Lord of the Rings Trilogy: Do epics get any better ?

[TheVileOne]

I would've included the fight with the wargs/giant wolves in the forest before the mines of Moria . Instead they put a similar scene in the trek to Helm's Deep in Two Towers.

 

[sueb1863]

How many movie trilogies are there, anyway?

LotR, The Hobbit, Star Wars, Hunger Games, Back to the Future, The Godfather, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, the Divergent series, Toy Story, Cars...hmm...I'm sure I'm missing some obvious ones...

 

[jmc]

Trilogies aren't just defined as one franchise, they can be a series of films that have some overarching link, like the Man with No Name Trilogy, 3 Colours Trilogy and the Cornetto Trilogy.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Lawrence of Arabia. Bridge to River Kwai. Ran. Throne of Blood. Seven Samurai. Kagemusha.

 

[Yowza]

I thought the films became too 4 quadrant for my taste but special effects, acting, cinematography (battle scenes could've been better at times but oh well), and production value put into it were all top notch.

I remember reading a story about the Tolkien museum not wanting movie stuff there and I do understand...

 

[Batmannerism]

I thought the films became too 4 quadrant for my taste but special effects, acting, cinematography (battle scenes could've been better at times but oh well), and production value put into it were all top notch.

I remember reading a story about the Tolkien museum not wanting movie stuff there and I do understand...

To be honest, I think it's a huge achievement to make the films satisfying for both fans and the GA. Real hardcore Tolkien fans may find a few faults...and I'm one of those, I vastly prefer the book ending of the Two Towers, which ends on a massive cliffhanger.

However, that minor gripe pales in comparison to the overall satisfaction of seeing the story told so well.

I think that films of this scale need to be a bit 4 quadrant, you couldn't make a niche film on a budget like that and expect a return on your investment.

As for sword and spear battle scenes, I challenge you to name pre-2003 films that are actually better. Don't get me wrong, Braveheart and Gladiator are still pretty impressive, but to me there's nothing that beats the emotion and fury of the Rohirrim charge (particularly Theoden's pre-charge speech) in the Battle of the Pelennor fields.

Anyway, agree to disagree - as battle scenes are a very subjective thing, and I suspect we won't see eye to eye on this one. Respect your opinion, Peace !


One thing that really impressed me is that they managed to work in a description of Valinor, where Frodo sails off to at the end of ROTK,
which I thought was one of Tolkien's most wonderful passages (of the entire series)


"“And the ship went out into the High Sea and passed into the West, until at last on a night of rain Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise.”

Jackson managed to fit that in, in an abridged form, I was very impressed.

Actually, I'll say this, that from the very first scene the film got me - the battle on Mount Doom was as I'd imagined when I read the books (great to see Sauron's form at last) but when McKellen first appeared as Gandalf, it was as though the character had walked out of the book, he just embodied everything that I'd imagined the character to be.

 

[markjoedelonge]

Overall I think it’s the best film trilogy of them all.

Agreed.

 

[Abudefduf]

One thing that really impressed me is that they managed to work in a description of Valinor, where Frodo sails off to at the end of ROTK,
which I thought was one of Tolkien's most wonderful passages (of the entire series)


"“And the ship went out into the High Sea and passed into the West, until at last on a night of rain Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise.”

Jackson managed to fit that in, in an abridged form, I was very impressed.

Yeah except in the movie it seems like Gandalf is describing to Pippin where they'll both go when they die... which is inaccurate. Hobbits are a subrace of humans, life in Valinor is not the fate awaiting them after their death. That's for Elves and Maiar.
Definitely ot one of my favorite moments, it kinda messes up an important part of the mythology. Either that, or it makes Gandalf come off as dishonest.

Those are the sort of changes that I dislike the most, not the relatively superfluous stuff that was cut to make the story flow better.

 

[Batmannerism]

Yeah except in the movie it seems like Gandalf is describing to Pippin where they'll both go when they die... which is inaccurate. Hobbits are a subrace of humans, life in Valinor is not the fate awaiting them after their death. That's for Elves and Maiar.
Definitely ot one of my favorite moments, it kinda messes up an important part of the mythology. Either that, or it makes Gandalf come off as dishonest.

Those are the sort of changes that I dislike the most, not the relatively superfluous stuff that was cut to make the story flow

Fair enough, but it's an incredibly poetic passage and exposes the GA, who don't know of or care about the mythology, to Tolkien's prose. Not everyone is going to read the Silmarilion, which gets a bit repetitive after a while anyway.

There are plenty of changes from the books, in the films. Some I like, some I don't, but I accept that film adaptations are just that, adaptations. Film is a different medium and some things which are awesome on a page dont work so well in live action. As such, those changes are necessary. Despite those changes these films still capture the substantial essence of the books - and make the story more accessible, which in turn promotes the books.

Could a more faithful adaptation be done? Sure. Would it make a better movie ? I doubt it.

 

[Mandon Knight]

I think the LOTR trilogy is an incredible feat of film making in what it achieved and how it achieved it but I reckon the Hobbit trilogy gets unfairly 'bashed', whilst not in the same league as the LOTR films, its a whole lot better than it's given credit for, IMO.

 

[Batmannerism]

I think the LOTR trilogy is an incredible feat of film making in what it achieved and how it achieved it but I reckon the Hobbit trilogy gets unfairly 'bashed', whilst not in the same league as the LOTR films, its a whole lot better than it's given credit for, IMO.

You might be right. I suppose that LOTR raised expectations which the Hobbit failed to live up to.

Had the Hobbit films come first they probably would have been better received.

I will say this, LOTR really showcases and relies on the breathtaking scenery of the South Island and The North Island's central plateau ( I remember climbing My Ngaruahoe aka Mount Doom, back in 97, it's a stunning location) Whereas IMO The Hobbit appears to rely far more on cgi for what would have been exterior shots with a bit of matte work in LOTR. Viggo Mortensen commented on that, that where LoTR would use more practical effects and a little Chi, the Hobbit went overboard - I agree with him.

Still the Hobbit films aren't bad, just not up to the promise of LOTR.

 

[2kt09]

Only thing I recall about the Hobbit films is that I made it through the first one and never bothered with the rest.

Might be my nostalgia at play, but I don't remember the LOTR trilogy spinning its wheels or dragging the unnecessary this horrendously.
No kidding one book didn't need to be 3 movies.

 

[sueb1863]

I don't think Jackson would have made many of the choices he did if The Hobbit had come first. He probably would have stuck a lot closer to the book and not turned it into a huge CGI-saturated battle-heavy mess in which the main character was almost a supporting character. The Hobbit was not meant to be a sprawling epic or a LotR prequel. It didn't need a romance, it didn't need a made-up characters like Azog and Alfrid and it sure didn't need to be nine hours long. Legolas should have only been in the Mirkwood sequences and maybe in the last battle and that's it.

 

[Aximili86]

Mighty Ducks.

****in' duh.

 

[jmc]

Only thing I recall about the Hobbit films is that I made it through the first one and never bothered with the rest.

Might be my nostalgia at play, but I don't remember the LOTR trilogy spinning its wheels or dragging the unnecessary this horrendously.
No kidding one book didn't need to be 3 movies.

The two trilogies had separate problems. LOTR had too much content, The Hobbit had too little. But it's much easier to cull unnecessary story elements than it is to expand on existing ones, because you can go in all sorts of directions that take you away from the main narrative, which is ultimately what happened with the Hobbit. LOTR only expanded on areas for dramatic purposes, like Faramir being lured by the Ring. The Hobbit had to add invent entire sequences.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Ido feel the Hobbit movies are better than they are given credit for, UEJ especially felt closer to the LOTR movies in terms of tone and effect.

But yeah,I agree with a lot of the criticisms also. It really didn't need to be 3 movies, especially all 3 being as long as they were. Lots to love about also though.

And I do feel they had a lot to live upto after the LOTR trilogy.

 

[Iceman]

Ido feel the Hobbit movies are better than they are given credit for, UEJ especially felt closer to the LOTR movies in terms of tone and effect.

But yeah,I agree with a lot of the criticisms also. It really didn't need to be 3 movies, especially all 3 being as long as they were. Lots to love about also though.

And I do feel they had a lot to live upto after the LOTR trilogy.

I agree with the criticisms and they do feel a good amount worse than the LotR films, but I still enjoy them a lot and like rewatching all 6 films together. It's still more hours in Middle Earth and there are hardly any fantasy films of my type out there.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I agree with the criticisms and they do feel a good amount worse than the LotR films, but I still enjoy them a lot and like rewatching all 6 films together. It's still more hours in Middle Earth and there are hardly any fantasy films of my type out there.

I haven't done a re-watch if all 6 movies back to back yet. I have been meaning to for a while, but getting the time between work, gym, socialising, gaming, etc is really difficult.

 

[-JKR-]

Do they need to get better?

I liked the movies when they were first released (haven't rewatched them since, as I've never fallen in love with them to that point), but I hate the fact that after that every fantasy movie tried to emulate The Lord of the Rings, when another approach to fantasy is possible as well (I prefer movie such as The Princess Bride, Ladyhawke, The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, Willow, Stardust and Pan's Labyrinth).

 

[jmc]

Has there been any kind of Hobbit fan edit? Something condensed to like a 3 hour movie?

 

[2kt09]

Has there been any kind of Hobbit fan edit? Something condensed to like a 3 hour movie?

https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com/

 

[OutOfBoose]

I hate the Hobbit trilogy, but I want to check out this edit. The description sounds great.

 

[Quasimod0]

Just a couple of weeks ago I watched the hobbit trilogy and then the LoTR trilogy right after. It was pretty fun because the lord of the rings movies contain quite a few direct references to events in the hobbit story. I hadn't realized how many there were. Really works well when you watch em back to back.

 

[Finarfiniel]

Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of issues with the Hobbit trilogy (it should never have been stretched across three movies, two shorter movies would have been more than adequate and for starters they should have completely cut out the Legolas subplot and especially that whole embarassing love triangle), but I do think the hate is a little overblown. The first film especially is actually very good in parts, the bloat and aforementioned pointless and cringeworthy love triangle subplot doesn't kick in until the second movie.

I also recently did a 'Middle-earth' marathon of all six films, and it is rather satisfying watching all the films in chronological order and seeing how smoothly one trilogy does flow into the next. So yeah, the Hobbit trilogy is problematic and not a great adaptation of the book, but it's nowhere as bad as some people make out.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of issues with the Hobbit trilogy (it should never have been stretched across three movies, two shorter movies would have been more than adequate and for starters they should have completely cut out the Legolas subplot and especially that whole embarassing love triangle), but I do think the hate is a little overblown. The first film especially is actually very good in parts, the bloat and aforementioned pointless and cringeworthy love triangle subplot doesn't kick in until the second movie.

I also recently did a 'Middle-earth' marathon of all six films, and it is rather satisfying watching all the films in chronological order and seeing how smoothly one trilogy does flow into the next. So yeah, the Hobbit trilogy is problematic and not a great adaptation of the book, but it's nowhere as bad as some people make out.

Agreed with your thoughts on the Hobbit movies. I will really have to try a marathon at some point.