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 ). 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. )

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.

[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.

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]

Originally Posted by alatar

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

Hear! Hear!