Thoughts on the Lord of the Rings film trilogy?

RationalGaze said:
I thought it was an awesome technical achievement, and I was absolutely stunned by the first one when I saw it in the cinema, but I was quite disappointed with TTT and TROTK due to the changes Peter Jackson made to the story - most notably Faramir deciding to take the ring to Gondor, and the undead army just sweeping through Gondor and saving the day. The Elves joining the battle at Helm's Deep was also stupid - The Last Alliance was called The LAST Alliance for a reason. These changes downplayed the strength of Men in overcoming insurmountable odds.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Elves at Helms Deep really annoyed me, as well the the visual image of Gandalf leading the cavalry charge down a ridiculously steep slope straight into a spear-line of Orks, they should all have died.
Changing Faramir's character and actions towards Frodo/the Ring was very annoying, just an excuse to introduce Osgiliath.
 
After watching the theatrical version of Fellowship, I hated it. The extended version won me over and I think it's a borderline great film and easily the best of the bunch. Plus, there was no creepy hippy encouraging young hobbits to run around naked. All in all, excellent!

The other two, well... Up to the start of Helms Deep, Two Towers is good as well, but after that it all goes a bit wrong. If Jackson wanted some pimped up Elves in the fight, he should've stuck with it, rather than kill 'em off cheaply. Seemed pointless really.

As for Return of the King. Well, except for the Ride of Rohirrim and Sam and Frodo's cameo in Mordor, the rest blows big time. The army of the Dead rendering everyone elses sacrifice in the battle irrelevant, the hatchet job on Faramir and Denethor's blazing swan dive were ****** laughable. There's also Orlando Bloom to consider, but I'll save my bile for the next Star Wars thread. :o

May be spoilers here... :p
 
Robert1986 said:
Was made over 10 years ago.

:(
Click to expand...
Now that is a scary thought... :(

But I think it is fantastic - one of the very few "trilogies" where each subsequent part gets better. I could probably count the number of trilogies that match up to that on one hand.

Sure they chopped and changed stuff in the book, but you know what, I don't care now - the films have a wonderful flow to them, and are packed full of emotion.
 
Brilliant movies, the casting was exceptional and the pacing of the original movies was spot on. The extended versions are definitely for fans of the book though, you can see why the added scenes were cut as although they provide welcome backstory, it slows down the pacing of the movies considerably without really adding anything to the theatrical releases other than salving the butthurt of the fanbois :p
 
Last edited:
Tbh it's a scene that just would have dragged on and taken up 10 minutes of valuable screen-time - even in the book it's a pretty pointless although interesting interlude with a largely extraneous character who has little to no effect on the outcome or any further involvement in the story beyond his own little scene.

When you think about it what does he really add to the narrative?
 
Yes - and when you are trying to condense a 1,000 page book into a 450-page script stuff has to be left out and relatively pointless 'mystery' which doesn't move forward the narrative is a prime target.

I should have clarifed I'm talking about narrative in respect of the film version - when you have a book you have the luxury of being able to go off on tangents and at a much slower pace with various details - TB would add nothing to the film and most likely detract from it in a number of ways (pacing, length, themes etc).

Isn't Tolkein even quoted as saying that TB isn't an important person to the narrative? :p
 
Tom Bombadil is left out because he would confuse the hell out of the viewer. Here is a being of great (seemingly unlimited within his domain), old enough to witness the evolution of creation, living in place surrounded by evil creatures. That chooses to help the hobbits, then disappear.

Theres not enough screentime to give a good enough explanation for his character.


Back on topic, its far and away my favourite film trilogy. Its extremely rare for me to watch a film more than once, but I've seen LOTR several times and intend to watch them several more (extended edition of course)
 
Great films, and i don't understand how they got away with cutting out so much.

You miss so many details without watching the special extended editions.
 
All Tom Bombadil did in the book is cut the hobbits loose from a willow tree and gave them weapons?

I felt it was odd to leave out a big chunk of the book from the film at the time but looking back, he is unnecessary in both storytelling (his character doesn't matter to the fellowship), or reason for including him.
 
To be honest i'm not really bothered about his lack of inclusion in the films, but the character wasn't worthless by any means. If nothing else he introduced a whole new level of lore to the universe, making it richer and more believable/immersive.
 
PermaBanned said:
To be honest i'm not really bothered about his lack of inclusion in the films, but the character wasn't worthless by any means. If nothing else he introduced a whole new level of lore to the universe, making it richer and more believable/immersive.
Click to expand...

He is a detour of the story that would be strange in terms of a movie experience. As a book, you can take a background story here and there with chapters etc, in a movie, especially an action movie, you want to get things moving. LOTR is a long enough film as it is, 10 min extra on something that doesn't move the story along is a waste of both celluloid and time, and they all cost money.
 
Really great films, but I loved the books and hated the fact they didn't religiously stick to the book so I didn't enjoy it quite as much as I would have liked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom