LORD OF THE RINGS poll (film version)

Fellowship absolutely kills in the extended release.

Yeah, the extended edition is the only one which is a significant improvement. None of the added scenes feel superfluous or nerd-pandering.

i havent seen these since they were in the theaters but i want to get them when they come out on bluray and have the longest hangover (new year's day?) session ever

― julien schNAGL (s1ocki), Friday, July 24, 2009 9:24 AM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah I watched all of these back to back on a day I was really sick last winter. It was a pretty good time except for the occasional vomiting.

Fellowship in its extended form adds depth to what was in the theatrical version; Two Towers and Return add shit that was cut for time.

Must heavily disagree with chap/EZ re: the extended version of Two Towers -- Faramir's character/motivation is much more fleshed out/less immediately capricious (important given the alterations from the book) while the Ents don't seem as, well, dumb. Return's additions are less crucial but there's still a couple of good parts.

The Two Towers aka the Dumbing of the Ents. That was what pissed me off the most. Grr.

I really didn't like that in the theatrical version. The extended version places the burning of Fangorn as having just started, so Treebeard's ignorance of it makes a *lot* more sense, even if the end result is still rushed.

the first one for me. i like beginnings/the sense of novelty and it's got fewer boring bits imo.

I like the Faramir scenes, but they don't add depth; they're entirely new constructs that completely rework his character from the theatrical versions.

What I was trying to get at with my shorthand was that the Fellowship material doesn't add new characters and sequences as much as make existing moments longer and more meaningful. For example, the trip from Bree to Weathertop is in both the theatrical and extended versions, but in the extended you get a longer, tougher slog and more insight into just how new and strange this was for the hobbits. In the Faramir sequence of Two Towers, you get an entirely different character from the theatrical edition. The same with the Ents; they're not the same characters with all the additional footage.

I greatly prefer the extended versions of the two later films as they are better movies with the additional scenes. But the changes and additions make them more like different films than is the case with Fellowship. The first movie in its extended form is a better version of the same movie; the later two extended versions seem more like different takes (see Faramir) on the material.

I think the 1st one mainly for the Moria stuff. That was always one of my favourite parts of the books.

Although Ornaldo Bloomps did take down that elephant hardcore.

Dang?

In the Faramir sequence of Two Towers, you get an entirely different character from the theatrical edition. The same with the Ents; they're not the same characters with all the additional footage.

And thank goodness for it! I see your point but I think it's an improvement that's fully validated (secondarily, in neither case are they more like the book as a result -- it's a question of having them work in the adaptation as put together, and Faramir's compromised, and more detailed, back and forth is of a tone with Theoden's own frustrated anger at Gondor in the same film; everything feels much more on edge).

I've never seen any of the extended versions. I ought to really, I'd probably enjoy them.

And thank goodness for it! I see your point but I think it's an improvement that's fully validated (secondarily, in neither case are they more like the book as a result -- it's a question of having them work in the adaptation as put together, and Faramir's compromised, and more detailed, back and forth is of a tone with Theoden's own frustrated anger at Gondor in the same film; everything feels much more on edge).

I totally agree with this assessment. I don't think we're actually disagreeing on the essence; I just was too short and glib to make my point from the beginning! Jackson made some poor choices with the later two movies that are somewhat rectified in their extended versions. I don't think he made as many missteps, either conceptually or as a director/editor, with the first.

Should be noted that David Wenham as Faramir brings more to the material than is written. The supporting players in this series don't get enough credit.

I'm going to knee-jerk say "The Two Towers" based on the idea that the second movie in a series is always the best one.

faramir's character is excellent in the extended version, since his conflict and change of heart make much more sense

Should be noted that David Wenham as Faramir brings more to the material than is written. The supporting players in this series don't get enough credit.

True, and that role did make me into a fan of his. My other favorite part he's done I've seen so far was in The Proposition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fve7pjMZvE0

I liked him in Van Helsing which is one of those movies I recommend if you are stuck at home and are in search of something funny/entertaining on basic cable.

Why is it that everyone always mentions how Tom Bombadil or the Scouring of the Shire was left out the of the movies, but no one says a word about Ghân-buri-Ghân, who was also cruelly discarded by Jackson? Poor Ghân-buri-Ghân, he's like the Jar Jar Binks of LotR!

One thing I never liked about the movies is how they rely on digital FX to show a character being corrupted. When Bilbo is being affected by the Ring in the beginning of the first movie, and later on when the same happens to Galadriel in Lorien, and when Theoden is under Wormtongue's influence in the second movie, Jackson uses these corny special effects to emphasize how corrupted they've become. This is especially true with Galadriel, the scene where she goes "evil" is so over the top it's ridiculous! All three characters were portrayed by fine actors, so Jackson should've relied more on their ability to show the corruption by, you know, acting, instead of those stupid effects.

There was one crucial thing I was hoping Jackson would have changed compared to the books, and that is Gollum's fatal fall in RotK. I always thought it would've made more sense if Gollum hadn't just stumbled and fell to Mount Doom, but instead he would've (at least semi-consciously) jumped there by his own will. That would've made more sense regarding Gollum's character development, the battle between his good and evil side: in the end he finally realizes the horrible effect the Ring has had on him, and that he can never really escape its influence, so for this one time he takes fate into his own hands and does what needs to be done. This would've made Gollum's crucial role in the story more fitting both dramatically and emotionally, and Gandalf's prediction that he still has a role to play in the end would've made even more sense. But now both the book and the movie reach their conclusion because someone doesn't look where he steps, and to me that has always been terribly trivial and undramatic way to end the story.

The entire point of Gollum's character is that he succumbs to evil. His redemption failed; his entire life was all about the Ring, particularly after Frodo got him captured by Faramir. That final betrayal destroyed Gollum's last chance to be good and, from that point onwards, he is driven solely by the desire to possess the Ring.

the one with the burning vagina eye he wss a mean bad guy

That's how it goes, yeah, but I always thought the rather prosaic way the Ring ends up being destroyed was dramatically unsatisfying. Even from a thematical point of view, the only reason the Ring is destroyed is because the bigger evil (Ring-driven Gollum) wins the fight with the lesser evil (Ring-driven Frodo). Maybe that was Tolkien intended to do all along, but it seems like an odd conclusion for such an epic saga.

(x-post)

I get and kinda agree with your criticism Tuomas. Maybe the reason it's like it is in the books is Tolkien could never have had a character literally commit suicide, even if it was for self-sacrifice (a glorious death on the battle-field is another matter). Although I think the redemption ending you're talking about would have been a little broad and Hollywood.

Frodo shoulda pushed him in.

I would have no problem with a broad and Hollwood ending if it makes more sense than the "whoops, I slipped!" ending we have now.

Maybe the reason it's like it is in the books is Tolkien could never have had a character literally commit suicide

What about Denethor?

i mean he couldn't present suicide as a good choice

if you are v. religious then fighting a lost cause = fine, topping yourself = not cool

to counter Tuomas' observation:

neither Gandalf, Boromir nor Gandalf are CGI'd in their tempting of the ring.

i always sort of read's gollum's fall as at least partially, on some level, self-inflicted.

But now both the book and the movie reach their conclusion because someone doesn't look where he steps, and to me that has always been terribly trivial and undramatic way to end the story.

i think the point was that this was how God basically works in the world.

Or just how the world works. The ending of the Hobbit has a fair few convenient coincidences itself. The missing piece on Smaug's armour, Bilbo finding the Arkenstone.

yeah absolutely. not sure Tolkien's religious beliefs would lead him to think things are totally up to chance, but there's nothing stopping someone else from reading it that way. one man's chance is another's divine intervention.

I've had similar thoughts to Tuomas re. Gollum's fall. I don't think it would neccessarily be self-sacrifice that makes him jump, more "If I can't have the Precious, no one can".

Also I love Galadrial's CGI freakout, it really shook me up in the cinema.

If it was indeed Tolkien's religious views that made him write the scene at Mount Doom as it is, then it's kinda sad that his religion stopped him from writing what might've been the dramatic high point of the whole story. Though I don't really see Gollum's fall in the end as some sort of divine intervention or Will of God; throughout the rest of the book the fate of Middle Earth has always been decided by acts of men and elves and other non-gods. One central theme in the series is the freedom to choose between good and evil; several characters have to decide between using the Ring and being potentially corrupted by it, or leaving it be and remaining on the narrow path. So it would be weird to Gollum's final, random fall as some sort divine intervention, when all through the rest story the gods have not interfered in any way and it's been the choices of mortals that have decided what happens to the world.

"so it would be weird to view"

well i always took the mysterious and elusive ways that God works (ie, indirectly or through chance) to be one of the near explicit themes of LOTR, but then I'm not an expert on it so maybe that's a poor reading of it.

so yeah, and without getting into a debate over theology, we DO have freedom to choose between good and evil, that's why God is largely absent, but that doesn't prevent the tiniest bit of chance from helping out once in a while.

so, in other words, you have to put yourself in the right position, but even if you do sometimes events are out of your control.

iirc Tolkein meant to do nothing religious, overtly or covertly, in LOTR – he thought it was pretty cheap that C.S. Lewis did that in the Narnia books

also iirc the ending where the ring goes into the fire with Gollum IS different from the book, in that Sam has to save Frodo, correct...? In the book, Gollum just falls in while capering around, Frodo doesn't go over the edge with him.

i thought god guided orlando's arrows into the evil hearts of orcs.

i'm not saying gollum's death mundane death is an example of tolkien explicitly writing _in_ some "god works in mysterious ways" thing (although now i think about it, it kinda reminds me of the ending of NCFOM). i'm saying that, as a strict catholic, jrrt would be unlikely to present suicide in a positive light, even it would have been more satisfying for the grand narrative.

also, if tuomas's idea occurred to him and seemed dramatically appealing then it's not necessarily "his religion stopped him" from writing the ending. dude was a serious theologian and he held his beliefs in seriousness and after considerable thought. it's not like he was worrying about what the pope would think and threw away a great draft. tuomas's post reads a bit like "it's a pity he wasn't smart enough to agree with me about religion".

I wish I cld watch the pop throwing the stink eye over Tolkein's shoulder as he penned the manuscript. All the incense got to his brain. It was censership, I tell you!

pop=pope of course

did you know there was a draft where frodo knocked up sam, but sam got an abortion?

"Aye Mr. Frodo, ensoulment hasn't yet happened."

dude was a serious theologian

He might have balked at that description but there's no question he took questions of doctrine very seriously. Tolkien wondered in the years between WWII and the publication of LOTR whether or not all his work with Middle-earth was inherently arrogant and potentially sinful, in that by the act of sub-creation he might not be pushing a little too far towards the idea of creation, in a certain sense -- the 'Notion Club Papers' that were published posthumously explore this in depth. Various other later works address everything from the scientific bases of Middle-earth to extremely involved philosophical debates as framed by certain characters in the overarching legendarium. Only those who really want to look at his work in that depth will sense how much of a continuous internal struggle played itself out over the years; it's really no surprise in the end that those major works that did get published during his lifetime, The Hobbit and LOTR, appeared due to the alternate impulse behind their creations (his random idea for a children's story and the desire of his publishers for a sequel to it).

So Ned did he mean for there to be semi-didactic xtian elements in LOTR? (Haven't read any non LOTR/Hobbit, tho my husband has read a ton of them & they are defs sitting around the house.)

Is the r I r actually c?

He's often silent on that in terms of his notes in the developing manuscripts, from what I remember -- internally he might well have thought otherwise, but he's more concerned with the working out of the story, something which took years of revision and reconsideration as the original idea for a Hobbit II turned into something deeper. While he was clear about the work being both Christian and Catholic I suspect he thought of it more in the sense of demonstrating by example rather than spelling it out, and basically encouraging reflection if one sought it out.

I highly recommend reading his short story "Leaf by Niggle," which presents his own particular self-identity as 'sub-creator' working in the service of something grander in terms more explicitly Christian and Catholic.