LOTR-the worst tripe i've watched in years,if not ever

The 4th batman movie was even worse than lethel weapon 4, and the 3rd one was farily terrible too iirc. There's been a bad blockbuster every 2 months for the last 5 years anyway

OK, so there's been a lot of nattering on about the ending (or lack thereof) in FOTR. I thought I'd offer my 2c.

LOTR is not a trilogy. It was printed in three volumes, and is divided into 6 so-called "books", but these are merely seperations of cenvenience (in the former case) and structure (in the latter).

Someone involved in the project rightly or wrongly decided to break the movies where the books broke. IMHO, this was a poor decision. Yes, it has kept fans of the books happy. No, it will not matter once the trilogy is complete, but I still think it was a poor decision, for a variety of reasons. Not only does it cause problems with one of the later movies (too much to cut in one, apparently), but it also causes problems for those who havent read the books.

People who have not read LOTR should be able to go to this film knowing nothing about it on the way in, and understanding what went on when they come out. For me, the movie has failed this test with everyone I know who has not read the books and gone to see it.

They should understand that they are only partly through the story without an LOTR fan explaining it to them in the lobby or by knowing that its a three-film project. They should be able to understand why Bilbo's face distorted in Rivendell when he wanted the ring, and why Galadriel pronounced herself unchanged after being offered the ring and ranting about ruling the world. But they dont.

FOTR, as a story, transitioned to the big screen better than I expected. Its flawed in places (my opinion). I dont necessarily agree with the directorial cuts and additions. Having said that, it avoids most of the drudgery which I find abundant in the written version and remains true to the overall story.

My main gripe is that in catering to the afficienado's with so much detail, it often forgets that some viewers havent read the books and need explanations. OK - maybe it isnt always story-central, but there's so much of it in there that it all mounts up.

Did anyone who hasnt read the books notice how Legolas walked differently to the others across snow, and if so, can you explain why? I'm sure almost all of those who read the books will know these answers.

Interestingly, from reading reviews, I have found serious criticisms of the camerawork, SFX, music, continuity, etc *only* from reviewers who havent read the books. Are the book-readers somewhat blinded by their dream come true? Are they proclaiming it as the greatest movie ever made too loudly, simply because its a job well done that they so desperately wanted to be good?

FOTR is a good movie. It has its flaws, but remains a good movie. Having read the book, it is very difficult to understand the criticisms from those who have not read it, but we should try

Oh - and in my book, its still not the best movie of the year. Jeunet takes that honour for me with his sublime Amelie.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
People who have not read LOTR should be able to go to this film knowing nothing about it on the way in, and understanding what went on when they come out. For me, the movie has failed this test with everyone I know who has not read the books and gone to see it.

Really?
I have seen the film twice now, and I couldn't report a more different experience. Both times I've seen the film, I went with a varied group of friends, some of whom had read the book, and some who hadn't. Not one person came out of it wondering what went on for the past 3 hours. Certainly, some little things had to be explained (e.g. that the Uruk-hai wasn't Saruman), but other than that, nothing really stopped them from understanding the story. As a matter of fact, the people that were most singing the praises of the film most loudly were the people who haven't read the book.

Originally posted by bonkey
They should be able to understand why Bilbo's face distorted in Rivendell when he wanted the ring, and why Galadriel pronounced herself unchanged after being offered the ring and ranting about ruling the world. But they dont ... Did anyone who hasnt read the books notice how Legolas walked differently to the others across snow, and if so, can you explain why? I'm sure almost all of those who read the books will know these answers.

What?
You want the director to explain every character's quirks?
Not one of the things you mentioned above were instrumental to people's understanding of the story. It's nice that, having read the books, people can see these things differently, but they are certainly not important to the storyline, explaining them all would have slowed the entire pace of the film, so they're left there to be picked up on by those who have read the book, and not distract those who haven't. To paraphrase a great man - "The viewers have teeth, for God's sake, let them chew".

Originally posted by Longfield


I just wonder if thats exactly the point, ie some need the "in your face" variety of different world before they can become one with the movie.

Personally, lights dimming, flickering screen transports me, but each to their own, if it takes LOTR to rock your boat , so be it, reality must be a very dull place for you......

WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT LORD OF THE RINGS (the film) WAS VERY VERY VERY GOOD AT TRANSLATING THE MIDDLE EARTH ATMOSPHERE OF A FANTASY WORLD. Magic does not stand out in the film everything looks natural. It is very well made film which i enjoyed.

If you've seen any of Peter Jacksons previous films you would undertsnad why I'm so impressed. And I was pointing out an opinion of how visually its impressive i dont know what your on about me needing that amount of SFX to satisfy.


Your argument as angelwhore has pointed out has become childish. Answer the goddamn questions we've asked. If you didnt like the film ok. Just dont pour it here onto the boards as if its the word of god. Try being casual.

Stranger: "I love LOTR"
You: "Naa personnally i didnt like it."
Stranger: "Oh why?"
You: "personnaly felt that a, b and c didnt appeal to me."
Stranger: "Oh ok...you suck."
You: "I dont care bye."

That approach might have worked instead of a 3 page argument p*ssing most replies off.

Originally posted by ayatollah
secondly its not anyone else's fault except your own if you could not follow the film as i went with some friends who had not read the book and with the exception of one or two parts could follow the whole film!!!

Err, if there were one or two parts they couldnt follow, then by your logic it is their own fault. I would argue that while the overall story is mostly obvious and simple, there are a lot of nuances within the film which people who have read the books see and go "aaaahhh", while many of those who havent read the books either miss it compltetely or go "WTF was that about".

Put it like this. Planet of the Apes (the remake) had one of the dodgiest endings in ages, which had a lot of people scratching their heads and going "Huh?" By the logic being applied here to FOTR, then this was the fault of the audience for lack of understanding, and not of Burton et al for lack of clarity or explanation.

There is a fine line between cleverness and obscurity. If there is something which the movie explains, but which you need to be alert for, then its clever. More clever are the seemingly innocuous bits which have great relevance on second watching. What is generally never excusable are the unexplained bits - non-trivial things which happen which are not explained before, during or after....and there are moments like this in FOTR.

peter jackson - the director even said that he recommends that everyone read the book before watching the film!!!!

Which to me only goes to prove that despite his best efforts, he acknowledges that due to cuts and/or other reasons, there is stuff in the movie which you can only understand properly having read the book.

He could be taking the stance that having read the book will give you a much greater appreciation of what he has done, but I dont think so. I have 3 or 4 friends who read FOTR for the first time in order to "prepare" for the movie. Without exception, each of them has said in retrospect that they shouldnt have, as they spent the duration comparing the movie to the book, seeing how things were visualised, and so on, rather than just sitting back and enjoying a damned fine movie.

At the end of the day, I (personally) find it a very poor comment on the movie that you should read the book first, or that you need to read the book first. If that is the recommendation of the director, then I would maintain that the director has failed to bring the book to the screen successfully.

jc

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
its a very good film, but not the best in ages...

He never said it was the best film in ages - he said it was "one of the best films [he has] ever seen!!!".
At least allow the lad to have an opinion.

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
no one should ever have to read a book to understand a film.
it is the film makers job to make a belivable world in a couple of hours and a film that has direction that people should be able to follow without having to do some sort of study beforehand.
is it an exam situation now?

I agree - noone should ever have to read a book to understand a film. For one, it sets the viewer into the wrong kind of mindset for when they are actually watching the film (as I reckon was the case with Bonkey's friends).
However - who could not understand the film?
Little lad finds an evil ring that can only be destroyed in a certain volcano - a group of lads set out to said volcano, and get set upon by all sorts of evil stuff. What's not to understand?

As for whether or not Jackson succeeded in creating a believable world... Of course he did. Anyone who says otherwise is an incurable cynic, who probably went into the film wanting to hate it anyway. Elves, wizards and orcs? Pish Posh.

I believe Jackson's recommendation of reading the book before watching the film probably comes from his belief that people will enjoy the film more having read the book, understood the background story, and, as Bonkey previously pointed out, understood the character's traits a little better. I don't believe, in any way, that this was a cop-out for him having made a "directionless" film. As a matter of fact, I think that if he had have gone out of his way to make the film any more accessible to people who hadn't read the book, it would have taken away from the film as a whole.

Having read the books or not, it was an enjoyable film.

the point i was trying to make was that the plot was not that difficult to follow and the parts that my friends didnt understand were -
why did borimor gonuts all of a sudden??
why did bilbo go all gremlin on frodo??
and why was frodo entrusted with the ring and not a great warrior like aaragon or borimor!!??!!?!

and the reason that peter jackson said that everyone sholud read lotr is cause he is a massive j r r tolkien fan and believes it is a peice of literary genius!!

i am not saying that the film is flawless - there are many parts that are missing from the film that i think are valuable to the story line of the book!!!!!

I'd agree with Kharns comments. It was a tremendously difficult book to turn into a film, and they did a fine job. I was a little disappointed with the hobbits getting the swords the wrong way and stuff like that, but such is life: the story was Frodo and the Ring, with the Fellowship thrown in: anything else was liable to be cut for the sake of cutting down on time, and thats just life.

Also, for those of you who were frustrated at the end of the film: you aint seen nothin yet!

The ending of the 2nd book is much more of a cliff hanger and yer one saying "wha?" is going to be more like "wtf?! argghhhhhh another year!"

Al.