Lord of the Rings

Well we disagree about everything just posted but that's ok

Ha! Different strokes, etc. But I've seen enough shitty blockbusters to recognize one that gets shit right, let alone one that's just as good (imo) 20 years later. Most movies aren't good two *hours* later! Then again, I have no allegiance whatsoever to Tolkien or those books beyond my love of Led Zeppelin, so maybe that is a factor.

If the framing is LOTR trilogy vs just about any other successful box office movie franchise since then id agree it holds up, btw

If the framing is vs the book (and the promising start in FOTR) thats where i start to pick major faults

And i do think it has that platform to build on (a coherent trilogy plotted out) where most franchise efforts dont

But yeah, look, if they only actual comparison (and i cant think of another) is harry potter then jackson looks great, granted

I actually wasn’t that impressed by Éowyn, but it’s been a while since I watched so idr why. He had a very different idea of her than I did

Mirando Otto gave a good, coherent performance, I thought, but they kind of softened Éowyn compared to the image I have of her in the books. Also, she didn't get to deliver her best lines.

But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.

Another general gripe about the movies is that a lot of Tolkien's high-flown dialogue is dropped (or brought down to earth). Personally, I love that stuff.

Not sure everyone saying things like "ere long didst I tarry in that fell place" all the time would have worked in a Hollywood blockbuster tbh. Also every time Liv Tyler comes on screen I start singing "Dude Looks Like a Lady" to myself, kind of takes you out of the story but that's my fault I suppose.

oh what an elvish lady

about 70% of the books is detailed description of natural detail, wind direction, the particular angle described by a ridge meeting a defile, the direction a path takes in relation to landforms. frankly reading them again with my kids the specificity was stunning. ned probably knows one way or the other, but i think tolkien must have made detailed drawings or even models of the environs he was describing, and seemingly had a grasp of seasonal weather patterns and how those intersected with the above

it's been a long time since i've seen them but apart from a few montage-ish long shots of the hobbits traveling through some stunning landscapes i don't remember jackson even seeming to try at enmeshing the characters (or the audience) into the physical world in that way, which to me is the biggest departure from the books even more than the various plot deviations or ridiculous elves or the unconscionable omission of bombadil (though speaking of enwebment in the natural world, bombadil is the ur-figuration of this, so makes sense that jackson would drop him i guess)

I watched them all again recently and totally agree Fellowship is the one that stands up. I don't particularly like what they did with the elves (the lighting, the earnestness) and the longer the hobbits are around the more it becomes too saccharine and samey (I found myself forwarding Sam and Frodo in Return). Also agree Viggo and McKellen carry it though I think Bernard Hill gets all the best lines.

"Where was Gondor when the Westfold fell?"

(curious why @ndy s3rk1s has yet to be mentioned in the +/- columns, is he rated neutral?)

Josh in Chicago: drops rock into bottomless well just to see

Ned: pls do not-

Me, from depths: did some cunt just praise peter jackson

I knew.

Ned, definitely let me know when the Orcs episode is up

Will do -- I usually post updates on the podcasts thread on here. Should be up by Feb. 8 at the latest.

Also, she didn't get to deliver her best lines....Another general gripe about the movies is that a lot of Tolkien's high-flown dialogue is dropped (or brought down to earth). Personally, I love that stuff.

It's one of those hard calls; honestly I'm surprised as much got in as it did. Two of Aragorn's best hero moments -- his short declamation to Sam and Frodo as they ride past the Argonath/into Nan Hithoel and the 'draws sword in front of Eomer to underscore he is not fucking around' bit when they first meet -- didn't make the cut, but I'm not surprised they didn't.

Anyway this also serves as a reminder that while the 4K version came out a couple of months ago we're due some sort of overall everything-and-the-kitchen-sink edition in a few months with all sorts of things (the blooper reels? the library scene? newly recorded stuff? who knows). But you have to buy the Hobbit films with it so that may not appeal to all, shall we say.

Oh and Tom Breihan's Popcorn Champs series hit ROTK the other week and it's a pretty good read on the film(s) and the impact

https://film.avclub.com/the-return-of-the-king-was-the-last-time-a-blockbuster-1846074880

Oh whoops, just saw that was posted earlier! Well, to repost.

Also I do love that Russian Hobbit -- there's also the Finnish LOTR, sorta, from 1993:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHFKdgjEugs

The big thing here was limiting the story to just Frodo/Sam and eventually Gollum after the breaking of the Fellowship, which in terms of scope/budget probably wasn't a bad idea.

the score on these films is absolutely superb. the Ring theme and the Hobbiton theme especially - instantly recollectible

Great post Tracer, i was wondering how yr read was going

The dialogue is a hard one. personally, it reads well most of the time because im in that space, but out of the wrong mouth it absolutely clangs (even place names can jar in a way they simply dont on the page).

Id have to say that weaving is the start of where this happens for me, and from there its up and down- hill certainly absolutely nails his part and the speech sounds perfect coming from him so thats a good shout.

Hated serkis/gollum for the most part, with exceptions. Dont even have suggestions as to how to improve it except that it was too giddy, too quick in delivery. But its hard to beat tolkiens readings, or the bbc radio version there.

Yeah Shore just did a ridiculous, RIDICULOUS slam dunk throughout on that front, he deserved every accolade. When our podcast did an episode on the LOTR musical from the 2000s, my conclusion was that for all the firepower they had -- Vartiina and A R Rahman -- on that score, Shore simply created a better 'musical' all around just via the soundtrack.

up and down- hill

No puns pls

ned probably knows one way or the other, but i think tolkien must have made detailed drawings or even models of the environs he was describing, and seemingly had a grasp of seasonal weather patterns and how those intersected with the above

He absolutely got into a lot of specifics when he could -- he did do a variety of drawings and illustrations along the way, most of which have been published in the art collections, but his primary foci were the maps; while Christopher drew the standard versions of them for publication, he in turn was drawing on his father's maps, which were heavily revised and insanely detailed. In terms of weather, moon phases, etc. he mentions doing such research when possible in letters to Christopher. It was all part of the absolute grounding of the story in something understandable and 'real,' and Tolkien absolutely wanted that when possible. (It's one reason why the various stories in the appendices feel like just that -- there's a lot of talk of personalities but very little of place beyond generalities; one of the biggest 'what if' moments that was showcase in the Unfinished Tales were various key battles in Gondor's history and the founding of Rohan, where we get some striking descriptions leading up to big events but no events themselves, whereas there's a hell of a detailed, vividly described story where Gondor's steward grants the lands that would become Rohan where the setting is crucial.)

Which in turn lends itself to those fossils and the appendices serving perfectly as found history tbf

Dry, officialese documents, descriptions of the admin work around events, tolkien working himself up to the big field events but always perhaps shying away and shaving another piece off the prep-and-fit first to set his nerve or just as sheer procrastination

One thing working on the podcast has reminded me of is how often Tolkien would just randomly introduce a character or an idea and then just obsess over it sooner or later. Or how with Smith of Wootton Major he was writing a preface to a George Macdonald story, started dreaming up a story of his own as an illustrative example for it, then abandoned the preface immediately and just wrote that instead!

Boy, would I love it if Tom expanded and compiled all his various AVClub essays into a book.

Speaking of expansion, I can't even remember when I last saw the theatrical versions of these films. I've always felt the expanded versions were an improvement in every way, or at least that there was nothing added that I would take back out, but I honestly can't recall what's new or not. Is there anyone that prefers the theatrical versions?

As tolkien himself said, the only criticism of the books is that they are roo short, makes sense that the movies expanding with legit content improves them *no bonus warg/zombies ffs

Well tolkien said "too short" but in the movies jackson obv had to put a twist on it for they tourism board money

Is there anyone that prefers the theatrical versions?

AFAICR, the Fellowship EE does nothing but improve, the Two Towers extra scenes are hit and miss, and the Return EE mainly just pads out an already overlong movie.

I prefer the theatrical FOTR, it’s not that good a film that I want to watch more of it, even as someone who had read all the books multiple times by the time it came out. Actually I hate when there is only the extended edition available somewhere.

Killer in the return is how long they have for the rubbish, and how they cut the absolutely critical scouring of the shire

*watch that much more of *, ffs. My own scouring, isn’t it

the scouring of the shire might be my favorite part of rotk the book. i liked how bleak it was, and how it showed that things weren't just sunshine and rainbows in the shire during the war like the hobbits imagined it might be. also, gave the hobbits a chance to demonstrate how formidable they became as a result of their adventures.

i get why they cut it, though it echoes with my main criticism with the trilogy as an adaptation: the increased focus on battle sequences diminished the role of the hobbits in the final two films.

Iirc, the only part of King that really drags is the ending(s), and given I don't think that's what's (further) padded out in the extended cut - it's *already* extended in the theatrical - I don't remember anything else dragging the movie down further. For some reason I recall the second and third movies in particular gaining conclusions to various storylines, establishing otherwise absent motives, that sort of thing, all improvements to the story if not necessarily improvements to the films.

I think Tom's observation in his column that the series benefitted from being shot all at once was otm. There was no fiddling with tone or pacing or pleasing test audiences or whatever in between films, and even as far as the extended stuff goes, needed or not it's all of the same quality and fits right in.

I think it serves well as the antidote to the saccharine/comedy flavour the hobbits mainly inhabit as pointed out above too

Its the heartpiece of the entire story four each of the four central characters (and in three very different ways) and as a story of war written by a veteran it hits home very strongly indeed and to drop it for any reason is imo leaden at best but obv actually unforgivable

"Scouring of the Shire" is wonderful as a reader, as a last conflict during those bittersweet chapters as the book is finally winding down. Working it into a long movie would have been a challenge.

(xxp)

Viggo has surprisingly few lines, especially in the first film, I noticed. But he is definitely a strong presence

They definitely did adjust things in response to audience reactions over time -- thus while the two 'big' Legolas moments in TTT were part of the original filming (Legolas getting on the horse, though they had to figure that out in post, and the shield-as-surfboard), the 'that still only counts as one!' sequence in ROTK was specifically dreamed up for the final touch-up shoots on that in summer 2003 precisely because of how well those TTT moments had gone over. But yeah, it's generally consistent.

As I'm sure deems will agree, this is one reason why the radio series works so well -- the Scouring is there in depth, if not in full.

idk jmm, there's many decent templates for how to run a "returning home" close to a war movie and there's not much different to this

My friend & I are doing a mini bookclub re-reading of the LOTR series

The thing that def stands out is whats been noted above re specificity of weather, environment, geography etc. And i did see something somewhere that tolkien essentially started w the map/s and wrote the story according to the map

Also his style of writing feels confounding at times, like x thing happens that is then retold by other characters in a following chapter, or like starting Two Towers with...walking
Where you’d normally be “well why would a writer do that” but he’s drawing on medieval storytelling and he’s also chronicling

The thing that I have found most enjoyable about the books is the slow, gentle pace combined with the underpinning (or overpinning) of utmost dread & grim tidings. And the sense of history, the ancient lands theyre journeying upon & the constant reminder that time is a wheel, etc

The characterization of Merry & Pippin, or at least Merry, in the movie is v different. Merry is not at all comic relief, very intuitive & clever & at times almost a leader of the hobbit group early on, Pippin is foolish at times yes but both of them far from slapstick idiots.

And Aragorn not at all conflicted about being King the way they play it up for emo- drama in the movie. he embraces it very matter of factly but is just seeming to sort of want to be of use in his Strider role & have some adventure before he has to do the boring job of ruling (vastly over simplified obv - we joked Aragorn in the books is basically enjoying his “gap year”)

I understand ~most~ of the choices for the LOTR movies & dont personally feel crazy strongly about the differences for the most part but I appreciate Deems holding the line
(I dont disagree on the elves)

Btw, still blows my mind that Viggo was once married to Exene from X.

LOTR is about four english lads from a pretty well off village well entrenched in the victorian class system pulled to war they dont understand and coming back stronger, wounded, wiser

Jacksons LOTR is about orlando bloom surfing a cgi elephant

The characterization of Merry & Pippin, or at least Merry, in the movie is v different. Merry is not at all comic relief, very intuitive & clever & at times almost a leader of the hobbit group early on, Pippin is foolish at times yes but both of them far from slapstick idiots.

✓✓✓✓✓✓

Viggo role that kills me is his carlitos way blink-and-miss-it

Mainly because carlitos way always, always lives in my head as a movie made in 1979 tbh

igh i guffed this part up

Also his style of writing feels confounding at times, like x thing happens that is then retold by other characters in a following chapter, or like starting Two Towers with...walking
Where you’d normally be “well why would a writer do that” but he’s drawing on medieval storytelling and he’s also chronicling

My garbled point was that he is approaching fantasy as a medieval scholar so as a reader my own kneejerk modern desire for narrative & dramatic tension eventually get wrestled to the ground & i really very much enjoy his style where hes almost writing for his own enjoyment & edification, and me the audience just go along for the ride rather than being grabbed by structural tricks etc

again oversimplified but i love him is the upshot

Tolkien a v big walker iirc?

There's something to the heft of the books that many emulators dont manage and the movie misses also in his expertise being language and his hobby being rambling.

Tolkien's days spent on the march, his having bilbo and frodo as walking explorers as a pastime, his orc-driven nightmare runs and the limbo hopelessness of following in its wake, the ashy trudge across mordor which may as well be a continent in the timeless impossibility of it- this is a guy that knows walking like the proverbial eskimo knows snow, this is a guy who could describe gait and step like a wine writer

totally

every now and again he says that the hobbits are “running” and i’m like.. damn. with those packs! just running for hours nbd

he is approaching fantasy as a medieval scholar

Very key. An element which emerges in interesting fashion is his deep love of the Icelandic saga form, which famously generally has its characters and main figures described externally -- IOW, you don't get what makes a character tick from an omniscient narrator sharing internal thoughts, it's all done via outside observation of action and speech, sometimes very flatly. (Characters will die suddenly or brutally and it'll seem like you're just reading along without a change in tone.) Obviously this isn't the entire case -- we get a lot of Sam's internal thoughts the closer we get to the end, for example -- but other characters we're never 'inside' in ways we're more familiar with. Boromir is never a POV character, for instance.

xpost otm

also no one is at his level for giving you specific plant names in any given environment, to the point where if you are up on your botany you can literally see what he’s telling you is being seen

Request lotr board tbh

Someone else do it im cooking

xpost You have reminded me this book is a beautiful indulgence:

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/flora-of-middle-earth-9780190276317?cc=us&lang=en&

Father/son team, dad's the academic botanist, son is the hardcore Tolkien fan, and the whole thing is a detailed but also sober-minded treat, suggesting real world analogues as needed and so forth. I learned a lot!

the Icelandic sagas def helps understand his style of storytelling

re medieval stuff, its funny bc both me and my bookclub friend studied Tolkien’s translation of Gawain in college etc & minored in middle english but until now never really pulled all the threads together between the medieval stuff and LOTR etc #lifelonglearning

wow that Flora book looks awesome

We did the Gawain translation for the podcast back in June -- it was good to go back to that, there was a lot I'd forgotten. A very strange work!

I'd say offhand the key non-Tolkien-written books that serve as useful/informative addenda are Carpenter's biography -- though a deeper and more complete study with material and facts that weren't in there is long overdue -- Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth -- Christopher Tolkien used it himself! -- Fonstad's editions of The Atlas of Middle-earth and Wayne Hammond/Christina Scull's editing of Tolkien's artwork and the reader's companion to LOTR. But the Flora book is a real treat too.

i am def interested in reading the biography at some point