The Trilogy as One

jmays writes "New Line is re-releasing 'The Fellowship of the Ring' and 'The Two Towers' except this time, in their respective extended versions. When? Once each week for the two weeks prior to the opening of 'The Return of the King.'"

Comments

Not my cup of tea

[JohnGrahamCumming]

I know that I'm probably going to get flamed by the /. faithful but I really
did not enjoy the first LOTR film and decided to not bother with the rest of
the trilogy. I couldn't imagine the tedium of sitting through an extended
version.

The problem with them was that they were quite simply boring. Although the
filmmakers had done this incredible technical job of putting the world of
Middle Earth on the screen it felt horribly sterile. Of course it's often
the case that a film doesn't work as well as the way you imagined the book,
but in the case of LOTR the film seemed to have little merit. It was a
long road movie without the depth of the Middle Earth world and relationships
between the characters and the different type of characters lost in the
filming.

Not trying to troll, just that the film had all the look of Middle Earth
without any of the feeling. A bit like Matrix Reloaded: all shiny but
hollow at the same time.

John.

(Of course there was the incomparable Liv Tyler
so it wasn't a totally wasted 3 hours :-)

Re:Not my cup of tea

[brakk]

Everybody always says that about any movie that comes out that was made from a book. "OMG, the book was so much better. blah blah blah. I'm such an elitist bastard blah blah blah" There is no way they can fit a book into a two hour screen play. Yes, I think LOTR felt a bit rushed trying to squeeze everything they could into it, even at three hours. But you have to look at them as two separate entities or just not see it in the first place because you know they could never do a decent book justice.

Re:Not my cup of tea

[Marx_Mrvelous]

John-
I'm sorry to hear that you didn't knjoy the movie. However, if your main criticism is "it was boring" then you really need to re-evaluate the film. If the acting were bad, the plot simple and the effects horrible, then you can say it was a bad movie. But "boring" is too much the result of either too little imagination, sleepiness/depression, or misunderstanding. I once saw a movie while I was in a very bad mood, and I pretty much hated it. Upon seeing the same movie later in a better mood, I loved it.

With that in mind, you may want to watch the movie again.

Re:Not my cup of tea

[slipstick]

You don't try to fit the book into the film, you create a screen-play from the book. It is a "based on" type of thing. It is entirely possible to create a film that is as good or better than a book if you do it right.

Now having said that I was slightly disappointed with the way the films have portrayed the main point of the book, e.g. the destroying of evil to preserve good. Don't get me wrong I loved the films but they have lost a certain element that really comes through in the narrative of the books. Basically the films are much more dark than the books are. As dire as the book seems some times there always seems to be a chapter thrown in of happiness to reenforce just exactly what they are fighting for.

This didn't have to happen. Peter Jackson has done a great job of special effects and making this in to a great action flick but he lost some of the feeling and it was sooooo easy to fix. Instead of starting "The Fellowship of the Ring" with the story of the ring it should have started as the book did, Bilbo's birthday party. You can easily fill in the audience when Gandalf finds out exactly what the ring is. In fact this leaves some suspense for 1/2 hour while the audience is settling in and enjoying the scenery. Than when Gandalf comes back and tells Frodo the story you could have inserted the action sequence from the beginning of the film using Gandalf's voice for the voice over which would have lent more "harshness" to it.

For as great as the books are, and I absolutely love them, they still come down to good vs evil and we all know how that will end we just don't know the details. The point is to make those who don't know anything about the books to fall in love with the simplicity and naivety of the Shire(recalling childhood), the majesty of the elves(the ability to believe that there are benevolent "gods"), the incredible variety and wonder of nature(the absolute silliness but child like qualities of Tom Bombadil, Gandalf's friendship with Shadowfax, Legolas falling in love with Fanghorn, Gimli falling in love with Helm's deep). The idea that man is soooo small in compared to the age of the universe or even the earth, e.g. the Ents are Old beyond imagining but this doesn't come through.

Almost all of this went missing from the films.

And last but not least, how dare anyone but the King of Gondor touch the sword of Isildir! That was simply unneeded, sure it doesn't mean anything to a person who hasn't read the books but for those who have, that incident alone should make them question Jackson's real commitment to the character of the books. Hell, once again there was simply NO NEED FOR IT. Why didn't Aragorn have the sword when Frodo met him just like in the book? There's no need to explain in detail as the book did. It is the thing that makes Frodo "recognize" Aragorn and that's easily done in a line or two or three.

Anyway, enough analysis, suffice it to say that I think the books are great the films in their own way are great but that they miss the character of the book for no good reason.

a guess

[prichardson]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that New Line is going to release the ultra mega super insane LOTR pack about a year after LOTR:ROTK comes out. I am waiting until then to buy the dvd. This dvd will contain all the full length movies and a huge stack of extras. They might even throw in a big full color map or something like that. It will probably be unbearable expensive, too.

Re:Milking the Cow

[dontspellsogood]

So? New Line was forward thinking enough to take a leap of faith and let Jackson film all three at once (with obvious benefits to the viewers). Why not let them reap the rewards of their big millions gamble (it could have flopped. big.)

Yes, oh, yes

[mckwant]

Complete concurrance. I can't make it through the books. I've tried three times, and I always get bored/apathetic/annoyed after they leave the mushroom farmer guy for another 100 pages of trail walking.

The first movie felt very true to the books. Long, dull, lots of walking and hiding. To paraphrase John Goodman in Barton Fink, my butt was sore after the first 45 minutes.

The second movie (to which I was drug by my wife) was actually quite good, IMHO. I'd highly recommend it to anyone. The Gollum/Smegiel (sp?) sequences have to be seen to be believed.

Maybe a Rant, but...

[greymond]

I'm so glad I didn't buy any of the DVD's for the LOTR trilogy, just because I feel really bad for all the fans who have a "sucky" version or have spent tons of cash on all the different versions of the dvd's. Because of this i'm just gonna wait till the summer after ROTK to buy whatever becomes the "almost-most-fulfilling-3-dvd-set-of-themoment" then at least i'll have all 3 and of only paid one price instead of owning 6 versions of each of the first movies AND the trilogy as a set.