Do you think LotR holds up?

[Merlanthe]

I tried rewatching the first film last week after not seeing it for years. I remembered it being a good movie so had expectations of enjoying watching it.

I ended up bored and annoyed mostly with the weird lighting choices and scene transitions. A lot of the time it seemed like we were jumping to a scene that had already begun or jumping to the next scene before the first was properly finished. Whenever there was a dramatic/important scene or exposition characters would talk really really slowly whilst the same distractingly dramatic music played in the background.

Thats just my opinion. I was very disappointed as i remembered enjoying it when i first watched it

 

[Skywalker]

Anduril is the worst offender, because by omitting it until the second half of the third film, they changed Aragorn's whole character. In the books, he takes Anduril when they leave Rivendell, and he already accepted being King. And in many scenes the sword spread fear among the orcs and hope among humans.

So you'd rather have Aragorn be a stagnant character through the trilogy? There's no arc to him if he's already accepted his destiny as Isildur's heir before the story even starts.

 

[Mr Light]

I agree with most of the changes Jackson made to the story. I agree that Aragorn needed to have some sort of character arc through the trilogy.

 

[Mach5]

So you'd rather have Aragorn be a stagnant character through the trilogy? There's no arc to him if he's already accepted his destiny as Isildur's heir before the story even starts.

I agree with most of the changes Jackson made to the story. I agree that Aragorn needed to have some sort of character arc through the trilogy.

A thousand times THIS!

These books were incredibly hard to adapt, and I think Jackson, Fran and Pippa made a lot of very clever choices. People tend to forget how different literature and cinema are as media.

 

[Silvercrest]

Agreed. I don't agree with many of the changes they made, but I think others were very good (including Aragorn). And even in some cases where I disagree, I can at least see what they were aiming for.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Anduril is the worst offender, because by omitting it until the second half of the third film, they changed Aragorn's whole character. In the books, he takes Anduril when they leave Rivendell, and he already accepted being King. And in many scenes the sword spread fear among the orcs and hope among humans.

So you'd rather have Aragorn be a stagnant character through the trilogy? There's no arc to him if he's already accepted his destiny as Isildur's heir before the story even starts.

Your "arc" doesn't make any sense. He had already accepted his role as king. It's why he was the leader of the Rangers and why he had fought for years in secret alongside the armies of Gondor and Rohan. If you are going to give him an arc, give him one that makes sense instead of making some shit up that is an utter contradiction of his character like Peter Jackson and the writers for the LOTR movies did.

 

[Silvercrest]

None of that means he's ready to step up and take the throne. It's all hypothetical until you're actually confronted with it. People react differently then.

Besides, I don't think the movies ever said he fought in Gondor and Rohan. He may not have done a lot of the stuff that prepared book-Aragorn to be king.

 

[Set Harth]

The extended edition of TTT mentions his service to Rohan in the time of Eowyn's grandfather.

 

[Mr Light]

Hell, I don't even mind what they did with Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath. Because it gave him an arc, it gave him weakness, it showed the power of the Ring, and it gave Frodo something to do other than wander through the woods.

And I wish they did some of the changes they reneged on;

I would have loved to have seen Arwen directly contribute to the story and join the battle at Helm's Deep

I would have loved to have seen Sauron take physical form and fight Aragorn at the end.

 

[Silvercrest]

The extended edition of TTT mentions his service to Rohan in the time of Eowyn's grandfather.

Ah. Need to go back and look now.

 

[Runetouch]

Both the novel(yes, even with those horrible Tom Bombadill songs) and the movies hold up very well.

 

[The Lensman]

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

Well, there's a difference between an "adaptation" and a "remake". Every version of "Romeo and Juliet" isn't a "remake", it's a new adaptation of the play. A new "ET" would be a "remake".

Personally I could care less about new adaptations or remakes. That isn't the problem, it's bad adaptations and remakes.

The "Maltese Falcon" had three versions done over the course of twelve years, each film made six years apart. Thank god people had a different mindset when it came "remakes" or we might not have gotten one of the great films of cinema. Which was the THIRD version. And it was made despite the first version being a success at the theater.

And this is really the difference between today's film goers and yesterdays. They didn't care.

 

[suarezguy]

I rewatched the films (theatrical) recently and while a lot does work, Wood and Mortensen were fairly underwhelming, Wood especially being limited and choppy in his range, and Pippin was particularly underdeveloped until TRotK. The middle of the first film felt pretty rushed and dependent on the effects while there wasn't much plot in the second. Gollum was pretty good but at times too cheaply comical and I didn't like how literal the division and interaction between his Good and Evil sides were (although I realize it's hard to do something subtler on film).

These were "problems" that always existed. What would make them not "hold up" now as opposed to then?

I did like Wood and Mortensen a lot more back when they were first released, mostly for having different expectations and now being apart from the hype (and I think complaints of the acting and pacing back then were pretty rare).
I'm not suggesting new versions, just wanted to see how others also felt retrospectively.
OTOH, The Matrix sequels could almost only get better from being remade.

 

[BigJake]

And this is really the difference between today's film goers and yesterdays. They didn't care.

You're saying today's film goers... care? About whether or not something is a remake? To whatever extent that's true, surely it would have to be from fatigue, since reboots and remakes are a way more prominent part of the film industry's product now than ever before.

 

[sojourner]

I'd say sequels are a more prominent part of today's film industry than ever before. Remakes have been pretty common since the early days.

 

[Mach5]

I'd say sequels are a more prominent part of today's film industry than ever before. Remakes have been pretty common since the early days.

True. I don't mind remakes, as long as they're not mediocre PG 13 versions of R-rated classics (like Robocop 2014) or just downright terrible (like Total Recall 2012).

Just look at all the stuff that's getting (or has gotten) rebooted, though. Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Planet of the Apes, Godzilla, Mad Max, Highlander... I wonder if these last two will also be PG 13 ...

 

[Mooch]

Honestly, the only thing I dislike about the LotR movies is how they shoehorn Galadriel into every movie (and Arwen to a lesser extent), and how the crumbs on Sam's shirt randomly appear and disappear during the crumb scene.

I'm really, totally cool with everything else. And I only watch the EE's.

And this is really the difference between today's film goers and yesterdays. They didn't care.

To be fair, they didn't have the option to watch them on home video. By the time the remake came out, they might be happy to watch the same story again.

 

[theenglish]

I don't understand this "hold up" question. It took the films nearly as long to make as the time that has passed since they've been released (yes, I am exagerrating...a little). The movies were never perfect, but they were highly entertaining adaptations for most people. They always had some critics. Roger Ebert had a very poignant criticism of the nature of the movies and how they failed to capture the spirit and intent of the books--his opinion of course.

 

[Set Harth]

Just look at all the stuff that's getting (or has gotten) rebooted, though. Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Planet of the Apes, Godzilla, Mad Max, Highlander... I wonder if these last two will also be PG 13 ...

I thought Mad Max was supposed to be a sequel as opposed to a reboot, just with a different actor.

 

[Mach5]

I thought Mad Max was supposed to be a sequel as opposed to a reboot, just with a different actor.

We'll see. Batman Begins was initially said to be a prequel, wasn't it?