Are these three of the greatest films of all time, a fantastic visualisation of Tolkiens work? Or are they a poor attempt at bringing the novels to life? Could they ever do the trilogy justice?
Quote from: Leon on 06 July 2010, 01:36:14 AM
Are these three of the greatest films of all time, a fantastic visualisation of Tolkiens work? Or are they a poor attempt at bringing the novels to life? Could they ever do the trilogy justice?
Greatest films of all time? Not in a world that includes Dr Zhivago and Duck Soup. OK visualizations of Tolkein - no-one will ever match what is in my head, after all -- so they could never do the trilogy as it is in my head justice.
Quote from: Leon on 06 July 2010, 01:36:14 AM
Are these three of the greatest films of all time, a fantastic visualisation of Tolkiens work? Or are they a poor attempt at bringing the novels to life? Could they ever do the trilogy justice?
I think they were amazing movies for the visuals alone. And I think it will be a fair while before they can be outdone as far as doing the trilogy justice.
Still, I guess there is enough to gripe about if you must. Such as the elves at Helm's Deep that just don't belong there.
John Boorman was interested in filming 'em once; pity that didn't come off, methinks. That aside, I just can't support movies in which cavalry get away with charging pikemen down difficult going, even with the sun behind them. Try it in a wargame and see what happens.
I enjoyed all three movies for what they were, which is Peter Jacksons view of Lord of the Rings.
Its a big story, and some things that work in a book dont necessarily work on screen. Its hard to capture what millions of people wanted to see on screen, certain characters didnt look right, Boromir in my mind was always more of a Brian Blessed type.
I think the most disapointing this is that if i read LOTR now i skip vast sections of text as i find them a little pointless, and its the same with the films, once you have seen it do you really want to rewatch a twee village.
My biggest gripe with the film, and infact most fantasy films, is that the Dwarves are played for laughs. I dont recall Gimli being the comedy relife in the book.
Anyway just my random thoughts.
Oh and Liv Tyler :):) she was ok :):)
Take care all
Brian.
I suppose its one of those things really with the trilogy of films as others have already stated, it depends what your purpose was in going to see the films - if you wanted serious eye candy in terms of CGI, battle scenes and good acting then the films were awesome.
If you were looking for the films to follow the book - and came away disappointed then you only really have yourself to blame. When has a film ever been as good as the book?
And I agree, Liv Tyler was 'good' ;)
Quote from: FierceKitty on 06 July 2010, 05:40:00 AM
John Boorman was interested in filming 'em once; pity that didn't come off, methinks. That aside, I just can't support movies in which cavalry get away with charging pikemen down difficult going, even with the sun behind them. Try it in a wargame and see what happens.
Agreed, that was a ridiculous scene.
Argh, I can't see!
STFU and keep still!
*skewered horse*
Would be more likely an outcome!
Quote from: FierceKitty on 06 July 2010, 05:40:00 AM
... cavalry get away with charging pikemen down difficult going, even with the sun behind them. Try it in a wargame and see what happens.
If (1) I get to pick the fantasy rules and (2) I get Gandalf.
Of course, I never found Rohan that convincing. New Zealand just does not have enough flat. That part would have worked better filmed in Alberta.
Is it just me, or for a supposedly powerful wizard, Gandalf didn't really do much? He stood in the way of the Balrog, and managed to crack the bridge, which was alright. But he gets whupped by Saruman, uses the sun to his advantage, and flies around on eagles. Not really very magic-y is it?
Quote from: Leon on 06 July 2010, 05:29:38 PM
Is it just me, or for a supposedly powerful wizard, Gandalf didn't really do much? He stood in the way of the Balrog, and managed to crack the bridge, which was alright. But he gets whupped by Saruman, uses the sun to his advantage, and flies around on eagles. Not really very magic-y is it?
Don't forget winning at Balrog Mud Wrestling. Still, Middle Earth is not your D&D "couple of lightning bolts, a fireball and Bob's your uncle" sort of magic environment. Even the book is pretty calm as far as that goes.
Quote from: lentulus on 06 July 2010, 05:42:02 PM
Don't forget winning at Balrog Mud Wrestling. Still, Middle Earth is not your D&D "couple of lightning bolts, a fireball and Bob's your uncle" sort of magic environment. Even the book is pretty calm as far as that goes.
Yeah, I just kind of expected him to do more. Him and Saruman were flinging each other all over, why couldn't he have just shoved the Balrog off the bridge instead? Or whacked the Cave Troll in the mines?
He actually uses more magic in the films. I never saw that as the sun rising- more like a fire wizard doing his thing..
Needs a prequel
http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/comic.php?current=2615&theme=14&dir=next5
Quote from: Leon on 06 July 2010, 05:29:38 PM
Is it just me, or for a supposedly powerful wizard, Gandalf didn't really do much? He stood in the way of the Balrog, and managed to crack the bridge, which was alright. But he gets whupped by Saruman, uses the sun to his advantage, and flies around on eagles. Not really very magic-y is it?
Well, in the books it's 'less is more' for magic as well. I'm glad they did not fall into the 'let's do loads of magic cuz we got special effects!' trap.
Quote from: Derk G on 06 July 2010, 08:11:22 PM
Well, in the books it's 'less is more' for magic as well. I'm glad they did not fall into the 'let's do loads of magic cuz we got special effects!' trap.
Absolutely - couldn't agree more...
For me, I think the films capture a fantastic vision of Middle Earth - it's not 'my' vision, but I'm unlikely to attract Hollywood funding to translate mine to the big screen - and therefore have brought to life visually something that I hold dear. I pretty much read the trilogy every year & listen to the BBC radio version of The Hobbit & LotR regularly (often while painting); what the films have done is brought a whole load of people closer to things that I love - people who would never have read the books...and in doing-so, it's given me a chance to introduce them to my world of gaming...which is coolio 8)
And Ms Tyler's alright - but Miranda Otto as Eowyn gets my vote:
(http://scottfeldstein.net/misc/2003/eowyn.jpg)
(http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/071015/asskicking/lord_l.jpg)
You get off Nik, she's mine i tell you...couldn't agree more on the Arwen/Eowyn debate. Definately the flaxen haired beauty for me.
As for Jackson's LotR trilogy.
Well, you've got to go a very, very long way indeed to find;
a. A better film
b. A better literary adaption
Simply astonishingly good.
I think its impossible ever to say 'best film ever made' about any film really by the trilogy comes pretty damned close.
I think Ralph Bakshi got closer to 'my' vision of Middle Earth, and i do tend to 'fill in the dialogue' from Bakshi's Sam Gamgee while watching Jackson's version ('help Mr Frodo! I'm DROWNIN'!!).
I'll second the concern about Boromir - he's definately a bearded, barrel-chested sort of chap, and Sean Bean was, as usual completely out of his depth...
But it wasn't as bad as Sam - the epitome of the loyal, dependable, innocent, simple chap being played as a blubbering girl...
But for each fault in Jackson's version there are countless breathtaking gems...
Best films ever?
Well, the books are a 'must read'. These films are a 'must see'.
Agree about the mouth-watering qualities of Miss Otto, who can act too. But I must say Cate Blanchett was a bit disappointing; I think she's more elfin in most of her other movies.
Well, now we know the sort of people who frequent these boards (I will refer you to the Amy Pond discussion) remember this.
The dresses worn by Eowyn and Arwen were so clingy and sheer that there were concerns about underwear lines. Which is why the only thing Miranda and Cate wore under them were long socks...
Quote from: Last Hussar on 07 July 2010, 07:36:43 PM
Well, now we know the sort of people who frequent these boards (I will refer you to the Amy Pond discussion) remember this.
I'm taking that as a compliment :P 8)
QuoteThe dresses worn by Eowyn and Arwen were so clingy and sheer that there were concerns about underwear lines. Which is why the only thing Miranda and Cate wore under them were long socks...
You say that almost as if it was a
bad thing...
Don't put lewd ideas into my head at this hour of the morning! I've got to face a class in the immediate future.
Ummm....I don't think Cate was playing either of those roles, was she?
Quote from: Last Hussar on 07 July 2010, 07:36:43 PM
The dresses worn by Eowyn and Arwen were so clingy and sheer that there were concerns about underwear lines. Which is why the only thing Miranda and Cate wore under them were long socks...
Quote from: FierceKitty on 08 July 2010, 06:23:35 PM
Ummm....I don't think Cate was playing either of those roles, was she?
Aha, he's got you there!
Personally, I love the films if I allow myself to suspend disbelief and go with the flow.... and you can blame Tolkien himself for his bad tactical depictions. He`d never have made a military tactician by any stretch of the imagination lol.
I`m actually a member of the Tolkien Society (if you look carefully, you`ll see my name go up on the credits of the last movie - I think I`m on screen about point 3 of a second haha), so I know `the master`s`work intimately; and can see all the gripes, all the annoying bits left out, things included which shouldn`t have been, and the chopping up of vital delivered speeches and lines which verge on the ridiculous at times.
But, plain and simply, I think the complete (extended version only) thing is a work of genius.
Just my opinion, but I`m delighted the movies were made and are top of my all time favourites list.
Oh and Miss Otto WANTS me.... I can tell, she`s mine... mine.... all mine gollum!
Six :)
Quote from: sixsideddice on 12 July 2010, 11:50:27 AM
if you look carefully, you`ll see my name go up on the credits of the last movie - I think I`m on screen about point 3 of a second haha
That's pretty cool, which bit do I need to fast forward to?
8)
This bit:
Ain't no hottie like a Nazgul-killa hottie.
Or something. 8)
Or this - with an Evanescence track:
Dunno re Six's credits though - not sure that's on youtube ;)
Quote from: sixsideddice on 12 July 2010, 11:50:27 AM
I`m actually a member of the Tolkien Society
Oooh..ok!
Here's a good one then...brain teaser plot hole for the expert.
From the Council of Elrond, why didn't Gandalf simply have Gwahir fly Frodo to Mount Doom to drop the ring into the fire?
Because at that point sauron would have seen it. the reason they managed to sneak in was because they were so small and unasuming, and as they got close aragorn had announced himself so sauron was more concerend in making sure this new king of the west didnt get anywhere.
I think thats it
Quote from: count_zero99uk on 13 July 2010, 02:41:55 AM
Because at that point sauron would have seen it. the reason they managed to sneak in was because they were so small and unasuming, and as they got close aragorn had announced himself so sauron was more concerend in making sure this new king of the west didnt get anywhere.
I think thats it
Really?
How would Sauron identify the threat?
One possibility is that he would see the eagles approaching by means of the Palantir. However, I think it can be strongly argued that the Palantir would not show the eagles unless Sauron directed the Palantir to focus on the particular area where they are flying; the Palantir is not an alarm bell.
Further, we know that the flight path from Rivendell is not where his attention was mainly directed:
"...His eye watches that way [the Black Gate] all the time...""No, no indeed," said Gollum. "Hobbits must see, must try to understand. He does not expect attack that way [Cirith Ungol]. His eye is all around, but it attends more to some places than to others. He can't see everything at once, not yet. [...] He thinks that no one can come to the Moon-tower without fighting big battle at the bridges, or getting lots of boats which they cannot hide and He will know about."The Ered Lithui are a chain of mountains 300-400 miles long (roughly the distance between London and Glasgow), and it is considered impossible to enter Mordor by climbing over them; even one as sneaky and as skilled at climbing as Gollum knows of no way into Mordor except thru Cirith Gorgor and Cirith Ungol. For this reason, it is unlikely that Sauron would devote much attention to watching the Ered Lithui or the uninhabited Brown Lands.
There appear to be certain kinds of things which attract Sauron's attention, such as Frodo's gaze when he is seated on Amon Hen and is wearing the Ring. Sauron also is immediately aware when Frodo puts on the Ring in Sammath Naur. As long as Frodo does not put on the Ring during the eagle flight, however, it is not obvious that Sauron's attention would be attracted.
We know that Frodo went on foot all the way thru Mordor from Cirith Ungol to Mt. Doom carrying the Ring without Sauron spotting him; so the mere fact that something is carrying the Ring doesn't mean that Sauron will immediately spot it. The only thing which makes an eagle more visible is the fact that it's flying. However, the eagle has the advantage that there's far less time for Sauron to spot it, while the Ring-carrying Frodo was on foot in Mordor for many days.
It's important to note that once the eagles fly into Mordor, the game is no longer one of stealth but speed. Even if Sauron does immediately notice the eagles, he will not necessarily be able to respond in time. We aren't told exactly how long it took the eagles to fly from the Black Gate to Mt. Doom, but my guess is that it could not have been too long. Perhaps only hours?
After Frodo and Sam entered Mordor thru Cirith Ungol, Sauron had fully ten days to contemplate the purpose of their mission into Mordor, and did not realize that their plan was to destroy the Ring until the last moment. Given that the Mouth of Sauron refers to the intruders as "spies", Sauron's most likely thought would be that the eagles are merely flying over his realm for reconnaisance purposes. Thus, even if Sauron notices the eagles, his response would not necessarily be an appropriate one to prevent the Ring from being destroyed (such as having the Nazgul fly directly to Mt. Doom to intercept the eagles).
So i think its unlikely that 'they would be seen' is the reason Gandalf does not have Gwahir fly Frodo to Mount Doom...
Ok all good points.
How about this one - the book would have been a lot shorter :P
Many good points here. I guess my thoughts are that it could have been a lot worse. Don't get me wrong, I own them and watch them occasionally, but I have to agree with the poster who said Bakshi's 70s version captured "the look" better for me. To Jackson's credit:
1.) The land itself. Middle Earth looks just great with its vast mountain ranges, sweeping plains. With the exceptions of a rather hilly Rohan and a far too creepy Lothlorien, I think the films were spot on.
2.) Gollum was superb!! (Though he is an easy character to depict effectively) I loved the scene where Smeagol and Gollum were debating on what course to take; a feast of schizophrenic problem resolution!
3.) The soundtrack was magnificent.
4.) Though probably significantly larger than Tolkien's vision, the Trolls and Balrog were suitably menacing.
On the negative side:
1.) Most of the actors didn't fit the image at all (for me, obviously- ;D). I agree with several of you that Boromir was a disaster (and I normally like Sean Bean (anyone seen The Field?); Aragorn was too much of a pretty boy, too self-impressed; Galadriel was dreadful, much too menacing (Bakshi does a great job with her, though she does look pretty 70s these days!); Theoden looked like the town drunk. However Frodo and Sam I thought quite good, and Gandalf was excellent!
2.) The biggest problem of all was the changing of the storyline. It is true that films cannot always work like a book, but I just didn't see the reasoning behind some of the changes. The worst was Arwen saving Frodo at the ford. I'd guess that Jackson was desperately trying to create some female heroines doing "guy stuff", but doing so there really dilutes Frodo's moral/spiritual struggle in that scene: part of the strength of Hobbits in general and Frodo in particular is their ability to hang-on. There are some other dodgy tweeks in the story, and it seemed to me the trajectory increased as the films went along.
While Bakshi's flim has some massive problems (mainly in being incomplete-they ran out of money!), a wonky soundtrack, and some questionable portrayals (Boromir looking like a Viking), his Gimli, Legolas, Theoden, Galadriel, Orcs, Nazgul are to my taste better than the later films. Gollum and Gandalf are just as good, though Frodo and Sam sometimes feel "off".
Sorry for the long post, but I was inspired by the interesting discussion! I might have to crack out Jackson again; maybe I'm being too harsh, and it has been a couple of years...
All the best,
Daryl
I loved them- soundtrack too loud and at times you have to turn the sound down as it blares through the house ( at my age??) and then a few mins later you have to turn the telly up as you cant hear the actors!!!? arse really ( oh aye - and in the pictures I needed ear defenders ( no Im not that old, I spent 22 years working on tanks - so it aint me - I think??).
Negatives only 2 - it dont follow the books ( Tom Bombadil, Barrow wraiths etc) and the odd Yankie accent slips in - oooops and it REALLY P**Ses me off (Strider and Sam being the main culprits)
Lots of hot chics - which iff I remember (apart from Galadriel) they just didnt enter the book at all (eye candy for the movie masses - cannat winge)
Liv - Id use het s*** for toothpaste (ok maybe not but you get the meaning)
Oh yea- when are those Napoleonics coming out?????
Love you all darlings
God save the Queen
:D :D
Quote from: 17-21l on 15 July 2010, 08:47:17 PM
I loved them- soundtrack too loud and at times you have to turn the sound down as it blares through the house ( at my age??) and then a few mins later you have to turn the telly up as you cant hear the actors!!!? arse really ( oh aye - and in the pictures I needed ear defenders ( no Im not that old, I spent 22 years working on tanks - so it aint me - I think??).
Negatives only 2 - it dont follow the books ( Tom Bombadil, Barrow wraiths etc) and the odd Yankie accent slips in - oooops and it REALLY P**Ses me off (Strider and Sam being the main culprits)
Lots of hot chics - which iff I remember (apart from Galadriel) they just didnt enter the book at all (eye candy for the movie masses - cannat winge)
Liv - Id use het s*** for toothpaste (ok maybe not but you get the meaning)
Oh yea- when are those Napoleonics coming out?????
Love you all darlings
God save the Queen
:D :D
In the nicest possible way, you're rather an odd chap...!
:P 8)
.... but at the end of the day - Eowyn is still MINE, all mine I tell you.... mine :P
hehe
Six
Oooh..ok!
Here's a good one then...brain teaser plot hole for the expert.
From the Council of Elrond, why didn't Gandalf simply have Gwahir fly Frodo to Mount Doom to drop the ring into the fire?
The Wind Lord wanted more gold for his pains that Galdalf had access to ;) Gandalf had it in mind to pay him with a year`s free supply of bird seed.
I didn't always agree with the way PJ handled some things in the films. He even missed out on a few great scenes I really hoped to see.
On the other hand they are probably miles ahead of what the average Hollywood hired gun director would have produced. And I'm really happy they didn't go for the "obvious" fancasting you often bump across on the net.
Can you imagine the following :
- A scene between Warwick Davis and Sean Connery ? "Shawrron ish lookin' ferr hish rrringg, Frrodo !"
- Or the diabolical Sauron (Tim Curry) cackling with maniacal glee while Mel Gibson (Aragorn) holds the dead Arwen (Sharon Stone) and then screaming Sauron's name in anger,
- Robin Williams as Tom Bombadil (if he does make it into the movie)
- 1/3rd of characters would be of African origin, for no apparent reason.
etc ...
Didn't Elijah Wood get the part of Frodo after dressing up as a hobbit in his back garden and sending it in as an audition?
Best fantasy trilogy ever, seriously what else is there?
Quote from: Paint it Pink on 23 July 2010, 06:36:28 PM
Best fantasy trilogy ever, seriously what else is there?
True enough...although there are a surprising amount of decent fantasy films:
The Princess Bride
Willow
Legend
Dungeons & Dragons
Labyrinth
Krull
Hawk the Slayer
Dark Crystal
Ladyhawke
etc etc
They're mostly children of the '80s, but I still enjoy watching them 8)
Being a Sean Bean fan (yeah, yeah) I was disappointed he chose to use his floaty posh accent (he can only do two, Yorkshire and "posh). Not his best acting performance...
I can't really comment on the "look" of Middle Earth, because I didn't read the book until I after I saw the first film, so everything was already in place in my head. I remember I saw Return of the King three times at the cinema, must of liked it! Even if your arse did ache after it eventually finished.
Edit- Just remembered, Sean Bean did an Irish accent in Patriot Games...
Quote from: nikharwood on 23 July 2010, 08:24:29 PM
Dark Crystal
This was on the other week, and was a lot more disturbing that I remember it being!
:o
Quote from: Leon on 23 July 2010, 10:27:51 PM
This was on the other week, and was a lot more disturbing that I remember it being!
:o
Absolutely - most of my list there generally is
significantly more disturbing when you watch it now....coolio 8)
Got to love Willow as a fantasy movie.
Reasons:
(1)
(http://web.ukonline.co.uk/whalley.jsrpages/scans/whalley/willowSORSHA01.JPG)
(2)
They throw together loads of kit in a mix-and-match way to make the fantasy costumes. And most of this kit is actually pretty damn good and even *gasp* practical!
(3)
The chit-chat between the various good and mostly-good guys is hilarious
Quote from: nikharwood on 23 July 2010, 08:24:29 PM
True enough...although there are a surprising amount of decent fantasy films:
The Princess Bride
Willow
Legend
Dungeons & Dragons
Labyrinth
Krull
Hawk the Slayer
Dark Crystal
Ladyhawke
etc etc
They're mostly children of the '80s, but I still enjoy watching them 8)
Princess Bride check, Ladyhawke yes check, Willow maybe, Dark Crystal uhm, Legend a curates egg, the rest meh...
The Princess Bride 7/10
Willow 7/10
Legend 4/10 (mainly for Tim Curry)
Dungeons & Dragons 5/10
Labyrinth 4/10
Krull 9/10
Hawk the Slayer 2/10
Dark Crystal 10/10
Ladyhawke 2/10
You know what? I can't believe I missed Krod Mandoon off my original list!
Quote from: nikharwood on 06 July 2010, 08:34:28 PM
And Ms Tyler's alright - but Miranda Otto as Eowyn gets my vote
I've just been reading through some trivia bits on IMDB, and apparently:
A scene was cut from the finished film that showed Eowyn (Miranda Otto) stripping away her regular clothes and then dressing herself in the armor of a Rohan warrior. :P
Personally I Love the films, the elves were exactly how I saw them in my head, Legolas is Legolas to me. The Rohirrim too are how I expected them to look. I did like the cinematic scale of the film too (IN my top 10 films ever - so far) I also really enjoyed the hunt for Gollum that was done a while ago.... very well done. ;D
Quote from: Leon on 27 July 2010, 03:08:42 AM
I've just been reading through some trivia bits on IMDB, and apparently:
A scene was cut from the finished film that showed Eowyn (Miranda Otto) stripping away her regular clothes and then dressing herself in the armor of a Rohan warrior.
:P
Outrageous, grr, feckers....
why would you cut
that scene? Hell's teeth, the world's gone mad I tell you :P
So would people like to see Peter Jackson direct The Hobbit as well? I think I read the other day that the Del Toro fella has walked away from the project.
My understanding is that MGM is in serious trouble as a studio which has caused all sorts of trouble for Warner/New Line as MGM own the rights to make the Hobbit...
Against that backdrop, the rumours have been flying that The Hobbit is essentially on hold, or possibly shelved. Del Toro walked away in May and its been in chaos since.
That said some of the cast including Ian McKellan have been keen to say things are very much still on track and filming is going at a pace...so make of it what you will.
Apparently Jackson has consistently ruled himself out after the studio screwed him on his payments for the LOTR trilogy, although it seems he's now firmly on board to direct.
Apparently the Hobbit will be two films to be releast over 2011-2012
As to wether i'd like to see Jackon in the big chair. Oh yes. I think his vision is essential to tie all the films together and frankly if he does the same job on the Hobbit as with LOTR it'll be excellent.
That said, the Hobbit is a far thinner source for a film maker to go at so i can't wait to see the film(s) whoever does it...