After seeing LOTR in the cinema, I was a bit disgusted at the terrible picture quality. It looked like they put a haze over everything to disguise bad CGI-effects.
I was very pleasantly surprised to see that the DVD’s picture quality was sharp as a razor. I have now made a promise to myself never to visit these crappy cinema’s again. DVD rules.
It pretty much reaffirmed my sense that the director, to quote Lister from “Red Dwarf”, has no sense of magnificence. The fellow wouldn’t know royalty if it smote him with a scepter. Unfortunately for the audience, the main characters are royal, or at the least were supposed by Tolkien to have noble qualities.
What was supposed to be an insightful comment in the additional material pretty much explains why the film was so-so, instead of the masterpiece that will one day be created from Tolkien’s books. It was to the effect of “Take care of the details, and the overall authenticity will take care of itself.” The picture was a performance patchwork. The details were often good, but if they’d spent more money on the actors, the audio track, and the music, instead of creating “authentic” swords and investing 50 yards of material on each black rider… it would have been a film worth reckoning with.
Nothing like a DVD to expose a film’s weaknesses.
Then you may want to pick up a copy of Peter Jackson’s LOTR, not the Rankin Bass version.
The car was seen immediately after the quote “You know what Bilbo always says…”
There was a car there. It’s gone now. They did take it out of the DVD release.
The smoke from the chimney you see is exactly that, smoke from a chimney, and it’s still there. The car was to the left of the house with the chimney (a chimney with smoke that was in several scenes previously).
Here are some pictures which will point out the exact location of the car.
http://cseanor.home.att.net/misc/fotrcar.htm
The car (and the dust it kicked up, very separate from the chimney smoke further to the right) is still visible on the Academy screener and the old National Geographic DVD, but it HAS been removed from the DVD. They cut and pasted a section from before the car appears. A zoom in that area will reveal wobbly edges where the cut & paste was done.
No one else said anything about your post, but I feel I must. I disagree strongly. I felt immense magnificence.
To tell you where I’m coming from, I had never read the books before seeing the movie. I came into it as cold and ignorant about the story and characters as you could possibly imagine. From the very first moment, when the voices started whispering in Elvish, I was engrossed, enraptured and in awe. That feeling stayed with me and only grew stronger as the movie went on. When it was over, I felt high. To steal a fundie thing, high on Tolkien. When I got home that night, I took down a box set of paperbacks my husband had had for a few decades, and started reading The Hobbit that night. Within the next few weeks, I had read all 4 books, and loved them. They’re a part of me now, and I can see myself re-reading them on a very regular basis througout my life. I love the movie too, because it opened a whole new world to me that I never, honest, NEVER, would have entered otherwise. (I say that because I’m a non-fiction person. Aside from some SF and some Steven King, biographies, non-fiction and history is my thing).
The movie started it all for me, and magnificence seems too puny a word for the experience. I felt it in the movie, and I felt it even more in the books.
I got that Aragorn was royal and noble on my first viewing, without knowing a THING about him in advance. “Unfortunately”? What do you mean? I think Aragorn’s character was set up perfectly, and his story arc through The Return of the King will do Tolkien proud. Didn’t Aragorn turn away from the throne of Gondor? Wasn’t a big part of the story his return to it? Why then should Aragorn be LIKE a king in the first part of the story? The other characters may not be royal, but they were noble. I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about or how you expect Aragorn to be portrayed in the first installment. If you’d never read TTT or TRotK, would you think Aragorn was particularly ROYAL just on the basis of TFotR?
You mean, when Peter Jackson’s film of The Return of The King is released, and you can judge all 3 as one. Right?
Or do you have a fantasy that someone ELSE will try to make a film (or films) from the books that is bigger, grander, more elaborate? That’s not going to happen. Not in this or any other lifetime or universe. Who would dare try to top the DEFINITIVE film version? Who would have the money, the time, the passion and love for the material, the LOCATIONS, the actors, the sets and the goodwill and help of an entire country behind him, as Jackson did? I think 3 3-hour movies, made by a fan who truly loves the books is more than any Tolkien fan could have ever imagined or hoped for. What more can you ask for?
Perhaps a TV miniseries a couple of decades from now will happen for you, but I wouldn’t hold my breath, or expect it to be anywhere near as good, though it might have the luxury of time to keep in Tom Bombadil and the other changes that must so upset you.
Jackson HAS made a masterpiece, and it will only be confirmed and heightened by the next two movies.
Oh my. It IS a film worth reckoning with, and much has to do with the actors (all excellent!), the audio (huh?) and the music (my god, especially the magnificent Academy Award winning music!). I’m so sorry it doesn’t work for you. I hope you’ll change your mind after 2nd film, or at least the 3rd film.
What actors should they have “spent more money on”? Who charges more that would have been better in what roles?
And strengths.
I agree with this in some ways. I liked the comment that they didn’t want to overdo Gandalf by making him a cliche wizard with lightning bolts shooting from his fingertips, OTOH, I felt like they made him a bit wimpy. He’s still a good character, but if I hadn’t read the books, I think I would have the wrong impression of him at this point. I also didn’t even notice the fact that they made all original glass and clay dishes. I can’t say it did much for me. Maybe I’m still just sore because Bombadil was left out?
Only other complaint, is that the 2-disc version has an advertisement for the 4-disc version. Nothing wrong with advertising, but I felt I was being told…shouldn’t get this version, get the other one sucker.
I didn’t see the film while it was in theaters, I was afraid I would be wasting my money. I have to say that with all my above complaining, I do think the film turned out a lot better than I expected. I was pleasantly surprised overall. Count me in as someone looking forward to the Two Towers.
But that’s the point. You’re supposed to have the wrong impression of him at this point of the story. Gandalf the Grey does everything in his power to appear wimpy and unassuming. If he walked around looking like the wisest, baddest mofo around, there’s no chance in the pits of Moria he would have been allowed to talk to Theodin with Wormtongue there. There’s countless other places he’s gotten himself in simply by waving his hand and saying “these are not the droids you’re looking for.” That’s tough to do when everyone knows who and what you are.
Equipoise, well said.
Equipoise" Testify, sister! 
[nitpick]
I agree with you for the most part, but some of my suspense and trepidation while reading the books, was caused by knowing that Gandalf wasn’t a wimp. For example, wow, if Gandalf is telling everyone to run from the Balrog, I know it’s one scary demon. If even Gandalf is afraid to handle the ring, I know it’s not something to be taken lightly. I’m sure I could get these ideas anyway, just from watching the story, but knowing a bit more about Gandalf made these things that much more menacing.
I didn’t expect him to just easily deal with problems in the story, I think it would ruin it. That wasn’t what I was trying to convey at all. I had foreknowledge of Gandalf from The Hobbit, and so have not taken into account that possibly the LOTR was written with Gandalf looking intially a bit wimpy. Something for me to think about.
A nice experience! I appreciate your details. In fact, I plan to re-watch the movie, trying to see it in the light you suggest. Nor do I mean to detract from a good aesthetic experience – I’ve very much enjoyed things the majority of viewers find laughable. But there’s a difference between enjoying something for its merits, and imagining something better.
I’m also a historian, although I read LOTR long before. However it isn’t historical or linguistic elements, IMHO, where the film was weak. With one exception. After having spent all that effort getting the pronunciation of Middle Earth languages correct, they’re nowhere near as loud/audible as the regular speech. Add to that the intrusively loud music track, and in a couple place they might as well have been saying “Ring around the rosie, a pocket full of spears”.
The actor playing Boromir was playing royalty about the way Aragorn should have been. Not swaggering, or delivering implicit threats about the vast powers (potentially) at his command, but forceful and passionate just the same. Even in concealment as Strider, it should have been evident that he was seeing and understanding things no one else was able to. Aragorn is a man of many, many moods. The actor seemed just the opposite.
People have tried before, and they will try again. There’s simply too much good cinematic material to ignore. We wouldn’t want to hamper the inspiration of another group of artists. Shakespeare isn’t belittled by constant reinterpretation, nor are Shakespearean actors.
New Zealand was a very happy setting for the film. No reason it couldn’t be used again. In the next production, say in 15 years, almost certainly more of the landscape would be done with special effects, though.
As I understand, all the live acting has already been shot, so there will be no improvement in the other films.
My main criticism of the music (and director’s comments on the DVD enhanced my perception) is that’s it’s FAR too intrusive and loud. The director, knowing little about music by his own admission, got swept away by the impact, and it shows. There are several scenes that would be improved by eliminating the music entirely. As for winning awards, the Academy is in the pocket of people with money and vested interests. They’re famous, too, for voting “sympathy” awards, rather than simply on what’s “best”. Compared to soundtrack such as “Star Wars”, “A Clockwork Orange” or “The Wizard of Oz” – which are extraordinary, LOTR’s is forgettable.
The acting ranges from Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin and Boromir (good), to Gimli and Legolas (Gimli in particular is pathetic, his voice should be dubbed by someone else). Several of the actors seem to drift in their parts, suggesting either poor directing or slips in continuity control (Gandalf and Elrond). One gets a hint from the DVD commentary why the casting is weak: the casting department had huge problems finding bit players in New Zealand, not a heavily populated country. Compared to flipping through agent’s books picking out photographs in Hollywood, it must have been a nightmare. Hence, lots of weak decisions.
That’s not to say at all that the film shouldn’t have been made! And of course I want people to enjoy it – so they’ll make more! Hearkening back to the OP, DVD commentaries are a wonderful thing. Hearing from the horse’s mouth about artistic decisions helps one consider the aesthetic results.
I’m not sure I know what you mean here. I would agree that Agent Smith was a bad choice for Elrond, but he wasn’t in the film nearly enough to have been drifting. And while I’m sure you noticed something about McKellan’s acting, I can’t think of any particular instances. Do you have any in mind that I could pay attention to?
Also, what bit parts were in the film long enough to notice poor acting? Maybe the Prancing Pony scene?
Just wanted to follow up on the above: Cinema presentation is entirely up to the exhibitor (the theater owner), not the filmmakers. Many cinema managers have misguided ideas about saving money that negatively impact the theatrical experience. One of these penny-pinching tactics is to turn down the brightness of the projector bulb; the intent is to make the bulb last longer, even though there’s no actual evidence that this is the case. The effect, either way, is that the projected image is dim and murky. You may very well have seen exactly that. The DVD, by contrast, is produced by the distributor, and reflects the filmmakers’ intent much more than what you might see in the cinema. It’s frustrating, yes, especially for a dedicated cinephile like I am; I actually wrote a letter to a movie studio a couple of months back complaining about a local theater’s awful presentation of one of their movies.
So, anyway, the point is this: If the movie looks bad on the cinema screen, you can’t jump to any conclusions about whose fault it is. And for the record, I saw FOTR twice on the big screen here in Seattle, and presentation was excellent both times. (Once was at Cinerama. What else would one expect?)
I think the think I enjoyed most about this DVD was that while sitting and watching the opening battle scene, with all the action going on all over the place, neuseance turned to me and said, “Yeah, I can see where this would be better on a bigger screen TV.”
:eek: 
And me with a birthday coming up and everything.
I’m not normally enough of a cinephile to buy dvds or even vhs tapes, but it’s moment’s like these that I lament the fact that I don’t own a DVD player.
I gotta say, I’m greatly tempted to go out and buy a player and the DVD… But I gotta stick to the budget if I’m ever going to pay off my various debts!
So for now, I hate all of you. With a passion that almost cannot be described.
-Jon, cradling his much-read LotR trilogy and weeping.
Well, now I have to go buy this DVD and plan to buy the Special Edition too… MUST HAVE THIS!
Koz, can you rent a DVD player from Blockbuster?
Right. It’s that the fact that the casting department as a whole was overburdened with the more-than-usually difficult task of finding a large number of extras that might have lead reduced effort or undue hurry in other casting areas. Or perhaps it’s that the casting woman’s DVD comment was an excuse for what she felt was a poor job?
“Drift” was used in the sense of being “aimless” or “inconsistent”. Gandalf was more aimless. (And I agree with his comment quoted by the props department that his hat was inelegant and concealed his face.)
Arwen and Galadriel drifted as much as Elrond. Although he was only on screen briefly, what “drifted” in the inconsistent sense was his powerful performance as a warrior at Mount Doom, constrasted with his batting eyelids and indirect response to Gandalf (“Men? There’s no strenght in men” speech”). Then his “after dinner joking between chums” balling out Pippin and Merry. One expects reserve and sterness from a hardened warrior and leader, not facial quirks.
The hobbits (and Boromir) seemed well-directed and consistent. But in general one had the uneasy feeling of not knowing what personality to expect when someone appeared in a new scene.
Please keep in mind, folks, you’re arguing the merits of this DVD with someone who thinks that Gilligan’s Island is a better series than Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
No offense, partly_warmer, you seem like a really nice, intelligent guy. But I have serious doubts as to your aesthetic perceptions.
I can partly see what you mean. However, regarding Elrond, that’s his character. Tolkien’s elves are just plain weird. They find hobbits highly amusing, don’t find the shennanigans of men to be even slightly appropriate and generally give off a persona of being afflicted with multi-personality disorder. Hugo may not have given the best Elrond performance, but he was on target with his scenes.
Also, what do you mean by Gandalf being “aimless?” I think that of all the Academy nominations this movie got, the Best Supporting was the most deserving. McKellen’s Gandalf was perfect (we’ll ignore his Curly imitation in Orthanc - but that was just bad effects). Wherever Gandalf appeared to be aimless in the movie, he was in effect appearing aimless in the book.
That was a joke, dude. I picked one of the worst TV shows I could think of, and pointed out there were ways in which it was better than BVS. (For example that it was possible to reorganize some of that show’s lines randomly and have it make equal sense.) I can’t think of any stylistic, acting, directing, or musical elements of Gilligan’s Island that are better than LOTR. No, wait, one. The theme song.
Nitpick: None of the main characters in Lord of the Rings are royal. A great many of the secondary characters are royal, to be sure. But the main characters are Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippen. That’s one of the major points of the book: despite the impressive titles and pedigrees of the royals, it’s the very ordinary hobbits who actually save Middle Earth.