board77

Yes, that's right: as Prim says, "the film evokes what the book evokes" -- or rather, both of them evoke something, point to something, that speaks to my heart (sometimes I might even say: that IS my heart).

So it's not like cover art on a book at all, because the cover is subordinate to the book, whereas in the LOTR case, both book and film are imperfect but precious reflections of Something Else.

(By the way, for me the Harry Potter movies are EXACTLY like cover art! Pretty pictures to illustrate the book.)

Just dropping in with a couple of random thoughts in answer to comments throughout this thread.

Camera work: Probably my favourite piece of camerawork in the entire trilogy and indeed in any film is the long swooping shot that follows the Uruk-Hai down the hill from Amon Hen towards the horn of Boromir. Whether it was technically difficult or not, I don't know but it transported me in a way that very few other shots did. It seemed more like a frantic attempt for the Camera to keep up with the action. Too often you can imagine that the horse runs past the camera and everything stops. In this shot (and also in some Pelennor shots) you feel like the camera could have gone anywhere because the action was real and in real-time. It never felt like a structured shot. It was more like a news crew camera frantically trying to cover a story. It sold me.

Too Much Fighting: As yova said, not all of the battlefield stuff is "just fighting" One of my favourite additions to the Return of the King EE is the added snippets of Merry and Eowyn fighting. There's a desperate fear and intensity in those scenes that sells the battle for more effectively than a dozen hero shots of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli. That's character defining.

Alatar

Sassafras wrote:

WHY do I like these films so much? It is a valid question, I think. And here I must add that I have watched these films more times than any other films. Why? Is it because I love the book?

Yes, I think it is because you love the book. And I think some of the book manages to come through in the films, and that is why you like them so much.

Queen_Beruthiel wrote:

Does a modern big budget film for mass audiences have to be a rather noisy action film, with little thoughtfulness? It wasn't so when Ford and Kubrick were directing: I think it may be so now.

I think it is so now, sadly enough.



Btw, I'm not a student of film, and I find PJs over-use of close-ups to be extremely annoying and inappropriate.

Cerin wrote:

Yes, I think it is because you love the book. And I think some of the book manages to come through in the films, and that is why you like them so much.

I think you're right.

I've often wondered if PJ had made a fantasy trilogy of another book, oh, I don't know, perhaps Tad Williams 'Memory, Sorrow and Thorn' or any generic sword and sorcery or quest story ... even one that I've enjoyed ... would I still be waxing lyrical about those films?

Chances are I'd have seen them once and that would be it.