PJ's LOTR--Not fantastic enough?
 

Is it just me, or is there a certain "realism" to the feel of PJ's LOTR that takes away the aura of mysticism and magic? Like it feels too real--I can't explain it. Too rough hewn, too "historical fiction"-ish in the look of the locations/sets etc. There's just a certain level of fantastic grandeur missing.

I go back to Boorman--Consider the mystical feel present throughout "Excalibur", even the general look of the film cinematography wise. You feel like you've been taken to a more magical place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YOL-Cm5RmQ

Apart from Peter Jacksons ''Mistakes'' in the film I found the rest quite ok. Tolkien wrote the books to be as real as history could be, throwing in a bit of real world mythology, so more ''FANTASY'' would to me have ruined it, putting it with the rest of the weak fantasy films we already have.

If there were a moment in the films that wasn't fantastic enough, it would be Lothlorien. I think that PJ tried, but it didn't just come off as 'part of the world outside of time.'

Yes it's supposed to be a history...But a history taking place in an Earth far, far removed from our own time, basically forgotten in history...A much more magical time, when wonder still reigned; Basically, a time of MYTHOLOGY. When the unbelievable was not only fully believable, but still dwelt alongside men. An age where creatures like Barrow-Wights and Ringwraiths and Great Eagles and the like existed; A time where races like Elves, Dwarves,, Trolls, Orcs, Ents and Hobbits and (lesser) Valar still walked the Earth; A time where Man shared the Earth with strange beings like Tom Bombadil and Beorn. It shouldn't be totally out of this world fantastic, but it also shouldn't be Braveheart-esque, which is where it goes in the TT and ROTK in some parts.

PJ does seem to go in for the battle scenes, doesn't he?

To be fair though, I don't really believe it is or would be possible for any filmmaker to capture the feel of the story in the books. I've thought that from the first, which was the core of my original objection that they needn't have tried.

I think the 'fantastic grandeur' was there aplenty in the Shire, in Rivendell and in Minas Tirith; but aside from that, yes, it wasn't exactly Middle-earth. To be fair, though, I don't think anyone could pull off a real Middle-earth, and then it would also depend on people's perspectives.

Well I wouldn't call Braveheart realistic in any way. It was basically Mel Gibson's fevered fantasy vision of Scotland and William Wallace.

But I did love the vision of Middle-earth as portrayed in the films. The designs of sets and costumes were about perfect, and no small detail was missed, from the tree of Gondor on Boromir's vambraces to the clutter of Bag End. This owed a lot to the designs of Alan Lee and John Howe though, two Tolkien illustrators that I admired long before the films came out. And because I love their work then what I saw in this vision of Middle-earth was probably bound to satisfy.

As for the scenery...if anything it was a bit too grand and fantastical for me. My mental image of the Misty Mountains is less Kiwi peaks and more Lakeland fells. This is one thing I've enjoyed about the HBO production of A Game Of Thrones - they filmed in Northern Ireland, which is a landscape much more suited to my imagination ;)