One of the reasons that some big-hit movies (or fan faves) DON’T hold up well a decade later is that they rely on special effects which have been surpassed. LOTR holds up for me because, while the special effects are still reasonable, the story is a good one and well-told. Thus, even if some of the special effects are now less impressive than they were ten years ago, the movies hold up. Analogy: the original 1930s KING KONG is still an engrossing movie, even though the stop-motion special effects look very dated. It holds up better than Jackson’s KING KONG, even though the latter has much better sfx, because the story and characters are more interesting (IMHO.) I know, kids won’t watch the original KING KONG because it’s in – gasp! – black and white. Again, a technology change that dates it.
Another reason movies fade with time is just changing tastes. Action movies of the 1930s moved way slower than movies today.
And finally, movies that were the first to do something that later because standard and even trite… well, it can be hard to watch the original. Some works transcend that, like Shakespeare, whose almost every line is now a cliche.
All of this is why I think LOTR does still hold up well, and I think it will still hold up in future.
See, that puzzles me. Not you, others. I always appreciate a move with special effects no matter how “dated” they are. I watch something like 1933’s King Kong, I still like it, sure it’s dated in the effects, but I still think it’s a darn fine movie.
I just ignore the dated elements and enjoy the ride. And most of the time I can put myself in the mind-set of a 1933 movie-goer and imagine that I’m seeing this stuff for the first time. I am always amazed at people who say “Yeah, I could not enjoy The Empire Strikes Back because the special effects were so terrible.” What? Special effect will always be surpassed, doesn’t mean that what you’re seeing isn’t good.
One thing I really can’t stand [then and now] “Mr Frodo, Mr Frodo, Mr Frodo, Mr Frodo, Mr Frodo…” every time the action cuts back to Sam. And the forced perspective looks fake a bunch of times
I’m constantly surprised that the movies are 10 years old now. Weren’t they released just the other day? Surely I am not that old. Having recently re-watched the extended edition (my poison of choice) in Blu-Ray, I can confirm I still adore the movies and find they hold up very well. The CGI is still very decent and I think Jackson was very wise in his extensive use of miniatures because that stuff will continue to look good for a long time.
[QUOTE=mac_bolan00]
i would rather see a really good stage production of FOTR. at least they can retain some of the book’s literary slant, not the oafish lines from the movie.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=notquitekarpov]
But I think Jackson’s vision - which was basically to harp on all the scenes of battle and delete most of the character generation - was fundamentally misguided and a gross insult to the book.
[/QUOTE]
While they may not be perfect, I find the movies are very good translations. Both the medium and Jackson’s own vision certainly gave the films a different dynamic, but I felt there were parts that absolutely nailed Tolkien’s vision and even captured that mythic ‘literary’ quality. To quote one of my favourite parts from the book:
In the movie, with the Rohirrim against that painterly dawn sky, Theoden’s rally, the wide shot of the charge with Snowmane surging forward, and finally, the stirring Rohan theme on cue almost as a lamentation to the House of Eorl - so fricking perfect. The right blend of unmitigated badassery and pathos. It even managed to capture the more intimate drama of young Meriadoc Brandybuck, so far from home, stranded from his friends but being brave because that’s just what you do.
For me, this resonated not just as some action set piece. I saw this as I have always imagined it: an epic moment in the last days of the Third Age, an age of heroes, with characters slightly burnished and larger than life through re-telling and nostalgia, as happens with all myths and histories.
Like well he’s back, I enjoy the books for what they are and I enjoy the movies for what they are. Full credit to Jackson and his design team. Firstly, getting Alan Lee and John Howe on board was great idea. Secondly, the attention to detail in design is nothing short of amazing and really increases my enjoyment of the movies. It’s a completely immersive experience; it’s like there’s a whole new world and, more importantly, culture and history to explore. I remember going to a Lord of the Rings exhibition of the costumes and designs and that was almost better than the movies. This was a labour of love and it showed. Watching the movies again in HD and seeing all the little details is so much fun.
I would have loved to see it, too, but cutting the Scouring of the Shire was the right decision. And cutting Bombadil, for the same reason. He had to cut a lot to get the books to fit into even very long movies, and cutting out little bits here and there, while a necessary part of that process, always leaves rough edges. When presented with large, cohesive chunks that can be cut entirely without impacting the main narrative, it’s a no-brainer.
I don’t object to most of the changes made to the plot and characters, and the large parts that were removed, in order to make it filmable. However, I’m constantly distracted by the dialogue, which is usually a heavily abridged version of that in the book. I find it especially jarring when a line used by one character is placed in another’s mouth, in a different context. This makes it less of an immersive (a word I use a lot when talking about movies) experience for me. I found them quite enjoyable anyway, and bought the extended editions when they came out. However, I’ve become less interested in them with time. I’ll read the book again in another year or two, but I’m not bothered if I never see the films again. I wonder what I’d have made of them if I’d never read and wasn’t very familiar with the books.
a couple random thoughts, butting into my own thread
-as films I think the theatrical versions hold up better than the extended editions
agreeing that the use of miniatures and non-computer special effects will add to its ability to last.
also agree that the Scouring is vital to the meaning of the books, but for some reason I can live with it being out of the films.
-am so glad that the films brought many people to the books who never would have read them otherwise.
-the attention to detail, the casting, the art direction, the music - it all came together for me in Fellowship. I was won over after being so sceptical that this mad project could actually work. and 2 years later actually seeing Frodo crawling up Mount Doom, as I had seen in my mind’s eye ffor all those years before was pretty special too - like a gift.
Oh, I gotta disagree there. I think the point that no place on Middle-earth could go untouched was an important one. As it was in the films, the idea that “we’ll always have the Shire” was left apparently true.
I’ve been a LotR geek for most of my life, so the films were naturally a dream come true. I went to see Fellowship on opening day with my entire freakin’ family. All of us - and I mean every single one of us - had been anticipating the films since we’d heard they were being made. Both of my brothers, their wives, all four of my nieces/nephews, and myself were in the theater for the first showing.
It was so great. My oldest brother and I sat there grinning at each other like idiots the whole way through. We simply could not believe that Jackson had managed to get so much of the story so right. The love of the source material shone through the films like a beacon. Fantastic work.
For me that was perhaps most mature ‘message’ (although JRRT would have hated the use of the word) of the book. That sometimes you have to give up even the things you held most precious for the realisation of a greater cause. That fact that the hobbits did not really believe it would ever come to that, until they returned and discovered the worst, made it all the more poignant.
Cut that and you are left with a simple war story. I can believe the rationale for cutting it from the film outlined by others above, but that only confirms to me my impression that the focus of the films were misguided.
At least for my taste, obviously YMMV - a view I have much more sympathy with if you have not read the books.
The problem with the Scouring is that, in a movie, it would be horribly anticlimactic. It’s a whole seperate mini-story that happens after the main story arc.
I’d have loved to have seen it, but it really would not have worked in the movie format.
Jackson made errors in making his movies, but they were mostly in stuff he added or changed for no good reason (I’m looking at you, green ghosts of death!), not his choice of stuff to take away. Another annoying example is having the Ents decide not to go to war until “fooled” into it; WTF?
Moreover, I disagree that the notion that no place in middle-earth was untouched was really all that central. After all, the Shire would have escaped untouched but for the very specific malice of “Sharkey”, and it was restored afterwards. More significant is the personal sacrifice made by the ringbearer - which was nicely portrayed.
Very much agree. To me, Tolkien’s main thesis was this: things are in decline. They have been in decline for a very long time - in fact, since the beginning. Everything’s going to crap, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. However, that’s certainly no excuse not to try - even to the point of absolute death and despair - because that’s what the good guys do. We hope and struggle and strive against immeasurable odds, no matter what.
Yes, it really wouldn’t have worked well, the story was resolved at that point. Cinema has it’s own language and conventions. It would have been very jarring to the audience to set off on a mini story at the point, and there simply wasn’t time.
I didn’t like Aragorn taking the army of the dead to the Pelennor fields, but it was done to simplify the story. Otherwise, there would have had to have been a series of scenes explaining how Aragorn picked up his army in the south. Again, adding to the run time.
Merry and Pippin are protagonists. In the action movie school of cinema, they have to be seen as influencing events. Yes, it was dumb. Instead of the Ents marching to their probable doom, they are reduced to tree shaped minions.
I dunno. On the extended cut at least, the director spends a lot of time on Aragorn interacting with the ghosts under the mountain, complete with a skullcopalypse (indeed, cutting much of that made sense). There was easily I think enough time to do a short scene explaining how Aragorn picked up his army.
Perhaps have Aragorn explain the plan but leave the audience in doubt as to whether it worked.
Then you could have that marvelous, cinematic scene where everyone dreads the corsairs … until the flag breaks out etc.
That whole scene bugged me, not only because it reduced the ents to minions or dupes, but because it was impossible. Fangorn gets pissed, lets out a howl - and all of a sudden all the other ents are right there, lined up to attack? How did that happen?
Yes, that could have worked well. Perhaps the king of the dead could have agreed to fight, but only a single battle. Or perhaps the dead could have melted away at daybreak, only giving enough time to reach Pelagir.
