Movie Debate #125: The Fellowship of the Ring

[Reed Rothchild | 9,900]

[Tabonga | 2,528]

10 - Fantasy done right on a truly epic scale!

[Dr. Morbis | 2,116]

Watching a movie like this nowadays where they were just trying to make the best movie they could possibly make without checking any boxes or forcing any political messages down the viewer's throat is a real breath of fresh air.  It was a 10/10 for me back then and it still is now...

[Sumez | 3,127]

Did you just ditch the result of the "next movie" poll on the previous one? 
Also, are you gonna do each of the LOTR movies sepearately, because that's gonna be quite trite when people go through the same points in every thread.

 

I'm not sure what can be said about this trilogy that hasn't been set a million times before. Probably the last truly great example of Hollywood ingenuity, and all the behind-the-scenes documentation is arguably even more interesting than the movies themselves. It is the perfect example of the term "lightning in a bottle", that I think few people have faith in ever being able to happen again.

Even for a story that's "just a basic fantasy tale", the way Peter Jackson's movies was able to portray that, just provides it with all the impact it can possibly attain. How fortunate it coincided with the one story that's largely seen as the original modern fantasy tale.
I grew up with the LOTR books as a kid, and like many others I had little faith that the movies would be able to decently represent it. But despite lots of little potential arguments that rightly could be made (where's Tom Bombadil, Legolas is too smug, etc. etc.) it's hard to imagine a movie version of those books could possibly be handled any better.

In short, no other movie has been able to nail a classic fantasy story anywhere near as well at any point before or after the LOTR trilogy, and The Fellowship of the Ring does everything right, even if ends right as Act 2 is only just getting started.

9/10

Edited June 8, 2023 by Sumez

[Reed Rothchild | 9,900]

4 minutes ago, Sumez said:

Did you just ditch the result of the "next movie" poll on the previous one? 

Wouldn't be the first time!

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,116]

I read all of the books as a kid, but I've never seen any of the movies. 

[RH | 5,186]

I really wanted to get into these books as a kid, but I couldn't.  It's not that the story isn't epic or that I wouldn't have enjoyed it. It just took so long to get movine.

I read the Hobbit first (when I was 10) and I had read it multiple times before I cracked the spine to Fellowship.   I intend to read this trilogy to my daughter, but I think we want to read them as a family.

Anyway, the films weren't just an epic tale, but a masterpiece of movie making and a near-miracle that Peter Jackson was able to make all 3 at once.  There's no doubt that these films wouldn't have been as good if they had to go through the typical cycle of producing one smash hit first before making the subsequent films.

Anyway, this was the perfect marriage of practical affects paired with what the digital affects were capable of at that time.  I give it a 9 of 10.  This also could be a 10 but the fact that it's 3 hours long on it's own (and who watches just one film in the  trilogy without wanting to quickly get to the other two?!)

The trilogy gets long after multiple viewings but the first couple of times I saw these films, it didn't feel that way.  I like this one, Fellowship of the Ring, the best of the trilogy. They are all great but if I'd were to give one a10, it'd be this one, and the others would all get a solid 9.

[TDIRunner | 2,869]

Never seen any movies from this series.  

[wongojack | 304]

1 hour ago, RH said:

The films weren't just an epic tale, but a masterpiece of movie making and a near-miracle that Peter Jackson was able to make all 3 at once.  There's no doubt that these films wouldn't have been as good if they had to go through the typical cycle of producing one smash hit first before making the subsequent films.

Yep - at the time I remember thinking that this would be the beginning of something, but now it seems like we'll never see this type of movie-making again.

10 out of 10 from me.  Probably better than the original Star Wars, and I never expect it to be surpassed again for what it is.

[Hammerfestus | 4,092]

And my axe!

Easy 10.

[Kguillemette | 1,592]

Took my breath away when I first saw it in theaters. Still one of my favorites and incredibly rewatchable

[RH | 5,186]

37 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

Took my breath away when I first saw it in theaters. Still one of my favorites and incredibly rewatchable

I know I commented already but it's worth repeating.  It absolutely amazes me how well the special FX hold up in this film.  I think the only other film I can think of that's held up this well (and probably will for many, many decades to come) is Apollo 13, but that's because they actually filmed that movie in 0-gravity.  So... is that even practical/special effects?  I'm not even sure, honestly.

[Gloves | 12,220]

I'll never forget my grandparents taking my brother and I to see thin at the theatre, and my grandpa was upset at the end of the film that the story wasn't wrapped up lol. He was unfamiliar with the source material which didn't help. 

I on the flip side of course consider it a 10.

[RH | 5,186]

10 minutes ago, Gloves said:

I'll never forget my grandparents taking my brother and I to see thin at the theatre, and my grandpa was upset at the end of the film that the story wasn't wrapped up lol. He was unfamiliar with the source material which didn't help. 

I on the flip side of course consider it a 10.

Haha, I got to the theater "late" (which was actually like 10 minutes early) on opening weekend and I had to sit on the second row from the back.

When the movie ended, this guy yelled out "That's it?!", became semi-irate and was debating on asking for his money back. I admit again, I hadn't read the book, but still, how is it that you could go into a movie that was hyped up for years before it came out, based off of a well known series of novels that were 60+ years old, and not know it was going to end in the middle of the story?

I give grand parents a pass.  Other people though, I don't get it.

[DefaultGen | 5,707]

It's so good I don't even hate the CGI.

[Gloves | 12,220]

27 minutes ago, RH said:

Haha, I got to the theater "late" (which was actually like 10 minutes early) on opening weekend and I had to sit on the second row from the back.

When the movie ended, this guy yelled out "That's it?!", became semi-irate and was debating on asking for his money back. I admit again, I hadn't read the book, but still, how is it that you could go into a movie that was hyped up for years before it came out, based off of a well known series of novels that were 60+ years old, and not know it was going to end in the middle of the story?

I give grand parents a pass.  Other people though, I don't get it.

Hearing you tell your version, that could well have been my grandpa lol. You sure you weren't in Oshawa Ontario when this released?

[JamesRobot | 6,005]

3 hours ago, TDIRunner said:

Never seen any movies from this series.  

Shut up, Gloves. 

[JamesRobot | 6,005]

Technically a 5 but I do think the whole trilogy is pretty great.  But you have to make a ton of time for these movies particularly because you have to watch the extended versions.  Ridiculous.

I'm also not an Elijah Wood fan.  But Mikey from the Goonies saves the day so it evens out 

[Aguy | 780]

2 hours ago, Hammerfestus said:

And my axe!

Easy 10.

There are so many good one liners throughout the trilogy, it's hard for me to watch them and not talk through the whole thing. 

We watch the extended trilogy at least once a year, splitting each movie into 2 nights and taking a week to go through the whole thing. In high school, I read the first book, and got half way through the second but I just couldn't keep going. Not my favorite writing style, but love the movies. 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,013]

Absolutely one of the best. 10/10 without question. 

 

13 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

Watching a movie like this nowadays where they were just trying to make the best movie they could possibly make without checking any boxes or forcing any political messages down the viewer's throat is a real breath of fresh air.

Me thinks you aren't that familiar with Tolkien's work...

[TDIRunner | 2,869]

19 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

Shut up, Gloves. 

Honestly, I would like to watch them sometime.  Maybe when my kids are older.  We can all watch them together for the first time.

How many movies and hours are we talking about?

[Reed Rothchild | 9,900]

40 minutes ago, TDIRunner said:

Honestly, I would like to watch them sometime.  Maybe when my kids are older.  We can all watch them together for the first time.

How many movies and hours are we talking about?

The full thing is 11+ hours.

Though honestly that's about what a season of any big-name high-fantasy show is going to run.  Treat pieces of each movie like a TV show.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,900]

My own 2 cents:

This is my favorite of the trilogy.  I like the slower pace and "adventure" feel to it.  Not to take away from the sequels, but I prefer that kind of pacing.

I used to be a big sci-fi guy and I had read the The Hobbit before Fellowship came out, yet not the trilogy.  But between this film and the Baldur's Gate games, I took a hard turn to fantasy fanboy-dom right around 8th-9th grade.

[JamesRobot | 6,005]

Honestly it's great.  Even the theatrical version is totally fine.  It's no Conan the Barbarian as far as swords n sorcery go though.

[Aguy | 780]

1 hour ago, TDIRunner said:

Honestly, I would like to watch them sometime.  Maybe when my kids are older.  We can all watch them together for the first time.

How many movies and hours are we talking about?

Not sure how old your kids are but we started when my youngest was 7. There are scary bits but she likes them and is always down to watch them with me.