The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring

[JulyDiaz 2797]

Amy & Paul embark on an epic quest through Peter Jackson's 2001 fantasy adaptation The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring! They praise Elijah Wood's stellar silent acting, learn which modern dictator hates being compared to Gollum, and debate which if any Harry Potter film could make the list. Plus: Motion capture specialist Brett Ineson talks about making Gollum come to life in Return Of The King.

 

For Psycho week, what would you write in your positive Yelp review of the Bates Motel? Call the Unspooled voicemail line at 747-666-5824 and let us know! Follow us on Twitter @Unspooled, get more info at unspooledpod.com, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts.

[taylor anne photo 11311]

Prisoner of Azkaban. No doubt. Not only is it still extremely accurate to the book but it's beautifully shot and a perfect stand alone film from the rest of the series. There are obviously things that one would need to know from the previous films, but in this Harry Potter obsessed fan's opinion, it is by far the best of the films that was ever made and anyone can watch it with any amount of knowledge and still enjoy the movie wholeheartedly.

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

How did Sir Ian McKellan pull off this part?

 

[grudlian. 4725]

Amy and Paul say a few times that Fellowship is representative of the entire trilogy, but I'm not sure I agree. I genuinely think Fellowship is more enjoyable than the others. If I were making a list, I wouldn't even consider the others.

I don't really have a defense since these are effectively one movie and definitely one production. There is just an intangible element that elevates this one over the others for me. 

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

Yea definitely.  I love them all, and they'd each probably be in my personal top-100, but the first is the one that stands out -- it has such a sense of wonder, it's more fun, and is so inviting.  

[Cameron H. 23786]

Regarding allegory, this is what Tolkien says in the book:

”I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

In other words, the reader - or viewer in this case - can interpret the work however it suits them, but it was written without intention. So, Tolkien would probably agree with Paul that the movie is about drug addiction, but would add that he didn’t write the book with a direct “ring equals drug addiction” correlation.

[grudlian. 4725]

22 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

Regarding allegory, this is what Tolkien says in the book:

”I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

In other words, the reader - or viewer in this case - can interpret the work however it suits them, but it was written without intention. So, Tolkien would probably agree with Paul that the movie is about drug addiction, but would add that he didn’t write the book with a direct “ring equals drug addiction” correlation.

I wonder if Tolkien has a very strict definition of allegory like his friend CS Lewis who was very adamant that none of Narnia was allegorical.

I'm too lazy to look up the quote but Lewis said Aslan is not an allegory for Jesus despite being clearly representative. The gist of it was something like "I didn't set out saying in this world Jesus is a lion and then extrapolate that out to what that world would be."

Now, I've never really thought of LOTR as an allegory (so, this is kind of pointless to bring up I guess). Just war and facing dark times and taking up the cause to save the world is pretty broad stuff. I've read theories that LOTR is an allegory for WW2 or other such things but I still just think it's a fantasy novel.

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

2 hours ago, grudlian. said:

Amy and Paul say a few times that Fellowship is representative of the entire trilogy, but I'm not sure I agree. I genuinely think Fellowship is more enjoyable than the others. If I were making a list, I wouldn't even consider the others.

I don't really have a defense since these are effectively one movie and definitely one production. There is just an intangible element that elevates this one over the others for me. 

I think they didn't mean representative of the others necessarily in terms of similarity in that sense, but rather, of you take the trilogy as a whole and wanted it on the list, but could only choose one whose presence served partially as a stand-in for saying you liked the trilogy, this is the one that was chosen (because the conventional wisdom is that it's the best one).

 

[grudlian. 4725]

15 minutes ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

I think they didn't mean representative of the others necessarily in terms of similarity in that sense, but rather, of you take the trilogy as a whole and wanted it on the list, but could only choose one whose presence served partially as a stand-in for saying you liked the trilogy, this is the one that was chosen (because the conventional wisdom is that it's the best one).

 

Sorry. Yeah, that's what I meant. Stand in for the trilogy not really representative of the trilogy

[Ludofl3x 4]

2 hours ago, AlmostAGhost said:

Yea definitely.  I love them all, and they'd each probably be in my personal top-100, but the first is the one that stands out -- it has such a sense of wonder, it's more fun, and is so inviting.  

I think this one is the best of the three movies by a long way, in part because the entire crew is together for the bulk of the story. That makes this an easier movie to make, where the others have to split the group into separate quests. THat said, I love this movie. The Mines of Moria sequence alone is enough to get it on this list, the wights chasing Arwen on horseback that ends with the river stampede, that's outstanding stuff. This really was an achievement in filmmaking. I always liked that it was being called "The New Star Wars!" when in fact there were still new Star Wars movies coming out contemporaneously. THis sort of demonstrated that practical effects and miniatures still have a leg up on the bland CG that was all the rage at the time.  

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

Because I like posting the comparisons in terms of other rankings:

Fellowship of the Ring
AFI (2007) - 50th
AFI (1997) - N/A, not yet released
BFI,  Critics (2012) - 894th (1 vote)
BFI,  Director (2012) - unplaced (no votes)
IMDB* - 11th place (IMDB rating of 8.8)
Metascore - 92
They Shoot Films - (2018: 656, 2017: 770)
Oscar, Best Picture (2002) - nominated.  winner: A Beautiful Mind
Box Office Gross** - 2nd place: $313,364,114 | 1st place: $317,575,550, Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone

*: https://www.imdb.com/search/title?groups=top_250&sort=user_rating
**: According to Box Office Mojo, https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2001&p=.htm

[bleary 333]

I just came to count the Tom Bombadil references.  Disappointed there are none so far.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

5 hours ago, taylorannephoto said:

Prisoner of Azkaban. No doubt. Not only is it still extremely accurate to the book but it's beautifully shot and a perfect stand alone film from the rest of the series. There are obviously things that one would need to know from the previous films, but in this Harry Potter obsessed fan's opinion, it is by far the best of the films that was ever made and anyone can watch it with any amount of knowledge and still enjoy the movie wholeheartedly.

Cuaron is the best director assigned to one of these films, and it shows. This is the best-looking and best-flowing movie.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

 

 

[bleary 333]

8 hours ago, taylorannephoto said:

Prisoner of Azkaban. No doubt. Not only is it still extremely accurate to the book

Except for the flying dementors.

But regardless, Prisoner of Azkaban is the film that showed what the franchise could be, after the two largely insipid Chris Columbus installments.  I might prefer 7.1 and 7.2 as films, but 3 is the one that would most belong on the list.

[taylor anne photo 11311]

19 minutes ago, bleary said:

Except for the flying dementors.

But regardless, Prisoner of Azkaban is the film that showed what the franchise could be, after the two largely insipid Chris Columbus installments.  I might prefer 7.1 and 7.2 as films, but 3 is the one that would most belong on the list.

Considering the shit we went through with all of the other films I consider flying dementors accurate now lol!

I'm actually in the minority that I really enjoy 1 & 2 as movies. 5 is absolutely the worst of them though, not only in the complete ruin of important plot points, but the editing and flow of the movie is horrendous.

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

So, honestly I'm not that big on what would probably be considered... spectacle films.  Okay, basically what we'd call blockbusters, because you could argue 2001, AN, and Singin' in the Rain are also all spectacle films (or at least films who have a spectacle component).  So, I'm curious.  The people who love Fellowship and would place it on the list (which sounds like most of you), what in it do you really respond to and from what angle/evaluation makes you think it should be there?

I've already stated my, "lists are kind of what they are," so if you asked me if it belonged on the list, I'd say, "well, considering other movies on the list, it doesn't seem out of place.  But if I was submitting a ballot, I probably wouldn't include it.  I guess it'd depend what the other 399 movies on the ballot to choose from are."

Relatedly, interesting thought question that occurred to me.  I think we interpret, "The 100 American Movies of All Time," as the greatest movies ever made that came from America.  But, and I know "American" isn't a genre, but if we thought about, say, a list of the greatest horror movies of all time.  There would be good/great movies on there that might have horror elements, or be horror adjacent, that would probably place somewhere on the list (let's say Eraserhead compared to Suspiria, the latter would probably rank higher).  But they'd be comparatively lower than if you did a list of best of movies of all time (where you might suspect Eraserhead would rank higher than Suspiria).  What if we interpreted American movies as partially representing what we think of as "American films."  In which case the presence of Classic Hollywood, westerns, and yes, particularly big budget blockbusters should be on there because that's what people think of as distinctively American type of films - even for people like me who aren't necessarily big on those type of films.  And comparatively, it feels like those are represented more on the AFI list than on the international/BFI list (at least I got that sense from looking over the AFI & BFI lists).  Now that also might just be a reflection of who's voting.  But just something my mind chewed on a bit.

[bleary 333]

35 minutes ago, taylorannephoto said:

Considering the shit we went through with all of the other films I consider flying dementors accurate now lol!

I'm actually in the minority that I really enjoy 1 & 2 as movies. 5 is absolutely the worst of them though, not only in the complete ruin of important plot points, but the editing and flow of the movie is horrendous.

I agree that 5 is the worst, in the sense that it has the largest gap between quality of the book and quality of the movie.  I find 1 tough to watch because all of the kids are still pretty terrible at acting, and I'm not a fan of 2 because I think it's the worst of the books.

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

I'm debating if I find the opening clip of Peter Jackson's Dead Alive if it should go in here or the Raiders thread when they review that.

Though I can't remember if what it's spoofing is Raiders or Temple of Doom.

 

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

1 hour ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

what in it do you really respond to and from what angle/evaluation makes you think it should be there?

For me, I think it nails almost every important part of filmmaking.  It's well-made, obviously, and the effects feel real, I don't feel like I'm watching CGI.  (I do a little more often in the 2nd and 3rd, I admit, but this one is clean to me.)  There is a story in there that isn't ungraspable, and especially in this first one, is fun too.  It may feel basic to some, maybe, but I think it actually is the prototype of fantasy stories, one of the originals.  Above all, I mostly forget I'm watching a movie, and that's my favorite thing in film and TV.  

I feel like finally making a live action LOTR movie could very easily been crazy cheesy, just a horrible film.  But at every moment, in every actor that ended up there, in every detail, every decision, it delivered.  I mean, just go back and look at Gandalf's hat in this movie.  It's perfection.  Another good example is the way the movie shows and develops the power the ring has on its holders: that's not an easy thing to show on film!  It could have been laughable in someone else's hands. But they figured it out and it works.  I feel like I'm rambling, but yea, these films and stories are IMPRESSIVE.

[bleary 333]

11 hours ago, grudlian. said:

Amy and Paul say a few times that Fellowship is representative of the entire trilogy, but I'm not sure I agree. I genuinely think Fellowship is more enjoyable than the others. If I were making a list, I wouldn't even consider the others.

I don't really have a defense since these are effectively one movie and definitely one production. There is just an intangible element that elevates this one over the others for me. 

 

9 hours ago, Ludofl3x said:

I think this one is the best of the three movies by a long way, in part because the entire crew is together for the bulk of the story. That makes this an easier movie to make, where the others have to split the group into separate quests. THat said, I love this movie. The Mines of Moria sequence alone is enough to get it on this list, the wights chasing Arwen on horseback that ends with the river stampede, that's outstanding stuff. This really was an achievement in filmmaking. I always liked that it was being called "The New Star Wars!" when in fact there were still new Star Wars movies coming out contemporaneously. THis sort of demonstrated that practical effects and miniatures still have a leg up on the bland CG that was all the rage at the time.  

 

11 hours ago, AlmostAGhost said:

Yea definitely.  I love them all, and they'd each probably be in my personal top-100, but the first is the one that stands out -- it has such a sense of wonder, it's more fun, and is so inviting.  

I really want to hear more about why you prefer the first over the later installments, since I can't understand this.  I should start by saying that I do love the trilogy as a whole, but I think the first film is by far the least interesting (I know, three straight episodes in which I've disagreed with Amy, and I suspect Psycho will make it four in a row).

When Ludofl3x says that the entire crew is together for the bulk of the story, I assume you mean the fellowship.  But I really feel like the first film is a little worse because the entire cast of characters is NOT there.  I love Theoden, Eowyn, Eomer, Treebeard, Denethor, and I even have occasional fondness for Faramir.  While these are some of the most interesting characters in the story, what's even more egregious is that Fellowship features maybe five seconds of the single most interesting, iconic character and iconic achievement of the series: Gollum.  (Well, maybe Tom Bombadil is more interesting.  That dude is a fucking legend.)

I give Fellowship credit for showing how viable the series could be, and I could list dozens of things in it that I love, but I find Return of the King to have a more satisfying story, the completion of character arcs, better CGI, and better action sequences.

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

1 hour ago, AlmostAGhost said:

For me, I think it nails almost every important part of filmmaking.  It's well-made, obviously, and the effects feel real, I don't feel like I'm watching CGI.  (I do a little more often in the 2nd and 3rd, I admit, but this one is clean to me.)  There is a story in there that isn't ungraspable, and especially in this first one, is fun too.  It may feel basic to some, maybe, but I think it actually is the prototype of fantasy stories, one of the originals.  Above all, I mostly forget I'm watching a movie, and that's my favorite thing in film and TV.  

I feel like finally making a live action LOTR movie could very easily been crazy cheesy, just a horrible film.  But at every moment, in every actor that ended up there, in every detail, every decision, it delivered.  I mean, just go back and look at Gandalf's hat in this movie.  It's perfection.  Another good example is the way the movie shows and develops the power the ring has on its holders: that's not an easy thing to show on film!  It could have been laughable in someone else's hands. But they figured it out and it works.  I feel like I'm rambling, but yea, these films and stories are IMPRESSIVE.

A few questions, prompted heavily by the second paragraph, are you a fan of the fantasy genre in general (either in film or other mediums) and more specifically, are you a fan of the books?  And if so on the latter, were you a fan before the movies came out?  Or is appreciation of the difficult of adaptation you experienced after loving the films?  This is just more for my context.

I felt like I was rambling a lot in trying to describe Apocalypse Now.  I never took a film class, so it's some times more difficult to articulate why some scenes strike me as "just beautiful" and it just lulls me, with the mood sometimes feeling like it's washing over me.  After the AN thread, I really wished I had waited until after the episode and the thread started to watch it, so I would have thought to take down notes, organize my thoughts, and have specific examples.  Though, admittedly that's a lot for an online discussion.  But, there's something enjoyable about organizing your thoughts.

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

I watched the Harry Potter movies once, and that was right amount for me to enjoy them.  If I were to go back and re-watch any of them, it'd probably be the third one (because of Cuaron.  I also remember the tree signifying the change of seasons being a nice stylized thing.  So presumably there are other things that I would also enjoy.  Though in terms of Cuaron, I really need to revisit Y Tu Mama, Tambien.  It's been over a decade and I don't know how well it's aged) and also HP 7 Part 1, probably because I remember that being the part of the book series I liked the most, though I can't remember how I felt about the movie.

 

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

I guess it makes sense to post these now, since there won't be another one in the series.

 

 

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

17 minutes ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

A few questions, prompted heavily by the second paragraph, are you a fan of the fantasy genre in general (either in film or other mediums) and more specifically, are you a fan of the books?  And if so on the latter, were you a fan before the movies came out?  Or is appreciation of the difficult of adaptation you experienced after loving the films?  This is just more for my context.

I felt like I was rambling a lot in trying to describe Apocalypse Now.  I never took a film class, so it's some times more difficult to articulate why some scenes strike me as "just beautiful" and it just lulls me, with the mood sometimes feeling like it's washing over me.  After the AN thread, I really wished I had waited until after the episode and the thread started to watch it, so I would have thought to take down notes, organize my thoughts, and have specific examples.  Though, admittedly that's a lot for an online discussion.  But, there's something enjoyable about organizing your thoughts.

Yes, I love fantasy, both in film and books, and have read the books.  I read the books before the movies, but not that much before, just a couple years I think.  Though I had read The Hobbit many years prior.  The thing about Tolkein is the books are more than just a story, more than just a universe, he created a FULL history of everyone and everything in it.  That's one thing the movies do well to convey that I think a lesser version of the film would not even attempt. 

Oh yea, I mean that's why we're here right?  To figure out and discuss why these films are 'great', to as you say, organize our thoughts.  Your questions are literally the same ones I've asked in at least a few other threads, where I didn't connect the same as others. 

One reason I prefer these forums over, say, the Facebook group is they do a lot of discussion about films in general over there; I don't care, I just want to discuss these movies in particular.