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

[jklinders]

I'm gonna catch a bit of flame for this probably but here goes.

I liked the movies. I can't stand the books. The books have some of the worst pacing I have seen in all of literature. Every time something even remote interesting was about to come up it was like Tolkien thought, "Hmmm, I think it's naptime for so and so." he pulled the mythos from a variety of different sources and put a slightly different spin on them. Also putting all these elements together was a fairly difficult accomplishment. I'll give him that credit. He gave us the foundation of modern fantasy for good and ill.

But at the end of the day it was like reading a tourist brochure about a place that never existed. Lengthy passages describing the scenery but no real soul. I read those books twice and got almost all the way through a third time. Maybe I thought I was missing something to appreciate when I was 15 reading it the first time ( I wasn't) or maybe I thought my taste in writing styles would adapt (it didn't) I just fucking hate Tolkien's writing style.

So I loved the movies for their way to break this into a form that is palatable for me to digest.

These new hobbit movies are a different matter altogether. I actually enjoyed reading the Hobbit. It did not need to be stretched into a three part monstrosity.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

8 hours? lol. Guess you only watched the theatrical version. Best go watch the extended version, is around 12 hours long and adds more character moments and story elements to it.

Aragon had motivation, he was just conflicted about being king of men. Even Elrond said that his destiny was to rule men though he thought men were weak and didnt trust himself.

Frodo doesnt trust Gollum. He sees in Gollum what he might end up as and has to believe that Gollum can change and be a good person so that he, Frodo, can believe he wont be corrupted.

Gandalf isnt a human. An he rarely uses magic in the movie. When he comes back as Gandalf the White he says its because its to deal with Saruns attack on middle earth and he manipulates people to achieve this goal.

Gimili and Legolas hate each other, it is race hate. You really dont need to understand the whys or the history of this. Just how they grow to like each other. An know, thats not just for fighting, just how they interact and spend time together. The story takes place over months. From what i gather I think it started from the Hobbit when the elves turned their back when the dwarves home was being attacked by that dragon. May be wrong though, read the Hobbit around 30 years ago, maybe others know better than me.

I read the Hobbit as a kid. Lord of the Rings was such a monotonous and boring book with zero excitement in the writing that i gave up after reading half of book 1. The movies are excellent. All the information and characterization is there if you pay attention to it all.

Atleast you didnt say "why didnt the eagles fly them there" and i commend you for that. An again, for people that say that, the eagles are not taxis and dont give a shit about middle earth. Also if you want to sneak into the enemy area to destroy a ring, flying on eagles isnt very subtle. An not worth the risk if failure means the enemy gets the ring.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

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 . . ."?

Tom Bombadil - sorry, i read half the fellowship. An the bit was Tom was pointless. He was just some wierdo in the wood. Never got why fans get so worked up by his deletion from the movie, he adds nothing to it. An looking on the internet he adds nothing to any of the books.

People mention the eagles. But if you want to destroy a ring in enemy territory, why would you fly it in using eagles....its going to get you seen. An is it worth the risk? They had to be sneaky and stay under the radar. Thought that was just common sense? Though i agree, it is a question that should have been covered in the movie. Though it was never answered in the books. Think Tolkin answered it in a letter after the book was published.

Scouring of the Shire was in it, well in a vision in the water with Galadriel. In the commentary Peter Jackson said the movie had to have an ending especially after the 12 length of the movie. From what i gather they destroy Sarun and get home and find Hobbiton destroy and in slavery. Like when soldiers came back from WW2 to find London in ruins. I also remember Saruman being alive as well at the end. And after a 12 hour movie and killing the great evil eye, you cant have a down beat ending. Its not that Peter ignored it, just measured it against the 3 movies as a whole and deemed it not worth doing and detracting from the story, which is, Frodo taking the ring to Mordor and evil being defeated.

End of the day they did an amazing job. Even for a fan of the books you would have to see the amount of love and attention to detail by Peter Jackson and crew, especially watching all the extras.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

You're never the only one (and you're...well, I'm never the first one to say that) but anyway, Lord of the Rings...I hated those boring movies. I got through Fellowship but I couldn't make it through Two Towers and had no interest left to give King a chance. I got through the books after a while but couldn't stand those either. On the other hand I loved The Hobbit as a book but I haven't seen the first part of the Hobbit film trilogy and don't really plan on watching any of those.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

You're not alone OP.

I have no interest whatsoever in the LoftR movies. I've seen bits and pieces of them on TV and read The Hobbit for a class in high school many years ago, but none of it does anything for me. When I'm around people gushing about them I like to (jokingly) quote Randal from Clerks 2.

 

[Pebblig]

I've never enjoyed them much, but then I haven't managed to stay awake through them!

Any film over 2.5 hours I struggle to stay awake through unfortunately, I've also heard the films are slightly different to the books with the ending of the trilogy being changed? But I can't say because I tried reading the books when I was a bit too young and only ever made it through the Fellowship.

The Hobbit on the other hand I adore, it's a lot simpler and easier to read (but it was intended as a children's book I believe so that's probably why) and I've read that 7 or 8 times. The movie trilogy of the Hobbit, at least the first third released isn't that great in my opinion. Jackson has tried to make it too much like LoTR, with adding battles and things in and changing bits (When I've always thought a direct, true book to movie making of the Hobbit (in the same style as the HP movies where they are true to the book) would have worked really well).

 

[TakerFoxx]

Anyway, I'm going to go with the majority here: I love both the books and the movies. I read the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings as a kid, was thrilled when the movies came out (seriously, it was LotR mania at my house for almost half a decade), and was in the "Love It!" camp when the Hobbit film divided the fanbase.

So yeah, go Tolkien, go Jackson.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

The movies were okay but i never read the books so its more of an outsider point of view.

 

[Bad Jim]

People mention the eagles. But if you want to destroy a ring in enemy territory, why would you fly it in using eagles....its going to get you seen.

What exactly is the average orc going to do when he sees them? Even if he is super smart and actually figures out what they are attempting, they can fly very high, so he cannot hit them with arrows, he cannot catch up with them and he has nothing convenient like a radio to warn Sauron with.

Plus, there were enough eagles to play a decisive role in the Battle of Five Armies in The Hobbit, so any orcs that just happen to be on Mt Doom when the eagles get there can probably just be killed.

And is it worth the risk?

It's a whole lot less risky than setting off on foot without a clue how you'll get into Mordor, then trusting someone thoroughly corrupted by Saurons' ring to get you across the border. Then dodging orc patrols for about 60 miles, with limited ability to use the ring because Sauron will see you.

The eagle plan is actually very low risk, compared to the plan they chose.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

People mention the eagles. But if you want to destroy a ring in enemy territory, why would you fly it in using eagles....its going to get you seen.

What exactly is the average orc going to do when he sees them? Even if he is super smart and actually figures out what they are attempting, they can fly very high, so he cannot hit them with arrows, he cannot catch up with them and he has nothing convenient like a radio to warn Sauron with.

Plus, there were enough eagles to play a decisive role in the Battle of Five Armies in The Hobbit, so any orcs that just happen to be on Mt Doom when the eagles get there can probably just be killed.

And is it worth the risk?

It's a whole lot less risky than setting off on foot without a clue how you'll get into Mordor, then trusting someone thoroughly corrupted by Saurons' ring to get you across the border. Then dodging orc patrols for about 60 miles, with limited ability to use the ring because Sauron will see you.

The eagle plan is actually very low risk, compared to the plan they chose.

They had those flying dragon things. Even Gandalf and Galadriel were effect and scared of the ring. Also the Eagles would be effected and corrupted by the ring. The Hobbits were innocent and never seeked power so they could carry it.

 

[jesse220]

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.

Social commentary is done through analogy/allegory all the time., I would say more often than not. And if people want to take away an anti-hate message from any movie, that can only be good, right?

 

[Nadia Castle]

The Lord of the Rings is a strange one in that it always seems so polarizing. I think it's the best set of films I've ever seen, but cannot stand the books. I've tried about nine times to read them and given up every time. Yet I know people who tell me the books are the best ever written and the films are an abomination to Tolkins work. I also know people who can't stand them in any form and other people who adore them. I don't think I know anyone who thinks their just 'alright'.

 

[JaceArveduin]

People mention the eagles. But if you want to destroy a ring in enemy territory, why would you fly it in using eagles....its going to get you seen.

What exactly is the average orc going to do when he sees them? Even if he is super smart and actually figures out what they are attempting, they can fly very high, so he cannot hit them with arrows, he cannot catch up with them and he has nothing convenient like a radio to warn Sauron with.

Plus, there were enough eagles to play a decisive role in the Battle of Five Armies in The Hobbit, so any orcs that just happen to be on Mt Doom when the eagles get there can probably just be killed.

And is it worth the risk?

It's a whole lot less risky than setting off on foot without a clue how you'll get into Mordor, then trusting someone thoroughly corrupted by Saurons' ring to get you across the border. Then dodging orc patrols for about 60 miles, with limited ability to use the ring because Sauron will see you.

The eagle plan is actually very low risk, compared to the plan they chose.

The simple answer to the eagles is that Manwe only let's them interfere whenever the situation is at it's most dire. (If you don't know who Manwe is, think Zeus, but more bad-ass.) I'm fairly sure he doesn't let the eagle's do all of the work, since the Valar have had a fairly hands-off approach to Middle-Earth since the First Age, and regarded Sauron as the Free People's problems, since they'd already dealt with Melkor.

Seriously, there's so much back-story that makes even more things in Lord of the Rings books just make sense. Dwarf and Elf distrust? Goes all the way back to the First Age, and isn't helped by the fact that the dwarves aren't as nature-friendly, or even one of the races that was originally intended to inhabit Ea, whom the Elves were the First-born. Hell, Middle-Earth used to not even have a sun or moon, just the night and stars. Then they made lamps, which Melkor tore down. Then they made glowing trees in Valinor, which Melkor lead a light-eating spider to, allowing her to eat it. Then they got fed up and created the sun and moon.

If anyone wants to hear about why Tom was important, lemme know.

 

[Bad Jim]

They had those flying dragon things.

The eagles were quite willing to engage the Fell Beasts at the Battle of the Morannon. And they couldn't have been permanently airbourne, there was a good chance that they wouldn't even have time to scramble.

Even Gandalf and Galadriel were effect and scared of the ring. Also the Eagles would be effected and corrupted by the ring.

One member of the Fellowship tried to kill Frodo to take the ring, so it's not as if the plan they used was better in that regard. And they would only need a few hours for the whole journey, giving the ring little time to work on them.

The Hobbits were innocent and never seeked power so they could carry it.

The only reason the ring was actually cast into the fires of Mt Doom is because of an accident that happened while two corrupted hobbits were fighting over it.

 

[Bonecrusher]

Gandalf is not a human.

I am talking according to "THE LORD OF THE RINGS" books. In there, he is counted as a "Wizard", not a Maiar.

 

[Bad Jim]

The simple answer to the eagles is that Manwe only let's them interfere whenever the situation is at it's most dire.

Why did the eagles fight in the Battle of Five Armies in The Hobbit then?

 

[JaceArveduin]

The simple answer to the eagles is that Manwe only let's them interfere whenever the situation is at it's most dire.

Why did the eagles fight in the Battle of Five Armies in The Hobbit then?

I'm fairly sure that wiping out a good chunk of what's left of Durin's line, all of the men from Lake-Town, and most of the elven warriors of Mirkwood counts as "dire"

The eagles also didn't win the battle for them, seeing as they showed up near the end of it. You could say they were more of a routing force then anything. I mean, I'm quite sure there wasn't a single eagle that did as much damage as Beorn did during that fight.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

They had those flying dragon things.

The eagles were quite willing to engage the Fell Beasts at the Battle of the Morannon. And they couldn't have been permanently airbourne, there was a good chance that they wouldn't even have time to scramble.

Even Gandalf and Galadriel were effect and scared of the ring. Also the Eagles would be effected and corrupted by the ring.

One member of the Fellowship tried to kill Frodo to take the ring, so it's not as if the plan they used was better in that regard. And they would only need a few hours for the whole journey, giving the ring little time to work on them.

The Hobbits were innocent and never seeked power so they could carry it.

The only reason the ring was actually cast into the fires of Mt Doom is because of an accident that happened while two corrupted hobbits were fighting over it.

The eagle thing, thats just what Tolkien said was the answer.

Tolkien said the Eagles are not taxis. I guess they dont give a shit. Even the Ents didnt give a crap till some trees got cut down. lol

The accident at the end with the hobbits was based on destiny. As in, if Frodo had killed Gollum when he met him instead of thinking their was something that could be redeemed from him then at the end there would be nothing to stop Frodo taking the ring. Yep, its a cop out ending. Gollum was destined to destroy the ring. An it was Frodos humanity and belief that people can change and be redeemed that enabled the ending. Its a catholic thing.

Also Arragorn never tried to get the ring. Where as Boromirs main mission was to get the ring from the start before he even saw the ring, that was in the extended addition. Had nothing to do with corruption with him to begin with.

Just have to accept it. I agree with your opinions you have. But in the end you just have to accept it and go along with the story.

 

[TakerFoxx]

Gandalf is not a human.

I am talking according to "THE LORD OF THE RINGS" books. In there, he is counted as a "Wizard", not a Maiar.

Wizard is a subset of Maiar. As is Balrog, actually. Maybe they knew each other as children, and the Balrog used to steal Gandalf's lunch money.

 

[Dr. Cakey]

I've said this before, but seriously people, when someone makes an "Am I the only one that...?" thread, the only reasonable response is "Yes, you're the only one. You fucking monster."