Am I the only person who didn't like the LotR movies?

[Rblade]

ofcourse, LoTR is racest. Can we please all get off the high horses.

question one: do you like the fantasy setting? no? this movie might not have been for you from the beginning
question two: do you like the epic battle/heroism/bravehearth speech angle? no? Don't bother with the movie.

as to the characters, I think it's a combination of either not reading or not caring about the books and not being invested in it and thus not "getting" it.

Frodo starts up cheerfull and is slowly consumed by the ring, and becomes an asshole. He trusts Gollum because he sees in him a kindred spirit. Gollum has gone through the same hell and thus he feels sorry for him. I think this is a pretty interesting story arch about somebody pure and cheerfull being corrupted.

Aragorn doesn't want to be king, for the better part of 2 movies he is actively fighting the fate Gandalf has set out for him. He just wants to sit down with his hot elf wife and chill. Yet throughout the movie he shows that unlike the current lords he is noble, and not because of his blood but through actions of resisting the ring, setting the dead free after fullfilling their oath etc. His reluctance to be king combined with his inherent goodness makes him the perfect king.

Gandalf is a deus ex machina, a literal god. Yet everything is crumbelling around him. But his power is letting him down, the balrog nearly kills him, it took him ages to figure out what the ring did, he didn't see Sarumans corruption, he didn't remember the route through Moria, he couldn't get them over the mountain. What saved him? Eagles, the proper smell and his undying will to safe the purity of the hobbits, Eomer's men. His time and the time off the elves is gone, but before the time of man can come he has to face that the time of fireworks is over, and he has to spur man towards the greatness they are meant to achieve.

Thats just me rambeling off some of the things I see and find interesting. Yet I love fantasy and the epic scope, so take that with all the salt you want. You can obviously not like it all you want but if you say the characters are uninteresting I'm going to get a little defensive.

 

[Legion]

The first time I saw them I was blown away. I'd never really been into fantasy as a setting and I got really into it. Over time I started to notice more and more flaws and things to my distaste, as well as the films increasing the amount of scenes completely made up for the films (which is idiotic because the books aren't exactly lacking them) and making the characters out to be more comedic/stupid than they were originally.

Then there was the fact that they released multiple versions of each film, adding new deleted scenes each time, but years apart so by that point almost everybody would be buying them again to get those scenes.

I still like the films, but I don't have the blind adoration of them that I had in my teens. It doesn't help that they are really long either. I am happy to watch a film of any length the first time, but if I have seen it before, then sitting through three hours of something when I know what is going to happen is just boring.

On a side note, I wish they'd stop making crappy games from the series as well. It has had some great ones, but it's become too much of a cash cow. An Elder Scrolls style game could be amazing, but they normally create cheap titles from lesser known developers and rely on the title of the series to bring in the sales.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

My guess is that, in modelling his stories off Anglo Saxon sagas, he also withdrew the (real-life) geography of such stories and did little to shake up "the race thing": European Middle Earthers remained white, whereas everybody else fit the cardinal profile. Even if they don't feature that much in the books in the first place.

Most likely, however historical Europe wasn't so purely white. People had been moving around for millenia, Egyptian copper was mixed with British tin to make bronze in pre-historic times, for example.

You would expect more ethnic diversity than "none at all".

EDIT: In any case, my point was simultaneously having all-white heroes while all dark skinned people are evil AND trying to say racism is bad by having two white humanoids become friends wasn't the best idea.

To be fair, both Frodo and Gollum are Hobbits. Gollum has just shrivelled up into skin and bones because he's been consumed by the ring, as Bilbo and anybody else would've.
As for the race thing... well, there're lots of races. Height, lifespan, language, genetically and culturally passed on skills feature prominently among men, elves, dwarves, hobbits, orcs and so many more. Most of these just happen to be white. Skin color is just one of the many traits that might distinguish one race from the next. So I would argue there're lots of races in Middle Earth, just not as many skin tones.
This is all rationalization of course. I maintain "they're all white" because that's how the Anglo Saxon sagas went - made by white people about white people.
Then again, Norse mythology was by white people about white gods, but the Thor movie has black Heimdall. So there's that, too. Jackson could've thrown in black characters, and it would've been his right to. He just didn't, and that's OK as well. The problem with these things is that they blow over like it's a big thing when it shouldn't.

 

[Alarien]

The Lord of the Rings movies are easily my favorite movies ever. That said, the book The Lord of the Rings is my favorite book ever. It's not even a contest.

And that's the issue. The Lord of the Rings movies were written as a love letter to Tolkien and his fans. They are NOT written with the intent of converting people who did not already like those stories. While they were written with some concern for the uninitiated, they are still geared towards those who enjoy that specific genre and those story mores and ideals.

This actually is what counters all of your concerns above. Each of these characters exists for a reason, however, that reason isn't readily apparent in the movies, or even in the books.

Aragorn in the movies is written in a way that gives him a character arc, which makes him more relate-able to some people out there (those who didn't read the book, but like the story). In the books, Aragorn is the same man at the Black Gates as he is in Rivendell. He is, and always has been, the future King of Gondor.

Gandalf is a demi-god (Maia spirit). He's not convenient, he's there for a purpose as dictated by the actual Olympian style-gods, the Valar (if you treat Eru as the only "true" God character). Of course, that is not something apparent in the movies, or even the book, so it could come across as convenient.

The racism between Dwarves and Elves is not racism, it is a deep seated mistrust that has been long established in the history of Middle Earth. The most direct story is that of Eregion and the forging of the Rings of Power, where the Elves were eventually betrayed and attacked by Sauron and the Dwarves shut themselves in Moria and refused to aid the Elves, despite years of cooperation. Again, this is not something the movie has time to deal with.

Frodo's tolerance for Gollum is something that you really have to read into to understand. Gollum is what Frodo will become if he cannot complete his quest. This makes Gollum particularly sympathetic to Frodo. Frodo doesn't just want to save Gollum, he needs to do so.

Of course, these are all things that are not as apparent in the movies as they could or should be, but after 11.5 hours (the extended editions are the ONLY editions, in my book) they just can't afford more time devoted to them. They rely on the fans, perhaps too much, to know these things.

That's ok. That's still the spirit of the Lord of the Rings and you are not at all at fault for not having this context already.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Then again, Norse mythology was by white people about white gods, but the Thor movie has black Heimdall. So there's that, too. Jackson could've thrown in black characters, and it would've been his right to. He just didn't, and that's OK as well. The problem with these things is that they blow over like it's a big thing when it shouldn't.

I personally don't have a problem with the movies being white. But when you have everyone be white, you shouldn't try to discuss racism with the analogy of two white people. Have Gimli and Legolas not get on because Legolas' dad locked up Gimli's dad, fine, no problem with that. If you want to say something about racial diversity, you need to be racially diverse.

Similarly the X-Men films can't claim to be about the persecution of gay people by having straight mutants as analogies with no gay people. Just make the movie about interesting characters played by actors from Commonwealth nations, and some boring people that hang around them, fine. If you want to say something about homophobia, you need gay people.

Or the Southern Vampire series also can't be about persecution of gay people with inhuman monsters preying on humans as analogies for gay people, with terrible bit part gay characters. If you want...actually, no, just forget that one and do something else.

It's a having your cake and eating it too thing, IMHO.

The Lord of the Rings movies were written as a love letter to Tolkien and his fans.

Until about halfway through the second film. The first movie was great, things start going wrong just before the Battle at Helms Deep.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

You realise you are talking about a story that was written in and around WWII and was the most vast and impressive fantasy novel ever when it was released. It went against fantasy norms, and invented a baseplate fantasy universe which others still copy today.

It also reflected social situations at the time. Of course it did, writers draw from personal feelings and experience, so the era has to have played a big part in the creation of the characters and their motivations. Nowadays this can seem alien and weird to us, but should be just accepted to enjoy the overall story. That is how the story was told, and how it pioneered a genre.

Heaven forbid you try and read Tom Sawyer, Of Mice and Men... you may not get it at all!

 

[Charli]

Yes. In my world you are the only one. THE ONLY ONE.

And you will be vanquished by the light of the Valar!

Honestly they're the best adaptations of the book(s) we could have hoped for. If they're not your cup of tea then... okay?

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

Frodo doesn't seem to have much of an opinion about anything except that this Golum character whom he barely knows is apparently more trustworthy than his best friend.

Something to consider is that, aside from its other properties, the ring is highly addictive. Recall Smeagol murdering his friend when they first found the ring or Bilbo's strange outburst when he asks Frodo to give the ring back. The ring is fantasy heroin and Frodo and Gollum have the shared experience of being hooked on junk. Frodo identifies with Gollum because at some level he realizes that he is turning into Gollum. The movie points to this explicitly when (heavily paraphrasing here) he explains to Sam that if there is hope for Gollum then there is hope for himself. The converse is implied, if there is no hope for Gollum then there is no hope for Frodo.

Gandalf is just an incredibly convenient character who has awesome magic and endless knowledge but only when the situation demands it of him.

The movies don't go into this at all, but Sauron, Saruman and Gandalf are not men that are talented at magic but rather beings called Maiar. You could think of them as minor gods or angels.

Aragon's only motivation seems to be 'do what Gandalf tells me to do'

I suppose that there is very little in the way of personal agendas in LOTR. Everyone is mostly wrapped up in the larger struggle. I don't get the impression that Aragorn would do much differently in Gandalf's absence. They're both uber good guys.

Legolas and Gimli are there to represent this racism that's eventually solved by them bonding over killing things together. But I never really care about their racial dispute because there are no other dwarfs and all the other elves are there to either fight battles or dispense plot information.

The Legolas and Gimli comic relief is corny as hell and one of things I don't like about the movie.

Sam seems to be the only guy with anything close to an actual personality and he's the least likable one.

Sam is cool as hell. Sam is very masculine, very bull headed character that maybe isn't everyone's cup of tea, YMMV, etc.

 

[OneCatch]

Aside from some obnoxiously obvious green-screening they look great and have some awesome scenes.

Are you talking about that truly hideous-looking scene in The Two Towers where Merry and Pippin are riding on the Ent? Because I remember thinking that looked like shit in 2003.

Spoiler: That scene is literally not much better than this

Which was made in 1965 or something.

----------------

OT, I still like them a lot, but I think that a bit of that is probably rooted in nostalgia rather than a fair appraisal of them! What I will say is that they managed to condense a reasonably complete adaption of those books, which is itself no mean feat, and I still enjoy watching them now and again.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I think a lot of the love for the LoTR movies is due to the fact that at the time, it was an all geeks´ dream come true. As MovieBob would say, it was a milestone that hugely contributed to the geek culture becoming mainstream. So yeah, at the time everyone loved it because even with its flaws, just the fact that it got made was absolutely awesome.
On the other hand, I think the movies didn´t age that well. In a way, it´s just as stereotypical a fantasy epic as can be. Which is okay, obviously, as Tolkien´s books were basically what created that stereotype in the first place, but still.

I pretty much agree with this- They're a bit generic, but then that's more because everyone copied the fuck out of LotR for the last ever. Yes, some parts have aged poorly (one part that springs to mind is in the first movie, where Frodo is revived at Rivendell and there's a load of bloom and people's faces being superimposed on the screen, and it looks fucking dreadful), but overall they're at least very beautiful, detailed films even if the characterization leaves a little to be desired sometimes. I still love them though, if only because they're the only fantasy epic films that I've ever seen that really feel like they have some sense of scale in them. One of the many, many faults of Snow White and the Huntsman (which is total shite, but I'm illustrating a point here), is that it feels like it's all set in one square mile and there's about 100 people involved overall.

Also, people bitching about Jesse using 'Am I the only one'- It's a saying, deal with it and stop being so fucking pedantic.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Plenty of people hate it because it didn't represent the books perfectly, which is a fair argument.

For me, it was that the movies were so horribly paced. Seriously, three hours for a single movie and it still feels like you rushed it? The Two Towers was the only one I could bear to watch a second time, and even then I can't bring myself to watch it a third time. It doesn't help that most of the characters felt rather bland outside of what they do.

With that said, I never did watch the extended versions of the films. Maybe I'll like them more, as they are split into 6 DVDs of a normal movie length, and the extra scenes might fix the pacing. Not to mention, I've heard that they add more character development in the extended versions.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The first time I saw them I was blown away. I'd never really been into fantasy as a setting and I got really into it. Over time I started to notice more and more flaws and things to my distaste, as well as the films increasing the amount of scenes completely made up for the films (which is idiotic because the books aren't exactly lacking them) and making the characters out to be more comedic/stupid than they were originally.

I think they kind of had to with some. I can't remember Gimli in the books having much of a personality, he was just a dwarf who was sorta there. Same with Legolas. I kinda enjoyed their antics for what they were.

Then there was the fact that they released multiple versions of each film, adding new deleted scenes each time, but years apart so by that point almost everybody would be buying them again to get those scenes.

Didn't they just have the theatrical version and the extended edition? The latter of which was released about a few months before the sequel went to theaters, so as to get people excited. I think there was another one, but that was just with new behind the scenes footage, which I didn't care enough about to buy a whole new set of movies for.

OT: I really like the movies. I'm not as in love them as was, but I still watch them every year around Christmas. They're some of the most fantastically well produced movies I've ever seen, with a perfect mixture of CGI, pratical effects, real sets, and just good old fashion camera trickery. Eventhough the overuse of CGI armies in other movies over the years has reflected poorly on it.

I love the chemistry between the characters. Between Sam and Frodo. Gandalf and Frodo. Gandalf and Pippin. Pippin and Merry. By the end of the third movie I really got a sense of this strong comradery between the Fellowship.

 

[zerragonoss]

My guess is that, in modelling his stories off Anglo Saxon sagas, he also withdrew the (real-life) geography of such stories and did little to shake up "the race thing": European Middle Earthers remained white, whereas everybody else fit the cardinal profile. Even if they don't feature that much in the books in the first place.

Most likely, however historical Europe wasn't so purely white. People had been moving around for millenia, Egyptian copper was mixed with British tin to make bronze in pre-historic times, for example.

You would expect more ethnic diversity than "none at all".

EDIT: In any case, my point was simultaneously having all-white heroes while all dark skinned people are evil AND trying to say racism is bad by having two white humanoids become friends wasn't the best idea.

I always saw it as having elves and dwarves learn to get along was set as a way to blow our petty little differences out of the water. It seems to me randomly throwing in the real world skin color part would ruin that point.

On the films I pretty much agree with the, their amazing for what they accomplished but are only decent as films, sentiment. About the same way I think of the books. Also welcome to the escapist Jesse.

 

[Bonecrusher]

So, many people disliked the movie, in fact disliked the books. Characters, events, white race only are all belong to the books.

Most likely, however historical Europe wasn't so purely white. People had been moving around for millenia, Egyptian copper was mixed with British tin to make bronze in pre-historic times, for example.

You would expect more ethnic diversity than "none at all".

EDIT: In any case, my point was simultaneously having all-white heroes while all dark skinned people are evil AND trying to say racism is bad by having two white humanoids become friends wasn't the best idea.

Ah yes... famous "ethnic diversity" problem. Why we are trying too hard to be such politically correct nowadays, I really can't get it.

Look, yes, in real world we have different colored races. "Whites" in Europe, "Browns" in Middle East, "Blacks" in Africa, "Yellows" in Asia, "Reds" in America...
But "race" in a fictional world such as Middle Earth (Lord Of The Rings), is being represented with different humanoid species: Humans, Elfs, Dwarfs, Hobbits, Orcs etc... These are all different races.
So, in the story, the Fellowship has one elf, one dwarf, four hobbits and three (one of them is a mage) humans.
There you go, there is your "ethnic diversity" in the story.

Not every story obliged to have "Black" people just to appeal "ethnic diversity supporters".

 

[madwarper]

the Fellowship has one elf, one dwarf, four hobbits, one Maiar and three (one of them is a mage) two humans.

I fixed your post. Gandalf is not a human.

OT: As stand alone works of art, I found them mediocre. As adaptations of Tolkien's work, they were an utter disappointment. Key plot points and character portrayals were shit, but at least New Zealand was pretty.

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

Legolas and Gimli are there to represent this racism that's eventually solved by them bonding over killing things together. But I never really care about their racial dispute because there are no other dwarfs and all the other elves are there to either fight battles or dispense plot information.

Not to mention that everyone is white, except for a bunch of evil mooks to kill off. Huh.

I really don't mind if a film is oriented around a particular people and culture, European or otherwise. In fact if the film is a period drama or pseudo-historical fantasy setting I actually would find it somewhat jarring if it isn't. In Sergei Bodrov's [a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416044/"]Mongol[/a] all the actors can pass for east or central asian and I think it would have taken away from the film otherwise.

 

[Bad Jim]

You may be assured that JRR Tolkien is spinning in his grave. It's the reason why he refused to license any LOTR movies when he was alive. Where's Tom Bombadil? What happened to the Scouring of the Shire? Why did the Ents take so long to notice that the forest was being cut down?

And why not add some reason why the eagles couldn't carry the ring? That plothole has been known for ages. When critics of the Goldfinger novel pointed out that the gold in Fort Knox would be far too heavy to steal in a hurry, the film adaptation changed the plan. So why not have someone at the Council of Elrond say "you know, those eagles would be pretty good ring carriers" so someone else can say "they can't do it because . . ."?

 

[Kanova]

No, you aren't. I had a friend in college who didn't like it either. I know, it's really weird. We all treated him like he was a freakin' mutant. Sorry for your treatment, OP.

 

[Godhead]

Return of the King is alright, but the ending just drags SOOO long (and they never showed what Saruman did to the Shire, which was basically the best part of the book).

If memory serves right Peter Jackson said that he moved what happened in The Shire to an alternate timeline that Frodo sees when he gazes into the pool at Lothlórien during the Fellowship because if it actually happened it would be to sad. I could be wrong in this though, but I'm fairly certain that this is why.

OT: You got your own opinion man, as does everyone else. And no, you're never the only one.

 

[TakerFoxx]

You may be assured that JRR Tolkien is spinning in his grave. It's the reason why he refused to license any LOTR movies when he was alive. Where's Tom Bombadil? What happened to the Scouring of the Shire? Why did the Ents take so long to notice that the forest was being cut down?

And why not add some reason why the eagles couldn't carry the ring? That plothole has been known for ages. When critics of the Goldfinger novel pointed out that the gold in Fort Knox would be far too heavy to steal in a hurry, the film adaptation changed the plan. So why not have someone at the Council of Elrond say "you know, those eagles would be pretty good ring carriers" so someone else can say "they can't do it because . . ."?

Um, while he certainly pulled no punches when he criticized early attempts at a screenplay, he wasn't opposed to the idea of having his stuff adapted for film, seeing how he actually sold the film rights for the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings to United Artists in 1968. Nothing really came of it at the time, but he was open to the idea of a Lord of the Rings movie, even if he didn't like the ones that were being proposed at the time.