The Lord of the Rings (2001-2003)

[Zuranthium]

Over the years, I think I have seen TTT more than the other two combined (it seems to play more on TV), so in some ways it has turned into my favorite even though it seems to be many/most people's least favorite.

I've found The Two Towers to be the best for awhile now as well. To start off with, it is the overall best film visually. There are literally no flaws I really find with it in this regard; the effects are perfectly utilized at the cinematography has gorgeous composition and usage of lighting. Fellowship of the Ring has a few small missteps in this regard and in Return of the King the CGI tends to overwhelm the imagery too much (aside from simply using too much CGI and overly graded lighting, here's another example - they try to add more "texture" to Golem in Return of the King, but it actually just makes the character look less organic with the fabric of the film). Peter Jackson's direction also takes a couple amateurish dives in Fellowship of the Ring, mainly the presentation of the Galadriel character later on in the film, and several such dives in Return of the King. There isn't a single false note in The Two Towers, though.

I love how well The Two Towers stands on its own as an ensemble adventure film as well. It's essentially the best ever within that genre, for me. The pacing is brilliant, the mixture of epic and intimate (often at the same time) is glorious, and there are just so many amazing high notes in general, all spread between interweaving narratives and locales. I will say the plotting of The Two Towers does make one mistake, though, which is that it needed to include the flashback scene from the extended edition with Faramir + Boromir + Denethor. This section of the film loses some weight and clarity without that scene, which subsequently makes that continuing plot line in The Return of the King weaker.

I believe the plotting of Fellowship of the Rings is genius, btw. It's stunning how perfectly they condensed everything down there, PARTICULARLY the opening segments of the film. It's actually very annoying in the book how Gandalf just disappears for years and years, as well as other unfocused points. Fellowship also succeeds the best of all the films in how well it introduces us to all of its characters (which includes Galadriel, even though the film messes up with her later on, since her opening voiceover at the very beginning of the film is chill-inducing), which is quite a feat with the number it has to present. The introduction to Hobbiton is also one of the most charming things ever.

Also, to be fair to Return of the King, even though it hits a lot more low points than the other films, it's still a wonderful achievement and also hits some of the biggest highs. The part at the end with Frodo saying "how do you pick up the strands of an old life" just destroys me every single time. The lighting of beacons, Pippin finding Merry on the battlefield, Eowyn's defiant triumph on the battlefield...those all come immediately to mind as being extremely impactful, and there are some others too which are at that level or close to it.

Howard Shore's music throughout all of the films is a pure Godsend.

[McTeague]

I join the TTT love, EASILY the most cinematic of the three and the one with a better built script, in terms of structure and dramatic pacing. It's not visually flawless, though (LMAO at Shadowfax' appearance in slow-mo with Gandalf whistle in slo-mo too).

[Aldo]

I haven't read the books. They're probably really good. Still, I find nothing special in the films except perhaps its magnitude. The visual design is not even remarkable. What annoys me is the epic response of audiences and awards groups, so I kinda hold a small hate towards them even when I don't hate them as films. My ratings would be:

60 The Fellowship of the Ring
80 The Two Towers
65 The Return of the King

[Zuranthium]

I join the TTT love, EASILY the most cinematic of the three and the one with a better built script, in terms of structure and dramatic pacing. It's not visually flawless, though (LMAO at Shadowfax' appearance in slow-mo with Gandalf whistle in slo-mo too).

Gandalf's whistle isn't in slow-mo. I rather like that part and don't see what you're criticizing about it. The sound design of the whistle is great and the slo-mo shot is not very long at all, nor done in close-up; it serves to translate the feelings of subdued awe the adventurers momentarily feel when they see this fabled majestic creature appear out of nowhere.

[McTeague]

My theater burst into laughter, though. Different strokes! I mean, a white horse with the long mane floating in the wind in slo mo... I swear I've seen that in perfume tv spots from the 80's. And in Celine Dion videoclips.

[RRA]

Just Like Heaven’s Gate: Why Didn’t The Lord of the Rings Series Fail?

http://gawker.com/5966753/just-like-...gs-series-fail

[shooter_mcgavin]

At the end of the day it does seem the biggest contribution LOTR had to cinema is that they raised the bar when it comes to escapist Blockbuster pictures. Look at the Blockbuster scene before LOTR, it was down right atrocious in most years when you look at it now. You have movies like Godzilla, Armageddon, ID4, Jurassic Part III, Battlefield Earth, The Mummy Returns, Batman and Robin. I mean not all of these movies are bad but look at the blockbusters after LOTR, you notice an increase in quality in storytelling that wasn't seen prior to it. I guess studios realized that auteurs that work outside the system are more than capable of making compelling and profitable blockbusters and that they knew people will be looking at LOTR as the gold standard of escapist blockbusters.

[RRA]

[Elessar]

That prank never gets old.

Watching The Two Towers this evening. In light of my viewings of The Hobbit (of which can't help being underwhelmed), I'm reminded again just how amazingly these three films came together. They really are breathtaking pieces of cinema.

[BTN]

At the end of the day it does seem the biggest contribution LOTR had to cinema is that they raised the bar when it comes to escapist Blockbuster pictures. Look at the Blockbuster scene before LOTR, it was down right atrocious in most years when you look at it now. You have movies like Godzilla, Armageddon, ID4, Jurassic Part III, Battlefield Earth, The Mummy Returns, Batman and Robin. I mean not all of these movies are bad but look at the blockbusters after LOTR, you notice an increase in quality in storytelling that wasn't seen prior to it. I guess studios realized that auteurs that work outside the system are more than capable of making compelling and profitable blockbusters and that they knew people will be looking at LOTR as the gold standard of escapist blockbusters.

Michael Bay certainly doesn't lack for work! Like when I was going over post LOTR live action blockbusters you have all the Transformers. But the idea of putting major quality directors in charge of blockbusters was done more. But I also went back to 2000 and even that year one of the big summer movies which wasn't as big was Wolfgang Peterson's Perfect Storm. But you also had Roland Emmerich doing The Patriot! And 2001 was Pearl Harbor! Bay again. Now the studios would try to get like Tom Hooper or someone to do The Patriot.

[RRA]

Michael Bay certainly doesn't lack for work! Like when I was going over post LOTR live action blockbusters you have all the Transformers. But the idea of putting major quality directors in charge of blockbusters was done more. But I also went back to 2000 and even that year one of the big summer movies which wasn't as big was Wolfgang Peterson's Perfect Storm. But you also had Roland Emmerich doing The Patriot! And 2001 was Pearl Harbor! Bay again. Now the studios would try to get like Tom Hooper or someone to do The Patriot.

I believe you're onto something. Back in that era, you got blockbuster/action directors to direct blockbusters. That's just the way it was. These days it seems the norm to hire respectable or award-nominated/winning directors for blockbusters unlike back then. I mean remember Rob Marshall? Now making PIRATES sequels for Bruckheimer and Depp. Now it's not so much you hire "blockbuster" directors for blockbusters, but outsiders from the independent scene or people that weren't genre experienced previously. I consider this a good thing.

Was Jackson responsible for this? Partly, but also around this same time Bryan Singer had his X-MEN movies and Sam Raimi made the first SPIDER-MAN. (And of course down the road, Christopher Nolan with Batman and Jon Favreau on IRON MAN, etc.) On the other hand this era parallels with the growth of the brand name properties, where its Spider-Man or even LOTR that sells the tickets, not who stars or even directs necessarily. Make of this as you will, whatever it may be.

I bring up the properties because why else did Robert Shaye at New Line didn't just buy Jackson's LOTR project but agreed to expand that project to 3 movies instead of 2? A project also mind you that its biggest star was who, Blanchett? Liv Tyler? It wasn't exactly any massive stars attached. No I guess Shaye must've liked PJ's pitch, and rolled the dice that the books' massive worldwide fanbase would come out in force for the movie(s) they've been waiting for their whole lives, and that the stories' universal themes (good vs evil, size challenged hero overcome odds, cosmopolitan popluation band together against foreign singular threat) plus CGI action would sell to mainstream audiences.

Sounds like modern Hollywood thinking, don't it? (Of course the difference being if LOTR was probably produced today, director Jackson possibly wouldn't be calling the shots as director/producer, but more a director working for a producing team like Marvel does. It could even be LOTR wouldn't be simultaneously produced but instead like Marvel with their factory assembly process.)

[RRA]