The Official 'Lord Of the Rings' Thread

[:eek:]

https://www.darkhorizons.com/lord-of-the-rings-4k-hits-cinemas-in-june/

 

[Drizzle]

I would love if these got an IMAX release for the Ride of the Rohirrim alone.

 

[Silvermoth]

Great news! I feel like it’s going to be a whole new experience for people seeing it on the big screen who didn’t get to see it last time

 

[Arnold Rimmer]

Love this trilogy (and the Hobbit ones, too, don't judge me) a great deal, but there's two sticking points certain people bring up online to either mock or ridicule it that drive me nuts whenever I hear them:

* "It's just a bunch of walking". No, not really. MAYBE Fellowship of the Ring could be accused of that, but it's not like there's nothing happening during or between any of it. And besides, the other 2 movies are straight up war films after a point for half of them. You wanna see a movie that's nothing but walking? Go watch Gus Van Sant's "Gerry". It's just nearly 2 hours of Matt Damon and Casey Affleck wandering the desert for no reason.

* "Why didn't they just use the eagles to fly to Mordor?" Ah yes, that old chestnut. First of all, Gandalf can't just call Gwaihir and his Great Eagles in whenever he wants. They're not a taxi service. Two, even if they did try this, the eagles would be at risk of getting shot down easily and the Ring would be claimed by Sauron like it was effortless. And three, there's still Saruman and his Uruk-Hai over in Rohan to deal with. That's why the Fellowship eventually had to split up: one group going to Mordor, the other dealing with the defense of Rohan.

 

[Silvermoth]

I also love the hobbit films and I’m sick of pretending we should not say that. They’re fun! People just had too high expectations

 

[Drizzle]

For all of its faults, the Hobbit trilogy has a lot to like about it, mainly the performances. Even the most vocal haters of that trilogy admit that Martin Freeman was perfect as Bilbo. Richard Armitage was pretty good as Thorin as well and of course you can never go wrong with Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis. Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug was also a highlight.

Overall I do like them but I also recognize that the second and especially third films suffer a lot due to a lot of needless padding. It would have been better if they had stuck with the original plan of only doing two movies. IMO An Unexpected Journey is the best one because it's the one that feels the closest to the source material and doesn't add in a bunch of unnecessary padding. The only real big addition to it was the subplot with Azog which is nowhere near as big a distraction as what would follow later in Desolation of Smaug and Battle of the Five Armies. I've always hated that Scooby Doo scene at the end of the second film with the dwarves running away from and then tricking Smaug. But to their credit, Jackson and company nailed the two most memorable parts from the book, those being Bilbo meeting Gollum and his later encounter with Smaug in the mountain.

 

[Kane52630]

I honestly can't go back and rewatch the Hobbit trilogy, it'll forever be a memory of mine of seeing 2of them ( i think) in 60FPR 3D.

 

[Arnold Rimmer]

I also love the hobbit films and I’m sick of pretending we should not say that. They’re fun! People just had too high expectations

Agreed. Also, any problems they may have had were the fault of WB trying to screw Jackson over (look it up).

 

[sueb1863]

https://www.darkhorizons.com/lord-of-the-rings-4k-hits-cinemas-in-june/

Sounds great but I can't for the life of me figure out why they're only showing each movie for ONE day.

Why not put each movie in theaters for a week or so?

If you can't get to a theater on June 8 for Fellowship, June 9 for TTT, or June 10 for RotK, or if the extremely limited showings sell out - sorry, you won't get to see the movies.

I just checked the Fathom Events site. Each theater only has ONE showing on June 8 for Fellowship, at 3:30 or 4:00. So if you want to go, get the tickets now in your area. You'll only have one chance to see each film.

It's disappointing, especially since they didn't do any rereleases for the 20th anniversary of the movies.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I own both trilogies in 4k, but I have yet to check out the transfers on The Hobbit movies. I will say I do love An Unexpected Journey, and find it really fun. The other two I'm much more mixed on.

 

[Batgirl0202]

I just bought digital copies of all three extended editions on Prime.

10 bucks each - you can't go wrong

 

[Spider-Fan]

I also love the hobbit films and I’m sick of pretending we should not say that. They’re fun! People just had too high expectations

It is more than fine if you enjoyed them. But expectations are not why people disliked them. That's an excuse fans tend to use when there is an overwhelming sentiment amongst a large group that they disagree with. There is a lot to dislike in those movies.

 

[Drizzle]

It is more than fine if you enjoyed them. But expectations are not why people disliked them. That's an excuse fans tend to use when there is an overwhelming sentiment amongst a large group that they disagree with. There is a lot to dislike in those movies.

I agree. The base expectations that people had for it were more or less met with most of the material that was directly from the book (Riddles in the Dark, Bilbo meeting Smaug, etc.). If anything it was the stuff that people didn't expect that was met with more hostility, like the unnecessary padding and rushed, borderline cartoonish CGI in a lot of areas.

 

[sueb1863]

For all of its faults, the Hobbit trilogy has a lot to like about it, mainly the performances. Even the most vocal haters of that trilogy admit that Martin Freeman was perfect as Bilbo. Richard Armitage was pretty good as Thorin as well and of course you can never go wrong with Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis. Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug was also a highlight.

Overall I do like them but I also recognize that the second and especially third films suffer a lot due to a lot of needless padding. It would have been better if they had stuck with the original plan of only doing two movies. IMO An Unexpected Journey is the best one because it's the one that feels the closest to the source material and doesn't add in a bunch of unnecessary padding. The only real big addition to it was the subplot with Azog which is nowhere near as big a distraction as what would follow later in Desolation of Smaug and Battle of the Five Armies. I've always hated that Scooby Doo scene at the end of the second film with the dwarves running away from and then tricking Smaug. But to their credit, Jackson and company nailed the two most memorable parts from the book, those being Bilbo meeting Gollum and his later encounter with Smaug in the mountain.

100% agree. They took a simply story and turned it into an overlong lumbering CGI packed mess. It had its moments but they were offset by too much extraneous stuff that distracted from the main story. (all that nonsense with the Master of Laketown and the Grima 2.0 character in the third movie).

Plus they wasted the talented actors who played the Dwarves. Most of them got nothing to do and ended up being just forgettable background characters with a line here and there. It was a real shame because they all had the potential to be breakouts but only Thorin and Kili got any meaningful screen time.

 

[Spider-Fan]

There is ugly CG and such, but really the biggest sin of The Hobbit films is they are criminally boring. Yeah, the iconic bits from the book are well realized. But in general they're incredibly poorly paced and just downright boring. Desolation of Smaug being for me the biggest offender of the boredom. I wish the GDT version had come to pass instead as it would have been more interesting IMO

 

[Drizzle]

There is ugly CG and such, but really the biggest sin of The Hobbit films is they are criminally boring. Yeah, the iconic bits from the book are well realized. But in general they're incredibly poorly paced and just downright boring. Desolation of Smaug being for me the biggest offender of the boredom. I wish the GDT version had come to pass instead as it would have been more interesting IMO

I think in order for the pacing to have been improved it needed to be truncated to two movies, regardless of whether Jackson or GDT was at the helm. There would have been a much tighter pace if the first movie had ended after they escape Mirkwood as originally intended.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think in order for the pacing to have been improved it needed to be truncated to two movies, regardless of whether Jackson or GDT was at the helm. There would have been a much tighter pace if the first movie had ended after they escape Mirkwood as originally intended.

I think GDT planned on it being 2, but in general I think GDT was more fitting as a director cause The Hobbit inherently isn't as grand or epic as LOTR. It's much more fairy tale like in tone, and that's something GDT excells at. It would have felt more right IMO as opposed to Diet LOTR it ended up trying to be

 

[sueb1863]

I think in order for the pacing to have been improved it needed to be truncated to two movies, regardless of whether Jackson or GDT was at the helm. There would have been a much tighter pace if the first movie had ended after they escape Mirkwood as originally intended.

Yeah, there was no way it ever should have been stretched out to THREE movies. I know they were thinking "Hey, look at all the money we made with three Lord of the Rings movies!! Now we can do that again!!" but the story just couldn't support it without adding tons of stuff it didn't need.

Rankin / Bass was able to tell the story in ninety minutes. Sure they included songs and cut stuff out, but it still worked. And I think they told it better in ninety minutes than Jackson did in nine hours.

 

[Drizzle]

Yeah, there was no way it ever should have been stretched out to THREE movies. I know they were thinking "Hey, look at all the money we made with three Lord of the Rings movies!! Now we can do that again!!" but the story just couldn't support it without adding tons of stuff it didn't need.

Rankin / Bass was able to tell the story in ninety minutes. Sure they included songs and cut stuff out, but it still worked. And I think they told it better in ninety minutes than Jackson did in nine hours.

I think Topher Grace edited all three movies into one 2-hour movie which is something I'd be interested in seeing. The thing that still blows my mind is that for all the added fat in those movies, the big funeral at the end of the third movie was left out of the theatrical cut.

 

[C. Lee]

For me, TLotR trilogy is fantastic, one of the best things ever filmed. The HOBBIT trilogy is less impressive, but I still have fun watching it. I would love to be able to see the extended LotR in the theater, but the one day only showing for the three films makes that impossible for me at this time.

 

[Lily Adler]

Anyone watching the animated film later this year?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Entirely depends on trailers

 

[sueb1863]

The thing that still blows my mind is that for all the added fat in those movies, the big funeral at the end of the third movie was left out of the theatrical cut.

Well, they couldn't lose that super crucial footage of Grima 2.0 - I mean Alfrid - dressed like a woman and trying to escape with a bra full of gold, could they? /s

It's not like the funeral was for anybody important. /s

 

[Lily Adler]

WB really missed the boat on a Middle Earth Cinematic Universe. I know some of the books were off limits right?

 

[Drizzle]

Well, they couldn't lose that super crucial footage of Grima 2.0 - I mean Alfrid - dressed like a woman and trying to escape with a bra full of gold, could they? /s

It's not like the funeral was for anybody important. /s

And even HIS death was cut out of the theatrical version, as ridiculous as it was.