Originally posted by: Zebonka
The extended version of ROTK is a *mess*.
Right off the top of my head, that whole business with the running-away-from-the-skull-avalanche scene just looks stupid; I can't believe they put such time and effort into it.
And also - they removed any sort of suspense over the ghost army, when he wanders out of a wall and says 'we fight' in a crappy money shot.... that is a truly on-the-nose example of when a filmmaker doesn't know when to leave something alone; when they feel the need to spell something out in ridiculous fashion.
Really liked LOTR for the most part, but for movies that people insist are the 'best ever made', there are a crapload of flaws in there. They are very much products of their time, and some shots will not age terribly well (that ridiculous shot of Legolas jumping on the horse, could've been straight out of Spider-Man).
Perhaps, but on the whole, they're a breathtaking achievement in my view. I don't mind a few crowd-pleaser moments
. By and large, I don't remember being so exhilarated by a film since I first saw the OOT on video years and years. As I left FOTR I thougt, "This is why I go to the movies." Some of the visual effects may not age well, but the characters and the story, thanks mostly to Tolkien, are rich and timeless, and Jackson doesn't forget them.
But shoudn't that be the terms upon which the film is evaluated? As a film?
And then when you put it at the beginning of the King Extended, it's logically and tonally a mess and feels really tacted on.
The extended version of ROTK is a *mess*.
Right off the top of my head, that whole business with the running-away-from-the-skull-avalanche scene just looks stupid; I can't believe they put such time and effort into it.
And also - they removed any sort of suspense over the ghost army, when he wanders out of a wall and says 'we fight' in a crappy money shot.... that is a truly on-the-nose example of when a filmmaker doesn't know when to leave something alone; when they feel the need to spell something out in ridiculous fashion.
Really liked LOTR for the most part, but for movies that people insist are the 'best ever made', there are a crapload of flaws in there. They are very much products of their time, and some shots will not age terribly well (that ridiculous shot of Legolas jumping on the horse, could've been straight out of Spider-Man).
Perhaps, but on the whole, they're a breathtaking achievement in my view. I don't mind a few crowd-pleaser moments
. By and large, I don't remember being so exhilarated by a film since I first saw the OOT on video years and years. As I left FOTR I thougt, "This is why I go to the movies." Some of the visual effects may not age well, but the characters and the story, thanks mostly to Tolkien, are rich and timeless, and Jackson doesn't forget them.I maybe would've preferred the Rings Trilogy if Jackson hadn't killed The Two Towers. No matter what form it's in, extended or theatrical, it's a mess. The book is so much better.
I think that the extended edition rectified much from the theatrical version. I certainly altered the character of Faramir, but in the EE, he is redeemed as one of the great Men, as Tolkien intended him.
In what way, precisely?
In terms of plain movies, ignoring the books, Two Towers was the best with Return of the King and Fellowship winning a tie in my mind.
I think that the extended edition rectified much from the theatrical version. I certainly altered the character of Faramir, but in the EE, he is redeemed as one of the great Men, as Tolkien intended him.
But Return of the King was an even greater travesty upon the books.
In what way, precisely?
In terms of plain movies, ignoring the books, Two Towers was the best with Return of the King and Fellowship winning a tie in my mind.
But shoudn't that be the terms upon which the film is evaluated? As a film?
And then when you put it at the beginning of the King Extended, it's logically and tonally a mess and feels really tacted on.
I don't think so, I mean Tolkien wrote it as a complete story anyways. Good points all. Thanks.
And stop calling it "A New Hope
." I find it interesting that the best of the Harry Potter films, the third, is the one that deviates most from the book.