Did anyone dislike the Lord of the Rings trilogy?

Valmont

I enjoy movies and my tastes are not particularly niche or hard to please but I have yet to meet another person on earth who thoroughly hated The Lord of the Rings movies as much as I did. I read the books when I was much younger and I really enjoyed them but I found the films too slapstick, cheesy, cringe-worthy and downright annoying. For example the awful moment Eowyn stabs the witch-king and says 'I AM NO MAN' in response to 'No man can kill me!'

Am I alone? Should I delete my boards account and go into hiding?

Tordelback

Valmont wrote: »

For example the awful moment Eowyn stabs the witch-king and says 'I AM NO MAN' in response to 'No man can kill me!'

Errmm, you're entitled to your opinion about the films, but that bit's directly from the book. Well, she says something like "But no living man am I!", but the scene is essentially identical.

Sephiral

It's not really. The change is subtle, but the movies portray it as an end of an arc of her desiring to be a man and go riding into battle.

In the books, that change comes with Faramir while they are both convalescing later.

Tordelback

Sephiral wrote: »

It's not really. The change is subtle, but the movies portray it as an end of an arc of her desiring to be a man and go riding into battle.

In the books, that change comes with Faramir while they are both convalescing later.

All true, but the scene and (almost) the line itself, which are being described as cheesy and cringe-worthy, are basically the same. My point being that there's plenty of cheese in the books already.

More broadly, the films are a '90s adaptation of elements of the books, mixing them with the demands of a different medium and the interests of modern audiences (a role or two for women, for example), but still retaining some sizeable chunks of the original. Many of the lines and sequences I've seen people object to are almost verbatim, just juggled around. Many important themes are missed out or even inverted, in favour of OTT CGI setpieces and, as the OP says, slapstick, but there's an impressive amount of Tolkien's work on the screen all the same.

Tipsy McSwagger

Tolkien's family hated them and they have a point. Too much action and character assassinations. Read the book it's 1000 times better.

cloud493

I wouldn't say I dislike them, I just don't like them either, certainly wouldn't watch them again.

ScrubsfanChris

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Tolkien's family hated them and they have a point. Too much action and character assassinations. Read the book it's 1000 times better.

I think a lot of that was down to the fact none of them got any money out of the LOTR films or Hobbit becasue Tolkien sold the copyright to them away years ago.

Earthhorse

Yeah, I didn't like them either. But neither did I like the books.

Gollum was realized really well, I thought, but he was the only interesting character for me. I tried watching The Hobbit recently but it was just too boring and I couldn't be bothered.

Bowlardo

I really enjoyed the first one but after that it went down hill. The last one was poor. I read the hobbit when I was younger but not the rings.
they elf slow (liv tyler in particular) motion shot really got on my wick,


the new hobbit is desperate. There is no character you can warm too

billie1b

Watched about 30 minutes of the first one, turned it off and never watched anymore or the rest of them.

Sam Mac

Me. Vastly overrated. :cool:

Tell me how

I am struggling to think of a film which was better than the original book it was derived from.

However, I wouldn't say I hated the films but I couldn't help but think throughout it that if Frodo wasn't such a whingy beatch then it would have been done and dusted as a two part series rather than the trilogy it was.

e_e

Tell me how wrote: »

I am struggling to think of a film which was better than the original book it was derived from.

The Godfather?

Links234

I loved them, but they left WAY too much out and focused a lot on action.

Bipolar Joe

I watched them all, and really didn't enjoy it. I read the first book, and The Hobbit, when I was younger. liked The Hobbit, thought LOTR was boring as Hell. Didn't bother seeing The Hobbit movie, and I probably never will.

Taajsgpm

Valmont wrote: »

I enjoy movies and my tastes are not particularly niche or hard to please but I have yet to meet another person on earth who thoroughly hated The Lord of the Rings movies as much as I did. I read the books when I was much younger and I really enjoyed them but I found the films too slapstick, cheesy, cringe-worthy and downright annoying. For example the awful moment Eowyn stabs the witch-king and says 'I AM NO MAN' in response to 'No man can kill me!'

Am I alone? Should I delete my boards account and go into hiding?

Dont delete I agree, as a big fan of movies I couldnt wait to see them. I loved the first one, it really captured my vision of the book, I disliked the rest , bored me to tears sorry folks

crybaby

watched the trilogy three times now I think and I am sure that I could happily sit through all three of them again, it was a joy introducing my stepson to them

SameDiff

I did, desperately boring children's films.

Drawn out scenes, glaring cgi, wooden acting.....hated all of them.

Squeedily Spooch

Tell me how wrote: »

I am struggling to think of a film which was better than the original book it was derived from.

.

Jaws, The Godfather, The Shawshank Redemption (granted that was a novella not a full length book but still) Out of Sight, The Prestige, Blade Runner, L.A. Confidential to name but a few.

SameDiff

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Jaws, The Godfather, The Shawshank Redemption (granted that was a novella not a full length book but still) Out of Sight, The Prestige, Blade Runner, L.A. Confidential to name but a few.

....The Birds, Psycho, Carrie, The Green Mile, Cape Fear, An Education, Kes, The Graduate, Dr. Strangelove, Silence of the Lambs, Die Hard

Valmont

Tordelback wrote: »

Errmm, you're entitled to your opinion about the films, but that bit's directly from the book. Well, she says something like "But no living man am I!", but the scene is essentially identical.

Not at all - Eowyn could not have killed the Witch-King without Merry there to help her and Tolkein didn't write it as if it was the new ad for Gillette Venus razor blades.

Thanks everyone for making feel like a person again.

_Brian

Never saw it.
Have it downloaded ages but never seems like time to start it.

Theboinkmaster

I didn't like the films at all - 9 hours of people walking, even the trees walked

Liam McPoyle

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I didn't like the films at all - 9 hours of people walking, even the trees walked

Clerks II is awesome.

JohnMarston

Tokeins books will always surpass Jacksons rendition to film. But I see them as two different versions of the story. Original being best, films being the version that looked to make the story appeal to as large an international audience as possible.
The scenery, the props (all made from scratch) and the soundtrack made this film series memorable

Skerries

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

I think a lot of that was down to the fact none of them got any money out of the LOTR films or Hobbit becasue Tolkien sold the copyright to them away years ago.

I thought they were to get money if the films declared a profit but due to accountancy slight of hand the studios say that the films never did
edit: yeah looks like there is a lot of animosity and rightly deserved too
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Here-Why-Peter-Jackson-Can-t-Make-More-Tolkien-Adaptations-Even-He-Wanted-40760.html

Rosie Rant

Obviously the books are better but I do love the trilogy. I think the films are beautifully done. I really want to have another LOTR marathon again soon actually.

Decuc500

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Jaws, The Godfather, The Shawshank Redemption (granted that was a novella not a full length book but still) Out of Sight, The Prestige, Blade Runner, L.A. Confidential to name but a few.

LA Confidential and Out of Sight are great books and films. Just because the film is good doesn't automatically mean it's better than the book!

Potatoeman

I enjoyed the at the time but I watched the extended boxset recently and it was just too long.

Gbear

The first one and most of the 2nd are excellent.

Parts of the 2nd and most of the 3rd are pretty bad.

They're bad for a lot of the same reasons that the Hobbit films are - an overabundance of cheese, an overeliance on CGI and bad pacing.

_Kaiser_

Can't say I'm a fan.

I tried - I really did - but I kept switching off the first one about the point they get to the elves.. it was just boring and while I'm a sci-fi fan, fantasy isn't my thing. [heresy] I didn't like the Terry Pratchett books either as a kid [/heresy]

Of course with them being on Sky every 5 minutes at the time I did eventually see (most) of all 3 but aside from the visual effects which were very impressive, the whole story did nothing for me and the Sam/Frodo "bromance" was just cringe-worthily awkward at times.

Would not watch again - didn't even bother with the spin-offs.

Arne_Saknussem

Rosie Rant wrote: »

Obviously the books are better but I do love the trilogy. I think the films are beautifully done. I really want to have another LOTR marathon again soon actually.

There you go:

http://www.lighthousecinema.ie/newsarticle.php?sec=NEWS&_aid=1796

Not a huge fan myself but a trip to the Lighthouse is always worthwhile.

hmmm

Films are rarely as good as a book you have read, particulary if you've read it as a child. When you're reading a book you construct the "movie" in your own imagination, so when you see some directors take on it I think your mind invariably rebels and says "that's not how it was"

I thought LOTR was pretty good and not too drawn out. Tolkien spent a lot of the book setting scenes and imagining a history which I remember skipping past reading the book, and I end up doing the same with the film.

Now the Hobbit. A short childrens book. As a trilogy. Now that's a disaster of a movie.

Rosie Rant

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

There you go:

http://www.lighthousecinema.ie/newsarticle.php?sec=NEWS&_aid=1796

Not a huge fan myself but a trip to the Lighthouse is always worthwhile.

Ooh!

Zubeneschamali

In one of the documentaries in the Fellowship of the Ring DVD set, there's a telling contrast between folks talking about Tolkien writing the book and Jackson & co. writing the movies.

On Tolkien they say no novelist would set out to write a book this way as it couldn't possibly work, but Tolkien did, and it works brilliantly anyway.

Then Jackson & co. come out and say no-one would make a movie like the book because it couldn't possibly work, so we did all this Hollywood bullsh!t instead.

I still like the movies, there are whole chunks which are lovely illustrations of the books: the Shire, Edoras and the Rohirrim, Orthanc, Minas Tirith is interesting (if not exactly accurate), and the costuming, armour and detaill in the settings is remarkable.

Perhaps they are the best LotR adaptation possible at the time. Certainly from seeing the Hobbit, they are better than what Jackson would make today, if turned loose.

folan

plenty of people didnt like the lotr trilogy. Some people just cant get into that type of fantasy genre film at all.

its better that some people love it and some people hate it, otherwise all films would be the same.

Beefy78

folan wrote: »

plenty of people didnt like the lotr trilogy. Some people just cant get into that type of fantasy genre film at all.

I've no issue with them being fantasy films. The problem is that they're just really bad. Some of the cinematography is beautiful but that says more about New Zealand than it does about the movies themselves. The pacing of the first two films is way off, the acting and direction are poor and a lot of the effects are horribly dated already and will only look worse in five years time.

I've tried to force myself to enjoy them and recently watched the first two again as a prelude to finally watching the third film but they're just findamentally unenjoyable films.

Tipsy McSwagger

They were brilliant to watch in the cinema.

Tordelback

Valmont wrote: »

Not at all - Eowyn could not have killed the Witch-King without Merry there to help her and Tolkein didn't write it as if it was the new ad for Gillette Venus razor blades.

I'm a bit lost here - Merry did exactly what he does in the book (distracts and injures the Witch-King by stabbing him in the back of the knee - the main difference being the dagger used, which is Dunedain-made in the book), Eowyn what she does in the book, beheading the fell-beast, getting her shield arm broken, having a good quip about not being a man, and dispatching him. Glorfindel's prophecy at the Battle of Fornost that "...not by the hand of man shall he fall" is fulfilled, since it is a Hobbit and a woman that do for him.

I love the books dearly, and much about the films frustrated me, but Jackson makes some clever compromises and delivers some terrific imagery. But it's hard to see how he could have made that specific scene much closer to the source material than he did.