LotR Films in Retrospect and Changed Opinions

[bropous]

Now that the old Entmooters have seen all three films, and their "extended" versions over and over, and you've had a good year or two to think about it, have your opinions you originally stated changed? How?

I was originally head-over-heels for the first film, but my opinion soured over time as reflection overcame novelty.

Even the extended editions, which came a step or two closer to the original story, failed miserably in truly capturing the essence of Middle-Earth.

Also, do you think that very many people actually made the full journey "there and back again" once they bought the books? Or do you think that Jackson's facile treatment was so different from the books that folks who saw the films first were turned off by Professor T's masterworks?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

[Nurvingiel]

On Watching the Movies and My Opinion of Them Now

I actually haven't seen any of the extended editions. When I watch movies, I'll watch one or the other. I'll rent the EE if I have the chance. Most movies I can't be bothered to watch more than once.

There are a few notable exceptions, with genius works like Mostly Martha and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Jackson's movies, interestingly, also fall into this category.

I wouldn't call his movies "genius works", but I got very caught up in the idea of a Lord of the Rings movie when it first came out. I really enjoyed the first movie (with the pointed exception of that one scene we all hate with a passion) and I saw it three times in theatres. I have never watched it since.

I actually wanted to see FotR three times. When TTT came out, I was still excited. I saw it, and was crushed to find it sucked harder than an industrial vacuum. I went with friends to see it again, and I found that it still blew. I think this is where most of the bile surfaced and I vented my spleen about the movies in these forums. The forgivable plot holes from FotR annoyed me now. And Gimli as comic relief? Stab kill maim injure stab stab stab.

I went to see RotK with my Pedantic-Movie-Watcher Stun Gun set to extreme. I was pleasantly surprised to find that RotK didn't hardcore suck. I ennjoyed this movie, possibly because I was expecting drek like the second movie. RotK wasn't as good as FotR due to two scenes that still burn my mind. I don't think I can ever forgive Flaming Cordless Bungee Jumping Denathor. And Gandalf hitting Denathor? No. Just no.

And, as much as I pity Jackson for having to convey a bodiless entity whose symbol is an eye, and whose spirit searches for the Ring like an eye, the Sauron Eye Spotlight was just too silly, though not as bad as FCBJD though.

I did enjoy RotK. The Battle of Pelennor Fields was awesome (I have nitpicks, but it was awesome). Minis Tirith (despite their lack of foresight in purchasing trebuchet ammunition) was incredibly beautiful. Minis Tirith, Pelennor, and also Éowyn definitely made RotK for me.

Throughout all three movies the Hobbits, Aragorn, and Gandalf* were wonderful, rich characters.

*Except when Gandalf hit Denethor with his staff. Then he sucked old lemons.

Now, looking back on the movies, only two things have really changed. First, I didn't like Frodo when the movies first came out. He wasn't wise like I imagined him from the book, but even I must acknowledge that's too harsh. I think the asthma attack encounters with the Ring made him look bad unnecessarily. Elijah Wood really did do a great job with Frodo, who was an awesome character. It's not Frodo's fault all the calm parts of the plot got cut, leaving him to jump from one dramatic scene to the next, an expression of horror permanently on his face. (Frodo's Mom: If you keep making that face, it will freeze that way!)

The other aspect that change is my level of loathing for the movies. I used to grudgingly like FotR, despise TTT with the fire of a million hot suns, and feel more or less neutral about RotK. Now my hatred of TTT has lessened to the fire of a thousand Red Dwarf suns.

However, I no longer fly into a rage at the mere mention of the movies, but I still don't like them overall and I won't bother renting them. (The exception is if my boyfriend really wants to watch them. He really likes all the movies, and he's such a wonderful guy that I'd even watch TTT for him!)


On Movie Goers Making the Journey

The only effect the movie really had is a surge of hype surrounding the book. This, if anything, is what effected who read/reads it, and it was positive. A new publication was made with movie pictures on the cover, and I think more books were published. More of Tolkien's works stocked the shelves of even crap bookstores like Chapters. This will probably cause a huge amount of people to read the books.

[rohirrim TR]

why do you hate gimli so much? I thought he totally rocked, I love John Rhys-Davies hes the perfect side kick dude (got started with Indiana Jones for petes sake) Gimli rocked, and as for comic relief Merry and Pippin and Gimli are the only characters that have room for some comic relief without ruining the character. sorry sorry off topic.

I like the movies especially the extended edition, TTT was a bit of a dissapointment, and the WK breaking Gandalfs staff in ROTK EE really ticked me off but sith happens even on the best films.

[Serenoli]

I loved the books when I first read them. Then I saw the movies and they were very different from the books, but having previous experience of book-to-movie transitions, I expected that, so it didn't disappoint me that much. And so I loved the movies too!

And I still do. The changes that do annoy, like Arwen, or the change of Faramir's character, etc., are more than over-compensated by some brilliant scenes- such as the battle for Helm's Deep. The movies, in my opinion are very very good... but I haven't changed my opinion in retrospect, so maybe I shouldn't even be posting here!]

BTW, The Two Towers was my favourite movie... funny how people's opinions vary!

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

I will post a more detailed thought on the subject when I'm not so tired, but the jist of what I think is that the films were the films and the book is the book. To be perfectly honest I did not read the book untill after Fellowship of the Ring had released. In fact I had not read the books untill shortly before The Two Towers released! But once I started reading I couldn't stop, I read all three books in less than a two weeks. At the time of the films my bestfriend and myself were Lord of the Rings and Tolkien nuts so naturally I loved the films! I could hardly wait for the Return of the King. All of that sort of fanatic stuff. Yet as this thread says, in retrospect I feel the films were lacking, even as films go.
I know that the films are going to be altered from the books, that would be understandable, even things like Faramirs change and presence of Arwen, but certain minor inclusions are what made the films lose points for me. Espcially in the Extended Editions, sceans like "The Drinking Game" with Gimli and Legolas. What was the point!? A split second of comical relief? I feel that sceans with no purpose sould have been and could have been time spent in film dealing with something more important to the story. Jackson left out a lot but could have added it if he wasn't busy adding his own story!
However I still love all the films, and no matter what book to film it is, the book will always be superior. I'm also a bit LotR'd out! I have put my books and films aside and haven't looked at them for nearly a year! The films were great, and the works of Tolkien are amazing. My feelings for the films have slightly changed but even still they are still extremely great!

Oh and my favorite film was Fellowship of the Ring, favorite character in the film was Eomer. Favorite book was Return of the King, favorite in book character... ... Halbarad!!!

[BeardofPants]

I thought the first movie was naff when I went to see it, and I still think it royally sucks ass. The second movie was a little bit better, and I certainly enjoyed seeing the ents brought to life, but it still wasn't something that I'd want to re-watch beyond seeing the EE. RoTK was nothing but cheese. I was bored through most of the end, and when I went to see it a second time at the Embassy in Wellington (so my friend from Germany could say that she'd seen it in NZ), I was bored further. Bah, I say. Bah.

[Stephen]

It's hard to compare the books to the movies. If judged by themselves as works of art the movies are incredible... right down to the last fake rock. I doubt i could have organized that whole shebang. Some things bothered me a little at first, frodo seemed a little young... etc... but then again, who wants to watch a bunch of old hobbits running around. I think Jackson definitely kept to the spirit of the work and made some necessary and some silly, but interesting changes. The straying from the books was good hearted at worst.

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Stephen

It's hard to compare the books to the movies. If judged by themselves as works of art the movies are incredible... right down to the last fake rock.

Sorry, but that's exactly what they weren't.

It's hard to compare books to movies. Fine. Let's hand wave all that away, and just look at the movies. The source material doesn't matter.

Take away the wildly popular source material and what do you have? Yet another uninspired film with an incredibly bloated production budget, a half-assed plot, practically every annoying film trope that has ever been done, and a garnish of cheesy one-liners to top it off with.

The entire trilogy was less 'incredible' and more 'mediocre.' Let's face it, if weren't based on what was already one of the most (if not the most) wildly successful works of fiction in modern times, the first film would have passed without comment with the rest of the boring wannabe epic films.

I'll give the producer credit - he does a good job of cashing in on things which are already monumentally successful. He's not so good at actually making films that stand on their own merits.

[Arien the Maia]

hmmm what do I think...ok

FotR: I absolutely LOVED this movie when it came out! I saw it 9 times in the theater and countless more when it came out on DVD. It truely did turn me into the Tolkien nut that I am today. Prior to seeing it I was reading the Silmarillion for the second time I think. So I was already a Tolkien fan but not to that extent. I do like the way most of the Elves were portrayed (as far as looks go) and their culture was awesome. I obvously didn't like Arwen in the movie at all! Not that I'm against hell-raising females (heck, I am one at times ) but that was NOT what Arwen was! That was Eowyn all the way! I was disappointed that the Barrowdowns and Tom were left out. FotR is my fav LotR book mainly b/c it deals the most with the ancient things like Elves and Tom and it also has alot of "quiet" times in it...the whole journey from the Shire to Rivendell...the stay at Tom's house etc. all in all though I though that it was a great movie.

TTT: I went in with super high expectations and was really let down! I hated the way they changed Faramir's charcter! OMG! I loved him in the book and it was horrible to have to watch him on the screen! It was after this movie that I joined Entmoot so it did strength my Tolkien-loving a tad more I only saw this one 4 times in the theaters....each time I kept thinking "ok, now THIS time I'll really like it!" I have the DVD anyway to complete my collection. The extended Edition really did add a bit more to it I thought. I must say that in this movie Elrond comes off as a bit of a jerk towards the race of Men. Well he's kinda like that in FotR as well. I mean come on...he is half-elven after all! They should have made that come through more...he was portrayed as an Elf not as a half -Elf...in fact I wonder if people who hadn't read the books would understand...

RotK: I really did like this one too. I didn't like the whole "spotlight Eye" or the fact that the Eye was just an Eye and not really Sauron in bodily form. I think I saw this 5 times in the theaters. I saw the Extended edition which I liked as well. I also didn't like the whole Gandalf hitting Denethor scene. This movie really inspiored me to do my Senior Project dedicated to Tolkien's world. So I did, and I must say it turned out pretty well!

All in all I liked the movies and when something bothers me I just remember to tell myself that I should like the movies for what they are...movies...far below the books really...but they helped me to imagine Tolkien's world more vividly I think.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

... Yet another uninspired...&c

The visual recreation of middle earth is completely uninspired? We must have been watching different movies. Name one visually unpleasing aspect of the movie and i'll name 10 amazing ones. Half of Tolkien's work is in the building of the setting of middle earth, if not more. So if even visually, middle earth is recreated well... Jackson did at least a 50% good job. Now we can argue the plot and quirks all day long but that arguement is only for the remaining 50%. You may have to be content with about 20 if we keep going.

[Nurvingiel]

I think the themes and characters matter rather a lot more than beautiful scenery. Besides, 50% is still a D. That is a crap grade. (I have a couple Ds on my transcript, but never mind that.) Tolkien spent some time building Middle-earth, but that was fleshing out the history, geography, languages, and family trees of the different characters. Not describing every rock.

I think the movies have pretty excellent scenery, especially Rohan and the White Mountains. But... meh. That doesn't make an impactful movie IMO. I watch a lot of movies because I love movies, but I have become jaded to shiny CGI. You just can't impress me with obviously fake mountains of Mordor or Sauron's evil eye spotlight. What moves me is a gripping plot, and I don't feel the LotR movies had a gripping plot. There was suspense around the Battle of Pelennor Fields, but the overall movie was cheapened by the random crap like Denothor's death and the bad dialogue. I found those things distracting, and once distracted, I realised the movies weren't great.

This is my view, and as an art form, movies are subjective. You're free to enjoy them of course.

But you know what movies I'm really enjoying right now? The Rocky movies. My roommate and I have watched I and II, and we'll watch III through V the next chance we get. There is no CGI to speak of, and the most elaborate makeup is giving the two boxers realistic-looking beat-up faces. I find these movies exciting and compelling because of the interesting characters. The plot, when scrutinised, is a tad predictable, but I found this didn't bother me. Not everyone is going to enjoy Rocky, but my point with this is you don't need CGI to have an enjoyable movie.

You also can't use CGI to make up for bad dialogue or silly characters. Obviously CGI was necessary to portray Middle-earth (the Balrog was pretty rad), but this can't be an excuse to not write a good screenplay.

[brownjenkins]

true, movies are subjective... this is part of the reason why i do see the lotr trilogy as a good set of movies... many people i respect were very moved by them, and not just in a "cool graphics" kind of way... so they must have done something right, at least for some people

[Arien the Maia]

[QUOTE=Nurvingiel]
You just can't impress me with obviously fake mountains of Mordor or Sauron's evil eye spotlight.
\QUOTE]


this is hilarious and I love it! Sauron's evil eye spotlight! I'm going to refer to it as that from now on!

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Stephen

The visual recreation of middle earth is completely uninspired? We must have been watching different movies. Name one visually unpleasing aspect of the movie and i'll name 10 amazing ones. Half of Tolkien's work is in the building of the setting of middle earth, if not more. So if even visually, middle earth is recreated well... Jackson did at least a 50% good job. Now we can argue the plot and quirks all day long but that arguement is only for the remaining 50%. You may have to be content with about 20 if we keep going.

Well, clearly you fail to grasp the correct meaning of the word inspired, because 'uninspired' is not the same as 'visually unpleasing.' Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse, or does it come naturally?

If taking pictures of the New Zealand countryside with some pretty people and CGI monsters is your idea of a great film, I could make one on a lot smaller budget than Jackson did. Sorry, but taking pictures of beautiful scenery is what makes a good photographer, and being able to create inspiring images is what makes a good artist. Neither is enough to make a good filmmaker.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

. Besides, 50% is still a D.

Where I come from, it's an F. But that's beside the point, since the claim was completely fallacious anyway. *gives Nurvingiel a cookie*

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by Stephen

It's hard to compare the books to the movies. If judged by themselves as works of art the movies are incredible... right down to the last fake rock. I doubt i could have organized that whole shebang. Some things bothered me a little at first, frodo seemed a little young... etc... but then again, who wants to watch a bunch of old hobbits running around. I think Jackson definitely kept to the spirit of the work and made some necessary and some silly, but interesting changes. The straying from the books was good hearted at worst.

This sums it up perfectly for me. I never expected the movies to be more than just movies. I was/am very pleased with them, of course they're not perfect...they are little movies! I also believe the movies stirred up a ton of interest in Tolkien, and caused many to pick the books that would have never done so.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

But most of those tons will see Viggo Mortensen whenever they think of Aragorn, and Sean Astin whenever they think of Samwise, etc. They'll read it as a novelization of the movie. That's why I'm against watching the movie before reading the book (refering to a general principle here, not LotR specifically); you will be influenced and to a degree even formed by the adaptation, instead of the original.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But most of those tons will see Viggo Mortensen whenever they think of Aragorn, and Sean Astin whenever they think of Samwise, etc. They'll read it as a novelization of the movie. That's why I'm against watching the movie before reading the book (refering to a general principle here, not LotR specifically); you will be influenced and to a degree even formed by the adaptation, instead of the original.

I couldn't agree more with you! this happened to me with Harry Potter....I watched the 1st movie then I read the books (I've sinced seen all the movies) but to me Snape and Harry and Ron will forever be portrayed in my mind as the actors who play them. it's sort of sad really...now with LotR...I read it before the movies came out but I think that for me, PJs versions of how he envisioned Middle EArth only enhanced what I had already envisioned I suppose...I never imagined that Elves could have long hair...and the more I though about it the more I like the fact that Elves had long hair! now, whenever I read the Sil or LotR...my Elves always have long hair!

[Lizra]

Gee guys....all I can say to that is "so what" ..... life is full of influences, I think most people will be able to deal with books and movies, I mean, not everyone is going to have a major religious experience over LoTR anyway. I'm sure some people that read the books because of interest stirred by the movies will be deeply moved nonetheless.

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by bropous

I was originally head-over-heels for the first film, but my opinion soured over time as reflection overcame novelty.

Even the extended editions, which came a step or two closer to the original story, failed miserably in truly capturing the essence of Middle-Earth.

I was initially fascinated with the scene when Fellowship came out, I was less so with two towers, and less so with return. I got the EE DVDs, and I have watched Fellowship a few times TT a few times, and Return exactly twice, once I fell asleep in the middle somewhere.

Initially I though tthey got alot of stuff fairly right in my opinion, like the Shire, the countryside that Frodo and Sam set out in, Bree, Helms Deep, Amon Sul, Medesuld, Minas Tirith. I think they missed it with Lorien, the terrain of Rohan, Mordor, the distance aspect ratio, and I'm neutral with Rivendell, Helms Deep, Isengard, and the Ents.

The story started ok, but it went south with Farmer Maggot, and worse yet with the Arwen catching a Ranger in the wild, etc. Now, as time goes on, the movies become evermore irrelevent to me in light of the true story presented in the books.

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

Although I saw the movies before reading the books, I had read The Hobbit before watching the movies. As far as appearances go, Gandalf looked exactly as I imagined him, Bilbo was fairly close, and the dwarves and even the Shire looked similar to what I thought they would.
When I first saw the movies, I was completely obsessed with them. Then, for some reason, when I joined Entmoot a few weeks after reading the books (which I read in 15 days), this obsession waned. I still love the movies, though, despite the fact that they are not entirely like the books.

The Fellowship of the Ring: I absolutely love the introduction and Frodo before he inherits the Ring. After he gets the Ring, a worried look is forever plastered on his face. Merry and Pippin are slightly too comical. Arwen is... ugh. Gandalf, Strider/Aragorn, Sam, Boromir, Gimli, Galadrial, and Bill (the pony) were great, in my opinion. Rivendell and Lothlorien were picturesque. My second favorite of the trilogy.

The Two Towers: Merry and Pippin finally grew a little more mature in The Two Towers, although they are still not my favorite. Treebeard was very Entish, but maybe a little too bendy during the destruction of Isengard. Arwen was... bleh. She's not even supposed to be there! The only thing that bugs me about Theoden is that he suddenly gets a haircut when Gandalf cures him. Eowyn. Now, that was one character that Jackson did well. Smeagol/Gulom was excellent. Helm's Deep was overly long, in my opinion. My least favorite movie.

The Return of the King: What an amazing movie! It added Pippin looking into the Palantir, thankfully. Merry and Pippin are even better. The Nazgul were... I don't even know how the describe them! They were so good, especially the Witch King. Sam, as always, played his part well. Five scenes that should have never been there: The Drinking Game (E/E), Frodo telling Sam to "go home", Sam and Frodo being picked up by the Orcs in Mordor (which, by the way, I thought looked fine) (E/E), Aragorn freaking out when he sees Arwen in the Palantir (E/E), and Denethor's leap of doom.

I know, it's not a great review, but at least I did it.