Which Movie was best overall?
 

I think it was The Two Towers. This movie had the best fight scene, the best lines of comedy and the best plotline. The only problem i have with it is that it cut some of the second book out and then they moved that bit to the third movie.

Why is this thread in Mirth?

The Fellowship was my favorite. The Two Towers was strangely skewed from the original text out of all three films...there are the obvious reasons (Aragorn's "death", Elves at Helm's Deep, Theoden's possession, leaving out of numerous chapters) and then there are the less obvious reasons that would take all night to list. Out of all 3, I would say TTT was my least favorite.

I agree. As good as TTT really is, it just does not have the same feeling that the other two give. What that feeling is, really, I cant explain... :confused:

I really don't think I could answer because I see the movies (as I do the books) as the beginning, middle and end of one story. They don't stand alone: FOTR is too heavy on exposition and has no closure, while ROTK is basically all closure, and TTT, while it comes closest to being a complete story in itself because of the Rohan/Saruman/Helm's Deep situation, lacks the emotional highs of the other two. The scenes I really despise are Galadriel's transformation in FOTR, the riduculous CGI ghosts in ROTK and the infamous "orgy" scene, also in ROTK. On the other hand, the scenes that delighted me the most were in the same two movies: the Shire, birthday party and Rivendell scenes from FOTR and the finding of the ring, collapse of Barad Dur, coronation and Gray Havens scenes from ROTK. So to sum up, it's really impossible to answer. ;)

I consider FOTR by far the best, and closest adaptation
of PJ's three films. Especially smart was the prologue
(even better in the extended dvd). The Other two had
moments but there were exasperating digressions/
alterations/mistakes. For example, the warping of Faramir
and Denethor, the inexplicable reshrinking of Merry and
Pippin in ROTK after they grew in TTT, the overuse of the green
slime [Army of the Dead], and, to my mind, the bungling
of the charge of the Rohirrim, which, like the book,
should have begun in relative darkness, then had a
weather change and the sun coming out onto Theoden and
his shield and horse. And Eowyn's battle with the Witchking
and her speech was just too truncated.
My overall grades were:
FOTR--- A-
TTT--- C+
ROTK--- B-

But, frankly, PJ did much better then I had expected.


Oh, yeah, and the Easter Eggs in FOTR and TTT were hilarious,
not so much for ROTK. :D

This question is like asking, "Which did you like best - the appetizer, the main meal, or the dessert?" Not that there's a one-to-one correspondence there...

Yes, apples and oranges to some extent, but to me, The Fellowship of the Ring mostly did a brilliant job of capturing the spirit and excitement and the historical setting of the book. As a book, even, I prefer this one, but the contrast was even clearer in the case of the movies. The flight from the Shire might have been handled a bit better (it was flat out brilliant in the book), but the flight from Bree with Aragorn was quite good. And the scenes in Moria were great...

I thought that The Two Towers spent too long getting to Helm's Deep and then in the battle, especially with those frequent cuts to the women and children huddling in the caves. And the gratuitous fall of Aragorn over the cliff (although I did like the battle scene with the Wargs).

Return of the King did have some great scenes as well, but also way too many ridiculous ones, as pointed out above (the cascading skulls, the complete failure to capture Faramir as a character, the descent of Frodo into a Gollum like creature too early in the book, essentially robbing him of most of his nobility, and the garbled treatment of Gandalf, who is the all-powerful White Wizard in one scene, a de-staffed has been in the next).

Personally, I think that all three of the movies were great. But if I had to choose which was the best overall it would be Fellowship of the Ring, followed by the Return of the King and then the Two Towers.

ROTK definitely...
I mean, I know the others were nice as well...but the Battle of the Pelennor alone makes me chose ROTK
The Two Towers is interesting since you have 3 storylines going on - Merry, Pippin and the Ents vs. Isengard, The Three Hunters and the Rohirrim against the armies from Isengard and Dunland, and Frodo, Sam and Gollum continuing the quest...but overall I would definitely choose ROTK where is all ends

Tough choice. All three have their merits. Fellowship of the Ring is unique in that its tone is noticeably lighter than the tone in either of the two later movies. It's not all fun and games, but over all, it's a much happier, relaxed movie. I like it a lot for just that reason. That's not to say I don't like intensity (the complete opposite is true, but sometimes, it can get relentless, and it's nice to take a break). I think that in Fellowship, the characters were all much truer to their book selves, another merit. I don't necessarily mind that they change a little, but it's just another nice thing about FOTR. The material added in the EE just serves to make it a better, stronger, more complete movie.

The Two Towers, while still an excellent movie, is perhaps the weakest of the three, if you look at it with the eye of a movie critic. It's bound to be like that, though, since it's the middle piece of the trilogy. It has no definition in terms of beginning and end, unfortunately. They did the best they could with it, and the emotional arc follows a good path. But I feel like after seeing the EE, both versions could have been stronger. The scenes with Boromir, Faramir, and Denethor were critical to the plot and to audiences' understanding of Faramir and his changed motives, but were left out of the theatrical edition. And there was a lot of fluff that could have been left out of the TTTEE...they effectively messed up the emotional arc of the story (at least, for me) by lengthening battles and adding things in after Sam's monologue instead of letting the movie end the way it did in the theaters. Not to mention, there were a couple distinctly terrible scenes, particularly the infamous "nervous system" courtesy of Gimli. In fact, now that I mention it, I think much of the problem with TTT is the change in character for Gimli. In Fellowship, he was the gruff, serious dwarf we all know and love...but by TTT, he had completely lost that role, and was instead made into comic relief. It's just one character out of several, but the change is remarkably significant to my enjoyment of the movie overall.

Now that's not to say I don't like TTT, because I do...It's still a very good movie, and it has a lot of emotional worth.

Return of the King EE is the only extended edition that I have never seen, mainly because of my feelings about the TTT EE. I didn't want to risk the disappointment in what was an excellent theatrical release (and after reading about some of the scenes here, I think I made the right choice). The comment I made before about relentless intensity really applies here. That's not a bad thing at all...ROTK is an excellent movie, both cinematically and from the point of view of someone with real interest in LOTR. It is intense--it doesn't really let you recover much in between big emotional scenes, particularly as the end approaches. It is my favorite of the three, though I watch Fellowship more frequently.

I believe one of the actors (I'm thinking Sean Astin) was once asked which film was his favorite. (Maybe it was Dominic Monaghan.) And he replied "That's like asking which child is your favorite?"

I think all three contain a scope of grandeur and wonder that surpass anything we've seen before. If hard-pressed, I would have to admit (based almost entirely on in-theater opinion just after the movie ended) that Return of the King is my favorite.

Fellowship of the Ring: Started us off, introduced us to the happy times before the Shadow clouded the sun. I think Amon Hen is one of my favorite scenes; it has the most close-up shots and quick-take action bits. (Many other battles used Massive technology, but I don't believe Amon Hen did at all.)

The Two Towers: Introduced us to Rohan, but also spent a whole lot more time in the dark. Helm's Deep was a great sequence, but somehow, I must admit that The Two Towers is on the bottom rank of all three. (Which is still pretty high...) I must vote TTT at least had the best beginning of them all.

Return of the King: The awe-inspiring conclusion which all the movies, characters, events, themes, plots, battles, story lines and music were leading up to. This was the first movie that ever inspired me to tears; the horns of Rohan, arriving to save Gondor. And then again when Aragorn leads his troops against the host of Mordor whilst Sam and Frodo are at Sammath Naur. Every moment of the film, from the horns of Rohan on (with the few pauses, such as the Last Council) were breath-taking, soaring far beyond the expectations already set impossibly high by the first two. The end too was flawless; a perfect way to conclude not just the film, but the trilogy.

Wow, I think I just talked myself into watching them again. :D

best movie
 

i would say the best movie was ROTK

I would have go along with The Failed king, I say the Return of the King was the best.

Yes, I know that there are several parts of the movie that did not fit the book.

But that was in every movie.

I'd stand for FotR. I think it has, so far, caught the best the book and the story is more or less intact, I can go for it (sorry, Bombadil and Glorfindel). And what I really like about the film, the Middle-Earth in FotR resembles the most the Middle-Earth I know. No Sauron's eye-shaped powerplant, no Sauron's eye-shaped spotlight, no slimy Ghostbuster-like Men of Dunharrow, no Legolas skates or Mumak-jumps, no strange Faramirs in Osgiliath, no dead Aragorns in the river, no slow-motion Shadowfax scenes, and Legolas' two most significant speeches in the whole film ("Orcs!" and "Orcs!") are good to be taken as a joke (which is not the case of later "A diversion!"&co.). There are no exaggerated jokes, and the only scene which makes no sense is, as far as I recall, the escape to the Bridge of Khazad-dum, where Gandalf says "Lead them on, Aragorn" and in the next moment he is the first to hurry forward; and in the next moment everyone leaves Frodo to be the last on that falling piece of stairs, and then that stunt-like thingy with Frodo&Aragorn balancing on it, which is physically impossible. But otherwise, as I said, I like FotR the most. Not saying that there are not good scenes in the other two, but there are certainly more definitely bad scenes.

It is a tough question. I see people here mostly like the FotR and the RotK the best.

My consideration is this:

In theater, I was most wowed by the RotK. It was a fantastic movie to watch in theaters. It was beautiful, sad, awesome, and down right amazing in some places.

But now, after a couple years of not seeing it in theater, and watching the movies at home, my favorite has settled to be the FotR.

It is the truest to the books. The characters are closest to the characters that I know when I read the books. Though they changed some stuff in that first movie (Tom Bombadil and Glorfindel) and added some unlikely parts, too (Legate mentioned the stairs in Moria), it was still well done, and I think it's got the most 'book spirit' in it of all three.

All of them were well done. But the FotR is the most Lord-of-the-Rings-as-Tolkien wrote-it like, to me.

-- Folwren

I would pick the Fellowship as well, with TTT being second and RotK third (yup, you read right)

The first movie is a wonderful introduction to Middle-earth. It simply takes you captive. Also, as has been said before, it stays closest to the storyline of the book (which is also easier because it has only one plot line) and looks closest to how I imagine this world (whereas both Rohan and the fields of the Pelennor just weren't green enough). It just feels right.

TTT has bright spots, has less bright spots. I like the battle of Helm's Deep better than the one on the Pelennor. It's less over the top (the Mumakil, the Dead, the war machinery, the fell beasts nobody cares to shoot, etc.). TTT also has the benefit that it's much less than one book of storyline and so is able to take its time (which, on the downside, led them to invent the near-death of Aragorn and the excursion to Osgiliath).

What I don't like about RotK is that it's so rushed. Too much plot for too few time. I'm not able to "feel into the world and story", if you know what I mean.

I would second that.

My favorite would have to be FotR. Somehow the other two movies didn't strike a chord with me, though they were both a visual feast. I know that I would have enjoyed them much more had I not read the book.

I think FOTR and ROTK are about equal in my book. I think I'd put ROTK as a tad bit higher--though the FOTK preserves somehow the "feel" of the book to me a little better.

Part of the reason for the FOTR being more faithful to the book is that the FOTR(book) seems more carefully written and somehow more vibrant to me as a reader: I think that Tolkien was enjoying writing prose for it's own sake a little more when he started.(It's my opinion, and by no means does it mean I think the others are worse; they just don't paint quite the pictures in my mind as FOTR. Neither do they SCARE me like the other does.)

I would say FOTR for as many people have expressed it captures and enhances your enjoyment when watching it. Close would be ROTK for the battles and the sheer effort put into this film and outstanding moments were superb and need to be recognized.

I think i will watch ROTK now, im in the mood.

What is it about TTT that noone seems to like?

For battles: The Two Towers
For story: The Return of The King
For characters: The Return of The King
For music: The Return of The King
For effects: The Two Towers

So for me The Return of The King is the best. There was simply nothing like it. The end credits, the introduction of the Witch-King, Aragon's speech. Everything was perfect. Those 11 Oscar's were utterly earned no matter what some pompous, irrational, fat, stinky, smelly, gross, loser, boozer, no hope Trotskyite tells you.

I totally agree with Rikae. Of course it drives all of my friends when I say that. They always come back, "If you had to choose one, which would it be?" hehe I never answer. :D

I liked the Fellowship best. I don't think the others were all they could have been. Those were great books; they didn't need a whole lot of rearranging. I was turned off of them when I saw Elves at Helm's Deep. I know, it's artistic license, and they have to make movies that appeal to the most people, and therefore make the most money. It's too bad, really. They are all good movies, and I suppose they are the closest anyone will ever get to recreating the books.

I vote the Fellowship, because it was closest to the events in the book.

I like FOTR just a tad bit more than the others. It has more of a Tolkienesque feeling to it all, and the Shire scenes and all the places they go are just fantastic.

I have to echo those who refused to choose.
To me, it was one grand movie... split by two very, very long intermissions. :D

Fellowship, because it was a new and exciting glimpse of how P.J. saw Middle Earth. It started to go south about the time Arwen "caught a ranger in the wild off his guard" :rolleyes: The other two movies, while having their moments of brilliance in scenery and acting of specific scenes, really just amplified the digressions. TTT was a big attempt to band-aid it all together, and RotK was too hurried where it shouldn't be, while time was wasted on too many anti-climatic false endings.

Fellowship was the best. Hands down.

Fellowship was more focused on the variety of landscapes, peoples, and locations found in Middle Earth. It's more about danger and adventure. TTT and ROTK on the other hand seem to be driven more by huge battles, plot, and characters.

And frankly, PJ (with help from the art team and tech team) is far better at shooting amazing landscape shots and bringing to life different cities/environments than he is at story telling and character creation. Not that he didn't have his moments, of course. There were times that he did a great job. The end of FOTR, for instance, is spectacular. Though it isn't an exact reproduction of the book, the spirit is perfectly in line.

But for the most part, when it comes to creating enjoyable, Middle-Earthian, coherent storylines and beautiful dialogue PJ falls far short of the source material.

When it comes to bringing Middle Earth to life, however, PJ is amazing. Fellowship plays more to this strength.

A draw for last place
 

I think that none of the movies were any good at all. I actually found myself getting sick. I mean physically ill!
The first perversion was horrible, and they became steadily worse from there. Like a mistake in degree, small at first, but the error progresses at a geometric rate and soon is completely unredeemable.
Like building a house, small little quarter inch mistakes in the beginnig progressively increase until nothing is square, or level, the window frames must be planned, doorframes shimmed, and finally, the trusses must be wrenched, bent, and secured to make a fit. Very poor.
Take the first.
Right out of the gate Frodo gives Gandalf A big hug.
Their relationship was not of that sort, it wasn't in the book, and fundamentally colors the textual relationship that was one of honour, respect, discipline, wherein the love between them contained and governed by control, was subtle, translucent beneath the surface, and yet more powerfully present, a constant undercurrent that provided the source for the emotional feelings that the interaction between Gandalf and Frodo throughout the story provided. Small error in the beginning.
Next: The book clearly communicates that not a squib or cracker was forth coming. Such was Gandalfs character. Firm. Controlled. Disciplined. Not easy going and liberal. The error progresses.
At the party, the movie chose to portray Pippin and Merry as thieves, successful at that, and then rewards them. Their motive was not as their motive was in the books, for spying and eavesdropping, one of love, care and concern, but outright mischieviousness. showing no fear or respect for the old quack Gandalf, easy push over that he was. The gap widens futher...
What is lost by these little changes? Character. The classic, old english character of the novels. The character of the characters. Thier personalities were bland and altered and modernized, and when I saw Arwen sneak up on Aragorn and hold a knife to his neck, I felt righteous bile in my throat and I raged at the telly (I like the way you brits tolk). ughhh-........ohhh.......
I can't go on......waves of nausea......oohhhughhh! I'm gonna be sick........

Neithan,

I see it like this. Sure the movies aren't on the same scale as the books. No way they ever could be, but it's a bit like how I became interested in classical music.
Back in the 70's, I really like Emerson, lake and palmer. They came out with their version of Mussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition".
Was it anything like the original? Well... yeahhhhh... kinda. But then again, no.
Classical music lovers panned it, for the most part.
But it brought me to classical music and perhaps, watching the movies will bring people to the books.
Love to go on about this, but I''ve got a meeting to go to.

On that note, Boo Radley, the Peter Jackson movies could lead a person to pick up a copy of and read 'The Lord of the Rings,' which would then lead them to Led Zeppelin ...;)

The Movies are what they are. If I can learn to accept them, as many have witnessed via the SbS, then others might find and walk that path as well.

And, by the by, FotR was easily the best of the three - more focus on the characters and Middle Earth, less on the 'massive' battles.

Anything which leads people to the joys of Led Zep needs to be packaged up, primped with an esoteric ribbon with strange designs and force fed to unsuspecting children the world over. All hail Jimmy Page! Meh. :cool:

I liked Fellowship best. It's the best part of the book, and the best film. They only needed to include those three magical chapters with the Old Forest, Tom Bombadillo and The Barrow-Downs and it would have been spot on as far as films can ever be! It has the most Hobbity stuff in it, the best music (bar Gollum's Theme which is superb as a song in its own right), all that lovely greenery, a Balrog (even if it does have flippin' wings), Bilbo Baggins and most of all....lots of Sean Bean.

Am I developing a problem here? :D

Fellowship. Totally. It wrung tears from my eyes and made me a Bloom fan-girl for life.

I've clearly got Stockholm Syndrome. ;)

Seriously though. Fellowship.

The Old Forest & so on is one of my favourite pieces of Tolkien's writing as a whole - but I'm glad they didn't film that bit. Something tells me it would have been a disaster. I couldn't see them handling it very well - and I'm one of those people who bow before PJ's talent. :eek:

See? This is something I thought about quite a bit.
For the most part, I think PJ is the bees knees when it comes to directing ability, but I was afraid that these parts (Especially T. Bombadil) might come out appearing a bit cartoonish or hokey.
Tom is very enigmatic and to this day, I cannot picture him in my mind in such a way that he appears real.
(I'm sorry, I had this whole thing worked out in my head about how I was going to explain myself, but then somebody walked into the room and completely derailed my train of thought. Now it's gone. I hate when that happens!)

i would have to agree that the TT was the best movie out of the 3, it did have the best battle scene even though Pj put the elves as helms deep which i thought was really good and i know some people would disagree with me there but thats what i think anyway. I enjoy watching the second movie best out of the 3 and there is also the fact that we see the ents and are introducd to fangorn forest and meet the other ents and the fight scene with them was fantastic. ;)

I enjoyed The Fellowship the most, and it was all because of the last 20 minutes of the film.

The Ring whispering Aragorn's name as he quietly rejects the temptation and closes Frodo's hand over it, telling him that he would have gone with him to the end had a quiet and implied dignity about it that few films had before.

Boromir's rescue of Merry and Pippin as he puts himself between them and the uruk-hai, yelling "Run! Run" as he makes his last stand, as well as his death scene, were enough to make the eyes well up.

I do agree with you wholeheartedly here Lal! With every point, even with the Sean Bean one...

I mean the FotR was a story told from the beginning and probably the most faithful to the Books of the three. And it had a nice mood in it. Tolkienish somehow. Maybe even "Led Zeppelinish" which is no bad thing from my point of view either... :D

The TT sufferes in theaters from being the part two of the trilogy hence starting from nowhere and not exactly ending anywhere. I mean if you read the Book(s) it's part of the flow but as a movie it should have to stand alone as well (with the exception you're having the marathon of watching all three films in a row without differentiating them as separate movies).

And really TT was mostly to show how well they can do the battle-scenes in the Weta-workshop... a good ad. And with OB skating the ramp in the heat of the battle one wonders how well they were actually making them... And of course for showing how well Viggo can stare at nothingness, looking (possibly) handsome and stern when being blank.

The RotK was better than the TT to my view (even though it had to include OB taking down an Oliphant single-handedly parcour-style) but it kind of tried to achieve or tell too much.

I mean in the FotR there were kind of long passages of chamber-music which makes one feel cozy and involved at the same time but in the RotK it was just like a forlonged finale of a symphony of Beethoven or Mahler for three and half hours: loud, banging and all the time on the edge but not ending just yet... (I hope you get this parable as I'm getting lost myself already)

A dream I have? Yes. An independent and highly personal director making a movie of the LotR with the same kind of budget PJ had... So no picture-book of the Middle-Earth and it's races and design (which I truly enjoyed in the films) to kind of illustrate the Book(s) but a personal interpretation of the story and actually a movie that could stand on it's own. I would love to disagree with the choices of the director but still love the film...

The Fellowship of the Ring, without a second thought. It captured Tolkien's narrative best (save for perhaps the ludicrous presentation of Arwen invoking the waters at the Ford of Bruinen -- sorry, the original plot where Frodo squares off alone against the Nazgul is far more chilling). Perhaps it mirrored the book better because of its more linear progression, but I firmly believe that the other two movies were lessened by Peter Jackson's hamhanded efforts to subvert the plot to his evil will (as if it were the Ring itself).

If you really parse out the scenes in each movie, it is the unadulterated dialogue (even where another character speaks the lines) and scenes from the original plot that outshine the reinvented and reconfigured sensationalizations and muddled reinterpretations that characterized the scripting of Boyens and Jackson. One finds themself saying over and over, 'Well, that wasn't necessary' (the defamation of Faramir and Denethor, the breaking of Gandalf's staff, Aragorn falling off a cliff and frenching his horse, Frodo breaking faith with Sam, the Elves appearing then disappearing at Helm's Deep, etc.), or "Well, that's plain silly" (Legolas's shield surfing, Legolas's trunk surfing, the green Scrubbing Bubbles scouring Minas Tirith, Frodo showing the Ring to a Nazgul in Osgiliath, etc.).

FotR has far less digressions and unnecessary filler than the other two movies, and I believe the acting (thanks to Sean Bean, Sir Ian Holm, Cate Blanchett and Sir Ian McKellan) is a cut above the other movies as well.