Log in:  

Register

Anyone else thinks "The Lord of the Rings" movie trilogy is awful?

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

11 Feb 2017 20:40

First Movie good, the two towers better, third one ok, but should have finished it when the ring was destroyed.

Hobbit should have been done in one or at most two movies.
del1962
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,285
Joined: 16 Oct 2012 17:20

11 Feb 2017 22:30

Thread is hilarious.

I liked the books and the movies for the world building, not for the actual story, which is quite boring. The whole good-vs evil part makes for a huge lack of compelling characters.
Kwibus wrote:So much quesions they have. Answers they will never get.
So why questions? If no answers?
-Kwibus, one of the great philosophers of the 21st century
User avatar Red Rick
Moderator
 
Posts: 11,540
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15
Location: Un Año Más

Re: Anyone else thinks "The Lord of the Rings" movie trilogy

13 Feb 2017 09:10

I really don't like the Hobbit movies.

They just buy the rights, spend 50 million on CGI, 50 million on marketing, and know that they can make 10 x the profit, no matter how **** the film is.

I really didn't like how every single one of the main characters (10 dwarfs, 1 hobbit) have character immunity for almost the entire trilogy. The whole film is them getting into sticky situations with the orcs, and each time, the 10 little dwarfs kill 50, 000 orcs and survive.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,636
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

13 Feb 2017 13:56

on3m@n@rmy wrote: Jackson's production was, an adventure. I liked Jackson's version the first time. Second viewings, or thirdsies (slay me for that if you will lol) are B O R I N G.
I stumbled upon the LOTR DVDs several years after the movies had come out in theaters, so can't say I was influenced by any hype. Loved the adventure, as you would say, couldn't wait to see the next part.

Don't really want to rewatch LOTR now, I'd like to retain the memory of that magic I felt when I saw the trilogy the first time.
User avatar Tricycle Rider
Member
 
Posts: 1,674
Joined: 09 Feb 2013 11:12

Re:

13 Feb 2017 14:14

Red Rick wrote:Thread is hilarious.

I liked the books and the movies for the world building, not for the actual story, which is quite boring. The whole good-vs evil part makes for a huge lack of compelling characters.


Why does good vs. evil make for uncompelling characters?

I really liked the books and the films, for the adventure/story, for the world-building and also for the characters. The Hobbit book was great and I'm just going to pretend the Hobbit films don't exist. The Silmarillion was also great but there I can imagine some people would find it a tad dry, Children of Húrin was maybe the best Tolkien book I've read, and I could go on for a while because I went full Lotr-geek mode during high school. :D
User avatar Maaaaaaaarten
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,321
Joined: 23 Oct 2011 17:47

13 Feb 2017 18:30

My cousin read me large parts of The Hobbit when I was a boy, and I loved it. I never read LOTR, and didn't have any bias one way or the other going into the films. My thoughts are:

I mostly liked Fellowship of of the Ring, I loved the sub story of Boromir being corrupted by the ring. The movie was a grand spectacle, that's for sure. All were. I didn't like the ending at all. It's as if they ran out of film that day, so stopped the movie there. Twin Towers was okay. Not great nor bad. I however didn't care for Return of the King as much. I found it mostly predictable, and the third act dragged to me. Surprised it won so many Oscars, but this was considered a weak Oscar year. It beat Mystic River, Seabiscut for example, which I also think were overpraised as well.

As to the Hobbit films. The first one was a bit silly, and dragged on. The second one was actually quite good I thought. I really liked what they did with Smaug, and Laketown, but didn't like the ending of it much either. The third one I didn't care for at all. It was way too long, and tired. It could have ended with Bard's overcoming of fear in fighting Smaug. In fact, all three Hobbit movies could have been turned into 1, and centered around this compelling story line.

My favorite film of Peter Jackson, by far, is Heavenly Creatures. Great pathos in that film.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,054
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

Re: Re:

13 Feb 2017 20:21

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:
Red Rick wrote:Thread is hilarious.

I liked the books and the movies for the world building, not for the actual story, which is quite boring. The whole good-vs evil part makes for a huge lack of compelling characters.


Why does good vs. evil make for uncompelling characters?

Cause they rarely have an interesting thought in their head. They rarely have to make any interesting decisions, cause they always have to do the good thing. Or the stupid thing.

Biggest example of this is the Harry Potter series. One tiny thing that the main character struggles with is that he actually has to kill the main villain and he doesn't even have to do it.
Kwibus wrote:So much quesions they have. Answers they will never get.
So why questions? If no answers?
-Kwibus, one of the great philosophers of the 21st century
User avatar Red Rick
Moderator
 
Posts: 11,540
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15
Location: Un Año Más

Re: Re:

13 Feb 2017 20:38

Red Rick wrote:
Maaaaaaaarten wrote:
Red Rick wrote:Thread is hilarious.

I liked the books and the movies for the world building, not for the actual story, which is quite boring. The whole good-vs evil part makes for a huge lack of compelling characters.


Why does good vs. evil make for uncompelling characters?

Cause they rarely have an interesting thought in their head. They rarely have to make any interesting decisions, cause they always have to do the good thing. Or the stupid thing.

Biggest example of this is the Harry Potter series. One tiny thing that the main character struggles with is that he actually has to kill the main villain and he doesn't even have to do it.
He's fine with torture though. Besides, I don't think he's struggling with it as in 'I don't want to kill'.
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,494
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

Re: Re:

13 Feb 2017 22:09

Red Rick wrote:Cause they rarely have an interesting thought in their head. They rarely have to make any interesting decisions, cause they always have to do the good thing. Or the stupid thing.

Biggest example of this is the Harry Potter series. One tiny thing that the main character struggles with is that he actually has to kill the main villain and he doesn't even have to do it.


I don't think this is really true though for LOTR though. We have people like Boromir and Saruman being perverted by the desire for the ring. Frodo, Bilbo and some others have the same temptation but manage to withstand it. Smeagol/Gollum goes very back and forth in this regard. We have guys like king Theoden and Denethor mistrusting their alliances with their allies and making stupid decisions. Merry and Pippin do some stupid stuff as well. At some point there is a moral dilemma about whether to kill Gollum or not, etc.

It doesn't focus so much on the psychology of the characters as much literature does. I can imagine one would miss that, but it does have plenty of good characters doing stupid stuff, people being faced with temptations and sometimes succumbing to them, in the case of Gollum/Smeagol a corrupted character who almost becomes good again. Unless you want literature that's very psychological, being driven more by character development than by plot, I think LOTR is fine. Don't get me wrong though, you're free to prefer that of course. I like that type of literature as well. You can get something like Dostoyevsky writing 700 page books with very little plot and everything being driven almost entirely by character development and focusing very much on the character's psychology. I mean, I love that too, but I think there's also a place for more plot driven stuff like LOTR. I think some of the characters in LOTR are very relatable and there is some decent character development as well for me.
User avatar Maaaaaaaarten
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,321
Joined: 23 Oct 2011 17:47

Re: Re:

13 Feb 2017 23:00

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:
Red Rick wrote:Cause they rarely have an interesting thought in their head. They rarely have to make any interesting decisions, cause they always have to do the good thing. Or the stupid thing.

Biggest example of this is the Harry Potter series. One tiny thing that the main character struggles with is that he actually has to kill the main villain and he doesn't even have to do it.


I don't think this is really true though for LOTR though. We have people like Boromir and Saruman being perverted by the desire for the ring. Frodo, Bilbo and some others have the same temptation but manage to withstand it. Smeagol/Gollum goes very back and forth in this regard. We have guys like king Theoden and Denethor mistrusting their alliances with their allies and making stupid decisions. Merry and Pippin do some stupid stuff as well. At some point there is a moral dilemma about whether to kill Gollum or not, etc.

It doesn't focus so much on the psychology of the characters as much literature does. I can imagine one would miss that, but it does have plenty of good characters doing stupid stuff, people being faced with temptations and sometimes succumbing to them, in the case of Gollum/Smeagol a corrupted character who almost becomes good again. Unless you want literature that's very psychological, being driven more by character development than by plot, I think LOTR is fine. Don't get me wrong though, you're free to prefer that of course. I like that type of literature as well. You can get something like Dostoyevsky writing 700 page books with very little plot and everything being driven almost entirely by character development and focusing very much on the character's psychology. I mean, I love that too, but I think there's also a place for more plot driven stuff like LOTR. I think some of the characters in LOTR are very relatable and there is some decent character development as well for me.


The reason Gandalf thinks they should not kill Gollum is because ''he might still be useful'' (and indeed he was). So much for a moral lesson. :lol:

I do think you make good points, though. Just found that one funny.
''The battle between Démare and Bouhanni for being France's best sprinter is decided: it's Coquard.'' - BBB
User avatar BigMac
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,336
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Estoril, Portugal

Re: Re:

13 Feb 2017 23:01

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:
Red Rick wrote:Cause they rarely have an interesting thought in their head. They rarely have to make any interesting decisions, cause they always have to do the good thing. Or the stupid thing.

Biggest example of this is the Harry Potter series. One tiny thing that the main character struggles with is that he actually has to kill the main villain and he doesn't even have to do it.


I don't think this is really true though for LOTR though. We have people like Boromir and Saruman being perverted by the desire for the ring. Frodo, Bilbo and some others have the same temptation but manage to withstand it. Smeagol/Gollum goes very back and forth in this regard. We have guys like king Theoden and Denethor mistrusting their alliances with their allies and making stupid decisions. Merry and Pippin do some stupid stuff as well. At some point there is a moral dilemma about whether to kill Gollum or not, etc.

Which is maybe the most important dilemma of the whole story. The quest fails, Frodo doesn't manage to destroy the Ring and gives in to it. If Gollum had been dead, it would have been Game Over.
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,494
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

Re: Anyone else thinks "The Lord of the Rings" movie trilogy

14 Feb 2017 11:38

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:Why does good vs. evil make for uncompelling characters?

I really liked the books and the films, for the adventure/story, for the world-building and also for the characters. The Hobbit book was great and I'm just going to pretend the Hobbit films don't exist. The Silmarillion was also great but there I can imagine some people would find it a tad dry, Children of Húrin was maybe the best Tolkien book I've read, and I could go on for a while because I went full Lotr-geek mode during high school. :D


World building is the problem, actually. I'm a fantasy hater, so normally I shouldn't post on this thread but if I've bumped it it's only just because Tolkien's life and personality interests me: his Christian faith, his anti-Modernism, his political conservativeness and his fascination for medieval knight (I liked Rhubroma's post upthread :p). But I find it very interesting to understand how a guy with such background eventually comes up with fantasy work. Normally, Christian authors would stick into the real which is best to study sociology and character's psychology and make sure the reader/viewer can identify with them. In the end I'm not surprised Tolkien felt misunderstood when he finally got success in the hippie/New Age period. My idea is that he so much hated this gloomy modern world (rightly so) that he wished to escape it into a fantasy world (not really of childish banalities as Guinness said about Star Wars :p) in which he could convey his ethics but also which is appealing to young hippie dreamers who don't give a damn about society. It's not really the spirit of the medieval knight who inspired him in his childhood. It's a bit like cowardice. The best literature is the one that teaches and informs us about the hardness of the Real, not the one that escapes us from it and makes us dream. I'm not a dreamer. The main characters in Raymond Chandler's novels also have some sort of a medieval knight aspect, Philip Marlowe is some sort of a contemporary crusader but they are stuck in the Real World, in all its ugliness and hardness. Much more interesting to me. However it's fun and ironic to see the contrast between Tolkien's average reader and his personality. :p They should be disgusted if they knew.
Echoes
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,853
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:57

14 Feb 2017 12:03

To me the movies (both trilogies) are good as movies. The issue appears when you start comparing the two medias with each other in a 1:1 way. Some things that works great in books would be awful in movies, and some things that work great in movies would be awful in books.

About the Hobbit; well, I don't actually mind that they were made longer, quite nice to get to see whatever Gandalf was up to, my issue is the character of Tauriel. Not - mind you - in the sense of "They invented a movie-only character, and that's terrible!" but rather because they took a character with the potential to be awesome; kick-ass warrior, and basically turned her plotline into a love triangle.
Aka The Ginger One.
User avatar RedheadDane
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,968
Joined: 05 May 2010 13:47
Location: Viking Land! (Aros)

14 Feb 2017 17:12

I have only read The Hobbit.

The Hobbit movies are . . . quite dull. 1 is tolerable, 2 and 3 are just boring.
The LOTR movies are very nice, though, especially 1 and 3.

Been a couple of years since I last saw the LOTR movies. Maybe I will watch them again soon.
"If I had stopped for coffee, they would have done the same. They never got off my wheel." - Fabian Cancellara after Paris-Roubaix 2011.
User avatar Cance > TheRest
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,858
Joined: 17 Apr 2013 18:38
Location: Denmark

25 Apr 2017 03:57

I am a fanatic of this book.
mixedmartial
Newly Registered Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 13:57

Re: Anyone else thinks "The Lord of the Rings" movie trilogy

27 Apr 2017 20:52

I personally didn't find any of the films awful. Some where better than others obviously, but none of them were 'bad,' in my opinion. I think apart from the CGI that people felt was bad, it was the fact that the important characters of the LOTR trilogy weren't in the Hobbit trilogy. Obviously there was no way they could have been there, as Jackson had to follow the books and the timeline (otherwise he might as well could have named it something other than LOTR or Hobbit and gone his own way, far away from the Tolkien), but I think people were entertained and excited by Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Samwise, Frodo, etc that the other characters (good or bad) were simply 'ho hum.'

It's why remakes are so bad these days.

Plus the LOTR movies were so good, so successful, that anything even slightly below par was disappointing for the audience.
BullsFan22
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,801
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 21:19

Previous

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], patricknd, Semper Fidelis and 6 guests

Back to top