The Fellowship of the Ring is SUCH a much better movie than I had remembered

Blue and yellow wear them fine fellows.

But it's so fucking GOOD, r1

Is it secret!!!

Is it safe??

Which version are you watching, OP? Theatrical or extended?

r3 I'm watching the regular cut

Why - is the director's cut even BETTER than this?

Because I'm in heaven. I haven't seen a movie this well made in I have no idea how many years.

Really? They took great novels and turned them into a CGI bloated overlong mess. They particularly ruined The Hobbit!

They DID ruin the Hobbit, but this 1st LOTR movie is SO GOOD, I can hardly believe how good it is.

I agree, the Fellowship of the Ring was absolutely spectacular.

What’s not to like. A bunch of guys obsessed with a piece of jewelry—hobbits, wizards and a stank eye fighting over a Ring. And a future king wearing that glittery EvenStar pendant that gives life.

PRECIOUS!

LOTR is not the execrable Hobbit. Although Helm's Deep was rather a wet and dreary (if exciting) slog.

I must be the only person who didn't find the multiple closing scenes overdone. Each was necessary.

Yes, OP. The extended cuts of the whole trio are better. And MORE.

Helm's Deep is my favourite though!

Based on the Siege of Vienna, 1683, one of the greatest military victories ever won.

The extended FELLOWSHIP is fine. The extended RETURN OF THE KING seems to go on for days.

Wikipedia is actually useless these days, isn't it?

It tells actual lies about the Siege of Vienna. Why?

Why is this allowed by the Wikipedia founders?

FELLOWSHIP is a model of storytelling and setting up all of the plot strands that play out over the course of the trilogy.

THE HOBBIT trilogy is just a bloated money grab. I never got past the second installment. Just didn't care.

Republican Latino Racist at OP.

Diminish me all you like, r15. I've always voted Democrat, since you accuse.

And I find that I love the LOTR, which is all this thread is about, despite your trying to turn it political.

Go poison another well. This one is pure.

[quote]Why - is the director's cut even BETTER than this?

IMO, yes, R5 - it improves upon what's already the best of the LotR films. 'Two Towers' also benefits extensively from the Extended Cut.

OP is a Hateful anti-Democratic Republican Latino who looks down on Blacks as well as White Democrats.

That is WONDERFUL to hear, r17.

I'm so newly happy with the regular cut that the "extended cut" seems like something to look forward to - thanks for the recommendation.

You must watch the expanded director's cut of all three films, OP.

Sorry, r18? I am a Latino but as for the rest - why are you lying about me? Why would anyone do that? Why would anyone bother?

I will do that, r20 I'm so thrilled to see how beautiful the LOTR films are, even after all these years. Wow.

I prefer the Extended Cut of FELLOWSHIP. It adds 30 minutes to the runtime, yet actually feels shorter to me. The added scenes and character beats allow the movie to breathe a bit, so it's not quite as rushed and headlong as the Theatrical.

Ditto for the Extended Cut of THE TWO TOWERS. I think the changes there are even more impressive than they are for FELLOWSHIP. But I prefer the Theatrical for RETURN OF THE KING. While there are some good additions to that movie, overall they don't feel as essential or important as they do in the first 2 flicks. Still, it is definitely worth seeing.

I read an interview with Viggo where he felt that Fellowship was the best of the three because they had more time to make it. It’s definitely my favorite of the three films, and I agree that the extended cut is an improvement.

As long as we are dipping back into LOTR, was anyone else bothered that Jackson had the same actor who played Gimli also voice Treebeard? I thought the two voices were way too similar.

How did Peter Jackson lose it?

Some of his early films were wonderful, "Heavenly Creatures" is stunning, and the "LOTR" films are enchanting... although in the last one you can see the beginning of future problems. Scenes go on too long, there editing is sloppy and effect is miscalculated here and there, and while "ROTK" is good overall, you can see the beginning of problems that would affect all of Jackson's future films.

Did he lose a top-flight editor or something? Because some time between "Return of the King" and "An Unexpected Journey", Jackson completely lost the ability to edit films, and nobody on his team could make him start again.

[quote] How did Peter Jackson lose it?

He started suffering from the same condition as George Lucas - as his films became more popular with the masses, he became concerned more with effects and appearances than character, story and substance. With Lucas, as he gained weight his films became more bloated. In Jackson’s case as he lost weight, his films became more bloated.

I take it everyone in here saw the LotR Zoom call?

Ignoring the presence of Josh Gad and the absence of Hugo Weaving & Christopher Lee, it was rather enjoyable. The cast ran lines, Peter Jackson told awful jokes and Sir Ian hurled innuendo, and Howard Shore gave insight into his composing process. Liv Tyler looked luminous, of course.

The best part was Orlando practically vibrating on her sofa in excitement and turning into a coy silly giggling mess when Sean Bean finally arrived. Transparent slag.

8 guys (one from each section of the twink-hunk pyramid) with florid modes of speech make it their mission to transport a piece of cursed heirloom jewellery in order to throw it with disdain into a gaping fiery vaginal chasm in the Earth. Surprised this movie didn’t do better with gay general audiences.

[quote] Surprised this movie didn’t do better with gay general audiences.

You’re kidding, right? The movie was discussed in a mind-numbing series of Prancing Pony threads here.

FELLOWSHIP even improved on the text, dare I say it, if only with the characterisation of Aragorn.

In the book, Aragorn is only incognito as a Ranger because of some kind of Prince Hal psychology where he just isn’t really into taking the throne and thinks it’s more badass to wander the wilderness. Aragorn of the novels doesn’t really doubt his own competence, ethic or right to the throne and he has a pride in his line as much as in his supernatural gifts. In the movie, however, Aragorn stays as hidden as Strider so long because he is tortured by the idea of repeating Isildur’s mistakes as a Man and by the fact that his Numenor blood ultimately won’t spare him defeat, loss, indignity and death. The Aragorn of the films is torn over his claim to Gondor, and doesn’t really want the position of King (at least not more than he wants to sail with Arwen and stay with the Elves). His more conflicted and fearful character is a better lynchpin for the film trilogy, and it’s easier to relate to him as a character written this way.

By contrast, the films downplayed the relationship between Legolas & Gimli too much. It’s a jokey bro-ey punchline in the movies, where it should be a tender romantic friendship.

R31 I haven’t read the books in years, but is there really a romantic friendship between Gimli and Legolas?

[quote]is there really a romantic friendship between Gimli and Legolas?

Tolkien was from a time when men weren't as uptight as they are now when talking about male friendship. I can't recall anything specific but their friendship was definitely portrayed as a special and beautiful thing.

I do seem to recall Eomer unabashedly saying he loved Aragorn. Haven't read the books since college though, might be misremembering.

Mary! moment: I've seen the movies five or six times, and "My brother...my captain..my king!" gets me every time.

Funny if this film made today it will be raked over the coals over its almost entirely white cast and the lack of any significant female characters/storylines.

I wonder if they ever considered color blind casting. Or they could have made one of the kingdoms not-white. Would have been risky though, book purists hate that kind of thing.

They did slightly beef up women's roles, which I thought was done well. Yeah there was too much of the Arwen romance, but having Galadriel act as narrator was clever. And Eowyn is a great character, though I wish they spent less of her screen time on pining for Aragorn.

Now that we've had a pretty faithful trilogy, perhaps the Amazon series will make bolder choices.

The only non-white people I remember were in Laketown in the Hobbit. The LotR trilogy def wouldn’t be considered woke lol.

[quote] Mary! moment: I've seen the movies five or six times, and "My brother...my captain..my king!" gets me every time.

Gutpunch of a scene. Boromir was incredibly heroic.

He never talked about himself as King or a grand hero; instead it was “our people” or “people of Gondor”. He didn’t even want the ring for himself, he only wanted it for Gondor. Even Galadriel and Gandalf saw a vision of themselves being powerful Kings and Queens while under the spell of the ring - but not Boromir. He only wanted it for Gondor to survive, not his own personal wants. You will not find a character more loyal and dedicated than Boromir. Very rarely do you hear Boromir say “me” or “I”.

There is the moment in Lothlorien when the fellowship is greeted by Galadriel. She sees through Boromir's evidently morally self conflicting plan to betray the fellowship on his father's behalf and bring the ring home instead as requested. It seems to me that he is ashamed and greatly troubled by what she sees in him and this makes him try to look away from her gaze. Not a quality for an evil person to have. Even with his betrayal in the end, influenced by the ring or not, having faught an internal battle up to this point, his instant regret as it happens shows he is a person of honor.

In the Osgiliath scene in ROTK, his speech was selfless and his first call to action after the battle was making sure his men had beer to drink. When approached by his father on his successful battle, he immediately downplays his own efforts and congratulates Faramir instead. Makes you realise that Boromir would have been an excellent Steward or even King of Gondor. Nobody loves their land and people selflessly like Boromir. He had considerable human faults, but his heart was always stronger. Remember he cries in Lorien thinking about the possible fall of Gondor.

He’s by far my favorite LotR character (and Sean Bean’s favourite role of his career, apparently). Nothing is more moving than his transformation from “Gondor has no king” to telling Aragorn “My king” in his last breath.

[quote]Sean Bean’s favourite role of his career, apparently

How nice for him

Yep, it's a fuckin' great film. I love how things are filmed in slo-mo but no one really realizes it. The whole film plays with your brain (scale/time/obsession).

Never forget that Aragorn’s given Elven name ‘Estel’ basically translates to ‘Hope’ or ‘Faith’ in Westron - e.g. as used in the Elvish phrase “estelion allen”, meaning “I put my faith/trust in you”. The fierce rugged King of Men on Middle-Earth has a name that is traditionally feminine in our world and our tongue, and it’s so beautiful. Same for Boromir, which in the Quenya tongue loosely translates into English as ‘Steadfast/True Jewel’.

Iirc according to Tolkien ‘Gimli’ is an old Mannish word for ‘Starfire’ (Dwarves keep their real names secret, of course) derived from the Norse word ‘Gimm’ meaning ‘Fire’, while ‘Legolas’ in Silvan Elvish literally means ‘Green Leaves’ hence the moniker by which Men call him (though Elves traditionally have four names, and Tolkien never bothered to mention which official name ‘Legolas’ was). ‘Arwen’ means ‘Noble Maid’ in Sindarin, and her ataressë name ‘Undomiel’ means ‘Evening Star’ referring to the shining Silmaril once in possession of Arwen’s grandfather.

All such pretty fantasy names for battle-hardened beleaguered people who have killed. The books would have come across....well, differently if written about a Fellowship of masculine warriors with names like Hope, Jewel, Starfire, and Wisdom (Frodo’s Hobbit name, ‘Maura’, apparently translates via Old English into ‘Wise One’).

Only Éomer has a badass masc name origin; ‘Éomer’ appears in the original Anglo-Saxon text of Beowulf naming a direct descendant of King Offa, one of the ancient kings of the British Kingdom of Mercia.

Great points R37!

Boromir in the book is less complicated and more stolid. Back in the 60’s, my older brother and I worked out a cast list for an LOTR movie, and we thought the perfect casting for him would be Clint Walker. (We wanted Richard Harris for Faramir. He was younger then.)

Another aspect of Arwen’s name, “‘Evenstar’ of her people,” implies she is the twilight of her elvish race, who know full well their time in Middle Earth is waning.

And, so far, Amazon’s plan seems more to dramatize earlier Ages of Middle Earth, concerning Numenor and the wars with the Witch King of Angmar. (Eventually, the Witch King morphed into the Lord of the Nazgul.)

I think Valinor would be a lovely name for a girl.

/random thought

R42 I like that fantasy-casting! Bean is beyond perfect in the part of Boromir, of course, but I would like to have seen stoical beefcake Walker give a different take. Maybe if he had the character would indeed be remembered as a more upright and faithful ‘good’ character.

Harris is an awesome choice for Faramir, too. Though I find it hard to see Richard in any other high-fantasy role after Arthur...

R43 it does sound much more sophisticated and less trashy than plain old ‘Heaven’.

Boromir’s arc always reminds me of the poem ‘Blessed are they that Mourn’ by William Cullen Bryant.

Is anyone else surprised that Amazon is tackling LOTR? I mean, the movies are a fairly recent memory for most people, and they were so successful and so acclaimed.

I believe Fellowship was my favorite book as well as movie. I remember the dark riders created a nice mix of mystery/horror/suspense. I also really liked Lorien. While the movie did a good job with Cate as Galadriel, I am not sure it captured the magic of the kingdom itself as it was described in the book (it was kind of generic and not that different than Rivendell). There was more of a feel of Grimm Fairy tail to it compared to the more battle-heavy plot of the later books.

I rewatrched the movies last year for the first time since I bought the DVDs shortly after the movies came out. They have aged well. I had kind of forgotten how good they are (if you like the story - am guessing it is a love or hate it), probably partially because the Hobbit left such a sour taste in my mouth. I was also surprised to see the copyright of Fellowship was 2001. Time flies..

R47, the Amazon show is not another adaptation of LOTR. It's a prequel, based on material from The Silmarillion. A lot of us are speculating it will cover the making of the rings of power and the fall of Numenor, as that would likely be of interest to people who've seen the movies.

Just think, Galadriel was a coquettish 760 years old when Numenor was founded!

It can't touch The Silmarillion, R49, as the Tolkien Estate still owns all the rights. It can use anything in the LOTR Appendices - so Numenor, the Second Age and pre-Hobbit Third Age.

I agree that the Fellowship is the best of the three, and more deserving of Best Pic than Return of the King.

The two subsequent films are fine but I felt like Jackson was cramming way too much into them and they felt a bit bloated. Fellowship felt more consistent and natural in its storytelling and tone.

Ah, technically correct. The best kind of correct!

The names Arwen and Eowyn are too similar. Ruins the entire trilogy.

OP is a racist Latino Republican Deplorable.

I can't tell you how many times during this pandemic I've thought to watch LOTR again (I own all of the extended editions and for a few years would watch them in the week between Christmas and New Years, although I haven't done that in awhile now). However, I've found plenty of other things to watch, yet I know one day I'll get out the DVDs and that will be that.

MARY! Moment: When I saw Fellowship in the theater and Gandalf was wending his way through the Shire in his cart I burst into tears because it looked EXACTLY like I'd pictured it in my head after reading the books.

As for the bloated films of The Hobbit (I own them, too), I split the blame between Jackson and the studios who wanted to milk the Middle Earth cow when it had little milk left to give. The Hobbit should have been one three-hour-plus movie (and still could be if Jackson would just re-edit the three films into one).

Here’s the rest of the LOTR cast list my brother and I put together, as well as I can remember. (This was over 50 years ago.) Our mother had bought and read the LOTR books when they first came out; so we were all familiar with them before Tolkien’s popularity took off.

Aragorn - Charlton Heston (I always thought Gary Cooper was perfect, but at that point he had already died.)

Arwen - Deborah Kerr

Elrond - Spencer Tracy

Gandalf - Trevor Howard

Saruman - James Mason

Radagast - Peter Sellers

Galadriel - Marlene Dietrich (I wanted Greta Garbo, who seemed more timeless, but my brother said Dietrich was similar.)

Celeborn - Leo Genn

Tom Bombadil - Max Von Sydow

Theoden - Jack Hawkins (Before he lost his voice.)

Eowyn - Jean Simmons

Eomer - Rod Taylor

Wormtongue - Roddy McDowell

Legolas - Peter O’Toole

Gimli - Oliver Reed (? Memory is hazy here.)

Boromir - Clint Walker

Faramir - Richard Harris

Denethor - Claude Rains

Butterbur - Andy Devine

Bilbo - Ed Wynn

Merry - Albert Finney

Pippin - Tom Courtenay

Sam - Alan Bates

Frodo - Michael York (? Again, memory hazy.)

Gollum -Alec Guinness

It must be remembered that, though Jackson did an incredible job of adaptation, the books are quite different. Arwen is more remote and statuesque. Bombadil didn’t even make it to the movies. Aragorn, as pointed out here, didn’t have much doubt. Radagast, whom I always liked, doesn’t appear in Jackson’s work until his bloated Hobbit films, and then he’s more bumbling comic relief.

Radagast is never actually 'on stage' in either the Hobbit or TLTR books; the nearest he comes is second-hand when Gandalf recounts his Orthanc capture at the Council of Elrond.

Whoah, r55 that is SUCH a perfect list.

Damn, I would have loved to have seen your production of LOTR.

[quote] Galadriel - Marlene Dietrich (I wanted Greta Garbo, who seemed more timeless

R56 your beautiful mother must have known by then you were gay.

You can,’t remember whom you cast as Frodo? Frodo?

Yes, OP, you need to watch the extended director’s cuts.

They’re avail in box sets at least.

Merry and Pippin were such irksome dumb fucks.

Who in their right mind would NOT watch the extended editions? Who would opt out of having this epic storytelling in their lives?

R62 fun fact: neither of them married or partnered after the War of the Ring, and they lived together in the Shire for the rest of their days. Stealth gays.

What’s next, you’re going to tell us you loathe Arwen for being a dizzy lovesick bitch, or Éomer for being a Weird Horse Boy?

In the Appendices, Merry and Pippin continue to be active in both Rohan and Gondor. Eomer becomes king of Rohan, while his sister Eowyn marries Faramir, and they cleanse Minas Morgul and make it fair, and dwell as Lord and Lady in the Vale of Ithilien.

Legolas and Gimli stay close. Gimli develops the Glittering Caves behind Helms Deep, and settles them with dwarves. There Gimli sets the precious three hairs in wrought crystal. And, when Legolas finally takes ship for the Western Lands, it is said that Gimli accompanies him, and he is welcomed there by the Lady Galadriel.

It is even said that the very last ship to the West carried Samwise Gamgee, for he too had borne the terrible burden of the One Ring.

In the mid-60’s, United Artists, who seemed to have had the film rights, announced the upcoming film version of LOTR, starring the Beatles! This announcement was all that came of that project, but it prompted our wishful cast list.

I insisted on Mason for Saruman, whose voice was his strongest weapon. My brother suggested Howard for Gandalf, whom I heartily seconded. We both pretty much thought of Kerr and Simmons. (Think Simmons as Ophelia in Olivier‘s “Hamlet.”) I suggested Hawkins and McDowell as Theoden and Wormtongue. And my brother thought of Guiness as Gollum, which I thought was inspired.

Casting the four hobbits was our greatest challenge, especially Frodo and Sam. Alan Bates would have been a perfect Sam, but Frodo wasn’t easy. I think Michael York was the best we could think of. After that, of course, the biggest problem was how to project their size. Jackson solved this beautifully, with not only CGI, but also the use of doubles, large and small.

Jackson was correct when he said that the film industry really had to wait until the special effects were good enough, to make a film of "Lord of the Rings". Of course animated filmmaker Ralph Bakshi was the one who had the bright idea of making an animated film out of the books, back when the special effects in live animation simply couldn't make Middle Earth seem real. But he made a mess of it, when presented with material that simply SCREAMED for all the imaginative unreality that animation can deliver, he used motion capture, and the results were such an earthbound mess that nobody would fund the second half. The results are on Amazon streaming, if anyone wants to waste two hours.

As for Jackson's version, the first time I saw it in the theater, I was swept away into another world, in a way I have rarely experienced in the cinema. I'll always be grateful to him for making those films, although his "Hobbit" films have certainly taken the edge off my fondness for him.

It's kinda amazing that Jackson's LOTR films are so very, very good, while his HOBBIT trilogy is so very, very bad.

Not true, R64, in the LOTR Appendices as printed Pippin marries and his eldest son Faramir Took marries one of Sam's daughters. Merry also married, but the details dropped out of the Appendices when Tolkien trimmed the hobbit genealogies slightly.

legolas in the hobbit at the BOTFA: *suppressed and sweating in his masc armor* oh gods oh no look at all these dwarf bears and hunky men i cant let them know im a twiNK. oh shit what if Tauriel already told them

legolas in lotr at elronds vip council: *dressed in leggings gogo boots and a sparkly poncho* heeeeeeey Aragorn honey you look like nazghul. Is it versace💁‍♀️sidebar redhead dwarf in the corner? you have five hours to stop licking my face

Is Tauriel related to Muriel?

[quote]Is Tauriel related to Muriel?

Totally different.

One of them is a mythical creature lurking in a dangerous shadowy realm guarded by monstrous spiders.

And the other is Tauriel.

R72 = Ayn Rand

Best thing about the original trilogy? No insane Richlee shippers. Those loony stalkers make the stalwart Ponies seem completely benign, with their constant intrusion into the personal lives of gay men. It’s creepy and entirely disrespectful imo.

FWIW I actually do agree with the Ponies that some wild monkey sex went on between cast members of LotR, even FotR (as on many big movie sets with star casts) but I don’t believe it was anything more than a bit of fun or a handful of drunken stress-relieving inconsequential tumbles in any case because, you know, *actors*.

My money was always on hookups between Andy/Elijah, Dom/Elijah, Billy/Dom, Viggo/Karl, Cate/Hugo, Orlando/the aforementioned and literally anybody else who said yes with Viggo & Sean Bean as primary targets. Not sure why but I feel like of the main cast Liv, John, Miranda, David & Sean Astin didn’t partake much if at all. I wonder too if the extras or crew got any from the stars, or if there was that elitist divide like on many other sets.

Also one of the best things about Jackson’s LOTR was cutting Tom Bombodel (or however it’s spelled). God, that character is insufferable in the book.

Fellowship of the Ring is the best film of the trilogy because it is truest to the books, in that an inordinate amount of time is NOT spent on bloated battle scenes. Tolkien’s prose is primarily spent describing landscape the characters traverse. We get introduced to the wild Middle Earth through the eyes of the hobbits, suddenly ejected from their idyllic rural home. This may be boring for some, and soothing/enthralling for others like myself. Regardless, this is the author’s style and the first movie lent itself to Tolkien’s true nature, making it the best in my book. The others, which amazing films that I still enjoy, begin to cater to the taste of 14 year old boys, which most fantasy/sci fi/adventure films err on the side of entertaining.

[quote][R72] = Ayn Rand

Eä is Eä .

The casting was atrocious. Elijah Wood can't carry a commercial, let alone a movie. Peter Jackson was all about ugly chic. But that was not the spirit of Tolkein

R74 I must have missed all that because I mainly only ever saw the opposite where angry fangirls were invading DL and having negative reactions to the possibility of them together.

Though I don't doubt that you're right about that because I can totally imagine people being creepy shippers about them.

[quote] Peter Jackson was all about ugly chic.

Whatever can this mean?

Peter Jackson’s Visual Effects Company Weta Digital Launches Animation Division

I HATED the first 60 minutes of this movie, but knew I was hooked when I started crying after Frodo got hurt. I ended up going to see it 5 times!!

Several people walked out during my first viewing.

OOH! I purchased the LOTR Blu-ray set a few years back and have never opened it. Your thread has reminded me of it OP thank you! We are in lockdown and I was trying to think of something to do today. I'm going to watch them back to back. Just wish I had some pot to smoke.

[quote]My money was always on hookups between Andy/Elijah, Dom/Elijah, Billy/Dom, Viggo/Karl, Cate/Hugo, Orlando/the aforementioned and literally anybody else who said yes with Viggo & Sean Bean as primary targets. Not sure why but I feel like of the main cast Liv, John, Miranda, David & Sean Astin didn’t partake much if at all. I wonder too if the extras or crew got any from the stars, or if there was that elitist divide like on many other sets.

R74 is completely insane. Padded room level insane.

R69 yes, thanks for the correction.

IIRC though, don't an aged Merry & Pippin leave their wives & children behind when they feel it's time to start dying, and spend a year or so just the two of them as gay geriatrics in a house by themselves? For some reason I seem to remember that happening in the appendices, but perhaps it was a dream.

[quote] When Legolas finally takes ship for the Western Lands, it is said that Gimli accompanies him, and he is welcomed there by the Lady Galadriel.

This is why we simp for Gim. He walks into the elite Elven afterlife like "what's up, bitches?" and no-one says shit about it. Not only is his appearance in Valinor a totally unprecedented event, but it's also because of an implied-gay and interracial relationship--written by an uptight Victorian scholar with a Christian stick up his arse, no less! That's progress.

The only other Elf who got away with such a high-level of audacity is Idril, and her husband Tuor was only allowed in to Valinor because his ancestors saved Gondolin, and he came with livery out of his ass, and he was part of some Elven prophecy uttered by Ulmo (mentioned in THE SILMARILLION). Plus Idris had to have a baby with this guy to prove she was serious.

[quote] I do seem to recall Eomer unabashedly saying he loved Aragorn. Haven't read the books since college though, might be misremembering.

R33 couldn't find that exact quote, but I do recall the part you mean. There's also the way they fought every battle pretty much shoulder to shoulder, and travelled half of Middle-Earth together as Kings & soldiers. That could have been a whole other sequel book on its own.

[quote] And wherever King Elessar went with war King Éomer went with him; and beyond the Sea of Rhûn and on the far fields of the South the thunder of the cavalry of the Mark was heard, and the White Horse upon Green flew in many winds until Éomer grew old.

As for Boromir; I liked that the films did that ‘you carry a heavy burden Frodo, don’t carry the weight of the dead’ scene where Boromir’s empathising with Frodo about his guilt over Gandalf’s death. It hammers home a lot about Boromir, he’s thoughtful, he’s concerned, he’s protective, he understands Frodo’s feelings without having to be told which suggests he struggled with similar pains. And this one line, ‘you suffer, I see it day by day’, I was suddenly hit by how… similar the Ring’s effects and the Palantir’s effects must be. Frodo’s not the first person Boromir’s had to watch get eaten away by dark forces and evil-minded torment. He’s uniquely positioned to understand Frodo’s plight.

I also sob like a child hearing, 'remember today, little brother'. Boromir had the most tear-inducing lines in the movies. Maybe I'll dig out the books soon and refresh my memory of some of his great lines on the page (I seem to remember him hotly defending the Rohirrim to a sceptical Aragorn?).

I don't know, [R78], I thought Wood did a great job as Frodo. And there is no denying, whether you find him 'hot' or not, Elijah Wood as Frodo was beautiful.

R88 I agree completely.

Let me also add that he & Astin both did a wonderful job conveying the mindset and mannerisms of what are essentially English country folk. I myself was born and raised in the West Country/rural West Midlands--the areas on which Tolkien's Shire were based--and to me the Frodo & Sam (and indeed, all the other Hobbits) of the films do reflect the provincial charms of the natives there. While one can find occasional fault with the accents or stiffness of manner, there are few points to pick up over the course of three long films where the Shire Hobbit demeanour slips or doesn't come off.

Even more impressive for Wood & Astin to accomplish this, given their real background and experience as predominantly Hollywood urbanites. I can't think of any other actors who would have committed so well or managed to pull off such a transformation. Their parts were more of a stretch than any others of the Fellowship, really; it wasn't difficult for gruff rugged middle-aged Yorkshireman Sean Bean to play a hardened Mannish soldier of a Northern kingdom, or for willowy cheeky posh-boy Orlando to play a graceful young Elf-prince.

R76 yes! I could have written that.

Since they were released I have watched FOTR at least fifty times if not many more, whereas I have only watched the other two films maybe half a dozen times each. FOTR entralls me every time I watch it, so much that by the time the Lorien scenes come on I feel like a wide-eyed child again--it's the perfect high-fantasy film in that way. There's never a day I couldn't watch it all the way through and feel enchanted (and moved, too, especially by Boromir's death). If I had children of my own, I'd be very anxious to screen it to them as soon as I could--after reading them the books, of course!

TTT is fine in its own right, but generally my attention in that film is held only by the imperilments of Rohan, while honestly the rest just washes over me in an indistinct wave of aerial running sequences, spinning cameras, janky CGI, and swordplay. ROTK I find a slog and a movie I regret putting on more often than not, especially the Extended cut; sort of like when you make pancakes and halfway through frying up the batter realise you don't really want to eat them, because they're too heavy and there's too much to get through and it's a hassle getting out toppings then washing up everything after. Still, I'd rather sit through ROTK with all its four hours of ghost-fuckery and overcomplicated busy Warhammer imagery and Orc dismemberment than ever watch any of THE HOBBIT trilogy ever again. I don't care how fab Thranduil is or how hilarious Dwarves are, what they did to Bilbo and to Legolas as well as to Tolkien's lovely prose storytelling in those films is an affront.

I remember watching these films when they first came to theaters. Waiting in line to see FOTR was exciting. I absolutely loved it. Remember when everybody thought Orland Bloom was going to be the next Errol Flynn or Douglas Fairbanks? What the hell happened to his career? It fizzled out hard.

Agree with R90 that FOTR is perfect. Each subsequent LOTR movie was a little less wonderful. And The Hobbit movies are 90 percent unwatchable.

For R32:

[quote] We have heard tell that Legolas took Gimli Gloin’s son with him because of their great friendship, greater than any that has been between Elf and Dwarf. If this is true, then it is strange indeed: that a Dwarf should be willing to leave Middle-earth for any love, or that the Eldar should receive him, or that the Lords of the West should permit it.

Peter Jackson was a coward to omit any scenes of joyous postwar honeymooning between Legolas & Gimli in Fangorn. So what if the world in 2003 wasn't ready, and Orlando didn't really want to snog John Rhys-Davies? We all needed and deserved soft happy Elf/Dwarf husband content, and Tolkien had already written it about as canon as it could be.

The movies work on their own terms, but they're not Tolkien; they systematically reject Tolkien's love of and respect for language. Scenes that turn on words, persuasion, are changed to turn on crass action or emotional manipulation.

R94 you're right. Out of interest, who would you have had to direct ideally to preserve the text?

I sometimes wonder whether Terrence Malick could have worked some magic with it; perhaps using the same lyrical style as his quiet, philosophical, elegiac war film THE THIN RED LINE (that incidentally came out just a couple of years prior to FOTR).

I'm not enough of a movie buff to pick a really good director for LotR, R95, but I'll defer to your choice of Malick if he would have preserved, for example, Gandalf's prolonged sly trickery in The Hobbit, in the introduction of the dwarves to Beorn, instead of turning it into an action scene pitting the dwarves against a mindlessly brutal Beorn-bear (also if he would have given Beorn some moderate chest hair, at the very least, to match his ursine coiffure).

Growing up and getting old is realising that you emotionally relate to Galadriel, Elrond, Theoden and Bilbo, more than the actual Fellowship who seem exhausting and like they have too much energy and optimism for you to keep up with.

Would you say it’s Precious, OP?

I just read that the LOTR trilogy is going to be remade with a more diverse cast. There have been many complaints that there were no POC in the films.

Have many of you read the books? Having only seen the movies I'm wondering if the books are worth reading.

Datalounge isn't much of a book reading crowd.

R100 I'm old enough to have read the original news reports in Middle Earth Times before they became books, "Drive-by killings in Hobbiton, Nazgul suspected", "Authorities investigate squatter reports at Dol Guldur". I've read the books several times and of course they are way better than the movies. It's easier to endure Gollum on paper than on the screen. Try "The Hobbit" first to get a taste of it.

The LOTR movies were wise to dump the character Tom Bombidil (I might be misspelling that). I found him insufferable.

And there is no reason for the movies to be remade.

I thought Liv Tyler was a poor choice for this movie.

Cate Blanchett was a miscast as well.

[quote]I thought Liv Tyler was a poor choice for this movie.

I did not mind her too much, but wasn't her character and her ill-fated romance more of just a footnote in the book. I think they fleshed out her part and I think Eowyn's a bit more so there would be some female involvement.

I like Cate - but am not sure they captured that character properly. I definitely felt Lorien could have been better - it is described as this incredible place in the books, but came off as generic elf-fairy land in the movie.

I liked both the books and the movies. I think it helped that it had been about fifteen to twenty years since I had read the books when the movies came out.

The Hobbit movies on the other hand....

There was lots of fornication behind the scenes. The crew were notorious. Well behaved when they ventured out to pubs etc but notorious for the amount of shagging both straight and gay. They funnelled a lot of money into small businesses and the local communities so there was a lockdown on gossip reaching media etc. Lot of locals worked behind the scenes.

The entire trilogy was the best adaptation of the books that was possible. It's hard to believe that The Hobbit was adapted and made by the same people.

The only scene in The Hobbit that was any good was the battle at Dol Guldur - too bad they couldn't have slipped that into the original trilogy as a flashback.

I know it's going to be lame, but I'm hoping the Amazon show about the Second Age is decent - I wouldn't mind seeing the Fall of Numenor and the seduction of the Elves of Eregion by a still beautiful Sauron.