LOTR Trilogy: WHICH was the best?

aaharvel · July 2005

Originally posted by Jstas
<SUPER GEEK MODE>

The movies, while 3 seperate works, are really a single entity not a trilogy. The books were only split up because of concerns of teh publisher. Lord of the Rings is one, complete work. I view the movies that way too because it is an entire story. To me, none is better than the other because they are one in the same.

+1 i stand corrected.

</SUPER GEEK MODE>

jet2001 · July 2005

Yes, but that could be said about all trilogies. Does each chapter take on a life of its own or should we only judge the entire book?

Jstas · July 2005

Originally posted by jet2001
Yes, but that could be said about all trilogies. Does each chapter take on a life of its own or should we only judge the entire book?

I am not clear on what you are trying to say. It is not clear to me and it seems that you have contrdicted yourself in your statement.

jet2001 · July 2005

You stated that we should look at these stories as a whole. Which has some credit, but that could be stated about all trilogies. My question was, should we look at each chapter on it's own or should we look at the story as a whole?

Take the Original Star Wars Trilogy for example. It could be looked upon as one story broken into three installments or it could be looked upon as three seperate stories within a much larger one, A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi all part of Star Wars. Each smaller story has it's beginning, middle, and end...yet we all know that these three stories themselves are the beginning, middle, and end within the trilogy.

Which is better? Who knows. But there ismore than one way to look at a trilogy.

Mjr7531 · July 2005

I thought it was a fabulous series, I have been able to watch the series again and again. Perhaps I might just be a "sheeple," but for a translation to the big screen, these were spot on.

I figure anyways that most people would be complaining about stuff that got cut out if the movie were of a "normal" length.

Jstas · July 2005

Originally posted by jet2001
You stated that we should look at these stories as a whole.

OK, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that you should look at it that way too. I said that is how I look at it and then gave my reason why. I didn't say that you or anyone else should do that.

jet2001 · July 2005

The movies, while 3 seperate works, are really a single entity not a trilogy. The books were only split up because of concerns of teh publisher.

You made this statement, then I made mine. Why are we still discussing this? Let's move back to the topic at hand.

AsSiMiLaTeD · July 2005

Don't get into a war of words with Jstas, you're not going to win - even if you're right:D

jet2001 · July 2005

Yeah, it seems he's trying to pick a fight....I've got no use for that.

Back on topic: I am glad that we got to 'see' LOTR. Do you think that these movies will have an affect on the books popularity in the future? The books are timeless, yet with the movies out now, do you think children are going to read them?

AsSiMiLaTeD · July 2005

Originally posted by jet2001
Yeah, it seems he's trying to pick a fight....I've got no use for that.

Nah, I doubt it, he's just a little intense like that...

AsSiMiLaTeD · July 2005

Every time I open my mouth about the LOTR stuff, I piss someone off, so I should just keep quiet, but here's my thoughts anyway...

I don't like the movies, period. I've been called everything from a moron to a tool on this forum for not liking these movies...and I don't get it.

I'm not saying and have never said that they are bad movies. I think they were well done and have cool scenery and effects. I think that they were done about as good as they could have been.

I just don't like the subject matter, and therefore don't like these movies. I could make a 12 hour movie about this guy who sits at his desk and builds a database that holds employee records for his company, but I doubt anyone would be interested in watching it - that's how I feel about these movies.

jet2001 · July 2005

I know many people like you Polkmaniac. In fact most of my friends don't like sci-fi/fantasy. They think I'm crazy for standing in line to watch a movie on it's opening night (which I did for both TTT, and ROTK...and many others). That's their opinion. They don't need or want that escape from reality through the vehicle of sci-fi/fantasy...but they have other means. It's all about having fun and what brings you joy.

aaharvel · July 2005

Originally posted by jet2001
You stated that we should look at these stories as a whole. Which has some credit, but that could be stated about all trilogies. My question was, should we look at each chapter on it's own or should we look at the story as a whole?

Take the Original Star Wars Trilogy for example. It could be looked upon as one story broken into three installments or it could be looked upon as three seperate stories within a much larger one, A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi all part of Star Wars. Each smaller story has it's beginning, middle, and end...yet we all know that these three stories themselves are the beginning, middle, and end within the trilogy.

Which is better? Who knows. But there ismore than one way to look at a trilogy.

LOTR and Star Wars trilogy are two COMPLETELY different monsters.

LOTR can be looked upon as a SINGLE movie because there was a SINGLE director and a SINGLE vision. StarWars 4,5,6 were directed by three totally different directors and hence represented three totally different genres of film. George Lucas, Irvin Kershiner and Richard Marquand directed the original trilogy.

totally different. regardless if Lucas was producing and directing 2nd unit or not.

jet2001 · July 2005

Not necessarily....they are all George's story reguardless of who directs or writes the screen play. George Lucas is to Star Wars what Tolkein is to LOTR.....Kersh and Marquand are to Star Wars what Peter Jackson is to LOTR.

Star Wars can be looked upon as a single story with six installments....titled: The Life of Anakin Skywalker.

aaharvel · July 2005

Originally posted by jet2001
Star Wars can be looked upon as a single story with six installments....titled: The Life of Anakin Skywalker.

yeah but we all know what the REAL story is-

Leia's slave bikini.

jet2001 · July 2005

^ Thus the reason I still watch Jedi....before the DVD's came out I'd watch the Jaba scene then fast forward to the end.

Jstas · July 2005

Originally posted by jet2001
You made this statement, then I made mine. Why are we still discussing this? Let's move back to the topic at hand.

You didn't make a statement, you asked me a question. I answered it. Now I'm picking a fight but the whole thing was trivial to you to begin with? Why did you even ask me to validate my opinion in the first place if you found it so trivial?

jet2001 · July 2005

If you would read the post without getting so defensive, you would notice that the question was not posed to you, but to the forum in general. The statement I made was posed to your response. I asked for no validation, only further opinion. Had I asked for validation the post would have looked like this:

Jstas, could you please validate your opinion because I see things differently?

The post did not read that way, I made a statement, then furthered the conversation by asking a general question. Now let's move on....

Shell · July 2005

Isnt 6 and 7 speakers overkill?

Heck I can't wait for 9.1.
ROTK was my favorite, but love them all. I find the replay value to be high that is why I own the entire trilogy on DVD. I can see how some easily amused types would not like this trilogy very much.

Skynut · July 2005

I sat through one of these movies. it seemed like it was 4 hours long and when it was over it wasn't over.
I understand what Maurice meant about the whole 5 ft. **** thing.
Now I have 2 of the three and no idea which one is first or second.
Just to be fair I am going to get the third and spend a whole day with the kids watching them. (if I can make it that long)

So what is the order they go in?
I am not even sure which one I am missing.

Ron-P · July 2005

1. Fellowship of the Ring
2. The Two Towers
3. Return of the King

Skynut · July 2005

I think I am missing the last one.

Will it really take 12 hours to get through them all?

Ron-P · July 2005

Here's your Extended Edition run times...

Fellowship = 208m
Two Towers = 214m
Return of the King = 250m

For a grand total of 672 minutes or 11.2 hours. Add in some down time between films and your well on your way to 12+ hours.

Skynut · July 2005

OMG that is all fricken day. I don't know if I can handle all fricken day with this type of story but if the kids are down then I will give it a go.

Ron-P · July 2005

I have several friends that have been buggin me to do the same, no way I say. I couldn't do it.

aaharvel · July 2005

Skynut the original theatrical editions are around 3hours a piece. 9hours total. and a hell of alot cheaper to buy too i might add.

they're good movies. I started this thread by saying the 2towers was my favorite but after seeing all 3 of them again i can't pick one over the rest. They're all good.

BrentMcGhee · July 2005

I was not really a big fan of this entire trilogy really. I am not really in to mythical stories like lord of the rings.

However i can not help but enjoy to watch them all at least once becasue the sg is really superb. I thought the video on the the last two was kind'a junky though.

So i guess to answer you question i would have to pick the first one (fellowship) due to it's better pq than the rest.

Ron-P · July 2005

Skynut the original theatrical editions are around 3hours a piece. 9hours total. and a hell of alot cheaper to buy too i might add.

Yeah, true, but they are incomplete compared to the EE's. I doubt I'll ever watch the theatrical versions again.

McLoki · July 2005

When the second one came out, a group from work took a half day and we watched the 1st extended edition and then went to the theaters to watch the 2nd one.

When the third one came out we watched the first the friday before (1/2 day off work) and watched the second the next friday (another 1/2 day) then went to the theaters.

For the final installment, we watched just the last one (extended edition) early on New Years eve. (around noon) - (Club Polks own Opus joined us for this one)

All three in one day would be a really long marathon. Two in a day is about as long as I can handle.

Michael

BTW - if you are going to watch them anyway, it is well worth the extra time and money for the extended editions. (even if you already have the theatrical version)

Skynut · July 2005

I do not know what version I have. I got them when I got married and just discovered them last night.
I will check tonight and see what i have. I guess I will have to go buy the last one to see the whole story.

I have seen one of them and it really made no sense plus, when it got to the end and didn't end...... I was pretty pissed.

LOTR Trilogy: WHICH was the best?

Comments