The Best ... and the Worst

[Voronwë the Faithful]

CNN.com has but out a list of the best, and the worst, movie battle sequences of all time. It seems quite fitting to me that the LOTR films made both lists.

From the "best" list, tied for third:

3= Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers -- Helm's Deep
Peter Jackson, 2002
The dull, impending stomp of Saruman's army; the ceaseless onslaught of the Uruk Hai; the inevitable breaching of the unbreachable fort. Jackson captures the desperation of the 300 men facing a host of Orcs 10,000-strong, and the terror of their women and children, against the long, rain-drenched night in the most atmospheric of the Lord of the Rings battles. Oh, the relief when Gandalf arrives on time. (Still not convinced by Legolas skateboarding down the ramparts, though.)

3= Lord of the Rings: Return of the King -- Pelennor Fields
(until the Army of the Dead arrive)
Peter Jackson, 2003
The Orcs get even more hideous, the Oliphaunts are awe-inspiring, the Winged Nazgûl had you cowering behind your popcorn. Théoden is at last redeemed on the battlefield, and with one line and swish of her sword, Éowyn proves she's equal with the men. This spectacular whirlwind of CGI, distorted sound and awesome scale stunned audiences, and was rightly hailed as a movie milestone. Then it all goes horribly wrong. (See below.)

(No. 1, by the way, is the helicopter attack from Apocalypse Now.)

From the "worst" list (which unlike the best are not numbered):

Lord of the Rings: Return of the King -- Pelennor Fields
Peter Jackson, 2003
... and then the staunch resistance of the Men of Gondor and the Rohirrim's endeavors on the battlefield are all rendered utterly pointless when the Army of the Dead swoop in at the end. Couldn't they have turned up a bit earlier? An oversimplified cop out.

It's pretty hard to argue with that. It's nice to see a mass media opinion that I actually agree with.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html (Thanks to TORN for the link.)

This is somehow symbolic about how I feel about the films in general. Incredibly good, mixed with bloody awful (but the good greatly outweighing the awful).

[Inanna]

Oh, I so agree with it!! Both the rankings. Looks like it was written by a purist.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No, a purist would have complained about Éowyn's changed dialogue.

[Inanna]

ah, okay then. A mixed-purist like me.

[Primula Baggins]

I remember concluding on TORC that the division between purist and revisionist was not black and white when it came to the films. We all had (have) particular aspects of the story, particular characters, that had to be gotten "right" by our individual lights or we could not enjoy the films. Some of us were lucky, and PJ's vision was close enough to ours in the parts that mattered most to us (even if we saw flaws there and elsewhere). For others, PJ put his foot in the heart of the story (whatever it was for them) and made the films unwatchable.

As I remember, there were very few people who argued that the films were perfect, and very few who couldn't find a sequence here or an image there that worked for them, that was Tolkien for them, even if overall they strongly disliked the films. They're just too long and complex to be all one thing or all the other, all marvelous or all dreadful.

Much like the book.

[yovargas]

Ha! At the very bottom of the user comments, a fan comes to the rescue:

Pelennor fields, its what happened in the book man. The Movie was called "The return of the king", and after that insane battle when it looked like hope was lost, The KING RETURNED, and saved the day with the lost souls of disgraced warriors, the movie was about more than battles and killing people.

A purist's purist, I'm sure.

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

Yeah, the scrubbing bubbles were something else.

Much like the book.

Don't do no blasphemin' 'roun' here!



( )

[Frelga]

Ha! At the very bottom of the user comments, a fan comes to the rescue:

Pelennor fields, its what happened in the book man. The Movie was called "The return of the king", and after that insane battle when it looked like hope was lost, The KING RETURNED, and saved the day with the lost souls of disgraced warriors, the movie was about more than battles and killing people.

A purist's purist, I'm sure.

No, I think you need to read the book to be called a purist.

[superwizard]

Nice thread V
Yes I agree the army of the dead was one of the worst battle scenes I have seen in my life Also many if my friends actually use that scene when criticizing ROTK!

[Inanna]

Ha! At the very bottom of the user comments, a fan comes to the rescue:

Pelennor fields, its what happened in the book man. The Movie was called "The return of the king", and after that insane battle when it looked like hope was lost, The KING RETURNED, and saved the day with the lost souls of disgraced warriors, the movie was about more than battles and killing people.

A purist's purist, I'm sure.

No, I think you need to read the book to be called a purist.

It reminds me of when I went to see TTT and behind me was an idiot who had seen only FOTR (not read the book, I mean) sitting with another idiot who had not not even done that. The first idiot's LOUD "explanations" about what was happening on the screen to the second idiot almost made me act like an idiot - tear their throats out, I mean.

[Faramond]

The question was always what the worst did to the best, and how the movies held up as a whole. That question is best left for the philosophers.

What does the worst in Tolkien do the best? I guess it depends on what resonates from the story.

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

I'm guessing that these ratings didn't include animated flix? I recall Bakshi's battle scenes being far worse than PJ's.

[Primula Baggins]

Different problems, though: cheesy cheapness as opposed to cheesy excess. (I see the latter in parts of PJ's battles.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

What does the worst in Tolkien do the best? I guess it depends on what resonates from the story.

I think this is an interesting statement. Could you elaborate further?

[Faramond]

I'm not sure how to elaborate. I don't know exactly what I was thinking when I wrote that. I'll give it a shot, though.


If LOTR is perceived as primarily an adventure story, then Tom Bombadil is a likely flaw, in this case. Any enigmatic interlude that doesn't have much to do with the plot will be a spot of trouble. But if LOTR is read mostly as an adventure story, then a slow patch doesn't harm the integrity of the story, it just makes it less exciting for awhile.


If LOTR is perceived in a more philosophical way, then the orc killing game between Gimli and Legolas may be troublesome. This element really draws attention to the whole problem of orcs, though. However, the orcs aren't meant to be characters. The evil character that matters is Gollum, and Tolkien handles this very well, in my opinion.


That's all I have, for now.

[Primula Baggins]

Interesting point, Faramond. LotR is a book that can be read in many ways, but not in all ways—as a modern psychological novel for example. The people who dislike it the most often seem to have tried to read it in some way the text does not support, and then judged it by that standard.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ah, okay. Now I understand better. Thanks.

[Tolkien Forever]

I'd like to see some of you do a better job making the movies....

(I can't believe I just defended PJ!)

I must say that I enjoyed the movies despite the many changes. I understood the need to put the King of the Dead into the Battle of the Pellanor Fields. Scrubbing Bubbles? LOL.....

How would you do them?????

This was a small thing compared to 'Sauron the Lighthouse' if you ask me.
Or, Elrond the Grouch'
Or, Aragorn running from being King......
Or "Go home Sam".
Or Frodo walking around like a jonsed-out zombie in The Two Towers.
Also Legolas made out to be a Glorfidel clone instead of a Dark Elf......

I also found the 300 versus 10,000 plot in Helms Deep laughable & Haldir the Gay showing up while Legolas surfs down the staircase on a sheild laugh out loud funny, as was the 20 minutes of endings in ROTK while the 7 minutes of Gandalf vs. Saruman & 2 minutes or Gandalf vs. Lord of the Nazgûl couldn't be fit in - but who would buy an Extended Edition with 10 extra minutes of endings in it?

All in all, however, it was great to see Middle-Earth come to life & I look forward to seeing The Hobbit, but don't have that 'Can't wait' additude I had before TLOR considering PJ's history of 'revising Tolkien', you know?

I strongly suspect we'll see Smaug in The Battle of Five Armies.....

[Rowanberry]

I understood the need to put the King of the Dead into the Battle of the Pellanor Fields. Scrubbing Bubbles? LOL.....

How would you do them?????

Spooky grey rather than fluorescent green.

Also, I would have kept them on the battlefield, instead of letting them "scrub" the whole city up to the Seventh Level. That's what made them ridiculous in the first place.

[Primula Baggins]

I would have slowed them down—not shown them clearing every enemy away in seconds, quick as a wave washes a beach. And I don't think the orc bodies should have disappeared. The whole thing was way too, well, tidy.