Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Theatrical Versions) - April 6, 2010

[Underworld54]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

No name in particular, but it might have been the seed of the idea for the movie.

Middle-earth trivia: the greatest necklace ever was made by the dwarves for the elven King Finrod of Nargothrond. It was made of gold and set with jewels that were brought from Valinor (paradise). After the death of Finrod, it was brought by Hurin (greatest man warrior of the First Age) to King Elwe who had the Silmaril set in it. Eventually Luthien, the most beautiful Elf of all time wore it and (from "The Silmarillion"), 'it is said that Luthien wearing that necklace and jewel was the vision of the greatest beauty and glory that has ever been outside the realm of Valinor.' The Silmaril was the source of all the woes for the Elves that migrated from Valinor to Middle-earth in the First Age.

Amazing!!! Sounds breathtaking.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

If you're going to defend Denethor, then I think you completely missed the whole over-arching point of Lord of the Rings: that bad circumstances do not justify wicked actions, no matter how serious those circumstances may be. Every murderer or rapist in the world has a "reason" why they do the things they do, it doesn't make it OK. People do not have control of the circumstances they are thrust into, "all you have to decide, is what to do with the time that is given to you". Every character in LotR faces that test, and they either pass or fail. And just to make sure nobody missed that point, Tolkien paired the characters up so that a pair of characters would face the same challenge and one would pass while one would fail. Denethor is paired with Theoden; Theoden passes, Denethor fails. Both face the passing of the world they've always known... Denethor despairs and quits, Theoden fights. They both lose their beloved heir... Denethor gets bitter and vicious and turns on those who he still has, Theoden turns to greater love and appreciation for the family and friends that he still has. The comparison goes on and on like that.

I'm not defending Denethor. I am noting that he is a tragic figure. Once strong, noble and a great leader. Two strong sons, one who is flawed.

[Witch King of Angmar]

haha I loved denethor.

"You think you are wise, Mithrandir, yet for all your subtleties you have not wisdom." is one badass line.

The thing I didn't like in movies was elijah wood's acting. He was also annoying & whiny as hell. I also didn't like when King Elessar said "For Frodo"

'For Frodo & Samwise" would be better

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by teracore

haha i loved denethor.

"you think you are wise, mithrandir, yet for all your subtleties you have not wisdom." is one badass line.

the thing i didn't like in movies was elijah wood's acting. He was also annoying & whiny as hell. I also didn't like when king elessar said "for frodo"

'for frodo & samwise" would be better

+1

[lDlisturb3d]

We are some pretty devoted fans, there isn't a movie on this site with these many responses on the thread. LOTR is awesome and my favorite movie of all time.

The Battle for Middle Earth might be on this SITE!!!!

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

If you're going to defend Denethor, then I think you completely missed the whole over-arching point of Lord of the Rings: that bad circumstances do not justify wicked actions, no matter how serious those circumstances may be.

Tolkien: "Denethor was tainted with mere politics: hence his failure, and his mistrust of Faramir. It had become for him a prime motive to preserve Gondor, as it were, against another potentate, who had made himself stronger and was to be feared and opposed for that reason, rather than because he was ruthless and wicked. Denethor despised lesser men, and one may be sure he did not distinguish between orcs and the allies of Mordor. If he had survived as a victor, even without the use of the Ring, he would have taken a long stride towards becoming himself a tyrant, and the terms of treatment he accorded to the deluded peoples of east and south would have been cruel and vengeful. He had become a 'political' leader: sc. Gondor against the rest."

In turn, Boromir's purposes were "infected" by Denethor's motives, which are political, e.g. power against power, not good against evil.

[Fighter]

Originally Posted by deeman54

We are some pretty devoted fans, there isn't a movie on this site with these many responses on the thread. LOTR is awesome and my favorite movie of all time.

The Battle for Middle Earth might be on this SITE!!!!

It would be a one-sided battle

[LetoAtreides82]

In the special features for each movie there's a preview for the extended edition and it's seriously making me consider buying the DVD version now and replacing it with the blu-ray version once that comes out. Is it worth it to do it? Prices on amazon are around $60 (I never buy used movies) ...

Ever since I got blu-ray I haven't dared watch dvd's due to their awful picture quality so that's what's holding me back from buying the dvd version of the extended edition. However I'm a big fan of special features and I don't mind if they're in standard definition. How are the special features in the extended edition are they any better than what we got with the theatrical edition?

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Fighter

It would be a one-sided battle

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by teracore

The thing I didn't like in movies was elijah wood's acting.

I thought Elijah was fine most of the time. The only parts I can think of that I didn't like were in Two Towers when he tells Sam "Frodo wouldn't have gotten far without Sam" and Return of the King when he tells Sam that the orcs have taken the ring. Sometimes he just seemed too sweet. But honestly, almost every main actor had a few moments where their acting was a little off. If you listen to Vigo's voice in Fellowship when he tells Boromir "The ring answers to Sauron alone, it has no other master." His voice is all squeaky and and weird. It doesn't take away my enjoyment of the movies though.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

Other examples of this please because I actually think Samwise had as much to do with destroying the Ring as Frodo did.

Sure, Sam is the real hero.
If you look at it, Gollum is not Frodo's literary foil, he is Sam's. Both characters are heavily defined by their relationship to the character of the ringbearer, the one representing the wretched villainy that could ensnare Frodo if he gives in to the ring, the other representing everything Frodo is holding onto and saving, for himself and the world. When Gollum and his friend/cousin find the ring, he murders him to steal it for himself. When Sam has the ring, he decides he has to rescue Frodo so he can give it back to him. Gollum will sacrifice the world to keep the ring for himself. Sam would sacrifice himself to save his friends and help destroy the ring. Gollum is a coward, Sam is brave. They are complete opposites in every way, and they both personify the ultimate opposite disposition for the ring: the one madly coveting it, as the wicked do, the other steadfastly dedicated to its destruction. Sam is the mascot of the whole quest.
No, Gollum is not Frodo's foil... Aragorn is. Frodo and Aragorn are both reluctant, low-profile princes among their people. Both are motivated by an almost paternal sense of responsibility to protect their people. They both face the test of having the right to claim the ring, and of having the excuse that it would be done to save the world for good. The ring represents the same challenge to both characters, Aragorn passes. Aragorn is fortunate in that his opportunity to take and use the ring passes briefly, and then he is free for the rest of the narrative to be one of the two principle drivers of all of the events other than Frodo disposing of the ring. Frodo is not so lucky, because it falls to him to carry the ring to its end. He is probably able to endure it better even than Aragorn would, but ultimately, his task is so long and difficult that he fails ... Frodo fails: he caves in, has a psychiatric crack-up, and tries to take the ring for himself.
It was only by Sam being there to see it through to the end, that the ring was destroyed. Frodo had the responsibility of destroying the ring, (which he didn't actually do) but Sam had the greater responsibility of making sure that he did it.

Another, more obvious pairing is Gandalf and Saruman. Gandalf is able to resist the ring because of his great compassion and humility. Gandalf has used his time in Middle Earth to travel far and wide and come to love and learn the customs of all of the various peoples all over the world. In the war of the ring he serves as a force to rally and unite all peoples to the defense, and he is able to do so because of the friendships he has cultivated all over the world. In giving himself completely to the service of the welfare of all people, Gandalf has conquered his own ego and that lets him resist the urge to power, and therefore the ring. Saruman gets caught up in coveting the ring because of his arrogance. He never developed any sense of connection to the peoples he was sent to save, and so he never got over himself and instead developed a sense of entitlement to greater power. It is ironically through his will to power that he is manipulated and subdued by Sauron. He ends up doing the bidding of Mordor, while thinking that he is in fact making his own move for domination. Gandalf passes, Saruman fails (and gets fired and replaced with Gandalf).

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Tolkien: "Denethor was tainted with mere politics: hence his failure, and his mistrust of Faramir. It had become for him a prime motive to preserve Gondor, as it were, against another potentate, who had made himself stronger and was to be feared and opposed for that reason, rather than because he was ruthless and wicked. Denethor despised lesser men, and one may be sure he did not distinguish between orcs and the allies of Mordor. If he had survived as a victor, even without the use of the Ring, he would have taken a long stride towards becoming himself a tyrant, and the terms of treatment he accorded to the deluded peoples of east and south would have been cruel and vengeful. He had become a 'political' leader: sc. Gondor against the rest."

In turn, Boromir's purposes were "infected" by Denethor's motives, which are political, e.g. power against power, not good against evil.

Well, if anyone could make the definitive statement, it's Tolkien. Case closed.

[ckenisell]

Originally Posted by LetoAtreides82

Ever since I got blu-ray I haven't dared watch dvd's due to their awful picture quality so that's what's holding me back from buying the dvd version of the extended edition. However I'm a big fan of special features and I don't mind if they're in standard definition. How are the special features in the extended edition are they any better than what we got with the theatrical edition?

The special features of the EEs are amazing and the special features on the Theatrical releases (DVD or Blu-Ray) don't even come close. This is one of the main reasons I'm disappointed about not having the EEs on Blu-Ray.

[NYorker]

Found this interesting article - apologies in advanced if it was already posted:

http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2010/04...-ray-releases/

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Found this interesting article - apologies in advanced if it was already posted:

http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2010/04...-ray-releases/

First time I see it. Great information.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

Well, if anyone should make the definitive statement, it's Tolkien. Case closed.

Since Tolkien is credited as being one of the greatest Oxford professors (and having developed a very strong world view with the experiences and horrors he encountered in World War I), 'Lord of the Rings' is much more than just "a fantasy tale" - it goes far deeper. There are several themes that are represented by the main characters. The major theme, as he has written, is Death and mortality, thus the mix of mortal and immortal characters and how they deal with that aspect of their existence.

Another important theme is "politics", which is a fancy word that means "a desire to dominate others". The most political characters of the story, Sauron, Saruman, Denethor and Boromir are also the ones that have the strongest desire for the Ring, and would not hesitate to use it. The non-political characters, represented by Aragorn, Gandalf, Faramir, Galadriel, Elrond, and Sam, use whatever power they have to assist others (i.e. they are not "selfish") and have no will to dominate - thus they resist the power of the Ring, which is the physical representation of Evil.

Tolkien wrote in one of his letters that "Lord of the Rings" is not a story about an imaginary world, but a story about the real world that occurs at an imaginary period in history.

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Since Tolkien is credited as being one of the greatest Oxford professors (and having developed a very strong world view with the experiences and horrors he encountered in World War I), 'Lord of the Rings' is much more than just "a fantasy tale" - it goes far deeper. There are several themes that are represented by the main characters. The major theme, as he has written, is Death and mortality, thus the mix of mortal and immortal characters and how they deal with that aspect of their existence.

Another important theme is "politics", which is a fancy word that means "a desire to dominate others". The most political characters of the story, Sauron, Saruman, Denethor and Boromir are also the ones that have the strongest desire for the Ring, and would not hesitate to use it. The non-political characters, represented by Aragorn, Gandalf, Faramir, Galadriel, Elrond, and Sam, use whatever power they have to assist others (i.e. they are not "selfish") and have no will to dominate - thus they resist the power of the Ring, which is the physical representation of Evil.

Tolkien wrote in one of his letters that "Lord of the Rings" is not a story about an imaginary world, but a story about the real world that occurs at an imaginary period in history.

I always learn something new about LOTR whenever I read your posts Grand Bob.......

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Found this interesting article - apologies in advanced if it was already posted:

http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2010/04...-ray-releases/

"all of the movies existed as HD masters, but HD technology has progressed since when they first started doing mastering in the late ‘90s. So before they closed up shop, Mike Mulvihill, who was in charge of DVD/BD production at New Line, created new examples – not the whole movie, but sections of each of the three films – as HD masters using newer technology. That got sent to Peter as a back-to-back comparison with the older HD masters, and Peter said yeah, we definitely want to redo it. In fact, there were some color-timing issues that he wanted to deal with in HD and so on and so forth, so he brought in Andrew Lesnie, the [director of photography] for the film, and they actually went in and created entirely new HD masters of these three films. So all three of them are new masters; even if you’ve seen them broadcast, the Blu-rays are actually newer masters that were approved by Peter and his director of photography."

That answers alot of speculation. Thanks for posting that article!

[lDlisturb3d]

how is this a debate when cable/satelite only broadcast 1080i

[Bunker]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Found this interesting article - apologies in advanced if it was already posted:

http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2010/04...-ray-releases/

Awesome read. Thanks for posting.