Lord of the Rings

[Nique]

TNT just did a marathon today. Can't believe how old these movies are. Also how hard they are to get through in one sitting and I'm pretty sure these aren't even the extended versions.

Hi-lights

-Gimli is the comic relief
-Orcs are gross
-Nearly everything that happens combat-wise can be translated into WoW or DnD rules.

[Liquid Snake]

TNT just did a marathon today. Can't believe how old these movies are. Also how hard they are to get through in one sitting and I'm pretty sure these aren't even the extended versions.


...

...

...What?!?!?

I mean seriously, Lord of the Rings is the one and only series where, no matter how many times I've watched it, I could pop in the three Extended Editions in a single day, watch them all, and thoroughly enjoy them.

The thought of presuming that 1: these movies are somehow old (Casablanca is old. The Wizard of Oz is old. These are not old) and the thought that 2: these movies are hard to get through are both completely foreign concepts to me. Are you sure your head's on straight?

(I was also actually disappointed at Gimli's severely reduced role in the movies, though I guess by Return of the King I finally accepted it and enjoyed the performance. I just think, especially with John Rhys-Davies as the actor, Gimli could've had so much more depth. I still think LOTR is the best damn movie trilogy ever, though, even considering its flaws, and absolutely nothing is going to come anywhere close anytime soon.)

[synkr0nized]

-Nearly everything that happens combat-wise can be translated into WoW or DnD rules.

...I thought one was supposed to point out how much they both stole from Tolkien.




Also every now and then, when I am on one of my numerous campaigns against sleep, marathoning the extended version DVDs is quite fun.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

To be honest I never liked them that much. Just boring people doing boring things interspersed by some ok fight scenes. Also they long as fuck

[Krylo]

To be honest I never liked them that much. Just boring people doing boring things interspersed by some ok fight scenes.

Only part of the movies worth watching. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry3dFFrnxzY&feature=related)

[Amake]

I assumed that link would go to the scene where the whole army shouts "DEAAAAATH" and scares the crap out of three times that many orcs. If chills were people, I'd be China when I watch that. Every time.

Although I find every part worth watching. Actually I'm going to do that right now. Thanks, thread!

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

To be honest I never liked them that much. Just boring people doing boring things interspersed by some ok fight scenes. Also they long as fuck

You never read the books then I take it? They make the films look like they're on fast forward!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I read the books and they are worse except for Tom Bombadil who is amazingly awesome. Man he could have saved those films.

Edit: Like Tom knows he is in a shitty story and he's like "Fuck that, I'm just going to rock my own shit". Then he just kind of pisses around for 3 chapters just mocking dudes and messing stuff up.

[Nique]

I mean seriously, Lord of the Rings is the one and only series where, no matter how many times I've watched it, I could pop in the three Extended Editions in a single day, watch them all, and thoroughly enjoy them.

I'm not saying I don't enjoy the movies, or that they are ancient. I'm just surprised at how much time has passed since their release.

And also how long they are. I got up to halfway through Return of the King before I called it quits.

The main parts of the film I liked was with the elves becuase they were pretty cool, so the first book/ movie were my favorite. Although the battle of Helm's Deep is also rad.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

See if Tom Bombadil was at Helm's Deep he would have just been like smoking his pipe and maybe playing some marbles and he might get a little miffed that the orcs didn't want to play and then he'd see Legolas doing his stupid shield slide down the stairs and he would have sung a skateboard into existence and powerslided along the castle battlements knocking everyone off. And it would have been awesome.

[Regulus Tera]

I mean seriously, Lord of the Rings is the one and only series where, no matter how many times I've watched it, I could pop in the three Extended Editions in a single day, watch them all, and thoroughly enjoy them.

Yeah but you're, like, crazy.

Seriously they are all fucking long.

[Red Fighter 1073]

To be honest, I'm incredibly surprised that you could get through all three movies, let alone maybe even one of them in just one sitting. I mean, Fellowship and Two Towers were alright but I've actually never even seen all of Return of the King. Granted that I thought it was good movie, but I tried watching it the first time and that damn movie seriously felt it was about to end like 5 different times, but it just never did! I stopped watching after they went on a boat trip and when they came back five minutes later, I was just like fuck it, if this movie doesn't want to stop itself, then I will stop it myself..

[Archbio]

I know that the three films have been made at the same time by the same people, but out of them Fellowship of the Ring still stands out to me as a better film, and especially as a better adaptation (especially the extended version as I remember it.)

Maybe it's just that the first film deals with material the filmmakers were better equipped to render well. For example I thought their Sauron was great in Fellowship, but started becoming off in the two others. It is the same portrayal, I guess, but the appearances in the first chapter are just meant as allusions, who just happen to strike a better note than having a notoriously disembodied villain emote as a giant electric lighthouse.

I felt vindicated in my impression of the portrayal when I learned that Sauron appearing "in the flesh" and fighting almost made it in the final film.

But taking Fellowship by itself as it is Sauron comes off great.

[Azisien]

I can sit through one of them without too much trouble.

Two of them with some rum.

Three of them with rum and attractive women.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

I can sit through one of them without too much trouble.

Two of them with some rum.

Three of them with rum and attractive women.

They don't need to be attractive. You have rum.

[Magus]

"MOVIES IS LONG"

Does it make any sense at all to watch a trilogy that clocks in at like 12 hours without even being the extended versions ON TV WITH COMMERCIALS SO IT'S LIKE 16 HOURS ARE YOU NUTS.

Seriously buy the movies on DVD for 15 bucks and save yourself four hours?

But yeah those movies are awesome. Even Smarty in his inanity has to admit that some of the fight scenes are "okay", which basically means they are the greatest films of all time give or take a Godfather or two.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

But yeah those movies are awesome. Even Smarty in his inanity has to admit that some of the fight scenes are "okay", which basically means they are the greatest films of all time give or take a Godfather or two.

I thought we had decided Heman and the Masters of the Universe was the greatest film of all time.

[Geminex]

Maybe you did. I still maintain that Space Jam blows it out of the water.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

What? That's just being dumb.

[Geminex]

I'm sorry? Did your movie get a favorable review from Roger Ebert? (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19961115/REVIEWS/611150305)
No?
Well then how about we play a rousing game of shut up. Only I'm not playing. You are. And the game never ends, ever.

Edit: On topic, one thing I think the movies did way better than the books was the portrayal of Gollum's schizophrenia, the warring of two personalities. And I think Bombadil really wouldn't have improved the movies much. I mean, like Smarty said, he'd have sat around, smoking, being all bohemian. Extended the movie, certainly, with no real point.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm sorry? Did your movie get a favorable review from Roger Ebert? (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19961115/REVIEWS/611150305)
As far as I can tell Ebert didn't review the cinematical maserpiece of Heman and the Masters of the Universe because he spends him time watching drock like Space Jam. Also Roger Ebert is crazy shits and the best movie ever would probably piss him off.


Edit: On topic, one thing I think the movies did way better than the books was the portrayal of Gollum's schizophrenia, the warring of two personalities.
That was totally stupid and without the slightest hint of subtlety. It was like one of those early Jekyll and Hyde films , there was just this complete switch from one personaliy to the next- they even looked different, the baddy looked like a baddy, the goody looked like a goody. You could have done i with one character rather than effectively two.
And I think Bombadil really wouldn't have improved the movies much. I mean, like Smarty said, he'd have sat around, smoking, being all bohemian. Extended the movie, certainly, with no real point.
The point is that he is more interesting than the rest of the plot and the other characters. Like you could have just cut the whole Sauron bit out and it would have been heaps better.

Like if I'm telling a story about underdogs out to stop the big baddy you need the underdogs to be relatable otherwise everyone is just going to cheer the villain. And the only relatable character in the trilogy is Tom Bombadil because he's the characer who acts like he is in a book, who shows modern sensibilities, who is aware of whas going on and isn't a walking cliche. He's the only one who calls out the stupid shit that is going on around him.
He is also radically free and completely empowered in a way that all good Randians should love.

[Geminex]

That was totally stupid and without the slightest hint of subtlety. It was like one of those early Jekyll and Hyde films , there was just this complete switch from one personaliy to the next- they even looked different, the baddy looked like a baddy, the goody looked like a goody. You could have done i with one character rather than effectively two.
The differences in appearance weren't that obvious, I felt. And yes, it was cliched, but cliches are cliches for a reason. They've tended to work before, generally work fairly well. And here it was applied in a way that made it work again, I think. In the text you have a lot more to go on, regarding Gollum. You can actually see what goes on inside him, it's a lot easier to empathize and understand his struggle. Not so in the movies, cause all you have is a visual medium. The whole Jekyll-Hide thing made up for that.

Like you could have just cut the whole Sauron bit out and it would have been heaps better.
Huh. Removing the main villain? The threat that Sauron posed was pretty much the entire motivation for the Fellowship's journey, and Sauron's influence was the driving force of most of the movie's conflict. Removing him would change the Fellowship's journey from an Epic Quest to a Very Retarded Picnic.

And wouldn't it be easier to make the underdogs relatable, rather than add a character who, however awesome, doesn't really have any meaning to the plot? I'd say, yes, it would. Particularly since, I felt, the central protagonists, being Gandalf, Frodo and Sam, Gollum, probably Aragorn, weren't that bad. I mean, yes, they seemed shallow. But come on, this is an epic. It's about the quest, the battles, the events taking place, unique, world-changing events. Even if the world we're talking about exists only in the realms of human imagination.

Though I'd lend credence to the hypothesis that "Every audiovisual work of art must feature at least one character who is perpetually high".

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The differences in appearance weren't that obvious, I felt. And yes, it was cliched, but cliches are cliches for a reason. They've tended to work before, generally work fairly well. And here it was applied in a way that made it work again, I think. In the text you have a lot more to go on, regarding Gollum. You can actually see what goes on inside him, it's a lot easier to empathize and understand his struggle. Not so in the movies, cause all you have is a visual medium. The whole Jekyll-Hide thing made up for that.

This argument works if you have a silent movie. Otherwise no. You could easily portray different personalities by acting, by voice,by mannerism. And yes they did that but with no subtlety. The two characters were caricatures who didn't have anything in common except looking the same.

Huh. Removing the main villain? The threat that Sauron posed was pretty much the entire motivation for the Fellowship's journey, and Sauron's influence was the driving force of most of the movie's conflict. Removing him would change the Fellowship's journey from an Epic Quest to a Very Retarded Picnic.
Sauron did fuck all though. You could remove Sauron from the movie and basically nothing would change. Just say the ring is evil and must be destroyed in Mount Doom, there are lots of monsters in the way that you have to get past- it's the same movie.
And that is one of my biggest problems- Sauron is as much a villain as the tornado in the wizard of oz.

And wouldn't it be easier to make the underdogs relatable, rather than add a character who, however awesome, doesn't really have any meaning to the plot? I'd say, yes, it would. Particularly since, I felt, the central protagonists, being Gandalf, Frodo and Sam, Gollum, probably Aragorn, weren't that bad. I mean, yes, they seemed shallow. But come on, this is an epic. It's about the quest, the battles, the events taking place, unique, world-changing events. Even if the world we're talking about exists only in the realms of human imagination.

This is possibly a valid point and that the movie is placed well within its genre and I just can't stand that genre.

[Archbio]

Roger Ebert was confused by the villainous plot in Season of the Witch.

Just in case anybody was unclear on that.

This is possibly a valid point and that the movie is placed well within its genre and I just can't stand that genre.

I was going to say that this makes the details of how exactly you can't stand this particular work of Fantasy moot, but actually you could transpose "removing Sauron would make it better because there's still monsters" and "Tom Bombadil is great because he's relatable because he knows he's in a story" thing to any other genre and it would still be bizarre.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Sauron did fuck all though. You could remove Sauron from the movie and basically nothing would change. Just say the ring is evil and must be destroyed in Mount Doom, there are lots of monsters in the way that you have to get past- it's the same movie.
And that is one of my biggest problems- Sauron is as much a villain as the tornado in the wizard of oz.


You can call it Sauron or whatever but the story needed a centralized Villain, and one that is somehow capable of manipulating people far far away from his power base without ever leaving.

One of the best things the books do is place around the story a world that is in motion with or without the characters. And most of Sauron's focus was on elements of the story that had nothing to do with the fellowship until they stumbled into it.

Without Sauron there is no weakening of the Human nations, no invasion of Minas Tirith, no Uru-kai. And if as you say,the story had placed a large collection of random evil entities in the way of the fellowships progress, why would they send just the fellowship?

Without Sauron leading the forces of evil, Gondor and Rohan would have been the powers they are meant to be. Both could have marched even greater armies than they had in the story right up to Mordor, smashed through everything and escorted Frodo through the ash covered fields in a goddamn carriage.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Just make the humans weaker as a race- problem solved. Or you know they are having a war for any other of the millions war breaks out between people.
As for the sending a fellowship you can use the exact same reason they gave in the movie- if you tell any of the real powerful people they will get seduced by the ring and be a new dark lord. That and marching an army across the whole world is not practical/will start new wars.
And there can totally be Uruk-Hai by saying "Hey look, there's some Uruk Hai".
I understand that Lord of Rings is a massive world with a huge history but that doesn't really impact on this movie.
The only thing that Sauron really does in the films is attack Gondor which doesn't impact on the actual ring bearers at all.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

I understand that Lord of Rings is a massive world with a huge history but that doesn't really impact on this movie.
The only thing that Sauron really does in the films is attack Gondor which doesn't impact on the actual ring bearers at all.


Yes it does!
See, if you're going to make a Lord of the Rings movie, you may as well at the least acknowledge that the rest of the world that was described as existing, existed.
Particularly by making sure that The lord of the Rings actually shows up in some way shape or form.

I can see what you're saying, but if you try to take all of this stuff out, you just don't have Lord of the Rings anymore.


Not to mention that the entire climax is based around the idea that if Minis Tirith had been lost, Frodo would have needed to get through that whole army of Orcs n' whatnot without alerting Sauron who at the time had nothing better to do than scan back and forth over his troops like he was looking for Waldo.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Here's the thig, you can make a little paen to your fantasy world and you can spend ages on every characters costume, even extras, making sure they have the right symbols and stuff as they did, but at the end of the day you still have to make an interestig film which they didn't. If your're massively invested in Tolkein then you can appreciate it but for the general audience it means nothing.

[DFM]

You never read the books then I take it? They make the films look like they're on fast forward!

I think I was actually able to read them up to like halfway into Return of the King and then I was all "Hey look something less boring it's a rock."

[Geminex]

Here's the thig, you can make a little paen to your fantasy world and you can spend ages on every characters costume, even extras, making sure they have the right symbols and stuff as they did, but at the end of the day you still have to make an interestig film which they didn't. If your're massively invested in Tolkein then you can appreciate it but for the general audience it means nothing.
Yes, it does. But that's because the details and shit are just that- details. They really don't have any bearing on the actual movie. You're right, that shit is unnecessary.
Whereas Sauron is decidedly not. The plot revolves around him, and, even if he doesn't get very much screen-time, the mere existence of the character has a pretty massive impact on the movie. Remove him and the story gets one hell of a lot less elegant, since it's less "epic quest" and more "Retarded Picnic with lots of orcs". So I think he is important.

then I was all "Hey look something less boring it's a rock."
OMG tell me more. Was it really a rock? Was it?

[DFM]

It had green flecks in it I keep it in my desk drawer now to protect me from superman.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Whereas Sauron is decidedly not. The plot revolves around him, and, even if he doesn't get very much screen-time, the mere existence of the character has a pretty massive impact on the movie. Remove him and the story gets one hell of a lot less elegant, since it's less "epic quest" and more "Retarded Picnic with lots of orcs". So I think he is important.
I don't see why. Replace "evil ring created by Sauron" with "evil ring" and Mordor with "land of monsters", the story is going to play out the same. Sauron is just a name they drop so they can be like "ohhhh bad things are happening".
Or even if you don't like that Sauron could be replaced by any generic bad guy. He has no traits that impact on the story in meaningful ways- he just a vague evil who is bad somewhere.
Compare Sauron to Saruman- Saruman has a character, Saruman does shit, Saruman impacts on the story.

Sauron's not really the main villain either. The main villain is pretty much mountains.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Here's the thig, you can make a little paen to your fantasy world and you can spend ages on every characters costume, even extras, making sure they have the right symbols and stuff as they did, but at the end of the day you still have to make an interestig film which they didn't. If your're massively invested in Tolkein then you can appreciate it but for the general audience it means nothing.

I think there's a wild majority of people that watched the films seem to disagree with you there Smarty.



I don't see why. Replace "evil ring created by Sauron" with "evil ring" and Mordor with "land of monsters", the story is going to play out the same. Sauron is just a name they drop so they can be like "ohhhh bad things are happening".
Or even if you don't like that Sauron could be replaced by any generic bad guy. He has no traits that impact on the story in meaningful ways- he just a vague evil who is bad somewhere.
Compare Sauron to Saruman- Saruman has a character, Saruman does shit, Saruman impacts on the story.

Sauron's not really the main villain either. The main villain is pretty much mountains.


For a guy that's for all intents and purposes dead at the start of the films I'd say he's done pretty well for himself.
Sauron himself can't do much because he's an eyeball at the top of a tower, but every single orc you see from the Two Towers onward is his doing.
Fall of Osgiliathe, the invasion of Minis Tirith, the battle at the black gate, the corruption of men and EVERY FUCKING THING ELSE IN THE STORY is Sauron. Fuck, even Saruman is a pawn of Sauron.

If you take all of that out then you truly are left with a boring movie. The side plots, battles, and a world you don't need to read deep into to enjoy were key to the successes of the films.
If you disagree that's fine, but it's rather obvious by the acclaim the films received that they did something right with them.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

There's also a wild majority of people who like Transformers 2 or Epic movie. Don't make them good movies.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

There's also a wild majority of people who like Transformers 2 or Epic movie. Don't make them good movies.

Yes. It does; in other peoples opinions.

They're entertainment films, if they entertain people then there's nothing wrong with that.

You might not like them, but that doesn't make them objectively bad movies.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

By making that argument, however, you render the ability to critique films void. The best of film of all time by this reckoning is Gone with the Wind.
We can cancel all film studies classes, we can fire all critics, we can now judge films by their box-office receipts only. I could make an intentionally awful film but if I put stars on the billboard, have a big advertising budget and give it the name of something already popular I guaranee I'll make a massive profit.
You can make flims that are both popular and innovative but if you make a film hat is popular and derivative, lazily written and not providing anything new, then its a crap movie.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

By making that argument, however, you render the ability to critique films void. The best of film of all time by this reckoning is Gone with the Wind.
We can cancel all film studies classes, we can fire all critics, we can now judge films by their box-office receipts only. I could make an intentionally awful film but if I put stars on the billboard, have a big advertising budget and give it the name of something already popular I guaranee I'll make a massive profit.
You can make flims that are both popular and innovative but if you make a film hat is popular and derivative, lazily written and not providing anything new, then its a crap movie.

Right but for all other bounds of logic and understanding the Lord of the Rings is pretty damn alright at least. But you think it's boring, therefore it's a bad film.

Maybe you're trying to state your opinions here and I'm just reading it wrong, but it really sounds like you're trying to convince me that it's objectively a bad film which doesn't seem to be the case by any reasoning other than your own.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm saying it's a bad film becaues the script is awfull dragged out for no real reason, the "villain" doesn't exist, the dialogue is hammy and the characters are 2D walking cliches who don't change or achieve anything over 9 odd hours of film. You watch the first 10 minutes, you watch the last 10 minutes of film and you've seen all that happens.
The film is just a massive block of padding.

I've said all this mulotiple times and nobody has said anything related to why Lord of the Rings is any good except the action scenes which are passable bu would need to be excellent to rescue this script.
The effects are pretty good as well but they aren't being used to create anything interesting so it doesn't help.

[Geminex]

If you take all of that out then you truly are left with a boring movie. The side plots, battles, and a world you don't need to read deep into to enjoy were key to the successes of the films.
Well, Smarty's not entirely wrong. If you can justify all the other shit that happens, then Sauron isn't strictly necessary, because, like you said, he's more of a driving force. If you can replace him, he indeed may not be absolutely vital.

Though Smarty, I'm saying that it's quite difficult to elegantly replace Sauron. You'd need to restructure the story, and find reasons for all the evil guys to do all the evil shit they do already. Even if you could do that believably (for the value of "believably" that applies in a universe where small men with big hairy feet smoking weed all day is perfectly normal), I very much doubt that you could do it concisely as well. In the interest of keeping the movie short, and the story at least mildly believable I'm saying Sauron is necessary.

You might not like them, but that doesn't make them objectively bad movies.
WELL THEN, I'LL BE OVER HERE WATCHING SPACE JAM. AND THAT HE-MAN MOVIE. OH YEAH AND I GOT THIS NEW ONE CALLED "STAR WARS CHRISTMAS SPECIAL" AND ITS SO FUCKING RAD. MAN, THE ENDING JUST MADE ME TEAR UP AND CHEWBACCA'S FAMILY IS SO RELATABLE.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

I'm saying it's a bad film becaues the script is awfull dragged out for no real reason, the "villain" doesn't exist, the dialogue is hammy and the characters are 2D walking cliches who don't change or achieve anything over 9 odd hours of film. You watch the first 10 minutes, you watch the last 10 minutes of film and you've seen all that happens.
The film is just a massive block of padding.

I've said all this mulotiple times and nobody has said anything related to why Lord of the Rings is any good except the action scenes which are passable bu would need to be excellent to rescue this script.
The effects are pretty good as well but they aren't being used to create anything interesting so it doesn't help.


And I'm saying that the script is fine, the villains actions are there and have consequences for the cast, you just have to actually look for them. The characters seem like cliches because they invented the cliche. And they don't change much because they're presented as completed individuals.

They're not a group of teenagers or an amnesiac protagonist building his personality as they go along, they're people who've lived full lives that are out on what we can assume is yet another adventure for them. Why would they need to go through some massive personal revelation or fundamental change in personality? They start out as who they are, they finish as who they are.
At that, note change much. They themselves don't change personalities much because they shouldn't. But their opinions of each other, their interactions with each other and how they present themselves does.

Gimli starts the story hating on Elves, he ends it still maintaining that he does, but he's still fully willing to admit Legolas is his friend.
It's. Subtle.



WELL THEN, I'LL BE OVER HERE WATCHING SPACE JAM. AND THAT HE-MAN MOVIE. OH YEAH AND I GOT THIS NEW ONE CALLED "STAR WARS CHRISTMAS SPECIAL" AND ITS SO FUCKING RAD. MAN, THE ENDING JUST MADE ME TEAR UP AND CHEWBACCA'S FAMILY IS SO RELATABLE.

I didn't mean to imply you can't make an objectively bad film, just that your personal opinion on it is a poor basis for calling it as such. Especially when presented with a large group of people that disagree.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

You seem to be forgeting that LotRs started as a book. Which was a sequel to another book (wherin, incidentally, Sauron was working behind the scenes and kept Gandalf busy so he wasn't around to save the day every 5 minutes, which would have led to a more boring book right there), as well as all of the stuff in the Silmarillion which was being dreamt up at the same time in which Sauron plays a big part as second in command to the first evil lord of earth and was directly responsible for leading most of his armies into battle.

He also later took over Melkors role, corrupted men and Dwarves, nearly fucked over the Elves, destroyed the greatest race of humans ever and indirectly caused the world to become round!

So actually, when you consider the massively complex and detailed backstory for the whole universe, Sauron is pretty fucking important and his role in LotR makes perfect sense and wouldn't make sense if he suddenly wasn't there.