Lord of the Rings

Absolutely_Cart

I just watched the trilogy (FOTR, TTT and ROTK) for the first time in the past few days. 11 hours in total, I believe. Wow. It was a bit overwhelming but totally fun. I see them as one united whole rather than 3 separate films, likely because I watched them in marathon. But that said, while the combat and swordfighting had its place, I enjoyed the quiet/intimate/natural moments more. FOTR was the love at first sight impression. TTT was the important bridge. ROTK had some of the best moments but also some of the rockiest pacing. It's a CGI-fest but a beautiful and convincing one. I could get into deep discussions about how the film portrays the Shire as a much rosier place than its feudalistic book counterpart, but I'll just stick with "YOU SHALL NOT PASS".

chrisisall

I liked 'em. But I won't watch the extended versions.

Barbel

...while I watch nothing but the extended versions.
If the Bride and I have a free day, we've been known to watch the whole thing (all 3 extended movies) in one go. Planning to do that with "The Hobbit" as well soon, though we haven't got round to that yet.
Totally agree with you, AC, please go on about the book vs film versions of the Shire. One point to start off- note how Sam calls Frodo either "Mr Frodo" or just "Frodo" in the film, while he calls him "Master Frodo" in the book. Does that tie in with your thoughts?

Thunderpussy

Several friends can't believe that I've never seen them !

Barbel

Never seen them? I thought you were IN them!

Thunderpussy

) ) " ZZ Top- Reunion.

welshboy78

I loved them but must admit cannot even get thru the Hobbit for some reason

Absolutely_Cart

Barbel. In the books, Frodo was an upper class hobbit and Samwise was his servant. Peter Jackson revised the relationship to a more mutual one to make it more palatable and relateable to the modern viewer. In the movies the Shire looks so beautiful but if we had seen Tolkein's Shire it would have been kind of revolting.

Barbel

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Barbel. In the books, Frodo was an upper class hobbit and Samwise was his servant. Peter Jackson revised the relationship to a more mutual one to make it more palatable and relateable to the modern viewer.

Yes, that's right. Sam (and his father) worked for Frodo (and his uncle), and wouldn't dream of addressing Bilbo as other than "Mr Baggins" (or perhaps "Mr Bilbo"), while the younger Frodo would be "Master Frodo" and later "Mr Baggins". Jackson sensibly played that down.

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

In the movies the Shire looks so beautiful but if we had seen Tolkein's Shire it would have been kind of revolting

This is the part I'm looking forward to hearing about. Obviously Jackson deliberately over-emphasised the idyllic atmosphere if the Shire and played down the feudalism, at least in part to conform to modern-day sensibilities.

Silhouette Man

Thunderpussy wrote:

Several friends can't believe that I've never seen them !

Me neither.

Absolutely_Cart

Barbel wrote:

Yes, that's right. Sam (and his father) worked for Frodo (and his uncle), and wouldn't dream of addressing Bilbo as other than "Mr Baggins" (or perhaps "Mr Bilbo"), while the younger Frodo would be "Master Frodo" and later "Mr Baggins". Jackson sensibly played that down.

This is the part I'm looking forward to hearing about. Obviously Jackson deliberately over-emphasised the idyllic atmosphere if the Shire and played down the feudalism, at least in part to conform to modern-day sensibilities.

Yeah. It was easier (and, arguably, better) to just leave out the feudalism than let it get in the way of the otherwise non-controversial 11-hour epic. This decision makes the Shire look heavenly. That's part of what enamored it for me and many viewers. Jackson did have to compromise a number of things, such as making the cast much younger than they are in Tolkein's books, but at the end of the day, the movies are probably 80-90% faithful to the source material, and that's good enough for a widely successful picture.

Knowing that Sam comes from a humbler background than Frodo explains a lot, such as why Sam didn't get corrupted by the ring while the more ambitious more entitled Frodo, despite having a reasonable amount of modesty, nearly did. Frodo carried the ring. Sam carried the ring-bearer. The ending emphasized that this was largely Sam's tale overall. It was Sam's journey. Frodo did what he had to do to preserve what he had to preserve, but Sam went from a poor gardener to a homeowner with a family because of his bravery and courage.

Barbel

Tolkien once got a letter from a real Sam Gamgee, who hadn't read LOTR, saying that he had been told he had a namesake in the books and wondering if he was a good guy or a bad guy. JRR sent Mr Gamgee autographed copies of the 3 books and assured him that Sam was the true hero of the story. He said he then worried about getting a letter from a Mr S. Gollum...

Barbel

I'm watching the documentaries on "The Desolation Of Smaug" at the moment, and in one of the behind the scenes segments Peter Jackson draws attention to his large collection of Bond posters. He's clearly a fan from the way he talks here. Don't see him ever directing a Bond film, though.

Julius No M.D.

Barbel wrote:

Don't see him ever directing a Bond film, though.

He was once quoted saying that once the Lord of the Rings films take off, he'll be too famous and his chances of being selected as a Bond director will drop to 0. I would have taken him over Tamahori though.

Barbel

Agreed! I'm not a DAD hater but I do think Jackson would have made an interesting Bond movie (albeit a 9 hours long one! ) )

The Red Kind

I really like the LOTR films, and always feel sentimental for them at this time of year, given their original cinematic release dates. I'm going to try and watch all six over the next month. Likewise Star Wars. (I haven't told the Missus of this plan.. {:)

Number24

I think the LoTR trilogy is really good and I enjoyed watching them. I was never a die hard Tolkien fan like many of my friends, but I have read the novels twice. The Hobbit trilogy is different to me. Too much screentime was squezed out of a short book (yes, I know some of it came out of the appendixes, but still ...) and far too much CGI was used. Obviously a lot of CGI was used in LoTR too, but in the Hobbit movies I often felt like I was watching a computer game instead of playing it.

welshboy78

I have to agree Number 24 - the Hobbit had little appeal to me after watching the first one

The Red Kind

Also agree N24.

The Hobbit trilogy didn't do as much for me as LOTR (possibly because we'd already had three brilliant films in that vein..?) Still pretty epic though. The Battle of the Five Armies was the best for me.