Hard to believe it's been 10 years already since "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" hit theaters. Any fans here of the film? How has it held up after 10 years? We're only a year away from Part 1 of "The Hobbit".

Ten years, huh?

The geeks must be halfway through the Special Edition by now.

My mom and sister are big fans, they have the collectors editions of all the films. Though I personally never got what the big deal about the films was,(though to be entirely fair, i'm not a huge fan of fantasy films in general) i'm probably the only person on this forum who couldn't care less about the upcoming Hobbit films.

I care less.

Wait. Benedict Cumberbatch is in them, right?

Okay, I care a little bit. Enough to watch his scenes on YouTube after the film is on DVD. But only that much.

I still think its an excellent film and my favorite of the series. I saw it so many times at the cinema, had never read the books and not really that deep into fantasy but something about it just clicked for me. I truly felt like I was taken on an adventure and a journey for those 3 hours - from the Shire to the gloom ahead on those rocky mountains.

But if anything it just makes me feel old, where the hell did that 10yrs go and why was it so fast??

I have no idea who that Benedict guy is, he sounds like a gay porn star!

Hmm. Speaking as a gay man, I can say that I've never seen a gay porn star with a name quite like that.

Anyway, he plays Holmes on the BBC show Sherlock, and has been in quite a few other BBC programs that only geeks like me know about, like Van Gogh: Painted with Words and Hawking. He's apparently going to be in The Hobbit, though only as a voice, from what I understand.

You can see one of his better scenes from Sherlock on YouTube here.

The zinger I wish I'd made. Damn you, sir.

He's also in Atonement, one one of my favorite movies!

Like most everyone else I was blown away by the LotR movies when they were released. A decade later I can't say they've held up well in my eyes. I still view them as well-made and worthy of at least an initial viewing, but I haven't re-watched a single one and really don't have plans to. I've got a view scenes on cable but I'm just never engaged. Ten years ago I would've called them some of my favorites. Now, though I still have a positive view of them, I doubt they'd make my top 100.

As for The Hobbit, I'm more than a little dubious that they're turning a 300 page book into a two movie event. We'll see, though.

It's the new money-making trend. I wouldn't be surprised if the producers forced the idea on Jackson. I remember reading an interview with whoever wrote Harry Potter 7, and he said something like, "I swear, we tried to do it as a single film, but there was just too much story!" Yeah, isn't that the book where they're hiding in a forest for most of the plot? What utter horseshit.

But I also remember reading something about The Hobbit: Part 1 being an adaptation of the book and Part 2 being a new story that bridges the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. That would be less insane, I guess.

I definitely don't think the idea was forced on Jackson, as much as I like him for being so open to the public and documenting his filmmaking experience the films since LOTR have been so indulgent with the running times. Personally I blame the extended editions of LOTR, they got progressively longer with ROTK having scenes that completely ruined the flow of the film. He needs a ruthless editor and like you I am dubious about The Hobbit being 2 films as well (also the 3D), hopefully the trailer that will be released later today will impress.

This is what I don't understand: self-indulgent filmmakers like Jackson accept that there are going to be two versions of a film, the theatrical cut for general audiences and the extended home video cuts for the geeks who want every last word of the book to appear in the film. So why not cut back on the theatrical version even more? Is the studio just that afraid to tell him to keep it under 140 minutes? Does he really have that much clout?

You "can't say they've held up well," yet you admit to not having rewatched a single one of them.

Yes, I stick by that. As I said, I've seen chunks of all three movies again on cable and just never felt the desire to finish them. I could sit down and watch them all the way through, it's not as i there painful, but I'd most certainly hit fast forward until I get to the choicest scenes. That's not holding up well, in my eyes.

The First film is epically boring most of the way through.

The Second is an improvement but still too drawn out by any reasonable, objective standard.

The Third is a very good film but doesn't know when to end, and so pisses people off.

To offer a differing point of view: In my opinion, The Lord of the Rings trilogy remains the pinnacle of epic escapist entertainment, including beloved classics like the Star Wars saga, and I believe that it is unlikely to ever be bettered. The primary reason is that it has more substance than comparable escapist fantasy movies, which is the result of two factors:

Firstly, the movie trilogy is an accomplished adaptation of the books, which were the first ones to truly create a plausible original fantasy world with its own geography, ethnology and history. (Tolkien’s creation is somewhat influenced by European mythology such as, in particular, the Nibelungen saga, but it isn’t derivative.) The original Star Wars trilogy also managed to convey this “lived in” feeling, not least because it referenced its own historical background, but not to the same extent and depth as the LotR trilogy. (Incidentally, the Star Wars prequels suffer a lot from not having the same kind of background, simply because they are the background.)

Secondly, the production values starting from the New Zealand locations and ending in the tiny details of the costumes and props are amazing. Also, its achievement of marrying live action and special effects of various kinds (then groundbreaking CGI, trick photography, miniatures, make-up etc.) remains unsurpassed to this day. Let’s compare LotR to Avatar, which is a fair representation of the current state of the art in CGI special effects. The effects in Avatar are technically amazing, but they do look like (well done) CGI special effects. Actually, with the silly 3D glasses on, even the real life actors looked like dead-eyed computer representations of actors. Although the CGI in LotR is less sophisticated - and it shows in a few instances - LotR is not just depending on CGI effects and integrates real scenery and actors with special effects to create an impression of reality.

Criticising the LotR trilogy for its length is a little besides the point, in my opinion, because it is mostly the result of being a faithful adaptation of the books. Also, running time is pretty much irrelevant if you are involved in the story and I (as well as many if not most people I know personally) have never been bored by LotR. I concede that the battle in part 2 and the ending of part 3 go on forever and make you feel restless in a cinema seat, but it could hardly have been done differently, if you wanted to remain faithful to the source material. Calling Jackson’s direction self-indulgent because of that is utterly ridiculous, because it is an attempt to fulfil audience expectations.

In short: I think that the LotR movies will be regarded as modern classics and they hold up very well for me, even after having seen each one of them three or four times.

P.S.: There are a number of flaws in the movies, which I am willing to overlook, but they also result from flaws of the novels.

Two opinions:

1. These movies are resoundingly decent, but that's about it. They're certainly not boring. At the very least, they're nice to look at and they move enough that they stay that way for the duration... except for maybe the third one, which gets a little long in the tooth by the end.

2. I despise the word "escapist". The great stories are for getting in touch with something important. That's not escapism.