# Favorite of the three LOTR movies?



## James_SentellFOTR (Jun 17, 2020)

It's so hard to figure out my favorite movie out of the three. 

ROTK has some of the most heartfelt moments, and also some of the most intense, insane and awesome fight/battle sequences. It is so beautiful at so many moments. For Frodo... beautiful man. Plus Gollum and Smeagol being a duo to be feared. And Shelob making all spider haters squirm in their seats. It is so obvious why this one out of all three won an oscar. The best finally to a trilogy ever. And the one I'm always so so so excited for. 

Two towers has, again, some of the best battle sequences. Especially with the battle for helms keep, which in my opinion is the best battle shown on screen of all time. Gandalf the White, Treebeard and the Ents vs Isengard, and YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE! Also it has some of the best moments with the trio of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli (I'm sitting nicely on 43!...). 

But I think the best, by an insanely tiny margin, has to be FOTR. I just love the beginning sequences and the absolutley amazing world building being shown. The Shire, Rivendell, the forming of the Fellowship. Just soooooooo good. Plus the moments with only the hobbits and Strider with the terrifying black riders hunting them, just crazy cool. And easily my favorite sequence in all three movies, THE MINES OF MORIA! The fear inducing drum beat, the sounds of the Balrogs chains clinking behind the Fellowship as they try to escape. Scary as crap! AND to top it all off, Boromirs tragic death and the breaking of the fellowship. Just everything is so good.

So yes, all three movies are easily my favorite movies of all time! And everytime I watch them back to back, I'm always excited to watch every minute of every one. But my favorite has to be FOTR. What's yours, I'd love to know! 

Ps. I'd also love to know what your favorite scene in all three movies are! Thanks again!


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 17, 2020)

In the sense that Fellowship strayed the least from the book source, I would consider it my favorite. Many book nerds here would probably concur, though some do look at all three films quite critically. For these, it might be more like the film they feel least negatively about, so relatively speaking ...


----------



## James_SentellFOTR (Jun 17, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Many book nerds here would probably concur, though some do look at all three films quite critically. For these, it might be more like the film they feel least negatively about, so relatively speaking ...



I'm surprised people look at the films critically on the forums. I find it to be rare when I find criticism. In my opinion, its the best book to film adaptation out there. Any reasons why they differ?


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 17, 2020)

I would guess that perhaps a majority of those remaining active here on TTF would be book-first fans of JRRT. From what I've read in some threads, the film-only set has moved on since about 2014, when BoFA premiered at the cinemas, or at the latest some time after the EE came out a the following year.
To book nerds, PJ committed some egregious "sins" against central tenets of JRRT's writing in the books. The total ruin of Faramir as a character is perhaps the most severely criticized one, but there are many details where PJ's claims of the "necessities of filmmaking" ring awfully hollow. I personally firmly believe we could have done a lot worse with people stuck deeper in the Hollywood cookie-cutter rut than PJ, but in a way, since he did get quite a few things right - the atmospherics were grandiose - it is harder to forgive gaffes that glare all the more in comparison.
Others here would probably be (and have been!) far less benign to PJ ...


----------



## James_SentellFOTR (Jun 17, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Others here would probably be (and have been!) far less benign to PJ ...



Well thank you for explaining... I suppose I see the reason why. I'm not a huge fan of the hobbit movies, so I can see where a bunch of the hate can come from. But oh well, cant change it now (even though all of us would). I guess I just ignore all of the "political" stuff surrounding PJ, and just enjoy the movies for what they are, and do the same for the books.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 17, 2020)

Welcome to the forum, James! 

It's true that many of the movie fans have moved on to other things, leaving mostly book lovers, but arguments about the movies go back to the founding days of TTF. An example:









My God, It Was Horrible!


All you doomsayers were right. It was absolutely horrible. I was crying in the theater. I wanted to walk out, but I didn't b/c my friends were there! All the party is screwed up, out of order, shortened. The trip to Bree was in 45 minutes or so...not 1.30 like it should've been. IT...




www.thetolkienforum.com





For me, the films had their moments, but I have a hard time putting into practice advice I heard over and over to "try to forget they have any connection with Tolkien" -- in other words, just enjoy them as epic fantasy films, in their own right.

There's still discussion of the films here, though, as you'll see from a browse through the dedicated film forums.

If I may ask, did you see the films before you read the books? I've found that the order of experience colors people's perceptions of them.


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 17, 2020)

The best thing, were it possible, would be to forget that JRRT wrote books with the same titles when watching the films. Quite difficult, with all those familiar names floating around ...


----------



## Elthir (Jun 17, 2020)

Welcome James. I'm not a Jackson fan, and sometimes I use a smidge of hyperbole to get across my reaction to the films. But don't take anything I post too seriously. No one else does, including me. That said. . .


----------



## James_SentellFOTR (Jun 17, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Welcome to the forum, James!
> 
> If I may ask, did you see the films before you read the books? I've found that the order of experience colors people's perceptions of them.



Technically I read the books first. But I was about 6 when I read them, due to my grandmother being a huge fan. I probably didnt actually "read" most of it, due to my age haha. But since then I have read the books every year or so, mostly taking my time due to me being a slow reader. But they are easily my favorite books as well as the movies. I did watch the movies shortly after. So for me, those movies were my big "three" per say. For some there was star wars, but for me it was LOTR. I completely understand peoples opinions about the movies, just wasnt entirely expecting it. Usually people on the internet are pretty big Tolkien readers who also loves the book. I just thought a post about something more accessible to more people such as the movies would be a good thread to start with!



Elthir said:


> Welcome James. I'm not a Jackson fan, and sometimes I use a smidge of hyperbole to get across my reaction to the films. But don't take anything I post too seriously. No one else does, including me. That said. .



No problem, I dont mind! I honestly wasn't expecting people to say they dont enjoy the movies haha, but that's alright. To each their own!


----------



## Elthir (Jun 17, 2020)

I did find some of the visuals stirring. I remember a shot (I think it was from a bird's eye view) of Gandalf riding into Orthanc. Rivendell was impressive despite that it looks nothing like I picture it. Actually, one of my favorite few seconds of Jackson's Rivendell hails from _The Hobbit_, when Martin Baggins first arrives and the camera sweeps "round" him.

I remember an early shot of Gandalf (in Fellowship) simply riding in his cart, but soon after I was both surprised and a bit disappointed that Jackson didn't make Tolkien's own illustration of Hobbiton come to life! Even for a CGI-ed frame or two. 

That detail noted, I'll add that "arguably different from Tolkien" in some way or measure does not automatically mean "bad" with respect to the films, of course (as with the look of Rivendell for instance, which again looks nothing like I picture it, and nothing like Tolkien illustrated it), but as I'm leaning dangerously close to general film chat here, I'll just end this with . . .

. . . that's just some of the purely visual stuff that didn't actually hurt "my eyes"


----------



## Starbrow (Jun 17, 2020)

My favorite film was FotR. I think the settings of the Shire, Rivendell, and Lothlorien were wonderful. The casting of some of the characters was spot on.
There are some really great scenes in RotK, like the Rohirrim entering the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. However, there are some parts in it that I absolutely hated (Faramir, Cirith Ungol) and makes it hard for me to watch.


----------



## Aramarien (Jun 17, 2020)

Elthir said:


> I did find some of the visuals stirring. I remember a shot (I think it was from a bird's eye view) of Gandalf riding into Orthanc. Rivendell was impressive despite that it looks nothing like I picture it. Actually, one of my favorite few seconds of Jackson's Rivendell hails from _The Hobbit_, when Martin Baggins first arrives and the camera sweeps "round" him.


The best thing that PJ did was hire Alan Lee and John Howe, These artists have carefully studied the section of the book they are trying to illustrate. I had been reading LOTR for over 25 years BEFORE the movies came out, and Lee and Howe often illustrated the Tolkien Calendars that I had been buying all those years. Because of this, Middle Earth_ looked _right, or almost looked like home. I actually started crying when Gandalf and Pippin riding Shadowfax, first look upon Minas Tirith in the distance, it seemed so perfect. 
I realize that when a book is adapted to film, there are a lot of differences, even how the story might get told. I didn't have much of a problem with a lot (or many) changes that were done to the story line if they were minor. The major problem I had was the changing of *CHARACTERS*. As others have pointed out, Faramir, a was unrecognizable. The wimpification of Frodo bothers me to a point that it almost angers me. Frodo is the main character, and I felt there was someone else there in his place. How many times did he fall down? On the other hand, Sean Bean's portrayal of Boromir was so good, that I actually understood the character better!! I could really finally see what Tolkien meant about Boromir being arrogant, as a leader of men, yet had the ability to be kind. Merry and Pippin both liked him in the books. 

I also have enjoyed the "little things" that were inserted in the films, almost like "Easter Eggs". The titles of the chapters were put in the dialogue in FOTR, ( A Short Cut to Mushrooms, Riddles in the Dark), The Sign of the Prancing Pony at Bree, the Tapestries hanging in Edoras, the horse named Brego, Bilbo telling the hobbit children about his adventure with the Trolls. There are so many, I might even start a thread 

Despite the things that bother me about the films, I do enjoy watching them. Of the three films, I like FOTR the best. Perhaps because it is the closest to the books. I loved Bag End!! Alan Lee expanded on Tolkien's illustration of the foyer of Bag End. Lee's illustration was featured in one of the Tolkien calendars (forgot the year, I'll have to look it up) FOTR also has more _story _to it. Tolkien did describe battles in TTT and ROTK, and PJ highlighted those battles, but I preferred the story and the characters that are focused on in FOTR.


----------



## Halasían (Jun 18, 2020)

I seriously need to mine TTF for my in-depth post about my thoughts on the three movies. I knew where it was on MinasTirith.com but the archiac turn-of-the-century UBB forum software finally succumbed to the times. I posted it here somewhere, and over on CoE and A-U, so maybe I'll find it and re-share it eventually.

To answer the question, Fellowship extended cut is my favourite of the three. It didn't go off the rails until Arwen caught Aragorn at unawares. That was 'overlookable' for the most part and the rest of Fellowship was fairly decent. The scenery and settings were fairly close most of the time to my mind's eye, though the character actorrs were a mixed bag. Bilbo was right on, Frodo was way off. Samwise was right on, and Merry and Pippen was close enough. And Gaffer Gamgee was spot on for the few scenes he was in.

Two Towers was next best though it suffered from some flat parts and the descecration of Faramir. Return of the King was a plie of CGI mess and the best scene for me was in the extended edition where Legolas shoots Pirate PJ with an arrow.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Jun 19, 2020)

Well the films and this forum have got me back into the books so I'm grateful for the films for that reason. 

I think if you compare the films with other adaptations they're pretty good but of course any film is going to struggle to match the quality of Tolkien's writings which set the standard for all future fantasy novels.

I'm not too keen on the battle scenes but that applies to all films for me, not just PJ. I do like Theoden's speech at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. So for that reason FoTR is my favourite.

I like the small incidentals such as Bilbo and Gandalf smoking before the "night to remember", Sam not wanting to be turned into anything "unnatural" and "what of the men of Snowbourne?"

However, my favourite scene is Frodo's dream of Gandalf and the Balrog falling into the underground lake below Moria..


----------



## Ealdwyn (Jun 19, 2020)

My favourite film is easily FotR. I love the way it establishes the characters of the fellowship and the relationships between them. Yes, it's all in the book, but it would have been so easy for PJ to skimp on this. Instead it's very well done.


----------



## Spirit of Fire (Jun 20, 2020)

I'll give you the best movie, and then my favourite. The best is clearly Fellowship of the Ring. It has all the elements you would want in a dramatic fantasy film. 

Excellent CGI (holds up even today) and special effects
Serious consideration into every character
Proper story and film arc
Most engaging through its singular story pattern
Contained the least Arwen garbage storyline; one small part in Rivendell
The other films had the effects, CGI, and score to match the Fellowship of the Ring. However, both spent waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on Aragorn & Arwen, and also turned a few of the characters into jokes, who in the books were knowledgeable and wise (Gimli and Legolas). They also didn't show (or even indicate) Merry and Pippin's maturation, which even leaving out the deviation from the books seems to fall quite short of a logic. 

The Two Towers had great battles, and some interesting elements with Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, and it's main drawbacks were the Elves coming to Helm's Deep, Gimli and Legolas and Merry and Pippin turning into fools, and the vast amount of screen time devoted to Aragorn and Arwen. I get why PJ did it, and if it was necessary, wanted, or even done well I would commend it. But it was like any other romance that is crammed into action films...a waste of time. 

Return of the King, instead of correcting the errors of The Two Towers, simply inflated them. An insufferable amount of time with Aragorn and Arwen, not to mention it seems they ran out of material for Frodo and Sam, so their scenes turned out to be quite boring, just filler. Frodo banishing Sam was a clear representation of this; sloppy, forced, and simply a plot device. Shelob's Lair could have been done as well as the terrifying Ringwraiths in the Shire and Weathertop, but was clumsily delivered and generated very little tension. The battle of Pelennor Fields actually was well done, the crown jewel being the charge of the Rohirrim. But they totally botched it at the end with the Army of the Dead saving the day. The tension with a saving grace is tied in with the One Ring being destroyed. The Army of the Dead irrevocably reversed the outcome, making the end battle seem like a formality. Then, the rest of the movie progressed so slowly and it's worth switching it off for the last quarter. 

Don't get me wrong, I like all 3 movies (which is more than I can say for those 3 atrocious Hobbit movies), but Fellowship was clearly the most intricate, intriguing, and engaging.


----------



## Miguel (Jun 20, 2020)

Fellowship is the best i think and is the only one i watched on dvd, the other two i watched in the theater. Two Towers theater was empty with only me in there but in Return was packed.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Jun 24, 2020)

Fellowship for me, by a long shot. And not just for the fidelity to the books... which is funny, when you look at it, they actually sliced out five whole chapters, something none of the later films dared to do. I love it for its beauty in its own right, and on every level.


----------



## frodolives7601 (Jan 15, 2021)

James_SentellFOTR said:


> Well thank you for explaining... I suppose I see the reason why. I'm not a huge fan of the hobbit movies, so I can see where a bunch of the hate can come from. But oh well, cant change it now (even though all of us would). I guess I just ignore all of the "political" stuff surrounding PJ, and just enjoy the movies for what they are, and do the same for the books.


I love and admire both the books and the films. Initially, my favorite film was _Fellowship, _but I think now _ROTK_ may be my favorite because of the sheer emotional impact of the last half.


----------



## 1stvermont (Jan 15, 2021)

Two towers. wHEN i WATCHED IT IT WAS THE BEST DAY OF MY LIFE. Not wholly due to the movie. I shall tell the tale another time.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Jan 26, 2021)

frodolives7601 said:


> I love and admire both the books and the films. Initially, my favorite film was _Fellowship, _but I think now _ROTK_ may be my favorite because of the sheer emotional impact of the last half.



That last half hour of so of Return of the King is magnificent, moving. To me Return of the King is one of the strangest, most uneven films ever, because it's a mixture of the grotesquely, lamely corny and the genuinely inspired and beautiful. It's funny to me that the part of the film that's most critically dumped on... the long, long ending after the climax... is the best of it by a mile. The Battle of Pelennor Fields is all sheer spectacle without feeling (except when Theoden dies), and the much maligned ending is good enough for Fellowship, to stand with the scenes there.


----------



## Licky Linguist (Jan 27, 2021)

Ack, everyone seems to have the same opinion 😳

I really don't criticize movies at all because I only watch them rarely, and focus more on the movie than the camera position, etc etc 🙄
Plus, I watched the series only once about five years ago, when me and my father binge-watched it for nine hours straight.
I have seen pictures of the movie since then though, and I love how Lothlorien, the Shire, and Mordor looked. So FotR and RotK (mostly).
And if I were to choose between them, I wouldn't know what to do for I actually don't remember what happened in each movie, just that the Fellowship movie didn't stop at Rivendell.
But maybe, Lothlorien took place in Two Towers... 
I really must watch it again 🙄🙄


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 27, 2021)

Licky Linguist said:


> But maybe, Lothlorien took place in Two Towers...


That one I can even answer from memory (gasp!  ):
Nope, definitely "Fellowship".


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Jan 27, 2021)

Licky Linguist said:


> Ack, everyone seems to have the same opinion 😳
> 
> I really don't criticize movies at all because I only watch them rarely, and focus more on the movie than the camera position, etc etc 🙄



Fine, but a movie's a series of camera positions... with things within the frame... and then all edited together, with sound (unless it's more than 90 years old).


----------



## Chaostyr (Jan 27, 2021)

The Fellowship of the Ring is my favorite by far. More specifically, any scene within The Shire is my favorite. I often watch only those scenes (including ones from The Hobbit) on repeat. The scenery and soundtrack always puts me a good mood. Just typing this makes me want to visit Hobbiton in NZ again


----------



## GaladrielAdmirer (Feb 4, 2021)

The Fellowship of the Ring is the most enjoyable movie, and I think the most tightly crafted, but they all have moving, important, and epic scenes in them that you can't miss.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Feb 4, 2021)

GaladrielAdmirer said:


> The Fellowship of the Ring is the most enjoyable movie, and I think the most tightly crafted, but they all have moving, important, and epic scenes in them that you can't miss.



Yeah, I think the mark of a true filmmaker's really that even in their lesser films, there's immortal scenes. Say what you want about the final Hobbit flick, but they NAILED the death of Thorin.


----------



## Chaostyr (Feb 5, 2021)

Sir Eowyn said:


> Yeah, I think the mark of a true filmmaker's really that even in their lesser films, there's immortal scenes. Say what you want about the final Hobbit flick, but they NAILED the death of Thorin.


I agree. Every movie, including the hobbit trilogy, has it's moments, even if the movies as a whole don't work.


----------



## Shadow (Feb 11, 2021)

GaladrielAdmirer said:


> The Fellowship of the Ring is the most enjoyable movie, and I think the most tightly crafted, but they all have moving, important, and epic scenes in them that you can't miss.


That’s what makes choosing one film so hard. I like them all for different reasons but probably choose The Two Towers. It’s the height of the struggle, properly introduces Gollum, brings back Gandalf and has the great Helms Deep battle. It’s around this time my LOTR fandom became fully fledged too, playing the video games and the like.


----------



## Aukwrist (Aug 29, 2021)

James_SentellFOTR said:


> It's so hard to figure out my favorite movie out of the three.
> 
> ROTK has some of the most heartfelt moments, and also some of the most intense, insane and awesome fight/battle sequences. It is so beautiful at so many moments. For Frodo... beautiful man. Plus Gollum and Smeagol being a duo to be feared. And Shelob making all spider haters squirm in their seats. It is so obvious why this one out of all three won an oscar. The best finally to a trilogy ever. And the one I'm always so so so excited for.
> 
> ...


ROTK, by some distance. I am fascinated and put off by "eight-legged freaks", so I think the Shelob scenes are most impressive. I thought the opening sequences to TTT and ROTK were just right. 

Favourite scene: I will get back to you when I have watched the Extended ROTK.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Aug 30, 2021)

Fellowship. It was so astonishing when it first came out. I saw it 9 times in the theatre.


----------



## Shadow (Aug 30, 2021)

ZehnWaters said:


> Fellowship. It was so astonishing when it first came out. I saw it 9 times in the theatre.


The _atmosphere_ of the first film is going to be hard for any future LOTR adaption to beat.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Aug 30, 2021)

Aukwrist said:


> ROTK, by some distance. I am fascinated and put off by "eight-legged freaks", so I think the Shelob scenes are most impressive. I thought the opening sequences to TTT and ROTK were just right.
> 
> Favourite scene: I will get back to you when I have watched the Extended ROTK.



Okay, I have to be the nay-sayer here and say the Shelob scene didn't work for me. I'm also queasy with spiders, and was dreading that scene something fierce... and while it's certainly creepy, effective in its way, for me the greatness of that part of the book is the looming, tingling sense of something unspeakably awful, something that makes Orcs look like Muppets. An ancient, evil sorceress in spider form. In the film there is no sense of that... she is just a big spider. Scary, but not deeply so, not without being imbued with that timeless, remorseless pretty ultimate evil.

And the writers said they had Frodo go in alone because it is scarier that way. It isn't. You know that Sam's going to show up in the nick of time and save the day. In the book, there is no help that can be expected from anywhere. They're alone, and they're trapped. It's much more frightening.

If I had a magic lamp and could go and redo one sequence of Lord of the Rings, it would be Shelob. And it would be something I myself would not be able to watch without the shaking hands and churning guts, the most awful, primordial fear. But it would do the job.


----------



## Aukwrist (Aug 30, 2021)

Sir Eowyn said:


> Okay, I have to be the nay-sayer here and say the Shelob scene didn't work for me. I'm also queasy with spiders, and was dreading that scene something fierce... and while it's certainly creepy, effective in its way, for me the greatness of that part of the book is the looming, tingling sense of something unspeakably awful, something that makes Orcs look like Muppets. An ancient, evil sorceress in spider form. In the film there is no sense of that... she is just a big spider. Scary, but not deeply so, not without being imbued with that timeless, remorseless pretty ultimate evil.
> 
> And the writers said they had Frodo go in alone because it is scarier that way. It isn't. You know that Sam's going to show up in the nick of time and save the day. In the book, there is no help that can be expected from anywhere. They're alone, and they're trapped. It's much more frightening.
> 
> If I had a magic lamp and could go and redo one sequence of Lord of the Rings, it would be Shelob. And it would be something I myself would not be able to watch without the shaking hands and churning guts, the most awful, primordial fear. But it would do the job.


The book is always better than the films, when the book is LOTR. Those are two very alarming chapters.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Aug 30, 2021)

Aukwrist said:


> The book is always better than the films, when the book is LOTR. Those are two very alarming chapters.


No, Fellowship is better than the book, for the most part.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 31, 2021)

Sir Eowyn said:


> No, Fellowship is better than the book, for the most part.


Bah, humbug! Just that absolutely tour-de-force chapter "The Council of Elrond" (the one part possibly *everyone* agrees is unfilmable in its book form) is worth many times PJ's entire trilogy.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Aug 31, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> Bah, humbug! Just that absolutely tour-de-force chapter "The Council of Elrond" (the one part possibly *everyone* agrees is unfilmable in its book form) is worth many times PJ's entire trilogy.


Funny, because that's the single chapter of Fellowship they adapted that didn't improve on the book... was a little bit rushed.

I know, I know... sacrilege... and no one may agree with me, but I do sincerely think that. What they did with Fellowship is a miracle of adaptation... to use an ugly word for it, really. A film is its own entity, has no allegiance to source material, and never should pander to readers at all. If I had been filming the trilogy, believe me, there would be way MORE changes than they made in 2 and 3, just different ones.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 31, 2021)

Sir Eowyn said:


> A film is its own entity, has no allegiance to source material, and never should pander to readers at all.


I'm guessing this is the filmmaker speaking, a view that is not available to me with my zero background in the craft.
But as to having no allegiance to the source, if you want to get the film-making rights, you might have some very hard-nosed contract stipulations staring you in the face. JRRT once stated (though I have not found the letter that I assumed would contain the statement) that he was open to two suggestions: tight editorial control on his part, or big bundles of cash for the rights. He did let the film rights go for smaller bundles (though not from his personal financial perspective of the time, I'd guess), as he basically thought LoTR to be unfilmable.
As to "pandering to readers", I don't quite know what you mean by this. *Annoying* readers might have been more dangerous for LoTR that for any other book adaptation. With principal photography for all three films having been done before the first film hit the cinemas, had Fellowship bombed at the box office, say because millions, even tens of millions of enraged book fans had come crashing down on it like hordes of screaming orcs, that could have been a recipe for the biggest financial disaster in filming history.

P.S. I still like Fellowship the book infinitely better than the film.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Aug 31, 2021)

Well, of course... I mean, I spoke a bit hyperbolically; it's not like there is NO allegiance. What I mean is, no matter how great a book you're adapting, a film must have the confidence and the freedom to deviate, when things that work on the page don't really work in that setting. I've seen many a great book adapted too slavishly, and it feels like it's all sitting on an iron bench, afraid to relax. 

Of course when you adapt a book that's beloved of millions of people, there's tremendous pressure. Some, I think, tend to assume that any deviation from the book is for the worse, and that nothing they could ever film could ever be half as good anyway, so what's the point? Now, sure, some deviations later on in the trilogy can't be defended, and won't be defended by me. But in Fellowship, which I still consider one of the finest flicks ever made, not one annoyed me. Well, the Council of Elrond felt a bit rushed and perfunctory, but for me that's IT. Some may say I'm not a purist... no, but I do love the book. And admire it. Some things that go on later cause me pain, believe me. But the fact the first one's such a gem... ahhhhh.

The financial risk, you're right, was quite astonishing. I never cease to marvel that a studio funded three films at once, to be shot on the other side of the world and with minimal supervision, by a director with no real commercial impact prior to this. They certainly got their dough back and then some. I just wish they got a bit more respect, for the first one if none else of it.


----------



## Ciderwell (Sep 2, 2021)

I watched all three films over the past few days and thought each one the best until seeing the next. Meaning they were all equally exceptional, but, The Return of the King was ultimately the best of the three.

I think Peter Jackson nailed it. Especially the way he managed to maintain a balance between the Lord of the Nazgul (Aragorn), and Lord of the Rings (Frodo), being one and the same - if only for the briefest of moments.

I never really believed Frodo destroyed the Ring, and I'm glad Peter Jackson also portrayed this. Frodo's final escape from the grip of Barad-dur was to be free of Gollum, once and for all. The real victory over Sauron was not to destroy the Ring, but to master it.

Well done PJ


----------



## Ealdwyn (Sep 3, 2021)

Ciderwell said:


> I watched all three films over the past few days and thought each one the best until seeing the next. Meaning they were all equally exceptional


Well, they're well-made fantasy action films. But they're not LotR.



Ciderwell said:


> I think Peter Jackson nailed it. Especially the way he managed to maintain a balance between the Lord of the Nazgul (Aragorn), and Lord of the Rings (Frodo), being one and the same - if only for the briefest of moments.


Not sure I follow this. 



Ciderwell said:


> I never really believed Frodo destroyed the Ring, and I'm glad Peter Jackson also portrayed this. Frodo's final escape from the grip of Barad-dur was to be free of Gollum, once and for all.


Well Frodo does destroy the Ring - or rather, the curse that Frodo lays on Gollum when he (Frodo) is finally overcome by the Ring and invokes it's power is what ultimately destroys it (the "Chekov's gun" moment, if you will) . But PJ failed to show that crucial plot point.



Ciderwell said:


> The real victory over Sauron was not to destroy the Ring, but to master it.


Er, no. The whole point of the story is that it's not possible to master the Ring. Which is why it had to be destroyed. Even PJ made that clear.



Ciderwell said:


> Well done PJ


I'm afraid I must disagree.


----------



## Ciderwell (Sep 3, 2021)

Ealdwyn said:


> Not sure I follow this.


I thought Aragorn, Lord of the Nazgul, was rudimentary.
Aragorn/Strider = Dragon Rider
Also, like "Chekov's gun" (I had to look that up), Narsil and Nazgul sit too closely together to be accidental. The reforging of the blade helped Aragorn to break the Morgul-spells and become a worthy King.



> The whole point of the story is that it's not possible to master the Ring. Which is why it had to be destroyed. Even PJ made that clear.


Tom Bombadil mastered the One Ring. I seem to recall he even made the Ring disappear. I think you underestimate the strength and courage of Hobbits.

I had to watch the Grey Havens chapter again, just to be sure, and at no time do we see Frodo's "maimed" hand. It is always kept hidden, even when Frodo hands the book to Sam.

Through the genius of Tolkien my imagination tells me that mastering the One Ring is probably to make the ring invisible, and not the other way round.
I can also imagine that the One Ring was never truly complete without the addition of some stones, very likely small diamonds (three). Frodo had to take the Ring overseas for the Elves would know how this was done. Making sure the One Ring would never again be used for evil purposes.



> I'm afraid I must disagree.


I actually agree with you. There are plenty of moments where the films fall flat. But I like how watching the films allows us time to think on the richness of the books. And that has to mean something.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Sep 3, 2021)

Ciderwell said:


> I thought Aragorn, Lord of the Nazgul, was rudimentary.
> Aragorn/Strider = Dragon Rider
> Also, like "Chekov's gun" (I had to look that up), Narsil and Nazgul sit too closely together to be accidental. The reforging of the blade helped Aragorn to break the Morgul-spells and become a worthy King.


Nope, sorry, I still don't get why you think Aragorn is the Lord of the Nazgul - I think that job's already taken by the Witch King of Angmar. 
I've no idea how you get "Dragon Rider" from his name. Similarly Narsil and Nazgul are worlds apart in meaning.
Clearly I'm missing something.



Ciderwell said:


> Tom Bombadil mastered the One Ring. I seem to recall he even made the Ring disappear.



Gandalf had something to say about that. From the Council of Elrond:
_`Could we not still send messages to him and obtain his help?' asked Erestor. `It seems that he has a power even over the Ring.'_
_`No, I should not put it so,' said Gandalf. `Say rather that the Ring has no power over him. He is his own master. But he cannot alter the Ring itself, nor break its power over others._



Ciderwell said:


> I had to watch the Grey Havens chapter again, just to be sure, and at no time do we see Frodo's "maimed" hand. It is always kept hidden, even when Frodo hands the book to Sam.



??? You think that because we don't see his hand he never lost a finger?



Ciderwell said:


> Through the genius of Tolkien my imagination tells me that mastering the One Ring is probably to make the ring invisible, and not the other way round.
> I can also imagine that the One Ring was never truly complete without the addition of some stones, very likely small diamonds (three). Frodo had to take the Ring overseas for the Elves would know how this was done. Making sure the One Ring would never again be used for evil purposes.


No offense, but I think your "imagination" might be the problem here.


----------



## Ciderwell (Sep 3, 2021)

Well it makes sense to me. Each to his own, I guess.


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 3, 2021)

Ciderwell said:


> I thought Aragorn, Lord of the Nazgul, was rudimentary.


There is not the shadow of a doubt that Aragorn / Elessar / Strider and the Lord of the Nazgûl, once the Witch-king of Angmar 1,500 years and more before Aragorn's birth, are two entirely distinct characters. No wiggle room for any kind of imagination.


----------



## Ciderwell (Sep 3, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> No wiggle room for any kind of imagination.



I guess not.


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 4, 2021)

Ciderwell said:


> Olorgando said:
> 
> 
> > No wiggle room for any kind of imagination.
> ...


Not in JRRT canon. Fanfics are another matter. To which belong the multi-book (way more than three) series "The Sword of Shannara" by Terry Brooks (from 1977 onward) and the "A Song of Ice and Fire" by George R.R. Martin (incomplete to date, starting 1996, but becoming the HBO TV series "Game of Thrones", title of Martin's first book of the series). I suppose you (or someone else) could construe a fanfic with Aragorn being the Lord of the Nazgûl. But I'll guess that at least I would have trouble fittings such a story within the framework of JRRT's Middle-earth ... 😵


----------



## Ciderwell (Sep 4, 2021)

I've only read a few of the Shannara books, and know nothing of the others you mentioned.
As for the JRRT cannon I am thankfully not a scholar - I just enjoy the stories, for what they are ...

I've been reading about the White Tree of Minas Tirith as I wished to find out why King Elessar moved the Tree into the Tomb Hall. In the chapter Many Partings, by the blossoming tree, Elfstone and Evenstar call Frodo 'Ring-bearer'. I thought this odd, if the Ring no longer exists having already been destroyed. Queen Arwen gives Frodo a small star on a chain to wear around his neck. 
This now makes more sense to me, having used my imagination to suppose the Ring may still be in Frodo's possession when he arrives at the Grey Havens.

I fully support Imagination over Canon.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Sep 4, 2021)

Ciderwell said:


> I've only read a few of the Shannara books, and know nothing of the others you mentioned.
> As for the JRRT cannon I am thankfully not a scholar - I just enjoy the stories, for what they are ...
> 
> I've been reading about the White Tree of Minas Tirith as I wished to find out why King Elessar moved the Tree into the Tomb Hall. In the chapter Many Partings, by the blossoming tree, Elfstone and Evenstar call Frodo 'Ring-bearer'. I thought this odd, if the Ring no longer exists having already been destroyed. Queen Arwen gives Frodo a small star on a chain to wear around his neck.
> ...


Both Bilbo and Frodo are descibed as Ring bearers, and so was Sam (albeit briefly). By your logic, that would suggest they all had the Ring in their possession - which is clearly nonsense.


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 4, 2021)

Ciderwell said:


> Queen Arwen gives Frodo a small star on a chain to wear around his neck.
> This now makes more sense to me, having used my imagination to suppose the Ring may still be in Frodo's possession when he arrives at the Grey Havens.


Quite the opposite. Frodo also felt the *loss* of the One Ring, as he once says in the last chapter "The Grey Havens": "On the thirteenth of [_March 1420 Shire Reckoning_] Farmer Cotton found Frodo lying on his bed; he was clutching a white gem that hung on a chain about his neck [_Arwen's gift_] and he seemed half in a dream.
'It is gone for ever,' he said, 'and now all is dark and empty.'"
13 March a year before Frodo had been poisoned by Shelob, but what is gone forever is the one Ring.
Arwen's gift gives him some relief his withdrawal symptoms, for as Tom Shippey has pointed out (and I agree), the One Ring is addictive.
No, the only Ring-bearers still wearing their Great Rings, the three Elven ones, at the Grey Havens are Galadriel, Elrond and Gandalf.


----------



## Ciderwell (Sep 5, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> Farmer Cotton found Frodo lying on his bed; he was clutching a white gem that hung on a chain about his neck [_Arwen's gift_] and he seemed half in a dream.
> 'It is gone for ever,' he said, 'and now all is dark and empty.'


Arwen's gift was meant to help Frodo when his memories frightened him. Which reminds me of his hallucination on the slopes of Mt. Doom, when he could see the Sun eclipsed by the Moon. The despair almost killed him.


Olorgando said:


> Arwen's gift gives him some relief his withdrawal symptoms, for as Tom Shippey has pointed out (and I agree), the One Ring is addictive.
> No, the only Ring-bearers still wearing their Great Rings, the three Elven ones, at the Grey Havens are Galadriel, Elrond and Gandalf.


Yes, I too agree the One Ring is the perfect symbol for addiction.
I think Peter Jackson did a reasonably good job in Two Towers, showing Gollum arguing with his reflection while the Hobbits slept - a very Freudian concept of the Id at work interpreting dreams.

However, having Gandalf as one of the Elven Kings I find confusing.
I read somewhere that there were only five Maiar characters in The Lord of the Rings: Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman, Sauron, and the Balrog in Moria.
But then I always assumed the Balrog was the Dark Lord, undisguised. Both names do sound very similar, that is, if you were to imagine saying _Balrog _with a mouth full of marbles. 🤪

Five is an interesting number concerning rings - if Gandalf hadn't gone and spoiled it by joining with the Elves.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Sep 5, 2021)

Ciderwell said:


> However, having Gandalf as one of the Elven Kings I find confusing.
> I read somewhere that there were only five Maiar characters in The Lord of the Rings: Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman, Sauron, and the Balrog in Moria.
> But then I always assumed the Balrog was the Dark Lord, undisguised. Both names do sound very similar, that is, if you were to imagine saying _Balrog _with a mouth full of marbles. 🤪
> Five is an interesting number concerning rings, if Gandalf hadn't gone and spoiled it by joining the Elven Kings.



Gandalf wasn’t an Elven king, he was a Maiar, but he had one of the Elven rings in his keeping. The three rings were made by Celebrimbor for the Elves. Celebrimbor gave the ring Narya to Cirdan the shipwright, and in the Third Age Cirdan passed the Ring to Gandalf (see Unfinished Tales). In the films, Gandalf is shown wearing Narya as he boards the ship at the Grey Havens.


----------



## Ciderwell (Sep 5, 2021)

I see what you mean,

_~ Three Rings for the Elven Kings, under the sky ~_

an easy mistake to make.


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 5, 2021)

Ciderwell said:


> I see what you mean,
> 
> _~ Three Rings for the Elven Kings, under the sky ~_
> 
> an easy mistake to make.


Yes, that part of the ring poem is somewhat misleading.
Galadriel, though of highest lineage as daughter of Finarfin and granddaughter of Finwë, was never a High Queen of the Noldor (there were only High Kings until Gil-galad fell in the combat with Sauron together with Elendil at the end of the Second Age, and no more High Kings in Middle-earth after that). She is the only wearer of a Great Elven Ring, Nenya the Ring of Waters (think Ulmo) and Ring of Adamant, made of mithril and set with a diamond, who received it directly from Celebrimbor and kept it until The Three left Middle-earth. Vilya, the Ring of Air (think Manwë), made of gold and set with a sapphire, was originally given to the only true High King among the Ring-bearers, Gil-galad, by Celebrimbor, and was given to Elrond (for safe-keeping?) before Gil-galad's final, fatal combat with Sauron. Narya, the Ring of Fire (think Aulë), set with a single red stone (not explicitly called a ruby), was originally given to Cirdan the shipwright by Celebrimbor - so for a time both Vilya and Narya were at the Grey Havens or at least in the region. As Ealdwyn mentioned, Cirdan then passed Narya on to Gandalf when the latter arrived in Middle-earth around the year 1000 Third Age - something that annoyed Saruman greatly, as Saruman had been - like Sauron - a Maia of Aulë (and thus shared a similar weaknesses of character with the latter). But Cirdan was one of the oldest Elves of all (that new book "Nature of Middle-earth" by Carl F. Hostetter may have new insights on this), almost certainly the oldest Elf still remaining in Middle-earth, and had never been to Valinor - so he seems to have seen Saruman's weakness, and Gandalf's strength, as a foe of Sauron.


----------



## Ciderwell (Sep 5, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> "Nature of Middle-earth" by Carl F. Hostetter


I put that volume on my bookshelf yesterday, next to LOTR. Though when I'll get around to reading it is another matter.

I probably just need to get back to basics and read of the 'Tree Rings', as I've always believed Tolkien had much to say on the nature of Time. I personally believe there's a definitive disparity between Oceanic time, and Landmass time - because of the different growth patterns made within their natures; tree rings and spiral shells, for example.
Which I'm sure has much to do with the different influence the Moon and Sun has on land or sea.
Maybe the Sil and Two Trees of Valinor hold some important insight into these natural phenomenons. Though unfortunately do find impossible to read, as even Martin Shaw audio cassette tapes give me a severe snooze.
Fingers crossed Peter Jackson gets to make, Silmarillion: The Movie

Anyway, feels like lockdown has kicked in here, so, I'm off to find a new webbie.
Bye


----------



## Ealdwyn (Sep 5, 2021)

Ciderwell said:


> I probably just need to get back to basics and read of the 'Tree Rings', as I've always believed Tolkien had much to say on the nature of Time. I personally believe there's a definitive disparity between Oceanic time, and Landmass time - because of the different growth patterns made within their natures; tree rings and spiral shells, for example.
> Which I'm sure has much to do with the different influence the Moon and Sun has on land or sea.
> Maybe the Sil and Two Trees of Valinor hold some important insight into these natural phenomenons. Though unfortunately do find impossible to read, as even Martin Shaw audio cassette tapes give me a severe snooze.



There is no evolution in Tolkien's universe. Everything in ME is 'created', either by Iluvatar or by the Valar, so the sun or moon cannot influence how organisms grow. They exist as they were created (unless corrupted by evil). 
Furthermore, the sun and moon came into existence relatively late in the creation. The Elves, the trees, the birds and beasts, all existed before the sun and moon (although many living things slept until that time). Their shape and growth was already determined. So it's difficult to see how the sun and moon could have the sort of influence that you suggest.

It may be worth persevering with the Silmarillion, as it would probably answer a lot of your questions. Although I agree it's not an easy read- I recently wrote about my experiences here : https://www.thetolkienforum.com/threads/is-it-difficult-to-read-lotr.29702/post-544623
Rather than starting at the beginning, why not begin with one of the tales that are familar from LotR - e.g. Beren and Luthien?




Ciderwell said:


> Fingers crossed Peter Jackson gets to make, Silmarillion: The Movie



Er, no.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 5, 2021)

Ciderwell said:


> Fingers crossed Peter Jackson gets to make, Silmarillion: The Movie



Hm. Maybe. Maybe have someone else do the script.


----------



## Thorin (Feb 16, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> Bah, humbug! Just that absolutely tour-de-force chapter "The Council of Elrond" (the one part possibly *everyone* agrees is unfilmable in its book form) is worth many times PJ's entire trilogy.


Actually, in the early years of this forum as the movie's came out, a film defender challenged me to write a better CoE than what was in the movie and I DID create my own screenplay. Many on here, even some of the film defenders, felt it was a pretty decent effort. I don't know where it could be found though.


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 16, 2022)

Thorin said:


> Actually, in the early years of this forum as the movie's came out, a film defender challenged me to write a better CoE than what was in the movie and I DID create my own screenplay. Many on here, even some of the film defenders, felt it was a pretty decent effort. I don't know where it could be found though.



For the kind of film the producers and PJ wanted to make, a fantasy blockbuster, the Council of Elrond with its numerous flashbacks was not filmable, I can agree with that. Other filmmakers would have no trouble doing just that, cutting to flashbacks which shows what the speakers at the CoE are describing - but they wouldn't be filming a fantasy blockbuster, where the filmmakers have to keep things moving (so they say).

There is quite a bit of old stuff still in sub-forums - and then there are the (dusty?) archives. I'm not sure how the search function here works, or how well. Maybe Erestor Arcamen can help you out.


----------



## Thorin (Feb 16, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> For the kind of film the producers and PJ wanted to make, a fantasy blockbuster, the Council of Elrond with its numerous flashbacks was not filmable, I can agree with that. Other filmmakers would have no trouble doing just that, cutting to flashbacks which shows what the speakers at the CoE are describing - but they wouldn't be filming a fantasy blockbuster, where the filmmakers have to keep things moving (so they say).
> 
> There is quite a bit of old stuff still in sub-forums - and then there are the (dusty?) archives. I'm not sure how the search function here works, or how well. Maybe Erestor Arcamen can help you out.


Yes, I took all those things into consideration and whittled out what I could as well as referencing flashbacks like we saw at the beginning of FoTR with the defeat of Sauron at the end of the 2nd age. I took a lot of time and effort to please both parties (Tolkien purists and film defenders) as well as respecting both sources (book and movie). Found it! The only thing I would have changed (and it was pointed out and addressed by me in the thread) was to add Gandalf doing the black speech. That was a gross oversight on my part.









An Optional Screenplay / Council of Elrond


Alright folks. We were challenged by Courtney to come up with a screenplay for a scene if we didn't like the way PJ did it...So here is the Council of Elrond that I have done. This screenplay is an insertion in place of Jackson’s council, still part of the movie and taking into account Jackson’s...




www.thetolkienforum.com


----------



## Elassar (Sep 19, 2022)

Not going into detail: return of the king


----------



## 1stvermont (Sep 20, 2022)

Two Towers


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 20, 2022)

1stvermont said:


> Two Towers


It's the easiest to watch. Less draining that FotR, shorter than RotK. I've also a soft spot for Rohan. I saw FotR more often in the theatres (9x) but I think I've watched TTT more at home.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Sep 20, 2022)

Fellowship of the Ring or Return of the King have some of my all-time favorite scenes, however I don't know if I can rightly pick one... My favorite scene of possibly the whole movie is the amazing Ride of the Rohirrim, so for that reason RotK is high up there with a close second of FotR due to it's thrilling action and mediocre loyalty to Tolkien's books.


----------

