Why is TTT the least liked movie?

[yovargas]

To me PJ like Zimmerman displays "a marked preference for fights."

The amount of fight scenes in TTT before HD is very minimal. I think aside from the warg attack there is almost none to speak of.

[sauronsfinger]

from Húrin

Some of my complaints may seem picky, but when you put them all together, the whole Helm's Deep scenario as presented in the movies is completely illogical to me. As I watch the movie, I keep thinking to myself "No, no, that is all wrong (or plain stupid)". I just cannot get around it.

I understand where you are coming from since the exact thing happens to me at other films. While I would disagree with you regarding TTT - I understand your perspective.

My two grown children are always giving me DVD's to watch.... "Dad, you are gonna love this one". And I never do. One example was TALLEDEGA NIGHTS which I found virtually unwatchable. I told both of them about what bothered me about the pic. In one scene Will Ferrell drives a racecar backwards to win a NASCAR race. I asked my son-in-law how fast can you drive a racecar in reverse gear? I was told I was analyzing it far too closely and I should just go with the moment. Later in the pic, Ferrell makes a big speech how he has lost all his sponsors and his car has been stripped of its sponsor decals. But then the car he drives is covered from front to back with sponsor decals. I asked why this happened and again I was told I was looking at it far too closely. I asked how a person would deal with a wild cougar trapped in a car with them... and you know the answer I got.

But the movie was very popular and made lots of money. Just not with me. Like Prim said, its all about the willing suspension of disbelief. Sometimes, we make the choice and sometimes we don't.

So Húrin, I do know where you are coming from.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

First time in history that LOTR has been compared to Talledega Nights.

[solicitr]

The amount of fight scenes in TTT before HD is very minimal. I think aside from the warg attack there is almost none to speak of.

Yes, but thereafter it dominates the movie, relegating Merry/Pippin and Frodo/Sam to 'commercial breaks.'

[sauronsfinger]

Yes, I can see how you would see it that way, but even if true - what is wrong with that since that is the climax and finish of the film?

[Túrin Turambar]

It’s only a natural that a film version of TTT will end up using HD and the Storming of Isengard as it’s set-pieces and climax. But that could be done without having the middle of the film sag.

[sauronsfinger]

If indeed TTT sagged in the middle, it was not noticed by some of the sharpest eyes trained to spot such things.

Overall however, the films received a positive 94% critics rating on rottentomatoes.com, (92% for FotR, 96% for TTT and 94% for Rotk) a consensus amongst film critics.

All three films received very favorable reviews from professional critics. But as you can see by the above figures, TTT was the highest rated of them all.

[solicitr]

Yes, I can see how you would see it that way, but even if true - what is wrong with that since that is the climax and finish of the film?

Because of the three storylines it's the least important, albeit the one most amenable to spectacle and 'excitement.' And I wouldn't agree that it needed to be the 'climax and finish' of the film. Properly that should indeed have been the fall of Saruman, intercut with Frodo's capture by Faramir. The discovery that this 'obstacle' was in fact a friend, even at the risk of his duty, would have made a far more fitting end than the Osgiliath nonsense. And a serious cutdown of HD screen time would have permitted giving the Ents their proper significance, not reduced to rather dimwitted bores (assuming, naively, that PJ ever understood Ents).

[sauronsfinger]

Solicitr - I have always maintained that the book purist does not usually look at these films the same way others look at them because of the tremendous knowledge - and perhaps a bit of love also - that they have for the source material. I am sure there are notable exceptions.

Yovargas, started this thread and I am glad he did. Its no secret that some of the things the purists object to the most - Osgiliath and Frodo, Elves at Helms Deep, Aragorns supposed death, etc. are found in TTT. That is the films that purists on sites like this (and others) seem to pick at the most. And if you look at the Rotten Tomato ratings, TTT rated the highest among professional critics.

Very clearly the problems that purists see with TTT are in no way seen by the professional critics who do not carry the weight of the books with them. The heresy of Osgiliazation means nothing to them. Elves at Helms Deep means nothing to them. Aragorn falling off a cliff means nothing to them. Except that it all adds to make a really good film.

And that is how it should be when judging a film as a film.

[Primula Baggins]

But people shouldn't have to judge a film as a film if it was marketed to them as an adaptation of a book they love. There is simply no question that the LotR films started well ahead of any generic fantasy film, in terms of expectations and in terms of eventual box office, because they were based on LotR.

Given that, I don't think it's out of line at all to judge the films in part on how good they are as adaptations of the book. Where it gets tricky is that no two people who love LotR see the book in exactly the same way or value exactly the same things about it. So any real consensus on an adaptation is pretty much impossible.

Let me speak for myself: Suppose the LotR films had been entirely original material, completely imagined by the screenwriters. Suppose they were as lovingly made as the LotR films, with the same richness of detail and setting, and the same mostly wonderful performances.

If that were the case, I would imagine I might have seen them each once or twice, and bought the DVD when it was marked down (or used at Blockbuster at the "4 for $20" sale). And I would probably have passed on the EEs completely.

I would have judged them as wonderful movies (and I do think they are). But I wouldn't love them. (Nor would so many people hate them. )

I just don't think it's possible to judge an adaptation without thought for the source material.

[sauronsfinger]

Prim - I would go even further and say that anyone can judge a film on any criteria they want to. So I agree with you.

My only point is that the knowledge and love than many book purists have for the source material makes it difficult for them to judge the films in the same way that others do. I used the word 'handicapped' before and you did not like it. But whatever term you would want to apply, its extra weight that the LOTR non-purist does not carry with them. Without all that extra weight it makes it a whole lot easier to willingly suspend disbelief.

I remember reading DANSE MACABRE by Stephen King many years ago and he explained how some folks simply cannot lift the weight necessary to enjoy his work or other work like it. I think that applies here to some extent.

[Primula Baggins]

I'd dispute that, too, sf. There are certainly people out there who can't suspend their disbelief enough to enjoy fantasy, science fiction, horror, or anything outside the known. But I strongly doubt that any devoted Tolkien readers are among them.

It's not that they can't go along with what the film does. It's that they don't want to. They aren't seeing what they hoped to see.

I would have been right in there among them if PJ had completely wrecked Frodo and Sam (by making Sam female, for example).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Or by having Gollum able to drive a wedge between them and Frodo sending Sam home.

Oh wait.

[Primula Baggins]

As much as I disliked that, Voronwë, it did not "completely wreck Frodo and Sam" for me. So much else was right.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No, it didn't. Nor did Frodo's annoying "damsel in distress" moments, or Sean Astin's even more annoying over-acting (sorry, yov). The good definitely outweighed the bad, for me (though the bad tends to stand out more in retrospect over time).

[yovargas]

Because of the three storylines it's the least important, albeit the one most amenable to spectacle and 'excitement.'

That statement is only true if one is thinking of this as a re-telling of the book because clearly it WAS the most important storyline in the movie. PJ chose to adapt TTT in a way to make it "war movie" and there is nothing wrong with that choice, especially since he ended up making a damn fine war movie.

[sauronsfinger]

Prim

It's not that they can't go along with what the film does. It's that they don't want to. They aren't seeing what they hoped to see.

You have hit the nail squarely and firmly upon its head. The first part of willing suspension of disbelief is WILLING. And as you just so wisely pointed out IT'S THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO. Which is part and parcel of my point.

[Primula Baggins]

But the problem is not a failure to suspend disbelief; it's a dislike for the way the particular aspect that matters to them is portrayed. The films don't fail for such a person because they're unbelievable. I suspect the outrage is instead very much like what true history buffs (the poor lambs) must experience when they're watching some great historical event as portrayed by Hollywood: "That isn't how it was! That's wrong!"

[Pearly Di]

My only point is that the knowledge and love than many book purists have for the source material makes it difficult for them to judge the films in the same way that others do. I used the word 'handicapped' before and you did not like it. But whatever term you would want to apply, its extra weight that the LOTR non-purist does not carry with them. Without all that extra weight it makes it a whole lot easier to willingly suspend disbelief.

If I may say so, you seem to be regarding all this in a rather black and white way, as if you think we are all purists here. Most of the people I've been talking to for the past eight years really love the films, and so do I! So I certainly would not classify myself as a purist. I have always been completely able to separate the films from the books. When I read LotR now, I never see the actors' faces or anything like that ... and I love the LotR cast. (I do however sometimes hear McKellan's voice! Or Michael Hordern's ... he played Gandalf in the BBC LotR).

However, as someone who cheered like crazy on the night RotK won all those Oscars, I still reserve the right to criticise aspects of the films. I still find some of the characterisations a bit 'off'. This is very true of Film Frodo, who is regarded by some non-Tolkienites as a wimp, or weird. Film Frodo has good moments, and Elijah captured the character's purity of heart, certainly. But he's not the mature Frodo of the books. And since I think the mature Frodo of the books could have worked very well on screen (even if he was made more emotional, which would have been just fine with me), I think PJ dropped the ball here a bit.

That statement is only true if one is thinking of this as a re-telling of the book because clearly it WAS the most important storyline in the movie. PJ chose to adapt TTT in a way to make it "war movie" and there is nothing wrong with that choice, especially since he ended up making a damn fine war movie.

I agree with you completely on this point, Yov. There are still things in TTT which I don't like, but it does succeed on that score extremely well. I've always really liked the Rohan scenes too. PJ did turn LotR into damn good cinema.

You have hit the nail squarely and firmly upon its head. The first part of willing suspension of disbelief is WILLING. And as you just so wisely pointed out IT'S THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO. Which is part and parcel of my point.

I have every sympathy with people who can't get past certain things in the films. There's no 'should' or 'ought' about how we are supposed to react. People can't help having a gut-reaction to stuff they find wrong.

[sauronsfinger]

Pearly Di
I am sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. I do NOT feel all here who criticize the films are purists. Not at all.

I have repeatedly said that people have the right to judge things by any standards and any way they want to.

I think our two positions are not that far apart.