Lord of the Rings - Which was Really the Best?

[Chinney]

O.K. now it’s official – The Return of the King is the best movie in the LOTR film trilogy, as it, and not the others, won the Oscar.

Or is it the best? Everyone knows that Oscar often goofs in picking the best film and, in any case, the award to The Return of the King was really a joint award to all three films. Lots of people thought that The Fellowship of the Ring or The Two Towers could also have won in their years, but the Academy wanted to wait until the last one before bestowing its favours.

What do you think? Which LOTR film was the best of the three and really deserved the Oscar?

[CosmoNut]

They're all equally good in my eyes...since I haven't seen any of them.

[BRussell]

I loved Return but the ending came pretty close to ruining it for me. I think my favorite will always be Fellowship, though because that's when you realize what an incredible world Jackson created.

[torifile]

Originally posted by Chinney
O.K. now it’s official – The Return of the King is the best movie in the LOTR film trilogy, as it, and not the others, won the Oscar.


I didn't realize they were all nominated in the same year. :err:

The Oscar is given to the best of the among a particular group. If they were all released in the same year, you'd have a point.

[agent302]

In my personal opinion, I liked the book ROTK the best, but the film Fellowship the best. I think I need to see ROTK again, because I've only seen it once, it for some reason it didn't do it for me like the first two did.

[Ganondorf]

Gonna have to go with 'King, cause obviously the climax is inherently the best part of a story but in terms of quality, they were all pretty equal. I mean it was essentially one movie broken into three parts.

[Kickaha]

As far as I'm concerned, none of the theatrical releases were nearly as good as the extended versions. They gave the little pieces of backstory and 'flow' that made them just that much better.

So I'll abstain until the extended versions are placed in the poll. ;)

[agent302]

Kickaha, I have to agree on Two Towers, but not for Fellowship. The Fellowship extended version just felt too long to me, the pacing was all off. The added Lothlorien bits were excellent, I'll admit, but a lot of the earlier stuff made me almost fall asleep.

The Two Towers extended, however, was excellent.

I pray that the extended version of ROTK has Gandalf breaking Saruman's staff at the beginning. That would kick-ass.

[Chinney]

Originally posted by torifile
I didn't realize they were all nominated in the same year. :err:

The Oscar is given to the best of the among a particular group. If they were all released in the same year, you'd have a point.

I think that you misunderstood my first post - you took the first paragraph of my post out of context. Read the next paragraph. I agree with what you are saying, that's why I posed the question in the poll!

[Chinney]

Originally posted by Kickaha
As far as I'm concerned, none of the theatrical releases were nearly as good as the extended versions. They gave the little pieces of backstory and 'flow' that made them just that much better.



I agree that the extended versions of the first two are better - and I am eagerly awaiting the third. That being said, the extended versions have a major flaw - I am watching them on my television, not in the theatre. The battle scene in The Two Towers, for example, loses a fair bit of its impact on the small screen.

In any case, as we can't compare all three extended versions yet, I should clarify that my poll asks the question as between the standard theatrical release of each of the three movies.

[Kickaha]

Step 1: Get a projector

Step 2: Find a large blank wall

Step 3: Make profit

[agent302]

Originally posted by Kickaha
Step 1: Get a projector

Step 2: Find a large blank wall

Step 3: Make profit Alternatively, lie on bed, place Powerbook on stomach, and appreciate it filling your field of vision. Seems to work well for me.

[Chinney]

It's just not the same thing: theatre is still better.

[Concord]

For me, the Fellowship of the Ring still just edges out Return of the King as my favorite. RotK had a few moments that detracted a little from the movie overall. Legolas doing his Fred Flinstone thing, the very fake looking signal fires, the multiple endings, golum falling into the lava looking a little "fakish"... especially in light of how ominous they made Mount Doom feel in the movie.

Cheers,

C.

[Whisper]

Originally posted by Kickaha
As far as I'm concerned, none of the theatrical releases were nearly as good as the extended versions. They gave the little pieces of backstory and 'flow' that made them just that much better.

So I'll abstain until the extended versions are placed in the poll. ;) Same here.

[Daver]

Originally posted by Whisper
Same here.

Ditto.

As far as the theatrical releases are concerned, I'd say FOTR was my favourite by far. It was the most magical viewing experience of the three for me; we had no idea just how good these movies would turn out to be. Of the three films, FOTR most resembled a revelatory journey.

[dviant]

They were all great films in one way or another, but I think the first one seems to provoke a bit more feeling for me. Remember the first time you saw Boromir's final stand in the theatre? Damn that was a good scene.

At the end of Fellowship I was ready for part two then and there. I was all "YEAH LETS GO HUNT SOME ORC!! Oh wait... the movie is over. Shit."

And yeah ExtendedVersions++

[Moogs]

I think overall the first was the best, since it did not rely on special effects to the same extent the third did. Also, had the first been mediocre or only "pretty good", I don't think the other two would've had nearly as much success. Everything hinged upon the impact of the first movie, and that impact was huge. Everyone wondered whether they could pull it off and the first film was the litmus test. Everything was well-told, visually convincing and generally faithful to the original storyline (other than the omission of Tom B.).

But all three were excellent IMO. I think they won 11 oscars last night because the Academy did not want to appear biased by giving lots of awards to each film. They sort of waited until the end and then were very generous. I see these 11 awards going to all three of the films in a way, other than the Best Picture category which the second probably should not have qualified for even if it did in reality (don't recall, just making a point).

[BRussell]

BTW, they'll announce plans for the DVDs on March 8.

[dviant]

When are they going to announce plans for the 10-part HBO Mini-Series "The Hobbit" ?

(well a guy can hope right?)

[Moogs]

Originally posted by BRussell
BTW, they'll announce plans for the DVDs on March 8.

I believe they are due on May 25th of this year. A little hobbit told me.

;)

[kelib]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
They're all equally good in my eyes...since I haven't seen any of them. :D Same here, I fell asleep watching the first one and didn't bother trying to watch the latter two. But I'm happy Sean Penn got an Oscar

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Moogs
I believe they are due on May 25th of this year. A little hobbit told me.

;) Both of them? The extended, too? I'm looking forward to some of the new scenes. And I hope the ending gets longer. :mad:

I suppose their goals are different this year - in the past, they were trying to build momentum for the next movie. This time, they're trying to build off the momentum of the Oscars.

[Concord]

Both of them? The extended, too?
No, the extended version of RotK is in November but they are adding in a whole extra hour of footage.

Cheers,

C.

[HOM]

They were all decent until the ending of the last one. The entire theater burst out laughing when Froho belted out the "Gaaaaaaaandolf" at the end. I didn't think it was possible for an ending to ruin a movie more than AI, then I saw RoTK.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I've voted for the Fellowship of the Ring because it was my introduction to the Lord of the Rings (I didn't actually expect to like it as much as I did but I absolutely loved it) and because of Aragorn, the terrifying Dark Riders, Boromir's Last Stand and because it was absolutely brilliant. That ride down the river. Cate Blanchet. The struggle over the mountain.

And because it is mercifully free of snogging Hobbits (wankers.)

However. The Two Towers begins with Gandalf fighting the big dragon thingie, the Balrog (that's it), introduces Gollum (heartbreaking), and has the return of Gandalf the White who KICKS ARSE. And it has the Elves turning up at Helms Deep to kick their own version of arse.

Shit.

I should have voted for The Two Towers. It's the best one.

[Matsu]

AI ruined AI: Blade Runner meets Martha Stuart, with all the suburban plu-moral sighing that implies. Robot equals simulation of being, equals irrelevant. Simulation of soul equals soul, equals human replacement, equals danger. Either way, the only redeeming character of the whole affair was the carnival operator. This was not Pinocchio for the 21st century, rather something more insidious. I recal wanting to see Haley Joe's head split open with an axe within about 5 minutes of his appearance on screen. I'm loathe to apply morality to any story, but you have to earn my suspension of disbelief. AI was garbage, too busy congratulating itself for its own empathic superiority to realize the narcistic fantasy it presents, its dangers, or its allure.

It's the first film I could really say is amoral.

[Moogs]

Originally posted by Concord
No, the extended version of RotK is in November but they are adding in a whole extra hour of footage.


I was about to post that I am not sure about the extended edition, but that the two standard and wide-screen editions are for May 25 AFAIK. An extra *hour*? Sweeeeet! This can only mean good things....

[Zarathustra]

What! No 'they all suck and I'm sick of them' option? call this a poll :no:

[Moogs]

Relax, have a taco....

[Moogs]

To follow up, both the Full Screen and Wide Screen Editions of the RotK DVDs are listed on Amazon now... available May 25th, as reported by this LotR junky earlier this year.

No sign of the Extended Edition so Concord appears to have it right; it probably won't be released until the Fall. So that begs teh question: what are we looking forward to more, OS 10.4 or the Extended Edition of RotK.

I vote the latter.

:D

[hardhead]

Why didn't Gandolf, Gimli, Legolas, Aragorn and the giant eagles do all the fighting? Hell, they can't be killed...:lol:

[Timo]

Fellowship lays out the playing field nicely, and has the fewest missteps. Importantly, we get to know Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf and company as characters. ROTK, on the other hand, just moves from plot point to CGI moment and back again.

[Chinney]

In the books there were plenty of songs. Why was there no singing in the films? I can only recall a very short little ditty on eating fish, by Gollum...er and maybe some hobbits sang a bit in the Shire, I'm not sure.

I wonder if they ever will release a special extended musical version. I want to see those elves get down and boogie. I want to see Viggo and Cate do a duet. If they ever do, I may have to revise my vote.

[Moogs]

I noticed that too as I read the books. There were limericks and songs all over the place, but other than some Elven goodness and a few drunken hobits there were hardly any songs in the movie. Not that I mind really, I just noticed is all.

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by Moogs
I noticed that too as I read the books. There were limericks and songs all over the place, but other than some Elven goodness and a few drunken hobits there were hardly any songs in the movie. Not that I mind really, I just noticed is all.

I'll bet jackson was torn over this, because on the one hand, tolkien loved his limericks and his songs and his poems, he loved language and any expression of it, to him they were just as pivotal to the world as the races that lived there. And in that respect, they should have been included, however, no one in the mainstream audience would care for them, often times when I talk to people about the movies(unwashed people that never read the books) they express disinterest to the limited singing that was included.

ah well, I don't really mind either way, I often skipped over the poems when I was to engrossed in the story to take that time to read them. :\

[nwhysee]

The one with the lightsabers ;)

[Fangorn]

Well, I voted for Two Towers because I was thinking of the real movie, ie, the extended version. Does that count? If the extended version of RotK has as much extended footage as I'm hearing (another full hour), then it will be the best by far.

I love all three. I really can't wait for the extended RotK. I'm going to watch them all back to back--spend 10 hours or so in Middle Earth. Guess I better start lining up a baby sitter now. :)

[Fangorn]

Originally posted by agent302
In my personal opinion, I liked the book ROTK the best, but the film Fellowship the best. I think I need to see ROTK again, because I've only seen it once, it for some reason it didn't do it for me like the first two did.

RotK has some of the hardest parts to get through if you ask me. I mean, the part where Frodo and Sam are going across Mordor it just seems to drag on forever (which I'm sure was the intent). They're thirsty, they're tired, and on and on it goes.

And the ending still leaves me wanting more. So I grab the Fellowship and start over.;)

[Moogs]

Originally posted by Fangorn
I love all three. I really can't wait for the extended RotK. I'm going to watch them all back to back--spend 10 hours or so in Middle Earth. Guess I better start lining up a baby sitter now. :)

Indeed! I eagerly await my first Middle Earth marathon weekend. Going to wait for a crappy, rainy Saturday in November (or some such), and just immerse myself for an entire day. At first I disliked the sort of disjointed feel of the multi-disc movies, but then if you drink any pop or chow down during a 10 hour movie fest, short breaks may be welcome.

;)

[dmz]

They were all crap---except maybe for parts of the first and second movies.

The transgressions of Faramir's treatment are COMPLETELY unforgivable.

Period.

.....Even worse than Aragorn going over a cliff---hell, I expected B.A., Hannibal, and Howlin' Wolf Murdock to show up with Crockett and Tubbs to finish the scene.

All three movies were dominated by SPECTACLE, and cannot be considered true drama. What the hell is some no-name gross-out-film director doing handling this kind of material?

Typical cheap pop crap.

These stories have yet to be done properly.

[Chinney]

Originally posted by Fangorn
RotK has some of the hardest parts to get through if you ask me. I mean, the part where Frodo and Sam are going across Mordor it just seems to drag on forever (which I'm sure was the intent). They're thirsty, they're tired, and on and on it goes.



The last, long, slow march of Sam and Frodo across the Mordor is a reflection of something that, I think, was very important to Tolkien in the last book. Indeed, the movie version de-emphasizes somewhat Tolkien's portrayal of Frodo's suffering and decline, and the ultimate effect of the power of the Ring. Also, as a result, the movie does not show the full extent of Sam's heroism.

I agree that this part of the story is hard to get through -in both the book and, to some extent, in the film - but it is absolutely key to the story.

[Chinney]

Originally posted by dmz
They were all crap---except maybe for parts of the first and second movies.

The transgressions of Faramir's treatment are COMPLETELY unforgivable.

Period.

.....Even worse than Aragorn going over a cliff---hell, I expected B.A., Hannibal, and Howlin' Wolf Murdock to show up with Crockett and Tubbs to finish the scene.

All three movies were dominated by SPECTACLE, and cannot be considered true drama. What the hell is some no-name gross-out-film director doing handling this kind of material?

Typical cheap pop crap.

These stories have yet to be done properly.

That’s a bit harsh. I have been a fan of the books for many years (like many, I’ve read them multiple times). I agree that there was a lot of spectacle in the films and that they did not capture the full flavour of the books. Especially, Tolkien’s full mythological vision for Middle Earth – the understory, which, in the books, is at least as important as the particular story of the struggle against Sauron and the destruction of the Ring - is not captured.

The movies, however, would have had to have been a lot longer and a lot slower in order to capture the books fully. Realistically, there are limits to what you can do with films in the commercial genre. Within these limits, the movie trilogy did very well. Keep in mind that there was a lot of spectacle in the books themselves. And the movie did directly capture some of the understory, and did a good job of suggesting that there was more even when it did not have time to delve fully into it.

Bottom-line, within the limits of commercial movie-making, I thought the film trilogy was great.

[Chinney]

sorry - double post

[johnq]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
.....often times when I talk to people about the movies(unwashed people that never read the books)....

Those people made it difficult to enjoy the last 2 movies. We were well into it being a social phenomenon, rather than the hardcore Tolkien geek fest it was in the first movie [wipes tear from eye in nostalgia] so every insipid office worker and their co-worker were loudly whispering what's going on, what did that elf/troll/whatever say?

Hilarity ensued during the "The Eagles are coming!!" part, most of the audience having zero idea what the hell was going on! :D People actually turned to eachother like WTF??? Giant eagles???

:) Ah well...nothing snuggling up to a continuous showing of all 3 sets of extended DVDs in the confort of my own home can't cure :D

[Moogs]

dmz: valium... get some before its too late.

You know, some people just do not understand that a motion picture is bound to different parameters than a book. Of course Jackson did not create a trilogy that exactly mirrors Tolkien's books... did you expect otherwise?

First constraint: the vast majority of movie-goers on this planet cannot sit still for even three hours. To make a movie that exceeds three hours can often be cinematic suicide. Jackson would've been forced to do this, had he told everything the same (sequence for sequence the same as the book). There's risk and then there's stupidity. Making these movies four hours each at the cinema would've been stupid from a variety of perspectives. There's no other word for it.

Second constraint: so, being forced to pick and choose certain scenes to exclude (to keep the running time manageable), Jackson has to find clever or interesting ways of bridging the gaps in order to maintain continuity in the storyline. If you think you can do better, sign up for duty and report back with your first production. We'll be sure to rate your film with the same ultra-critical eye you use for Jackson. Personally the cliff scene didn't bother me, though I agree it might've been more realistic to render the distance to the river a bit less.

Third constraint: actors still have personalities, even though they play other people in a film. Jackson has to somehow meld the character in question with the personality in question. While I agree Faramir seemed less "himself" in the movie than in the book, it was not completely inconsistent as you claim. Sure, we don't see him bonding with Frodo and sending him off to Minas Morgul with new provisions or the like... but we do see his better side when leaving Minas Tirith at his father's behest (which he knew was to be a slaughter).

It's called making compromises. If you think it's easy to make 2.5 to 3 hour epic theatre productions (and then 3.5 to 4 hour extended productions), have at it. But until I see your brilliant work, Jackon's will remain the best I've ever seen in the "deep fiction" category.

[msantti]

It's just not the same thing: theatre is still better.



Well, perhaps.

But I invested in a HT rig about 9 months ago and I have only been to 1 movie since.

I had a cheapo rig before that and even then, my movie going dropped significantly.

After paying for the movie and buying all the popcorn and soda crap, I just feel owning the movie to be the better investment.

Hell, I got around 360 movies on DVD now. :D

(and not one is pirated)

[Chinney]

Originally posted by msantti
Well, perhaps.

But I invested in a HT rig about 9 months ago and I have only been to 1 movie since.

I had a cheapo rig before that and even then, my movie going dropped significantly.

After paying for the movie and buying all the popcorn and soda crap, I just feel owning the movie to be the better investment.

Hell, I got around 360 movies on DVD now. :D

(and not one is pirated)

Well, maybe I have to experience one of the really good new home systems. Even if home theatre systems are starting to rival theatres - on which I'll reserve my judgment - I am not sure that I will ever buy an HT, as it is not a personal priority and there is so much else on which I could spend my money.

For example, a brand new G5 would be nice. I don't need one, but I want one. ;)

[Chinney]

damn - another double post - gotta slow down

[johnq]

DMZ,

Curious, have you an example where the movie was sufficiently faithful to the book - at least in your opinion?

(I'm not arguing that faithfulness is even required or desired in movie adaptations)

It is largely impossible anyway of course, since a reader invents and paints pictures beyond what is printed, that no one, not even the reader, could ever really accurately depict.

[dmz]

I'm not repenting!!!

Off with Jackson's head!! Quick---before he does something unsavory to The Hobbit!!!




Just kidding. Sort of.

I guess I'm being too harsh, but the Cliff bit was WAY over the top---as well as Faramir's evil twin being put on screen. I don't really blame Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh---it was probably something the marketing people at Newline made them do.

As for books-to-movies, it can't be done realistically. At least not without about 16 hours of voiceovers.

[Fangorn]

Originally posted by Chinney
The last, long, slow march of Sam and Frodo across the Mordor is a reflection of something that, I think, was very important to Tolkien in the last book. Indeed, the movie version de-emphasizes somewhat Tolkien's portrayal of Frodo's suffering and decline, and the ultimate effect of the power of the Ring. Also, as a result, the movie does not show the full extent of Sam's heroism.

I agree that this part of the story is hard to get through -in both the book and, to some extent, in the film - but it is absolutely key to the story.

Oh, I agree absolutely. But since I've read that section upteen billion times, I feel like I can skip it. Maybe. But usually not. ;)

[Whisper]

Originally posted by dmz
As for books-to-movies, it can't be done realistically. At least not without about 16 hours of voiceovers. I think I agree. There was a series of books (The Wheel of Time (http://www.tor.com/jordan/)) that I thought would make great movies... until I realized that 2/3 of the books are inner monologue or some other literary device that can't really be translated into film en masse.

Good thing I like reading. :)