So I decided to start a tradition for the holidays where I watch my favorite movie during Christmas. Unfortuantely for me that film is The Lord of the Rings, a film split into three more or less three and a half hour parts. I hadn't watched the film in some years so I was wondering how well it would hold up. After taking a few days to rewatch the movie I can say that I am stunned. The film is just as incredible today as it was eleven years ago. Everything about the film(s) is amazing. The amount of detail and design put on the setting, the characterazation, the score, the pacing, the cast, everything. It's surprised that the academy finally gave in and presented The Return of the King with the most (well tied for the most) awards in history. Everything about these films is top notch and amongst the best films have to offer.
But what really gets me are the effects. They are so well done and have aged perfectly. If anything they are more impressive now than before being that so many films rely purely on CGI. It's even more impressive when watching the behind the scenes features and seeing that what you thought were fully built sets were actually just highly detailed minatures. It's a wonder why Hollywood doesn't use minatures more often. That said even the CGI is pretty good. Gollum still looks great, and while he has certainly been surpassed as far as CGI characters go, he still has this certain quality about him that makes him very enjoyable to look at.
I can go on and on about the film(s), but I feel that my previous post comparing The Hobbit film(s) to The Lord of the Rings film(s) does it best.
So I'm trying to start a Christmas tradition where every Christmas I start watching The Lord of the Rings. This is perfect timing being how
well The Fellowship of the Ring ties in with The Battle of the Five Armies ending.
After seeing The Fellowship of the Ring again after some years it really got me seeing where The Hobbit went wrong:
- Characterization. This seems to be the number 1 complaint people have about The Hobbit. Do yourself a favor name all of the fellowship characters in the film. You have Biblo, Gandalf, Thorin,....the fat dwarf, the elf loving dwarf,....the once in a blue moon comic relief guy with the hat,....there are more right? In comparison to the Fellowship of the Ring, by the end...actually scratch that by the first five minutes of the introduction of each character you are already connected to them. Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, Boromir, Merry, and Pippin. All nine members of the fellowship immediately stick out to you. And there is a reason for that, each character has a very unique personality, unique traits, and most of all a unique purpose.
Even the lesser characters (the not so main main characters) are center to the film. Boromir displays not only how easy men can be corrupted by the ring, but also displays the tensions between different factions in mankind, and also at the end shows that mankind can indeed redeem itself. Merry and Pippin could have so easily have been thrown away as comic relief characters, yet even with them they serve a purpose to film as they show that even the goofiest people can become serious and courageous. They are also involved in many important plot points such as the goblins/orcs being unleashed in the mines and later being used as the opportunity of Boroir regaining his honor as he protected them and them later being kidnapped by the Uruk-hai (an important reason of Aragon, Gimli, and Legolas to continue their journey).
The Hobbit does a fucking atrocious job with this.Outside of like three of the dwarves, none of them served a relevant purpose to the film other than being part of a fighting force. Let alone each of them being memorable and enjoyable.
- Pacing. When I was watching Clerks II, there was a joke in there where Randall comments that The Lord of the Rings consisted of nothing but a bunch of people walking. Upon hearing that I thought it was stupid criticism of the films since the "Why don't they use the Eagles" comment. The film is brilliantly paced as no twenty minutes are the same. The shire, the forest, the town, the Elven kingdom, snowy mountain tops, and the mine. All packed into one film. Each of these areas of different tones and different events occurring in them. The shire is where we get a look at the simple relaxing life of a hobbit, the forest is where they take their first steps to the unknown world, the town is an uneasy place that shows maybe these hobbits are over their heads, the Elven kingdom is mysterious and almost holy, the snow mountain tops (though admittedly brief) are chaotic and dangerous, and the mine is where the action happens. The film may be long, but it consistently switches things up so you don't get bored.
In comparison let's look at the latest Hobbit film.You have an opening that isn't really even an opening but just the last twenty minutes of the previous film added on to the beginning of this one. An hour of tension between Thorin and everyone else. And an epic battle that awkwardly transitions to multiple one on one battles. Now I know someone will quote this and say "well you can make anything bad if you say it like that." but that's really the best way I can describe the movie.The opening is so rough because it isn't part of the film, the standoff between Thorin and others drags on way too long, and the end battle is just way too unpolished. I didn't even know what was going on some of the time, and I'm not sure how much of that is due to the film being confusing or me not caring. That last sentence pretty much describes the pacing in The Hobbit films.
- Polish and Soul. The Lord of the Rings film (I consider the movies one film) is just really fucking good. The editing is top notch. The cinematography is top notch. The score is top notch. The casting is top notch. The writing is top notch. You get the picture. When The Return of the King tied for the record of most Oscars won, it wasn't an accident, it deserved to. Every category of the film is amongst the best in the medium. My only complaint is why didn't The Fellowship and Two Towers can't swarmed with Oscars upon their release?
There is also the topic of "soul". It's very tricky thing to bring up because it isn't a set definition. But whatever it is, The Lord of the Rings has a lot of it. You can feel the love at the special effects in the film, especially the immense detail to the miniatures. Really with the effects you can tell they did what would get the best results instead of what would be the most cost effective or appealing. CGI is used only when it should be.There are also a lot of 80s esque quick cuts in the film that somehow don't feel out of place. There is also so much little detail throughout the film, the type in which you discover a lot of little things during a rewatch. The Hobbit doesn't deserve its own paragraph in comparison. It just deserves a sentence in that it doesn't have either of these things.
Regardless of whether or not they are someone's favourite movies, I hope everyone can appreciate that this entire trilogy is simply one of the greatest achievements in filmmaking from a production standpoint. The scale of the project and how well everything came together in the final product is astounding.
You're absolutely right about the effects. Despite the occasional lazy, campy shots (anytime the camera is titled) and the undeniably dated (and probably rushed) CG, especially in the Return of the King, the films still look gorgeous.
Will forever be my favorite trilogy if not also some of my favorite movies of all time. No matter how many times I see all three it's like watching again for the first time.
Sometimes I go back and forth on whether I'd like for them to retouch the CGI a bit. There's some spots where it gets -really- bad. The Wargs weren't good even by '02 standards.
JUST THE CGI THOUGH. No "Lucas" stuff around here, please god.
Sometimes I go back and forth on whether I'd like for them to retouch the CGI a bit. There's some spots where it gets -really- bad. The Wargs weren't good even by '02 standards.
JUST THE CGI THOUGH. No "Lucas" stuff around here, please god.
That's interesting. Kind of surprised actually as the first two films don't have as conclusive endings as one would expect. Does he feel the same for The Hobbit films?
That's interesting. Kind of surprised actually as the first two films don't have as conclusive endings as one would expect. Does he feel the same for The Hobbit films?
There's some very similar complaints about the Star Wars prequels and Hobbit films as well.
Poor characterization, excessive CG, etc.
Then there's the better original trilogies.
I also recall PJ declaring his love for Star Wars in a preface he wrote for the Making of the Empire Strikes Back book. I feel like he wanted LOTR to be his own 'Star Wars' in a sense.
Yes similar to Star Wars. It's basically one overarching story. This is especially true with The Lord of the Rings. You can't watch The Two Towers or The Return of the King without seeting the previous entry(ies).
To your point about a lack of conclusive ending and same story being a reason.... Back to the future 2 and 3 filmed at the same time and 2 had a cliffhanger without a conclusion that led directly to 3. Do you thus consider back to the future a duology then?
Having a continuous story doesn't mean they aren't multiple films. I mean even prior to Hobbit Jackson called his LOTR movies a trilogy of films.
They really are a cinematic achievment, regardless of whether you think they adapt the source material faithfully or not. I feel privileged to have grown up watching them, I consider the original Star Wars films incredibly dry in a way these aren't.
Each film has a title card. I consider them three different films. Especially considering each film has a prologue.
FOTR > TTT > ROTK. FOTR is by far the best, but Two Towers did an excellent job with Helm's Deep... to the point where the battles in ROTK were a bit aimless and underwhelming despite the added scale.
Technically it's one film split in three. Only together is the narrative cohesive and complete.
Same as how the novels are really one large novel chopped into three.
Obviously they were released separately but neither film is complete on its own, the first has no ending, the second no beginning and no ending and the third no beginning and lots of endings.
Hence preferring one over the other is more analogous to preferring certain chapters in a book or certain scenes in a film over others in the same work.
The book(s) not originally intended as a trilogy is beside the point--the movies always were as soon as they were given a green light for three films. PJ didn't make one giant movie that was chopped into three by the studio. The scripts were structured around three parts.
The book(s) not originally intended as a trilogy is beside the point--the movies always were as soon as they were given a green light for three films. PJ didn't make one giant movie that was chopped into three by the studio. The scripts were structured around three parts.
Pretty sure though they filmed the entire thing in one go though, didn't they? Obviously it's not feasible to release a 9 hour movie and the scriptwriters would be insane not to consider that. But it's one unified production.
Pretty sure though they filmed the entire thing in one go though, didn't they? Obviously it's not feasible to release a 9 hour movie and the scriptwriters would be insane not to consider that. But it's one unified production.
It was like watching the world's greatest nature documentary, the most moving music video, and greatest film series all together at once. Nothing can match the cinematography, music, and acting combination. Every scene of the many many scenes had an iconic moment, a moment that could have been a movie poster itself. It's a digital painting. It changed everything, including my person expectations for films. It ruined future movies that I was expecting because it just didn't show the same amount of love I did for those properties. A friend of mine mocked the movies as "Just a bunch of sweeping shots of mountains". I think you have to have some kind of heart and artistic spirit to truly appreciate them the way they turned out.
It may not be the same story as Mr. Tolkien, but I would hope even he could appreciate the true love given to these characters by the film makers - I truly believe even Tolkien would have appreciated Into The West.
When you see a movie based on a property, you get those HERO shots. Here is the awesome hero you look up to onscreen, about to do something amazing. But in LOTR, when the heros come onscreen it's more like a reunion with a close friend. Oh god, Aragorn is back, I missed you.
And the crying, these films should come with a lifetime of Kleenex.
Pretty sure though they filmed the entire thing in one go though, didn't they? Obviously it's not feasible to release a 9 hour movie and the scriptwriters would be insane not to consider that. But it's one unified production.
They filmed the bulk of the trilogy in a little over a year and then scheduled an additional six weeks of shoots for each movie over the next few years.
Each film has a beginning and an ending. You can't say that for the Hobbit films. That's why they're three films. I believe this very strongly and I also believe this is one of Peter Jackson's biggest accomplishments with the series, his ability to build a cohesive, stand-alone narrative in the Two Towers.
I just watched all three EE's of Lord of the Rings this Christmas as well after I had a debate with two friends over The Hobbit. I personally feel dead inside watching The Hobbit. Watching The Lord of the Rings EE's brings me back to life again and then some.
Also, the relationship between Legolas and Gimli makes me so happy.
I saw the entire EE trilogy before Christmas and caught FOTR today on the TV (credits still rolling), left it as background noise. I could rewatch these movies infinite times and they're still amazing, the parting of the Fellowship still gets me.
While some CGI in ROTK has aged the trilogy has that certain timeless quality. Something that CG-ridden Hobbit was not able to recapture. Tomorrow I'm seeing BOTFA but well, it's more to get it over with. I'll probably rewatch LOTR trilogy before I take a stab at the Hobbit eh.
Plus, due to production cycle it's probably the best and most even trilogy in movie history. Or at least it's very very up there.
It may not be the same story as Mr. Tolkien, but I would hope even he could appreciate the true love given to these characters by the film makers - I truly believe even Tolkien would have appreciated Into The West.
Well, we have no way of knowing what Tolkien himself would have thought. But I recently read Tom Shippey's essay on the film in The Road to Middle-earth and he appreciates the movies just fine. There's some things he takes issue with, and he does say that the movies entirely gloss over the one central theme of Tolkien's work, but he also notes that most readers gloss over it too so no biggy.
Tom Shippey = the leading scholar on Tolkien, occupied Tolkien's old job as chair of English Language and Medieval English Literature, actually knew the man, etc.
Technically it's one film split in three. Only together is the narrative cohesive and complete.
Same as how the novels are really one large novel chopped into three.
Obviously they were released separately but neither film is complete on its own, the first has no ending, the second no beginning and no ending and the third no beginning and lots of endings.
Hence preferring one over the other is more analogous to preferring certain chapters in a book or certain scenes in a film over others in the same work.
No, they're not. They're three films. The novels are one book released in three parts, yes, but the movie trilogy is not "technically" one film in any form.
Even a decade later you can discover small details like Aragon taking Boromirs bracers after his death.
"I do not know what strength is in my blood, but I swear to you, I will not let the White City fall, nor our people fail."
The scene is a second or two long, so it is easy to miss, but Aragorn wears the bracers in both The Two Towers and The Return of the King. He only takes them off after fullfilling his promise.
Fellowship is probably my favourite film. I don't have a single complaint about it. To me, there's never a "lull" in the film, it just moves from one brilliant scene to the next. From the opening prologue to The Shire and the flight, to Rivendell and the council, then Moria and Durin's Bane, Lothlorien and Amon Hen (which is also fucking amazing). This is without getting into the soundtrack, cinematography, overall design etc.
For me it's perfect, it really is.
I don't get how The Hobbit films could be so different. I mean, check out this couple of minutes of footage of the Amon Hen scene. It feels real and brutal. It looks real and brutal. Then I think of fight/combat scenes from The Hobbit and it just pales so much in every single way.
Technically it's one film split in three. Only together is the narrative cohesive and complete.
Same as how the novels are really one large novel chopped into three.
Obviously they were released separately but neither film is complete on its own, the first has no ending, the second no beginning and no ending and the third no beginning and lots of endings.
Hence preferring one over the other is more analogous to preferring certain chapters in a book or certain scenes in a film over others in the same work.
Even a decade later you can discover small details like Aragon taking Boromirs bracers after his death.
"I do not know what strength is in my blood, but I swear to you, I will not let the White City fall, nor our people fail."
The scene is a second or two long, so it is easy to miss, but Aragorn wears the bracers in both The Two Towers and The Return of the King. He only takes them off after fullfilling his promise.
It's not really fair to call them one movie. When Fellowship was finished (and it's the best of the 3) the other two were in a pretty sad state. Luckily, Fellowship was the success it deserved to be, and they got time/money to go back and finish the other two.
That said... I agree, OP. Though I do think the way Two Towers was plotted out (in the movie VS in the book) was foreshadowing for how badly Jackson was going to botch The Hobbit movies. The vast, vast majority of the brilliance in the original trilogy is just a faithful translation of what Tolkien wrote.
