Lord of the Rings

Lol how have we not heard about this til now

It's exactly like I always imagined as a kid. ;_;

watched the second and third films back to back last night. noticed how the orcs coded a lot "whiter" by the third film, but they managed to go unnecessarily orientalist in the final epic battle scene with the oliphaunts and their riders

Forgot to chime in on this earlier! But suffice to say, yeah, issues are existent while at the same time the source material could have been a lot worse. (His big 'out' in many ways was the flash of thought about the dead Haradrim warrior that Sam has in TTT, transposed in the film to a short speech by Faramir -- basically wondering if said dead warrior was truly evil, had been threatened to participate, etc. I read that as mostly a war veteran (from the winning side, of course) thinking back on his experiences and what he saw.)

Our next podcast episode will be about orcs in general and my cohost Oriana, who is leading the discussion, has thoughts and a half. The last one she led was on Eowyn and it's one of our best episodes, I think.

https://www.megaphonic.fm/bythebywater/20

That glorious Russian epic is here with subtitles. Best Smaug Ever.
https://archive.org/details/TheFantasticJourneyOfMr.BilboBagginsTheHobbit

Just watched the first one (extended) with one of my kids. Wouldn't change a frame. I maintain it is some sort of miracle that these movies turned out as well as they did.

Would agree. *sense deems's wrath* Would still agree. But would also definitely say that the first film is the one that works best on its own.

Why on earth (middle or otherwise) would you need any of them to work on their own?!

Well the first one in particular absolutely had to sell the whole thing to start with. Which it did, and I think the ending scene, particularly between Sam and Frodo, is astonishingly well done. As for the middle one, that was more the creative team going nuts about how best to create a film that had a 'proper' ending, so they sure felt it had to end on a particular note. Not the one I think I would have done but hey, I'm not a filmmaker.

That glorious Russian epic is here with subtitles. Best Smaug Ever.

71 mins! That's how you do a Hobbit film, Mr. Jackson.

I agree from now slightly dusty memory that the first LoTR is the best, and also has the best extended edition.

Look

Its the best of the three, and maybe its almost as good as you couldve hoped for (hobbiton through to reaching rivendell, moria, sundering are miraculous tbh)

But anything with elves is not just not-great, it's bad. Add in the terrible darby o'gill banshee on blanchett (seriously that scene has to be up for future correction) and youve already got enough to say that "wouldnt change a frame" is gushing beyond what's sensible

Its the kind of easy management that let him off to do the rest the way he did- increasingly unbothered by performances or plot/pacing from the books (which, while possible to improve upon for a trilogy, were never going to be improved upon by jackson & partners tin ears) and focused more on director's ego and his SFX company

Im not here to berate ilxors, honestly im not, but the end result of praising forays into shite when a limited-but-useful clown like jackson is given power is what you got with the hobbit

And the cost isn't having to watch the hobbit, because what moron watched the hobbit, its the movies that you can see us having had if someone had taken a good hard grip on his neck during an initial showing of his first well-padded cosplay elf scene and hissing "cut. yr. kiwi. amateur. dramatics. out"

I think you’re understating the amount that Viggo Mortensen sells the whole thing; his entrance (iconic!) and the death of Boromir are two of my favourite scenes in the trilogy.

xp you’re right and you should say it

Viggo is absolutely *critical*

Aragorn, sam, frodo, gandalf- all nailed. Thank god because very quickly out of that lot you start to get into tbh the poorer harry potter movies territory

Mortensen himself agrees with me obv. Cool guy.

Sean bean is here to do a job and does it well, as he pretty much always does tbfttstbc

I’m pretty biased on this because I love Hugo Weaving but I liked him as Elrond even though I feel he was a bit miscast...? Idk, all the elves are terribly weak sauce as you say. Also, Christopher Lee was great.

You can pick out lots of good casting, highlights etc even after FOTR (wormtongue, david wenham, all of rohan is good imo, i like that the elves is cockney sleeeegs, etc) but agreed that as soon as hugo weaving feys on set you immediately get the message that jackson hasnt gotten elves qua tolkien, hes in a very different elf place and is pawing for air before going off and making up scenes with zombies and werewolves to make himself feel better

I mean the frustrating thing is that sam neill was right there, ffs. and at least quasi antipodean

and id agree w/u that even saying that he is as good as we get with elves like

Josh in Chicago: drops rock into bottomless well just to see

Ned: pls do not-

Me, from depths: did some cunt just praise peter jackson

I like Sam Neill, but idk where you’d situate him! HW is also quasi antipodean lol? He’s spent like half his life in Australia.

See we’re getting along so well itt, makes u think. Unless you’re going to start on how Tom Bombadil should have been included, cos my book challop is fuck that guy, I’m so glad he got left out.

Honestly the Hobbit is shockingly bad, I had to stop watching it after about 45 minutes and it’s absolutely shocking despite the amounts of money lavished on it. That they stretched it out to three films is among the worst of his crimes.

Pfffft

I know weaving is antipod, I'm suggest he out regardless and sam in as elrond. Hugo can find another gig (not denethor he was fine, but of that type)

I can live without bombadil for practical reasons, now that there is distance. A movie that introduces the likes of that extraneous-to-plot detail/power without having him come in and save things at the end would bamboozle the kids.

And its easy to get on when we're both criticising stuff, we're irish

xp i was well gone by the time hed gotten approval for multiple hobbits, short of casting michael keaton as bilbo he'd never have enticed me back

I actually wasn’t that impressed by Éowyn, but it’s been a while since I watched so idr why. He had a very different idea of her than I did, and that killed me cos she’s like one of two female characters in the books worth mentioning and almost by default (but also not) my favourite.

Well he boosted arwen but the marketing around that was opportunistic and icky, so yeah it was galadriel and eowyn left (and i think both were cat well, and of the two then eowyn was at least left alone to do a job)

Im aware this is not high praise of the effort, like.

https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/1/13/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-i-a-species-built-for-racial-terror

Re: the orc stuff from last week, I liked this essay about the anti-Mongolian sentiment inherent in Tolkien's orcs. The below is a quote from one of his letters

The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.

Ned, definitely let me know when the Orcs episode is up, it's definitely something my partner and I were talking about when we watched the films (she hadn't seen them before, so was only seeing it through a 2021 context)

I agree that the elves are weak, but ... who cares, it's not a movie about elves. And I like Blanchett's banshee turn, it's cheap but it keeps it grounded. I don't know if I made it past one "Hobbit" movie, or if I even finished that one, but those movies alone show how good these movies are, because they fail at practically every single thing these movies succeed at. They are more high tech, yet look cheap. They're indulgent and childish. They feel gratuitously padded whereas the skeletons of these movies are so solid they seamlessly supported the addition of *more* material after the fact (imo). The "Hobbit" films are the ones akin to the "Harry Potter" movies, which, as the AV Club's awesome columnist recently underscored, rarely come off as more than mediocre product. I dunno, thanks to one of my kids I've had to watch all those "Harry" movies again, and at their very best they're competent with glimmers of inspiration. But those moments are fleeting and far between and not enough to elevate the movies above their serviceable purpose. But "LotR," yeah, they *could* have been that bad, but they were not, and I suppose credit must go to Jackson. I think even the effects have aged well, but so has the acting/casting, the script, the editing, the score, etc. Just the way it handles such dark material but doesn't come off a grim slog like so many other big budget films in its wake. It's always got a sense of adventure to it and, well, fantasy. Here's that column (about the third one, but also the others):

https://film.avclub.com/the-return-of-the-king-was-the-last-time-a-blockbuster-1846074880

Of course, Jackson has made literally nothing but crap since. He's 0/5 for subsequent blockbuster spectacles, though I guess the WWI doc found a different way to wow.

Well we disagree about everything just posted but that's ok

Ha! Different strokes, etc. But I've seen enough shitty blockbusters to recognize one that gets shit right, let alone one that's just as good (imo) 20 years later. Most movies aren't good two *hours* later! Then again, I have no allegiance whatsoever to Tolkien or those books beyond my love of Led Zeppelin, so maybe that is a factor.

If the framing is LOTR trilogy vs just about any other successful box office movie franchise since then id agree it holds up, btw

If the framing is vs the book (and the promising start in FOTR) thats where i start to pick major faults

And i do think it has that platform to build on (a coherent trilogy plotted out) where most franchise efforts dont

But yeah, look, if they only actual comparison (and i cant think of another) is harry potter then jackson looks great, granted

I actually wasn’t that impressed by Éowyn, but it’s been a while since I watched so idr why. He had a very different idea of her than I did

Mirando Otto gave a good, coherent performance, I thought, but they kind of softened Éowyn compared to the image I have of her in the books. Also, she didn't get to deliver her best lines.

But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.

Another general gripe about the movies is that a lot of Tolkien's high-flown dialogue is dropped (or brought down to earth). Personally, I love that stuff.

Not sure everyone saying things like "ere long didst I tarry in that fell place" all the time would have worked in a Hollywood blockbuster tbh. Also every time Liv Tyler comes on screen I start singing "Dude Looks Like a Lady" to myself, kind of takes you out of the story but that's my fault I suppose.

oh what an elvish lady

about 70% of the books is detailed description of natural detail, wind direction, the particular angle described by a ridge meeting a defile, the direction a path takes in relation to landforms. frankly reading them again with my kids the specificity was stunning. ned probably knows one way or the other, but i think tolkien must have made detailed drawings or even models of the environs he was describing, and seemingly had a grasp of seasonal weather patterns and how those intersected with the above

it's been a long time since i've seen them but apart from a few montage-ish long shots of the hobbits traveling through some stunning landscapes i don't remember jackson even seeming to try at enmeshing the characters (or the audience) into the physical world in that way, which to me is the biggest departure from the books even more than the various plot deviations or ridiculous elves or the unconscionable omission of bombadil (though speaking of enwebment in the natural world, bombadil is the ur-figuration of this, so makes sense that jackson would drop him i guess)

I watched them all again recently and totally agree Fellowship is the one that stands up. I don't particularly like what they did with the elves (the lighting, the earnestness) and the longer the hobbits are around the more it becomes too saccharine and samey (I found myself forwarding Sam and Frodo in Return). Also agree Viggo and McKellen carry it though I think Bernard Hill gets all the best lines.

"Where was Gondor when the Westfold fell?"

(curious why @ndy s3rk1s has yet to be mentioned in the +/- columns, is he rated neutral?)

Josh in Chicago: drops rock into bottomless well just to see

Ned: pls do not-

Me, from depths: did some cunt just praise peter jackson

I knew.

Ned, definitely let me know when the Orcs episode is up

Will do -- I usually post updates on the podcasts thread on here. Should be up by Feb. 8 at the latest.

Also, she didn't get to deliver her best lines....Another general gripe about the movies is that a lot of Tolkien's high-flown dialogue is dropped (or brought down to earth). Personally, I love that stuff.

It's one of those hard calls; honestly I'm surprised as much got in as it did. Two of Aragorn's best hero moments -- his short declamation to Sam and Frodo as they ride past the Argonath/into Nan Hithoel and the 'draws sword in front of Eomer to underscore he is not fucking around' bit when they first meet -- didn't make the cut, but I'm not surprised they didn't.

Anyway this also serves as a reminder that while the 4K version came out a couple of months ago we're due some sort of overall everything-and-the-kitchen-sink edition in a few months with all sorts of things (the blooper reels? the library scene? newly recorded stuff? who knows). But you have to buy the Hobbit films with it so that may not appeal to all, shall we say.

Oh and Tom Breihan's Popcorn Champs series hit ROTK the other week and it's a pretty good read on the film(s) and the impact

https://film.avclub.com/the-return-of-the-king-was-the-last-time-a-blockbuster-1846074880

Oh whoops, just saw that was posted earlier! Well, to repost.

Also I do love that Russian Hobbit -- there's also the Finnish LOTR, sorta, from 1993:

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

The big thing here was limiting the story to just Frodo/Sam and eventually Gollum after the breaking of the Fellowship, which in terms of scope/budget probably wasn't a bad idea.

the score on these films is absolutely superb. the Ring theme and the Hobbiton theme especially - instantly recollectible

Great post Tracer, i was wondering how yr read was going

The dialogue is a hard one. personally, it reads well most of the time because im in that space, but out of the wrong mouth it absolutely clangs (even place names can jar in a way they simply dont on the page).

Id have to say that weaving is the start of where this happens for me, and from there its up and down- hill certainly absolutely nails his part and the speech sounds perfect coming from him so thats a good shout.

Hated serkis/gollum for the most part, with exceptions. Dont even have suggestions as to how to improve it except that it was too giddy, too quick in delivery. But its hard to beat tolkiens readings, or the bbc radio version there.

Yeah Shore just did a ridiculous, RIDICULOUS slam dunk throughout on that front, he deserved every accolade. When our podcast did an episode on the LOTR musical from the 2000s, my conclusion was that for all the firepower they had -- Vartiina and A R Rahman -- on that score, Shore simply created a better 'musical' all around just via the soundtrack.

up and down- hill

No puns pls

ned probably knows one way or the other, but i think tolkien must have made detailed drawings or even models of the environs he was describing, and seemingly had a grasp of seasonal weather patterns and how those intersected with the above

He absolutely got into a lot of specifics when he could -- he did do a variety of drawings and illustrations along the way, most of which have been published in the art collections, but his primary foci were the maps; while Christopher drew the standard versions of them for publication, he in turn was drawing on his father's maps, which were heavily revised and insanely detailed. In terms of weather, moon phases, etc. he mentions doing such research when possible in letters to Christopher. It was all part of the absolute grounding of the story in something understandable and 'real,' and Tolkien absolutely wanted that when possible. (It's one reason why the various stories in the appendices feel like just that -- there's a lot of talk of personalities but very little of place beyond generalities; one of the biggest 'what if' moments that was showcase in the Unfinished Tales were various key battles in Gondor's history and the founding of Rohan, where we get some striking descriptions leading up to big events but no events themselves, whereas there's a hell of a detailed, vividly described story where Gondor's steward grants the lands that would become Rohan where the setting is crucial.)

Which in turn lends itself to those fossils and the appendices serving perfectly as found history tbf

Dry, officialese documents, descriptions of the admin work around events, tolkien working himself up to the big field events but always perhaps shying away and shaving another piece off the prep-and-fit first to set his nerve or just as sheer procrastination

One thing working on the podcast has reminded me of is how often Tolkien would just randomly introduce a character or an idea and then just obsess over it sooner or later. Or how with Smith of Wootton Major he was writing a preface to a George Macdonald story, started dreaming up a story of his own as an illustrative example for it, then abandoned the preface immediately and just wrote that instead!

Boy, would I love it if Tom expanded and compiled all his various AVClub essays into a book.

Speaking of expansion, I can't even remember when I last saw the theatrical versions of these films. I've always felt the expanded versions were an improvement in every way, or at least that there was nothing added that I would take back out, but I honestly can't recall what's new or not. Is there anyone that prefers the theatrical versions?