Lord of the Rings Movie Trilogy Thread

[Werthead]

The LotR movies seem to have been dragged into various discussions recently so I thought giving them their own thread could be a good idea.

I'm planning to re-watch all three films next week, something I haven't done properly for a few years. For all their (much-mentioned) flaws, these are the only films I've watched as an adult that gave me something approaching the buzz that I got from watching Star Wars or the better Star Trek movies as a kid. I ended up going to see them in the cinemas more times than any other films I've seen (3 times for Fellowship, 3 for Towers, 4 for Return). For all the flaws in them, I'm still amazed they did as good a job as they did.

One thing that I think differentiates the LotR movies from the contemporary Star Wars movies was the sheer level of collaborative effort involved in the films. Rather than everything decreed from on high by the director, all of the different departments and the actors brought a lot of their own ideas to the film and Jackson was open to them. The level of work that went into the movies still staggers me. The 50,000 props that were made by Weta Workshop, the millions of feet of film that was shot, the two guys who spent three years making chainmail, the seven units filming at the same time and so forth. I would hazard that more man-hours and more work went into these three movies than any other film project to date and possibly any to come.

The casting in particular I think worked brilliantly. Ian McKellan is Gandalf, no question. Christopher Lee as Saruman was a no-brainer (who else could have done it as well?). Hugo Weaving as Elrond was a great choice. Bernard Hill as Theoden, yep. The best decision was to dump Stuart 'Average' Townsend and replace him with Viggo Mortensen. That was a bullet dodged and no mistake.

Thoughts on the movies?

[Lord Bloodraven]

I liked the trilogy. No, actually, I loved it. Being a LOTR fan, it was pretty obvious that the books would in no way be able to make the transition to film without a lot of changes being made. I'd say that the skill and talent of those involved made up for a lot of the parts that were changed somewhat or taken out, and they did a very good job with a story that is known and enjoyed worldwide. So I liked the movies.

[naz]

Smart move starting this thread while niamh's away.

[Mexal]

I loved the trilogy. I don't care about the flaws. They didn't detract from the sheer level of epicness I felt. I saw all of them at 12:00am the night it came out and I've watched them several times since.

[Robert's Last Bastard]

I'm planning to re-watch all three films next week, something I haven't done properly for a few years.

Thoughts on the movies?

It's funny that you mention this. I had already planned on re-watching the films (extended versions) over the holidays as well. I haven't watched all of them in succession for quite some time.

This is my favorite movie trilogy, evah! I am well aware of the various criticisms- but I have always insisted that this is the greatest book-to-film adaptation to date. Is it perfect? no- but Hollywood has to market an appealing film to a very diverse audience. The medium they chose has just enough to satisfy both the casual and critical fan alike. I think it is perfect.

[Week]

I loved it...one of my favorite moments being talking with my older brother after he first say it and he told me he was watching FotR a bit suspiciously and then Gandalf set off the fireworks for the little kids...He turned to his buddy in his fanboy nerdism, "This is going to be awesome." Just a hilarious, but completely true moment. You absolutely knew the movie was going to be gold after that. I don't know why, you just do.

[mormont]

The best decision was to dump Stuart 'Average' Townsend and replace him with Viggo Mortensen. That was a bullet dodged and no mistake.

If Townsend was a bullet, Viggo (I'm sorry to say) was of a similar calibre. (Puns! We love 'em! )

Is he a terrific actor? Yes. Does he do a decent job? Yes. Does he struggle because he is badly cast? Yes. He's reasonably good as Strider, the dark, brooding ranger: but as Aragorn, the king in waiting, an inspiring leader of men? Eh, no.

It's not his fault, but that role simply doesn't play to his strengths. I listen to Bernard Hill and I'm ready to go out and die for the cause. I listen to Ian McKellen and I'm ready to fight to the end. I listen to Viggo and I'm wondering if he shouldn't just get Sean Bean to dub his speeches. He is not a leader of men, and he can't play one. Sorry.

ETA - I would agree, though, that the trilogy is a hell of a lot better than I expected, flaws and all. It's a hell of an achievement cinematically, and I have watched it over and over...

[Greywolf2375]

I'm sure there are other actors & actresses that could have filled in the main roles, however when I do look back at the casting, I don't really see flaws - especially with the mentioned change in Aragorn. One I would have liked to see was Galadriel - just did not think that Cate Blanchett fit the role well. She didn't seem to have timelessness that elves are supposed to portray.

Overall - I did love the movies, I think I did see each of them at least 3 times in the theatres, and am planning on one of my days off around the holidays to plant myself in front of the TV with a jumbo popcorn bag and watch them through.

I accepted the differences and realized that they would not be reproductions of the book. A scene I would have loved to see would have been Bombadil being played by Robin Williams - looking up through the ring with the bright blue eyes and the frivolity he could have brought to the role. Would have liked it - but not having that scene I don't believe took away too much from the movies.

[Red Sun]

Smart move starting this thread while niamh's away.

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

[Week]

I'm sure there are other actors & actresses that could have filled in the main roles, however when I do look back at the casting, I don't really see flaws - especially with the mentioned change in Aragorn. One I would have liked to see was Galadriel - just did not think that Cate Blanchett fit the role well. She didn't seem to have timelessness that elves are supposed to portray.

She was the only casting that really bothered me too (surprising considering Bloom is in it, but he was actually not terrible). Honestly, I didn't think she looked that attractive, let alone being the most beautiful and awe inspiring woman.

[Isis]

Ouch, mormie! *gets up to stroke Aragorn poster*

Are you sure this is a good idea, Wert?

And can I be the first one to say STFU about 'elves at Helm's Deep ruining the films'. Because that's just utter nonsense. There are much worse inaccurate/missing/made up bits than that in the films.

[Red Sun]

She was the only casting that really bothered me too (surprising considering Bloom is in it, but he was actually not terrible). Honestly, I didn't think she looked that attractive, let alone being the most beautiful and awe inspiring woman.

I think it's a matter of taste. I thought she was very fitting to the role.

My favorite aspect about the trilogy is the enthusiasm of all those people working on it, which you can see in all the details. I generally liked the movies, even though, my brain goes into "too much input"-mode at massive battle scenes, involving thousand of peoples.

And even though, I have other pictures of the characters in my mind when I read the books, I thought the cast was pretty good. (I still remember the first time I saw the short trailer for FOTR, in which they are going up the mountain. And it was totally apparent who was who. Fun moment.)

[Arataniello]

They are great movies, there's no mistake. I remember dragging everyone along to see FotR and getting all goosebumpy when the titles came up on the screen. I knew the films were going to be great when we had the shots of the battle on the slopes of Orodruin in the Second Age - where the Elven blades in the front row of the army start flashing I honestly think I yelped with joy.

Moments that still give me the chills when I rewatch the DVDs are -

- Gandalf on the bridge of Khazad-dum (shame they changed the dialogue though, and the unconvincing whip-shot)

- Gandalf vs the Balrog at the beginning of the second film. The music is so fricking awesome in this bit;

- the Nazgul swooping down through the clouds over Minas Tirith.

There are probably tons more that I can't recall right now.

I get as much enjoyment now during the movies watching out for the editing cockups that have slipped in there - Eomer's sliding sword, Eowyn's multi-style hair in Helm's Deep, shots that have clearly been flipped, that sort of thing.

Aratan

[DanteGabriel]

If Townsend was a bullet, Viggo (I'm sorry to say) was of a similar calibre. (Puns! We love 'em! )

Is he a terrific actor? Yes. Does he do a decent job? Yes. Does he struggle because he is badly cast? Yes. He's reasonably good as Strider, the dark, brooding ranger: but as Aragorn, the king in waiting, an inspiring leader of men? Eh, no.

It's not his fault, but that role simply doesn't play to his strengths. I listen to Bernard Hill and I'm ready to go out and die for the cause. I listen to Ian McKellen and I'm ready to fight to the end. I listen to Viggo and I'm wondering if he shouldn't just get Sean Bean to dub his speeches. He is not a leader of men, and he can't play one. Sorry.

Fully agree with this. I can replay the "where is the horse and the rider?" speech and of course the "ride to ruin and the world's ending!" speeches over and over in my head, but none of Viggo's speeches stuck with me. Viggo was great as the scruffy ranger, but markably less impressive after he's shaved and washed.

[HokieStone]

Well, like a lot of others, I think the quality dropped on each successive film. I thought FOTR was very nearly perfect. I have some complaints about where they deviated from the books in later films, but I thought the decision to completely omit Tom Bombadil was fantastic - I've never cared for the character. The only thing I can really think of that I would have tried to add in is the attack of the Barrow-Wight, although that is kind of tied in to Bombadil.

Anyway, in succeeding movies, my complaints are the common ones - Legolas turning into some kind of skateboarding ninja, Gimli devolving into nothing more than comedic relief, Denethor practically running a marathon while on fire, etc. While the battle at Helm's Deep was awesome, Gandalf's charge towards the end almost shattered the illusion for me, as they come riding down an 80 degree slope or something like that - those horses would have been tumbling down that hill, not charging - and something about the CG just isn't quite right. I would have liked to have seen the battle of Pelennor Fields done a little more accurately too - i.e., the ghosts didn't show up Minas Tirith, they actually helped liberate Dol Amroth, freeing up those Gondorians to sail up the river to Minas Tirith. As part of that, I would have liked to see Prince Imrahil included in the movie. But I realize that having two large city battles in ROTK was probably unrealistic (and I don't think we even "saw" the battle at Dol Amroth in the books, really).

My biggest complaint about the whole series though, is that they left out the scouring of the shire. Saruman's end was a little too tidy in the movie, I would have loved for the hobbits to go back to the shire and see that it did not escape the effects of the war.

Casting-wise, yeah it's hard to see anyone else in those roles at this point. My minor nitpick with Mortenson is his voice. No problem in 90% of the movies, but when he's trying to give the big uplifting speech before the army in ROTK - his voice is a little...I dunno...nasally, or whiny, or something.

Anyway, I still think they are very very good, but if TTT and ROTK could have kept up the quality of FOTR, these movies might have stood in the "best of all time" category. Maybe FOTR was better because it pretty much was entirely centered on a small band of people - no giant battles or anything (excepting the prologue).

[Shryke]

FOTR == The Best of the 3

Also, my only real complaint was making Legolas into superman and Gimli into a fucking joke.

[Werthead]

Anyway, in succeeding movies, my complaints are the common ones - Legolas turning into some kind of skateboarding ninja, Gimli devolving into nothing more than comedic relief, Denethor practically running a marathon while on fire, etc. While the battle at Helm's Deep was awesome, Gandalf's charge towards the end almost shattered the illusion for me, as they come riding down an 80 degree slope or something like that - those horses would have been tumbling down that hill, not charging - and something about the CG just isn't quite right. I would have liked to have seen the battle of Pelennor Fields done a little more accurately too - i.e., the ghosts didn't show up Minas Tirith, they actually helped liberate Dol Amroth, freeing up those Gondorians to sail up the river to Minas Tirith. As part of that, I would have liked to see Prince Imrahil included in the movie. But I realize that having two large city battles in ROTK was probably unrealistic (and I don't think we even "saw" the battle at Dol Amroth in the books, really).

I think you're thinking of Pelargir rather than Dol Amroth. Imrahil and his troops already were at Minas Tirith, but agreed that seeing Imrahil and Beregond (Pippin's Gondorian friend) and his son would have added a little bit to the movie. But at the end of the day, the running time didn't allow for it.

The Scouring is thematically vital to the story and I found its absence irritating, but I don't see how they could have done it without stretching out the movie by another hour or even going into a fourth film. Whilst losing Bombadil is a no-brainer, I wish they'd worked a bit harder to get the Scouring in there (and between the shots in Galadriel's mirror of the destruction of the Shire and Saruman's murder by Wormtongue they did get a little bit of it in there).

I think Viggo did good work in the films (especially in Fellowship) and delivers the requisite level of charisma and authority at Helm's Deep. However, his arc got sold short in Return, mainly because no real reason is given for the Gondorians to suddenly accept him as king in the film. In the books he gathered an army from the southern fiefs and turned up at the Pelennor leading Gondorian troops into battle to save the capital. In the film the Gondorians just turn over because Aragorn is the descendant of some guy who was king a thousand years earlier. Interestingly, Tolkien in the books seemed to suggest that wasn't good enough and he had to prove himself more worthy of being king. In the films that doesn't come cross so well.

On the effects front I love the fact that used miniatures (and 'bigatures') to depict the castles, fortresses and cities rather than doing it as pure CGI. That makes a big difference to the believability and physicality of some of the scenes.

[naz]

Being a massive LotR fan, I looked forward to these movies more than anything in my life, movie-wise. And when they came out, I was fairly blown away - initially. However, the things that only slightly bothered me about the films started to really irritate me as time went by. I think the reason why they didn't bother me so much at first was that I figured Jackson had convincing reasons for the changes he made. But when I listened to or read interviews later, I just wasn't sold on his stated reasons for many of the changes.

At this point (after now owning all three extended editions), I've settled into a somewhat resigned state of acceptance regarding the films. Yes, they'll never match the scope, subtlety and grandeur of the book. And that's fine. And I'll certainly continue to appreciate the effort that went into making them and I'll continue to enjoy watching them on a somewhat superficial level. But certain strokes as painted by Jackson & Co. will continue to remain egregious in my view.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

I think the real mistake was making Helm's Deep the climactic battle of the 2nd movie. That decision ensured that 1) there would be too much material in the 3rd movie to cover, and 2) the battle scenes at Minas Tirith had a been there done that kind of feel.

[Tears of Lys]

Is he a terrific actor? Yes. Does he do a decent job? Yes. Does he struggle because he is badly cast? Yes. He's reasonably good as Strider, the dark, brooding ranger: but as Aragorn, the king in waiting, an inspiring leader of men? Eh, no.

It's not his fault, but that role simply doesn't play to his strengths. I listen to Bernard Hill and I'm ready to go out and die for the cause. I listen to Ian McKellen and I'm ready to fight to the end. I listen to Viggo and I'm wondering if he shouldn't just get Sean Bean to dub his speeches. He is not a leader of men, and he can't play one. Sorry.

I've given this more thought than I should, but I think the main problem with Viggo in this role is his voice. He simply does not have the timbre to his voice to make the stirring speeches.

Also, my only real complaint was making Legolas into superman and Gimli into a fucking joke.

This fairly sums up my only real complaint.