Viggo Mortensen critiques the LOTR and Hobbit movies

[redhawk23]

Fellowship may be the least "eventful" but (Serkis' appearances aside) it tends to have the best acting and while the fight scenes are smaller scale, are far better coordinated and have a lot more impact. When you get to the point of Legolas sliding down giant elephants like Fred Flinstone killing 60 people at a time (or just being a whirlwind of decapitations in the Hobbit) it all becomes white noise.

 

[Tequilla]

He just spit the truth. And its something A LOT of people have been saying since the first three.

Fellowship belongs in a class of its own.

 

[Brother Jack]

He's not exactly wrong, especially about the Hobbit. And Fellowship is definitely the best even though I do enjoy all three of them.

 

[The Endless]

I enjoy all three. But Fellowship is definitely the best.

Viggo is right about Jackson though. He's too self indulgent. He does things that he wants to see, not necessarily what will be good for the film.

As for his obsession with technology? Well it's good to push the boundaries. Cameron and many other directors do it. But there has to be some restraint.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't necessarily mean you should do it.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

I agree with Viggo on all accounts.

 

[TX85]

I love the trilogy and find ROTK very underrated..But yeah I agree FOTR is the best and I agree with Viggo

 

[The Dark Defender]

RoTK has an ending that never ends. Also, there's a huge anticlimactic sequence when the army of the dead show up, they defeat the goblin/orc army instantly which is a huge letdown.

It was established that they were invincible and could only be used once...the tension involved there was more about getting there with them in time.
And of course it has a very lengthy ending, since there was so much to wrap up.

Better than having practically no ending, like FOTR did.

That is right ladies and gentleman. Viggo agrees with me!!!!


It has the tightest narrative by far. Every event in FotR is well paced and means something. Also contains the best character and acting moments, because as Viggo said, it contained subtly. Jackson never came close to matching the brilliance he discovered with the Mines of Moror the Black Riders' hunt. He was too busy trying to go bigger thinking it was better. Also started draining the emotion out of scenes by going way too over dramatic with the editing. Still I love The Two Towers, even if it isn't FotR quality.

Don't really agree with much of that.

The last hour or so of ROTK has far more emotion than anything in the previous two films.
Of course the story gets bigger as it goes along, the stakes keep getting higher and hence the scale gets grander...doesn't mean the level of emotion is smaller.

Fellowship may be the least "eventful" but (Serkis' appearances aside) it tends to have the best acting and while the fight scenes are smaller scale, are far better coordinated and have a lot more impact. When you get to the point of Legolas sliding down giant elephants like Fred Flinstone killing 60 people at a time (or just being a whirlwind of decapitations in the Hobbit) it all becomes white noise.

Whe I go to a big fantasy epic genre-blending adventure, I kinda want out of this world style action that I can't see in practically any other movie.
Fellowship is alot better than Desolation of Smaug though, I agree there.

I don't see how FOTR supposedly has better acting either, they're all very well acted, the other two are better acting-wise on account of Serkis being there.
Nobody from Fellowship that had a major role in the other two dropped off performance-wise...Astin in particular is amazing in ROTK, and had the most to work with in that film, because...more happens. It's a much more climactic story by nature and hence has more emotion.
It takes FOTR an hour just to get moving.

 

[DA_Champion]

It was established that they were invincible and could only be used once...the tension involved there was more about getting there with them in time.

Didn't work in the movie.

And of course it has a very lengthy ending, since there was so much to wrap up.

Better than having practically no ending, like FOTR did.

No other blockbuster movie that I can recall has ever had an ending go on for 90 minutes or more.

FOTR had resolution.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Didn't work in the movie.


No other blockbuster movie has ever had an ending go on for 90 minutes or more.

FOTR had resolution.

FOTR stopped dead in the middle of the story, there was no resolution. It doesn't even end, just pauses.
Of course it had to be that way for the sake of the bigger story it's a part of, but that doesn't make it any less satisfying on its own terms.

And other blockbuster movies aren't the grand finale of massive, epic trilogies like this one was.

Something like Spiderman 3 or Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is no comparison to ROTK (and ROTK's ending doesn't go on for '90 minutes,' that's an absurd hyperbole).

 

[DA_Champion]

It's not the biggest story ever told.

How long was the ending in Godfather III, in Dark Knight Rises, and in Return of the Jedi?

About 10 minutes each?

 

[The Dark Defender]

Cinematically, I think that's exactly what it is.
It's definitely much bigger than those.

It has an entire large ensemble of characters followed throughout the entire story.

Atleast two of the series' that you just mentioned don't.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Peter Jackson cut a lot from the ending of LOTR. In the book version, the Ring gets destroyed about halfway through ROTK. Most of the entire second half of ROTK, with the journey home and Saruman taking over the Shire got cut.

He couldn't very well cut the Grey Havens too without destroying Tolkien's work.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Peter Jackson cut a lot from the ending of LOTR. In the book version, the Ring gets destroyed about halfway through ROTK. Most of the entire second half of ROTK, with the journey home and Saruman taking over the Shire got cut.

He couldn't very well cut the Grey Havens too without destroying Tolkien's work.

How many key plot points from the book was left off?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

How many key plot points from the book was left off?

In the book, the four hobbits leave Gondor and head back up north where Bilbo's evil cousin has taken over the Shire with the help of a mysterious figure named Sharkey (who now lives at Bag's End) and is industrializing it and has essentially enslaved most of the hobbits. When Merry, Pippin, Frodo, and Sam they help lead a revolt which leads to a battle with Sharkey's goons (the last battle of the War of the Ring) in the Shire, and then after that the hobbit army goes to Hobbiton to recapture it and Frodo & Company discovers that Sharkey is really Saruman. Saruman tries to kill Frodo but fails and Frodo exiles him from the Shire, but Wormtongue assassinates him on the steps of Bag End and is then in turn is killed by the hobbits.

Many Tolkien fans consider it to be the most important part of the book and were very critical of Jackson cutting it.

 

[Lord]

It's not the biggest story ever told.

How long was the ending in Godfather III, in Dark Knight Rises, and in Return of the Jedi?

About 10 minutes each?

Actually, it's vastly different, unlike the ones you mentioned, Lord of the Rings was a single narrative and more like a single film 9 hours divided into 3, the ending was 30 minutes because it had to conclude the entire Trilogy.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Actually, it's vastly different, unlike the ones you mentioned, Lord of the Rings was a single narrative and more like a single film 9 hours divided into 3, the ending was 30 minutes because it had to conclude the entire Trilogy.

Plus, like I said, that is how it is in the book. Jackson would have been ripped to shreds had he ended the film after Aragorn's coronation.

There were already complaints that Jackson marginalized the role of the hobbits too much.

 

[Black Narcissus]

In the book, the four hobbits leave Gondor and head back up north where Bilbo's evil cousin has taken over the Shire with the help of a mysterious figure named Sharkey (who now lives at Bag's End) and is industrializing it and has essentially enslaved most of the hobbits. When Merry, Pippin, Frodo, and Sam they help lead a revolt which leads to a battle with Sharkey's goons (the last battle of the War of the Ring) in the Shire, and then after that the hobbit army goes to Hobbiton to recapture it and Frodo & Company discovers that Sharkey is really Saruman. Saruman tries to kill Frodo but fails and Frodo exiles him from the Shire, but Wormtongue assassinates him on the steps of Bag End and is then in turn is killed by the hobbits.

Many Tolkien fans consider it to be the most important part of the book and were very critical of Jackson cutting it.

Say what? Frodo dies in the book?! You see, I always assumed the films were pretty loyal to the source material...So I never gave the books a chance. I must ponder this.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Say what? Frodo dies in the book?! You see, I always assumed the films were pretty loyal to the source material...So I never gave the books a chance. I must ponder this.

Wormtongue assassinates Saruman.

Frodo sails to Valinor like in the film. Sam also goes many years later after his wife dies.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Wormtongue assassinates Saruman.

Frodo sails to Valinor like in the film. Sam also goes many years later after his wife dies.

I like this ending better.

Now I understand the hate for Jackson.

 

[Brother Jack]

Peter Jackson cut a lot from the ending of LOTR. In the book version, the Ring gets destroyed about halfway through ROTK. Most of the entire second half of ROTK, with the journey home and Saruman taking over the Shire got cut.

He couldn't very well cut the Grey Havens too without destroying Tolkien's work.

The problem was never the content of the ending of the film; if you have an issue with that take it up with Tolkien. The problem was the protracted way it was edited which made it appear as if the movie was ending several times before it actually did. After what was already such a long movie it was a fatiguing choice that sullied the conclusion a bit for me. It was one of the first signs that Jackson's difficulty with pacing would overwhelm his filmmaking.

 

[Boom]

Mortensen hits it right on the head.

 

[jmc]

Fellowship's advantage is that it's linear story, the other two are running 3-4 stories throughout. I will say though in the last two films defence that it's probably the best anyone could have made from such a convoluted story as the book was. The book has this really bizarre pacing which wasn't easily adaptable. As for the Hobbit, it's just an excessive amount of film for such a short story, it really feels like Jackson has been trying to recapture what was done 14 years ago, and the results aren't spectacular.

 

[Schlosser85]

I think the entire LOTR trilogy is amazing. Though TTT is the most sluggish.

The Hobbit is where I feel Jackson gets self indulgent.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Fellowship's advantage is that it's linear story, the other two are running 3-4 stories throughout. I will say though in the last two films defence that it's probably the best anyone could have made from such a convoluted story as the book was. The book has this really bizarre pacing which wasn't easily adaptable. As for the Hobbit, it's just an excessive amount of film for such a short story, it really feels like Jackson has been trying to recapture what was done 14 years ago, and the results aren't spectacular.

The problem with LOTR is that it isn't one single narrative from Point A to Point B to Point C. This mostly holds true for Fellowship of the Ring, aside from some considerable flashbacks and stuff happening off-screen.

It is actually written as six books, with a prologue and appendix.

Prologue - The creation of the rings, and the journey of the One Ring from Sauron to Isildur to Deagol to Smeagol to Bilbo.

Book 1 - The Ring Sets Out - The discovery of the One Ring and the journey to Rivendell while pursued by the Nine. It ends upon reaching Rivendell

Book 2 - The Ring Goes South - The formation of the Fellowship and journey through Moria and Lothlorien. It ends with the breakup of the Fellowship and Sam and Frodo going to Mordor alone.

Book 3 - The Treason of Isengard - About the Rohan and their war against Saruman. Ends with Saruman's defeat at Orthanc.

Book 4 - The Ring Goes East - Frodo and Sam meet up with Gollum and they journey to Mordor. Ends with Gollum's betrayal, Frodo seemingly being killed (actually captured by orcs), and Sam taking up the Ring and defeating Shelob.

Book 5 - The War of the Ring - Mainly about the Siege of Gondor and Aragorn's return to the throne. Ends with Aragorn leading an army at the Black Gate.

Book 6 - The End of the Third Age - Sam rescues Frodo from Cirith Ungol, The Destruction of the Ring, the journey home, the Scouring of the Shire, and the Ringbearers departing Middle Earth.

Appendix - An epilogue of what happened in the Fourth Age. Ends with Aragorn dying of old age, Arwen pining to death, and Legolas building a boat so he and Gimli can sail to the Undying Lands. Also contains some other stories about the Fall of Numenor and such.

Frodo & Sam don't even appear in Books 3 and 5, and likewise the rest of the Fellowship have nothing to do with Book 4. The timeline is also a bit wonky. For example, the fight against Shelob in Book 4 chronologically occurs at the same time as the Battle of Pelennor Fields two-thirds of the way into Book 5. It was not an easy book to translate to film.

The Hobbit is different. It is only about the same length of any of the six books that make up LOTR, and Jackson has stretched it out to fit three full-length films.

Note that they weren't originally supposed to be released as six books. Tolkien intended them to be released as one, but that is how he structured them.

 

[Warhammer]

This is a rare instance where an actor criticizing their past work isn't met with harsh scrutiny by the general public. Viggo Mortensen is right 100%.

There's doing it this way and then there is doing it the Shia LaBeouf way.