Smell this, I think it's expired...

[Ainaserkewen]

It was the first time I'd seen a Lord of the Rings film on regular cable TV. The Fellowship of the Ring was broadcast over two days on Canada's channel so out of loyalty I watched it. I hadn't seen the first movie in a little while.

I noticed something though. I was a movie gal first when it came to Frodo and his ring and I have vivid memories of being in that theatre the first time wishing before it had started that I had gone to see Harry Potter instead. I remember being captivated from the first scene and ending all thought process throughout the movie.

The Fellowship of the Ring, I noticed not being a lover of fantasy movies at the time, was a truly flawless movie. The cutting was beautifully done and the script was seamless and I remember, not cheesy in the slightest. The screenplay was so wonderful that I can remember most of the script as if it were a song I'd learned off the radio.

But you all know how much some people loved the first movie. It didn't win the Big Award, but it was still fresh, clean and exciting.

I remember seeing the next two in much the same fashion. However, I noticed that I wasn't as impressed with them. It came back to me as I was watching Fellowship. The second two have less melodious movement, less flowy language and more awkward moments, some which made me cringe.

So my question to all of you is if you a) agree with me over the "flowy-ness" of the movies, b) think that it's just me in noticing what I do. I did fall madly in love with the Fellowship, so maybe my observations are just in comparison. And c) what could have made the second two less wonderful.

Like the Matrix series, which critics agreed that the first was amazing but the latter were tired and used feeling, do you think that after the first movie, the other two just seem expired?

[the phantom]

I'll say more later if I get a chance, but for right now I would just say that I agree with you.

Fellowship is by far my favorite of the trilogy. It's more magical, I guess- it's not as typical as the other two movies (which were great and all, just not as great as FOTR). Fellowship is more... Middle-Earthian, somehow.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I do agree with your feelings about the first movie. It was amazing, and remains one of the best I have ever seen. It really was an incredible experience, watching it.
I, however, do not agree at all with your feelings about the other two. I was wowed, then wowed again. If anything, I got the feeling that the movies were getting better and better. After Fellowship, I lovedlovedloved the Two Towers.
Return of the King is my favorite movie. Ever. It took my breath away. I found it so powerful, so moving, so filled with sad beauty....

The three movies have very different "feels" to them. Fellowship is green and happy, with less heavy material than the other two. There is more genuine humor, light, and joy in it than the others. The same is very true of the books. The tone that Tolkien used when writing Fellowship is very, very different from the tone of the other two installments.

The Two Towers will always be sort of strange. It's the middle movie in a trilogy, which makes it difficult, no real beginning, no real end. That alone takes away somewhat from the "flowiness" of the movie. I do agree that there were some awkward moments (some of the Gimli comic relief comes to mind), but I'm willing to overlook that.

The Return of the King is in my opinion the best of the three. If there were any awkward moments, I entirely ignored them. It is certainly the darkest, most intense movie of the three, but that is as it should be. It is also the most powerful, at least for me.

I guess I never really got a sense of a decline in quality. I was completely amazed by each movie, and I definitely had the general feeling of them getting better and better.
Each to her own, I guess.

Phantom, as for Fellowship being more "middle earthian", how so do you mean? It certainly is more happy and hobbity, but middle earthian, no. The circumstances in Middle-Earth changed as the story went on, and so did the movies. If the last two are more intense, darker, and perhaps grittier and more realistic, it is because the story changed that way as well. The next time you read Lord of the Rings, try comparing the tone of Fellowship, especially at the beginning, to the tone of the other two books. There is a very obvious difference, and I think that the movies conveyed that quite well.

[The Only Real Estel]

Well, I know exactly where you're coming from when you talk about the "flowy-ness" of The Fellowship. That movie kept me in my seat, eyes glued to the screen the entire time. It had it all (imo)--action, but not enough to bore you; scenery, but not enough to slow down the movie; some laughs, but not enough to make you roll your eyes; perfect music, and even some romance (although I'll admit that was not a requirement on my list). Sure, I didn't like Arwen's extended role at first, but I had been warned about that so it didn't shock me out of the fantasy world I had entered. And I quickly got to the point where the changes from the book never tripped my train of thought.

The second two have less melodious movement, less flowy language and more awkward moments, some which made me cringe

I agree. The last two movies were still great and I love them, don't get me wrong, but I was less impressed with them than I was with Fellowship. Or maybe 'less impressed' isn't quite the term I'm looking for. I was impressed with last two enough, the battles, the visuals, the creatures, but they didn't have the same feel that The Fellowship was able to retain despite repeated viewings. Part of it might be that, or course, neither TTT nor RotK had the privilege of being the first Lord of the Rings movie. Consequently, neither of them had the fresh, clean feel that you, Ainaserkewen, described that an all-time first would have had (forgive me for not counting the animated attempts as firsts), though the last two were no less exciting and flashy. But it seemed the more that Jackson and his crew of writers tinkered, the more the movie and script started to snag. Faramir's change went over like a lead balloon to most audiences that had read the book, although they did deal with it pretty adequately during the extended edition of Towers (it still makes me cringe every once in awhile). Aragorn 'dying' and Arwen 'reviving' him came across to me as a forced deviation so that they could slip another A&A scene in. Arwen's time in RotK really distracted me from the movie, and I found myself having to get back into the movie after her 'changing her mind' bit. The humor became stale with repeated short jokes (as we all know), etc. The scene where Frodo tells Sam to leave really stuck me and, even though I 'understand' why PJ felt the need to do it, I still have serious reservations about it. Now obviously I'm not going to list everything that bothered me about the last two movies, but those are some of them.
Now, I reiterate that I still love the last two movies...just not as much as the first one. So I think that it's obviously not just you noticing things Aina (it's at least you and me ). As to what could've made the last two more wonderful the juries out as far as I'm concerned. I'm not entirely sure exactly what could've been changed or added to improve the feel, but there must have been something. It's not like the Matrix movies that you mentioned, where I think the W Brothers simply ran out of new ideas, there were always things in the books to build off of and plenty of extra ideas that PJ could've/did use to enhance the movies without reaching to far. They were great movies, but in the end they just didn't have the same "flowy-ness" that the first had for me. The feel of films that are expired? I don't think so. The feel of films that are nearing their due date? In some ways. Still great movies? Duh.

[Encaitare]

I remember renting FotR when I was sick and it was relatively new, and since I had nothing to do I watched it over and over and over. It never got boring for me -- I was new to LotR and thought the whole movie was fascinating and exciting. I know I could not do the same thing with The Two Towers, simply because it's that awkward middle stage, as has already been mentioned.

It's when it comes to RotK that I disagree with you. I found this movie to be the most beautiful of the three. It brings tears to my eyes, and rarely does a movie have that effect on me. It still doesn't seem old to me even though I don't watch it very much (simply out of practicality due to its length). It's like reading a familiar fairy tale many times over: the dangerous parts still make you feel anxious and the climax still places something in your heart you can't explain no matter how well you know the story.

[Larien Telemnar]

I love the first movie with a passion, and always will. I think part of the reason I love it so much is because it shows so much of Hobbits in it, and me being Hobbit, weel that just makes sense, doesn't it? (Yes, Hobbit at heart. )

I don't really agree with you about the other two not being as good, though. The others, you have to remember that the fellowship is visiting less refined cultures and new surroundings. As to the dialogue no being as flowy in the other two, the different cultures had different ways of saying things, in their tone and mannerisms and stuch. The Elves use a lot of beautiful words and show great expression, whille the Rohirrim are warriors, not trained for great halls and fine speach, but for battle. The Gondorians were also a little rough, and yet they knew how to express themselves more. Cultures have a lot to do with the dialogue in the movies, I think. Someone dissagree with me if I'm wrong in this, and it may not have any bearing on the film, I suppose.

The story altogether is an amazing story, intricate like a tapestry and delicate. It also is a grand adventure, which is what caught my attention, I finally found out where I come from! (Just kidding)

Good questions, I just loved all the movies, but FOTR and ROTK are my favs.

[alatar]

I would have to agree with Ainaserkewen.

This is not to say that TTT and ROTK are not great movies; it's just that FOTR was the best of the three. I own all three in EE DVD format, and on any given night could watch any of them. Most times I choose FOTR as (to me) it was the movie closest to JRRT.

TTT was too PJ, and though he corrected this somewhat in ROTK, it also smelled more of PJ than JRRT.

To me PJ saw how well FOTR was received and thought that this permitted him to (a) add more of his own material to TTT and (b) hype it up a bit with more special effects. After TTT, he did the same in ROTK, but also must have heard some of the grumblings from the faithful, and so tried to get back on course a bit.

But he also wanted to show what some cash and WETA could do.

Another problem (think that I've stated this many times now, so sorry if I'm playing the tape again...) was that the characters became less interesting as they became more and more caricatures of themselves. Gimli the clown, Legolas the ultimate surfer/warrior, etc. Some characters grew, yet not as much as they did in FOTR.

And I didn't like the ents. And don't get me started (again) regarding Gandalf's staff, which is why I'm here in the first place.

Anyway, note that I'm not saying that the three movies weren't wonderful nor not popular, but just that FOTR will always be my fav.

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by alatar

TTT was too PJ, and though he corrected this somewhat in ROTK, it also smelled more of PJ than JRRT.

Hear! Hear!

[Ainaserkewen]

Yes, well said. Followship felt more Tolkien-e than the others. It was playful and scrumptuously detailed.

Am I right in saying that it was cut better?

Also, the phantom, you were making sense...you should continue.

[Holbytlass]

As far as 'flowy-ness' goes, in FotR, there was just one storyline, Frodo's. As we all know in TTT and RotK, they split and split and split then some reunite and then all reunite. Fellowship is my favorite because I tend to like quests a little more than epics. One thing I like about the movies is they clarified some things for me especially in TTT. I am a visual person and even though PJ didn't put everything in, I understand whats going on in TTT, Helm's deep part, better in the books. That I'm greatful for. Still FotR is my favorite.

[Saurreg]

FoTR was in my opinion the most fateful adaptation of the original work. Aside from some minor changes for drama, the overall script followed the original book quite well. The other two installments were more loose based and there were several deviations from the fundamentals of the book. Some of the changes that were debatable were;

1. Theoden's on-screen persona
2. Denethor's on-screen persona
3. The manipulation of the AoD by Aragon (which, in term reflects on Aragon's on screen persona)
4. Elrond's on-screen persona
5. Omission of the scouring of the Shire.

It is very easy to attribute the debatable changes to PJ's and PB's combined ego and that was exactly the notion I held when I first saw the two movies. I was abit disappointed with the final cuts and even the EE did no justice for me. However with time I have learned to accept what the two sequels were - darn good films and even learned to like them base on their own merits.

Recently, I read an article based on an interview with the incomparable Ghassan Massoud who played the great Saladin in Kingdom of Heaven and this is what he had to say on drama and fidelity;

"Who said drama had to be historically accurate? Who said that drama’s role was to recreate history? If you want history, go to a bookstore. Drama is drama. Drama’s role is to create a story that has a central conflict; and the story doesn’t have to be constrained to historical factuality; so it is any innovator’s right to grab a portion of history and recreate a sample of what life may have been like,"

That was perhaps the fairest and most truthful statement ever spoken on the need be fateful in adaption whilst creating drama. The same idea can be applied here by substituting history with original literature. The dramatics were needed in TTT and RoTK for the films to succeed in conveying its theme. And though these changes might have altered some of the fundamentals, they were instrumental in taking the casual audience into ME and introducing the vision of Tolkien with the rest of humanity a way the books can never achieve.

P.S: Ainaserkewen - How did you come up with such a title for this thread? It brought a smile to my lips because those were the exact same words my sister spoke to me last night when she rummaged through the fridge and produced a jar of honey. She popped open the lid, frowned and turned to me,

"Smell this. I think it's expired..."

[Ainaserkewen]

As far as 'flowy-ness' goes, in FotR, there was just one storyline, Frodo's.

You know, maybe you're right. There was one plot line that had everything to do with itself. Perhaps the others would have done better had they kept the same order as the books and completely separated the two stories. Then at least they could have used the Mouth of Sauron part better...

How did you come up with such a title for this thread? It brought a smile to my lips because those were the exact same words my sister spoke to me last night when she rummaged through the fridge and produced a jar of honey. She popped open the lid, frowned and turned to me,

"Smell this. I think it's expired..."

Must have read your mind. Does honey ever expire?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aina

Perhaps the others would have done better had they kept the same order as the books and completely separated the two stories.

Although it works well in the books, this, to my mind, would have worked shockingly in the films. Perhaps it's just that we're all used to seeing the various threads of a story develop simlutaneously, rather than sequentially, on the screen, but it seems to me that there must be a reason why this is done in films. Maybe it's because people tend to invest less time and emotion in films than in books and so audiences would forget the first storyline by the time the second came to the end. Or perhaps, as films are more immediate, it would just have confused the time-scale in people's minds. Whatever, it would have seemed very strange to have the two stories develop sequentially in the films, as they do in the book.

EDIT: A further thought. Presenting the two threads of the story sequentially on film would have produced two climaxes, in TTT at least - one halfway through the film and the other at the end.

[Nimrodel_9]

I completely agree with Aina.

FotR had the same affect on me. To this day I prefer to watch it over the other two. I think the reason is (to me anyway) it seemed for fantastic. It seemed to draw me into Middle-earth. The feeling was there in the other two but I feel the "magic" of Tolkien's more strongly in the Fellowship.

[Ainaserkewen]

But why? I think most of us agree that the first was made the best, but why? The nature of the movie, the single stream of consciousness, or perhaps that's just how it happened? What do you think?

[Saurreg]

FoTR was a novelty - the first of its kind. We haven't had a LoTR movie since the Bakshi animation and were yet to be introduced to the great cinematography nor the mindblowing special effects. Secondly as I have stated before, FoTR was the most fateful adaptation of the three films. We went in the theater with high expectations and a background knowledge of the books hence were gratified when the film followed closely to the book and provided us with what we expected.

Those in my opinion are what made FoTR more endearing to some of us.

Must have read your mind. Does honey ever expire?

Ah, a psychic in the house! It looked an unnatural shade of cream and had a funky fermented smell to it. Could have saved it to brew mead, if I knew how.

[drigel]

saureg u got the jump on me for your point.
there was such an anticipation by the time FOTR came out, and then PJ came through so well on it - just awsome. the 2nd and 3rd movies came and i wasnt dissapointed, but to me (and of course theres really no way around it) the adaptation work of PJ came through more. Thats when I, as a Tolkien fan, thought oh - i would do this and that different... but the FOTR was a wonderfull introduction to the movie trilogy for both the hard core fans and the complete newbies.

As for style, i do agree with this thread. There was a sense of grace that wasnt relayed to the 2nd and 3rd....

[Gurthang]

One thing that I've noticed from the first film that's not in the second two was the sense of urgency. For the entire first half of the movie Frodo is being closely pursued by the Ringwraiths. Even when they are defeated, its 'let's get headed for Mordor'. Next they were trapped in Moria and then were being pursued by the Uruks down the Anduin. The whole movie had that feeling of hurry-or-you'll-get-caught that kept us all on the edge of our seats.

The Two Towers did not have this at all. I remember actually looking at my watch wondering why it seemed so long. I don't mean it was boring, I just wasn't into it as much. RotK was a little better, but still didn't have that same urgency that was in the Fellowship.

[Ainaserkewen]

That's a good point. It was as if there was a single plotline dotted with various details and sub-stories but all contributing to this single, clean line that was urgently movie forward. This was all helped by the dialog (best of the three movies), the scene cutting and timing and the fresh faces of the actors in new realisations of specific things. Nobody knew at that point that there was "no hope" or the possibility of failure.

It looked an unnatural shade of cream and had a funky fermented smell to it.

Um, ew...we keep our honey in the cupboard...

Also, though it probably helped other people see the first movie with more of a light, the fact that it was the first movie and in great anticipation did not contribute to the feeling of superiority the Fellowship gives me. I didn't want to see LOTR in the first place. The only time I'd heard of it before that was geeky kids in my elementary school classes reading it. "It's about a magic ring" they'd say...I though, "Borrrinnngg". Heh, now I've surpassed them all in LOTR geekiness..."Fate is not without a sense of irony."

[Firefoot]

Well, I guess I get to be the odd one out.

My favorite movie is certainly RotK. I am not really sure whether I prefer TTT or FotR better anymore (It's been too long!). I do love all three movies, but somehow Fellowship manages to disappoint me (at least the first half, until the Company sets out from Rivendell). Truth be told, I had not actually heard of LotR (book or movie) until some three months after Fellowship was first in theatres, so this very much lessened my excitement over the movie. Perhaps another six months after reading the books, I finally decided to see Fellowship, and I was extremely disappointed. Extremely. I enjoy it much more now, but I still have a hard time with some of the changes. I do not tend to have this problem with the other two movies - it is a lot easier for whatever reason to overlook them. For example, I dislike much of the Rivendell footage (not the sets or anything, just the way it goes), especially the Council of Elrond.

I considered going to see TTT in theatres, but eventually opted out. I enjoyed it a great deal when I finally did see it - I was more 'into it,' and was starting to appreciate much more the movie in itself, including the music.

Now RotK, I was extremely excited about this one. I downloaded the trailer and watched it frequently in anticipation. I counted down the days, and was absolutely enraptured when I finally did see it. I thought it was fantastic (still do). The month preceding the premiere of RotK was the real start of my second LotR craze (the first being immediately following the reading of the books). It was in this time that I joined the BD's.

So maybe it was just a process, having to grow used to the fact that there were going to be changes, that the movie was not the book but a rendition of it. Also to be considered was my anticipation: Fellowship: okay, I guess I'll see it. Two Towers: Sure, I want to see it, but I can wait. RotK: How many more days!? So for me, it was really RotK that had that 'fresh' feeling that most of you describe for Fellowship. In my first viewings of each, RotK was the only one that held me absolutely enchanted.

[the phantom]

First, I agree with Gurthang's point about urgency.

Second, fighting is not a suitable replacement for tension and suspense. Sure, I love a great fight scene as much as the next guy, but fights should be breaks in the overall suspense and tension and not actually try to contain all the suspense and tension. I believe that Fellowship did a much better job sustaining suspense and tension throughout the movie, where as the other two movies had more fights but less substance between.

A good example of what I'm trying to say is what happened in Moria. The fight with the cave troll and orcs was great and all, but the part that followed where the group was running through the columns as thousands of orcs chased them was just as exciting. And then the orcs have them surrounded and you're thinking "How in the world are they going to get out of this?" Tension and suspense galore. And then the orcs run off as if they are scared and a fiery light is moving towards the fellowship, and the audience is thinking "Oh my goodness, what in the world is going on? What were those orcs scared of? What is that light?"

That sort of drama is immensely superior to non-stop fighting. The ideal movie mixes the two together. The fights do entertain, but the parts in between grip the audience and keep them enchanted.

I was gripped much more by the Fellowship.

In addition, I agree with what alatar said-

the characters became less interesting as they became more and more caricatures of themselves. Gimli the clown, Legolas the ultimate surfer/warrior, etc. Some characters grew, yet not as much as they did in FOTR.

Also, I stand by what I said earlier about the other movies being more "typical". In other words, more like other movies. There were too many cliché lines, looks, and moments that had more of a modern movie feel to them than a Middle Earth feel.

Examples (some of these might be from EE versions in case you don't recognize them)-
1) Gimli's "humorous" bodily functions.
2) Gimli getting drunk.
3) Legolas surfing down the stairs of Helm's Deep.
4) Aragorn's disdainful/grossed-out look at the Mouth of Sauron.
5) Denethor as a crazy mean old man rather than a once great man driven to dark deeds by grief and despair.
6) Faramir's lack of the nobility and magic that made his men love him in the book.

That's all I have time to list now, but I am sure some of you can think of some more. There were just too many moments that seemed to be gunning for a "That was sweet!" or "Ha ha ha" or "Yeah! All right!" sort of reaction from the audience. That is what a typical modern movie shoots for, not a Middle Earth movie.

I hate to say something that would bring to people's minds the infamous "Dumbing it Down" thread, but it seems to me that Fellowship was not as dumbed down as the other two movies.

[Lathriel]

CBC really likes showing LOTR. I guess its because that is the only time anybody actually tunes in. (They showed fellowship about three times already)

The first time I saw FOTR is theatres I didn't like it very much because a few things really bothered me. Things like the cave troll (the fight seemed to last forever) the orc breeding, Lothlorien was way tpp dark and Galadriel became just way too creepy for my taste. Actually FOTR EE cleared this all up and of all the EE's I believe FOTR is my favourite.

However, I also really love TTT and ROTK. In fact I can never decide which movie I like better. One thing that I find with ROTK is that I am emotionally exhausted after watching it since my emotions just run so high during the movie. Usually all I want to do after watching it is to go to bed.

It just boiles down to the fact that I love all of them to bits.

[alatar]

Just a quick post...

In FOTR, Frodo went from the peaceful Shire all the way to Parth Galen. A lot had changed\happened along the way.

In TTT he walked and walked and walked to Mordor. He started 'almost there' and ended the movie 'almost there.'

In ROTK, he walks some more and after some 'stuff' he finally gets to Mount Doom.

Using my Frodo-meter, I would then rank the films 1, 3 and 2 respectively.

[Lathriel]

To add to Alatar's post
Legolas's journey
FOTR he used his bow and fought
TTT fought some more but added a surfing stunt
ROTK before ending his journey he fought and surfed some more. (Cause he knew he wouldn't be able to get this chance for a long time afterwards

[Gurthang]

How about Gimli...at his worst.

FotR- Was snoring during Sam's poetry recital.
TTT- Can't get up after falling on his back. Gets beat by Legolas at drinking.
RotK- Burped, belched and pouted(after getting beat by Leggy again) his way to Minas Tirith.

It's like alatar said earlier; they just became "caricatures of themselves".

[Legolas]

Fellowship is by far my favorite of the trilogy. It's more magical, I guess- it's not as typical as the other two movies (which were great and all, just not as great as FOTR). Fellowship is more... Middle-Earthian, somehow.

That's exactly how I feel. There was a little redemption with Minas Tirith in Return of the King, but The Fellowship of the Ring was still well above the others.

As with these newer Star Wars episodes, I wish they'd leave these serious, epic movies just as their storylines really are...serious. Humor has obviously got to be there, but I'd suggest that they use a tenth of the amount they attempted, and lose the cornier out-of-character jokes (i.e. Gimli). The only resemblance between book Gimli and movie Gimli was his appearance and heritage.

[Saurreg]

And to add on to the accolades already heaped on FoTR; none of the other two movies had a scene as powerful nor sniff-sniff as Boromir's death/redemption scene. That was one of the major highlights of the film for me. Sean Bean was brilliant as usual.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Saurreg

And to add on to the accolades already heaped on FoTR; none of the other two movies had a scene as powerful nor sniff-sniff as Boromir's death/redemption scene.

I would have to disagree, as far as RotK is concerned.

Powerful: The lighting of the beacons.

Sniff-sniff: The arrival of the Eagles (the Eagles always bring tears to my eyes for some reason).

Powerful and sniff-sniff: The charge of the Rohirrim and the whole Mount Doom sequences from Frodo's "Wheel of Fire" speech through to the end of all things.

Just my opinion, but I found RotK to be a very powerful and tear jerking film in a number of places.

[Saurreg]

Well, I kinda disagree with all that you have posted. So I guess it's ok by me also!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Saureg

Well, I kinda disagree with all that you have posted. So I guess it's ok by me also!

Fair enough. But your comment does surprise me, not least because there were a number of moments in RotK which, it seems to me, pretty much accurately visualised the powerful moments that Tolkien himself wrote. The charge of the Rohirrim, for one.

[Garen LiLorian]

I think I'll add my voice to the general acclaimation of FotR. Although for me, sadly, the reason I liked it the best is because the changes didn't really change the story the way they did in the other two movies. I mean, yeah sure. I wondered why Aragorn could take out all those wraiths on weathertop and so forth, all the things that have been gone over and over. But the little changes happened and then the story got back on track. I suppose the exception to that is the cutting of the old forest and the barrow downs, but I was well aware of that ahead of time and it didn't bother me from a storytelling perspective either.

However, with the second two movies, many of the changes not only seemed extremely extraneous and not at all neccessary, but actually changed the story. (like the elves at Helm's Deep and all that Army of the Dead nonsense, just to name the two biggest offenders in my book) And it seemed like the more PJ changed, the more he had to change, too. The Faramir escapade leaps to mind to illustrate that, although the Army of the Dead is another example.

Also, there's the whole idea of nobility, which is my absolute biggest qualm with all the movies. No-one had the gravitas ascribed to them in the book, but the second two movies -and books- deal more with great and noble men, so perhaps it's just more visible there. Although I must say that Boromir, of all people, was probably the most noble character in the whole series of films.

I also totally agree with the point about the characters caricaturing themselves.

And I'm pretty sure honey doesn't go bad unless it's boiled. Isn't it famous for that? Didn't they find a stash of honey in a pharoah's tomb that was still good?

[Gurthang]

Garen just pushed another thought into my head. The characters themselves made a huge difference in the 2nd and 3rd movies.

We've already discussed how off-book Gimli and Legolas became after FotR. I'll not get into it again.

Yet Faramir and Denethor are even worse. They come in so different from the book, it's almost stunning. I guess I shouldn't mix book and movie, they will be different in the telling, but changing a persona completely is just more than I can take. I was ready for a very noble and honest Faramir, and was sorely shocked. Denethor not as much. At least Legolas and Gimli put the right foot forward in the Fellowship. It was almost like Faramir and his father jumped in with two left feet each!

Those character changes may have had some impact on my ratings for TTT and RotK.


Doesn't honey turn into sugar as it gets old? And doesn't heating it up(boiling) turned it back to honey?

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Fair enough. But your comment does surprise me, not least because there were a number of moments in RotK which, it seems to me, pretty much accurately visualised the powerful moments that Tolkien himself wrote. The charge of the Rohirrim, for one.

Different tastes, my good man. Different tastes.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

For me TTT was a little disappointment because after FotR I had had a whole year to get excited about the second film. FotR had certainly set the expectations high. In FotR everything was new and amazing whereas in the other two films I had a feeling "I think I have seen an orc getting decapitated like that a few times before..."

Originally Posted by Azaelia

It (FotR) certainly is more happy and hobbity, but middle earthian, no. The circumstances in Middle-Earth changed as the story went on, and so did the movies. If the last two are more intense, darker, and perhaps grittier and more realistic, it is because the story changed that way as well.

I feel quite the opposite. I think FotR is the gloomy one and TTT and RotK are rather inappropriately cheery compared to the first film. That's probably because of the infamous characterizing and the lack of suspense.

Phantom makes a clever observation about the relation of fight scenes to tension. As he said, fighting in the films is nice enertainment but it's not really the best way to keep the spectators on their toes. For example, I found it more interesting to watch Frodo trying to escape from Shelob's lair than watch Sam and Shelob fighting.

I also agree with SpM about RotK's sniff-sniff-ness (what a word) and powerfulness. The sudden coming of the eagles is one of my favourites. For me one indicator of a good movie is that it raises emotions (mostly tears, though). In RotK the beacons scene is so breath-taking that I don't even care that they show eleven (?) beacons though there should be only seven.

But what I missed throughout the last two films was the feeling of history. In the book there was a name or an ancient place mentioned here and there without any detailed explanation what it was. It made the book intriguing. In FotR I can sense the presence of history and I think that makes it special.

Btw, for further information about honey, please click here.

[Saurreg]

My gawd...

I have been ripped off. I will never buy made-in-Malaysia Polloney honey again.

Oh wait...

So honey turns cludy/creamy after a while eh? Well, I have no idea how long that jar had been sitting in my fridge already. Dis i just throw away a perfectly fine jar of honey?

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Fair enough. But your comment does surprise me, not least because there were a number of moments in RotK which, it seems to me, pretty much accurately visualised the powerful moments that Tolkien himself wrote. The charge of the Rohirrim, for one.

Actually I found this to be a major change from the book. In the book the Rohirrim sound their horns & charge, taking advantage of the surprise & shock of their sudden appearance, & charge straight into the enemy's flank, throwing them into confusion & so gaining the upper hand. In the movie they hang around giving the orcs time to prepare & set up a pretty effective defence. What would have happened in that case would have been that the Rohirrim charged onto their pikes, the front rank of riders would have been skewered, the horses & riders would have been thrown into chaos, the following riders would have tried to halt to avoid the confusion & the ones behind them would have crashed into them. Result: the Rohirrim would have been destroyed on the field & the enemy would have won. Similar to what happened to Boudicca's army.

Its all very cinematic, but ridiculous from a tactical viewpoint - just like their charge down a 45 degree scree slope onto pikes at the end of TT.

[Saurreg]

The charge of the Rohirrim was IMO centered on old King Theoden. When the Rohirrim arrived, Rohan was stunned by the spectacle before him and it seemed to those closest to him that the king strunk in both body and spirit and was reverting back to the old Worm-tongue controlled dotard before Gandalf's healing.

But as if through divine intervention, a breeze blew and set Rohan's standard fluttering and the supernatural overcast sky suddenly broke and a ray of light shone through. Theoden surprised all when he suddenly grabbed a horn and blew so hard that it shattered. And then he charged, calling out to this riders but seemingly unperturbed should they not follow - the only thing that mattered was Rohan himself, and he was attacking. And onwards the rohirrim charge but Theoden was always before the swiftest rider

Now that was powerful and had it been filmed well could most probably be sniff-sniff also.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Actually I found this to be a major change from the book. In the book the Rohirrim sound their horns & charge, taking advantage of the surprise & shock of their sudden appearance, & charge straight into the enemy's flank, throwing them into confusion & so gaining the upper hand.

Its all very cinematic, but ridiculous from a tactical viewpoint - just like their charge down a 45 degree scree slope onto pikes at the end of TT.

Was too annoyed with the change - the horns should have blown and the charge started. Not sure how that all works cinematically, but at least it would make some sense - what a moment! I was talking about sense and PJ...forget that I even brought it up.

What is even more annoying is that I remember some pundit or reviewer talk about PJ's understanding of 'battle' and how he strived to make it (tactically?) real.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by alatar

Not sure how that all works cinematically, but at least it would make some sense ...

It wouldnt have worked cinematically, or at least not without excluding Theoden's rousing speech. On screen, it wouldn't have worked nearly so well to show the pre-battle speech, then cut back to the battle (or, as in the EE, Gandalf and the Witch-king) for the horn call then cut back to the charge of the Rohirrim. The moment would have lost much of its on-screen power.

Originally Posted by davem

Actually I found this to be a major change from the book. In the book the Rohirrim sound their horns & charge, taking advantage of the surprise & shock of their sudden appearance, & charge straight into the enemy's flank, throwing them into confusion & so gaining the upper hand.

My, some people are so pernickity! Having looked back at the relevant passage in the book, it seems to me that the Rohirrim were sufficiently distant from MT when they commenced their charge for the armies of Mordor, if sufficiently well-disciplined, to have had time to set up a workable defence. But, they were not well-disciplined (when were Orcs ever so) and the ferocity of the charge and the feyness (is that a word?) of the Riders struck fear into them and brought about their disarray. That seems to me to be pretty much how it happened in the film too.

Of course, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to portray the moment on screen exactly as Tolkien wrote it, by virtue of the fact that we are talking about two different types of media, which employ different techniques. But I would maintain that the power of the moment in the book is pretty well reflected in the film.

[davem]

Yes, but...Cavalry would never willingly charge into pikes because its a really stupid thing to do. The Rohirrim aren't there to go down in a blaze of glory, they're there to try & save Gondor. Besides, I think its the death of Theoden & the percieved death of Eowyn that pushes them over the edge into 'feyness'. When they arrive they are very organised & have a strategy for taking on the enemy. Their whole approach was based on secrecy & surprise. The point is, what the Rohirrim do at that point in the movie is just stupid. In the book they may have a lot of ground to cover before they get to the enemy, but they don't hang around waiting for the orcs to get organised. My reading of the episode in the book is that the reason the orcs, Easterlings, Southrons, et al, panicked was not because they were afraid of the 'feyness' of the Rohirrim but because they didn't have time to organise any defence - which is the way cavalry were used most effectively - hit & run & hit again. These were the tactics they used against the orcs who captured Merry & Pippin. If the enemy had had the time they had in the movie the Rohirrim would have been toast.