More important than choosing which Lord of the Rings movie reigns supreme is recognizing that no one actually agrees. Whereas the larger scale of subsequent movies perhaps took The Lord of the Rings away from its origins, The Fellowship of the Ring has Tolkien's unique hallmarks and fantasy strangeness all over it. That steady progression from leisurely stroll to " No, seriously, people are dying here" is completely recognizable as Tolkien's text coming to life. When Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin first step foot out of The Shire, they meet Aragorn at the Prancing Pony, look woefully out of their depth at the Rivendell council, and tragically watch Gandalf fall to the Balrog. Though big chunks of the novel are missing (Tom Bombadil, Fatty Bolger, etc.) the first leg of Frodo's journey is the most innocent, capturing the protagonists before they become Ring-weary and, more importantly, before Jackson's Lord of the Rings kicks off the epic procession of battles that dominate The Two Towers and The Return of the King. Whatever side one takes, however, there's little room to deny Fellowship of the Ring best represents Tolkien's spirit and tone. While many can appreciate the books and films as separate works each with their own merits, others echo the sentiments of Christopher Tolkien (J.R.R.'s son) who believed Jackson diluted The Lord of the Rings into reductive, action-centric blockbusters for children. Tolkien loyalists have something of an iffy relationship with Peter Jackson's movies. Related: Everything Added In Lord Of The Rings' Extended Editions For many, the best part of Lord of the Rings is the charming, wonderfully-realized characters populating Middle-earth, and no film entry gives them a spotlight quite like Fellowship of the Ring. It's only because The Fellowship of the Ring gives such earnest introductions to each main figure that the cast don't become lost in a hail of blood and arrows during later installments, with The Two Towers and The Return of the King inheriting a Fellowship that's not only fully-formed, but that already won the audience over long before. Boromir's corruption and redemption feels entirely earned, the friendship between Frodo and Sam becomes the trilogy's beating heart, and Aragorn's path to glory is set out right from the off. Both are proud races, but while Elves take pride in being accepted by Valinor, Hobbits have more ways to cook potatoes.Įven with 3 hours to play with, establishing 9 protagonists (plus villains and supporting faces) is a screenwriter's nightmare, but Fellowship of the Ring deftly negotiates that narrative maze to excavate the core traits of every character. The magical, ancient surroundings of Rivendell and the similarly regal Elves within take The Fellowship of the Ring to the opposite end of the species spectrum compared to Hobbits. The simplicity of Frodo's people contrasts wonderfully with the glory and splendor of the Elves, who Fellowship of the Ring induct with appropriately mythical fanfare. ![]() ![]() Whereas Hollywood book adaptations typically race through initial exposition, Bilbo's birthday in Fellowship of the Ring takes its sweet time establishing the Hobbits as a race and The Shire as an insular English-inspired village, while humbly indulging the Hobbits' many quirks and curiosities (second breakfast, for example). Peter Jackson spends an entire act showcasing The Shire and exploring Hobbit culture in great detail. Fellowship of the Ring's strength, however, lies in its world building. ![]() The Two Towers' Battle of Helm's Deep is arguably the greatest fantasy battle sequence ever put to film, while Return of the King successfully balances epic clashes between good and evil with Frodo and Sam's more intimate quest to destroy the One Ring. Every Lord of the Rings movie does one key trilogy component better than its companions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |