Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- Tilted Entertainment (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-entertainment/)

- - Lord of the Rings poll (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-entertainment/39401-lord-rings-poll.html)

Lord of the Rings poll

I was starting to get worried that no one else in the known universe had evaluated these movies properly (other than myself of course). Like I always say: if you're going to have an opinion, at least don't be wrong ;) :thumbsup:

Quote:

Why I hate ‘The Lord of the Rings’
It’s long, boring and you could drive a Balrog through the plot holes
New Line Cinema

COMMENTARY
By Larry Terenzi
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 6:58 p.m. ET Dec. 15, 2003

It’s sad to be alone at Christmastime. My friends have abandoned me, branded me a loon and a miscreant. While they rejoice, I’ve gone underground. My crime? I think the “Lord of the Rings” series up to this point reeks like a sweaty Orc. Okay, bad poetic license -- it’s not that foul. The epic scope of the movies is impressive and several action sequences are spectacular, as are the fanatical attention to detail and technical accomplishments. Peter Jackson’s ambition in directing the trilogy in a marathon 18-month shoot is as grand as his ability to pull it off. But for all those folks scooping up those ghastly Gollum snowglobes, have you guys pilfered Gandalf’s pipe weed?

advertisement
Before I proceed further with my self-immolation, understand this: I like to think of myself as an imaginative and possibly well-adjusted adult. LOTR was one of my primary adolescent obsessions. I rolled the geometric dice and played Dungeons & Dragons, though I was reckless and was too often smote to be any good. I even collected and painstakingly painted several score of lead figurines based on Ralph Bakshi’s ill-fated animated “LOTR” adaptation. So I should dig these films. But I don’t.

The main reason is that they –- let’s stick to the movies for the sake of time and space -- just don’t make any sense. I will gladly enter Jackson’s Middle Earth, a brilliantly realized world in which the disembodied Sauron is a giant evil eyeball in the sky, all men have beards and elves don’t work for Keebler. But it’s once we’re in that world that storytelling logic takes a vacation.

Commentary

Bahn: The 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy triumphs

Lapses in logic
Consider the story’s very origin, the flashback in Fellowship, wherein Sauron is initially defeated in a massive apocalyptic battle against Men and Elves when the One Ring is lopped off his finger. Later, Elrond, a powerful elf, and Isuldir, the man who gained possession of the Ring, stand before a fissure in Mount Doom, the only place it can be destroyed. At the last moment, Isuldur refuses to toss it in -- and Elrond lets him walk. Elrond, dude, Middle Earth was nearly obliterated because of a fashion accessory. Do one last favor for your millions of dead buddies and push this idiot into the fire. Then, six thousand years later, Elrond, instead of joining the Fellowship to make amends for his passivity, incessantly whines and rags on the race of “weak” Men. The only weakness here is in satisfying character motivation.

How many watery looks, heaving bosoms and pregnant pauses between [Sam and Frodo] until we ‘get it?’

But character arcs flatline throughout because logic and motivation are treated in the same manner as the many set-pieces, contrivances to suit a Byzantine plot that takes hours to run in place. The moment when Sam begins addressing his best friend Frodo as “Mister” somewhere in “The Two Towers” counts as a major psychological beat. Speaking of those two, the subtext seems clear from the beginning, so how many watery looks, heaving bosoms and pregnant pauses between them until we “get it?” I began to think of Sauron’s flaming peeper as “Queer Eye for the Hobbit Guy.” Or maybe that’s an angry vagina that all those burly warriors flee. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

By now I’ve accepted this intricate yet sterile world where characters move according to mythic direction. But the myth itself is long and repetitive. Boromir, “Fellowship’s" most interesting character, is predictably sent packing. Indeed, the only true dramatic twist is Saruman’s big reveal, in which he flips to the dark side and kicks Gandalf’s ass. Even Gandalf’s supposed death at the hands of the Balrog, a winged yet surprisingly flightless demon, is lessened when he returns in “The Two Towers,” proclaiming, “I was sent back.” That’s a convention known as deux ex machina, or hand of god, and I wish it would’ve sent me back home.

All action, no story movement
Where Fellowship was bogged down in exposition, “The Two Towers,” for all of its action and sense of momentum, likewise accomplishes little in the way of actual movement. Frodo and Sam begin the movie looking at the distant belching of Mount Doom – and that’s how they end it. In between, they do find Gollum, a CGI-character ironically infused with more soul than the live actors. He’s essentially a junkie who says the word “precious” way too often, yet amidst the movie’s chaos and circular wandering, he’s the only character to actually come up with a plan. Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn, meanwhile, kill Orcs at an ever faster rate. In the nadir of the series, Merry and Pippin, the Cheech and Chong of Middle Earth, hug a walking, verse-spouting tree in one of the most clock-stopping sequences put to film.

As if they’re not long enough, both movies follow the recent and so very greedy trend, see “Kill Bill” and the middle “Matrix” movie, of just ending – nearly in mid-sentence. How would you like this article to have ended three paragraphs ago? Don’t answer that. Yes, they’re segments of a whole but I didn’t put my satisfaction on the two-year installment plan. Each movie should offer at least a taste of closure, rather than be content with itself as a single frustrated act of an epic designed to suck 30 bucks from my billfold.

Nonetheless, I’ll see “Return of the King” along with everybody else hankering for an ending. Whenever I’m chided for being a killjoy, for nitpicking the rising torrent of illogic (love that gaping sewer hole in the middle of Helm’s Deep, the “impenetrable” fortress), or for considering the tale’s queasy political and social conservatism, I think of how much respect I have for the whole undertaking. And how I wish I could like it.

Larry Terenzi is an entertainment writer based in Los Angeles

LINK

This is how i felt when i first watched fellowship. i thought it was boring and the drawn out "heaving bosoms" didn't really do it for me.

but i discovered that the more times i watch fellowship, the better it becomes. that's pretty rare if you ask me. two towers was also great, and engaged me on a more emotional level. now i can't wait for return of the king.

as for the abrupt cut. that didn't really bother me, but maybe i just watch too many art films and i'm used to strange or sudden endings.

i won't comment on the logic of the films. all i'll say is that this is a great trilogy, and i'll be watching it for years to come.

This guy claims to have read and loved the trilogy as an adolescent, yet now tries WAY too hard to find logic holes in the films. well guess what buddy? those very same holes exist in the books. I guess when he grew up, he forgot about the whole suspension of disbelief concept that allows fiction to be entertaining. IMHO, he's a twit trying to make himself look smart by distancing himself from the LOTR juggernaut.

It was an entertaining trilogy, however; I still dont understand the insane fanboys that worship these films :lol:

I vote overrated, although I dont think it is an "illogical mess"... just overrated ;)

One day, very soon, I have to stop ranting angrily at people who aren't aware of (or are aware of, but still enjoy) Jackson's glaring, egocentric rewrites of Tolkien's characters.

Why do I have to stop? I'm going to simultaneously weep and experience an embolism. I'm never going to see Return of the King.

I, too, grumbled about the altering of characters and/or scenes after seeing The Fellowship of the Ring; I was generally disappointed in it thus did not even see The Two Towers until I rented it a couple of weeks ago. Some time having passed, I decided to be more open-minded about the whole thing and did enjoy this film more. My daughter and I went to the sold-out Return of the King last nite and enjoyed it immensely. I thought the Battle of the Pelennor Fields before the city of Minas Tirith was breathtaking. The movie, as was the book, was action-packed once it started rolling. Looking around the audience once briefly, everyone seemd to be feeling the same way I did; awestruck, smiling, wide-eyed; my biggest fear after the earlier episodes concerning the demise of The Lord of the Nazgul proved to be unfounded. That scene from the book being a personal favorite was left mostly intact. Overall, as a trilogy, it was good, the 3rd movie being the most entertaining by far, in my opinion. It was a huge undertaking for a director and cast to attempt to bring the story to the big screen. Were there scenes that I thought important left out? Yes. Character alterations? Yes, again. In the book, Gandalf was a bad-ass wizard, capable of some serious sorcery; in the movie he's a badass with a his staff but not much in the way of fireworks. One of the things I so loved about the books was the endless details, history, songs and/or poems, sometimes in Elvish, that so enriched the story and I understand it would be literally impossible to make the movies encompassing all of that. I KNOW the story, characters, how things REALLY happened and find myself able to use the visual scenes from the movie to enrich the story as a whole, mentally discarding any crap that never happened. So I've gone from being bitterly offended initially to being able to enjoy the story on the whole and will probably buy it once it is released as a trilogy.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sion
I guess when he grew up, he forgot about the whole suspension of disbelief concept that allows fiction to be entertaining.

True True

I agree with Sion here, he makes the claim of being a fan when he was a teen, yet he whines about the things that are in the movie, but also in the book. If he wants to whine, at least do it about the things that weren't in the book. That makes more sense to me, I would even understand why he didn't like the movies if he complained about what parts of the movies don't match up with the books, but this. This is just sheer idiocy. His article is a failure at logic, not the wonderfully done movie trilogy.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bloodslick
One day, very soon, I have to stop ranting angrily at people who aren't aware of (or are aware of, but still enjoy) Jackson's glaring, egocentric rewrites of Tolkien's characters.

Why do I have to stop? I'm going to simultaneously weep and experience an embolism. I'm never going to see Return of the King.

I recognize your right to your opinion. I didn't understand many of the alterations myself, but the interviews on the extended DVD's have put my mind somewhat to rest. The writers are pretty forthright about why they made the changes that they did, and how difficult those decisions were.

Anyone who thinks that Jackson picked up tolkien's book and wiped his ass with it just isn't paying attention.

Too many people are jumping on the "It's Cool to Slag Big Films" bandwagon these days, it's making me sick.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Deflok Too many people are jumping on the "It's Cool to Slag Big Films" bandwagon these days, it's making me sick.

Couldn't agree more Mr.D.

But what really bugs me about message boards related to RoTK these days are the: "tee hee hee, teh hobbits are gey!"

shut.the.fuck.up

To be fair, if you want to prattle on about homoerotic undertones (or overtones) here or Fark or where ever, that's fine. I suppose that's the point of message boards to a certain extent. What really pissed me off were the people laughing hysterically during RoTK every time Pippen looked at Merry. If that's your bag, stick to American Pie movies.

In closing, I loved the trilogy of movies. I have not read the books but from what I understand the plot is the same as is the movies, so this guy's article about a lack of logic in Mr.Jackson's films is pointless. Just another clown who want's to take a stab at noteriety for being the ONE CRITIC WHO DARES BE DIFFERENT --do us a favour, STFU

See, the fanboys of this film are rabid :p They are in the same genre as Trekkies :(

to the 3 people that thought the trilogy sucked, i have one thing to say to you........

NO.

Once again, a rabid fanboy lashes out :D. Not once did I say it sucks, in fact they were entertaining to me...however; I do find them grossly overrated.

Bring on more lashings from the fans!!

The only one I've watched to completion so far was Fellowship of the Ring (fell asleep during The Two Towers, and I'm in no hurry to see Return of the King), Fellowship was okay, but Tolkein isn't really my thing. Somewhere down the road I may read the LOTR trilogy (I tried on a few occasions, but it's so cumbersome and such a slow read), and I've decided that I'll watch the movies only after I've read the books, so I know what the story is really about

I for one noticed the changes, but felt that they told the story well and loved the finished product- If nothing else this trilogy has helped to mainstream fantasy literature and for that I must thank the director heartily......

I wouldnt be caught dead in a costume in a movie theatre, nor do i own ANY piece of Lord of the Rings paraphenelia... i never even heard of Lord of the Rings or "Tolkien" before the first installment came out....

BUT... I have to say that Return of the King was the GREATEST movie i have ever seen, and my reason is because it captured my facination of fiction, and my interest of adventure/fantasy... im not quite sure what did it for me, but that movie really stuck out... so i voted "masterpiece"

I'd pay $7 to see Pippen and Merry get it on.

:D

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Deflok
Too many people are jumping on the "It's Cool to Slag Big Films" bandwagon these days, it's making me sick.

Yep. Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions anyone? After seeing those movies, I almost laughed at how people said they sucked. Those movies are masterpieces, especially Reloaded.

-Lasereth

I think the sad part here are the number of people of who haven't read the books. The Hobbit was required reading when I was in school, and the LOTR trilogy was a must after that. It's a shame that a masterpiece written only 50 odd years ago is so alien to the kids, and even many younger teachers. I work in a juvenile delinquent day treatment program, and expected the kids to be less well read than most. But I was shocked to find out that either of the teachers that I work with had not only not read the Hobbit and the LOTR books, but had never heard of other classics like 1984 and The Lord of the Flies. When did it become such a terrible thing to read? I know that this post is probably better left for another thread, and even another forum, but some of the comments here and elsewhere on the boards scare the crap outta me when it comes to the current education system, and I had to post my thoughts. I mean, what the hell do kids read in school now? Or don't they read at all?

And now for a lighter post, I think that the changes that were made were necessary to make the story viable in the alternate media, where you only have at most 3 hours to tell the same story that was written to be read over whatever amount of time you want to take to read it. Yes, there are quite a few excerpts I would have liked to have seen on the big screen, but I would not like to sit in a theatre for 5-6 hours at time for that to happen. As far as I'm concerned, great casting, great dp work, good editing of an already great story, all go to make these movies by far the best fantasy films to ever be created.

The books are awesome things by themselves, and the movies are masterpieces and works of art.

FoTR was my most favourite because it had an equal balance of fighting, journeying, talking, and other what not. Very cool.

TTT was very good, but not as good as FoTR.

RoTK sucks you into Middle Earth. However it had alot of fighting. But who doesnt like that?

wya wya way way way way way WAYYYYYY overrated.

They are Good and all, but I'm sick and tired of everyone treating these films like the best thing since sliced bread.

It was an excellent movie, very well done.

A masterpiece? I don't think so
You need one more category for just below masterpiece.

And I've learned to enjoy the movies for what they are,
a visual experience...with a great plot supporting it.

You can never, really perfectly translate a detailled book saga
into a movie or series of movies.

It just doesn't translate to the masses well.
He did a better job than most doing it.

The only masterpiece in film making IMHO is Seven Samurai by Akira Kurosawa however ROTK is still an absolutely amazing film.

I agree with Rogue that there should be another category under "Masterpiece"

I've read The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy about fifteen times now. For years, I always said that, in order to make a movie out of it, it would:
1- Have to be animated - No way could all the violent battle scenes be shown with real actors, and
2- Have to be a minimum of 12 hours.

Well, in years that followed, CGI has taken care of rule 1, and Jackson came close to rule 2

Whem I first heard about the making of these movies, my first thought was, "Please do the books justice - don't pull a Bakshi."

Well, now that I've seen 2 out of 3 of the movies, I must give Peter Jackson credit. I feel it's far from a masterpiece, but as with any true fan of the books, it would be impossible to totally please me no matter what. Tolkien and I have created Middle Earth in my imagination so many times that I find it incredible that I didn't spend all my time shaking my head and saying, "no - no - that's all wrong . . . . "

I'll give hime credit for making a set of fairly true-to-the-books movies.

Although - I've heard The Cleansing of the Shire has been left off - How do they explain what happened to Saruman? Too bad.

Quote:

Originally posted by yournamehere
Although - I've heard The Cleansing of the Shire has been left off - How do they explain what happened to Saruman? Too bad.

You mean Scourging of the Shire? And you say you've read the novels 15 times eh ;) Saruman's fate is sort of made clear in the film, I won't say how due to spoilers but I'm sure the extended edition will have more detail, maybe we'll see Grima get sliced too.

For all you people out there that don't know me. I'm a huge starwars fan. I love the old 70's triology. I watch it all the time. For it's time I would have to say that it is a masterpiece. The new ones that are comming out now are not the same. I would have to say that LOTR tril is soooo much better. The CG is wonderful. The way that all of them just flow together. It is amazing that I like it so much better than the starwars (pre) triology. I'm a die hard fan but I have to hand ot to the makers of LOTR they did a better job than Lucas.

STAR WARS: Science Fiction Fantasy for all ages, especially kids
LOTR: Fantasy for older people and a few kids

They shouldn't be compared, you might as well compare Mulholland Drive to Dude, Where's my Car?

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Deflok
Dude, Where's my Car?

Worst movie ever. Sorry, had to comment on that piece of shit. :) I can't stand it.

Anyway, how Saruman lost power is explained in the movie through references, and it's actually in the extended edition (Jackson decided to cut out all of Christopher Lee's scenes). I've not read the novels, so I don't have any idea what the scouring of the shire is, but it sure sounds bad. Jackson also said that he wanted the trilogy to have a more hopeful-but-sad ending compared to a dreadful ending.

-Lasereth

It was ok to watch, entertaining for sure.

But so extreemly overrated by all its "fanboys" it makes me sick.

If LOTR series is no masterpeice, could someone name a true masterpiece?

Quote:

Originally posted by charlesesl
If LOTR series is no masterpeice, could someone name a true masterpiece?

Seven Samurai, if anyone says otherwise, I'll rape your anus.

Quote:

Originally posted by Destrox
It was ok to watch, entertaining for sure.

But so extreemly overrated by all its "fanboys" it makes me sick.

well put.

What really bothers me is all the fucking "hype" and fanboys and everything have actually negativly impacted my enjoyment of the film.

Also assuming your audience watched the extended edition DVD's to get all the plot points is not cool. Quit trying to make every shot into some epic deal and save some fucking time so you can fucking EXPLAIN THE WHOLE STORY!!

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Deflok
You mean Scourging of the Shire? And you say you've read the novels 15 times eh ;) Saruman's fate is sort of made clear in the film, I won't say how due to spoilers but I'm sure the extended edition will have more detail, maybe we'll see Grima get sliced too.

O.K. - I'm totally embarassed now - the last read-through was a few years ago.. Thanks for not explaining it - it was a rhetorical question.

Never seen any of the movies and have no will to either.

Quote:

Don't YOU mean the "Scouring of the Shire". Not Scourging. As long as we're nitpicking each other's posts...

Quote:

Originally posted by Derwood
Don't YOU mean the "Scouring of the Shire". Not Scourging. As long as we're nitpicking each other's posts...

Haha, touche, now don't YOU in fact mean........ Bah! I got nothin'.

Quote:

Originally posted by Derwood
Don't YOU mean the "Scouring of the Shire". Not Scourging. As long as we're nitpicking each other's posts...

The period goes before the quotations at the end of a quote, not after! "Here's an example."

P.S. Sorry. :)

-Lasereth

I can't believe only 6 other people think it's overrated, way too long, and cheesy...