MovieChat Forums > The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) Discussion > My Favourite of the Three

My Favourite of the Three

posted 4 years ago by Ace_Spade (9601)
103 replies | jump to latest

Books or movies, this is my favourite part.

Every time I re-read the novels, there's something exhilarating about the setting out portion of the journey. I look forward every time to the eerie discovery of the nightmarish Black Riders, of the foul-fair friend meeting with Strider, of the visit to Lothlorien, Gandalf's contesting with the Balrog, and Boromir's betrayal.

Maybe it's that this section feels more "personal" than the others. By the time Return of the King is in full swing, half (or more) of the book (or film) is earmarked for WAR! Not that I don't love the epic battles, but there's something more thrilling about the fight in Moria, desperate, surrounded, weary from long miles spent away from sunlight underground...

Each book, film, or part of the story has its own charms and thrilling moments, it's own character bits that I look forward to, but Fellowship is, for me, the best stuff of all.

I'm not looking for a debate here, although I would happily read what people love about their favourite chapters, volumes, moments, books, films, etc., are - whether those are from Fellowship or the others (or The Hobbit or the Silmarillion or whatever! Long live Tolkien, even in death!)

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

It was a masterpiece.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 3 years ago

It still is. I rewatched the films recently and they 100% hold up. A few special effects are bit dated, that's it, but thanks largely to the rich source material, and then also to the wonderful, pretty faithful adaptation, the films will (I think) hold up for the foreseeable future.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

check out the 4k yet?

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 3 years ago

No, not yet. Honestly, with modern tech, a lot of movies look weird. The picture's too clear, and when everything's in focus, I think it kinda strips away some of the directors' eye ability to present us with a carefully-crafted image. I'm honestly not a big fan of the new stuff.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

thats fair I can see that for sure. the soap opera effect is a problem and yes the "too much clarity" can make scenes look like they are just filming on a set.

it may be worse for a fantasy. I found it actually elevated The Matrix.

" I think it kinda strips away some of the directors' eye ability to present us with a carefully-crafted image"

I was under the impression when the director is editing and choosing which take ect, they are normally doing it with a massive projector/screen. I dont think they were watching it on a 32 inch CRT tv :P I feel like this is the directors vision but I can totally understand that.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 3 years ago

Soap opera effect; exactly. It looks weird.

Cartoon movies I don't mind, but almost all live action stuff looks bizarre to me. I actually worry that the day will come when I won't be able to watch movies, especially older ones not shot with this tech in mind, without being thrown off by 10k tech or something.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

I mean you can always get everything to the quality you prefer? even if you have a large 4k tv, just watch say 1080p blu ray quality.

I download my shit. I have 20TB of hard rives just dedicated to the 4k movies I download. the amount of 1080p movies you could fit on them is nuts

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 3 years ago

Good to know. I don't own a 4K TV, and the only time I used one I couldn't find a mode that completely got rid of the SO effect.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

agreed not saying the others are bad. this just has sooooooooooo many different highlights and distinct amazing parts and feelings it invokes a more varied series of emotions/responses more so than the others

-the beautiful green shire - hope and wonder
-the party surprise and Gandalf's speech and taking the ring - the impending doom darkness incoming
-the meeting or Aragon and Nazgul stabbing the bed - intense fear but relief
-the Nagul surrounding the hobbits and Aragons rescue -impending inescapable danger but last minute saved
-the beautiful elf realm- finally a breather, a relief and again more hope and wonder seeing the elf lands

ect ect ect ect ect ect ect.

you get the point. they all stand alone as remarkable scenes/ mini sort of setpieces with their own essence that combine to create a masterpiece

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 3 years ago

Exactly, yeah. Return of the King is a triumphant finale, but it's also a bit of a train ride: you're just going really fast. I still love it. But there's more variety in Fellowship.

It's also great that they're all together. After the sundering of the Fellowship, we miss out on interactions between Gandalf and Frodo and things like that. Of course, we still get the super-fun Gandalf/Pippin mashup. Somewhere out there is an Odd Couple comedy series about those two...

reply

[–] Boromir (10083) a year ago

There's no better feeling than stepping into Middle-earth for the first time. I still vividly recall the mix of fear and anticipation as I "walked" alongside the fellowship. On one hand, the anxiety of the unknown journey, and on the other, the exhilaration of embarking on a new adventure. And then, the sheer awe I experienced when faced with the stunning landscapes that Tolkien meticulously described in his book. I sign what you said: "Each book, film, or part of the story has its own charms and thrilling moments, its own character bits that I look forward to, but Fellowship is, for me, the best stuff of all." I share that sentiment (although I do hold some strong criticisms about the last movie).

In my view, the first film remains the most faithful to the spirit of the book. Let's take the character of Frodo, for instance. The director adeptly captured Frodo's inner turmoil that arose the moment he came into possession of the ring. I've always seen a resemblance to Moses in Frodo – the least likely individual to be burdened with such a monumental task. Despite his own doubts and the immense mental and physical challenges, he perseveres, not out of heroism or the pursuit of glory, but because it's the right thing to do. Undoubtedly, Elijah Wood's portrayal is truly remarkable.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) a year ago

I don't even remember exactly what the first first time felt like anymore; I've re-read these books so many times... However, each time, the anticipation and magic of the book immediately takes over. There is something special to these novels. This is why Tolkien reigns supreme, even after all these years.

Interesting that you have strong criticisms for the last film... I'd say I like them Fellowship > Return > Towers. Towers seems to depart the farthest from the narrative, and I find it a bit frustrating for its strange misuse of Treebeard and Faramir. While I think the CGI got a bit out-of-hand in the third film, I also thought the scale of the battles had ramped up reasonably well. And, while I would have preferred to see The Scouring of the Shire, I also understand why they removed it. Like Bombadill, it's an aspect of the story that wouldn't translate as well to the screen.

We're back to agreement on Fellowship being the most faithful, particularly the extended edition. The theatrical release makes Galadriel seem a little eerie and questionable. She's much closer to the book's portrait in the EE.

"...the least likely individual to be burdened with such a monumental task." Absolutely! I've long said that the person least likely to face the challenges of the story is the person who is the protagonist. Frodo is a perfect example of this. Wood does an excellent job with the character of Frodo. I can't think of a weak link in the cast. All seemed to be perfectly what Tolkien had in mind (although, who knows?) Further theatrical or televisual excursions into Middle Earth will be hard-pressed to match the casting of these characters.

reply

[–] Boromir (10083) a year ago

It's wonderful to connect with someone who shares a deep passion for Tolkien's books.

It's hard to put into words, but every time I revisit these books, it feels like I'm opening a sacred tome. I sense that every "verse" carries profound meaning, and the histories he describes become palpably real. I establish a genuine connection with the denizens of Middle-earth with just one sentence, and there's nothing quite like The Lord of the Rings - nor will there ever be.

For me, it's Fellowship > Two Towers > Return. I concur that Two Towers may have strayed a bit from the central narrative, but it was packed with entertainment and unforgettable moments. As for Return, Jackson might have gotten a little cocky, and this is evident in the final product. Here's an interesting fact: "Peter Jackson didn’t see the completed theatrical version of the Return of the King film from start to finish until watching it at the premiere in New Zealand." This is truly unforgettable. The unnecessary half-hour at the end of the movie, the crucial scenes left out, and the peculiar final battle where the members of the Fellowship of the Ring charge toward thousands of orcs - it's a battle strategy unlike any in history, with just a few individuals (some without any battle experience) attack full army and somehow they all survive.

I am agree about Bombadill absence form the movie but. However, I held onto a glimmer of hope that Jackson might attempt to include him, even if only for a director's cut version.

LOTR cast was flawless, you can guess who is my favorite 😊
I'm curious to know who your favorite character is!

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) a year ago

I feel the exact same way; I can't open Lord of the Rings without feeling as though I'm reading about real things that actually happened, real places, real events. I remember the last time I was reading through the trilogy and got to Weathertop. Aragorn spoke about the history of the place, I was so caught up that I started wondering about the history of that place as though it were Gettysburg or Agincourt. Even The Hobbit, which is a much "lighter" read, captures an essence of magic and faerie stories that few authors can hit. Imagine combining a novel perfectly with folk tales. Who else could have done it?

I don't think there's a "wrong" order for the films. The Two Towers might be the "worst" for me, but that's on a continuum, and it's still pretty darn great. The battle of the Hornburg is one of the best cinematic battle scenes I can think of. It might even be the best in the trilogy, since Pelenor Fields has a bit too much CGI. I think you're right about Return's flaws - the bulging battles, the pacing problems in the denouement, and lack of battle strategy are all fair gripes. I don't mind them because the long ending feels mostly earned and hits emotionally hard, and the mighty charge at the end is more about symbolic heroism than legitimate medieval battle tactics.

Bombadil would be really tricky. The tonal shift is too intense. We might get Bombadil with the new series, and it might work. Shifting over the course of a couple of episodes into the Old Forest and the Barrowdowns, combined with Tom, might actually be workable where it would just bog a film's narrative down.

Favourite character is tricky. They're all wonderful.

Gandalf's wisdom and power are balanced by his flaws (like his temper) and for an almighty sage, he comes off as surprisingly relatable. I think I might go with Gandalf.

More and more, though, I find myself really coming back to Frodo. The innocence is there, the resolve, and the strength of character that allows him to take the Ring as far as he does before succumbing to its influence. All of these are great traits. We also get a wonderful arc from naive and content to his suffering and earning wisdom and insight by the end. Some of this is a bit of a reaction to all the people piling on-board that Sam was the "real" hero, and I love Sam, but I think Frodo represents a quieter heroism than even unassuming, humble Samwise.

Honourable mention to silly, fun Pippin, who amused me from when I read the book much younger and I still find his antics joyful.

reply

[–] Boromir (10083) a year ago

Tolkien wrote in one of his letters that even the good have flaws,but they still remain good. I find myself sympathizing with flawed characters like Boromir and Frodo. While some may debate Sam's status as the "real" hero, he certainly fulfilled his destined role. Sam displayed unwavering loyalty and love for his master, adeptly assuming a secondary role without ego. I doubt if Frodo could have done the same. Nonetheless, ultimately, it was Frodo who bore the tremendous burden of carrying the ring.

Some point out that Frodo's collapse under the ring's weight at the end could be seen as a failure. However, Tolkien clarified in two letters that he did not view Frodo's succumbing to the ring's immense power as a failure. To paraphrase him, it's a failure akin to a skull failing to withstand the impact of horns colliding.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) a year ago

The nuances to Tolkien's characters make them very interesting, relatable, and so much fun to revisit every few years.

I have long felt that Sam would also have been beaten down by the Ring had he possessed it as long as Frodo.

Well, this should be no shock, but I more-or-less agree with Tolkien. I mean, he wrote the darn thing, after all. But I agree that Frodo's failure was so inevitable that it is hardly to be held against him, in terms of character. That "failure" is about the impossibility of a mortal going up against pure evil. That Frodo held out as long as he did - it is this endurance and faithfulness that makes Frodo such a beautiful, quiet hero.

reply

1
2