Saw the flick today, and all I can say is.....WOW! As good, if not better than the first.

What does anyone else think? And please, no spoilers.

I'm going to see it this weekend. This is the one movie I've been waiting for this year. LOTR has to be the best trilogy ever, and I am a big fan of the original Star Wars movies.

Glad you enjoyed it, seems like all the reviews are really great!

The first was still better - a much more complete movie.
Return of the King is better than the second movie, which was just chock full of cliches and non-Tolkien content.

i've yet to see any of the LOTR movies. what am i missing?

Originally posted by RX-GR8
i've yet to see any of the LOTR movies. what am i missing?

not a preposterously large amount... (i know i don't have to tell you this but) ignore hype and appreciate things, especially hollywood produced movies, on their own merits.

yes, they're very good movies, the best Tolkien movies ever made. extremely difficult story to tell over such a small span of time, at least very well... actually, that's difficult to SHOW over such a small span of time, and this is really where Jackson shines.

the panoramas are vast and breath taking, the battle lines drawn in extreme versions of black and white with leagues upon leagues of warriors, the acting is apt to the genre (oversimplified and overemphatic) and just very very beautiful.

some of the characters are real, some you can even care for (based on the merits of the movie alone, i'll remind you again), but not the absolute best movies i've ever seen. but very very good.
if there is an opportunity at a local theatre to catch all 3 straight on the big-screen, i'd suggest you sacrifice some sleep to see it, as it's quite the experience... DVD's can never do a production such as this justice.

I think your looking into the movies to deeply. I too have read the books and realize there is a lot left out due to time constraints. I learned to not look to deeply into the movies and just enjoy them at face value.

As for Return of the King, I thought it was the best one yet and toughly enjoyed it.

i rushed to the theaters an hour before the showtime and SOLD OUT! GAH!!! if i didn't have work tomorrow i'd see the next showing but 3:20 minutes would get me out way past my weekday bedtime...

Originally posted by BRx8
i rushed to the theaters an hour before the showtime and SOLD OUT! GAH!!! if i didn't have work tomorrow i'd see the next showing but 3:20 minutes would get me out way past my weekday bedtime...

We had to buy our tickets for the first matinee a week in advance. They sold out the first day they went on sale for all showings through the weekend at the Uptown (a big-screen, auditorium-sized theatre here in the DC area).

You know, for a three and a half hour movie, it really didn't seem all that long. i seriously thought i would get some butt arthritis after sitting THAT long but the storytelling and the scenery (both real and computer generated) were amazing. In all honesty, i think it was the best of the three but you really can't compare the films to each other because they are meant to complement each other, not outdo each other. I think it has succeeded in what a trilogy is supposed to be. it really has become an epic to see and unfortunately, it finally came to an end.

the sad thing is, you know the last film in the prequel trilogy of Star Wars is under some serious pressure to do well. Not just box office dollars but more importantly, to do well in the presentation of storytelling and acting...

Originally posted by RX-GR8
i've yet to see any of the LOTR movies. what am i missing?

Read the books, and start with The Hobbit. That eases you into it in a fun and easy way.

When I heard back in 2000 that these movies were coming, I made my son read Lord of the Rings. He was 12 at the time. Put another way, I made him read about the first 2 chapters. He devoured the rest of the trilogy. It is almost a life-changing experience; I've read them all 3 or 4 times, including with him back in 2000. I didn't want the movie to be his first exposure to the tale. He and I are both so glad now that happened.

BTW, I've got tickets for Friday nite. Reserved 'em Weds nite on moviefone.com. I was surprised to see most showings still available, but probably not long. Despite having tix, you still gotta get there early in the first couple weeks or you'll end up with crappy seats. I've taken my son the first weekend of each of the movies; his reward for so diligently reading the series.

Great movie. If you can't enjoy this movie you are trying really hard not too.

I can not wait for the directors cut personally. There are a lot of little things not in the movie... but after 3.5 hours I understand a lot of it needed to be cut.

I'm waiting for the DVD. I can enjoy it more in my living room on my 100" screen. 3 hours and 40 minutes is a bit much all at once.. :)

Don't tell, but I got my son the extended version of the first two movies for Christmas. You can get the pair at amazon.com for like $45, includes added scenes (which have gotten great reviews), "behind the scenes" stuff, interviews, model making, etc. Each movie is 2 DVDs with all the added material.

Originally posted by 8_wannabe
Don't tell, but I got my son the extended version of the first two movies for Christmas. You can get the pair at amazon.com for like $45, includes added scenes (which have gotten great reviews), "behind the scenes" stuff, interviews, model making, etc. Each movie is 2 DVDs with all the added material.

I have them both and the extended scenes really add to the movies. The two towers really benefits from the new scenes.

You will enjoy them!

Originally posted by cueball
I think your looking into the movies to deeply. I too have read the books and realize there is a lot left out due to time constraints. I learned to not look to deeply into the movies and just enjoy them at face value.


this is my problem, i can't enjoy things on a superficial level alone, ever.

but yes, i was saying "the books aside".. the movies are good, and i understand the time constraints of telling a story with pictures far more than most people seeing this movie.

it's good, but not the most amazing thing every, but good. :cool:

Originally posted by 8_wannabe
start with The Hobbit.

it was a story that Tolkien wrote after The Lord of the Rings, i believe, and i feel is a far FAR better story than LOTR anyway.

Originally posted by wakeech
(the hobbit) was a story that Tolkien wrote after The Lord of the Rings, i believe, and i feel is a far FAR better story than LOTR anyway.

I can't say qualitatively that one is better or worse, but each presents a vastly different tone. The Hobbit is very light-hearted and fun, great for kids and adults, sucks you into the realm of middle-earth. LOTR is a much greater commitment to undertake. You could read the Hobbit in a devoted weekend, or clearly a week if you have time. Not nearly the scope or grandeur or moral undertones of LOTR. I have never met anyone who didn't thoroughly enjoy reading the Hobbit, and about half of them graduated to LOTR. Of the half that do, they are grateful that someone pushed them to it. The half that didn't, in general, I've found to be people who set low expectations for themselves. I'm not dissing anyone who hasn't read it; just addressing those around me that I've observed.

Actually, I think (and I could very well be wrong) that the hobbit was first, the LOTR, then the simillarinian (spelled wrong, and a bitch to read) Of course, it did have the origins of balrogs, sauron, the elves and morgoth the best evil name ever! (beside ikewrx:D )

I saw it last night. Very good movie and ending to the movie saga. Unlike the Martix the last movie in the series doesn't disapoint. I'll eagerly be waiting the extended DVD versions release.

Originally posted by klegg
morgoth the best evil name ever!

...Smith, and the meaning associated to it by a rather terrible series of Greatest KungFu Movies Ever, is slowly inching its way to the top of my list...

The Hobbit was written first (in the late 1930s or early 40s) and the LOTR series came well after WW2.
I have read the series complete several times (once in h.s, once in college, and once to prep for the movies) and actually find the movies to be a very refreshing take on the books. Yes we are missing some elements, but the last time I read the books I realized that they dragged along at many points and were rather gay (which the movie may have tones of--but not nearly as prominent as in the book). When I say gay, I just mean the overstatement of manly love for the other man characters--not an attack on homosexuality. The film benefits from some additional interplay with women.
I also did not find the Hobbit less complex than LOTR, actually in ways (races fighting each other--then uniting out of necessity to defeat the greater common enemy, good characters overwhelming greed, theft by the good guys, plunder at who's expense) it was more complex than the total good versus total evil of the LOTR series. There needed to be more conflicted characters like Boromir.
I haven't seen Return yet, but it is on the weekend list of things to do. I can't imagine it will disappoint.

Greatest trilogy of all time

This movie was awesome but there is no way I am watching it 2x. I had a cramp like crazy.

Originally posted by klegg
Actually, I think (and I could very well be wrong) that the hobbit was first, the LOTR, then the simillarinian (spelled wrong, and a bitch to read) Of course, it did have the origins of balrogs, sauron, the elves and morgoth the best evil name ever! (beside ikewrx:D ) I agree with you in every way.

And let me take a stab at it... Silmarillian ...I didn't peek, honest. I couldn't get past the first 100 pages of that one. Whew!

Count me in this here "selar dor" society we got goin' on here. :D

I still gotta see that last flick. The first two were watched back-to-back at home - extended versions at that. Totally blew my day plans right outta the water that Saturday. I was enthralled by every moment of it though. Couldn't think of many better ways of messin' up a day.

And thanks for not going into much detail. Yes, I read the trillogy a few times, but still... somebody out there hasn't yet... and I like to make believe that I didn't too. :p

Good point, I will edit my post for NO SPOILERS!!!!

Good deal!

No really, everybody so far did a good job of not spoiling it. I read this whole thread with one eye closed. Didn't have to, cuz nobody gave anything away.

Good job of that, y'all! ;)

the 3rd film was great, i havent seen the first 2 yet though. But the HOBBITS have to be some of the gayest things i have ever seen. Always hugging each other and stuff it was just pure GAYNESS.

Read the book, read the book! Even knowing how it all comes out I know I will be on the edge of my seat for the entire film.

The Sillmarillion (sp?) was published after Tolkien's death by his son, Christopher. All the material is by JRR, but it took years to edit and sort out inconsistencies as this vast world evolved in his works over the decades. Christopher did redraw some maps after studying his father's notes to make them internally consistent. It was a huge labor of love, including love of the story itself knowing he was entrusted with it on behalf of fans all over the world.

Silmaril refers to the rings of power; I think it is an elven word, thus Silmarillion means the story of these rings. But it is much more, including substantial background on Arwen Evenstone, halfelven daughter of Elrond. It is a heartbreaking story of one who can choose the immortal life of elves. But like any such tale, there is a downside. In LOTR books, the story is only slightly hinted at, but a much grander tale is found in the Silmarillion, almost as a legend. It sounds to me like Peter Jackson has drawn some of this into the movie, and rightly so. The Silmarillion is as much the tale of the rings as is the Hobbit where Bilbo got the ring from Gollum. I think it was a masterful stroke to pull some material from other works of Tolkien to round out the screenplay. I'm trying not to reveal storyline here as it's really worth watching unfold on screen.

Unlike the flak Jackson caught in Fellowship by enhancing Arwen's role in rescuing Frodo from the Nine, what follows later with Arwen really is part of the Tolkien tale.

BTW, anyone know Liv Tyler, who plays Arwen, is the daughter of Steve Tyler of Aerosmith? Or maybe that is common knowledge. She grew up thinking Todd Rundgren was her father. Freakin' hollywood!

Hey I thought Todd Rundgren was my Dad as well!

LOL. Onomatopoeia, baby!

Originally posted by Senseny
Hey I thought Todd Rundgren was my Dad as well!

Actually, that'd be a bummer cuz then you couldn't really make it with Liv. One more to cross off your list. ;)

My wife seems to want me to cross all young ladies off my list. I'm not a huge Liv Tyler fan, but hell she's famous and I could brag, so even if Todd fathered us both I'd still do her.

wow...just got back from the movie and it was long long long...i think the ending was overdrawn just a tad bit but now i'm a bit sad that it's over...the action was great, far superior to Two Towers and it contained a lot of the emotion of Fellowship...a very worthy end to the trilogy

i also heard or read somewhere (can't remember) that New Line procured the rights to The Hobbit and PJ will be directing this as well...

oh, and btw, i AM Todd Rundgren...so who's your daddy?

Just saw it...the best of the 3.

Yeah, waddup wit dat? Todd's from Philly. I could take you to his neighborhood. I was a huge fan of his , back in his "Wizard" days, back further to his "Hello, it's me" days (The Nazz)...saw him in several performances back then. Like "Heart", back then, you could see him play in a small pavilion, or circus-type tent.

Back on track - the hobits aren't "gay", for crying out loud. Cut the crap please...

Seen it twice so far and lovin the poop out of it.

I know that Todd Rundgren is a Philly producer, I am a philly guy, born to a free spirit hippie type Mom in 72, so I guess that anything is possible (LOL and I look a lot like my dad). Plus he plays every so often at the Keswick theatre which is less than a 1/2 mile from my house.
Back to the LOTR, I shouldn't have said "gay", sorry. What I meant was some more healthy relationships with females in the stories is appreciated. The books are almost completely lacking in that. And it does seem that Sam longingly stares at Frodo a bit too much, don't you think?
I keep hearing people complaining about the end being too long after the main action is done. Well PJ is trying to be relatively faithful to the books and the book does the same exact thing. So I don't think I will have a problem with that.

Originally posted by Senseny
I know that Todd Rundgren is a Philly producer, I am a philly guy, born to a free spirit hippie type Mom in 72, so I guess that anything is possible (LOL and I look a lot like my dad). Plus he plays every so often at the Keswick theatre which is less than a 1/2 mile from my house.
Back to the LOTR, I shouldn't have said "gay", sorry. What I meant was some more healthy relationships with females in the stories is appreciated. The books are almost completely lacking in that. And it does seem that Sam longingly stares at Frodo a bit too much, don't you think?
I keep hearing people complaining about the end being too long after the main action is done. Well PJ is trying to be relatively faithful to the books and the book does the same exact thing. So I don't think I will have a problem with that. Ho! Cheez'o'man! I graduated '71 from William Allen in Allentown, went to Philly many times for many reasons (the Spectrum especially). Went to Ocean City (hippie haven back then), Wildwood, etc. in my '66 Corvair all the time during the summers.

You can call me "dad" anytime, son. :D (Todd & I bore a resemblence) (http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=162286#post162286)

Now, as far as Frodo & Samwise go, Sam made an oath to take care of Frodo. Of course he would be checking him out (in the right kind of way :p ) a lot for that kind of reason. And it's true that there aren't but a handful (pun intended :) ) in the story, but I really didn't notice cuz there are not too many characters in total AND the theme doesn't suit a whole lot of female types. I wonder what elven women are like anyway ....hmmmm......;)

Mom and Dad (my real biological one--not you or Todd) graduated from Quakertown High in 72. I moved to Philly soon afterwards after their marriage busted up.
I guess my issue is, after gutting orcs all day I think I would need to try to score a bit with the chicks every once in a while. Race mingling (LOTR talk--obviously in real life interracial romance is all good with me) would be cool. Think how many hobbit chicks Aragorn could score.
BTW check this site out if you get the chance, it is a pisser and LOTR related.
http://home.nyu.edu/~amw243/diaries/

Senseny, that's a funny site :)

Originally posted by 8_wannabe
BTW, anyone know Liv Tyler, who plays Arwen, is the daughter of Steve Tyler of Aerosmith? Or maybe that is common knowledge. She grew up thinking Todd Rundgren was her father. Freakin' hollywood! OK, you captured my interest, so I finally did some simple digging & found this. (http://www.livtylerwebsite.com/info/index.html)
Check out her bio. Whoa! Good old Bebe Buell - her mommy surely did get around on her own... She looks like Todd in the face though...wierd. :confused:

(Todd's the one on the bottom-left.)

http://www.chromeoxide.com/images/nazz2.jpg

Originally posted by Racer X-8
OK, you captured my interest, so I finally did some simple digging & found. Check out her bio. Whoa! Good old Bebe Buell - her mommy surely did get around on her own... She looks like Todd in the face though...wierd.

Sweet. Glad I came back to this page, cuz the first time it didn't display the pic and I didn't know what I was missin'. Never hurts to check one's sources; I suspect you didn't quite believe my story and I enjoyed reading the page you found.

*sigh*

I saw the movie opening day... and then i saw it again the next day... I would say that it's a good movie, and it has a lot more special effects then the first 2 movies. But personally i liked the 1st one the best...

So now i'm wondering how many times i'm gonna see this movie. I saw the 1st one 17 times, and the 2nd one 7 times (in the theater). So who knows...

p.s.
Aragorn is soooo much better than Legolas.

Just came back from the movie. Great flick. Peter Jackson is obviously a student of the classics; I saw a lot of "stolen scenes" from other movies. Try these on for size (if you don't know the story, you might want to skip. Minor spoilers here.)

Gollum's hand reaching up with the ring as he sinks below the lava: Terminator 2.

Orcs marching out from the gates of Minas Morgul: Wizard of Oz (in front of the witches castle.)

Legolas swinging around under the big elephant things trying to bring them down: The second star wars as Luke battled the giant walkers on the frozen planet.

A wizened Bilbo with sparce hair and a walking stick at the Grey Havens: Totally Yoda.

The lead Nazgul wasting away after being stabbed: Can you say "I'm meelllttinnnggg!! Oh woe is me..."

Coincidence? I dunno. Did anyone see any other parallels?

So anyone else see it last night?

Oh, and one other thing. Do you think there was any significance to the fact that the actor who plays Elrond is the same guy who plays Agent Smith? Does that mean Elrond also believes mankind is just a virus? hmmm...

Wow.

Just saw the movie today. It's awesome! If you consider those three movies all part of one very big (very long!) movie, I'd have to say "The Lord of the Rings" is the best movie ever made. Peter Jackson MUST win Best Director. If he doesn't, there is simply no justice.

And, assuming the Extended version of ROTK is as good as the other two, it's going to get even better!

Wow.

I saw the Extended Edition of The Two Towers on Saturday (spans two DVDs) as it's been a year since I last saw it and I needed to remember where things stopped. Let me tell you the extra 44 minutes Jackson left in compared to the theatrical version (223 minutes vs 179 minutes) makes this a much better movie, with so much extra character development.

Then on Sunday morning (10:30am, cinema was packed of course) I saw Return of the King. Wow. Wow again. I have vowed not to watch any other movies on TV, DVD or at the cinema for a month so I can savour what I just saw. What scares me is that the Extended Edition DVD will be even better...

If Jackson doesn't get Best Director and Best Film oscars then the whole Academy Awards is a total joke. I also agree with loco that the whole 11+ hour LOTR epic is the greatest movie I've ever experienced.

I finally saw Return of the King last night. And while I definitely think it was about 10X better than the first two, I still have some issues with Peter Jackson. My PERSONAL opinion is that Tolkien wrote the books the way he did for a reason, and the dumbing down that Jackson did really does a disservice to them in many ways.

I can understand why he changed the end, though I think it was, again, dumbed down for your standard movie-goer who has never read the books. I still do not understand why he changed the time of the forging of Anduril, aside from he wanted to give Elrond more airtime, and bring in the goofy subplot about Arwen. The whole Arwen thing annoys me as well, but I guess today's audience can't sit still without some romantic subplot. And Legolas as some kind of xtreme sports babe/eye candy for pre-teens is seriously stupid. What was with all the slow motion scenes too? They just looked silly, instead of especially emotional, which I assume was the intended effect.

The charge of the Rohirrim was astonishing, however. As were much of the battle scenes. And Eowyn taking out the Witch King was also well done (though a little anticlimactic, since in the book she's disguised as a man until she whips off her helmet). Was a decently enjoyable way to spend an evening, though I feel the need to go read Tolkien again to cleanse myself.

I really wish Peter Jackson would just leave the Hobbit alone. If he does produce it, I doubt I'll see it.

Elera, I agree with you about the things that PJ left out.

The scoring of the shire, for example is a big lapse.

So was the addition of the elf army in TTT, The whole point of helms deep was to show man taking over the job from the elves.

And they NEVER should have had legleos surfing down the stairs, just too painful to watch!!

Of course, cutting tom bombadil was a real good idea, if people think the hobbits were gay, could you imagine the reaction to him?

But so much was done so well, and I really liked the bowing scene at the end, very well done.

Warning: Minor spoilers herein (nothing big):

Elara, which change are you referring to at the end? Many critics talked about the multiple endings that wouldn't die, yet that is just how the book is, up to Sam going home alone to his family. A very poignant scene. He left out about the thugs running Hobbiton with Merry and Pippin cleanin' up the joint, but after 3.5 hours that would have just been too much and strongly anticlimatic after defeating all of Middle-earth's dark forces.

As far as Arwen, read my earlier posts. Jackson did not make that up; it is alluded to in the LOTR novels and expanded upon in the Silmarillion. It is original Tolkien material, not made up by Jackson. Of course, he presented it in a more visual manner which is what he got paid to do.

There were more subtle changes that an uninformed movie audience would miss; for whatever reason Jackson decided it was a more compelling story to the masses. Denethor plunging ablaze off the precipice was pretty hokie; one of the creepier elements in the book is how he died clutching his Palantir and from then on, when you gazed in it all you could see were withered hands. Perhaps that would have taken too many screen minutes to expound upon, and still confused the audience. It all ties into how Sauron deceived Denethor showing him only what he wanted, until he despaired. None of that came out in the film. I don't recall: In the book, did Denethor really send Faramir on a suicide mission? It was well done in the movie, but I don't remember reading that.

All in all, well done. Certainly not perfect, but an incredibly hard story to tell and film, I don't see how it could be much better esp considering time constraints. Damn, my butt was numb when I finally got up.

8-wannabe- re: change in the ending. That was a pretty big chunk they left out- what with Grima and Saruman taking over the shire. But, as I said, I can understand why it was left out. It would have confused the heck out of most non-Tolkien readers.

As for Arwen and Aragorn- I am about as rabid a Tolkien fan as you get, and I know the story(I think it's one of the most heartwrenching stories he included), but I think it had no place in Lord of the Rings. Tolkien left it out and included it elsewhere for a reason-Peter Jackson put it in because, I assume, he decided the story would have more mass appeal that way. Bleah.

And I completely agree about the Denethor thing. Not really sure why he thought that was a good idea...

Meh. You guys are tough.

I would think you'd at least be glad that someone of Peter Jackson's caliber made these movies ... or perhaps you'd prefer they weren't made at all?

Seems to me he did an amazing job. There will always be people who will find something to complain about, no matter what he put in or left out. But IMO what he did produce was absolutely gorgeous.

Originally posted by loco4rx8
Meh. You guys are tough.

I would think you'd at least be glad that someone of Peter Jackson's caliber made these movies ...

I can't really argue with that. Perhaps you didn't read my final line: "...an incredibly hard story to tell and film, I don't see how it could be much better esp considering time constraints."

Originally posted by loco4rx8
Meh. You guys are tough.

I would think you'd at least be glad that someone of Peter Jackson's caliber made these movies ... or perhaps you'd prefer they weren't made at all?



I admit, I would have been happier if he had not made them at all. I don't think Peter Jackson is really all that good, and I feel he took an amazing work of literature and made it into a watered-down fad. No one will remember the movies in a few years, and the only people who will care about Tolkien are the people who have always cared and are still reading the books. I don't think Tolkien would have approved of a movie at all- he didn't like the fans that would try to hunt him down at his home or send him long fan letters, and complained about how crazy some of them were. I also don't believe he wrote his stories to entertain the masses- rather, he wrote them to entertain himself. However, that is neither here nor there, at this point.

I am notorious for disliking movies made from books, also- I've rarely seen a movie that even came close to doing justice to the book it was pulled from. Drives my husband crazy, because he says I should just enjoy them for what they are. Perhaps I'm just picky, or overly critical. Or not good at "suspending disbelief."

And please understand, this is only my personal opinion, and I am not attacking anyone for liking the movie.

Originally posted by Elara
...I am not attacking anyone for liking the movie.

awww, we know you would never do anything like that. While I can nitpick with the rest of them, I think Jackson did a great job, with only a couple of significant goofs. Prob the main one is in the first movie when Arwen rescues Frodo and takes him across the river. That, and poor character development of the other hobbits in Fellowship.

I'm trying to think of a movie that did justice to the book, but nothing is coming to mind. Perhaps Grapes of Wrath, but its sorry that I have to go so far back to think of one.

Movies that I think did justice to the book; Jaws (movie far better than the book), To Kill a Mockingbird (book better but the movie did a very good job), A Clockwork Orange (maybe just me, but I thought the book was unreadable) and Blackhawk Down (almost everything important was put on film except personal thoughts) and there are others--these just came to mind.
I think PJ did as good a job as possible transitioning these books to film. I have read the books 3 times in the last 15 years (except the Simirilian--unreadable IMO). Elara, I understand your point about maybe they shouldn't have been made at all, but obviously many fans have enjoyed this little run of films. I personally am glad to have seen them and for me they only add to my enjoyment of the series.

Ive read the books and I thought they were amazing. The movies, however, are better. And, Peter Jackson worked long enough and hard enough on these movies that hes allowed to change a thing here and there. Thats my opinion...

I agree that the dialogue is nowhere near as poetic as in the books, but movies arent like books. In a book you can reread a sentence and read at your own pace. In a movie, its said once and you better have understood it.

Structurally, however, Peter Jackson is a better storyteller than Tolkien. Most of Jackson's changes heightened drama, emotion and character devepment.

well I finally got to see it last night.. and I will have to say that it was a fitting end to a masterful work of PJ. The cinematics were phenomenal and the balance between action and plot was just right.

I feel that it was most definiately one of the best epics I have ever seen.

as for being consistent to the books and to tolkien fans, I am not going to say that it was perfect. Granted he did quite well with the time constarints, but there is so much that is missing. The real tough part for me was the fact that Tolkien developed not a story but a world called middle earth. Its very hard to get all the imagination and the glory of this world in a grand total of 10 hours of film time.

I think the greatest accomplishment of these movies is that it gave a large audience of people exposure to such a wonderfully written set of books. I also probably made a good amount of people read them. But more importantly it gave a lot of us a sense of "Holy cow! Thats pretty much how I imagined it."

Originally posted by Kaliken
Granted he did quite well with the time constarints, but there is so much that is missing. The real tough part for me was the fact that Tolkien developed not a story but a world called middle earth.

Good point. It was only at the movie's end they barely mentioned that the fall of Sauron brought about the end of the Third Age, and now began the age of men. It is interesting that through the Third Age, Men had been viewed as the weaker of the great races (including elves, dwarves and wizards.) One of the greatest tragedies in the written story is that the elves had built their kingdom with their three rings. They knew that when the One Ring was destroyed, their Three would also lose their power, and everything built with them would be lost. The elves embraced this great battle with Sauron knowing it would mean the end of their culture whether the battle was won or lost. They chose the noble path. In the end, their declining power meant they had to leave Middle Earth which was the scene at the Grey Havens; the implication was totally missed in the movie. It would have required lengthy explanation.

For those who have read LOTR and ready for more, get some of Tolkien's other books including the Silmarillion which goes into an explanation of the three Ages, the Kings of Numenor (from which Aragorn is descended), etc. It is amazing how all of Tolkien's life work is so intertwined; LOTR is just the tip of the iceberg. And for real laughs read "Farmer Giles of Ham" and its collection of short stories. It will bring tears to your eyes, it is so funny.

I for one am very glad the movies were made. Fifty years from now they will still be well regarded and watched as true epic classics in my opinion. If I hated movies based on books I wouldn't go to see them, rather than complain about them and wish that nobody else could see them either. Watch the Extended Edition DVDs which are what Jackson actually wanted to show us. Better yet listen to the commentary by Jackson and the actors to see why some things had to be changed for the film presentation (due to cost, timing or just impossible to move from one medium to the other).

Beyond the films themselves what amazes me is that Jackson could spend years raising the money to make the films, and then 6 more years to film and edit them. Can you imagine managing everything for thousands of people (travel, food, sets, costumes, acting, effects, actor schedules, editing) for three years straight and trying to follow an epic storyboard in your head whilst filming everything out of sequence and also trying to keep the money men off your back. Can you imagine that they actually BUILT Helms Deep out of stone and slate in a quarry and did three months of non-stop night shooting in the rain. I cannot think of any other director that a) was a huge enough Tolkien fan to undertake this daunting task and b) could pull it off.

Some of my weird friends in England have spent 25 years as Tolkien 'scholars' (reading and trying to memorize everything Tolkien or related to Middle Earth) and they loved the movies. Perhaps not even 85% faithful to the original manuscripts (and Jackson is a rabid fan of the the books, and he had world famous Tolkien consultants working throughout) but better than they ever believed could be achieved. Conversely my wife and our parents had never heard of Tolkien or elves and dwarfs etc but also loved the films. To me to appeal to such radically different groups is a great achievement. Also look at what Tolkien was trying to say about the rise of industialization and factory complexes and the effect on pastoral life - I grew up not far from where Tolkien lived and seeing the Shire at the end of ROTK (basically intended to be English farmland) bought a tear to my eye.

Originally posted by 8_wannabe
One of the greatest tragedies in the written story is that the elves had built their kingdom with their three rings. They knew that when the One Ring was destroyed, their Three would also lose their power, and everything built with them would be lost. The elves embraced this great battle with Sauron knowing it would mean the end of their culture whether the battle was won or lost. They chose the noble path. In the end, their declining power meant they had to leave Middle Earth which was the scene at the Grey Havens; the implication was totally missed in the movie. It would have required lengthy explanation.
Good point - I had to explain this to my wife, as her obvious question was "they won so why are the Elves still leaving?". The permanence of Rivendell etc was an effect of each of the three rings held by the elves. I bet this is addressed in the Extended Edition DVD.

Elara, I totally respect your opinion and have heard similar arguments from rabid fans of the books. I just can't help but sit back and be amazed at what PJ accomplished in the transition from book to movie.

As far as movies that lived up to the books ... how about The Silence of the Lambs? It was almost a word for word transition, with a few small exceptions, including of the origin of the title, which I think was handled much better in the movie.

I feel I can say that without regret considering what a ham-handed mess Thomas Harris made of 'Hannibal.' :p

Originally posted by pelucidor
I cannot think of any other director that a) was a huge enough Tolkien fan to undertake this daunting task and b) could pull it off.


You forgot to say, "...and looks like a hobbit." :D