LORD OF THE RINGS poll (film version)

Fellowship one is the only one that's not a travestied fucking betrayal of the books.

First one for me; it's an adventure film, rather than a war film, and that really sucks me in. The camaraderie maybe?

Fellowship one is the only one that's not a travestied fucking betrayal of the books.

except Tom Bombadil is missing.

first one is my favourite anyway, the introduction of Aragorn, Bree, the Shire.

I never understood why they cut Gandalf versus the Witch King, the scene at the Black Gate with the Mouth of Sauron and the death of Saruman from the theatrical cut of the third movie. That really pissed me off, it only would've added about 10 mins to the running time.

The first one, definitely. Nick is right that the second one is a war film, and the battle of Helm's Deep is amazing, but I'm just not that into it. And the Ents are rubbish.

(However, I AM in it! My friend was an animator on the Golumn team, and they had to do a lot of Golumn without Andy Serkis as a reference as they'd changed the shot or whatever. I went to visit while he was out there, and we acted out a scene with me as Golumn and filmed it and he then used my movements. It's where Golumn has Sam by the throat and Frodo threatens him with Sting. Just one shot, so about a second and a half. Also, the Mirror of Galadriel was done by a different animation house, and when they had a screening for the Weta animators, they booed, apparently.)

Thinking more about this, The Two Towers might be the best of the theatrical versions, but Fellowship absolutely kills in the extended release.

The breaking of the fellowship is one of the best bits of the book, and they do it really really well. The psychology of Boromir in that scene, and the ring as a symbol of how power corrupts, is excellent.

Then you have Gandalf's "I am a servant of the secret fire. You shall not pass." bit with the Balrog, the "drums in the deep" stuff, the first appearance of the black riders.

that means it's just like wall to wall action, with minimal thomas kinkadey elfin pastoralism

lmao i was just talkin about that master of light shit w/someone the other day, those movies all look like paintings u would buy at a comic convention

i forgot about helm's deep tho, that owned

something else that owned - KKK grand wizard gandalf leading the charge against a bunch of savage hottentots in Rotk, i swear some of those shots were straight out of birth of a nation

fuckin' helm's deep, man. was only about 13 pages in the book. took up the entire movie. shield surfing bullshit.

welp the books sound p gay tbqh

thank christ for ledge. i felt like i was gonna draw all the SB action on this thread. also- OTMFM.

challopsin here but the movies are wayyyy better than the books

Jeez, are these still not out on BluRay? :-/

http://www.amazon.com/Rings-Trilogy-Extended-Editions-Blu-ray/dp/B0026L7H20/qid=1239958479

i never read them, but i tried to read the hobbit when i was a kid and i didnt get far because it was boring and dumb, i'm sure the lotr books arent as good as the movies so why bother

I never understood why they cut Gandalf versus the Witch King, the scene at the Black Gate with the Mouth of Sauron and the death of Saruman from the theatrical cut of the third movie.

Agreed, although the version of the death of Saruman that Jackson filmed has such stilted acting and staging.

One thing that was a bit annoying in the books and not in the movies = the alternating chapter structure sometimes. (e.g. I seem to remember The Two Towers being: what happens to hobbit a & b / what happens to hobbit c & d / what happens to hobbit a & b / what happens to hobbit c & d / what happens to hobbit a & b / what happens to hobbit c & d / what happens to hobbit a & b / what happens to hobbit c & d - other examples too: history / adventure / history / adventure / history / adventure / history / (etc) )

Also: very much OTM, IMHO:

The Two Towers might be the best of the theatrical versions, but Fellowship absolutely kills in the extended release.

― EZ Snappin, Friday, July 24, 2009 1:16 PM (51 minutes ago) Bookmark

i'm sure the lotr books arent as good as the movies

you're incorrect

Agreed, although the version of the death of Saruman that Jackson filmed has such stilted acting and staging.

True, I remember it being a lot more awesome in the book. There was a great moment on the commentary of the extended edition though with Christopher Lee talking about how Jackson was trying to tell him how to act when he gets stabbed and he was all,'Peter, i KNOW what it's like when someone gets stabbed', because he did a bunch of secret work for the government or something. It just made me think that Christopher Lee was a real badass who could take down anyone.

"what happens to hobbit c & d / what happens to hobbit a & b"

Been a long time, but I'm pretty sure the Two Towers book is just split half down the middle.

first time around in the theatres i remember 'fellowship' being the only success of these. thought 2 & 3 were boring as hell.

second time around, i re-watched them (the extended versions) this past march. totally changed my mind - they're all pretty awesome, and i think 'two towers' is prob the best. the rohan shit was awesome and really well done.

whoever said rohan looked like smelly heavy metal dudes was OTM, but i thought that was a good thing! rohan was some serious black metal shit right there

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

two towers (book) does flip back and forth a lot, but that's classic creative writing 101 "how to maintain tension".

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

these are so perfect for that

"two towers (book) does flip back and forth a lot, but that's classic creative writing 101 "how to maintain tension"."

It doesn't flip between the hobbits though. Hobbits C/D are in the first part and Hobbits A/B the second. Hobbits C/D flip with Human A/Elf A/Dwarf A a lot though.

still remember sitting in the theater when it suddenly hit me, 'wow, they're really gonna do this RIGHT.'

^^^this. it is very very rare for me to get that rush from any film adaptation.

― girlish in the worst sense of that term (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:32 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Thirded.

the third one brought actual tears to my eyes. It's the triumph that gets me, not the deaths.

"My friends... You bow to no one" is the bit that does it to me.

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.