Lord of the Rings Movie Trilogy Thread

[Werthead]

Unfortunately, the very surreal Anduril/Elrond scene (which shows that elves have the ability to teleport at will) has been further ruined by this.

Suddenly Lord Elrond shows up at the camp.

"Hi."

[EHK for Darwin]

Going with a more bookish version of Faramir would diminish both Boromir and the ring itself. The Ring becomes much less of a threat and Boromir a complete jackass because everyone and their dog resisted 'The Most Desired Object EVER' with a mere shrug except him. The film ABSOLUTELY made the right call on this one.

[Lord of Oop North]

Going with a more bookish version of Faramir would diminish both Boromir and the ring itself. The Ring becomes much less of a threat and Boromir a complete jackass because everyone and their dog resisted 'The Most Desired Object EVER' with a mere shrug except him. The film ABSOLUTELY made the right call on this one.

Definetly. Such a big deal was made about the temptation of the Ring. That change was definetly for the better IMHO.

[Werthead]

The film makes Boromir look more hardcore than Faramir. He was with the Ring (or in reasonable proximity) for months and wasn't wholly overwhelmed by it until quite late in the day. Faramir spent twenty seconds with it and was frothing in his desire to send it back to Minas Tirith. Unfortunately, this does have the effect of making you agree with Denethor that Boromir was the handier son to have around in a jam and that Faramir is a bit weak, which I'm sure wasn't PJ's intention.

[EHK for Darwin]

Unfortunately, this does have the effect of making you agree with Denethor that Boromir was the handier son to have around in a jam and that Faramir is a bit weak, which I'm sure wasn't PJ's intention.

I don't think the duration of being around the ring necessarily means much at all. It could. But there's not enough there explicitly or implicitly to know for sure. That said, Boromir advocated taking and using the ring once he knew it was there. Whenever he saw the ring his eyes would glaze over like a kid in a candy store. He actively attacked Frodo, his (by this point) friend and ally, to steal the ring. And its likely he would have acted sooner if Aragon and the others weren't there to prevent him. He was tempted and succumbed, he repented only after the fact.

Faramir was tempted but never succumbed. He had Frodo completely at his mercy. Had troops all around him clamoring (or who would clamor) for him to take it. A father back home who would be violently pissed off if he didn't take it. His country being decimated before his eyes and the lone effective weapon within his grasp...and he let it go.

Sure film-Faramir was on the face of things weaker. (or at least that's the perception). He had always lived in his brother's shadow, was not the chosen son. Was rife with insecurities and this had the effect of making him appear indecisive...and perhaps weak. But that was also a necessary part of his character arc, his ability to overcome these doubts. His ability to resist the temptation that his brother never could and emerge stronger than his brother ever was despite most indications to the contrary.

If it doesn't work, I think most of that is on the actors. Lets face it, Sean Bean has a hell of alot more presence and talent than David Wenham.

[Bazzlebane]

Sean Bean's performance in Fellowship was Oscar-worthy -- the best by any actor in the trilogy, if you're discounting Andy Serkis for circumstance. It'd be hard for anyone to live up to him.

[Zahir al Daoud]

I find most folks complaining about the LOTR films are demanding first and foremost that somehow movies are supposed to be identical to books. Alan Moore once pointed out that books are intended to be read at leisure, whereas movies hurl at you at something like eighty frames per second. In particular we absolutely need to see and feel that the central characters actually end up in a different place emotionally than they were at the start. This is not so much the case in literary forms, where the locale can be the "star."

Mind you, I do have my critiques of the three movies. For one thing, each movie gets increasingly clunky in terms of plot. In TTT, for example, the entry of the Ents into the war was awkward to say the least. Likewise, Denethor in ROTK barely worked at all, becoming almost a caricature (although redeemed in many ways by the raw ability of John Noble). The battle at Helm's Deep was so superb that it kinda/sorta forced the battle before Minas Tirith into such a high level that it put the whole third film out of balance. Honestly, the decisions about Gollum's character in the third film felt a bit "off" and the very end was rushed enough that exactly what was happening proved tricky to figure out.

Having said that.

No complaints about any single performance. Standouts include Sean Bean, Viggo Mortensen, Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, John Noble, etc. Three "villain" characters in particular were realized with spectacular vision. Christopher Lee as Saruman the White turned the wizard into a genuinely real person, full of hints about a history. Brad Dourif made Wormtongue a startlingly sympathetic piece of slime, one who genuinely loved Eowyn. And John Noble took a fairly thin character on the page and gave him a fully fleshed-out human being.

[Guest]

Sean Bean's performance in Fellowship was Oscar-worthy -- the best by any actor in the trilogy, if you're discounting Andy Serkis for circumstance. It'd be hard for anyone to live up to him.

Bazz - Fuck yes. I agree completely. Sean Bean was amazing. He was so exactly what I pictured Boromir like to a T in the books.

On a totally different subject, this may be totally obvious to everyone, but it has yet to be discussed. The ring, and the people it corrupts, is an amazingly accurate portrayal of late-stage addicts. Books and film. I've always wondered whether this is sort of a coincidence, or if there was any life experience that Tolkien used for this.

I'm not saying Tolkien himself, I'm saying I wonder if he observed certain things. Maybe some of you serious Tolkienites can answer this. I'm guessing no, but at any rate, it's really amazing. I mean, Gollum is not so different from a crack-addict. Amazing moments of clarity, strength, and cunning, all to serve the purpose of eventually acquiring the precious. Yet at the same time a whimpering, pathetic and miserable individual.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Once again, the problem with the changes to Faramir is that it was poorly done. I have no problem with them showing Faramir tempted by the ring, I had a problem with they way they had him ultimately reject the temptation. His change of heart was completely not convincing, and ultimately does just much damage to the "ring being ultimate tempter" scenario as not altering Faramir at all. After all, we never saw Sam tempted by the ring, and nobody is complaining that somehow destroyed the credibility of the ring.

[Guest Raidne]

Going with a more bookish version of Faramir would diminish both Boromir and the ring itself. The Ring becomes much less of a threat and Boromir a complete jackass because everyone and their dog resisted 'The Most Desired Object EVER' with a mere shrug except him. The film ABSOLUTELY made the right call on this one.

Brought this up before, but I really like Faramir as a second-to-Aragorn only kind of figure, and didn't like how he was diminished in the films. I agree that it makes a better character out of Boromir, but Boromir was always kind of a lesser man to me in the books - he had more of the failings of men than Faramir or Aragorn. Also, we don't have to care about Tolkein's intent any more than we want to, but I think it was important to him that Aragorn and Faramir had the blood of Numenor and were just considerably stronger and more noble people than Boromir who did not.

Also, Denethor was supposed to be somewhat Numenorean as well, and was only corrupted, like Saruman, by the presence and use of the palantir. I wish they hadn't cut that from the movie. See him with it once, and the audience would have immediately gotten its significance after the bit with Saruman and Pippin's curiosity.

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the one thing I think I like the most about the films (and I love the films - I probably watch them at least once a year) is that they retained the large theme of the fight against industrialization that Tolkein and C.S. Lewis set out to accomplish together, and I agree with the additions that they made to the happenings at Isengard in the book to bring that theme out

[Werthead]

Just watching Fellowship now.

I think the strongest part of the entire trilogy is the Moria sequence. From the Fellowship's banter outside the doors ("Nothing's happening,") to Frodo's tears on the other side of the mountains, it's just note-perfect. The fight with the troll, the confrontation with the balrog, Gandalf's speech on pity and our brief glimpse of (an oddly green) Gollum are all great moments.

Of course, this does combine to make Lothlorien a bit of a letdown afterwards. I'm not surprised they strongly considered cutting it out. It slows down the narrative at a key point and Celeborn and Haldir are unexpectedly camp, whilst Galadriel comes across as just being very strange. I can understand them not dropping it (if they had, we'd probably all be complaining about it now) but with hindsight it could have been chucked.

[Guest]

Just watching Fellowship now.

I think the strongest part of the entire trilogy is the Moria sequence.

Of course, this does combine to make Lothlorien a bit of a letdown afterwards. I'm not surprised they strongly considered cutting it out.

I agree that the Moria sequence is great. The impetus for D&D everywhere.

As far as people in Lothlorien being "camp", acutally can someone define camp or campy for me? I see it often and don't quite get it. I imagine it as meaning sort of over-the-top.

[Werthead]

Basically Haldir and Celeborn uttering lots of extremely over-dramatic dialogue ("You have brought GREAT EVIL here," and the immortal line, "Where is Gandalf I much desire to speak with him?", which may get the nod as the worst-delivered line in the entire trilogy). And Galadriel just came across weird. The way she insists on talking to people telepathically rather than speaking (and WTF in the books does it say that the elves are members of Psi Corps?), the bit where she goes, "Greetings Frodo: ONE WHO HAS SEEN THE EYE!", was just inexplicable. Not to mention the bit where she goes mental and starts bellowing about the pitiless sea and loving her and trembling etc.

The only good bit in Lorien is Boromir's characterisation as he comes round to accepting Aragorn and Gimli actually getting to do a bit more than engage in comedy pratfalls.

But if you cut it, everyone would have been up in arms and it would have meant having the Saruman-equipping-the-Uruk-hai scenes earlier, probably in Moria where it would have interfered with the pacing of that sequence. It does make you realise how superfluous Lorien is to the story, though. The original plan was that Galadriel would have been at the Council of Elrond and the Fellowship would have received their gifts there. IRRC, there would just have been an elvish way-station or something on the river with the boats that the Fellowship just grabbed after Moria and headed downriver without interruption.

[Aemon Stark]

Basically Haldir and Celeborn uttering lots of extremely over-dramatic dialogue ("You have brought GREAT EVIL here," and the immortal line, "Where is Gandalf I much desire to speak with him?", which may get the nod as the worst-delivered line in the entire trilogy). And Galadriel just came across weird. The way she insists on talking to people telepathically rather than speaking (and WTF in the books does it say that the elves are members of Psi Corps?), the bit where she goes, "Greetings Frodo: ONE WHO HAS SEEN THE EYE!", was just inexplicable. Not to mention the bit where she goes mental and starts bellowing about the pitiless sea and loving her and trembling etc.

Yeah. It is camp, completely. The lighting is also bizarre and, well, fake-looking. I had always pictured Lorien as being full of golden forests and trees, rather than some sort of languid Ewok village in drab purples and chintzy Art Nouveau.

But if you cut it, everyone would have been up in arms and it would have meant having the Saruman-equipping-the-Uruk-hai scenes earlier, probably in Moria where it would have interfered with the pacing of that sequence. It does make you realise how superfluous Lorien is to the story, though. The original plan was that Galadriel would have been at the Council of Elrond and the Fellowship would have received their gifts there. IRRC, there would just have been an elvish way-station or something on the river with the boats that the Fellowship just grabbed after Moria and headed downriver without interruption.

Well, Lorien is supposed to be where the Fellowship gets a chance to recover from Gandalf's death and try to get their bearings. Generally speaking, PJ didn't really do the Elves properly in any way whatsoever, and the Lorien sequences are among the biggest departures from Tolkien's text - and not for the better!

But I do love imitating those lines. ONE WHO HAS SEEN THE EYE!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

[Anthem]

Lothlorien cracks me up now - and I absolutely hated the scene where Galadriel turns into a huge green monster who looks so ridiculous and sounds like she's been smoking a pack of cigarettes stuffed with goat shit everyday for thirty thousand years. Unlike others, I think Cate Blanchett had the perfect look and the deepish voice for Gal, but what PJ made her do was unforgivable.

Lothlorien was definitely the only pimple of FOTR. I can't help but cringe whenever Celeborn opens his mouth for the dreaded line ("I much desire to speak with him"? Wtf?) The rest - Moria, Rivendell, the Nazgul, Gandalf, were simply amazing. The prologue still amazes me, and here I think Cate Blanchett does well.

Then we get to TTT. I like the battle scene, and unlike other Tolkien nerds I don't think the elves were a crime against humanity. It would've been worse if the tiny garrison of green boys (plagiarised from GRRM) and shriveled old men held off the orcs long enough for Gandalf to charge in. I think Legolas' skateboard routine is both laughable and awesome.

The ents bored the hell out of me. It must be Treebeard's voice - so deep and sonorous and a cure for insomnia. That's the main gripe I have with TTT.

Oh, and Faramir's change in character irritated me intensely, but I understand why PJ did it. Faramir is one of my absolute favourite characters in the books and it was a shock, to a horny fifteen year old girl, to have her hero so degraded (and humanised). I'm over it now.

ROTK fulfilled expectations but the green ghosts still feel like a deus ex machina. I don't miss the scouring of the Shire, that would've been a whole new movie in itself. Good on PJ for leaving it out.

All in all, the LOTR trilogy is one of my favourite movies EVAH, and one I'm sure I'll enjoy it even when I'm ninety

[mormont]

And John Noble took a fairly thin character on the page and gave him a fully fleshed-out human being.

Oh yeah. People tend to overlook this performance in the rush to criticise what PJ did to the character, but John Noble owns any scene he's in, including the ones with Ian McKellen, which is never easy. 'I do not think we should so lightly abandon the outer defences'... beautiful delivery. I bloody hated him at that moment, but pitied him too. You got a real sense that he just would not allow himself to care for Faramir.

I agree with Raidne that the one thing that needed to be included to make the film-Denethor work was the palantir. And the one thing that needed to be taken out was the lengthy marathon run when he was on fire. But John Noble nearly made it work anyway, for me.

On Boromir and Faramir and temptation by the Ring: again, film just works differently from books. Yes, Boromir was with the Ring for months and Faramir for days. Doesn't matter. What matters is the amount of screen time they are with the Ring. Because film is a much more immersive experience (IMO), people react on a gut level: to what they see, not what they understand to be the case. So that was OK, for me. Sean Bean did seriously outperform David Wenham, it's true, including in communicating the desire for the Ring, and that doesn't help.

[Paddy]

Good points, Mormont.

Also, Boromir had a lot more reason to resist the Ring for all of those months. He knew the entire Fellowship would be against him if he made his move. He just didn't have the opportunity to take the Ring (see: Ring falling in the snow scene).

Faramir didn't have such issues holding him back.

ETA: What did people think of the change where the Fellowship were unable to cross Caradhras because of Saruman's interventions?

IIRC, in the book, it was basically just the mountain itself and the weather on it which caused them to turn back.

[Exa Inova]

Just to stir up shit (no trolling intended, just discussion):

The books were/are shit!

There you have it. The books suck and its very difficult to make a good movie when the books suck.

All your criticism reflects back at the books. a few examples:

Tom Bombadil: WTF? Nations at war for ages, genocide, continues suffering over a ring a there is this being who could end this? Whats his point in the books anyway?

The elves: Superior beings in every way. They should taken care of Sauron ages ago. And oh, because the live forever they should have millions of kids. Logically there should be billions of elves, even if a female elf got just one child every 50 years.

Numenorions(sp): Another super race. But when push comes to shove they fail miserably. All reference to superior Numenorion blood is utter crap since the wraths are numenorions themselves. The way Faramir shrugs of the ring in the book is a joke.

Deus ex machina: Tolkien introduces peoples after peoples to save the day. Gondorians of the south, army of ghosts, Huorns to lead Theodens army, eagles etc.

Theoden: in the books he is actually a spineless prick. Someone whispers something in his ear and he turn into a whimpering old loon. Gandalf shows up whispers something else and he lead thousands into battle.

And now the movie:

In a movie you cant introduce a superior being (Bombadil) who can end all your problems and just say; nah lets do it the hard and improbable way

If the ring is the source of all trouble, you cant have people shrugging it off

If the dwarves and elves are part of the fellowship, they need a big role (hence elves showing up at Helms deep) in the 3 books you dont know they are fighting there own war. Gimli does provide comic relief but this is necessary.

Aragorn in the books is an arrogant man. Waving around his sword, pointing at his kinship. But he doesnt go to Gondor to claim it. Movie Aragorn is much more real as he understands and fears his kinship. And oh yeah, book Aragorn is a superior healer, deus someone?

There is more but you get the picture. My point:

I went to see this movie with my wife. She never read the books and enjoyed the movie very much. It was an understandable story for non fans. She said she was glad Gimli made the smug remark at Legolas killing the Olifaunt. The impressions on the screen where too much and his remark was literally a relief. We know the books, we know the story but a non fan can point out all the weaknesses with ease and if those where included, the movie would have been a total mess. The non fans I spoke, who read the books after seeing the movie all prefer the movie.

Movies have strengths and weaknesses with regards to filming books. Sometimes the nuance gets lost, the character development can get lost, interesting side plots are left out. But a screen can also make stronger impression than a book ever can. Can get straight to the essential point. And (if included) can point out glaring weaknesses in books.

My take: considering the weaknesses of the book, the movies are a work of art.

[Calibandar]

Paddy

ETA: What did people think of the change where the Fellowship were unable to cross Caradhras because of Saruman's interventions?

IIRC, in the book, it was basically just the mountain itself and the weather on it which caused them to turn back.

In the book it is implied but not really stated as fact that the Fellowship is hindered by the mountain's spirit, which does not suffer man or Elvenkind gladly. I actually think this is one of those rare changes for the best. This puts some much needed flesh on the virtually eradicated Saruman movie character and gives him something to do outside of being a total one-dimensional puppet of Sauron's ( unlike the three-dimensional character in the book). It shows why is a threat, why he is a power to be reckoned with. It shows why Gandalf the Grey defers to him. I liked it.

Exa Inova

Theoden: in the books he is actually a spineless prick. Someone whispers something in his ear and he turn into a whimpering old loon. Gandalf shows up whispers something else and he lead thousands into battle.

It is actually the way around. The film Theoden is a deeply disappointing whiner of a character, like many of the film's characters, whereas the Book Theoden is a far stronger character. Film Theoden is a character who has to be goaded and prodded; Book Theoden takes the initiative and does what needs to be done.

Happy Ent

The "Hero's journey" needs a "Hero's death" in the middle. After this death, the hero takes his responsibility seriously. In the movies, Filmragorn begins spreading Hope after his "death", specifically in a scene with a young Rohan warrior, and later with Gimli and Legolas, finally with the King of Rohan. It's the turning point for the Hero.

As I said, you're free to disagree with this choice of "archetype-grafted-on-an-a-character". Personally, I love it. In any case, that's the reason for his death, right in the middle of the trilogy.

I disagree with your take here. Not because I don't think Film Aragorn has a character arc. You're right, he does. It's a catastrophically poor one, but it is indeed a character arc. I feel the character was much stronger the way Tolkien wrote him and for me Aragorn both as an actor and as written by PJ is one of the supreme disappointments of the films.

Where I think you are wrong is in what you think is the reason for his " fake death" in The Two Towers. See, when he returns, he is still his relucant, whining self-doubting self. Nothing has changed. Film Aragorn still is nothing like the leader we read about. He is still the modern man from the 90's pretending to be a hero from a pre-medieval world. He has the modern day values written all over him. He is insecure. He is weak. Pushes responsibility away again and again. Enter various flahsbacks to Mortsensen lounging on Arwen's couch, begging her for strength.

Nothing illustrates this more as when even after the fake death he still refuses his birthright. He still does not want to accept Anduril. He makes no decisions, he is pushed into them. He still does not want to claim the throne of Gondor.

It's a radically different character. But I don't think he is different when he gets back from his Death by Warg in TTT.

[Chaldanya]

Am I an unusal case? I've only read about 90 pages of Fellowship and I put it down out of sheer boredom.

I agree with Jax on this point, but must say that the film made the story accessible. I really enjoy the movies and would watch them more except the time commitment involved. The films took the most important points to tell the story and stripped them of the ponderous travelogue and questionable characters (Tom Bombadil).

Sure there are issues that I have with them:

1) I enjoyed Legolas acrobatics, but the trunk slide looks a bit hokey.

2) I think FotR oustrips the TTT and RotK. The later two becoming a bit clunky.

3) Arwen's voice tonality and cadence annoyed the shit out of me.

But it's really nothing compared to everything the films got right imho:

1) Gollum (especially when he's having a dialogue with Smeagol - that brings tears to my eyes every time).

2) Lighting of the beacons.

3) 'Don't think he knows about elevensies, Pip'

4) Sean Bean

5) The visuals were absolutely stunning.

6) Unlike others, I think the injection of humour was needed otherwise you'd have 9+ hours of plodding seriousness with no laughs/joy.

7) Gimli/Legolas friendship.

I could go on and on.

I think the fact remains that film is a very different medium from books and there are considerations whenever a film is made i.e. has to appeal to a broad audience; keeping the main story; budget and length. I think PJ did a great job. I almost picked the books up again to give it another go, but nah, they're still just as bad as they were before the movie.

BTW: PJ has made a fantastic movie: The Frighteners...

N