The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

I love LotR (The Hobbit I could do without) and I do think it's a masterpiece of fantasy but yes - I think they've been surpassed many times over. Hobb's Elderlings Saga, Martin's aSoIaF, Abercrombie's First Law Trilogy... Hell even the first few Dark Tower books are better in my opinion. Rothfuss is fantastic (or at least Name of the Wind was, I didn't care for The Wise Man's Fear as much). "Most" people haven't heard of them because most people don't read anymore. Film and television have long since taken over novels as the dominant entertainment media; books don't get the attention they once did (nothing wrong with that - it's just the way things are,) back in the day Hemingway and Fitzgerald were as popular as the biggest actors/celebrities are today.

Actually I do read a good amount and am just about finished with The Mistborn Trilogy if you've heard of that. Did the Drizzt Dourden(Dark Elf Trilogy) fairly recently too. Ive heard of a few you mentioned but never read them.

Thats cool - its just hard for me to believe you can get so detailed, like writing entire languages and stuff like that, as Tokein has.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

I never claimed Tolkien invented fantasy. You're using "fantasy" like it's interchangeable with "high fantasy." Fantasy is a blanket that covers everything from SciFi to Historical fantasy... I'm talking about high fantasy - Tolkien (and to a lesser extent Lewis) most definitely did invent it. He gets such enormous credit in the genre because he was first, and the genre itself has since become a cultural touchstone in this country and the UK. I never claimed he was the first to write "fantasy," no more than he was the first to write fiction.... and to claim that Tolkien isn't high fantasy but somehow transcends it is ludicrous, he is quintessential high fantasy.

To say that Jackson created an "alternate universe" based loosely on Tolkien is so hyperbolic it's absurd.



I love LotR (The Hobbit I could do without) and I do think it's a masterpiece of fantasy but yes - I think they've been surpassed many times over. Hobb's Elderlings Saga, Martin's aSoIaF, Abercrombie's First Law Trilogy... Hell even the first few Dark Tower books are better in my opinion. Rothfuss is fantastic (or at least Name of the Wind was, I didn't care for The Wise Man's Fear as much).

It's not absurd at all to call Jackson's version an alternate universe. There have been too many changes to the story and the personalities of the characters. Too many. It's the same thing as the alternate universes that pop up in sci-fi like Star Trek for instance. One Star Trek episode, in particular, demonstrates this perfectly. The one with the bearded Spock. The same characters are there, but they have different personalities. BBC did a much better job with the script for their radio version. That one feels more like the books.

"Better in your opinion" is the right way to put it. Your opinion. And Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth is far superior to Jackson's vision, in my opinion (I'm not alone).

Ever heard of George Macdonald or G.K. Chesterton? They wrote fantasy before Tolkien and even influenced him.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

A Song of Ice and Fire is absolutely better than LOTR.

In your opinion. Yet...which book was chosen by Jackson to do a movie? Since LOTR did so well in the box office, you would think movie studios would be scrambling to do adaptations of these so-called "superior" works to Tolkien's. When are movies going to be made of these "superior" works?

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by radagast

In your opinion. Yet...which book was chosen by Jackson to do a movie? Since LOTR did so well in the box office, you would think movie studios would be scrambling to do adaptations of these so-called "superior" works to Tolkien's. When are movies going to be made of these "superior" works?

Thats the big question and thats why Im with you on this. There are some very good fantasy works out there other than Tolkein stuff. However, trying to claim that any of them are better or more grand than the LOTR universe is gonna take an awful lot of convincing and probably isnt gonna work.

LOTR >>>>> All other fantasy until proven otherwise.

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

I don't think fantasy films that have been made after December 2003 have surpassed the trilogy. Even Harry Potter, a series I love, doesn't come close to the emotion drowning in Jackson's work.

The Potter stuff is too kid-centric and glossy. Its not nearly as inventive or as developed as LOTR. Not to mention they redefined the term "milked" since they took what should have been a 3 film series and stretched it out to 7 or 8 films or however many they are up to know. Ad nauseum comes to mind. Thank goodness its finally over and we can get on with our lives.

As for anything else that beats it? Still waiting....

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by radagast

Ever heard of George Macdonald or G.K. Chesterton? They wrote fantasy before Tolkien and even influenced him.

Originally Posted by radagast

In your opinion. Yet...which book was chosen by Jackson to do a movie? Since LOTR did so well in the box office, you would think movie studios would be scrambling to do adaptations of these so-called "superior" works to Tolkien's. When are movies going to be made of these "superior" works?

Considering that when Jackson made LotR ASoIaF was about 3 books into what will be a 7 book series it would've been kind of hard for him to make the movies, right? And neither of those two authors wrote epic high fantasy - they were fantasy authors. Tolkein had numerous influences... neither of them influenced him as much as Scandinavian mythology but so what? Fantasy of all types was being written long before any of them.

Also, kind of hard to make a trilogy of movies when there's seven books worth of material.

Also kind of hard to pitch the idea to a studio when it'd have to be a hard R. You honestly think a studio would've sank hundreds of millions into a series of fantasy movies with a rating over PG-13? Please.

I don't know about Hollywood, but HBO is doing ASoIaF right now and it's about 110% better than 99% of the garbage Hollywood churns out.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Considering that when Jackson made LotR ASoIaF was about 3 books into what will be a 7 book series it would've been kind of hard for him to make the movies, right? And neither of those two authors wrote epic high fantasy - they were fantasy authors. Tolkein had numerous influences... neither of them influenced him as much as Scandinavian mythology but so what? Fantasy of all types was being written long before any of them.

Also, kind of hard to make a trilogy of movies when there's seven books worth of material.

Also kind of hard to pitch the idea to a studio when it'd have to be a hard R. You honestly think a studio would've sank hundreds of millions into a series of fantasy movies with a rating over PG-13? Please.

I don't know about Hollywood, but HBO is doing ASoIaF right now and it's about 110% better than 99% of the garbage Hollywood churns out.

Is Game of Thrones (A Song of Ice and Fire) worth a blind buy?
Nevermind, it's not out yet...

[Mavrick]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

Is Game of Thrones (A Song of Ice and Fire) worth a blind buy?

If you mean the TV series, I would say 100% worth a blind buy. I loved the show without having read any of the books. But I'm sure there will be people here who will tell you it's terrible.

You may find the abundance of Incest and underage sex shocking but at least they made the age of some of the charecters older than in the books.

Once you get over that the series becomes quite enjoyable. eally can't wait for the BD and series two to start.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

Is Game of Thrones (A Song of Ice and Fire) worth a blind buy?
Nevermind, it's not out yet...

When it comes out in early March it definitely will be. I was completely expecting the show to suck (having been a long-time fan of the books I was ready to be disappointed) and I thought they did a fantastic job with it. It's right up there with the best of the best on TV (Breaking Bad, Boardwalk, etc.) and is easily my favorite show of the last couple of years.

The books are worth picking up too (you can pick up the first one and even if you don't care for it you won't have lost much - the paperback can be had for cheap.) You're better off reading the books that are out there before you watch the show too, if for no other reason than the fact that once you see the show those actors are all you'll be able to visualize once you go into the first book (Game of Thrones) in the series (not necessarily a bad thing, but it's better to let your mind form the characters rather than constantly visualizing an actor while reading.)

[happydood]

[/QUOTE] The Potter stuff is too kid-centric and glossy. Its not nearly as inventive or as developed as LOTR. Not to mention they redefined the term "milked" since they took what should have been a 3 film series and stretched it out to 7 or 8 films or however many they are up to know. Ad nauseum comes to mind. Thank goodness its finally over and we can get on with our lives.

As for anything else that beats it? Still waiting.... [/QUOTE]

Well. Once again, opinions are only opinions. When you say 'not nearly as inventive' I think it would be important to remember that Tolkien borrowed as much from other works (sometimes blatantly, even though he denied it- a ring that makes you disappear anyone?) as Rowling has.

Also, I'm not sure if 'kid-centric' is necessarily a bad thing- it does exactly what it sets out to do. And I'm not sure what you mean by 'glossy,' but I'd think LOTR and Star Wars and countless others could be leveled with the same accusation.

Harry Potter tries to do what LOTR And Star Wars do- create a new mythology out of old elements. All three of these works succeed for me, but your mileage may vary, I guess.

[philzilla]

Originally Posted by Drew664

Agreed!

Just finished a Song of Ice and Fire, and I much prefer it to LoTR. Lots of books yet to finish, and word on the street is that the series only gets better. The book (series) isn't for everyone though as it gets far grittier than LoTR.

Maybe that's the draw?

LoTR = PG13
Song of Ice and Fire = R

Awesome, so could you tell me how it ends?

[Sephiroth5929]

Just picked this up. It was $49 on Amazon.

Really like it.

[RYJAPE21]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The Potter stuff is too kid-centric and glossy. Its not nearly as inventive or as developed as LOTR. Not to mention they redefined the term "milked" since they took what should have been a 3 film series and stretched it out to 7 or 8 films or however many they are up to know. Ad nauseum comes to mind. Thank goodness its finally over and we can get on with our lives.

As for anything else that beats it? Still waiting....

Regarding "kid centric," the series is very much a coming-of-age tale about a boy becoming a man. We begin with Harry at age 11 and see the world through his eyes; at first it's whimsical and light-hearted, but as the series progress things grow darker. I love this about HP. Also, can 3 films really cover that?

I'll also add that, even though I adore LOTR and place it above all other fantasy, I find Potter's story and characters more better developed. The characters are more fleshed out, interesting, and we see them grow more naturally than LOTR's characters.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by RYJAPE21

Regarding "kid centric," the series is very much a coming-of-age tale about a boy becoming a man. We begin with Harry at age 11 and see the world through his eyes; at first it's whimsical and light-hearted, but as the series progress things grow darker. I love this about HP. Also, can 3 films really cover that?

I'll also add that, even though I adore LOTR and place it above all other fantasy, I find Potter's story and characters more better developed. The characters are more fleshed out, interesting, and we see them grow more naturally than LOTR's characters.

Really? Aragorn goes from a ranger nobody who is totally unsure of himself to a King. Frodo starts out as a simpleton hobbit with nothing better to do except drink and smoke and ends up losing his life. Gimli and Legolas put aside their disdain for one another's races for the better. Baromir & his father. Theodin and Aoywyn. Heck, even Gollum is pretty wild.

I get the whole "coming of age" thing with Potter and I'll grant that as a positive. But, the rest of the characters? I dunno - I dont see it or find them interesting at all. The Potter stuff did get darker but I still think it takes too long to get there.

The problem I had with Potter is that it seemed like the middle films were the same rehash over and over: Somethings up at Hogwarts, someone new arrives and might be up to something, The kids sneak around and investigate, Oh no, it might be related to Voldemort. A few non-important action sequences or games ensue. Nothing really advances. Sure, LOTR had some time-wasting too but I dont feel they milked it nearly as bad. Just me.

[Jumpman]

Jackson and company milked the middle section of the Rings Trilogy within an inch of it's life. At least with Potter, there were layers to the development of the character arcs, relationships, and plot.

Yes, the Potter story is based around a structured formula of a "year at school" for Harry and his friends. But, the complexity of the plot and the characters grew year to year.

As presented by Jackson, Aragorn was the only character with a true arc.

[happydood]

I think both series had character arcs for nearly all the major characters, but a lot of arguments come down to how those arcs are handled.

In Harry Potter, you can argue that Dumbledore, Snape, Harry, Ron, and Hermione, Neville and to a lesser extent characters like McGonagal (sp?) and Hagrid go through substantial changes.

As to no real character arcs in LOTR? I can't agree even slightly. Although, I must say, I'm re-reading the book right now for the 6th time and the main argument I can see folks having against the films (and this has been borne out here) is Faramir. I like the way he's handled in the book. But I think he actually has more of an arc in the movie. But I hasten to add this doesn't make the book or the movie better! Once again- two different things.

But as to Harry Potter drawing things out too much, maybe this is valid, although I'll take all the Harry Potter I can get: The chief criticism aimed at LOTR when it came out is that it was unnecessarily long.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Jackson and company milked the middle section of the Rings Trilogy within an inch of it's life.

In the books, Helm's Deep is about 17 pages out of an aproximately 1200 page book. In the movie, it's probably about 1/4 of the whole trilogy.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by radagast

In your opinion. Yet...which book was chosen by Jackson to do a movie? Since LOTR did so well in the box office, you would think movie studios would be scrambling to do adaptations of these so-called "superior" works to Tolkien's. When are movies going to be made of these "superior" works?

... I'm glad Stinky fielded this question, cuz wow.

Jackson choosing to make movies based on something is definitive proof that one thing > another? That's some very, very strange logic. Jackson is not an oracle.

HBO began filming Game of Thrones before the Song of Ice and Fire series was 2/3's finished. Consequently, New Line took like 70 years to adapt LOTR. I guess the fact that they were in such a hurry to get it on screen means ASOIAF > LOTR.

Read the books and then tell me I'm wrong, that's all I'm asking. Giving demigod status to a book or movie and then claiming it's never going to be topped is just a recipe for disappointment, if you ask me.

[Jumpman]

The Battle of Helm's Deep is actually like a page and a half in the novel.

Look, I'm not criticizing Jackson about expanding the Battle of Helm's Deep. It's a battle. What I can criticize him for is a lot of the Two Towers and parts of Return of the King for drawing things out way too much...and in the case of the Two Towers, not really figuring out the script of that film out before they shot it.

It's easily the worse of the three films. The Extended Cut of that film should've been no more than 3 hours in length. That's how much fat is on that movie that didn't need to be.

The Warg Battle? Get rid of it.
Arwen? Didn't need to be there.
Pippin and Merry? Could've been just cameos in that film and it wouldn't have hurt it one bit.
Frodo and Sam to Osgilith? Terrible decision. Complete plot hole if you ask me.
Gimli? Bring back the proud Gimli from Fellowship, instead of the comic relief character we got in the last two films.
Flashback of Gollum to open Return of the King? Stupid and unnecessary.
Saruman's demise? Move it to the end of the Two Towers where it belongs and have a double cliffhanger of Pippin and the Palantir and Gollum's reference to Shelob.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The Potter stuff is too kid-centric and glossy. Its not nearly as inventive or as developed as LOTR. Not to mention they redefined the term "milked" since they took what should have been a 3 film series and stretched it out to 7 or 8 films or however many they are up to know. Ad nauseum comes to mind. Thank goodness its finally over and we can get on with our lives.

That would have been impossible. The story ended 7 years after the first film went into production. There's no way Warner Bros. was going to wait that long to start the series and there's no way they would have known when it was going to end early on.

It started out kid-centric, but by the time Order of the Phoenix came around, it took a much darker turn in tone, especially with the final two movies. A woman floating over a table while the men and women holding her captive utter racist diatribe isn't kid-centric. That same woman then being murdered and devoured by a snake isn't kid-centric.

Harry Potter is in no way shape or form comparable to what Jackson an company accomplished. There's no doubt about that. I will not deny, however, that the Potter series is perhaps the most consistent series of that length in terms of quality.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

The Battle of Helm's Deep is actually like a page and a half in the novel.

Look, I'm not criticizing Jackson about expanding the Battle of Helm's Deep. It's a battle. What I can criticize him for is a lot of the Two Towers and parts of Return of the King for drawing things out way too much...and in the case of the Two Towers, not really figuring out the script of that film out before they shot it.

It's easily the worse of the three films. The Extended Cut of that film should've been no more than 3 hours in length. That's how much fat is on that movie that didn't need to be.

The Warg Battle? Get rid of it.
Arwen? Didn't need to be there.
Pippin and Merry? Could've been just cameos in that film and it wouldn't have hurt it one bit.
Frodo and Sam to Osgilith? Terrible decision. Complete plot hole if you ask me.
Gimli? Bring back the proud Gimli from Fellowship, instead of the comic relief character we got in the last two films.
Flashback of Gollum to open Return of the King? Stupid and unnecessary.
Saruman's demise? Move it to the end of the Two Towers where it belongs and have a double cliffhanger of Pippin and the Palantir and Gollum's reference to Shelob.

I disagree with you concerning the two I bolded. The Warg battle is one of the best action scenes in the entire trilogy and I thoroughly enjoyed Gollum's flashback because it showed the audience what he was like before the ring poisoned his mind and body.