Remembering the Unlikeliest Blockbuster

I'm so glad these movies happened. I didn't (and still don't) really give a shit about Tolkien. Heck, I only read the books after the first movie came out and found them boring as hell. But the movies... goddamn, the movies. They're what movies are all about.

Great article Devin.

I'm not so sure it was that big a risk however. Although Jackson was an unlikely choice the source material had been around for a very long time and there was a guaranteed fan base from the moment the films were announced.

In a bizarre way I also think Xmen had something to do with its success. In many ways it’s a similar set of circumstances, unproven (in the genre) director, actors people thought were wrong for the roles and behind the scenes issues. However, it worked, and I think that made audiences more open to taking a risk.

Don't get me wrong I know the way the shot it was a huge gamble but it's not like they were taking a totally unknown property and attempting it. LOTR had a fan base before they started and I really do think that helped a great deal in terms of off setting the danger to the studio.

This is still all very bittersweet for me, as I was naively convinced in the early-to-mid 2000s that this trilogy and stuff like X2 and Spider-Man 2 would prove to studios the importance of investing in serious storytelling and shooting for quality, and that we'd have a long-lasting period of smart, character-driven, thematically rich, all-around incredible big-budget genre films. And then Transformers happened.

Great piece Devin.

The LOTR trilogy shames, in terms of overall quality not only almost every blockbuster ever made but most of the Oscar bait films, too. It also makes the existence of films like Transformers 2 extra aggravating. The sequence in ROTK of the beacons being lit alone, carried more emotional weight and was more exciting than all of this summer's blockbusters combined. Although I guess that instead of being angry at other films for not even trying to measure up to LOTR I should be glad that something so dear to me ended up so being so good.

It's also a bit of a miracle that the EE's of LotR ended up with less bloat than the theatrical KONG and DC of the Frighteners. The movies really are lots of small miracles on a very, very big scale.

Another thing that I remembered about this. It was written in a review for FOTR maybe even on CHUD. It said about McKellen, that his lines to the Balrog culminating to "You shall not pass!" were spoken with all the conviction and effort that he would show if he was delivering the St Crispin's Day speech from Henry V. And that approach was evident in everything about this. This movie was loved but those working on it and I believe that this was apparent to the audience.

That's a fine tribute to what remains the most genuinely epic undertaking in the history of cinema. Three blockbuster studio films made by the same crew at the same time with the mammoth twin challenge of satisfying a huge existing fanbase while simultaneously making a seriously convoluted piece of storytelling accessible to the uninitiated masses.

Everyone in little ol' New Zealand knows someone (usually more than one) who worked on the project and the mood at the time was, "Alright, it's a ludicrous undertaking by anyone's standards, but the job's in front of us so let's just get on with it then," trusting completely in the artistic vision of the man who'd given us the gifts of Bad Taste and Braindead (aka Dead Alive), films my generation often found themselves in front of again and again in the groggy wee hours of the morning, draped over damp couches and half-sticky floors and unconscious people as parties wound down.

There's an old cliche in our country, something called the "Number 8 wire" approach, which has us convinced that we can make practically anything happen even if all we have to hand is a piece of fencing wire (think a whole nation who thinks they're MacGuyvers in disguise). It's an attitude that grew out the needs (both at home and in the field) of wartime and of being situated on the ass end of the world. We believed we could pull off anything technically, for less money than other people would need, and we believed PJ could make it fly. It was typically naive, you might even say earnest, but it worked. Lord Of The Rings happened.

I haven't watched them for years either, in fact I haven't even seen the extended cuts, but along with similarly humble but massive-hearted guys like Sir Edmund Hillary, I hold our Pete as one of the very greatest inspirations there is. He took on something nobody had ever accomplished, and he knocked the bastard off.

(One other thing; Devin's thoughts on Gollum echoed exactly what I've been thinking in the last little while since issues with the CGI in projects revealed at ComicCon have been on the table. It's seven years since Weta and Andy Serkis brought Gollum to life and computing capacity is orders of magnitude improved since then. The artistry being employed to deploy it however, has not anywhere near kept pace. Only the character of King Kong has come close, and for obvious reasons, but even he is a couple of generations of computing development old.)

Amen, thank you for the reminder.

Time to dust off the DVD's and give them a spin again.

Excellent article Devin, and great timing for me because I've booked a ticket for the LOTR all-nighter at the BFI IMAX on August 22nd. First time I'll have seen the movies for a while, very excited.

Great article. I must disagree that a CGI character hasn't come across with a compelling performance since Gollum though. I believe Billy Crudup brought Dr. Manhattan way beyond the pages of a comic book and the unlikely story of a reassembled atomic man whose flesh had been obliterated.

I guess you did say topped though now that I think about it. Was Crudups performance better? I'm not certain but I would definitely say he came mighty close to equaling.

I'm really looking forward to the EEs on BluRay. I started watching them again recently (on my PS3) and they looked good, but I expect the upgrade to be impressive.

Great article, Devin. They really are an impressive feat.

The problem with Crudup, however, is that just by nature of the character being so very cold and disjointed, that performance just cant stand out in the same way. Like Adrian says, you'd have to have known the man for years to realize how much his heart broke seeing Janey Slater again.

Gollum on the other hand....over the years, my favorite moment of his in the entire trilogy is in ROTK, after Frodo gets out of Shelob's Lair, and he tells Gollum, at long last, he's going to destroy the ring. The look on Gollum's face goes from sadness, to surprise, to betrayed, to angry in the space of about 10, 15 seconds. I don't even know how much of that moment is Serkis or CG, but I'm hard pressed thinking of a moment in CG ever since that carries that much depth and subtlety.

And now I'm realizing this article may well have sold me on that Blu Ray set this fall. Fuck.

I watched the Extendeds this weekend as well (it was my birthday, the wife was sick, all my friends were out of town and the family lives in other cities and states. It was pretty much the only good thing about the weekend) and I still get emotional about it. Sam's "I will carry you" still has me weeping like a baby.

My one little gripe - due to the advancement of HD it's not nearly a seamless transition from the little people actors to the marquee ones, even on an upgraded DVD. Kinda takes you out of the movies a little bit.

But yeah, these things are still masterpieces.

Yeah, that's a great moment to single out. It really illustrates the marriage of Serkis' performance, the animators and the thoroughly detailed CGI model. You see every single facial muscle tense up in that moment when he goes from betrayal to rage. My favorite bit off of the exhaustive behind the scenes docs from the EEs is when they decided to completely scrap the original Gollum design, and the scenes they had completed using it, and redesigned him to allow for Serkis' performance to come through better. That scene you mention shows how well that last minute decision payed off.

I agree with Devin that Davey Jones is technically more realistic looking. He's a marvel to look at. And Nighy gives a good performance, but he's let down by the writers in the end. Which just reminds me of a time before Revenge of the Sith's release when there were actual serious discussions and arguments over how Gen. Grievous was going to top Gollum as a character.

ETA: Ha ha, found it...

- General Grievous will give WETA's Gollum a run for his money.

Great article, Devin.

It is very easy today to not realize what a gamble these were; I followed the story closely on AICN. I remember the six minute production teaser released in either 1999 or 2000, long before FotR was released, and endlessly replaying it.

For those who have not watched the EEs: do it. After seeing the EE of FotR,, I basically came to view the theatrical releases as excuses to do the "real" movies, which were the EEs. Most perceived holes and lackings from the theatrical releases are wholly mended by the EEs.

And Devin's point on Serkis' performance as Gollum is spot on: he should have received a best supporting actor nom. The CGI was just the shell (albeit a beautifully rendered one) for his performance, voice and facial, of Gollum.

I've watched the EE's at least three times each since they were released. Two things, IMNSHO, which don't hold up as well over the years: the use of slow motion and the humor. PJ relies heavily on slow motion, and when you view the films as one long film (something he advocated throughout the production process), his use of smooth and jerky slo-mo comes to feel like an affectation, rather than an organic use of the camera and film. I als think the humor - specifically with Gimli - hurt the film, as it played to the lowest common demoninator. It wasn't "smart" humor, and it robbed Gimili of any dignity or respect as a character. There were plenty other uses of humor in the films which I think worked and were appropriate, but turning Gimli into a series of burp and fart jokes was unnecessary, IMNSHO.

I agree that it is an unlikely blockbuster, but I never doubted that it would do huge business when they released that teaser/concept demo online, and it instantly became the most downloaded trailer in history (by that time). It blew me away and I hadn't even read the books back then. The buzz and hype simply grew from then on.

And that teaser is apparently no where to be found today. It was the one with Jackson himself telling about the concept.

God damn, but now I want to just sit down and have a marathon viewing of the EEs again. Great article Devin, and I totally agree. These films are just epic storytelling on a grand scale, and they remain some of my favorite movies of all time, and most likely will be for many years to come. I also agree about Gollum, though I'm kind of with Tzu in that Crudup came damn close with Dr. Manhattan. It's so strange, though, that CGI tech just continues to improve, but there has not yet been a movie that's topped Gollum (or, as far as I'm concerned, the dinosaurs in the FIRST Jurassic Park) in terms of artistry. That's not just kinda sad, that's a damn travesty.

The CGI Gollum is no less a costume for Serkis than all that latex was for John Hurt in The Elephant Man. If Hurt could get a Best Actor nomination being completely unrecognizable beneath all that makeup, Serkis certainly deserved to be nominated.

I keep my fingers crossed for "Splice" (if that creature is fully CG, not entirely sure).

The herky-jerky slowmo is a PJ thing and I think it was always out of place in LotR. That said, it was way way way worse in King Kong.

I don't know if I agree with "unlikeliest". Lord of the Rings was one of the best selling set of books of the 20th Century, so there was a large built in fanbase. What was the built in fanbase for, say, TITANIC? And, of course, there's the handful of tiny independents that have broken through to blockbuster receipts without benefit of massive marketing campaigns.

But, I do agree that it was a gamble that paid off handsomely, artistically and financially. Sure, you can pick nits with all the films, but what it got right it got very right and still sets the standard in many ways. The article does really go over how big a triumph the films were.

People, relax. TRANSFORMERS 2 is not the death knell for smart blockbusters. Just last year we had 4 summer movies that didn't treat the audience like morons. For perspective, the year FELLOWSHIP came out was also the year of TOMB RAIDER and Tim Burton's PLANET OF THE APES. Hardly the halcyon days of cinema. The sky is not falling, jeez.

Good article Dev.

I'll say this much about the whole Revenge of the Sith thing: ILM does get a really solid, pensive performance out of CG Yoda in that film. The obvious irony, of course, being that it took three movies and millions of dollars to do what they accomplished with a goddamned Muppet 20 years prior.

Good article.. right on. Lord of the Rings was definitely an anomaly in terms of quality and popularity. It's still arguably the only trilogy of films that actually work together. I just hope the two Hobbit films are just as great so that we have an amazing five-part series.

Really good piece, Devin. Between the post 9/11 vibe and a really tumultuous time in my personal life, I can vividly remember the sense of added weight when seeing the films for the first time. I doubt we'll ever see anything like this again.

the hell?

Great write up Devin...planning a viewing of the EE again this weekend.

I remember reading on CNN.COM, right before Fellowship was released, that people "in the know" were wondering aloud if this would be the project that finally sank New Line. As Devin pointed out above, if FOTR sank in the theaters New Line still had two more expensive films to release. However, you're right that it's unlikely that LOTR would be a complete flop; but I also don't think anyone expected the reception the films did get. Which is the thrust of Devin's argument.

I also agree that timing was very important. The zeit of the geist in America was very much a country under siege at that time. In hindsight, it makes sense that these films would resonate with the times.

Finally, the EEs get a lot right, but I still prefer the opening of FOTR in the theatrical version. If I ran the zoo, I'd dump the "Concerning Hobbits" bit and keep the rest in the EE. Coming over the hill and seeing Hobbiton for the first time was amazing...and the EE sort of spoils that experience.

Exactly. This and the original Sam speech at the end of Two Towers both work better for me than the versions in the EEs.

I'm still flabberghasted that New Line had fumbled their finances that bad post LOTR (which with BO, DVD, and licensing, must have made a ridiculous amount of money). Only Hollwood (and the US Gvt) can be that irresponsible with a buck.

I remember (NERD ALERT!) waiting so impatiently to finally see FOTR in theaters and bonding with my old HS buddies about how the vibe of playing D&D had finally been brought to the screen (Moria!). I also remember being astonished how many male characters weep throughout the series. Gotta be unprecedented in that dpt.

Only now have you made me realize how badly I wish that Willow had started a franchise.

Gah! Have you read the George Lucas & Chris Claremont follow-up books to the movie? Spoilers: They're fucking terrible! /end spoilers

I remember watching Willow and thinking it was a close as we'd ever get to a live-action Lord of the Rings film.

I remember watching Willow and really wanting to fuck Joanne Whalley.

I can't tell if this is nostalgia or not, but I have a really strong urge to revisit these films now. Last time I saw the theatrical releases, it was at my parents place in 2006 on DVD. This was a thoughtful article Devin, good job.

Well, that too, but that didn't seem germane to this conversation.

I'll never watch the theatricals again. No need.

That is a thread unto itself...

Thank almighty Zeus that wasn't the case.

Awful movies. Cringe inducing, self indulgent, self satisfied pap, no matter how well meaning.

And here it goes...

Well, you've changed my mind.

**cough** Davey Jones ** cough**


Only problem with LOTR is the EE of TT is a thing of pure beauty, the EE of ROTK could use some judicious cutting.

Presses the joystick up, "Tell me more!"

I'm not a fan of the films, but I always felt that the Two Towers theatrical was a better film than the Extended Edition. Really threw the pace off of a film I was having trouble sitting through anyways. Conversely I actually liked the additional elements in FOTR and ROTK to make me like those films a lot more, particularly ROTK which I never cared much for in its theatrical form.

Also "You bow before no man" is a line I never understand the immense emotional reaction to.

Well ok I'll bite. Why are they?