Do you think LotR holds up?

[Skellington]

This thread is my motivation to finally watch that Extended Edition Blu-ray of Fellowship I bought a while ago. It's been a bunch of years since I last watched a LOTR movie in full, so it'll be interesting to see if they still continue to hold up, especially after the technical improvements brought by The Hobbit. But, sublime as they were, they were always flawed gems.

Any movie over 10 years old should be remade. I cite Spiderman as proof.

Citizen Kane, Lawrence Of Arabia, Star Wars. Just throwing those out there.

 

[sojourner]

Yep, long over due for remakes.

 

[Mach5]

Fellowship of the Rings has some of the most impressive visuals ever seen on film and they hold up because they rely on much more than just computer graphics. Production design is astonishing, color palette is gorgeous, costumes are stunning... Howard Shore's score is beautiful, inspiring, a true joy to listen to. Actually, the only thing wrong with the movie is Elijah Wood's SW prequel tier acting (calling it "wooden" would be a shitty pun, IMO).

Liv Tyler is utter shite too, but since Arwen doesn't get much screen time anyway, it doesn't affect the movie all that much.

The Two Towers is generally considered the weakest part of the trilogy, but it happens to be my favorite. It suffers from bad pacing, feels dragged out at times (most of the stuff with Ents bored me to death, so I just skip it when I watch)... But the battle of Helm's Deep is a first rate thrill ride, and the music alone gives this movie high re-watch value.

Return of the King however is a deeply flawed, soulless clusterfuck with too many endings and an abundance of cringe worthy cheesiness. Still infinitely better than The Hobbit movies, though.

 

[Set Harth]

It's the Fellowship of the Ring, not the Fellowship of the Rings.

too many endings

It had the same ending as the book; the other ones weren't endings. In particular, stopping the story on the slopes of Mount Doom would have been a shitty excuse for an ending. That's why it wasn't sold as one. The screen just went black. Not the same thing.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

They aren't flawless, but yes, they hold up. Brilliantly so. Classic, iconic, landmark movie making. The Fellowship of the Ring, especially.

 

[Mr Light]

I rewatched them a year ago, and they're still modern day classics, though I could see how they were made now rather than appearing impossibly real as they did at the time.

 

[DonIago]

I'm now thinking how hilarious it might have been if DS9 had gone on for a season after the Dominion war and the show was consequently accused of having "too many endings". When you set up a large cast of characters and arc stories, of course there's going to be multiple endings.

 

[Mach5]

It's the Fellowship of the Ring, not the Fellowship of the Rings.

*checks his DVD collection*

HOLY SHIT, YOU'RE RIGHT!

Spoiler: dem fellowships

It's a fucking typo, dude. Chill out.

too many endings

It had the same ending as the book; the other ones weren't endings. In particular, stopping the story on the slopes of Mount Doom would have been a shitty excuse for an ending. That's why it wasn't sold as one. The screen just went black. Not the same thing.

The main problem with these "endings" is the editing, direction and the tone of each and every one of them. They all feel like the screen could have faded to black after each of them, and there's WAY too much pathos there.

Oh, and remember that scene when lava hardens under The One Ring? Half the audience in my theater went like "OK, now you're just fucking with me!".

ROTK isn't really a bad movie. It's just that it could have been much batter, had Jackson downplayed some of it... Or most of it.

All in all, to answer the OP's question, yes, the trilogy does hold up quite nicely.

When you set up a large cast of characters and arc stories, of course there's going to be multiple endings.

The entire WYLB pt.2 is a one big set of goodbyes, and for some reason, it works perfectly. Maybe because we've spent seven years with those people (not counting Ezri) and have come to love them. I just wish Voyager and Enterprise ended in similar fashion.

 

[Mr Light]

The original final book* climaxes with Chapter 3 and then goes on for another SIX chapters! At least he cut the Scouring of the Shire!

*nerd note. I am of course referring to the second "book" that comprises ROTK.

 

[Mach5]

The original final book* climaxes with Chapter 3 and then goes on for another SIX chapters! At least he cut the Scouring of the Shire!

I was wondering when someone would bring that up.

I remember reading the book, thinking: "OK Mr. Tolkien, you've finished your tale, can I go home now?"

 

[Set Harth]

It's a fucking typo, dude.

No, it isn't. It's what is called an error of ignorance. A typo, or typographical error, is a misspelling caused by fingers accidentally hitting the wrong keys. ( You know, like when you're trying to write the word "Ring" and your finger shoots all the way over to the "S" instead of hitting, say, the "F" key or the "D" key. )

What makes "Fellowship of the Rings" obviously wrong is familiarity with the plot: specifically the fact that the Fellowship had absolutely nothing to do with any of the other rings.

 

[Sindatur]

It's a fucking typo, dude.

No, it isn't. It's what is called an error of ignorance. A typo, or typographical error, is a misspelling caused by fingers accidentally hitting the wrong keys. ( You know, like when you're trying to write the word "Ring" and your finger shoots all the way over to the "S" instead of hitting, say, the "F" key or the "D" key. )

What makes "Fellowship of the Rings" obviously wrong is familiarity with the plot: specifically the fact that the Fellowship had absolutely nothing to do with any of the other rings.

There's no "F" or "D" in Ring?

If you hit S, when intending to hit F or D, while typing Ring, that's far more than a typo.

 

[Mach5]

It's a fucking typo, dude.

No, it isn't. It's what is called an error of ignorance. A typo, or typographical error, is a misspelling caused by fingers accidentally hitting the wrong keys. ( You know, like when you're trying to write the word "Ring" and your finger shoots all the way over to the "S" instead of hitting, say, the "F" key or the "D" key. )

What makes "Fellowship of the Rings" obviously wrong is familiarity with the plot: specifically the fact that the Fellowship had absolutely nothing to do with any of the other rings.

Jesus fuck.

Dude, I've read those books while your grandmother was still in diapers, and I've devoured Silmarillion in a single afternoon (ok, I finished it at about 1 AM)...

What are you trying to accomplish with this pseudo-autistic bullshit?

 

[Neroon]

Everyone chill and step away from the keyboard for a breather.

 

[BigJake]

Any-hoo, in response to the OP:

LOTR is likely to be the definitive film version of the saga for a long, long time to come. The next generation at least. The awesome scale, sweep and visually iconic nature of Jackson's work is just too well-entrenched (and still too profitable, not to put too fine a point on it) to get around.

It's certainly imperfect, though. I thought it was near-perfectly cast and performed, but almost all of Jackson's attempts to add to or reinterpret the source material are misfires. The Two Towers, which contained the most of these (heaviest concentration of romance subplot, painful dwarf-tossing jokes, extraneous added action sequences) is the weakest instalment for that reason. A more faithful retelling would be more powerful in some ways.

But there may not be reason to remake it for future generations. A lot of the other flaws that make people uncomfortable about the movies now -- the endless sermonizing about Hope, the clear visual distinction between Good and Eeevil, ROTK's half-dozen endings -- are straight-up baked into the source material. In fact Jackson did a better job with cutting extraneous source content than he did with adding in his own stuff -- we were wisely spared Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire, due respects to the Tolkienologists who complained so bitterly about the latter.

 

[DonIago]

To be fair, most of the people I know got what sounded like a non-derisive laugh out of the dwarf tossing.

 

[JarodRussell]

Yeah, these films are ancient. Time for them to be remade.

No remake will ever top the amount of love and attention to the source material the crew around Jackson devoted to it. Yeah, they took some liberties and artistic license here and there. But I see no reason for a remake, not in ten, not in 50 years.

 

[Kemaiku]

We were wisely spared Tom Bombadil.

They'd have needed to hand everyone who saw the film a bag of weed on the way in to survive it. IMHO.

 

[RAMA]

Why wouldnt it hold up?? Its the timeless story people seem to love with great production values. No brainer classic.

 

[JarodRussell]

Why wouldnt it hold up?? Its the timeless story people seem to love with great production values. No brainer classic.

Well, it's a fair question. Style, design, production values, and so forth, can date a film pretty quickly.

Matrix already came up in this thread. I recently watched it again and was amazed at how bad it was. A big bag of pseudo-philosophical hot air. And the style and design... I couldn't stop cringing at those uber-serious guys with sunglasses in the dark and their leather outfits. Oh boy. But back then, I could be quoted saying "It's a piece of art!" No it isn't, it really is ridiculously stupid trash.