The Fantasy Hall of Fame

Tools    





Women will be your undoing, Pépé
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

I read Tolkien's book for the first time when I was in early teens. It was about the time I started playing Dungeons & Dragons, too. From this geeky perspective, The Lord of the Rings is probably as important on a personal level as it is for the whole of fantasy literature. It may not be the best prose ever written, but Tolkien's world-building is unparalleled.


Back in 1987, I would have laughed at the idea that Peter "Bad Taste" Jackson would one day direct big-budget adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. Today I find the idea that someone else had done it just as inconceivable. His trilogy is one of the few massive modern film projects that feel like they're born out of passion, and that has a heart. There are issues, especially towards the end, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

The Fellowship of the Ring is a mix of old and new. Certain scenes and settings (like the Council of Rivendell and majority of the Shire) look like something out of a Hollywood epic several decades past. It's partly due to budget constraints, I think, but Jackson's experience on zero-budget productions allows him to make most out of what he's got. Most of the action is modern, though, like Moria and orcs in general. I also like the weird close-ups that Jackson uses (and has used since the beginning).

Adapting a book as iconic as Tolkien's epic is not an easy task, but Jackson manages to get almost everything right. It's been over 20 years since I last read the book, so I can't make a detailed analysis of what's changed, but the film certainly feels like the Middle-Earth I've known since I was a kid. Just like the book, the film isn't a deep character-study, and like myths and legends in general, what the character represents is often more important than the individual itself.

An excellent start for the trilogy. I should try to re-read the book at some point, too.
Great review.
I first read The Hobbit when I was about 7. The prologue with the description: "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort." as stuck with me all my life and still use the final line: It was a hobbit-hole and that means comfort. Time and again.
It remains my favorite and I don't believe I ever made it through the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, but from what I have read Jackson did pretty good when adhering to the trilogy.
And, yeah, I remember chuckling at the idea of Jackson attempting something as grand as Lord of the Rings and being pretty impressed by it all when it came to be.

I was, and still am a fantasy/fairy-tale geek. And that included playing D&D from around 13 till my early 20s. Some of us were artists and we'd illustrate characters, what the players saw, maps and so forth; most of us smoked when we played and it was a blast delving into a world that, at its core, was born from JRR Tolkien and expanded to so many other writers and fantasy mythos.
__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes
~Mr Minio



I haven't read a single one of the Lord of the Rings books, and I'm fairly positive that I never will. However whenever we get in any copies featuring Alan Lee's artwork, I'm very tempted to pick them up.

We have these beautiful hardcovers in particular, one that's a collection of the trilogy, and another just for The Hobbit and if they weren't $150 a piece they'd already be on my shelf.



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
Hope you guys don't mind me slacking. I just haven't seen much for movies lately.

But you all know I'm good for these things.



Sort of I guess. I can like a movie based on a fairytale, it just depends on how the movie is made. I still might watch your original nom, Donkey Skin (1970) Peau d'âne (original title)...I've looked at it when I was checking to make sure the subs worked and it looked very inviting and I wanted to see more of the story. I've seen the 1946 version of Beauty and the Beast and liked that. Don't know if I've seen many films based on fairy tales.
I can recommend a lot!



LOVED the photos and pretty happy to see the actors that I knew nothing of when this film came out. I had imagined there's be a number of them since when seeing older films it's a bit of a game in our house to try to recognize actors and a joy to see them at different ages and places in their careers.
As you can tell I am a King Arthur geek...both fantasy and historically. And I read a lot about the path of early pagans of Britain and Gaul, religious views, when life was simple but can be bloody at times.

Did you have a chance to check out the websites I posted?



I'm reading the Lord of the Rings books right now, about 90% through Fellowship. It's really good, but of course I prefer the movie(s)!
__________________
Lists and Projects
Letterboxd



CR2, you are a fan of the fairytale as well right?

@Mr Minio shared this with me.. so my turn to pass on. The Russian version...
I honestly thought I responded to this post earlier this morning, but apparently I didn't. Sorry if you thought I ignored you!

I've never read de Beaumont or de Villeneuve's versions of the story, and I only know a handful of the film adaptations. I've actually seen The Scarlet Flower before, but it was quite some time ago so I should give that video you linked a watch when I have the time. Thanks!

Which version would you say is your favourite?




The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

When all hope is lost; when you can't remember what enjoying life must have been like; when you want to scream at the top of your lungs; when you do scream at the top of your lungs; when evil surrounds you; when your friends leave you; when the world is ending.

Yet it never really ends. There is darkness, but there is also light... so much light. Remember that light wouldn't exist without the dark. Remember that good wouldn't exist without evil. And that when good exists in the world, then it is certainly, certainly, worth fighting for.

I prefer The Fellowship of the Ring, but The Two Towers gave me more courage and hope. During the last fifteen minutes I was smiling so much. The times are so dark, but the characters believe in themselves and each other. It's so oddly fitting that this epic fantasy movie is in many ways a comfort and inspiration to my own life.

The Two Towers bites off a lot more than Fellowship. After all, it splits each character into several different plot lines, and weaves them together. It does that absolutely admirably. It actually give the film even more of an epic scope than the first one. And Helm's Deep to the end is probably (so far) my favorite part of both movies. The attack of the ents on Saruman is absolutely epic, and while Frodo and Sam take the backstory at the end, I sense they will be more in the foreplay in the third installment.

And we are not short on beautiful shots of New Zealand either. While there are larger scenes of pure fighting/warfare, there are also amazing, open shots, mostly near the beginning. I appreciate the world building even more in The Two Towers - we get an expansion on both characters and places.

Fellowship in many ways was about trust and friendship. The Two Towers for me, is about courage and the ability to stand up for what is right. When Gandalf appears on the hill, and we get that side shot of them running down the mountain... why can't every movie be that!!! It's cinema!!!

It's seen as the "worst" of the trilogy, and it's certainly second to Fellowship in my book. But also labeling a movie like The Two Towers "second-rate" to anything... I just can't do it. This is a masterpiece. This gives me hope and inspiration. I ****ing love it so much.


+



And Helm's Deep to the end is probably (so far) my favorite part of both movies.
I love Helm's Deep. Minas Tirith is beautiful too, but there's just something about the design of Helm's Deep that feels impressive to me. It has practicality to it, whereas Gondor is almost too elaborate in its design.

When it was new, I bought the overly expensive Helm's Deep LEGO set, plus an additional extension for the wall. I still have it. In fact it's just to my left on top of the desk as I type. It's overdue for a dusting, but I can't stand to part with it haha.



I honestly thought I responded to this post earlier this morning, but apparently I didn't. Sorry if you thought I ignored you!

I've never read de Beaumont or de Villeneuve's versions of the story, and I only know a handful of the film adaptations. I've actually seen The Scarlet Flower before, but it was quite some time ago so I should give that video you linked a watch when I have the time. Thanks!

Which version would you say is your favourite?
Written or celluloid?

Celluloid- anything in its natural language, so French.

Written - I'm a work on phone so I will answer when at home on pc.

There is a version that was very interesting.

Edit: @CosmicRunaway

I have read the traditional tales of Beauty and the Beast. Most everyone's version. I have a good 15 books of it on my kindle.

There is a book called "Heart's Blood" by Juliet Marillet. The story of Beauty and the Beast takes place in Saxon Britain.

I remember reading one that was part Beauty and the Beast and the girl had to find a phoenix bird in order to save the prince she was in love with. I dont remember the name of the book but its in about 300 books on my kindle.

I have read several very good fairytale stories. One was about Snow White and Rose Red. It was called "The Glass Casket". It definitely had a darker side to the story. There is a good one based on a Russian fairytale called "The Snow Child". Another Russian one, "Medved' i Solovey" (The Bear and The Nightingale) is good. Based on the story of Ded Moroz.

However, the best I have read is "East of the Sun, West of the Moon", a Norwegian fairytale.

I was just looking through my kindle on my phone... I have way too many books!



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
As you can tell I am a King Arthur geek...both fantasy and historically. And I read a lot about the path of early pagans of Britain and Gaul, religious views, when life was simple but can be bloody at times.

Did you have a chance to check out the websites I posted?
Not yet, but I will be.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
La Belle et la Bête (2014)
Before anyone asks, I watched this movie with English subtitles as requested.

The movie has its flaws, but by the time it was over, it became a beautiful romance with some dark elements. It took a while for me to really get into the movie because it was kind of boring until her father found the table of food. I think one of the problems for me was that for most of the movie, I didn't find anyone likable, but eventually, I found myself caring about Belle and the Beast, and wanting to see them get their happy ending. I loved the dance scene, but the music was underwhelming in that scene.

There were some things that were confusing while they were happening, but eventually I was able to piece together what was happening, and figure things out, but if felt like some questions wouldn't have been necessary if there were small scenes ahead of them to answer these questions before the confusing scenes. For example, I didn't understand where the giants came from. They just came out of nowhere. And the scenes she saw in the mirror, water, etc. Were they flashbacks, visions, etc.? Some movies work with these kinds of questions being answered later in the movie, but for some reason it just didn't work for me in this movie.

I liked the idea of the woman reading the book to the children. It reminded me of the movie The Princess Bride. Both movies even had a short break when it got too tense for the children.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.


La Belle et la Bête (2014)
Directed By: Christophe Gans
Starring: Léa Seydoux, Vincent Cassel, André Dussollier

Though there are many adaptations of de Beaumont's classic tale, each one I've seen offers something different that distinguishes it from the others. While they share the same basic elements, the filmmakers approach the story from different angles, or choose to focus on certain aspects, and those decisions ultimately make for unique experiences. So my disinterest in Disney's animated classic, and my appreciation for the aesthetic of Jean Cocteau's 1946 film didn't ultimately have any impact on my enjoyment of Christophe Gans' La Belle et la Bête.

In this adaptation, attention is shifted away from Belle's relationship with the Beast, and we instead spend additional time with her family. It was refreshing to see more about her father's situation and what lead him to the abandoned castle in the first place, and the visions of the Prince's former life and the circumstances surrounding his curse were also a welcome addition. My only problem was that devoting so little of the film to Belle's time with the Beast makes her eventual declaration of love seem ridiculous and completely unwarranted.

Where La Belle et la Bête really succeeds is in its visuals. Viewers are treated to fantastic landscapes, with contrasting imagery that really makes the village and castle grounds feel like they're from two separate worlds. The difference between the father's experience of the forest at night and how Belle sees it upon her arrival alters the tone in a wonderful manner. Some of the CG work is distracting at times, but it didn't prove to be much of an issue as overall it was fairly impressive. It was an interesting film with solid performances that I was happy to have experienced.


I hated most of Belle's family. I liked having a little bit of background about her father, and a little bit about the prince too, but I would have preferred that the rest of her family been eliminated from the movie entirely. Most of them were selfish people who were completely unlikable.





Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)


It's funny to watch this series post Game of Thrones because you notice a bunch of little things that doesn't really work and parts of the action that doesn't really track. Helm's Deep gets overrun yet you still have 90% of the Urik-Hai in the field...the entire opening gets exploded by a title little bomb...and apparently Theoden was able to banish 75% of his army with Eomer.


But those are quibbles, The Two Towers is really about getting us from point A to point B and to elaborate on the fellowship. Meridoc and Took end up running a diplomatic mission with the Ents (who I think represent US interests during WWI), Legolas, Gimli, and Aargon end up first searching for the lost hobbits and then are draw into the conflict with the kingdom of Rohan. And Frodo and Sam who get the short end of the stick meet up with their follower Gollum. They also end up kidnapped by Boromir's annoying little brother Faramir (who I had completely blocked out of my memory).


What's interesting to me on second watch is that Frodo really is a passenger in this installment. If the first one felt like Sam's story(told through Frodo's eyes) this one we get Gollum/Smeagol arc which is the most compelling of all the characters. Gimli and Legolas are humorous but ultimately they feel like incredibly minor characters. I think the strongest part of the film are the two flashbacks...we Boromir's victory and Elrond explains why Aargorn and Arwen can never be together two very powerful scenes about the roles of men in this world.



I have to be frank I would likely rank this one below Fellowship, in the first LOTR's movie the Wraiths and Sauron both looked menacing and real here we get some bad CGI Jackal creatures and while the Ent's look pretty good I've seen better giant tree characters.


Good installment off to watch Return of the King







Excalibur (1981)


If Y'all know me you know how I feel about great set design and Excalibur has some fantastic set pieces. This is a dark ambitious story of King Arthur that manages to get most things right. I couldn't even begin to go through the plot as the story moves rabidly through the majority of the Arthurian legend. I did wish at times that it would either take a breath or go for the full three hour plus treatment. This one kind of goes from set piece to set piece it definitely needed another hour to get the characters down straight.



I don't think I minded the poor flow of story-line because everything else was so solid. A number of images are really spectacular and the score is just overpowering I almost felt like I was watching an Arthurian version of Fantasia where the music drove the story over the script. But it was a good nom and worth the day off.



I hated most of Belle's family. I liked having a little bit of background about her father, and a little bit about the prince too, but I would have preferred that the rest of her family been eliminated from the movie entirely. Most of them were selfish people who were completely unlikable.
I didn't actually like them as people, I just appreciated that we actually got to see Belle's family in the first place. The sisters in particular were quite insufferable and wholly unlikable. If I were Belle, I also would've run off into the forest... just to be free of them haha.



The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

After this rewatch I must admit that The Two Towers is actually slightly worse than The Fellowship of the Ring. It's not a huge difference, but there's a certain unevenness in it that wasn't present in its predecessor. It's partly due to the fellowship spreading all over and the lack of coherence that follows. There's also more deviation from the book (I still hate the warg attack and Aragorn's fall - all that crap just to get Arwen some screentime in the film).

The battle of Helm's Deep is quite impressive (though I personally don't like stuff like Legolas' shield surfing). I also really like the ents' attack on Isengard. It's not technically the most impressive, but the whole event has that old stop-motion glamour in it (to me, it's another example of Jackson really shining on limited resources). Also, both ents and Gollum have character and they feel alive.

So yeah, a slight drop from the first film but still very good. And I couldn't but laugh when Legolas said the now legendary words...

__________________