Why weren't the other two capable of reaching the perfection of The Fellowship of the Ring?

Why weren't the other two capable of reaching the perfection of The Fellowship of the Ring?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jAWZS1asqQE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

its the only good film in the series

the hobbit films are prequel tier bad, way too much CGI

fellowship had CGI but used it sparingly even with the bigger sequences.

fellowship is the ultimate "Fantasy" film

TT is just weaker source material.

RotK has way too much dumb shit that drags down an otherwise good movie.

>muh womyn killing the witch king
>CGI ghosts solving the entire conflict
>Gandalf jobbing harder than usual

RotK had a lot of great moments, though.

>TT is just weaker source material
t. Didn't read the books
TT>FotR>RotK

"No."

...

its called the two towers

A classic Pepe, rare in this age of edge lords and plebbit newfags, untouched, pristine, beautiful, a good fine, worth saving

This but it isn't perfect because frodo and arwen sucked

FOTR 9/10
TTT 6/10
ROTK 6/10

Only lotrfags and tourists disagree. I used to love lotr but I admit they are overrated garbage.

Everyone who's commented on this so far is an idiot.

It's because Fellowship has the advantage of being the beginning, and in fantasy, the longer you drag things out the weaker they get. The strength of a story like LotR is the sense of adventure that the audience shares when setting out on an incredible adventure. Fellowship starts from relatively familiar settings and slowly creeps into more and more fantastical situations, slowly submitting the audience to an increasingly incredibly fantasy world that keeps them on the edge of their seat.

The second two movies keep some element of that but they have you already so deeply into the fantasy world that you don't have this sense of stepping out of your own reality. Really, the whole trilogy is best understood as a whole movie in three parts, because it minimizes the effect of this. But if you take each movie as its own self-contained piece of fiction, it's only Fellowship that really transports you from this world to another one.

its the most dramatic movie of the 3 except for the frodo sam plot of return of the king. its also the only movie of the 3 with the least amount of jesus gandalf and magic ghost bullshit

I'd unironically put FotR in my top 10 of all times list, and perhaps even #1 as rewatchable value. The other two wouldn't make top 100, RotK has about 20% of good content and TT barely anything.

I have this on dvd handed down from dad and I've never watched it. Should I?

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, YES YOU RETARD

It was an adventure movie
the other two were war movies

is that how the books felt as well?

It's a bad flick, great movie, and average film. You can decide based on that.

>The Fellowship of the Ring is the only good LoTR film

i felt like there was meaningful combat in all three books but TT and ROTk are literally about wars

>The Hobbit films are bad

Post her river dancing

Because they assumed battle porn is what we all really wanted out of the Lord of the Rings.

All three are overrated movies which you consider good only because you view them with the nostalgia of an overgrown child obsessed with swords.

i don't know why so many people cream their pants over rotk, it's not as good as fellowship or towers. the helms deep battle in towers is way better than any of the battle scenes in rotk. rotk battle scenes are just massive gigantic armies, the helms deep battle is just big enough where you aren't overwhelmed by the size of the armies fighting each other

All three are great, but FOTR is just better.

The heroes are all together so you're not hopping around three or four locations, pacing makes the story flow better, and it's the only one of the three that isn't a war film. It's an adventure. It's got comfy shit like the Shire and Bilbo and Gandalf's fire works that help establish the world that the other two don't contain. It's got Boromir. It doesn't rely on CGI characters like Gollum or Treebeard. It just has a nice, pleasant feel to it.

It has the best ending of the three as well. Ironically, it's the only one that feels like a proper climax with Frodo leaving and Boromir's last stand and Aragon, Legolas and Gimli going off to save Merry and Pippin.

Don't get me wrong, I love Two Towers and Return of the King, it's just that Fellowship is it's own thing.

That's not a fedora opinion though. Saying they're good would be a tip of the fedora. Nobody liked them. They're garbage compared to the originals. It really shows that Jackson did maybe a quarter of the work for them. Then again, he never really had a chance since the studio wanted him to turn one of the shorter books into three entire movies on its own. Fucking ridiculous.

Fact: this is the greatest 1v1 in the history of film.

Garbage

I was thinking the same thing, Fellowship is opening you up to this whole world for (for most movie-goers) the first time.

They were all great. FOTR was just a more self-contained story and the later movies lacked that same feeling.

For me ROTK has the better scenes but FOTR is generally my favourite.

If you wanted to post a rare classic pepe then post the true original.

...

Why do people feel the need to keep trying to 1-up their contrarionism?

First it's all the LotR films are great films
Then it's RotK is the weakest of the three
Then it's FotR is the strongest of the three
Then it's TT and RotK are weak movies
Then it's FotR is the only good one

Just because FotR is a 10/10 and TT and RotK are 9/10s doesn't mean you or the internet at large need to ramp the contrarion up to 100 and start calling TT and RotK bad

TT and RotK are so awful they shouldn't even have been made, just leave it up to your imagination instead

>frodo and arwen sucked
>frodo
Had to be young and attractive because his face was going on all the posters
>arwen
actress wasn't the best fit imo + ((feminism)) insertry

bumped

>It's got Boromir

Sean Bean did a great job, but I disliked how they bluntly portrayed him almost entirely as a villain in conflict with Aragorn, even from his first scene. This made betrayal was no surprise whatsoever (the extended editions blunder it up even worse); that could have been so much more meaningful. Vilifying him to the extent that they did also sapped his final scene with Aragorn. Their sudden camaraderie could have been established and developed much more thoroughly, which could have developed the significance of Gondor / Numenor in a more profound and meaningful way as well.

Sean does a good job of playing sneaky villians.

In national treasure it works well but you're right they fucked it up in LOTR.

I never thought it was done to suit his acting style. I've felt that this edit was done to make the movie more movieish for mainstream audiences.

Imagine how much better Boromir and Aragorn's meeting at Rivendell could have been done, with some awe inspiring imagery of numenor, establishing a bond of race, civilization, honor, and nation between the two. Boromir could then have been rightly developed as "a good guy": strong, honorable, and brave, if prideful. His taking the ring from Frodo should have left the audience feeling a little sick inside themselves, like catching sight of a personal rolemodel walking out of a whorehouse.

Instead, Boromir is portrayed as being a moody, greedy dick from the beginning. Galadriel even TELLS Frodo "Boromir is going to take the ring." Why? Why fudge it up like that?

Boromir just wants what's best for his people and in turn the entire ME by keeping Mordor in check. That's not being greedy, just ignorant, and he's certainly no villain.

This.

Yes, I know. But his character portrayal in the film was "villainous." At the council of Elrond, he is not portrayed as someone who's goals are noble. He is not portrayed as a likeable character, and he should have been. His betrayal should furthermore have been more subtly foreshadowed, so that it came as a blindsighted surprise to most moviegoers. Ideally, it would have been quite shocking and disturbing while also making clear sense for his established character.

FURTHERMORE,

Aragron, Boromir, Faramir, and Denethor should all have had dark, straight hair and grey contacts.

How does anyone think Two Towers is the weakest of the three?

I can understand putting Fellowship in the top slot, though personally I enjoy that in TT, Jackson does some more interesting and experimental stuff and thus rate it slightly higher than Fellowship for precisely that reason, but dead last? Behind fucking RotK, the CGI-filled, lumbering wreck with a pretty shitty plot (major, plot defining deus ex machinas--twice!), and never-ending endings?

Come on. I understand people saying Fellowship is #1. I personally disagree, but I concede that I am biased to rate things more on cinematographic beauty and ingenuity and less on the set design or pacing (which are reasonable complaints about TT). But RotK above it? That's just absurd.

>major, plot defining deus ex machinas--twice!
The first was the Caves of the Dead. What was the second?

really?

the eagles.

And arguably Gollum, too, though that one was at least mildly set up in advance...kinda...

>the eagles

The plot had already come to a conclusion at that point. You could argue that it would be a better story if Frodo and Sam should have died, but it doesn't bother me that Tolkien didn't go that route.

>Gollum
>DEXM

You could say the same about many things.

>Eowin and Pipin killing the witch king
>Arwen's horse saving Aragorn
>""Arwen"" summoning the river to drown the Nagul's horses
>Gandalf's resurrection
>The Ents sacking Isenguard
>Aragorn singlehandedly fending off 5 Nazgul with a sword and a torch

This is a correct opinion

Agree with you 100%

>tfw you're doing a dissertation on the development of key musical themes through the trilogy, but you only want to watch Fellowship

The Hobbit films ARE bad
*fixed

That sounds interesting, I listen to the soundtrack of all three films pretty much every time I study, it makes finance bullshit a lot more tolerable

*grabs you by your throat*
"Shut the fuck, up?"

I find it really interesting. Howard Shore wrote the music to be played/ make sense as an actual symphony telling the story of the book. If you know the plot, put on the soundtrack and the story tells itself. Location/character themes develop and merge throughout all 3 films to imply narrative. So much to write about I don't think 12,000 words is enough.
Comfiest film score ever
youtube.com/watch?v=jAWZS1asqQE

>ywn sit by your fire in a Hobbit hole in Hobbiton smoking a pipe chilling out after a day of farming and giving no fucks

finally someone said it

>The Hobbit films ARE bad
*fixed

Fucking love LOTR
Love the Hobbit, hyped as fuck for films
Films come out - go to see it
Clusterfuck of blurry CGI fanfiction. Makes me almost sad to say but they really are. ALTHOUGH the 1.5 hr fan edit without Legolas/Tauriel and Alfrid, barrels etc is almost Fellowship-level comfy

I know bud, I'm just shitposting. It's how I cope with the pain of it all

That's not a real problem. Cease this cancer please. Keep it on its board

Some wounds never heal

>keep it on its board

That's exactly what I'm doing though

fuck off

how are they going to validate their otherwise meaningless existences though?????? fuck you!! this is the extent of my agency on this planet!!!

Fuck you

> overrated garbage
> 6/10
Someone needs to understand grading if garbage is 6/10.

Someone needs to understand that they are the most overratrd thing in cinema in this board and off

Frodo was directed terribly by jackson especiAlly as it went along and elija woods acting was shit as it went along it was annoying. Liv tyler can't act

Huh? An Unexpected Journey is the second best Middle Earth movie. Arguably it is the best one.

>they are the most overratrd thing on this board
They weren't that bad. 7/10, at least. RotK was no worse than Kingdom of Heaven, and that's a solid 7 movie.

>Frodo was directed terribly by jackson especiAlly as it went along
how so?
>elija woods' acting was shit as it went along
how so?

>Liv tyler can't act
I don't know about that, but I wasn't impressed by her performance.

>blurry CGI
Only the third movie was blurry though. Did you actually watch these movies?

Too big in scale to achieve that level of intimacy.
It was the same with the books btw.

Why are you fucking faggots all so sensitive that some people don't jerk off to these mediocre shitfests?

Hur hur hur tipping fedora doesn't like them. No the tipping fedora is the one who does like them. There's no good editing, tone progression or camera work because the direction is stale. See Not only that, and I can't wait for the butthurt towards this statement, they've aged like shit and looked bad eight years ago. Mainly the last two with are effects ridden. They will soon be unwatchable. Reboot them with a director with visiom besides slow motion

I never said they were that bad but they are treated as the besy thing ever consistently on herr and the only films that are almost always cireclejerked so they are overrated.

To me and I'm not memeing frodo just became gay and uninteresting, so when the storylines split he's just making the same stupid faces half the time because of the ring. I'm not the only one to notice this.

Nah, Frodo was perfectly fine.

Elijah Wood can't act. He especially doesn't fit Middle Earth.

Fellowship has the best moments from the books really.

He was cast too fucking young

Elijah is fine, especially for a role like Frodo. Frodo didn't have all that much character in the books either other than being a unique elf-like Hobbit.

This might be a good point, IIRC Frodo was like 40 or 50 years old when he went on his quest.

>Let's make 4 white guys look identical, that won't be confusing at all.

>This might be a good point, IIRC Frodo was like 40 or 50 years old when he went on his quest.

It is a good point. But not just because >we must stick to the book word for word. It's because the ROLE of his character, and his relationship to the other hobbits, makes more sense when he's their senior. Especially with Sam.

Give Boromir and Faramir shorter hair than the extras. Denethor is old. Surely the audience can tell Boromir and Faramir apart, considering how much screentime Boromir gets? I mean, if they're so distracted by their being white, maybe they should go watch another movie.

>IIRC Frodo was like 40 or 50 years old
I think he could have been even older. Like 60. But casting eliah still makes sense because the ring slows down your aging.

Boromir is ginger and Sean Bean, he's already completely distinct.

Faramir is blonde and he even talks about his brother Boromir dying so you'd have to be retarded to think he's Boromir. They do look alike since they're brothers.

Denethor is fucking old.

Aragorn is distinct by way of his black hair, his voice, his ragged clothes, and his cool sword.

>casting eliah still makes sense because the ring slows down your aging.

That's wrong in multiple ways

My point is that frodo looks about the same age as the 3 younger hobbits even though he's twice their age. Am I remembering something wrong?

I have nightmares every day about the eventual remake for modern audience

It will finally be good. Get Gilli to direct

Gilliam*

Y'all fucking retarded.

It's better because it was supposed to be the only one with the wide release. Before it blew off, TT and RoTK were supposed to be direct-to-videos. Fellowship was being produced for several yeas, wheres the other two films were barely scraped by in the end. Hence overreliance on CGI and epic shots in the latter parts.

You shit all over the movies and you still call them 6/10. What's a 0/10 in your book? Or are you just stupid?

>muh womyn killing the witch king

That was probably the single most accurately adapted scene in the movie. Jackson took a lot of liberties with RotK, so I was surprised that he didn't fuck that part up.

This exactly

Too much of a focus on action the last two movies. Tolkien didn't focus so much on describing war scenes in the books. The entire war at Helms deep was described in half a chapter or less. He was all about adventure and singing songs and describing magic and lore and shit

The twin towers had the weakest source material so maybe it should have been Adventure, War, Adventure.

Still fuckin GOAT trilogy though

I recommend reading the books if you get a chance

TTT is not bad at all. Is at least a 7, probably an 8.
ROTK has way more problems with Jackson starting to lose it (or collaborators unable to keep him at bay anymore) but still has too many beaustiful moments to be a 6.
9/10
8/10
8/10 ignoring the army of the dead and the legofant.

If you are unable to get the difference between
Lotr movie and Hobbit
SW original and Prequels/Disneyshit

just GTFO

TT has 7/10 for me just because it's noticably better than RotK

Sup Forums is full of children unable to state a balanced opinion. Everything is either GOAT or garbage.

FoTR has better structure. The Two Towers and Return of the King don't work as well as standalone films. I don't even remember how The Two Towers begins.

Not a justification, but in the extended version there is a moment between Boromir and Aragorn in which they come closer, that scene makes the death scene more meaningful, and logical.

It really flounders until Gandalf arrives.

What a complete load or bullshit. Jackson filmed the Lotr movies simultaneously in the same shoot.

Because unlike the sequels, The Fellowship is fantasy first and action second.

Where did I deny it? He staked all into Fellowship anyway. You can see that even by looking at all these things that needed to be reshot, because they were basically just fucking around while filming scenes for the latter two films. The man says it himself for fucks sake.

Fellowship is only the "best" because it's the comfiest since the Fellowship us actually together for most of it. TT and RotK are also much better on a technical level.

stop posting retard

Fuck you all the war scenes were shit in rotk but the gollom scence were good af and a awesome use of a cgi character in film