (sorry if either of those examples have been used - haven't had time to read the whole thread yet).

[alatar]

Except that all three films had largely been written and filmed by the time that FotR was released. You could have a point on the editing, though, I suppose.

Not that I'd ever defend PJ (though I'm eternally thankful that he did what he did), but was the editing of FOTR more carefully done, as afterwards he then had to cut the FOTR EE version (and start a trend/revenue cash cow there) along with editing/enhancing TTT? Was this the reason that ROTK was somewhat better as his workload decreased somewhat as most of the machinery was already in place?

[Lalwendë]

Not that I'd ever defend PJ (though I'm eternally thankful that he did what he did), but was the editing of FOTR more carefully done, as afterwards he then had to cut the FOTR EE version (and start a trend/revenue cash cow there) along with editing/enhancing TTT? Was this the reason that ROTK was somewhat better as his workload decreased somewhat as most of the machinery was already in place?

Perhaps, if you do prefer FotR that is, it was a benefit that PJ had less time to work on his editing? Often, the best work is produced while under pressure; maybe PJ had less time to procrastinate and hence to fiddle about with what was already good in the case of FotR? That would depend on which film you think is the best though.

Except that all three films had largely been written and filmed by the time that FotR was released. You could have a point on the editing, though, I suppose.

I'd say editing is just as important in film making as directing or scriptwriting - the documentary which came with the recent Star Wars box set showed how Lucas at first had edited Star Wars really badly and needed to have a rethink. It is basically as important to a film maker as structure is to a writer. And in FotR this was well done - as several people have said already, FotR had good pacing:

I believe that Fellowship did a much better job sustaining suspense and tension throughout the movie, where as the other two movies had more fights but less substance between.

[alatar]

Perhaps, if you do prefer FotR that is, it was a benefit that PJ had less time to work on his editing? Often, the best work is produced while under pressure; maybe PJ had less time to procrastinate and hence to fiddle about with what was already good in the case of FotR? That would depend on which film you think is the best though.

Not saying that you're wrong, but I've never liked that argument, as usually it goes untested. I can't count the times that persons tell me that they work really well under pressure and when they've procrastinated, and hold up x as the result. My contention always is is what would x look like if more time and less pressure were applied?

Something that I've had to learn while working is to plan and design more, and 'react' less.

And not that I don't procrastinate, nor require negative incentives to gain momentum...

[Lalwendë]

I don't actually like that argument myself! But it is a possibility. :)

Where the difference lay could be in that as the films took so long to make, PJ could have begun (or at least supervised from a distance) work on the editing while the filming process was underway. Wasn't RotK originally as seen in the extended edition and then cut for the cinema, while FotR and TT extended editions actually had added material?

[mormegil]

Does anyone else feel that insufficient time was given to Frodo and Sam in their actual journey through Mordor? When the book is read it's impossible not to see how desperate and pathetic their plight is. Contrasting the movie, it seems that the come over the mountain, the orcs move and they are near Mt. Doom all happens very quickly. Now I realize that in the EE it's a bit better but not up to par with the book. In reading the book, every time I do, I just feel is Frodo going to make it? or how can they endure this?

It may have been too boring to put in the movie but I would like to see their situation a bit more desperate. Maybe I'm not remembering enough of it but I would like other opinions.

As far as Theodens rousing speak, I am in full agreement with SpM on this. I find it probably the most moving part of the movie (just after Aragorns first kiss with Arwen ;) :rolleyes: ). Every time that I hear that I want to get up and jump into the battle with them.

Edit: I need to add that at the end when Frodo gives his speech it's a bit more desperate but at that point they are already at Mt Doom. (Also a very moving moment) I guess I just wanted to see more of their actual traveling

[Ainaserkewen]

The EE of Fellowship was a disapointment. Of course, aside from all the new information that was released to non-book fans and how great it was to know a bit more of what was going on, the EE, well, it sucked (for lack of a better term).

Please feel free to argue with me.

I didn't see the EE until about 2 years after I fell in love with the original. I'd read the books by then many times and still appreciated Fellowship whilst patiently awaiting Return. I was hoping that the EE would give me a better insight into what I was to expect for ROTK.

So I watched it from front to back and I was horrified. The original flowyness, the perfect dialog, sounds, and characters, destroyed with the few new added scenes. The movie suddenly became Two Towers like, klunky, awkward and cheesy at too many points. The momentum was gone.

Of course, this could just be because of how I feel about the original and books aside, thought it was very detailed and carefully made. Like I said, feel free to argue, I'd like to hear other's perspectives.

[The Saucepan Man]

These events are there for cinematic reasons - there is no thought about whether what happens on screen makes sense, only about whether it looks good.I don't disagree with you. For better or for worse, it's pretty standard with most "blockbuster" films these days. I recall thinking during the second Indiana Jones film, when Indie is running along the mine-cart tracks being shot at, how unbelievable it is that he does not get hit. Even if all of those shooting were the worst shots in the world, the law of averages would dictate that some bullets would hit him. Much the same thought occurred to me recently when I watched the first Star Wars film again and wondered at the inept marksmanship of the Imperial Stormtroopers firing on Luke and Leia in the corridors of the Death Star. And the same issue occurs in FotR when the Fellowship come under a hail of Orcish arrows as they run from the Bridge of Khazad-Dum.

I think that it's much easier to get away with this in films, "bloskbuster" films at least, because they are much more immediate. One can get swept up in the action and have less time to think about the logic of the situation. It is far more important for books to maintain credibility because the reader has time to pause for thought.

But you are right. There are things in the films that don't make sense when you stop and think about them (although I would not necessarily include the Gandalf/Witch-King scene in that category, for the reasons that I have stated on that thread). What can I say? Maybe I just don't think about these things so deeply. I don't think that one is supposed to with these kinds of films.

So I watched it from front to back and I was horrified. The original flowyness, the perfect dialog, sounds, and characters, destroyed with the few new added scenes.Maybe you are just too used to the original. If one is used to a certain "pattern", then it is bound to seem strange if that pattern is disturbed in any way.

[Lindo]

Many posts back there was discussion about FotR being more 'magical'. I do think that it is; but I think there is a good reason. FOTR is about Frodo's flight from Ringwraiths, rescued by elves, taken to the home of elves, traveling thence through Moria to another Home of Elves, Lorien. It's a very elvish movie, I think the most elvish of the three. As lmp would say, it's good fairy-tale. (Well, okay, not genuine, REAL Faerie, but... *cough* to continue.)

Despite the appearance of Haldir & Co at Helm's deep, TTT is very much about men; men, and orcs. Ents too, but they evoke (in the movie) less Magic than the elves do. They are Neat and Cool, but not magical. Aragorn talks about "The world of Men." Gandalf does too. Saruman does too. The elves are already half forgotten; bah, they're leaving anyway, right? Gandalf and Saruman don't provide the atmosphere of enchantment like the elves do; and besides, they are both obsessing about men, as they must. A few hobbits and wizards can't turn TTT into a non-mannish film. Meanwhile, Frodo travels through Ithilien: more dealings with Men.

RotK isn't about magic or enchantment anymore; it's not even just about Men; it's about guts and glory, loyalty, duty, perseverance and, well, perseverance. And isn't the whole point of the ending of RotK, the departing of the eold enchantment?

I guess that's one reason why most of my daydreaming took place either pre-war or early war. Who wants to go there when the elves are gone?

[davem]

I think that it's much easier to get away with this in films, "bloskbuster" films at least, because they are much more immediate. One can get swept up in the action and have less time to think about the logic of the situation. It is far more important for books to maintain credibility because the reader has time to pause for thought.

If I'd seen the movies before I read the books I think I'd have been blown away by them. If I'd seen them after one or two readings of the book I might have felt the same way. I think PJ's vision matches mine when I was a teenager & it was all about battles & magic & beauty. PJ captured that side perfectly.

Maybe I've just read & thought about the books too much - & I may be going against my argument in other threads here - I'm not sure. I think, though, that my problems aren't caused by dragging in too much primary world baggage, but rather by my increasing awareness of the deeper themes Tolkien was dealing with. the accusation I read in one review keep coming back into my mind - that PJ seemed to think LotR was an action movie in book form. He touches on some of the themes I'm talking about, but never goes into them in the kind of depth necessary. Either he doesn't understand them or isn't interested in them. Then, as I've pointed out elsewhere, he (or the other writers) give speeches or experiences to one character that belong to another (Eowyn being given Faramir's dream of the Great Wave for instance) which remove the deeper meaning or significance of them.

He also doesn't seem to know where to stop. There's a nice interchange between Aragorn & Eowyn about Dwarf women ('Its the beards.') which would have been fine of he'd stopped there, but he couldn't & has to have Gimli falling off his horse! Or later where he takes one of my absolute favourite scenes from the book - Gimli's rescue of Aragorn at HD - 'Baruk Khazad! Khazad Aimenu!' ('Axes of the Dwarves! The Dwarves are upon you!' - even writing that brings tears to my eyes!) & replaces it with Gimli falling into a puddle & having to be lifted up by Aragorn.

LotR isn't an action novel, & so shouldn't be turned into an action movie. It reminds me of the 'Hamlet' skit in Last Action Hero.

I think what I missed was the sense of loss that pervades the book. Its almost (in one way at least) a meditation on loss & bereavement - perhaps coming out of Tolkien's own experience of loss - of his parents, of friends in the war, of the countryside he loved, of the values he held, & I suppose we respond to it because we've all experienced some such loss ourselves & become more aware of it as we grow older - though I'm not going back on my statements that we should try & leave the specific baggage we carry with us at the door when we enter the secondary world. Our own experience of loss will enable us to empathise & connect & be enchanted by the story, specific memories will pull us out of the secondary world.

I suppose LMP's points about the loss of Eden are significant, I think, because the deeper feeling of loss - the loss of wonder & beauty & magic which we all feel (more & more as we get older) is perhaps not down to personal experiences of loss, but due more to a sense of 'exile' from we know not what, but symbolise for ourselves as 'Eden' or the Elves. Along with that sense of loss & exile goes the 'belief' (if its not more than that) that its possible to find our way 'home' again: 'Still rond the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate, & though I oft have passed them by, a day will come at last when I, shall take the hidden paths that run, West of the Moon, East of the Sun.' This is what I feel overwhelmingly when I read LotR - loss & hope (even if that hope lies 'beyond the circles of the world'). I also get it when I listen to the BBC radio adaptation, but not from the films. Perhaps that's the faut of the medium, the (inevitable) fact that the events are presented in real time, & with a sense of immediacy, as though its all happening as I watch, rather than, as with the book & the radio series (which is more of a dramatised reading), it being something that happened a very long time ago to people who have long since passed into the West.

[The Saucepan Man]

LotR isn't an action novel, & so shouldn't be turned into an action movie.But surely it is, on one level. You yourself say that this is how you read it as a teenager (much as I did). That reading wasn't "wrong" in comparison with the way that you read the book now. Just different.

And if the book can be read, on one level, as an action novel, why shouldn't it be capable of being made into an action film? Provided that one recognises that this is, in essence, what these films are (albeit beautifully made ones), one can derive great enjoyment from them.

And, should a film be made that explored the deeper meanings of the book, then I am sure that I would enjoy that too, provided that it was well done.

[davem]

But surely it is, on one level. You yourself say that this is how you read it as a teenager (much as I did). That reading wasn't "wrong" in comparison with the way that you read the book now. Just different.

Because, looking back I think my early reading of the book was (perhaps inevitably) simplistic. I think if my reading wasn't 'wrong' it was certainly shallow. I'd say that's the case with the movies. If PJ was 16 years old I'd find it easier to accept his version. I don't think LotR is on any level an 'action novel' - any more than War & Peace is. That it can, & often is, read as one, merely shows the limitations of the reader. Art often has to be grown into. I think PJ tried to make a movie which would appeal to the widest possible audience. Tolkien wrote a book that appealed principally to himself, without any real thought of who might read it. Its interesting that Tolkien succeeded where (for many of us) PJ failed.

I don't want to come across as someone who just dislikes the films on principle - I so wanted to love them. I just can't. I'm simply not moved by them. I wish I could be. It would be nice to have more of Middle earth. I've watched them a good few times - FotR maybe a dozen times, the others a bit less. I even spent a whole Sunday a few months back watching all three EE's. Afterwards I suppose I felt that I didn't really dislike them a great deal, I just didn't care. I don't think I'll watch them again. There's something I can't really define clearly that's just not there. Its not 'Middle earth' for me.

[mormegil]

Davem if I may interject here it seems that you apply different standards of what art is to different mediums. The movies failed in your mind because of obvious primary world ideas you had of them, however you are very vocal against doing that when reading a book. You further say that if anybody is pulled out of the book enchantment than it is his own fault. You suggest that PJ failed--while the film appealed to many--and yet the book didn't because you weren't pulled out and those who were "well there just not reading it correctly".

There is a great inconsistency in the way you are judging the two. Admittedly I love the books far more than I do the movies. However I think the movies are more or less great in their own medium. Sadly we tend to compare the movies to the books too much (I am guilty of this at times) but the book cannot be translated perfectly into film. It is too deep, too powerful, and too well written to do such a feat. Not if we had 6 films could it even be done.

The difference being that books have a way of evoking our imagination and we are able to see, in a way, what we want. Whereas with the movie we are shown what we are seeing and little imagination is left. It's not that PJ per se but that he is operating under a different medium.

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem, I disagree with you profoundly when you seek to devalue your early reading experience (or so it seems to me), but that is to be expected given our differing views on the reader v author debate.

Its interesting that Tolkien succeeded where (for many of us) PJ failed.I would say that they both succeeded greatly in achieving what they set out to achieve, athough I agree that their intentions were, in many respects, very different.

For someone who dislikes, or at least is ambivalent towards the films, you seem to have watched them (FotR at least) many more times than me. :D

Edit: Quite mormegil. It seems that, if one were to replace the reader v author debate with a watcher v director debate, davem and I would find ourselves in agreement. ;)

[alatar]

Either he doesn't understand them or isn't interested in them. Then, as I've pointed out elsewhere, he (or the other writers) give speeches or experiences to one character that belong to another (Eowyn being given Faramir's dream of the Great Wave for instance) which remove the deeper meaning or significance of them.

Finally started watching the Appendix material found in the ROTK EE DVDs last night, and could not agree more. It seems that they went to the Tolkien LOTR buffet, selected from the various dishes/themes, and used those willy-nilly in the movies. "Hey, that Faramir quote regarding Numenor is really shiny...we need to have that in the movie! Now who can we pin that bauble on? Hmmm...Eowyn has room for more LOTR jewelry, so pin it on her."

What absolutely kills me is when the writers assert that they were being true to the "vision" and "theme" when they have added scenes, storylines, have mixed up dialogue and generally show limited understanding for the deeper themes. They just had to do it the way that it was done for reason x. It was almost like saying that it was completely out of their hands and also that no other idea would have worked.

[davem]

Davem if I may interject here it seems that you apply different standards of what art is to different mediums. The movies failed in your mind because of obvious primary world ideas you had of them, however you are very vocal against doing that when reading a book. You further say that if anybody is pulled out of the book enchantment than it is his own fault. You suggest that PJ failed--while the film appealed to many--and yet the book didn't because you weren't pulled out and those who were "well there just not reading it correctly". .

Maybe you're right, but....

I can't see the films as things in their own right, only as attempts at telling a pre-existing story, so what I'm referring to here is where & how (for me) the films fail to communicate the story, where they stop making sense in terms of Middle earth. The films are not an equal but different ways of telling the same story - what I mean by that is that we're not dealing with a pre existing myth or legend that Tolkien wrote a version of & PJ filmed a version of. LotR is Tolkien's story, as Tolkien told it. Any adaptation should be judged on whether it communicates the spirit & essence of the story well or badly. It doesn't have to put everything on screen exactly as it is in the book, but it must remain true to the source. If you're not going to do that, why adapt at all - why not write & tell your own story?

In essence this is my chief quibble. They didn't have to make these movies.

You are absolutely right as regards anyone watching the movies as movies - either because they don't know the books or because they are able to leave that 'baggage at the door. So, as I say, I am probably guilty of double standards in my criticism. I can only say though, that what the movie makers have done is to tell their own story not Tolkien's but by using so many of Tolkien's names & his basic storyline they make it inevitable that anyone who knows the original will be forced, whether they want to or not, to make comparisons between the book & the films. This is the risk all adaptors take.

For someone who dislikes, or at least is ambivalent towards the films, you seem to have watched them (FotR at least) many more times than me.


Well, as I said, I wanted to love them. I also wanted to give them a chance to grow on me - which is why I spent that whole Sunday watching them. I've had to accept now, with some regret, that they do nothing much for me :(

Davem, I disagree with you profoundly when you seek to devalue your early reading experience (or so it seems to me), but that is to be expected given our differing views on the reader v author debate.

I don't so much 'devalue' it as recognise that while it was the starting point I've moved on in my capacity to appreciate & understand the work. In some ways that saddens me, because there is a loss of innocent 'wonder' which I struggle to recapture when re-reading. But that's been replaced with something else, which in this context I suppose would be have to be called 'informed' wonder - just as deep, if not deeper, but at the same time more 'profound', or so I like to think.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I think that I can explain the lapse in "flowiness". In The Fellowship of the Ring (book), it truly does flow. You begin with a few characters, and as the story continues, you meet more, but they are continually working together, doing new things, and headed off to save the world. That sort of thing. It's one group (growing, though it may be), that's got one agenda. And so, easily enough, the movie can follow that same idea.

I'll post more later (my ride just got here early) but it'll be along the lines of "and then in book/movie two, the plot lines split which makes for inevitable choppiness in the flow of the film". You can't expect flow when you have two separate plots going on.

[Kath]

Going back to a much earlier point of davem's, I just wanted to disagree slightly.

when Frodo falls off the High Seat on Amon Hen he falls, given his size, the equivalent of about 18-20 feet onto his back

davem said that this destroyed the image of a secondary world, or at least pulled him out of it, but in this instance I found that it fit in. Smaller creatures can fall larger distances while sustaining less damage than bigger creatures. For example a cat can fall out of a 4th floor window and land without a scratch, whereas a human would break a good many bones. This fall of Frodo's and the fact that the Seat would be higher to him than a Man suits that theory.

What broke the illusion to me was then Aragorn leaping off the same Seat to face the orcs. Using the previous argument it should not have been possible for him to do this with no ill effect, and for it to look as though it was the same distance for him to 'fall' as it was for Frodo.

Then there was this
Then, as I've pointed out elsewhere, he (or the other writers) give speeches or experiences to one character that belong to another (Eowyn being given Faramir's dream of the Great Wave for instance) which remove the deeper meaning or significance of them.

Which I completely agree with. Tolkien wrote with a whole world and legend and history in his mind, so that what his characters said fit with their past, present and future. Changing this is just not an option if you want to make the film of the story. If this is done the film becomes a different story with the same elements.

[alatar]

Smaller creatures can fall larger distances while sustaining less damage than bigger creatures. For example a cat can fall out of a 4th floor window and land without a scratch, whereas a human would break a good many bones. This fall of Frodo's and the fact that the Seat would be higher to him than a Man suits that theory.

What broke the illusion to me was then Aragorn leaping off the same Seat to face the orcs. Using the previous argument it should not have been possible for him to do this with no ill effect, and for it to look as though it was the same distance for him to 'fall' as it was for Frodo.


Really? I will have to check with my physicist friend to be sure, but thought that all objects fall at the same rate. Force = mass x acceleration (or something), and so Frodo would hit the ground with less force than would Aragorn, due to their differing masses, but I think that both would be in for a bit of a jolt.

Have considered testing this out using me and my son, but then figured that it would only land me in the hospital either due to:

the fall, as I would be the Aragorn-sized control, or
getting caught by Mrs. alatar, who would not take lightly me indulging in such stupidity...;)

As long as the world is internally consistent, then I can go along for the ride. As posted elsewhere, inconsistencies like Saruman's fireball (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11562) took me out of the movie.

In regards to cats, I think that they can 'fall' further due to (1) less mass, (2) instinctively decreasing the rate of descent by cupping their bodies, and (3) having anatomy more suited to such fun. A cat falling on its back will be hurt.

Anyway, on the other hand, ME is a fantasy world, and in a world of magic rings, wizards, incarnate evil, etc, a little fudging of reality can be expected.


Tolkien wrote with a whole world and legend and history in his mind, so that what his characters said fit with their past, present and future. Changing this is just not an option if you want to make the film of the story. If this is done the film becomes a different story with the same elements.

Agreed. 'Seeing' a character 'speak' another character's lines was like experiencing something akin (I assume) to schizophrenia.

[Lathriel]

I have to disagree with the people who say that ROTK has less magic. As soon as I read that I had to think of Gandalf on Shadowfax, leaving Minas Tirith to drive away the ringwraiths from the Gondorian army.
I was also thinking of the lighting of the beacons, Galadriel's phial, the charge of the Rohirrim, the Ring's destruction, and the grey havens. Those moments all had a magical feel for me.

[alatar]

I was also thinking of the lighting of the beacons... Those moments all had a magical feel for me.

I would agree that the scenes/shots of the beacons blazing on the mountain tops etc were magical, yet this was just after the 'Pippin had to light the first one' stupidity, for which I've still never figured out the reasoning.

[Gurthang]

Well, PJ, being the expert Tolkien scholar that he is, decided that Pippin didn't have a big enough part, and so had him do many more things, like light the beacons. There is definitely reasoning behind it, if very faulty reasoning. ;)


Originally posted by Lathriel
I have to disagree with the people who say that ROTK has less magic. As soon as I read that I had to think of Gandalf on Shadowfax, leaving Minas Tirith to drive away the ringwraiths from the Gondorian army.
I was also thinking of the lighting of the beacons, Galadriel's phial, the charge of the Rohirrim, the Ring's destruction, and the grey havens. Those moments all had a magical feel for me.

I do agree that all those moments were magical. Yet there was so much that broke that magical feeling; it became almost jerky and bumpy. It was like 'OH! that was magical' followed closely by 'What the! Why'd he do that!'. Scenes like Pippin lighting the beacons and Gandalf's illegitimate confrontation with the Witch-King are what takes the magic back a step.

It's not that FotR had more magic, per se, it just didn't have those things that paused the magic and clouded the plot.

[alatar]

Well, PJ, being the expert Tolkien scholar that he is, decided that Pippin didn't have a big enough part, and so had him do many more things, like light the beacons. There is definitely reasoning behind it, if very faulty reasoning. ;)

Oh, I knew what the real reason was for Pippin's part, but when watching the movie for the first time, couldn't get a handle on the 'Theoden's not coming unless he saw some fire on the hilltops' and Denethor was short on matches or something.

It made no sense, but it looked good.

[davem]

Sorry if this has been pointed out before, but did anyone else get the feeling from the writers/directors commentaries on films 1&2 that on the first one they all seemed to be very pleased with themselves & their achievement while on the second one they seemed to spend a lot of time apologising & making excuses for the changes they'd made to the story?

Don't know if this was self doubt creeping in or whether they were just trying to placate the book fans, but either way they seemed a lot more defensive on the second one.

[Eruanna]

It made no sense, but it looked good.

It did look good, Alatar!
I can clearly remember sitting in the cinema and feeling the 'goosebumps' at that running shot of each beacon being lit, one after the other. It brought tears to my eyes.
The next time I saw it, however, I was struck by more practical considerations, like how on Earth the beacon-lighters (for want of a better title) managed to cling to the top of those extremely high peaks!
Maybe it's just a case of changes being made purely to elicit an emotional reaction. Like the Elves arriving at Helm's Deep, it didn't happen in the book, but it makes me want to cheer every time :D

[Kath]

This isn't so much a 'mistake' it just broke the mood of the film for me. We have the amazing tracking shot of the beacons being lit and we see the final being lit on the outskirts of Rohan and then we focus in on Aragorn - who immediately gets up and runs like some kind of crazed, I don't even know what, to the king. It's just such a mad movement! It made me laugh out loud in the cinema and I still giggle at it even now!

[Gurthang]

Hey, that's another one! It really disturbed me how Theoden initially said he would not go to Gondor's aid. Even putting the book aside, I hated that part! :mad:

[Lathriel]

I guess they added that part in to add suspense but I didn't like it either. There seemed to be no good reason for it, and they could have used those few seconds to show something else that was much more important. (Maybe an extra scene of Minas Tirith etc.)
However, I didn't mind Aragorn sprinting up the steps to tell the others that the beacons had been lit.

[alatar]

Was listening to the FOTR soundtrack this morning, and realized yet another reason why I prefer this movie over the other two.

The end song, "May it be" by Enya, is just great as it is just melancholy enough for me to think about my fellowship (the group of people with which I survived my teenaged years). TTT has Gollum's Song (performed by Emiliana Torrini), which is hauntingly good, yet it only brings to surface all of those 'other' personalities clamoring inside my head that I'd thought that I'd shouted down years ago.

And I can't even remember the ROTK Annie Lennox song.

[Lalwendë]

Oh, I love Gollum's Song! It's not enough to make me like TT more than FotR but it's wonderful. I actually thought it was Bjork singing it when I first heard it and had to hang around watching the credits in the cinema to check. I've heard some of Emiliana Torrini's other songs on i-Tunes though, and they're worth checking out, if only for the amusing lyrics. ;)

[Ainaserkewen]

The Soundtracks were a huge influence on each movie for sure. I'd forgotten about that.

FoTR's was very, very noticable the first time I saw it. It just totally added beautiful depth and emotion and it kind of let you along by the hand into which situations were dangerous, sweet, funny or perilous. I think by the time TTT roled around I was less impressed by the original themes for each character group. Though the theme for Rohan was beautiful and the best of TTT. You could begin to get the story roughly through the music as well. Frodo and Sam's theme was now truly their own and the Fellowship theme had pretty much died.

Come to think of it, the main Fellowship theme (I think it was called "The Ring Goes South" on the CD), especially right when the Fellowship top that hill one by one was the biggest emotional spill-over in the movie, one that was so unique to Fellowship.

[Kath]

The soundtrack was a reason I liked RotK less than the others because the 'theme' music wasn't there anymore in some places. For example in FotR and I think TTT there was a specific bit of music that came on everytime the Nazgul appeared that was really creepy and dark, and then in RotK it suddenly wasn't there anymore!

But I did love the song at the end of RotK - the Annie Lennox one, it was beautifully haunting and descriptive.

[Gurthang]

Yes, I agree thoroughly! This brings to mind one specific scene from FotR. Sam and Frodo are just starting off on their journey. I don't think that Pippin and Merry have joined them yet. (sorry, it's been a little while) Well, anyway, Frodo and Samwise are walking through the lush green fields of the Shire, beautiful mountains are in the background, and that just-started-out-on-a-fantastic-journey music is playing. The camera shows another view of scenery from atop a hill, but without Frodo and Sam in the picture. Suddenly, the music grows dark and a black horse steps into view.

That part really says a lot. It's so subtle yet very meaningful. Sam and Frodo are really excited about the journey and have little thought for danger, and so the music is cheerful. But then that tone changes. This change is completely smooth; it suddenly went from cheerful to haunting without simply ripping the viewer from one side to the other. It really just let the audience know that the pair were in far more danger then they thought.

That part says a lot. I really enjoy watching that each time, because it is so unexpected and yet flows seemlessly.

[Ainaserkewen]

That's it! Subtely! It's like why Jaws was such a great movie. The crew couldn't get the gigantic mechanical shark to work for most of the shooting so the movie ended up with less actual cheesy shark scenes and just heart-gripping suspence. It's why FOTR was so magical for me. I didn't know what any of the creatures were or where they came from and my imagination just latched onto anything different.

[Gurthang]

I agree with you Aina, but that's not all. I too had only just read the Hobbit when I watched FotR, so the movie was completely new to me.

But now that I've seen all the movies, read all the books, I still have that feeling of awe when watching the Fellowship. That's just not there with the other two movies.