that's pretty neat

Where to start, where to start? Well like any good Internet blog, we should probably start by talking about Lord of the Rings. To the dismay of many friends and even my husband, I had never seen any of the Lord of the Rings movies...until yesterday when I finally watched “The Fellowship of the Ring”. I've pieced together the general premise of the movies over the years through pop culture and memes, but had never actually sat down and watched any of them (partially because long movies put me to sleep).

Overall, I enjoyed it and thought it was a neat movie. It held my attention for all ~3 hours and I was invested in the story. I was aware of some of the characters going into the movie (which helped), but I was still confused by some of the more minor characters in the fellowship and their backstories/motivations for being on this quest. Probably on second watch I'll pick up on a lot of more the nuance and side stories.

There were a couple themes that caught my attention... Going in, I generally understood that the one ring gave great power to the owner (hence why it was so precious and had to be destroyed). But I thought the lore around it was interesting in that it shows that men (creatures in this case?) can still be greedy and power-hungry despite being “good” overall. Like the king's son who acquired the ring after Sauron was defeated had a chance to destroy it but didn't. And even Bilbo had a hard time giving it up and losing that power, despite saying that he wanted to. So with all that, does it mean that Frodo is “pure good” since he has not (yet) shown those possessive qualities while holding the ring? Seems like the ring has been more of a burden to him than to other characters and that he is very set on destroying it. Guess we'll see how that storyline progresses.

This may be dumb, but I didn't realize “fellowship of the ring” was actually going to refer to a group of dudes banning together and the themes of brotherhood and loyalty within the oddball group were unexpected. I feel like that isn't seen a lot in movies, or at least in the wholesome way it was depicted here. Like the interaction between Boromir and Strider when Boromir was dying was truly touching. And the Hobbit gang, while not the smartest group of individuals, is heartwarming because of their friendship and loyalty to each other.

Other random thoughts to close out:

• The sets and landscapes are incredible. They cover a lot of ground in the movie and every setting looked amazing (whether real landscape or fabricated). The CGI holds up well over 20 years later too.
• At the same time, my one critique is that since they try fit such a long journey into the movie, I sometimes got confused on where they were and what they were doing there (besides simply passing through to get to Mordor). Like all of the sudden they went from being high up on a snowy mountain to being underground? It's probably explain much more in depth in the book.
• The movie was good and I can see why it's one of the most popular movies of all time, however I'm not sold on the obsession with it yet. I guess it's more for fantasy-buffs and getting into all the lore outside of just the main movies. As Chip pointed out, there wasn't a lot of pure fantasy when the books were written (and even when this movie came out), so that's what attracted a lot of people.
• However I do understand the obsession with Gandalf, he's pretty neat. He's got shade of Dumbledore but with more sass and personality. He comes back after falling off that cliff, right?

I am looking forward to watching the next one, even though it means investing another 3 hours in watching a movie (and hoping I don't fall asleep during it). My holiday break from work is coming soon though so that might be the time.