The Lord of the Rings

[Demesnedenoir]

I just spent the last 3 days rewatching the movies in the theater, and I must say, I forgot how F'n good those were despite having watched the DVDs in between. And now, my youngest daughter has them in the theater, a major bonus!

Jackson wasn't perfect, but he was damned good. It all makes me wonder once again how The Hobbit went so wrong, heh heh. Aside from the obvious of trying to stretch it into 3 movies.

 

[pmmg]

Well. A lot does happen in the hobbit. It would be hard to get it in one movie… but somehow i dont feel the need to rewatch those.

Maybe disney needs to get it for the sequel series.

 

[JBCrowson]

I just spent the last 3 days rewatching the movies in the theater, and I must say, I forgot how F'n good those were despite having watched the DVDs in between. And now, my youngest daughter has them in the theater, a major bonus!

Jackson wasn't perfect, but he was damned good. It all makes me wonder once again how The Hobbit went so wrong, heh heh. Aside from the obvious of trying to stretch it into 3 movies.

I loved the LOTR movies. The first one the most. The way they handled the black riders was awesome. So many moments of magic - pulling back from the rising voices in the council of Elrond to focus on the reflections of those arguing seen in the ring - wow. I think maybe why The Hobbit movies didn't work so well was they deviated from the book too much, and certainly more than they did with the LOTR movies.

 

[Rexenm]

I think maybe why The Hobbit movies didn't work so well was they deviated from the book too much, and certainly more than they did with the LOTR movies.

Some of the screenwriters for the series, were women. Why do I get the feeling that has nothing to do with it. Thinking about it, the one ring was in it, but no ghostly voice from the past. Well not really, I mean there was the Nazgûl at the High Fells of Rhudaur. The Cracks of Doom, is the destination for the original, but the prequel has, treasure hunting?

Now, as to the target audience - I think the digital age was ushering in the plateauing of CGI anyway, and Disney hasn’t produced anything of descent quality since the renaissance you must admit. Maybe Gollum hit puberty, Gandalf wasn’t there to wipe his ass, and turn his head and cough?

 

[Finchbearer]

I’ve just finished re-watching them too. Sometimes it’s just got to be done. Apart from Legolas shield surfing down the stairs, they’re good. Barely hitting orcs with an axe or Gandalf’s hitty stick, and them going down like wack ‘o’ moles is also not very believable, but at least they were consistent. Let’s not forget Frodo’s constant ‘oh Sam’.

I also like the Hobbit films, but I think the time at which they were made and a combination of a few things made it so the films didn’t have the same depth or visual effect as LOTR films do.

First of all, the source material is totally different. The Hobbit is a short children’s book that has far more humour and works with less grandeurs themes than the LOTR does. They stretched that as much as they could across the three films, and even added an odd romantic element with Tauriel and Gili.

I’ve watched most of the ‘making of’ documentaries on YouTube for both LOTR and Hobbit, and so much work went into each, but there was a lot more technology used in the Hobbit, and that I think that was really to do with what Jackson felt he ought to do, such as use filming techniques that would enable the film to be shot in 3D. There was far more green screen acting therefore on the Hobbit.

The dwarves had to wear a stupendous amount of makeup and prosthetics, and they end up looking comical, which is in line with the Hobbit, and Tolkiens humour, but doesn’t do very well when compared with the seriousness of LOTR.

 

[Genly]

It was interesting to see how Peter Jackson's vision of LOTR translated to the big screen. Some events that were just mentioned in passing in the books became iconic moments on the screen: for instance, the lighting of the war beacons on the summits of the White Mountains, which was a brilliant set piece that heralded the outbreak of war. Some aspects of the film version were perhaps less edifying: the characterization in the films of Denethor as someone who stuck his head in the sand during a crisis stood in unflattering contrast to his portrayal in the book as a capable but rigid leader who overestimated his mental strength. It was also a shame that the Scouring of the Shire was omitted in the films, as in the books it really showed how much the characters of the hobbits had developed through the hardships that they experienced during the War. But overall, the films were a great achievement.

 

[CupofJoe]

I don't think Disney will get any where near LotR or The Hobbit as the film and TV rights are already with other companies, Amazon and WB mainly.
On the plus side there is a Gollum movies the works with Andy Serkis performing and directing...

 

[Prince of Spires]

The films were indeed a masterpiece. I really should rewatch them (or preferably find a screening in a theater near me...).

So many things contributed to making them great. Shooting them as 1 movie instead of three. Spending a lot of time in preproduction to get everything right before starting to film. Being limited by technology which meant that they needed to use practical effects and sets to create them instead of just a big green screen. The list goes on.

However, I think for me, one of the main things that stands out is a love for the source material. Respect for it and understanding of why it works and what the writer is trying to achieve.

Yes, you can point at all the changes Jackson made. However, I understand allmost all of them. You need to make changes to a novel to make it fit a screen. They needed to limit the run time (9 hours is already a huge amount). The only change I really dislike and which was (in my opinion not needed), was to the character of Faramir. In the novel he's the opposite of Boromir, showing the strength and virtue that is still in men. In the movie that's not there at all.

The hobbit went wrong on a lot of places. I think the main one was trying to stretch it out too much, which resulted in a bloated film. Many of the other issues stem from that. If you don't have to fill 7-9 hours of film, then you have no room for a silly romance or a ludicrous fight scene in barrels.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I think there's another run of the movies coming this weekend of the 16th in some locations.

The screenwriter in me understands what they did with Faramir, at least why I think they messed with his character, but yeah, that's one that bugs me. Kind of like I get how they dropped the scouring of the Shire, but I would love to have seen it.

The films were indeed a masterpiece. I really should rewatch them (or preferably find a screening in a theater near me...).

So many things contributed to making them great. Shooting them as 1 movie instead of three. Spending a lot of time in preproduction to get everything right before starting to film. Being limited by technology which meant that they needed to use practical effects and sets to create them instead of just a big green screen. The list goes on.

However, I think for me, one of the main things that stands out is a love for the source material. Respect for it and understanding of why it works and what the writer is trying to achieve.

Yes, you can point at all the changes Jackson made. However, I understand allmost all of them. You need to make changes to a novel to make it fit a screen. They needed to limit the run time (9 hours is already a huge amount). The only change I really dislike and which was (in my opinion not needed), was to the character of Faramir. In the novel he's the opposite of Boromir, showing the strength and virtue that is still in men. In the movie that's not there at all.

The hobbit went wrong on a lot of places. I think the main one was trying to stretch it out too much, which resulted in a bloated film. Many of the other issues stem from that. If you don't have to fill 7-9 hours of film, then you have no room for a silly romance or a ludicrous fight scene in barrels.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

My knowledge of The Hobbit movies is sorely lacking as I quit paying attention while my daughter watched them, but I think the troubles were legion.

I do think the technology hurt the film. LoTR and GoT are two fantasy pieces that feel more real than the others. Part of the greatness of Star Wars was the tech limitations, as every time Lucas went back through the movie and added stuff, nothing made it better.

 

[Jackarandajam]

The Hobbit is a short children’s book that has far more humour and works with less grandeurs themes than the LOTR does.

I think this hits the nail pretty much on the head. LOTR is an epic, The Hobbit is a fairy tale.
I also feel like they couldn't lock down a target age audience. The idea to make it a kids movie wasn't bad, but some elements were for 6 year olds, others almost at the same level of dark/violence as LOTR. So you had radagast and musical numbers, and also decapitated heads rolling in slow motion and the sauron bit.

I don't mind that we now have -THAT- version of the hobbit. I prefer the cartoon though.

 

[Incanus]

They're OK. Much got compromised in designing it for the widest possible audience.

Good production, but the adaption wasn't all that great. They changed Aragorn's character too much, and though I think I'm the only one who thinks so, I think Aragorn was mis-cast. Sam was mis-cast too, and that's a big flaw in the production. Gimli reduced to comic relief was a bad call as well.

They probably should have toned down the doofy moments (like Denethor running for a quarter-mile while on fire before flinging himself off the prow of Minas Tirith).

The Hobbit movies are just plain terrible.

 

[Finchbearer]

Ahh, I will stick up for the Hobbit movies, oh and controversially Rings of Power. Not convinced on the new Golem project. As much as I think Andy Serkis is a talented so and so, I’m not sure I could stomach a whole bunch of hours listening to the nonsense Golem talk.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I'll take Gimli's comic relief over the shield-boarding Legolas. Of course, I've been a big fan of Rhys-Davies since his appearance in Shogun when I was a kid, so I have some prejudice there. Screenwriting-wise, playing Gimli and Legolas off one another was well done in building contrast while developing the friendship.

John Rhys-Davies, Ian McKellan, Sean Bean, Ian Holm, Brad Dourif, Andy Serkis, and Christopher Lee are probably my favorite casting choices. It's a big cast, so I could be leaving out people.

Viggo as Aragorn... I'm good with that casting call because, frankly, I can't think of better. All and all, it was a helluva casting job for such a large project. They could've done far, far worse. For instance, Stuart Townsend as Aragorn... I just can't see that. Maybe he would've shocked me, but I doubt it.

EDIT: Okay, Daniel Day-Lewis as Aragorn. That would've been interesting. But you can't cast a person who won't take the part, heh heh. The Nicolas Cage rumor might've destroyed the movie, LMAO. Russell Crowe... and I'm a fan of Crowe in many roles... probably would've worked. Maybe.

They're OK. Much got compromised in designing it for the widest possible audience.

Good production, but the adaption wasn't all that great. They changed Aragorn's character too much, and though I think I'm the only one who thinks so, I think Aragorn was mis-cast. Sam was mis-cast too, and that's a big flaw in the production. Gimli reduced to comic relief was a bad call as well.

They probably should have toned down the doofy moments (like Denethor running for a quarter-mile while on fire before flinging himself off the prow of Minas Tirith).

The Hobbit movies are just plain terrible.

 

[pmmg]

No Gollum movie for me, thanks.

Sometimes, knowing when to stop is more important than finding more. Something Tolkien himself decided when he set to write the New Shadow.

 

[Finchbearer]

Viggo and Sean (Sam) were perfectly cast IMO. It always gets me when Faramir asks Sam who he is, and he replies ‘I’m his gardener’.

They were all pretty well cast. Legolas is a flat character in both films though. And Hugo Weaving wasn’t exactly the beautiful elf, but he played the role well. Even Martin Freeman as Bilbo was unexpectedly good, but maybe there was someone else better suited to that role. Aidan Turner as Gili is a big no from me. He doesn’t look like a dwarf! Stick to period dramas Aiden.

 

[Incanus]

pmmg: A movie about golems would be cool (something other than Frankenstein). I think you meant Gollum.

I like John Rhys-Davies as an actor--he's great. It's the adaption that's the problem. I'd rather have Gimli from the books. At least with the shield-boarding, that's only about 3-4 seconds of film; there must be an hour's worth of bad Gimli comedy spread over the movies (I watch the extended ones).

 

[Finchbearer]

I spelled Gollum wrong too. Twice!

 

[pmmg]

Easily fixed.

Sorry, I dont share the opinion that LOTR movies did a lot wrong. I was overall pleased with the cast, and choices. Having come from a long period of just crap from LOTR in many different mediums, it was surprisingly awesome the way Jackson brought it to life.

If I could capture a moment in life and freeze it forever, my first viewing of fellowship would be one of those moments.


And I have to question that? Would disney do the golem movie? Cause that would be less than cool

 

[pmmg]

I spelled Gollum wrong too. Twice!

GMTA or in this case, spell.