The Fellowship and The Two Towers were great, but I like RotK much more. Part of it is likely the unpleasant viewing experience I had while watching TTT. I really enjoyed the movies, though.
I reserve the right to be entirely wrong.
Posts: 253 | Location: Kansas | Registered: 20 June 2004
I would say it's a toss up between ROTK and Fellowship. They both have flaws in the theatrical releases. ROTK runs on too much at the end and some of the small things in Fellowship bug me, like in the prelude where you don't see Isildur put on the Ring and get shot. My girlfriend who hadn't read the books, was very confused during that scene "what do you mean the ring betrayed him?" she asked. Overall I think the films are enjoyable in the same way the books are. Two Towers is a little boring, Fellowship is the most endearing and Return the most inspiring. I never watch the theatrical release for Fellowship anymore, and I didn't bother buying the other two. It's Extended Editions only for me now!
"If it were beneficial, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." -Jesus, from the Gospel Of Thomas
I really had to go with 'Two Towers' on this one. It had a great balance and sense of itself. It would have been 'Return of the King', but I thought that parts were rushed, and not given as much attention as they should've gotten. Of course, had they done this, they would've made an already insanely long movie much, much longer.
Ask not what you can do for your country ... ask what your country did to you.
Posts: 4 | Location: Detroit | Registered: 14 July 2004
In my opinion the ROTK (The Return of the King) was the best of them all. The Fellowship of the Ring was my second fav. They were all very good though. There really is no reason to watch the theatrical versions if you can watch the externded versions though.
Sacamos los pesados revólveres (de pronto hubo revólveres en el sueño) y alegremente dimos muerte a los dioses.
Posts: 178 | Location: the back of your mind | Registered: 29 June 2004
Because I'm not a purist (note, mark f) I'm convinced there is a terrific 218 mins. movie in the Lord of the Rings material.
Is there any reason why Lord of the Rings need to be longer than the extended Dune, the director's cut of Last Emperor, or 1900?
I think not.
Imagine what a terrific career George Lucas could've had if he had been content with the first Star Wars, and then went on to other projects instead of being a clinical case for arrested artistic development - proof if you need proof that sometimes early success could kill you.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: wong828,
Posts: 171 | Location: LA/Chicago | Registered: 05 July 2004