I think the first movie was better, lost opportunity with ROTK.
shareI didn't think any of them were good but I will say the 3rd segment was the weakest. Leaving out the Battle of the Shire was the biggest slap in the face to anyone who respects the source material.
shareNo reason for hate. You think one way, I think other. I stand behind your right to have your own opinion mind, body, and soul. INTERCOURSE THE HATERS!!!
shareWhy "hate on you"? Everyone has their owns and dislikes, you are no different from anyone else. Diversity rules!!!
shareNo, I love Fellowship - I think it's the best one, too. It helps that it's my favourite book out of the original work, though... Fellowship has that great immersive sinking into the lands of Middle Earth which are unforgettable and inimitable, then the story gets *dark* as Gandalf faces the Balrog, Frodo encounters the Ringwraiths for the first time, and Boromir confronts Frodo at Amon Hen. There is little letup or respite in the book, save Rivendell and Lothlorien - both of which are so memorable that they basically altered the way elves were portrayed in fantasy novels for five or six decades.
I will disagree that Return of the King was a wasted opportunity, but I did have a few quibbles with it (the mumakil were too big, Legolas' dispatching of one was a little too "cool"...stuff like that). But they are, at the end of the day, quibbles.
I have two bigger problems with the film. One is the scouring of the Shire being absent. That the Shire was harmed by the War of the Ring is a tragic, important part of the story. It also spreads out some of the several endings for pacing's sake. I do get this cut - can't have a four-point-five hour movie - but I think it affects the story somewhat.
The second is deplorable. HUGE SPOILERS.
Frodo shoving Gollum into the cracks of doom removes a massive part of the themes of Lord of the Rings and misunderstands/undermines Tolkien's world. The point is that Frodo fails and isn't the big action hero and that he's only part of the scheme of the world. This was a huge misfire (repeated in the Hobbit films when Jackson altered the dialogue about Fate and Prophecies to hint at the Ring).
I totally agree, leaving out the Scouring of the Shire was a huge mistake, that was the best chapter out of the book. An even bigger mistake was not giving Saruman a proper send off, it's just like "yeah he's learned his lesson lets move on". As for the endings my biggest gripe about them are the fake outs, so freaking annoying.
shareAgree on all. The Scouring of the Shire was important, the fact that Gollum fell into the crack of doom via his own choice was critical, as well as it following on from Frodo mercifully leaving Gollum alive earlier in the story.
I also really missed the meeting of the Ents and their marching song. I was looking forward to seeing those in movie form. The Ents were some of my favorite characters, along with the idea of nature itself rising up against Saruman's attempts to use it for twisted purposes.
What also really pisses me off is Peter Jackson started some subplots from the books but never finished them so we just end up with plot holes. Examples: Faramir and Eowyn getting together, the reason for Denethor's madness, where Gollum went when he told Sam he was "sneaking", why Sauron would ever think Pippin had the ring, etc.
It also has some of the WORST exposition I have ever heard, example: as they are walking through the caves Legolas decides to recite to Gimli the legend of the Pirate Ghosts (why on Earth would he agree to come on this side quest without even knowing what they were doing?)
The Extended Edition gives Saruman a sendoff, but it's pretty cheesy.
shareI would have said it was appropriately graphic, not cheesy. I mean, the guy fell out of the top of his tower and got impaled on a spike, for crying out loud! You want a cheesy death, just look at how a number of villains died in Disney films. Now that's cheesy! Nearly all of them fall off a great height and die off-camera, save for a few exceptions. We never actually get to see the end result, unlike what happened to Saruman.
shareThe whole scene is cheesy. Just the fact that Jackson decided to have Saruman on the very top of the tower was lame.
shareI'm actually wondering why he didn't use his magic to save himself, considering he was a powerful wizard. It's possible, though, that he lost a lot of that power through his building of the Uruk-hai army. Either that, or Peter Jackson was following what the book said, though I don't know how he died in the book.
shareWhen Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff, he basically binds his powers.
The death is similar in the book, but it happens later. I don't know if you ever plan to read the books, so I won't spoil it.
I'd love to read the books. I wanted to after the movies were released, I just never got around to it.
shareIt is ridiculous how much better the book is. Things that make absolutely no sense at all in the movie makes complete sense in the book. The movie also made multiple characters complete idiots (Merry, Pippin, Gimli, Theoden, Faramir etc.), they are far more honorable in the book.
shareTrue, like why Frodo had to take the ring in the first place. The Council of Elrond was very confusing in the movies.
Ooh, getting an urge to watch them all now
Exactly, it was fleshed out so much better in the book and the Council of Elrond took up like a bunch of chapters. The movie is crap don't bother with it.
shareYou're missing out, the books are lovely. I think they are best read when you have a clear weekend.
One thing the movies did really well was show Aragorn's relationship with Arwen. When they said they were increasing Arwen's role, I was really worried. But it was very well done.
Uh I couldn't stand Arwen or her stupid story, it was literally like 2 sentences out of the book. And people think The Battle of Five Armies was bloated.
shareHey, I happen to like Arwen, don't dump on her.
shareCompletely wasted character. Every time we cut over to her stupid story the movie just stalls.
shareArwen is good, but I do think she wasn't used well by the films. I liked what the first film did, but after that, she's just pining around.
Apparently they did reshoots to appease fans who were angry that she was going to be at Helm's Deep. I feel like with the Elves present they already went off-track with that one, why not throw Arwen in the mix? It would have made her more of a force and possibly strengthened her relationship with Aragorn. Then again, I might've been a little ticked if that happened in the film... don't know.
But, yeah, they made her mope around. Why? Don't need that.
Frodo still fails in the movie. At the end, he and Gollum both fall while fighting over the Ring. At that point, Frodo still wants the Ring for himself.
They altered that scene but the point still stands: Frodo failed and the Ring would not have been destroyed were it not for Gollum's survival.
They had to find a way to have Frodo actually do something as he had pretty much been dead weight for the past 9 hours.
shareLet's not forget that Sam still cared enough to save him, even after all they'd been through, and how Frodo had abandoned him and betrayed him several times. Sam knew that Frodo was being corrupted by the Ring, and refused to give up on his best friend, whom he loved like a brother. Frodo probably would have still died, had it not been for Sam helping him up over the cliff after Gollum had taken the Ring for himself and fallen into the lava.
shareQuite possibly the one change that Peter Jackson made from the book that I actually liked was he developed Sam and Frodo's relationship very well and the conflict they had in the 3rd segment was very well done. The scene where Sam comes back to battle Shelob was freaking epic. Although it doesn't make sense when Sam sees the bread at the bottom of the stairs and has this revelation that he wasn't the one who ate the bread after all even though he already knew that?
As far as the movie goes I pretty much like the stuff going on with Frodo/Sam/Gollum/Shelob, it's the Gandalf/Aragorn/Merry/ Pippin/Legolas/Gimli stuff that was crap.
The bread moment is weird. Frodo rejecting Sam entirely was a little weird, too. Weirdest is that Sam didn't just hang back and then follow discreetly at a distance to see the Quest through from afar.
Gandalf? What was wrong with Gandalf?
Gandalf was just comic relief by the time the third segment came around and he contradicts himself constantly, and him voting to not kill Saruman was the dumbest thing ever.
shareHe votes not to kill Saruman in the book, though. In fact, he repeatedly cautions everybody about exacting vengeance and constantly offers Saruman opportunities to return to the Good and serve the right and the Truth again. It's, like, a really main theme and point of the novel.
shareYes I totally get that but it was Ian Mckellans acting in that scene that just ruined it, plus the book actually gave Saruman a proper sendoff, not including the scouring of the shire was a moronic decision, that was the best chapter. That scene was just far too rushed and anti climactic
shareI'll nit-pick these films all you want, but McKellen's performance? We're of two very different minds here.
The scouring of the Shire was important, yes. I understand why they got rid of it, but I think they should have found a way to do it. Perhaps they might have saved some time by cutting out a few minutes of big battles and not having huge digressions where Faramir carts Sam and Frodo to Osgiliath and Merry and Pippin have to talk Treebeard into action...
What they should have cut was Arwens stupid story, seriously Liv Tyler can’t act and it’s like two sentences out of the book. McKellan was Ok until the third segment and that speech he gives about death not being the end was so on the nose and cliched
shareAgain, I think the problems you're having with Gandalf are largely the writing, not McKellen himself. I think he maintained top-class performance right through the Hobbit rubbish they churned out. The best scene of that film is Gandalf and Bilbo, post-combat, sitting there and Bilbo can't process what just happened and he turns to Gandalf, like, "What do we do now!?" and Gandalf just looks at him and then starts cleaning his pipe. It's like he's saying, "There's nothing you can do. Adventures aren't always glory and combat and running about, they end, and real life returns, and you just have to pick up and move on as best you can." It's great because it feels real, authentic, and luxuriates in these two friends AND because it relies on the superb performances of McKellen and Freeman.
You're right: Arwen's segments did nothing and could have been shed easily. If they wanted Arwen in (and I understand that impulse) they should have made those scenes more dynamic and interesting. They should have been more about Arwen and Elrond debating and coming into conflict about the decision to remain and fade or pass away to the West. There could have been some heartbreaking stuff as Arwen decides between her people and her love. I'm not talking about making Elrond some overbearing father King Triton from Disney's Little Mermaid type, I'm talking about these two genuinely talking like real people. And it could have added some tension to the film because you've got Aragorn battle to save Middle Earth but (for those who haven't read the books) he might wind up saving the planet only to be abandoned by his love. It actually could (with proper writing and editing) add tension to Aragorn's storyline.
Frodo did fail. Jackson didn't completely strip the scene of meaning. But I think there is something extra powerful about him not even struggling and throwing Gollum down.
The impression I got from Wood's performance and the way the scene is directed is that, at the end, Frodo does actually stop struggling for the Ring. When they're dangling over the cliff, I believe...?
But, yes, it's not mangled to the point of total loss. I still think it was a huge misfire and is a big problem.
I saw it as Frodo and Gollum falling simultaneously as they fought over the Ring, not Frodo throwing Gollum down.
Yes, Frodo chooses to reach for Sam's hand at the end. But, at that point, Gollum has already fallen and the Ring is out of his reach.
I get some people didn't like this change, but there are other things I'd fix before this scene.
I wasn't a fan, no. It didn't ruin the movies for me. I dig them all immensely. The books moreso, naturally, but the films are top-grade.
shareYea, I thought the same. Frodo failed in the end and he didn't push Gollum. They struggled and both fell. While it is different I don't think it ruins the scene or is insulting to the book. I'm impartial to it.
It's been a while though. I should probably look the movie over once more.
Lord of the Rings isn't a trilogy, it's just one movie but I agree that the 3rd segment was the weakest. Aside from the Frodo/Sam/Gollum sequences it pretty much became a self parody.
shareI thought the second segment was weakest. Although I know what you mean by self-parody (the muma-kill by Legolas was a bit much).
The second segment has the big slap to Faramir's character and has the needless digression with the Entmoot deciding, "Nah, we have no idea the extent of Saruman's burning, we won't help".
I should clarify that I really love these movies, and though they have problems (like Aragorn's arc), overall I think they got a lot right and I think they're as close as we'll come for a loooooong time.
Eh the second segment at least had an expanded and somewhat entertaining Helms Deep battle even if the stunts bordered on absurdity. I agree though what they did to Faramir was a complete insult to anyone who appreciates the source material. I never thought Aragorn was handled well, in fact John Hurt in the 78 film seemed to be a lot more in line with the source material, in fact the only main characters I truly thought were faithful to their book counterparts were Sauruman, Gollum and Sam. I thought the 78 film portrayed Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn, Merry and Pippin much better but in all fairness it totally fcked up the character of Samwise Gamgee
shareHelm's Deep was great. The Nerdwriter has a great video on the action-as-storytelling in that segment. I'll try to find it.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn2-PUq1Z84
Hurt did Aragorn really well, but if we're talking performance then I have no complaints with Viggo's work. The writing here is where it falters insofar as Aragorn falters. He's a patient King awaiting the "Right Time", he isn't a nervous waffler.
There's faithful and then there's faithful, though. I think this film got most of the characters "movie right". Legolas does nothing really, but there isn't time to do a deep-dive there. Faramir was a 180, Aragorn was too wishy-washy, but Gandalf's blend of wisdom and wrath, Gimli's honour and stoic nature...they got a lot right.
Eh I never saw Gimli as honorable, by the time part two came he was just comic relief like Merry and Pippin were. Gandalf was Ok until Part 3 he just lost the mysteriousness that his character is known for. I really liked John Hurt a lot better never liked Vitto as an actor and Legolas was such a Mary Sue in the third segment. What I will give the third segment credit for is Sam really progressed as a character and ended up being the real hero.
shareThey did make Gimli the punchline too often, and same for Merry and Pippin. But I don't think they completely bungled it. Pippin, notably, is a bit of a twerp in the books, and a deeply endearing one, and he does get more serious once he grasps the Palantir and swears allegiance to Gondor, but the films gave Pippin those moments as well.
shareOrc battles in daylight aren't great. Ghost armies look terrible. The end was badly packed.
share[deleted]
The first movie set up the characters and the tone of the story so it's easier for it to hold more water than the subsequent movies because it's not predicated on the success of a previous release.
RotK has to close out the story and character arcs and unfortunately had to sacrifice a lot of story lines quickly which made if feel rushed. But there were also some mistakes on PJ's part where he enhanced the Witch King's powers above Gandalf the White's which is wrong, as well as the overly large armies from Mordor being conveniently dispatched by the Rohirrim. Sure he captured the heroism and bravery of the horse riders, but he also made the armies of Gondor look useless and easily defeated. At the rate Mordor's forces were going once they breached the gate of Minas Tirith they would have reached the top level well before Theoden's arrival. Then there was the silly unraveling of Mordor's forces by the Dead Army. In the books, the Dead Army struck fear and discord causing Sauron's armies to flee into disarray but they didn't kill anyone. Even PJ admitted this in interviews that he hated the source material but kept it in the script and eventually filmed it, but the end result was a lackluster interpretation of their dreadfulness.