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

13 May 2012 07:57

Since i am so young and would not have read the first books before the movies came out i completely disagree that the LOTR movies are bad ( though most older people probably read the books before the movies ). I also like playing the LOTR PC games.
I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong

The Grand Boucle wasn't just Europe's for the taking.

Quote:VAE
"Has Porte ever dropped Nibali in any mountain?"
D&C "He will soon..."
greenedge
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,530
Joined: 27 Mar 2011 04:23

13 May 2012 08:15

The Hitch wrote:So was there a god in that universe? As a child i read the first few books and don't remember one, but then, he had a godfather so


No not necessarily a God but an afterlife. It might be that Harry was cristened because of his muggle heritage and therefore has a godfather but it is never mentioned and seems unlikely, since his mother was estranged with her family. I think it must just be a tradition that also exists in the wizarding world but is not related to any religiousness. Also when there were wizard weddings and funerals I believe there was never any mention of a pastor or anything like that.

/edit: Book 5 deals a lot with the subject of death, which is percieved as a great mystery but there is never any mention of a God or heaven
piccoli equivoci senza importanza.

Visit my blog on spanish history: http://www.histoires-espagnoles.blogspot.fr
User avatar Christian
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,068
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 15:46
Location: Sevilla

13 May 2012 15:56

Just saw the thread title, I'm surprised and glad I'm not not the only person in the world who thought they were dreadful. I haven't even read the books, maybe they're better, but the movies were just interminable.

The Hobbit looks like more of the same rubbish. Again they managed to drag it out into two whole movies. Ka-ching!

Peter Jackson is (or has become) a hack.
"After studying my own case, I know the possibility of eating meat contaminated with Clenbuterol is very small but it is possible because farmers always want to boost animal growth." ~Alessandro Colò
User avatar goggalor
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,647
Joined: 16 Oct 2009 21:51

13 May 2012 18:50

Did anyone here see the film Heavenly Creatures? An earlier Peter Jackson film that's quite good. That film has drama and emotion LOTR lacks.

As to The Hobbit, from what I have seen in the clips, it looks like it will be leftovers, much less compelling than the LOTR trilogy. I really fear it will be a lot of money spent on 3D trickery.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,054
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

13 May 2012 19:43

BroDeal wrote:Brilliant? Are you kidding me. Lucas is a hack who got lucky...once. If you want to see the true level of Lucas' "brilliance" then watch the steaming piles that are the prequels.

Agree with that. I would be happy to watch Star Wars sequels if Lucas would bow out, sit back, and collect royalty cheques. He lost his way when he learned that he could triple his profits by adding cutesy creatures to the film, then package it up with a Happy Meal and a figurine. Jedi sucked. The prequels sucked. Some good plot ideas mixed with bad plot ideas, and ruined by gags and God-awful acting. Whoever wrote the dialogue should be barred from Hollywood.

LOTR - books were good, films were good. Didn't want the films to be the same as the books, Jackson's interpretations made for better theatre.
User avatar pedaling squares
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 03:29
Location: British Columbia

13 May 2012 21:56

I would argue that half of Jedi is excellent. The scenes with the Emperor are good, the chase through the Redwoods, the battle with Lando. Basically the dramatic scenes (call them, the "Richard Marquand scenes"). But the opening scene with Jabba the Hut and Boba Fett, and the Ewoks all sucked (basically the merchandising, or "Lucas scenes".)
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,054
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

13 May 2012 23:24

You are right, there was some good material there. But after Empire, it just seemed so disappointing, even for a kid. They accomplished the impossible when they defeated the most powerful villain in the galaxy, and then celebrated by dancing around a fire with teddy bears. Didn't they have beer a long long time ago? Besides, I liked Vader better than his pansy son so that movie could never work for me.
User avatar pedaling squares
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 03:29
Location: British Columbia

13 May 2012 23:43

Surprised no-one has mentioned Jar Jar Binks in relation to the Star Wars movies... if ever there was a moment when the bell rings to signal the end.. his entry to the screen was it. A little bit of sick formed in my throat when I watched.
The fact is, no one has done more to make doping in sports seem like an evil than Lance Armstrong in his prime, desperately, passionately, ferociously guarding the perception that he was clean.
Gwen Knapp

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/52357070/
User avatar Spider1964
Member
 
Posts: 447
Joined: 08 Jul 2009 04:05
Location: God's Own Country

14 May 2012 01:35

Late to this discussion.

but as Boomcie already knows, i too hated LOTR
i also hated Titanic
and the last 3 star wars films

I am glad i have now found a safe haven in which to admit my dislike

i also think the Tourist was the worst film i have seen in years.
even thinking about it now makes me angry
User avatar daveinzambia
Member
 
Posts: 577
Joined: 20 Jul 2011 05:44
Location: Sydney, Australia

14 May 2012 01:45

Just an answer to the original question. I did not read the books. I liked the movies and I thought they were visually wonderful and full of imagination. The story was dark and sometimes depressing. I enjoyed it enough to see all of them.
My Sister read the books and raved about the story. It never interested me enough to read the story so the movie portrayal is all I know.
User avatar Master50
Member
 
Posts: 1,163
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 13:52
Location: Vancouver Island

14 May 2012 02:05

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Did anyone here see the film Heavenly Creatures? An earlier Peter Jackson film that's quite good. That film has drama and emotion LOTR lacks.


Jackson's Braindead/Dead Alive is a good B-movie. Bad Taste had low rent production values but it was also decent. The Frightners suffers the same problem as LotR in that it is sort of emotionally sterile.
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,318
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

14 May 2012 03:44

i liked the books and the movies. i own them in fact. nice fantasy.a friend had them quoted in a genetics class. something about rings, or such.
User avatar usedtobefast
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,367
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 23:19
Location: southern california

14 May 2012 09:17

daveinzambia wrote:I also think the Tourist was the worst film I have seen in years.
even thinking about it now makes me angry


Oh yeah - it was dreadful wasn't it. Thank god it didn't last a minute longer - we had free tickets but what a pity to waste them on that. I always suspected that Angelina Jolie couldn't act her way out of a paper bag but she proved it conclusively in that steaming pile of @#$%.

And Johnny Depp should have known better

Sorry, straying OT
Llewellyn
Junior Member
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 07 Dec 2011 00:18

14 May 2012 09:44

BroDeal wrote:The Frightners suffers the same problem as LotR in that it is sort of emotionally sterile.

Agree completely on The Frighteners.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,054
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

14 May 2012 14:06

hrotha wrote:I don't mind making sensible changes to adapt the story to what after all is a very different medium. But changes that betray the spirit of the original are a no no, and in that regard the worst one is when Frodo tells Sam to leave and Sam complies.


Yes this peeved me a lot. Frodo is a lot cooler in the books, in the movies he is a damn fool. This was also my biggest problem. Also while the movies make it seem like a couple weeks passed between bilbo leaving the shire and gandalf returning with the knowedlede of the ring threat, in the books decades had passed :/ but this was changed for the simplicity of the transfer to the film medium and a lot of these little details had to be changed for the neutral crowd. Books of this epic scope simply can't be translated accurately IMO, but I agree the Frodo/Sam thing was way off tone.
RIP Craig, you'll be missed friend.
User avatar Timmy-loves-Rabo
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,448
Joined: 22 Jun 2009 13:44
Location: Melbourne

14 May 2012 14:16

Llewellyn wrote:Oh yeah - it was dreadful wasn't it. Thank god it didn't last a minute longer - we had free tickets but what a pity to waste them on that. I always suspected that Angelina Jolie couldn't act her way out of a paper bag but she proved it conclusively in that steaming pile of @#$%.

And Johnny Depp should have known better

Sorry, straying OT


Ya that was a stinker, I figured as much beforehand but the girlfriend wanted to see it. She is lucky I didn't give her the flick after that.
RIP Craig, you'll be missed friend.
User avatar Timmy-loves-Rabo
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,448
Joined: 22 Jun 2009 13:44
Location: Melbourne

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

11 Feb 2017 10:59

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkNwQAWu5AM&t=173s

Tolkien, Reactionary & Catholic Writer by Christopher Lannes

Those who are following me in “La capsule”, my audio show have already heard of that story, I’ve already mentioned Tolkien but there’s no reason not to make you enjoy it in a video clip.

Aaah Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Magic, Heroic Fantasy, … Well no, those who think that way are absolutely wrong. Unlike many thought and still think today Tolkien in the sixties was not a heroic fantasy author loving magic esoterism or New Age philosophy, even hippie could we say. Not at all! Tolkien was first and foremost a traditional Catholic and politically speaking he was ultra-conservative and reactionary! Ah yeah !! Really! We are far from a joint smoker. Through the Tolkien biography which was written already a few years ago by Humphrey Carpenter we may realise that Tolkien was a much deeper and more complex and most of all miles away from the way we see him today. Like I said he was a Catholic. He loved the magical Catholicism that reigned in the Middle-Ages. He was fascinated by the medieval era with all its mysteries and legends. All this universe came to him by an agitated childhood which we will talk about immediately.

Tolkien was born in Bloemfontein in the Orange Free State, you know, it’s in South Africa on 3 January 1892 but he can’t stay long in his native country because he suffered from extreme heat and that’s how he left for England. His father passing away while he was aged 4 his mother, Mabel, gave him his upbringing. A traditional upbringing. She was a fervent Catholic herself. So a traditional upbringing in which she inculcates to him the values of the past and the love for the fatherland.

There the hippies watching this video have already fainted, so we’ll go on together.

His childhood hero was not Cristiano Ronaldo, Booba [French rapper] nor even Cyril Hanouna [French TV announcer of culturally atrophied shows]. He doesn’t have a poster in his bedroom either. It’s the medieval Knight. He loves the King Arthur legends and all this Knight idealism with his values and virtues fascinates him. He’s steeped in Latin. He loves languages, word musicality, consonance, etc and so he got a passion for Northern and Indo-European literature and mythologies. That’s how he created his first universes. In 1915 the Great War comes disrupting all that and he enlisted with the British army as a liaison officer. For those who've seen the film "Stalingrad", well liaison officer, you do need a thick skin. It's a very open post. He notably took part in the Battle of the Somme but like so many he came back from that conflict totally traumatised by all this madness.

That's where his universe takes a much darker dimension. He notes all this in his diaries. Between two offensives in the trenches he starts writing his first texts which takes a much darker form with ferocious beasts and monsters, etc. He could come out of all that with pacifism, no-borderism, etc. But no, his patriotism was consolidated by that experience and in his work he pays tribute to the British soldiers who are no less than the Hobbits. Yes, those hobbits, these fragile humble rural petty bourgeois but who yet in the great hours contributed to the victory and showed their courage : the British infantrymen.

After a wond he was reformed in 1917 and during his recovery he writes his first elfie tales which he had already started in the trenches. He capitalised on this convalescence to develop even more this whole universe in which he more and more takes refuge in.

His patriotism and his respect for the small infantrymen/hobbit got consolidated but he also came out of this war with a radical hatred towards Progress, Modernism, Industrialisation. He who was inspired by the valorous knights filled with values and virtues only could note the powerlessness of a human being faced with technological and material insanity in which the one who wins is on the right side of the artillery barrage.

Progress is chasing him. Living in Oxford he sees the landscapes of his childhood ravaged by the building of roads, factories, etc and he's deeply upset by it. Yet even when he later got rich he refused to leave his small Oxford suburb because like a good English soldier and like a Hobbit, he has to stand up.

According to Humphrey Carpenter, his rootedness and his will to face dangers shows a deeply Christian and ascetic attitude.

In 1920 he became an English Professor at Oxford University. He teaches English but also regional languages and medieval litterature.

Politically speaking, well I'm hesitating a bit because if some leftists have held through thus far and hadn't collapsed yet they will have it for their money. Well he is ultra-conservative, reactionary, anti-Modern, as an Englishman he's bound to his Monarchy which he even finds too democratic. In his opinion democracy leads to the dictatorship of an order.

He equates modernist values with pollution. Like there's industrial pollution, modernist values are in his opinion spiritual pollution.

He didn't beat around the bush, you know.

When WWII broke out he was very resentful to national-socialist Germany for inspiring from Northern Mythology which he so much loved and he declared:

“I have in this War a burning private grudge—which would probably make me a better soldier at 49 than I was at 22: against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler (for the odd thing about demonic inspiration and impetus is that it in no way enhances the purely intellectual stature: it chiefly affects the mere will). Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light.”


After WWII he took refuge in men's clubs. No, not that (while posting gay pictures). Men's clubs mean authors' clubs. So with C.S. Lewis - the author of the Chronicles of Narnia - he founded the Inklings which is a Christian Authors' Club. He also founded a Viking Club in which he invited his friends to sing, drink and laugh and most of all leaving the modern world aside and let is melancholy going.

With regards to his work it's filled with symbolism and Northern, Indo-European but also Christian mythology: this magical Christianism that took place in the Middle Ages, pervaded by myths, legends, etc, which he most of all doted on. Of course he didn't believe in the primary sense of his creation but in his opinion, whatever, it was symbolical and they nonetheless corresponded with deep truths.

His best-seller - The Lord of the Rings - was a late-bloomer. He wrote it in 1955 and he needed 10 years before it was really successful: 1 million copies sold at that time. Over 200 millions nowadays. In the span of a few months he became a true idol but most of all a misunderstood master. You know his readership were rather hippies and people who were pervaded by this New Age state of mind and who found themselves in his works. But Tolkien deplored the fact that his readers only superficially understood his works and didn't dig deeper. His work was fundamentally medieval and Christian and he couldn't stand being adulated by hippies who themselves couldn't stand all he conveyed: values and tradition.

Despite all that he was still fair play and enjoyed kindly and humbly answering his admirers.

Despite the success Tolkien aged in a sad way. His best friend and wife died before him. He cut from a university world he considered too degenerescent. Religion also played dirty tricks on him because with Vatican II, as you know, religion bowed to Modernism and he as a liturgy fan was brokenhearted to see the office formerly served Latin now served in vernacular languages. Yet he remained true to Rome and until the end of his life in 1976 he took more and more refuge in his works and in his clubs in order to retire from this Modern World which he so much hated.

Beside Bilbo the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, his two best-known works which have been adapted to cinema he has also left us dozens of fantastic short stories, university works and, as a language passionate, an elfist alphabet.

The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them, especially the "happy ending." The Christian has still to work, with mind as well as body, to suffer, hope, and die; but he may now perceive that all his bents and faculties have a purpose, which can be redeemed. So great is the bounty with which he has been treated that he may now, perhaps, fairly dare to guess that in Fantasy he may actually assist in the effoliation and multiple enrichment of creation. All tales may come true; and yet, at the last, redeemed, they may be as like and unlike the forms that we give them as Man, finally redeemed, will be like and unlike the fallen that we know.

Tolkien [in his essay: “On Fairy Stories” (1939)]

I think we can stop with that.

Thank you all for attending this new episode of "La petite histoire". I really hope you enjoyed it. I say "see you soon on TV Libertés on Tuesday and on Radio Libertés on Friday." See You!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the comments I even read:
Chouan77:
Tolkien a soutenu les nationalistes et le Caudillo Franco pendant la Guerre d'Espagne, à l'instar de son ami le poète sud-africain Roy Campbell, qui s'est battu aux côtés de la Phalange espagnole.


“Tolkien supported the Nationalists and Caudillo Franco during the Spanish Civil War like his friend, the South African poet Roy Campbell who fought alongside the Spanish Phalange.”

The author’s username suggests that he approves of the said support. Let us remember here that the Spanish Civil War was a time of great religious persecution: 6,800 clergymen killed (20% of the Spanish clergy). Roy Campbell converted to Catholicism by that time. He offered his home to welcome Toledo Carmelite but those refused in order not to put the lives of his family at risk (but the Carmelite Fathers agreed to store their priceless library at Campbell’s home). However this does not mean he was a Fascist. Campbell enlisted with the British army during World War II and after the said war he disavowed Franco for Salazar because of the former’s connivance with the Axis Powers.

Besides Roy Campbell was a fluent speaker of Zulu from childhood and in South Africa he intended to excoriate the Afrikaner racist society. He wrote the beautiful poem “Zulu Girl”. Tolkien’s character “Aragorn” was partly based on Roy Campbell’s personality.

The Zulu Girl - Poem by Roy Campbell
When in the sun the hot red acres smoulder
Down where the sweating gang its labour plies
A girl flings down her hoe, and from her shoulder
Unslings her child tormented by flies.

She takes him to a ring of shadow pooled
By the thorn-tree: purpled with the blood of ticks,
While her sharp nails, in slow caresses ruled
Prowl through his hair with sharp electric clicks.

His sleepy mouth, plugged by the heavy nipple,
Tugs like a puppy, grunting as he feels;
Through his frail nerves her own deep languor's ripple
Like a broad river sighing through the reeds.

Yet in that drowsy stream his flesh imbibes
And old unquenched, unsmotherable heat-
The curbed ferocity of beaten tribes,
The sullen dignity of their defeat.

Her body looms above him like a hill
Within whose shade a village lies at rest,
Or the first cloud so terrible and still
That bears the coming harvest in its breast.
Echoes
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,843
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:57

Re:

11 Feb 2017 13:21

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Did anyone here see the film Heavenly Creatures? An earlier Peter Jackson film that's quite good. That film has drama and emotion LOTR lacks.

As to The Hobbit, from what I have seen in the clips, it looks like it will be leftovers, much less compelling than the LOTR trilogy. I really fear it will be a lot of money spent on 3D trickery.


Yeah that was a good movie and based on a true story. The two girls were very good. Braindead was a good horror comedy and better than Bad Taste. I never saw his version of King Kong but from what I heard I didn't miss much. I think the LOTR movies got progressively worse and I thought the third one would never end ! The Hobbit movies were pretty much the same as far as quality went but I enjoyed the second one the best.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,814
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

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

11 Feb 2017 16:52

boomcie wrote:The whole story is super boring and makes no sense whatsoever most of the time. Absolute stinker.

Which trilogy are you asking about? Just to be sure. The Peter Jackson production with Ian McKellen etc? Or the original annimated single movie that came out in the 1970's (lol)?
The 70's version wasn't worth toilet paper. 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.
User avatar on3m@n@rmy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,696
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 12:25
Location: PNW

11 Feb 2017 17:00

I watched them all about 10 times at least, the Director's Cut and I don't get bored :D I sink into it each time just as easily as the first time.
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,485
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Back to top