• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Which "Lord of the Rings" Film is Your Favorite?

Hanyou

didn't build that
I watched the Bakshi Lord of the Rings recently, and while it had some redeeming traits and obviously had an influence on Jackson's approach, I didn't think it was overall a very good movie.

Jackson's adaptation is easily my favorite. Of his three films, I think I consistently enjoy Fellowship of the Ring the most, although I hardly think of them separately. And of course, the Extended Edition is the only way to watch any of them.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
The Fellowship of the Ring because it sets up the trilogy and I like how it starts talking about the rings back story in the beginning, to how were introduced to the hobbits and hobbiton, to the mines of moria, to the emotional scene where Gandalf falls, to the very end where the fellowship was split and went different ways then finally to the credits with the beautiful song May it be by Enya which the song goes so good in the movie. It's just an amazing movie and that's why it's my favorite.

Mine is the Two Towers because they introduce Gollum in that volume
Actually Gollum was introduced in the first one, just didn't have a major role like he did in the second one though.
 
Last edited:

Emma

Eye See You
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Location
Vegas
Gender
Female
The Jackson adaptation is really the only way to go. And it has to be the extended versions. You're doing yourself a disservice by sticking with the theatrical versions. They're not like most "extended versions" which add three to six minutes of useless footage. The Lord of the Rings extended versions are impressive and add roughly 40 minutes of valuable scenes to each film, basically adding another two hour movie's length to the series.
Of the three, I'd have to say that Return of the King is my favorite. But really I don't much think of them as three movies. It's more like one big movie split into three parts.
 

Hanyou

didn't build that
The Jackson adaptation is really the only way to go. And it has to be the extended versions. You're doing yourself a disservice by sticking with the theatrical versions. They're not like most "extended versions" which add three to six minutes of useless footage. The Lord of the Rings extended versions are impressive and add roughly 40 minutes of valuable scenes to each film, basically adding another two hour movie's length to the series.
I could be wrong, but I think it's something like 30 more minutes to Fellowship, 40 to The Two Towers, and a full hour to Return of the King.

The Fellowship Extended Edition is nearly essential--it helps deepen the world of the film and adds in a few key points from the book. Fellowship is a very fast-paced film, but that's not what the book is like. The extra padding helps soften the tone, making it feel like less of an action film and more of an epic. For something like Star Wars, this would be fatal. For Lord of the Rings, it's very, very good. That's what I appreciate about the Extended Edition--little extra action is added, but there's much more narrative, which is the important stuff.

Return of the King's Extended Edition is absolutely essential. The theatrical version skipped out on a good amount of important stuff. Even with the Extended Edition, the film doesn't feel very relaxed.

The Two Towers is an interesting one. I've always thought the book pretty much tread water, and the movie does the same. An Extended Edition was entirely unnecessary. It doesn't seem to deepen the film very much, as it's already pretty slow. I sometimes watch the theatrical version instead of the extended one and feel like I'm missing nothing. That said, it's doesn't really hurt the film either, and it's always nice to get a little additional backstory. I especially like the scene with Boromir.

Of the three, I'd have to say that Return of the King is my favorite. But really I don't much think of them as three movies. It's more like one big movie split into three parts.
That's how the movies (and books) were meant to be seen. That said, it still helps to have natural stopping points, especially for the movies. I've only managed a LotR marathon once in my life.
 

Emma

Eye See You
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Location
Vegas
Gender
Female
I could be wrong, but I think it's something like 30 more minutes to Fellowship, 40 to The Two Towers, and a full hour to Return of the King..
  • Fellowship of the Ring: 30 minutes
  • The Two Towers: 43 minutes
  • Return of the King: 50 minutes

Averaged over the three films it is 41 minutes a piece. 123 additional minutes in all.

The Fellowship Extended Edition is nearly essential--it helps deepen the world of the film and adds in a few key points from the book. Fellowship is a very fast-paced film, but that's not what the book is like. The extra padding helps soften the tone, making it feel like less of an action film and more of an epic. For something like Star Wars, this would be fatal. For Lord of the Rings, it's very, very good. That's what I appreciate about the Extended Edition--little extra action is added, but there's much more narrative, which is the important stuff.
I did like how it added to it instead of being just filler. Not that I mind filler. I always like more. But I did like that what was added was so valuable.

Return of the King's Extended Edition is absolutely essential. The theatrical version skipped out on a good amount of important stuff. Even with the Extended Edition, the film doesn't feel very relaxed.
The added scenes completely change several things. They fill in certain plot points that the original version just skipped over. It gives a better resolution to Saruman than either the theatrical version or the books (the book's version was frankly terrible). It handles the ghost army sequence far better, explaining how they got on the boats.

The Two Towers is an interesting one. I've always thought the book pretty much tread water, and the movie does the same. An Extended Edition was entirely unnecessary. It doesn't seem to deepen the film very much, as it's already pretty slow. I sometimes watch the theatrical version instead of the extended one and feel like I'm missing nothing. That said, it's doesn't really hurt the film either, and it's always nice to get a little additional backstory. I especially like the scene with Boromir.
What I took out of the added scenes here that really stands out was the stuff with Boromir. The scenes are incredibly important. However, they don't much affect The Two Towers film itself. Only a bit with Faramir's decision making in the end. But really it affects the perception of Boromir's actions in Fellowship, and Faramir's in Return. The other two films needed it more than Towers did. The other two films just don't feel the same without these flashbacks, and this film is the best place for them. It ruins the suspense if they were played when they happened in Fellowship, and would be out of place in Return.


That's how the movies (and books) were meant to be seen. That said, it still helps to have natural stopping points, especially for the movies. I've only managed a LotR marathon once in my life.
I've done it a few times. I pretty much have to dedicate an entire day to it. But the extended versions, blu-ray and DVD, are split into six disks. Two for each film each roughly two hours long. So if you wanted, you could watch one disk each night for six nights.
 
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
Canada
Return of The King. Best action scenes, plus the part where they recruit the help of all those ghosts was my favorite part in the whole series.
 

Dio

~ It's me, Dio!~
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Location
England
Gender
Absolute unit
I thought the Fellowship of the ring was the one that gave me the biggest feeling of adventure, the other two were more action films, which I loved but I'm going to have to stick with number 1.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom