I don't care what the haters say, I love the Lord of the Rings movies!!

[Coventina]

Christopher Lee as Sauruman the White?
Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey?
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel?

Just amazing casting, soundtrack, attention to detail....

A monumental artistic achievement.

If Peter Jackson never does anything for the rest of his life, he can die a proud man.

The movies had their faults, for sure. And nothing will ever satisfy purists, but overall, just an amazing achievement in cinema.
"Fellowship" in particular, should have won far more awards than it did.

So many great moments in that one: The Bridge at Khazad Dum, the amazing crane shot over the battle at Parth Galen, just incredible film making.

Sean Bean and Viggo Mortensen give us one of the best death scenes EVER!!

"Be at peace, Son of Gondor."

[LisaM]

1. My main beef is that Peter Jackson read the books and envisioned action movies.

I read the books and pictured much more of a psychological struggle and far less warfare.

[Warpy]

5. As I recall, "The Two Towers" was a slog to get through

because of all the protracted battles and pessimism over the outcome. Grima, however, is not to be missed, he's the archetype of the propagandist who has the attention of power, so I managed to get through it.

There was a hell of a lot of warfare in those books. Fortunately, there was other stuff, as well.

[Coventina]

21. "Towers" was definitely the weakest of the three.

Still don't know why the Elves had to show up at Helm's Deep (which is non-canonical).

But, agree that ALL the stuff envisioning Grima Wormtongue and just the Riders and their culture is excellently done.


I think there also was an inherent weakness in it being the middle of the story: no prologue and no resolution.

[Aristus]

2. Me too! Unqualified love and admiration.

The Hobbit movies, on the other hand...

[Coventina]

7. Yeah, the Hobbit movies, as much as I love Martin Freeman, are a let down.

[applegrove]

3. A cousin of mine convinced me to watch them even though I hate sci fi and fantasy. They've been

sitting on my bureau for months. Tell me they are that great.

[Coventina]

8. If you hate fantasy, you might not like them, unless you focus on the art of film-making.

As I mentioned in the OP, some of the shots and the way they unfold are really breath-taking.

[applegrove]

10. I look forward to them. I love movie making.

[Warpy]

4. I read the books when they first came out

and was convinced they'd never make it to film because there was simply no way to stage things like the mines of Moria.

Jackson did it. Oh my word, he did it. He even managed cave trolls and the Balroc. And Mordor. And he left out the most annoying character Tolkien came up with, Tom Bombadil. Good job!

I guess it all depends on whether you loved or hated the books, whether you were a fan of the Icelandic Sagas (something Tolkien drew on heavily) or other myths and legends, or prefer more concrete fare like murder or romance.

[Coventina]

9. Yeah, I never "got" Tom Bombadil and I honestly didn't miss him.

Many purists were infuriated at his absence, however.

[LisaM]

17. I wouldn't say infuriated, but Jackson did tend to leave out the more folksy stuff.

He also left out the scouring of the Shire at the end, a very favorite part of mine (and crucial to the concept of the old ways dying when the elves and elf friends go to the Havens).

[csziggy]

24. The best treatment of Tom Bombadil was in "Bored of the Rings"

The parody published by Harvard Lampoon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bored_of_the_Rings

It featured Tom Benzedrine and his wife, Hashberry.

[pokerfan]

13. Treebeard

It's one thing to read about an Ent. Your mind can make it just as real as it needs to be. But to put it on film or canvas and not wind up with something laughable is an achievement in itself.







But the movies got Treebeard just right:

[Coventina]

19. I agree. Treebeard was incredible. I'd happily watch a movie just about the Ents.

[MFM008]

6. Me 2

And the Hobbit.
I know Jackson took liberties.
I don't care.
If I want that type of accuracy I'll read
A dictionary.

[Docreed2003]

11. I'm a huge fan of the books...

My aunt gave the set for Christmas when I was ten or eleven. I've read them every couple of years since then. "Lord of the Rings" remains one of my favorite "books".

I think Jackson did a masterful job of bringing the Tolkien world to life. I didn't like some of the changes, like the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep, but that is a minor issue in my mind. Peter Jackson created one of the most magical and well done book adaptations ever with the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

However, my big gripe with him is the adaptation of "The Hobbit". There was no reason to adapt that book into three movies. It was a cash grab and it made the story tedious and overdone. Just my opinion.

[Solly Mack]

12. I'm one of those purists but I still own the movies. I read LOR once a year and I do still view

the movies upon occasion. With all the faults of the movies, I am still drawn by the need to "see" the characters in action. The same yearning I've had since my first reading of the LOR many, many years ago. Yes, I saw them all on the big screen as well. Though I did sputter loudly at one scene and merely grimaced during some others. I do have a great appreciation for what was accomplished.

[LisaM]

18. Gollum also was not green.

That annoyed me excessively. Maybe too much.

[Warpy]

23. I've only seen it on DVD and he looked grey to me

which was consistent with the wizened, twisted character in the books after the ring had worked on him for centuries.

[yallerdawg]

14. I was shocked at the astounding quality of Jackson's moviemaking.

I never expected the LOTR's book cycle to make it to any kind of film - when I first read them in high school, we didn't even have PC's or the internet, much less CGI!

Bakshi's cartoon was unwatchable.

Not only did Jackson create Oscar-winning movies, he helped revolutionize film-making.

Sharing these movie experiences with my two children back then - priceless! Just as good as "Harry Potter"!

And to this day, at least "The Return of the King" is one of the most Oscar-honored movies in history, a perfect 11 for 11!

[Amaryllis]

15. I have the extended versions of all three. Lots more character development in them than in the

theatrical versions, and I LOVE good character development.

[Coventina]

20. Agreed about the extended versions. One of my biggest criticisms in "Return"

was that Faramir and Eowyn's relationship got such short shrift.

I mean, the movies spend so much time showing their hearts being broken, they deserved more screen time devoted to their recovery and blossoming love.

[Amaryllis]

22. And also when Aragorn was working in the houses of healing; that was one of the ways the king

would be recognized - he would be a healer, and that was totally left out of the theatrical version.

[Wounded Bear]

16. By far the best adaptation of the books...

Yeah, plenty of stuff to complain about, but in today's movie making climate it was kind of inevitable that they turned into more action oriented movies than need be.

The Hobbit was a bit of a disappointment and way overblown. I did appreciate that they tied some of the LoTR story threads into it way better than the books (it was written first, after all ), but all the additions to just drag it out into three films was over the top.

All in all, though, a great job at getting the "feel" of Middle Earth right. I must admit I didn't like Viggo Mortenson as Aragorn at first. He didn't look quite like what I had envisioned him from the text. By the middle of Fellowship, though, he was anchored in as what Strider was for me for all time. Now, when I picture the story, he's Aragorn.