The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

On 10/6/2018 at 1:32 PM, Cameron H. said:

To the question, “Is LotR a War Movie?” I would say, no, since the movie isn’t about a war but about preventing one (if that makes sense). As impressive as the battle scenes can be (particularly in the 2nd and 3rd movies) the battles aren’t about tactics or strategy, they are mostly about being under siege. In fact, the only time the good guys ever bring the fight to Sauron (in RotK) it is only done as a diversionary measure to buy Frodo and Sam time. They are essentially saying, “We’re willing to die do there *won’t* be war.”

I'm thinking of the question in terms of Amy's hypothesis about why men like war movies.  I would think it doesn't qualify, but I'm not entirely sure what abstract qualities of war movies her hypothesis is more dependent upon.

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

On 10/4/2018 at 11:11 PM, AlmostAGhost said:

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.

Well, I was thinking I'd be asking those same questions when we got to Vertigo, but decided to see how they went for the big blockbusters.  I mentioned Once Upon a Time in the West in another post.  It's one on the BFI's lists that really there for craft and genre-love, AFAICT.  Trying to explain why the craft is good would be difficult for me to do objectively, since I'm not a film maker, so I wouldn't be able to articulate how the scenes are constructed off the cuff very easily, or at all (I mean, I wouldn't list it, but pointing myself at it and thinking about why it's there, I didn't really question it too much.  I mean, it's relatively low on the critic's poll and the director's poll seems to weight what I'd think of more 'cinematic' movies to my sensibility higher (ignoring the fact that the top of the list is a director known for his minimalism)).

However, I might point towards to particular scenes, like the tension and build up of the first scene in OaTitW.  So, with that in mind, what particular scenes in Fellowship stick out to you, not as flawless filmmaking, but rather memorable and striking.  And what type of emotions do you associate with them?

So in terms of other epic fantasy movies, were there any big fantasy movies, besides Harry Potter (and I guess The Hobbit) movies afterwards?  I'm not really remembering any, but I wasn't really paying attention (I guess, counting TV, A Game of Thrones).

I guess I haven't really factored in, for the people who really like fantasy movies, there still really might not be that many options.  Things kind of shifted over to YA adaptations (often dystopian futures) and super-hero movies in terms of blockbusters not too long afterwards.  And beforehand... well, fantasy was a genre that benefited heavily from the introduction of CGI.

[bleary 333]

1 hour ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

So in terms of other epic fantasy movies, were there any big fantasy movies, besides Harry Potter (and I guess The Hobbit) movies afterwards?  I'm not really remembering any, but I wasn't really paying attention (I guess, counting TV, A Game of Thrones).

I guess I haven't really factored in, for the people who really like fantasy movies, there still really might not be that many options.  Things kind of shifted over to YA adaptations (often dystopian futures) and super-hero movies in terms of blockbusters not too long afterwards.  And beforehand... well, fantasy was a genre that benefited heavily from the introduction of CGI.

I absolutely think that the success of Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter films were incredibly influential on inspiring more fantasy to get greenlit.  I think you've given the most successful example, which is "Game of Thrones," which I certainly do not think would have existed, or gotten the financing it needed to be good, without the successes of LotR and HP.  How to Train Your Dragon and the first Chronicles of Narnia film are also successes that owe their existence to LotR and HP.  There are also quite a few examples that weren't successful, like The Golden Compass, Eragon, or Beowulf, that also may not have been made.  But just because LotR and HP gave a sort of peak in fantasy film doesn't mean that there weren't plenty of fantasy movies beforehand, such as the various King Arthur films, NeverEnding Story, Willow, Labyrinth, and many others, but they tended to be aimed only at kids (except Dune) and were rarely financial successes (like Dune).

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

3 hours ago, bleary said:

I absolutely think that the success of Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter films were incredibly influential on inspiring more fantasy to get greenlit.  I think you've given the most successful example, which is "Game of Thrones," which I certainly do not think would have existed, or gotten the financing it needed to be good, without the successes of LotR and HP.  How to Train Your Dragon and the first Chronicles of Narnia film are also successes that owe their existence to LotR and HP.  There are also quite a few examples that weren't successful, like The Golden Compass, Eragon, or Beowulf, that also may not have been made.  But just because LotR and HP gave a sort of peak in fantasy film doesn't mean that there weren't plenty of fantasy movies beforehand, such as the various King Arthur films, NeverEnding Story, Willow, Labyrinth, and many others, but they tended to be aimed only at kids (except Dune) and were rarely financial successes (like Dune).

Your listing of what came afterwards is a reminder for me of why I don't remember them (I mean, I remember they existed... now. But I never saw them).  I do have memories of the fantasy movies beforehand (I wouldn't have counted Dune for this though; because at that point, you should also be counting Star Wars).  Outside of AGoT, LotR still seems fairly unique compared to other movies in the genre (well, Willow, again, vague memories at this point, might have been similar, but more children oriented. And I'd guess, if I were to revisit it, find out its plot line is feel vaguely similar to Star Wars.  Because everything in the 80s was).  But LotR wouldn't have crossed my mind as such (being fairly unique for fantasy).  The example of Ran in this thread is making me think the movies that bleed over to LotR in my head are things like, say, Ran or Gladiator (the latter I don't think very highly of, tbh), or Troy (I have to guess on that one because I haven't seen it).  So, throwing in the history of the sword and sandals genre, it starts to feel less unique.  But still mostly unique for the fantasy genre (I mean, give it another 30 years, if nothing else comes up, then we'll all forget about The Hobbit and AGoT will seem like the one other example people will remember).

I know we like to talk influential, but I also like to focus on what makes a film feel unique.  Or somewhat unique.  Though some would say I should use the phrase "rare" and that "somewhat unique" is an oxymoron.

Btw, that question about which scenes stand out to you and what emotions do they cause in you, is open to anyone who loves the LotR movies, not just AlmostAGhost.

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

Also, could someone double-check the ballot for me? I only skimmed it and thought I read the rankings of the top 5 ranking is only used for tiebreakers.  The more I think about it, that seems really odd.  So I don't want to misrepresent how the AFI actually tallies up their rankings.

https://www.afi.com/Docs/100Years/Movies_ballot_06.pdf

 

[Quasar Sniffer 4174]

Forgive a personal recounting (and mostly a reposting from my Letterboxd review) but ohhhh boy, I have a history with this movie. I just wanted to share this here because this podcast provided part of the impetus for me to revisit 'Fellowship of the Ring.'

When it came out, I loved it, and I have wonderful memories of seeing the trilogy over the holidays with friends and family, of reading Tolkien's writing and reflecting on it with the films. But almost immediately after 'Return of the King's came out, I began to turn away from them. By the time I was 22 or 23 it would be accurate to say I hated them. I thought they were an oversimplification to the point of bastardization of Tolkien's themes and characters, I thought they turned the wonder of Middle-Earth into a carnival showcase of CGI buffoonery.

Even then, however, I would be conscious of how... disappointed I was that I felt that way. I loved each and every cast member and believed each actor was cast perfectly for his or her role. I was in awe of the art direction, the set design, the locations, and the music, so what the hell was my problem? I suppose I made it easier on myself by focusing my antipathy purely at the visage of Peter Jackson, that his writing and direction was so wrong-headed that it sunk the entire saga for me. I couldn't even say he was inept, which would have been easier to forgive. He clearly executed his vision for the films as he saw fit, perfectly recreating his version of Middle-Earth, but that version revolted me to the point where I found the Lord of the Rings movies far more unwatchable than movies I objectively knew were far worse.

Recently, however, I have been re-evaluating films that I feel I have been getting in my own way of enjoying fully, from Horror to French New Wave to Anime. I have also been thinking a lot about Tolkien's work, about the way he intertwined his own lore with pagan mythology, with Christian imagery, and with the English experience of fighting and coming home from World War I. So because I love Middle-Earth so much, and with the knowledge of my own fallibility becoming more apparent with every film I revisited, I enlisted the help of one of my dear friends, someone who loves both the movies and the books with unabashed enthusiasm, and I watched the extended version of 'Fellowship of the Ring' for the first time in probably 12 years. I don't know what ingredients changed in me or how precisely my tastes shifted, but I loved almost every second of the experience. Everything that I was conscious of being "good" while still being averse to the films as a whole, I was able to enjoy as part of the whole experience. I'm sure part of it was the company, that I was privileged to share the film with someone I care about, but it's also indicative of how a person's personality can change over that time, how art can help us reflect back on our own selves and our lives. I know my twenties were not TOTALLY lost to cynicism, but I am thankful I have both great art and great friends in my life now to help me see the world for the beauty that it has, especially when that world is Middle-Earth.

And because, fuck it, I had such a good time with this film, and wanted to immortalize the moment I re-entered Middle-Earth with my friend (me, on the left with the weird face, him with the beard), here is us being nerds:

[Cam Bert 8145]

Late to the party, sorry, but will start out with the fun fluff.

I have been told on numerous occasions that I am a Sam and I have no problem with that. Of the core group he is my favourite character but I always found Boromir the most interesting. He's an easy character to dismiss but after you meet his family in the later books and realize that it was pressure from his father in combination with the corruptive powers of the ring he really is a tragic hero.

According to Buzzfeed I am an Ent.

[Cam Bert 8145]

We had this debate elsewhere on here about the one film standing in for the rest in the series but I think that could very well be the case for Fellowship more so than any other of the series. It comes down to the simple fact that despite being broken down into three books the Lord of the Rings is actually just one massive book telling one continuous story. I first read it in this format and it wasn't until many years later that I reread it as three separate books. When people complain that the first part in the Shire is so long, it is if you just look at the first book but on a whole it's pretty standard amount of time to establish the main characters. The actual story is so massive it is near impossible to contain in one book let alone a movie. Now as much as I love Star Wars I have never once believed that George Lucas had the whole thing planned out. He may have had notes of backstory and ideas but based on what I've heard and how I feel I believe he was making it up as they went. After the success of the first then he was free to plan out another sequel or two. As a result the movie are more self contained. Time passes and they have adventures we don't see and we just see these milestone events. When you watch them back to back it's not one long movie it is three separate stories that tell an overall story. Lord of the Rings though if you watch them back to back it literally is one ten hour movie telling a singular story. By this same process I don't think you could put a singular Harry Potter film on the list as a representation of the whole series. LotR is also a singular vision from Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson. They made the films at the same time with the same cast and crew. The looks and feel and tone doesn't change. Harry Potter while from Prisoner and Goblet on you have a more unified look and tone, each director brings something different to the series. Just that visual and tonal difference I think disqualifies it from having one to represent them all.

[grudlian. 4725]

On 10/7/2018 at 8:36 PM, bleary said:

I absolutely think that the success of Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter films were incredibly influential on inspiring more fantasy to get greenlit.  I think you've given the most successful example, which is "Game of Thrones," which I certainly do not think would have existed, or gotten the financing it needed to be good, without the successes of LotR and HP.  How to Train Your Dragon and the first Chronicles of Narnia film are also successes that owe their existence to LotR and HP.  There are also quite a few examples that weren't successful, like The Golden Compass, Eragon, or Beowulf, that also may not have been made.  But just because LotR and HP gave a sort of peak in fantasy film doesn't mean that there weren't plenty of fantasy movies beforehand, such as the various King Arthur films, NeverEnding Story, Willow, Labyrinth, and many others, but they tended to be aimed only at kids (except Dune) and were rarely financial successes (like Dune).

This leads me to question if the current boom in board gaming and table top RPGs are because of Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter. If you get a bunch of people in 2001 who are suddenly into fantasy, video games surprisingly have not a ton of fantasy settings and what few the were in 2001 were mostly RPGs. And if you're already checking out console RPGs, jumping to D&D isn't a huge step.

Obviously, LOTR had huge influence on the creation of D&D which in turn heavily influenced Final Fantasy. So, LOTR had pushed people into gaming before but I hadn't thought of it being the reason for board gaming culture being so big currently.

[bleary 333]

36 minutes ago, grudlian. said:

This leads me to question if the current boom in board gaming and table top RPGs are because of Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter. If you get a bunch of people in 2001 who are suddenly into fantasy, video games surprisingly have not a ton of fantasy settings and what few the were in 2001 were mostly RPGs. And if you're already checking out console RPGs, jumping to D&D isn't a huge step.

Obviously, LOTR had huge influence on the creation of D&D which in turn heavily influenced Final Fantasy. So, LOTR had pushed people into gaming before but I hadn't thought of it being the reason for board gaming culture being so big currently.

Absolutely, I certainly think that, at the very least, the fact that Lord of the Rings was so universally loved in the mainstream encouraged tabletop gamers to be less ashamed about it, which encouraged new people to join.

Also, speaking of fantasy video games, I'm not sure about causation, but I do think you can draw some connections between the rise of Blizzard Entertainment and the popularity of Lord of the Rings.  Although the first Warcraft game was released in 1995 and was a moderate success, the popularity of the Warcraft games seemed to spike in the early 2000s, culminating in the 2004 release of World of Warcraft.  (Other connections include the fact that Blizzard was founded with a focus of creating ports for other games, beginning with the 1990 Lord of the Rings video game, among others.  Also, the soundtrack for StarCraft II was mixed by one of the recording engineers in the music department for the Lord of the Rings movies.)

Could video games have primed the culture for Lord of the Rings to be a big success?  I remember in 1997 and 1998 that Final Fantasy VII and Zelda: Ocarina of Time were truly enormous games, where almost everyone I knew had played one or both of them.  But it's more likely that Lord of the Rings was always going to be a juggernaut.  

[WatchOutForSnakes 807]

On 10/7/2018 at 8:36 PM, bleary said:

I absolutely think that the success of Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter films were incredibly influential on inspiring more fantasy to get greenlit.  I think you've given the most successful example, which is "Game of Thrones," which I certainly do not think would have existed, or gotten the financing it needed to be good, without the successes of LotR and HP.  How to Train Your Dragon and the first Chronicles of Narnia film are also successes that owe their existence to LotR and HP.  There are also quite a few examples that weren't successful, like The Golden Compass, Eragon, or Beowulf, that also may not have been made.  But just because LotR and HP gave a sort of peak in fantasy film doesn't mean that there weren't plenty of fantasy movies beforehand, such as the various King Arthur films, NeverEnding Story, Willow, Labyrinth, and many others, but they tended to be aimed only at kids (except Dune) and were rarely financial successes (like Dune).

OMG, why isn't Labyrinth on the AFI list? Travesty!

[sambrussell 0]

On 10/6/2018 at 7:39 PM, crotalus510 said:

Great podcast as always, guys. I think Fellowship and Two Towers are easily the best of the trilogy and this one deserves to be on the list. 

One technical correction (yes, I'll be that guy): the issue with the Hobbit films was not that they were shot in 3D or 4k (the latter is a resolution and many many things are shot at 4k resolution nowadays), but that they were shot at 48 frames per second, not the standard 24 frames per second that most American films have been shot at for decades.  At 24 fps, the shutter speed is a bit slower, meaning there is more blur (freeze frame any blu-ray or dvd and you'll see this), making things less clear and less "realistic" - more like what we think of as "cinematic".

At 48 fps, there is less blur so things are more clear and you're seeing more clear images per second. This is what gives the footage that "soap opera" video feel. Try this out on your cell phone and shoot at 60 fps or 120 fps and watch at regular speed. This is also why the motion smoothing "feature" on so many HDTVs is a desecration of all that is good and just in the world.

I don’t understand why people always say that 48 fps doesn’t work because it’s “more realistic” or “too realistic.” It’s not! In real life our eyes blur motion. 24 frames per second is about accurate to what the human eye perceives. When you see a bike go down the street, you can’t see every spoke on the wheel.

I’d argue higher frame rates look wrong not because they’re more “real” but because they’re “surreal.”

Peter Jackson, Ang Lee, and James Cameron think high frame rate is more immersive…when it’s quite the opposite. But I think it can be a really interesting tool if it’s applied to something more intentionally hallucinogenic (like say, a movie like Speed Racer).