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..."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Azaelia
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.
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.